"between you and I" as a dialectal usage
Raymond S. Wise
discussed, and while doing research on the matter I found the following:
From
http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/msg10790.html
[quote, from Joseph F Foster, Associate Professor of Anthropology,
University of Cincinnati, Ohio]
All languages have dialects and there is no way of speaking a language that
is not a dialect. A dialect is simply a consistent way of speaking a given
language shared by two or more people. (A given way of speaking a language
peculiar to only one person is called an _idiolect._) The term _language_
is used by the ignorant or the antilinguists to mean a "standard dialect"
and _dialect_ is used by them to mean a "nonstandard" dialect. These
people often believe that there is some special characteristic of a standard
dialect that makes it fit to be the standard and some special characteristic
either present or lacking in nonstandard dialects that make them unfit to be
the standard. They are mistaken and can furnish no comparative evidence
that this belief is true.
[end quote]
Under criticism from others of my description of "between you and I" as
belonging to the dialect of those who use it, when they learned it from
others, I began to resort to using the word "lect" for the sort of variety
of language in question. I have decided I will no longer do so: I agree with
the definition of "dialect" given above, and so, the construction "between
you and I" is clearly a dialectal usage, as is any other nonstandard usage
which is learned by one person from another.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
John Dean
I'm not sure I want an anthropologist to define linguistic terms. And if you
accept what he says, what of the OED's:
<< 2. a. One of the subordinate forms or varieties of a language arising
from local peculiarities of vocabulary, pronunciation, and idiom. (In
relation to modern languages usually spec. A variety of speech differing
from the standard or literary ‘language’; a provincial method of speech, as
in ‘speakers of dialect’.) Also in a wider sense applied to a particular
language in its relation to the family of languages to which it belongs.>> ?
Fowler also sees dialect as a variation from the 'standard' form of a
language.
By your definition, *every* usage is dialect and the term ceases to have any
use in our discussions.
I am going to stay with 'dialect as a 'variation from the standard form of a
language'.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
CyberCypher
I can agree with Foster's notion that the standard version of any
language is merely the socially approved dialect of that language.
Some other languages actually include that notion in their
descriptions. We know that in the PRC, Bejing Mandarin (as opposed
to, say Taipei Mandarin) is the standard dialect. In Chinese, the two
would be called "Bejing-hua" and "Taipei-hua". In Japanese, there are
many dialects too. "Tokyo-ben" is the standard, but there is also
"Osaka-ben". It just so happens that we don't have the same tradition
in English. We call our schoolbook English "standard English". But
it's no doubt just another dialect of English.
Calling "between you and I" "clearly a dialectal usage" does not mean
it isn't "standard" to some of us or "an idiom" to the authors of the
New Cambridge Grammar of English. The latter call it acceptable and,
therefore, standard English now. The former say things like "That's
the way the language is used, so it's acceptable, grammatical, and
standard".
The issue is whether "between you and I" is or should be --- added
for prescriptivists, who are, according to Foster's definition of a
dialect, just speakers of another dialect and worthy, therefore, of
at least the same respectful treatment as native English-speakers
rather than the scorn and derision you and other descriptivists
constantly heap upon them for wishing to raise the standards of the
standard dialect --- of a solecism or acceptable, grammatical, and
standard English.
CyberCypher
He might be a linguistic anthropologist, which would make him both a
linguist and an anthropologist.
> << 2. a. One of the subordinate forms or varieties of a language
> arising from local peculiarities of vocabulary, pronunciation, and
> idiom. (In relation to modern languages usually spec. A variety of
> speech differing from the standard or literary ‘language’; a
> provincial method of speech, as in ‘speakers of dialect’.) Also in
> a wider sense applied to a particular language in its relation to
> the family of languages to which it belongs.>> ?
>
> Fowler also sees dialect as a variation from the 'standard' form
> of a language.
> By your definition, *every* usage is dialect and the term ceases
> to have any use in our discussions.
> I am going to stay with 'dialect as a 'variation from the standard
> form of a language'.
That's not a fun attitude. What you say is true, of course, but it
has serious implications for some of the arguments in this NG, viz.
the ones that go "In my dialect that is acceptable" and "That's how
people use the language". Now we will have to hold all usages up to
the same standard, and before we can do that, we have to decide on
which one that might be. And then we'll have to define all the
acceptable variants of standard usages. That implies lots of serious
work. Shudder.
Adrian Bailey
news:vrbte55...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
> Under criticism from others of my description of "between you and I" as
> belonging to the dialect of those who use it, when they learned it from
> others, I began to resort to using the word "lect" for the sort of variety
> of language in question. I have decided I will no longer do so: I agree
with
> the definition of "dialect" given above, and so, the construction "between
> you and I" is clearly a dialectal usage, as is any other nonstandard usage
> which is learned by one person from another.
Okay already. To your average punter, me included, a dialect is a version of
a language used in a particular region (or, possibly, social grouping).
(Therefore to me "between you and I" is not dialect and English is not a
dialect.) That's what most people understand by it and if you're going to
use it in a different way, even if it's a perfectly reasonable way, many (if
not most) readers will be confused.
Adrian
Aaron J. Dinkin
What about allowing a linguist to define linguistic terms? I'm sure I
could find you numerous citations.
> And if you accept what he says, what of the OED's:
>
><< 2. a. One of the subordinate forms or varieties of a language arising
> from local peculiarities of vocabulary, pronunciation, and idiom. (In
> relation to modern languages usually spec. A variety of speech differing
> from the standard or literary ?language?; a provincial method of speech, as
> in ?speakers of dialect?.) Also in a wider sense applied to a particular
> language in its relation to the family of languages to which it
> belongs.>> ?
It is the OED's duty to record the meanings that people give words, not to
prescribe which meanings are to be used in which circumstances. And
besides which, notice the "usually spec." in the definition above: the
definition doesn't say that "dialect" applies _only_ to those varieties
that differ from the standard. "Subordinate" in the first sentence
doesn't mean 'inferior'; it means that dialects are subordinate to
languages in a categoristic sense, in the same way that species are
subordinate to genera.
> By your definition, *every* usage is dialect
Yes, insofar as every usage is language.
> and the term ceases to have any use in our discussions.
Nonsense. "This is grammatical in my dialect." "How is this word
pronounced in your dialect?" "The standard dialect of Australia has
certain interesting features...."
> I am going to stay with 'dialect as a 'variation from the standard form
> of a language'.
You ignore the possibility that a particular language - English, for
example - might have more than one standard dialect.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Don Phillipson
news:Xns9434D5DC4...@130.133.1.4...
> Calling "between you and I" "clearly a dialectal usage" does not mean
> it isn't "standard" to some of us or "an idiom" to the authors of the
> New Cambridge Grammar of English. The latter call it acceptable and,
> therefore, standard English now. The former say things like "That's
> the way the language is used, so it's acceptable, grammatical, and
> standard".
Do the authors of the NCGE really use English
this way? One of the primary meanings of
"standard" is a form to which some instances
conform and other instances do not conform.
If every possible instance is accepted as
"standard," i.e. no non-standard instance is
imaginable, it seems to me we cannot claim
that any standard exists.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Skitt
As is any so-called standard usage, if you use the above definition.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Franklin Cacciutto
> [snip]
> and so, the construction "between
> you and I" is clearly a dialectal usage, as is any other nonstandard usage
> which is learned by one person from another.
[snip]
Between you and me, while "between you and I" certainly meets your criteria, it
is less a dialectical usage than it is an affectation.
Franklin
CyberCypher
They define Standard English as "the kind of English that is widely
accepted in the countries of the world where English is the language
of government, education, broadcasting, news publishing,
entertainment, and other public discourse". Despite specific
controversies, there is "remarkably widespread agreement about how
sentences should be constructed for such purposes as publication,
political communication, or government broadcasting. This widespread
agreement defines what we are calling Standard English" (p 4).
Actually, they argue that "They invited my partner and I to lunch"
could be an example of where the rules of English make a distinction
between a single-pronoun object and a coordinated-NP-Pro object. That
is, it is grammatically correct to say "invited me to lunch" and
wrong to say *"invited I to lunch", but not necessarily wrong to say
"my partner and I to lunch". Prescriptivists say it's wrong based
upon the "me" versus "I" analogy, but they claim that this is false
reasoning because there is a rule that says you may contract "you
are" in "I don't know if you're eligible" but you may not in *"I
don't know if she and you're eligible". Here, they say, is an
instance of where the grammar rules are sensitive to a coordinated-
NP-Pro combination. This analogy is, it seems to me, is less
convincing than the prescriptivist analogy.
In any case, they also say that the "invited my partner and I" form
"is regularly used by a significant porportion of native speakers of
Standard English, and not generally thought by ordinary speakers to
be non-standard". Their full treatment is in chapter 5 of the work,
but I don't have that.
I apologize for misrepresenting their argument.
R J Valentine
Worse even. These academics should be caged in glassed-in areas to
protect them from the slobber of raspberries being directed their way from
what is styled in academic-speak above as "the ignorant" (i.e., native
speakers of English who (TCE: "that") haven't been though the academic
hazing (or have and survived unaltered (as it were))).
"The ignorant" own the language; the academics are the hired help.
}> And if you accept what he says, what of the OED's:
}>
}><< 2. a. One of the subordinate forms or varieties of a language arising
}> from local peculiarities of vocabulary, pronunciation, and idiom. (In
}> relation to modern languages usually spec. A variety of speech differing
}> from the standard or literary ?language?; a provincial method of speech, as
}> in ?speakers of dialect?.) Also in a wider sense applied to a particular
}> language in its relation to the family of languages to which it
}> belongs.>> ?
}
} It is the OED's duty to record the meanings that people give words, not to
} prescribe which meanings are to be used in which circumstances. And
} besides which, notice the "usually spec." in the definition above: the
} definition doesn't say that "dialect" applies _only_ to those varieties
} that differ from the standard. "Subordinate" in the first sentence
} doesn't mean 'inferior'; it means that dialects are subordinate to
} languages in a categoristic sense, in the same way that species are
} subordinate to genera.
That's why we use Webster's Second or AHD[1]. That's why we watch out for
lawyers who use the word "intent".
}> By your definition, *every* usage is dialect
}
} Yes, insofar as every usage is language.
}
}> and the term ceases to have any use in our discussions.
}
} Nonsense. "This is grammatical in my dialect." "How is this word
} pronounced in your dialect?" "The standard dialect of Australia has
} certain interesting features...."
}
}> I am going to stay with 'dialect as a 'variation from the standard form
}> of a language'.
}
} You ignore the possibility that a particular language - English, for
} example - might have more than one standard dialect.
Now you're just being silly. There's only one standard dialect of
English: nondialectical English. The English may _think_ they speak
standard English, but that ship sailed in 1620 (or 1607 (or earlier)).
(That reminds me, I've started watching the DVDs of _Brooklyn South_, and
that was one fine show.)
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
R F
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, R J Valentine wrote:
> (That reminds me, I've started watching the DVDs of _Brooklyn South_, and
> that was one fine show.)
I vaguely remember it being on TV, but I never watched (= TCE "wartched"?)
it.
Interesting title, tho': I believe it is supposed to refer to southern
Brooklyn, i.e., southern Kings County. South Brooklyn is, of course, a
whole nother thing, it referring to a neighborhood in northwestern
Brooklyn (i.e., northwestern Kings County).
R J Valentine
I'm not sure about that about the title. Precinct 74 is presented as a
long walk in sock feet from Coney Island in one episode. The title
background is The Bridge.
It fits in actorwise with both _Hill Street Blues_ and _NYPD Blue_. The
(Brooklyn) police cars, by the way, say "NYPD POLICE" on the side.
ObDrift: the guy who lived next door to me on the Island was a retired
Brooklyn police officer, who had once been an apprentice pharmacist (he
gave me his certificate) and may well have been part of my inspiration to
go to pharmacy school.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
_Brooklyn South_ the entire series, now available in a boxed set.
CyberCypher
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:37:42 +0000 (UTC) Aaron J. Dinkin
> <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote:
[...]
> } What about allowing a linguist to define linguistic terms? I'm
> } sure I could find you numerous citations.
>
> Worse even. These academics should be caged in glassed-in areas
> to protect them from the slobber of raspberries being directed
> their way from what is styled in academic-speak above as "the
> ignorant" (i.e., native speakers of English who (TCE: "that")
> haven't been though the academic hazing (or have and survived
> unaltered (as it were))).
A true-blue anti-intellectual you are. We know that you went through
what passed for higher education unaltered; you've already admitted
as much. And I suppose that justifies (or rationalizes) your desire
to throw stones at people who were and are interested enough in
English to have studied and to continue studying it in as much depth
and breadth as possible.
> "The ignorant" own the language; the academics are the hired help.
Sour grapes? Envy? Self-hatred? Regrets that you wasted your life?
Sounds like all of them put together. But you choose to wallow in
your ignorance and wear it as a badge of honor the way pigs wear the
fecal sludge they wallow in.
[...]
> }
> } It is the OED's duty to record the meanings that people give
> } words, not to prescribe which meanings are to be used in which
> } circumstances. And besides which, notice the "usually spec." in
> } the definition above: the definition doesn't say that "dialect"
> } applies _only_ to those varieties that differ from the standard.
> } "Subordinate" in the first sentence doesn't mean 'inferior'; it
> } means that dialects are subordinate to languages in a
> } categoristic sense, in the same way that species are subordinate
> } to genera.
>
> That's why we use Webster's Second or AHD[1].
Not everyone uses these two. They are quite American and do not
accurately reflect definitions and usage in the other national
dialects.
[...]
> }
> } You ignore the possibility that a particular language - English,
> } for example - might have more than one standard dialect.
>
> Now you're just being silly. There's only one standard dialect of
> English: nondialectical English.
This is the kind of nonsense that your anti-itellectual attitude
leads to. Each anglophone country has its own standard dialect, the
one that is taught in schools and is used for news broadcasting,
publishing, and government publications. What the grammar books call
Standard English is a union of all these dialects with many of the
grammatical and usage variants included. That is what I have been
calling SIE or Standard International English. It is essentially a
textbook form of English, an artificial dialect that allows for all
the standard variants found in the the standard dialects of the
anglophone countries. You must be talking about French.
> The English may _think_ they speak standard English, but
> that ship sailed in 1620 (or 1607 (or earlier)).
Yeah, they speak Standard British English (at best) and Americans
speak Standard American English (at best). Nobody speaks what you
claim to be "nondialectal English" except EFL students, but even the
English they learn is usually heavily influenced by one dialect or
another.
But all your protestations a one of the ignorant shall be taken into
consideration when deciding what is or is not Standard English, I'm
sure. Ignorance is *the* authoritative credential for passing
judgments upon language and everything else in society.
R J Valentine
} R J Valentine <r...@smart.net> wrote on 16 Nov 2003:
}
}> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:37:42 +0000 (UTC) Aaron J. Dinkin
}> <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote:
}
} [...]
}
}> } What about allowing a linguist to define linguistic terms? I'm
}> } sure I could find you numerous citations.
}>
}> Worse even. These academics should be caged in glassed-in areas
}> to protect them from the slobber of raspberries being directed
}> their way from what is styled in academic-speak above as "the
}> ignorant" (i.e., native speakers of English who (TCE: "that")
}> haven't been though the academic hazing (or have and survived
}> unaltered (as it were))).
}
} A true-blue anti-intellectual you are. We know that you went through
} what passed for higher education unaltered; you've already admitted
} as much.
Have I? Maybe you should go back and read that part again.
} And I suppose that justifies (or rationalizes) your desire
} to throw stones at people who were and are interested enough in
} English to have studied and to continue studying it in as much depth
} and breadth as possible.
No, I throw stones mainly at glass houses. I would think you might have
noticed that the last few days.
}> "The ignorant" own the language; the academics are the hired help.
}
} Sour grapes? Envy? Self-hatred? Regrets that you wasted your life?
} Sounds like all of them put together. But you choose to wallow in
} your ignorance and wear it as a badge of honor the way pigs wear the
} fecal sludge they wallow in.
That's one way of looking at things, I guess. If it gets you through the
day, I'm all for it.
} [...]
}> }
}> } It is the OED's duty to record the meanings that people give
}> } words, not to prescribe which meanings are to be used in which
}> } circumstances. And besides which, notice the "usually spec." in
}> } the definition above: the definition doesn't say that "dialect"
}> } applies _only_ to those varieties that differ from the standard.
}> } "Subordinate" in the first sentence doesn't mean 'inferior'; it
}> } means that dialects are subordinate to languages in a
}> } categoristic sense, in the same way that species are subordinate
}> } to genera.
}>
}> That's why we use Webster's Second or AHD[1].
}
} Not everyone uses these two. They are quite American and do not
} accurately reflect definitions and usage in the other national
} dialects.
That part is quite true. I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said,
but I'll grant you that part if it helps you.
} [...]
}> }
}> } You ignore the possibility that a particular language - English,
}> } for example - might have more than one standard dialect.
}>
}> Now you're just being silly. There's only one standard dialect of
}> English: nondialectical English.
}
} This is the kind of nonsense that your anti-itellectual attitude
} leads to. Each anglophone country has its own standard dialect, the
} one that is taught in schools and is used for news broadcasting,
} publishing, and government publications. What the grammar books call
} Standard English is a union of all these dialects with many of the
} grammatical and usage variants included. That is what I have been
} calling SIE or Standard International English. It is essentially a
} textbook form of English, an artificial dialect that allows for all
} the standard variants found in the the standard dialects of the
} anglophone countries. You must be talking about French.
Well, it's a cinch I'm not talking about the Hochenglisch you seem to be
talking about. Don't let that stop you from teaching it, though. The
people you teach may well disperse to all the Anglophone countries of the
world and be grateful you didn't teach them (American) English. If you
were teaching in Australia, I would hope that you would teach Australian
English.
}> The English may _think_ they speak standard English, but
}> that ship sailed in 1620 (or 1607 (or earlier)).
}
} Yeah, they speak Standard British English (at best) and Americans
} speak Standard American English (at best). Nobody speaks what you
} claim to be "nondialectal English" except EFL students, but even the
} English they learn is usually heavily influenced by one dialect or
} another.
You see, you're talking about fantasy English here, where I'm talking
about the English that most people who learn it from birth speak. I *can*
see that there may be good reason for you not to teach majority English;
you just don't have to act like that doesn't matter while all other
Englishes do (not that there's anything wrong with them).
} But all your protestations a one of the ignorant shall be taken into
} consideration when deciding what is or is not Standard English, I'm
} sure. Ignorance is *the* authoritative credential for passing
} judgments upon language and everything else in society.
You may say more than you actually realize. Got any kids?
Me, I'm just a country boy who learned to speak in a farmhouse in Jamaica.
And let's keep in mind that the word "ignorant" was introduce by someone
other than me (words since snipped by the sensei), and that I do indeed
identify with the group so characterized, rather than with what's left.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:ar...@wicked.smart.net>
CyberCypher
[...]
Nothing worth rereading or commenting on. Bye.
R J Valentine
Mind the door.
R F
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, R J Valentine wrote:
> ObDrift: the guy who lived next door to me on the Island was a retired
> Brooklyn police officer, who had once been an apprentice pharmacist (he
> gave me his certificate) and may well have been part of my inspiration to
> go to pharmacy school.
I found out through ProQuest that the house I grew up in in Brooklyn (...)
had been inhabited in the 'Forties by a Brooklyn police officer who, one
evening (in the 'Forties), shot himself (to death) in that very house.
His wife was in another room when she heard the gunshot, according to the
police report.
His precinct must have been either right in that area of Flatbush (...
[...]) or close by. When the wife reported what happened, a couple of his
fellow cops rushed to the house. They drove up, or down, Coney Island
Avenue, and caused a traffic accident in the process.
I don't know what happened to the wife. The cop was an Irish guy. My
parents bought the house in 'sixty-one or 'sixty-two from an Italian
woman.
The Grammer Genious
> <...>
> "The ignorant" own the language; the academics are the hired help.
Not exactly. More like the zookeepers.
The apes do what they want, but their grunts have scientifically
describable characteristics, whether they know it or not.
\\P. Schultz
rban...@shaw.ca
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:45:02 -0000, John Dean <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
> >> [quote, from Joseph F Foster, Associate Professor of Anthropology,
> >> University of Cincinnati, Ohio]
> >>
> >> All languages have dialects and there is no way of speaking a
> >> language that is not a dialect.
[and so on]
> You ignore the possibility that a particular language - English, for
> example - might have more than one standard dialect.
>
> -Aaron J. Dinkin
> Dr. Whom
Who was doing the ignoring escapes me, but the fact remains that in
any English-speaking nation's standard dialect "between you and I" is
as much a mark of under-privilege (Har!) as "for/from you and I".
The prize ass (as it turned out) of the Harry and Barbara news duo was
the one who would say "for X and I, good night". Not for nothing did
the prize ass only earn half as much as the co-anchor who could speak
standard (even if defectively pronounced) English.
The French call the French who cannot speak proper French by various
names, including "canaille". Good for them!
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Who was doing the ignoring escapes me, but the fact remains that in
> any English-speaking nation's standard dialect "between you and I" is
> as much a mark of under-privilege (Har!) as "for/from you and I".
Well. I'd say this is almost certainly true, but not in the way intended.
In particular, I doubt that "between you and I", "for you and I", or
"from you and I" is mark of under-privilege in any area; I'd be very
surprised if it's more common in the non-standard speech of people of
lower socio-economic class than that of people of higher.
That said, I'd also be surprised if any of "between/for/from you and I"
is considered standard in any English dialect area (in the sense that an
attentive editor wouldn't remove it from prose or oratory), and even more
surprised if "between..." is more or less standard in any area than "for..."
or "from...". Thus, well, "between you and I" might be seen as a mark of
under-privilege, but only insofar as the under-privileged are less likely
in general to need to use the standard language. Even so, I wouldn't be
surprised to find that "between you and I" is still more common in the
nonstandard speech of the over-privileged (though I wouldn't be surprised
to find out that it's not, either).
oncle
[...]
>The French call the French who cannot speak proper French by various
>names, including "canaille". Good for them!
Would you care to substantiate that? Neither the "Robert" nor the
"Grand Larousse" nor the "Littré" [*] support what for the moment
seems to me to be an entirely gratuitous insult both to the French --
who know perfectly well what they mean when they use the word
"canaille" -- and to the OP / other contributors to this thread.
In this n.g. it's called put up or shut up.
And if you want to talk about "proper" French, lurk around f.l.l.f.
from time to time -- and if you want to contribute, I'll be happy to
see you there.
David
[*] For those who are familiar with French, including presumably
"rbaniste1", here is the Littré definition of "canaille":
---- begin quote "Littré" -------
CANAILLE (ca-nâ-ll', ll mouillées, et non kana-ye), s. f.
1° Vile populace. Eh bien ! manger moutons, canaille, sotte espèce,
Est-ce un péché ? LA FONT. Fabl. VII, 1. Travailler est le fait de la
canaille, ID. Papef. Où Rabelais est mauvais, il passe bien au delà du
pire ; c'est le charme de la canaille, LA BRUY. 1. Les Vaudois furent
appelés par Maimbourg une canaille révoltée, VOLT. Moeurs, 138. Ceux
qui daignaient acheter les suffrages de la canaille qui composait les
tribus, J. J. ROUSS. Contr. IV, 2. Spectateur dédaigneux des misères
de la canaille, ID. Ém. IV. Sénèque, qui connaissait l'esprit de la
cour, de la ville et de la canaille, DIDEROT, Claude et Néron.
Repoussé des hommes de son rang, il se livra aux vices de la canaille,
ID. Essai sur Claude.
2° Par extension, gens, quelle que soit leur condition, dignes de
mépris ; en ce sens le pluriel est usité. Ces canailles-là. Quoi !
vous continuez, canailles infidèles ! CORN. Médée, V, 3. La canaille
littéraire est ce que je connais de plus abject au monde, VOLT. Lett.
Damilaville, 24 sept. 1766. Je sais que, dès qu'on a donné un ouvrage
passable, la canaille de la littérature jette les hauts cris, ID. ib.
17 déc. 1766. Je veux élever Émile à la campagne, loin de la canaille
des valets, J. J. ROUSS. Ém. II. C'était [MM. les chambellans], vous
disais-je, une canaille qu'il fallait laisser aboyer, P. L. COUR. I,
57. M. de Monaco se commit fort mal à propos en personne avec des
canailles, SAINT-SIMON 84, 92.
Par antiphrase. Je crois qu'il se contentera d'aller en paradis,
et qu'il ne quittera point ces canailles chrétiennes, SÉV. 583.
3° Par badinerie, en parlant d'enfants importuns. Faites taire cette
petite canaille. .... Ah ! le petit babouin ! Voyez, dit-il, où l'a
mis sa sottise ! Et puis prenez de tels fripons le soin ! Que les
parents sont malheureux, qu'il faille Toujours veiller à semblable
canaille ! LA FONT. Fabl. I, 19.
4° Populairement, il se prend comme adjectif indéclinable : des
manières canaille, un propos canaille. Populairement aussi, on dit, en
parlant d'un seul homme : c'est une canaille.
HISTORIQUE :
XIIIe s. Du mal que nos feisons à ceste chiennaille ne prendra jà
garde cil qu'il apelent Seigneur, Psautier, f° 114.
XVIe s. La reigle et police de bien vivre n'a jamais si bien esté
ordonnée aux monasteres, qu'il n'y eust tousjours quelques canailles
meslez parmi les bons, CALVIN, Instit. 1021. Les rois aux chiens
flatteurs donnent le premier lieu, Et de cette canaille endormis au
milieu.... D'AUB. Tragiques, II, p. 57. Arriere mastins, hors de la
quarrière ; hors de mon soleil, canaille au diable, RAB. Pant. Prol.
du IIIe livre.
ÉTYMOLOGIE :
Wallon, chinêie ; Berry, chienaille ; ital. canaglia ; de cane,
chien (voy. CHIEN). Canaille est italien ; chienaille était le mot
français.
-------- endquote "Littré" ------
Raymond S. Wise
news:bp5749$q3u$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Since the word "dialect" has indeed been used as the OED2 indicates, it
would be derelict on the part of its editors to not give that definition.
However, if the next edition of the OED does not show the new definition of
"dialect" to cover nonstandard class dialects and standard dialects, then
that would be derelict, since that is indeed how the word is used in
linguistics. Furthermore, the new definition should separate "dialect" from
"accent," since linguists now recognize that there are some dialects,
including Standard American English which have no standard accent associated
with them.
Some linguists use the word "variety" to avoid any controversy about the
term "dialect," but the vast majority, as far as I can tell, use "dialect"
to include non-regional dialects such as class dialects and standard
dialects. This is in recognition that to limit "dialect" to regional
dialects leaves the average person with the mistaken belief, as Mr. Foster
puts it, "that there is some special characteristic of a standard dialect
that makes it fit to be the standard and some special characteristic either
present or lacking in nonstandard dialects that make them unfit to be the
standard." All linguists, without exception as far as I am aware and
including those who use the term "variety" rather than dialect, believe that
any dialect (or variety) could be a standard dialect (or variety).
Furthermore, to use "language" to mean "standard dialect" leads to at least
one result which I find absurd: Norwegian would have to be said to be
composed of two "languages" along with dialects, instead of, as linguists
see it, two standard dialects along with regional dialects.
This should cause no more confusion in our discussions than it does among
linguists: "class dialect," "regional dialect," (which can both be
identified as "nonstandard dialects") and "standard dialect" are quite
sufficient to make the distinctions necessary.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Under criticism from others of my description of "between you and I"
> as belonging to the dialect of those who use it, when they learned
> it from others, I began to resort to using the word "lect" for the
> sort of variety of language in question. I have decided I will no
> longer do so: I agree with the definition of "dialect" given above,
> and so, the construction "between you and I" is clearly a dialectal
> usage, as is any other nonstandard usage which is learned by one
> person from another.
The problem I have with this is that there doesn't really seem to be a
dialect in which "between you and I" is a standard construt. At least
most of the adults I know who use it, didn't learn it from a community
of others who used it, but rather appear to have independently picked
it up as a concomitant to an independently-invented "correction" of
"me and you" in subject position, where the latter *was* a feature of
their dialect actively disparaged in school. So all dialects they
belong to contain speakers who use the construction and speakers who
don't.
Now their children may well learn the construction as normal from
their parents and then may influence one another, so I can see it
becoming a dialect feature, but it doesn't seem to be so yet.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it
|suggests handing it over to a
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |lizard.
(650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi
The Grammer Genious
>
> On 16 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0800, rban...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
> [...]
> >The French call the French who cannot speak proper French by various
> >names, including "canaille". Good for them!
>
> Would you care to substantiate that? Neither the "Robert" nor the
> "Grand Larousse" nor the "Littré" [*] support what for the moment
> seems to me to be an entirely gratuitous insult both to the French --
> who know perfectly well what they mean when they use the word
Maybe he was talking about what the English call the *base* canaille.
Like in Gilbert & Sullivan.
\\P. Schultz
R F
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, oncle wrote:
> [*] For those who are familiar with French, including presumably
> "rbaniste1",
Something tells me he isn't *too* familiar with French, other than
enduring (so to say) some forced exposure to it from official soikles.
Oh, and *some* people pronounce it "Frawnsh".
Raymond S. Wise
news:9Artb.460$G03...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
I have made the point in the past that in this newsgroup and in
alt.english.usage we should be using technical terms as linguists use them,
not as the average person uses them. It is my experience that even people
with above-average intelligence and education are likely to be unaware of
the term "Standard American English" and are likely to use "slang" with a
meaning different from that used by linguists. These are both terms which we
regularly use in this newsgroup. The average person doesn't have a clue what
"phoneme" or "determiner" or "subjective case" mean, and of those are aware
of the word "diphthong," some use it in the sense "digraph," like the "ea"
in "read." These terms also we use in this newsgroup.
Anyone who sticks around this newsgroup long enough will learn the meanings
of these terms, and with the Internet it is perfectly possible for such a
person to look up the meaning of these terms when he encounters them in this
newsgroup without waiting for someone to define them.
Raymond S. Wise
news:bp62q0$1kqqb4$1...@ID-61580.news.uni-berlin.de...
Modern lexicographers look at language in the same way that linguists do.
That means that they look at the standard dialect as a dialect just as much
as any class or regional dialect. This does not keep them from using
"dialectal" to mean "belonging to a regional dialect." When they refer to a
dialectal usage in a class rather than regional dialect, they use the name
of the dialect, as, for example, "Black English": See, for example, the
third definition under the entry "ain't" in the online Merriam-Webster's
dictionary. Such terminology does not change the status of the usage in
question: It remains a usage belonging to the dialect called "Black
English" or "African American Vernacular English."
Every standard usage is, by the linguistic definition of "dialect," a
standard-dialectal usage. Every usage in Standard British English is, by the
linguistic definition of "dialect," a Standard-British-English-dialectal
usage. Modern dictionaries refer to these, respectively, as "standard usage"
and "British." Such terminology does not change the status of the usages in
question: They remain usages belonging to their respective dialects.
The point of my original post was that I was going to go back to describing
"between you and I" and other nonstandard usages as belonging to the
nonstandard "dialects" of the people using them, whenever the usages were
learned by one person from another. There had been a discussion previously
about these not being dialects but something else. For a time I used "lect"
to avoid the controversy, since they were certainly more than idiolects but
supposedly something other than dialects. I have come to the conclusion that
this was an error: They are dialectal usages because they belong to a
dialect of English. I am perfectly happy to describe them as "nonstandard
usages," but that does not change their status as usages belonging to the
dialect of those who speak them.
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns9434D5DC4...@130.133.1.4...
> language is merely the socially approved dialect of that language.
> Some other languages actually include that notion in their
> descriptions. We know that in the PRC, Bejing Mandarin (as opposed
> to, say Taipei Mandarin) is the standard dialect. In Chinese, the two
> would be called "Bejing-hua" and "Taipei-hua". In Japanese, there are
> many dialects too. "Tokyo-ben" is the standard, but there is also
> "Osaka-ben". It just so happens that we don't have the same tradition
> in English. We call our schoolbook English "standard English". But
> it's no doubt just another dialect of English.
>
> Calling "between you and I" "clearly a dialectal usage" does not mean
> it isn't "standard" to some of us or "an idiom" to the authors of the
> New Cambridge Grammar of English. The latter call it acceptable and,
> therefore, standard English now. The former say things like "That's
> the way the language is used, so it's acceptable, grammatical, and
> standard".
An idiom can, of course, be completely standard.
>
> The issue is whether "between you and I" is or should be --- added
> for prescriptivists, who are, according to Foster's definition of a
> dialect, just speakers of another dialect and worthy, therefore, of
> at least the same respectful treatment as native English-speakers
> rather than the scorn and derision you and other descriptivists
> constantly heap upon them for wishing to raise the standards of the
> standard dialect --- of a solecism or acceptable, grammatical, and
> standard English.
Let's take that a bit at a time:
< prescriptivists [...] are, according to Foster's definition of a dialect,
just speakers of another dialect>
That is true of the dialect which they actually speak in their everyday
life. We cannot presume it to be true of the dialect they advocate in their
prescriptivist works. To the extent that what they advocate is actually used
by someone, somewhere, in a natural manner (not, for example, when they are
simply quoting printed matter), then it could be said to be a true dialect,
although not a standard one, since by definition prescriptivists advocate a
variety which does not accord with the actual standard dialect. (If what
they advocated was the actual standard dialect, after all, they would be
transformed into descriptivists.) However, I am extremely skeptical of the
proposition that anyone, including prescriptivists themselves, actually
speak the sort of English which they advocate.
<prescriptivists [are] just speakers of another dialect and worthy,
therefore, of at least the same respectful treatment as native
English-speakers rather than the scorn and derision you and other
descriptivists constantly heap upon them for wishing to raise the standards
of the standard dialect>
Assuming for the sake of argument that we are indeed speaking of an actual
dialect and not an artificial dialect which no one speaks, your statement is
still subject to criticism. First, descriptivists themselves are advocates
of improving current usage: I, for example, have advocated several reforms,
and I think you can see similar advocacy in just about any work by
descriptivist usage critics.
Second, prescriptivists deserve scorn and derision when they make false
assertions about the standard dialect, which they constantly do. Dishonest
and/or ignorant statements about language, including false statements about
the standard dialect, deserve no respect.
Third, the status of the dialect of a given prescriptivist, if it is indeed
the dialect which he actually speaks every day, is equal to other dialects
only in that it has the potential to become a standard dialect. That is what
it means to say that every dialect is equal: There is nothing inherent in
any given dialect which makes it suitable or useless for use as a standard
dialect. To respect a given dialect is to recognize that fact. It does not
mean, for example, that we should expect courts, schools, and legislatures
to write all their documents in the dialect in question. Nor does respecting
the dialect mean that we must not find the usages in another dialect to be
amusing or odd. Will most speakers of British English not find the standard
American usage of "pants" with the meaning of "trousers" amusing? (Or at
least, would they not have done so at one time?) Informal British English is
no less a dialect than informal American English, but an American is likely
to find the usage "to take the piss"--once informed of what it means--to be
amusing or odd or both. I have mentioned before that where I come from,
"mango" was a standard term for "bell pepper": It was the term taught in
schools and used in local newspapers, for example. But though it was
standard, I would expect that most speakers of other standard dialects of
English would find it either amusing or odd or both.
In this regard, what prescriptivists advocate has no preferred status: As I
have said before, to me "It is I"--a usage which some prescriptivists
favor--sounds goofy. The same is true of many other such usages. The fact
that such usages could potentially become standard--that is, that they could
form part of a standard dialect--does not make them sound any less absurd
nor any less subject to ridicule.
Raymond S. Wise
news:u153vk...@hpl.hp.com...
> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> writes:
>
> > Under criticism from others of my description of "between you and I"
> > as belonging to the dialect of those who use it, when they learned
> > it from others, I began to resort to using the word "lect" for the
> > sort of variety of language in question. I have decided I will no
> > longer do so: I agree with the definition of "dialect" given above,
> > and so, the construction "between you and I" is clearly a dialectal
> > usage, as is any other nonstandard usage which is learned by one
> > person from another.
>
> The problem I have with this is that there doesn't really seem to be a
> dialect in which "between you and I" is a standard construt. At least
> most of the adults I know who use it, didn't learn it from a community
> of others who used it, but rather appear to have independently picked
> it up as a concomitant to an independently-invented "correction" of
> "me and you" in subject position, where the latter *was* a feature of
> their dialect actively disparaged in school. So all dialects they
> belong to contain speakers who use the construction and speakers who
> don't.
>
> Now their children may well learn the construction as normal from
> their parents and then may influence one another, so I can see it
> becoming a dialect feature, but it doesn't seem to be so yet.
Note that I have never made the claim that "between you and I" is a
dialectal usage when it is independently created. In such a case, it would
clearly be an idiolectal, rather than dialectal, usage. I took pains to say
that based upon Joseph F Foster's definition of "dialect," "the construction
'between you and I' is clearly a dialectal usage, as is any other
nonstandard usage *which is learned by one person from another.*" (Emphasis
added.)
I do not believe that most users of "between you and I" did invent it
independently. If there exists somewhere a well-done, refereed study which
demonstrates that in fact most users of the "between you and I" did invent
it independently, I will of course change my opinion, but as it is, the
expression is so widespread it beggars the imagination to believe all the
people who use it created it independently.
Matti Lamprhey
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote...
Last night I caught part of Melvyn Bragg's series _The Adventure of
English_ in which the construction was mentioned. It seems that
"between you and I" and "between you and me" were both standard and
unexceptionable until the Pedants Revolt a while back. On the view that
"if there are two ways of saying something then one of them must be
better than the other", those good folk decided that "between you and I"
was for the chop.
Matti
Donna Richoux
>
> Last night I caught part of Melvyn Bragg's series _The Adventure of
> English_ in which the construction was mentioned. It seems that
> "between you and I" and "between you and me" were both standard and
> unexceptionable until the Pedants Revolt a while back. On the view that
> "if there are two ways of saying something then one of them must be
> better than the other", those good folk decided that "between you and I"
> was for the chop.
Do you, or does anyone, distinguish between "between you and I" and
other constructions such as "for you and I" and "to Bob and I"?
I ask because, as most of us know, the usual test is, "Drop the other
person and see what it sounds like." You wouldn't say "for I" or "to I",
the reasoning goes, so you shouldn't say "for you and I" or "to Bob and
I."
But I've noticed that "between" fails miserably with that test. Nobody
says either "between I" or "between me" because neither would make any
sense! They both sound weird. "Betweenness" requires two parties. So it
is not helpful as advice.
I think sometimes this contributes to the confusion in the discussion.
"Between you and I" may be used as a shorthand label for the entire
category of "preposition-noun-and-pronoun," or it may be used to refer
specifically to the word "between."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Matti Lamprhey
It would be interesting to know whether, in the days when "between you
and I" was standard, they also used "between we", or "between they". It
does seem unlikely, and therefore this ought to condemn "between you and
I".
It would also be useful to know whether they said "Put it down between
you and I". Again, I suspect not. So perhaps the disputed usage was
always reserved for "Between you and I, she's a bad lot."
Matti
Bob Martin
>
> But I've noticed that "between" fails miserably with that test. Nobody
> says either "between I" or "between me" because neither would make any
> sense! They both sound weird. "Betweenness" requires two parties. So it
> is not helpful as advice.
>
Ah, but would you say "between us" or "between we" ?
Bob Martin
Donna Richoux
dcw
Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>Do you, or does anyone, distinguish between "between you and I" and
>other constructions such as "for you and I" and "to Bob and I"?
>
>I ask because, as most of us know, the usual test is, "Drop the other
>person and see what it sounds like." You wouldn't say "for I" or "to I",
>the reasoning goes, so you shouldn't say "for you and I" or "to Bob and
>I."
>
>But I've noticed that "between" fails miserably with that test.
A similar test that does work is to interchange the two words: do you
say "between I and you"?
David
Unknown
Anyway, the test isn't valid. 'Between you and I' has an
existence and a degree of acceptance that are independent of
the lack of acceptance of 'between I.' That is, it's not a
good argument to say you mustn't say 'between you and I'
because you can't say 'between I.'
However, it is a good argument to say you shouldn't say
'between you and I' because there are a certain number of
people who don't find it acceptable and will therefore
consider you ignorant for saying it. It depends on to whom
you're talking or writing and how much you value their
respect.
If you don't like "between you and me," try "between the
two of us." It's grammatically O.K. and it has a pleasingly
intimate ring.
CyberCypher
> "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
> message news:Xns9434D5DC4...@130.133.1.4...
[... 80 lines cut; the important ones are repeated below]
> Let's take that a bit at a time:
>
> < prescriptivists [...] are, according to Foster's definition of a
> dialect, just speakers of another dialect>
>
> That is true of the dialect which they actually speak in their
> everyday life. We cannot presume it to be true of the dialect they
> advocate in their prescriptivist works.
There you go with your insistence that all prescriptivists are liars,
thieves, and murderers. If you read what Eric Walker writes about
language and then read the language he actually writes, you will see
very clearly that he advocates the dialect he writes. I would also bet
that he is as consistent as anyone can be about the dialect he speaks.
One of my graduate school buddies actually speaks the way he writes and
writes the way he speaks --- much more formally than I do. He's neither
a linguist nor a usage commentator, but he cares passionately about
language. Eric Walker, from what I have seen of what he's written here
and on his Website, also cares passionately about language. Such people
actually do tend to practice what they preach; they are not linguistic
hypocrites even if they make factual and historical errors. Your
contempt for those whom you define as the enemy is ludicrous. How can
anyone take you as seriously as you take yourself on this point?
> To the extent that what
> they advocate is actually used by someone, somewhere, in a natural
> manner (not, for example, when they are simply quoting printed
> matter), then it could be said to be a true dialect,
Good grief! You are so incredibly magnanimous here; I am all agog at
your display of ideological munificence.
> although not
> a standard one, since by definition prescriptivists advocate a
> variety which does not accord with the actual standard dialect.
"the actual standard dialect"? And who, pray tell, actually speaks and
writes "the actual standard dialect"? Even Pullum and Huddleston
acknowledge that linguistic theory has changed so dramatically over the
past 15 or 20 years since the Quirk et al grammar that a new grammar is
necessary. Ideas about the nature of language have changed
dramatically, as have ideas about what the standard dialect is. We're
not talking about the Rocky Mountains here, but even they change over
time.
And anyone who has followed how the English language has changed over
the past 50 years has to recognize that except for the hard and fast
syntactic rules of English, the underlying deep structure, to borrow a
phrase from Chomsky, the standard dialect has also changed and
continues to change every year, and sometimes every day. There is no
"actual standard dialect"; there is a constantly morphing dialect, a
river of language that never stays the same, a flood of language that
overwhelms us all. Show me where this standard dialect is. All we have
of it are rules in grammar books and examples of the language as it is
used, and by god it varies from user to user.
> (If what they advocated was the actual standard dialect, after
> all, they would be transformed into descriptivists.)
No they would not. They would still be prescriptivists because they are
actively prescribing some standard of usage that is different from
actual usage. And now you are going to tell me that the way you and
everybody else who engages in discussions about descriptivists and
prescriptivists use the terms the way you insist they be used, white-
hat/black-hat-wise, so that all of you can distinguish your angelic
selves from the ogreish prescriptivists.
> However, I am
> extremely skeptical of the proposition that anyone, including
> prescriptivists themselves, actually speak the sort of English
> which they advocate.
Well, you wouldn't know, now, would you? You already believe and
profess that they advocate a specious language in their works, a
language that doesn't exist and never existed. How could you possibly
admit to the simple fact that they actually do speak and write they way
they advocate that others speak and write? Do you think William Simon
and his ilk do not practice what they preach? Please point out where
Simon and Walker consistently violate their own usage advice because
that advice is simply too artificial and so impossible to follow.
> <prescriptivists [are] just speakers of another dialect and
> worthy,
> therefore, of at least the same respectful treatment as native
> English-speakers rather than the scorn and derision you and other
> descriptivists constantly heap upon them for wishing to raise the
> standards of the standard dialect>
>
> Assuming for the sake of argument that we are indeed speaking of
> an actual dialect and not an artificial dialect which no one
> speaks, your statement is still subject to criticism. First,
> descriptivists themselves are advocates of improving current
> usage:
"advocates of improving usage"? What does that mean? That means that
descriptivists describe the way the language is used and then say it
isn't used properly? Or that, after describing the way the language is
used, they recommend that those who do not use it as everyone else does
get with the program? Or do you mean that they become "descriptive
prescriptivists"? What I want to know, if what you say is true, is how
these descriptive prescriptivists decide how to reform usage when they
believe that usage comes from the speakers of the language and not from
on high from people like yourself and the horde of other usage
prescriptivists? [Ooops. I know, I know. A "descriptive-
prescriptivist" is a good prescriptivist because he prescribes that
people use the language the way they actually do use it and so ruffles
no feathers, but a "prescriptive-prescriptivist", a dirty liar, thief
of truth, and murderer of honesty and history, is a bad prescriptivist
because he prescribes that people use the language in ways that they
don't actually use it and so ruffles everyone's feathers. How can a
descriptive-prescriptivist "reform usage" without actually advocating
usage change, which would be a violation of the descriptivist's creed?
Beats the hell out of me.
> I, for example, have advocated several reforms, and I think
> you can see similar advocacy in just about any work by
> descriptivist usage critics.
Contradiction in terms. All you do is self-satisfiedly criticize
prescriptivists for being liars, thieves, and murderers.
> Second, prescriptivists deserve scorn and derision when they make
> false assertions about the standard dialect, which they constantly
> do. Dishonest and/or ignorant statements about language, including
> false statements about the standard dialect, deserve no respect.
No, no, no. That is where the bullshit lies. You define prescriptivists
as liars and dishonest people. You set them up that way, so you can
knock them down whenever you feel like feeling superior to someone.
God, what a self-serving dumptruck of crap you serve up
Ah, yes, you have a special vendetta for people whom you label
"prescriptivist", a fanatical hatred similar to your distaste for those
who believe in and promote the paranormal. For you, "prescriptivist" is
the dirtiest of words. You even claim that when prescriptivists and
descriptivists agree, the prescriptivists actually transmogrify into
descriptivists. It would be nice if you wouldnh't use question-begging,
tautological definitions of terms: "X is always wrong and Y is always
right, but when X is right, why then X=Y". What horseshit. I've said
this before but you humpty-dumpty yourself right out of the discussion.
[I will deal with the remainder of this post in another post. This one
is too long already and I have to give my son a bath before bedtime.]
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> news:u153vk...@hpl.hp.com...
> > The problem I have with this is that there doesn't really seem to
> > be a dialect in which "between you and I" is a standard construt.
> > At least most of the adults I know who use it, didn't learn it
> > from a community of others who used it, but rather appear to have
> > independently picked it up as a concomitant to an
> > independently-invented "correction" of "me and you" in subject
> > position, where the latter *was* a feature of their dialect
> > actively disparaged in school. So all dialects they belong to
> > contain speakers who use the construction and speakers who don't.
> >
> > Now their children may well learn the construction as normal from
> > their parents and then may influence one another, so I can see it
> > becoming a dialect feature, but it doesn't seem to be so yet.
>
> Note that I have never made the claim that "between you and I" is a
> dialectal usage when it is independently created. In such a case, it
> would clearly be an idiolectal, rather than dialectal, usage. I took
> pains to say that based upon Joseph F Foster's definition of
> "dialect," "the construction 'between you and I' is clearly a
> dialectal usage, as is any other nonstandard usage *which is learned
> by one person from another.*" (Emphasis added.)
I read that "any other nonstandard usage which is learned by one
person from another" as indicating that you considered it *a*
nonstandard usage learned by one person from another.
But even to the extent that it may have been "learned by one person
from another", I think that that's too little to establish a dialect.
Millions of people may have picked up "I tawt I taw a putty-tat" from
cartoons, but I wouldn't call that a dialect feature. I think you
need a pattern of features and some sort of "interaction boundary"
around speakers to actually give yourself a dialect. Some sort of
"intensional" definition that doesn't refer to the features
themselves.
> I do not believe that most users of "between you and I" did invent
> it independently. If there exists somewhere a well-done, refereed
> study which demonstrates that in fact most users of the "between you
> and I" did invent it independently, I will of course change my
> opinion, but as it is, the expression is so widespread it beggars
> the imagination to believe all the people who use it created it
> independently.
I'd go the other way. "Me and John went to the movies" *is*
well-attested and wide-spread, especially among children. Neither
Susan nor I uses it, and yet Josh went through a phase where he did
(and he still does pretty regularly, come to think of it), so I
suspect that it's a well-nigh universal default assumption. It's also
manifestly true that this is (or at least was when I was in school) a
pedagogical bugaboo, with kids having it drummed into their heads that
"It's 'John and I', not 'me and John'." So they need to modify their
grammar, and it's not at all surprising that the corrections many come
up with wind up overgeneralizing the applicability of the form to be
substituted.
To my mind, this is much more likely than that "between you and I" and
its kin is part of the dialect of some dialect group (or, given, the
acknowledged widespread nature of the feature, *many* independent
dialect groups) that you can point to without refering to it.
I'll grant you, though, that this is reinforced by the presence of
"between you and I" speakers serving as models, when kids do the
grammar shift, and it's also helped along by the fact that many of the
teachers also have the feature and so have trouble hearing it as a
mistake. But I don't think that's enough to call such speakers
members of the same dialect.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, but would you say "between us" or "between we" ?
>
> Good point.
On the other hand, *does* anybody say "between they and I" or "between
John and we"? I can't say as I've heard it outside of intentionally
humorous writing.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> A similar test that does work is to interchange the two words: do you
> say "between I and you"?
But lots of conjunctions sound odd when reversed. "I and you are
friends", for example, sounds more awkward to my ear than "Me and you
are friends". I probably wouldn't say either, but I'd say the latter
before the former.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You may hate gravity, but gravity
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |doesn't care.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Clayton Christensen
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Opus the Penguin
> The average person doesn't have a clue what
> "phoneme" or "determiner" or "subjective case" mean, and of those
> are aware of the word "diphthong," some use it in the sense
> "digraph," like the "ea" in "read." These terms also we use in
> this newsgroup.
One may properly refer to the "ea" in "read" as a diphthong, provided
one realizes this is improper.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=improper%20diphthong
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
CyberCypher
[The beginning was dealth with in an earlier post.]
> Third, the status of the dialect of a given prescriptivist, if it
> is indeed the dialect which he actually speaks every day, is equal
> to other dialects only in that it has the potential to become a
> standard dialect.
Are you talking about idiolects or dialects here? It isn't clear.
> That is what it means to say that every dialect
> is equal: There is nothing inherent in any given dialect which
> makes it suitable or useless for use as a standard dialect.
I suspect you are avoiding social reality when you make statements like
this. Given a clean social state and no social and political history to
work with or against in any given society, what you say might very well
be true. The standard dialect, however, is chosen not because it is
inherently better than all other dialects, but because it is the
dialect of the powerful in a given community. That is why English
instead of a more senible language like Spanish, with its phonetic
spelling, or Mandarin Chinese, with its more than 1 billion speakers,
has not been chosen. Who knows, in another 50 years, Visual Basic might
be the lingua franca of the world.
As to the equality of all dialects, that is just theoretical nonsense,
like the Declaration of Independence's "All men are created equal";
true in theory but not in fact; true in some respects but not in
others. It is not even true in the US that all citizens are equal in
the eyes of the law. I just don't understand why it is necessary to
repeat these pieties. We are not in the position of advising others
(including ourselves) which dialect shall be the standard dialect of
English internationally or locally. That decision has already been made
for us and has ensured the inequality of all other dialects of English
everywhere in the world. VHS is inherently worse than Sony Betamax, and
yet it is the standard for videotape; that was a decision made by
people-power, a pocket-book decision, an expression of financial power
and advertising campaigns. Quality has nothing to do with what most
people want or get.
> To respect a given dialect is to recognize that fact. It does
> not mean, for example, that we should expect courts, schools,
> and legislatures to write all their documents in the dialect in
> question. Nor does respecting the dialect mean that we must not
> find the usages in another dialect to be amusing or odd. Will most
> speakers of British English not find the standard American usage
> of "pants" with the meaning of "trousers" amusing? (Or at least,
> would they not have done so at one time?) Informal British English
> is no less a dialect than informal American English, but an
> American is likely to find the usage "to take the piss"--once
> informed of what it means--to be amusing or odd or both. I have
> mentioned before that where I come from, "mango" was a standard
> term for "bell pepper": It was the term taught in schools and used
> in local newspapers, for example. But though it was standard, I
> would expect that most speakers of other standard dialects of
> English would find it either amusing or odd or both.
That's a word and a usage I've known for decades, but it's strictly
regional. Here in Taiwan, a "mango" is a fruit, as it is in Mexico.
> In this regard, what prescriptivists advocate has no preferred
> status: As I have said before, to me "It is I"--a usage which some
> prescriptivists favor--sounds goofy. The same is true of many
> other such usages. The fact that such usages could potentially
> become standard--that is, that they could form part of a standard
> dialect--does not make them sound any less absurd nor any less
> subject to ridicule.
Good grief! They used to be the standard. That was what I was taught in
junior and senior high school. A lot of those black-hat
prescriptivists, whom you keep accusing of being liars, thieves, and
murderers, are merely stuffy conservatives who hate to see language
change in any form; they're as retro as the fundies in all religions,
the bible-thumpers who want to take us back to theocracy and the days
when prophets could perform miracles and talk to God without being
called barmy.
Let's try to deal with what passes for the Standard Dialect of English
now and forget about all those used-to-be equals; they just aren't in
the race anymore. And the only disagreements about the Standard are a
handful of usages that are normally dealt with in style manuals or else
by default (ie ignorance or an individual user's conscious choice).
This is AUE, not Oakland, California, and the debate is not about
Ebonics or bilingual education in any other form. And according to
Pullum and Huddleston, it's not even about grammar but about
rationalizing the existence of apparently contradictory grammatical
rules by positing the existence of wheels within wheels so that cycles
can be balanced by countercycles in order to make special cases of
expressions like "between you and I", where "I" is not the name of
someone from a non-anglophone country (It's one way to romanize a
Chinese given name; the other way is "Yi". One of my friends is named
"I-Ming" and my wife is named "Ling-I", and there are lots of women
here in Taiwan named "I-Ling").
R J Valentine
...
} I'd go the other way. "Me and John went to the movies" *is*
} well-attested and wide-spread, especially among children. Neither
} Susan nor I uses it,
Oy!
} and yet Josh went through a phase where he did
} (and he still does pretty regularly, come to think of it), so I
} suspect that it's a well-nigh universal default assumption.
...
Could be a _lot_ worse. It's not likely to keep him from getting an 800
SAT-V or [from getting] into any college in America.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:sh...@wicked.smart.net>
John Holmes
> Do you, or does anyone, distinguish between "between you and I" and
> other constructions such as "for you and I" and "to Bob and I"?
>
> I ask because, as most of us know, the usual test is, "Drop the other
> person and see what it sounds like." You wouldn't say "for I" or "to
> I", the reasoning goes, so you shouldn't say "for you and I" or "to
> Bob and I."
>
> But I've noticed that "between" fails miserably with that test. Nobody
> says either "between I" or "between me" because neither would make any
> sense! They both sound weird. "Betweenness" requires two parties. So
> it is not helpful as advice.
That is a problem easily solved. Which do you prefer:
between I and you
between me and you?
--
Regards
John
R J Valentine
Which do *you* prefer:
Me and John went to the movies.
I and John went to the movies.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Raymond S. Wise
news:bpc807$q2v$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
What good is that test for deciding the issue?
I use the rule where the object of a preposition must be in the subjective
case, so "between me and you" would be preferable to "between I and you."
I would expect a person who used the rule of "always use 'I' in
coordination" to prefer the "between I and you" usage, since "I" is still in
coordination.
I would expect a person who used "between you and I" as an idiom--that is,
someone who did not use "'I' in coordination" in any other construction--to
prefer "between I and you", since it is the closest in form to his idiom.
In all three cases, another rule would have be violated, that "I" or "me"
when used in coordination must come last. I'd say that is a rule of
politeness rather than grammar.
CyberCypher
> "John Holmes" <hol...@smart.net.au> wrote in message
> news:bpc807$q2v$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
[...]
>> That is a problem easily solved. Which do you prefer:
>> between I and you
>> between me and you?
>
> What good is that test for deciding the issue?
You'd better read Huddleston and Pullum's argument against using
such rules for testing or deciding the issue. Their analysis makes
more sense than yours.
Opus the Penguin
> [The beginning was dealth with in an earlier post.]
I like this neologism. Dealth. It's a portmanteau of "dealt" and
"death." When you've done a topic to death, you've dealth with it.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
"Ask not for whom the whoosh-bird chirps; it chirps for thee." - Ian
Munro
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> [The beginning was dealth with in an earlier post.]
>
> I like this neologism. Dealth. It's a portmanteau of "dealt" and
> "death." When you've done a topic to death, you've dealth with it.
Sharp eyes and a sharper wit there, Opus. :-)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
>
> > The average person doesn't have a clue what "phoneme" or
> > "determiner" or "subjective case" mean, and of those are aware of
> > the word "diphthong," some use it in the sense "digraph," like the
> > "ea" in "read." These terms also we use in this newsgroup.
>
> One may properly refer to the "ea" in "read" as a diphthong, provided
> one realizes this is improper.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=improper%20diphthong
It's interesting that one of their examples is "ai in rain", where
most linguists would say that the /eI/ *is* a diphthong.
AndI've heard at least the past tense "read" as a diphthong [e@].
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are two types of people -
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not.
| Leigh Blue Caldwell
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Eric Walker
[...]
>I ask because, as most of us know, the usual test is, "Drop
>the other person and see what it sounds like." You wouldn't
>say "for I" or "to I", the reasoning goes, so you shouldn't
>say "for you and I" or "to Bob and I."
>
>But I've noticed that "between" fails miserably with that
>test. Nobody says either "between I" or "between me" because
>neither would make any sense! They both sound weird.
"Betweenness" requires two parties. So it is not helpful as
>advice.
Just between us, I think there's a suitable form.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Raymond S. Wise
> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote on 17 Nov 2003:
>
> > "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
> > message news:Xns9434D5DC4...@130.133.1.4...
> [... 80 lines cut; the important ones are repeated below]
> > Let's take that a bit at a time:
> >
> > < prescriptivists [...] are, according to Foster's definition of a
> > dialect, just speakers of another dialect>
> >
> > That is true of the dialect which they actually speak in their
> > everyday life. We cannot presume it to be true of the dialect they
> > advocate in their prescriptivist works.
>
> There you go with your insistence that all prescriptivists are liars,
> thieves, and murderers. If you read what Eric Walker writes about
> language and then read the language he actually writes, you will see
> very clearly that he advocates the dialect he writes. I would also bet
> that he is as consistent as anyone can be about the dialect he speaks.
> One of my graduate school buddies actually speaks the way he writes and
> writes the way he speaks --- much more formally than I do. He's neither
> a linguist nor a usage commentator, but he cares passionately about
> language. Eric Walker, from what I have seen of what he's written here
> and on his Website, also cares passionately about language. Such people
> actually do tend to practice what they preach; they are not linguistic
> hypocrites even if they make factual and historical errors. Your
> contempt for those whom you define as the enemy is ludicrous. How can
> anyone take you as seriously as you take yourself on this point?
Nothing I said indicates that I think *any* prescriptivists are hypocrites.
I figure that most of the time that prescriptivists' practice does not
follow their advice, they are not aware of it, and so cannot be called
hypocritical.
I remind you of an anecdote I have told you before:
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=uk47v04vffitaa%40corp.supernews.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
OR
[begin quote from Usenet post]
Bergen Evans was once stuck in the hospital with time on his hands. He spent
his time examining the (written) English of the harshest critics of
Webster's Third. He found that they used the very usages which they had
condemned Webster's Third for including. In other words, their
prescriptivist usage rules did not even represent their *own* idiolects in
formal written English!
[end quote from Usenet post]
>
> > To the extent that what
> > they advocate is actually used by someone, somewhere, in a natural
> > manner (not, for example, when they are simply quoting printed
> > matter), then it could be said to be a true dialect,
>
> Good grief! You are so incredibly magnanimous here; I am all agog at
> your display of ideological munificence.
What ideological munificence? It's not a question of ideology. (Nor of
munificence: I was just stating a logical conclusion based upon what I have
written concerning dialect.) I think I got it slightly wrong, however. I
should have added that if it is a matter of only *one* person using the
variety of English in question, then that variety is an idiolect rather than
a dialect. If a prescriptivist's son, for example, learns to talk like his
father, and his father actually speaks as he himself advocates, then the
variety in question is a dialect. If the prescriptivist is the only person
in the world who speaks as he advocates, then it's an idiolect and not a
dialect.
>
> > although not
> > a standard one, since by definition prescriptivists advocate a
> > variety which does not accord with the actual standard dialect.
>
> "the actual standard dialect"? And who, pray tell, actually speaks and
> writes "the actual standard dialect"? Even Pullum and Huddleston
> acknowledge that linguistic theory has changed so dramatically over the
> past 15 or 20 years since the Quirk et al grammar that a new grammar is
> necessary. Ideas about the nature of language have changed
> dramatically, as have ideas about what the standard dialect is. We're
> not talking about the Rocky Mountains here, but even they change over
> time.
>
> And anyone who has followed how the English language has changed over
> the past 50 years has to recognize that except for the hard and fast
> syntactic rules of English, the underlying deep structure, to borrow a
> phrase from Chomsky, the standard dialect has also changed and
> continues to change every year, and sometimes every day. There is no
> "actual standard dialect"; there is a constantly morphing dialect, a
> river of language that never stays the same, a flood of language that
> overwhelms us all. Show me where this standard dialect is. All we have
> of it are rules in grammar books and examples of the language as it is
> used, and by god it varies from user to user.
I presume you are feigning ignorance. For the benefit of those reading this
who might not actually know the meaning of "standard dialect," here is a
definition of "standard American English" which, when applied to other
countries (or in some cases to regions of other countries, as is the case in
Canada and Belgium) can apply as a general definition of "standard dialect":
http://www.ablongman.com/aarontour/assets/pages/AARO.CH01.pdf
or
[quote]
American academic writing relies on a dialect called standard American
English. The dialect is also used in business, the professions, government,
the media, and other sites of social and economic power where people of
diverse backgrounds must communicate with one another. It is "standard" not
because it is better than other forms of English, but because it is accepted
as the common language, much as the dollar bill is accepted as the common
currency. You'll recognize standard American English as the dialect used in
this handbook, in magazines and newspapers, and on television news. But you
might also notice that the dialect varies a lot, from the formal English of
a President's "State of the Union" address through the middle formality of
this handbook to the informal chitchat between anchors on morning TV.
[end quote]
The different methods of speaking the standard dialect mentioned here are
called "registers" by linguists.
The oddest thing about your comments, CyberCypher, is the suggestion that I
do not know that language changes. You are aware, I take it, that it is
prescriptivists who would prefer that language did not change, although they
will grudgingly admit that it does. Descriptivists are well aware that it
does: It is one of the first facts mentioned whenever descriptivists write
about the debate between prescriptivists and descriptivists.
>
> > (If what they advocated was the actual standard dialect, after
> > all, they would be transformed into descriptivists.)
>
> No they would not. They would still be prescriptivists because they are
> actively prescribing some standard of usage that is different from
> actual usage. And now you are going to tell me that the way you and
> everybody else who engages in discussions about descriptivists and
> prescriptivists use the terms the way you insist they be used, white-
> hat/black-hat-wise, so that all of you can distinguish your angelic
> selves from the ogreish prescriptivists.
It is a matter of cold logic: For any given rule of English, if it is
identified as a rule by descriptivists, then it is describing how the
language actually works: It is a descriptive rule. If a prescriptivist
identifies the very same rule, he is describing how the language actually
works: It is still a descriptive rule. If a so-called prescriptivist
identified as rules of English only those which described how the language
actually worked, it would no longer make any sense to identify him as a
prescriptivist: He would logically be a descriptivist.
If you can demonstrate the error in that line of reasoning, I would
appreciate it.
>
> > However, I am
> > extremely skeptical of the proposition that anyone, including
> > prescriptivists themselves, actually speak the sort of English
> > which they advocate.
>
> Well, you wouldn't know, now, would you? You already believe and
> profess that they advocate a specious language in their works, a
> language that doesn't exist and never existed. How could you possibly
> admit to the simple fact that they actually do speak and write they way
> they advocate that others speak and write? Do you think William Simon
> and his ilk do not practice what they preach? Please point out where
> Simon and Walker consistently violate their own usage advice because
> that advice is simply too artificial and so impossible to follow.
That prescriptivists consistently violate their own advice is not an
original thought of mine. I have many times given the titles of works about
the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate which point it out as a fact, not a
mere speculation.
That does not mean that it is logically impossible that a prescriptivist
exists who actually speaks as he advocates, nor is it impossible that an
artificial dialect advocated by such a prescriptivist could become a
standard dialect, and thus could be a true dialect--even if the
prescriptivist himself could not speak it! There are indeed artificial
dialects which have become standard dialects--Nynorsk, one of the two
standard dialects of Norwegian[2] is one such artificial dialect.
"Descriptivist" here is not the scientist who describes usage, but the
writer who uses that description as the basis for his guide about writing
the standard dialect.[3] That is the main reason for descriptivist usage
guidance. However, he also has the job of describing how to write
effectively, and that is not a question of simply the actual usage. Formal
writing, in fact, is a sort of artificial dialect, because there are things
communicated in formal writing which would never have been communicated in
that way in a preliterate culture.
Furthermore, there are problems in language which result from changes in
society. It is because of decreasing sexism, for example, that the generic
"he" often comes under criticism. A descriptive usage critic could give
advice on what to replace the generic "he." The change from "inflammable" to
"flammable" in American English is another sort of change which a
descriptivist usage writer could have proposed: The only reason I don't
assert that it was indeed such a change is that I don't know whether
"inflammable" ever actually was mistaken for "noninflammable."
That there are some existing problems with language, often the result of
changes having occurred in society, is something which descriptivist
scientists could identify. It is not, however, ordinarily their job to
suggest a change. That is instead one of the jobs of a descriptivist usage
writer.
(By the way, a descriptivist scientist *could* be charged with the task of
recommending change, if hired to do just that, just as an anthropologist
could be hired to recommend a change in a society, although ordinarily
anthropologists simply record how societies work. In both cases, the
scientist
might very well do a better job than any other professional could have
done.)
>
> > I, for example, have advocated several reforms, and I think
> > you can see similar advocacy in just about any work by
> > descriptivist usage critics.
>
> Contradiction in terms. All you do is self-satisfiedly criticize
> prescriptivists for being liars, thieves, and murderers.
As I have demonstrated above, it is not a contradiction in terms.
"[L]iars, thieves, and murderers"? Don't be so juvenile.
>
> > Second, prescriptivists deserve scorn and derision when they make
> > false assertions about the standard dialect, which they constantly
> > do. Dishonest and/or ignorant statements about language, including
> > false statements about the standard dialect, deserve no respect.
>
> No, no, no. That is where the bullshit lies. You define prescriptivists
> as liars and dishonest people. You set them up that way, so you can
> knock them down whenever you feel like feeling superior to someone.
> God, what a self-serving dumptruck of crap you serve up
> Ah, yes, you have a special vendetta for people whom you label
> "prescriptivist", a fanatical hatred similar to your distaste for those
> who believe in and promote the paranormal. For you, "prescriptivist" is
Belief in the paranormal is not a neutral belief: It is belief which causes
harm. A recent issue of the *Skeptical Inquirer,* for example, relates how a
number of people have died recently during exorcisms. People die from
crackpot medical treatments who could have lived had they been treated by
conventional medicine. People have been accused of sexual abuse based upon
the now-discredited practice called facilitated communication, and others
have had false memories of sexual abuse implanted in their minds by
pseudoscientific practitioners. And the paranormal belief that animal parts
can be aphrodisiacs has led to some species being put on the verge of
extinction. Belief in the paranormal deserves contempt.
> the dirtiest of words. You even claim that when prescriptivists and
> descriptivists agree, the prescriptivists actually transmogrify into
> descriptivists. It would be nice if you wouldnh't use question-begging,
> tautological definitions of terms: "X is always wrong and Y is always
> right, but when X is right, why then X=Y". What horseshit. I've said
> this before but you humpty-dumpty yourself right out of the discussion.
It is a matter of logical reasoning, as I have explained above. If you
believe there is a flaw in it, please point it out.
>
> [I will deal with the remainder of this post in another post. This one
> is too long already and I have to give my son a bath before bedtime.]
Note:
[1] There is something odd with both the PDF and HTML versions of this page,
or at least there is with my browser. To quote this I had to copy and paste
into Notepad.
[2] The other standard dialect of Norwegian is called "Bokmål."
[3] As I have pointed out previously, there is no real dispute between
descriptivist scientists and prescriptivist usage writers. While crackpots
opposed to Einstein's theories(for example) have created crazy theories of
physics, prescriptivist usage writers don't come up with novel theories
about how the English language works. They instead simply identify certain
usages as standard which do not in fact represent actual standard usage.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
mplsray @ yahoo . com
CyberCypher
> "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
> message news:Xns9436EB0A2...@130.133.1.4...
[...]
>
> Nothing I said indicates that I think *any* prescriptivists are
> hypocrites. I figure that most of the time that prescriptivists'
> practice does not follow their advice, they are not aware of it,
> and so cannot be called hypocritical.
See, even when you don't want to condemn this group of people for
hypocrisy, you condemn them for something else. They must be the most
intellectually inept of human beings. I see that as just another way of
demonizing the enemy.
[...]
>>
>> And anyone who has followed how the English language has changed
>> over the past 50 years has to recognize that except for the hard
>> and fast syntactic rules of English, the underlying deep
>> structure, to borrow a phrase from Chomsky, the standard dialect
>> has also changed and continues to change every year, and
>> sometimes every day. There is no "actual standard dialect"; there
>> is a constantly morphing dialect, a river of language that never
>> stays the same, a flood of language that overwhelms us all. Show
>> me where this standard dialect is. All we have of it are rules in
>> grammar books and examples of the language as it is used, and by
>> god it varies from user to user.
>
>
> I presume you are feigning ignorance.
I know what Standard English is. I know the definition and even quoted
Huddleston and Pullum's definition of it in another post in this
thread. You may have noticed it.
[...]
>
> The different methods of speaking the standard dialect mentioned
> here are called "registers" by linguists.
Registers represent a vertical heirarchy, not a horizontal one.
> The oddest thing about your comments, CyberCypher, is the
> suggestion that I do not know that language changes. You are
> aware, I take it, that it is prescriptivists who would prefer that
> language did not change, although they will grudgingly admit that
> it does. Descriptivists are well aware that it does: It is one of
> the first facts mentioned whenever descriptivists write about the
> debate between prescriptivists and descriptivists.
That's not the point I was trying to make. My point was about your
reification of Standard English.
[...]
>
> It is a matter of cold logic: For any given rule of English, if it
> is identified as a rule by descriptivists, then it is describing
> how the language actually works: It is a descriptive rule. If a
> prescriptivist identifies the very same rule, he is describing how
> the language actually works: It is still a descriptive rule. If a
> so-called prescriptivist identified as rules of English only those
> which described how the language actually worked, it would no
> longer make any sense to identify him as a prescriptivist: He
> would logically be a descriptivist.
Yes, yes, I know. There's your tautological definition again.
> If you can demonstrate the error in that line of reasoning, I
> would appreciate it.
It's circular. It's claiming that everything bout language usage
commentary is black and white. One cannot be a little bit of both; one
must be purely one thing or the other. Are language usage commentators
to be compared with chameleons, then?
[. . .]
[...]
> Furthermore, there are problems in language which result from
> changes in society. It is because of decreasing sexism, for
> example, that the generic "he" often comes under criticism. A
> descriptive usage critic could give advice on what to replace the
> generic "he." The change from "inflammable" to "flammable" in
> American English is another sort of change which a descriptivist
> usage writer could have proposed: The only reason I don't assert
> that it was indeed such a change is that I don't know whether
> "inflammable" ever actually was mistaken for "noninflammable."
When I was in high school in the late '50s, there was much discussion
of that word. I think it is quite possible that "inflammable" has been
mistaken for "noninflammable", but I have no evidence to support that
supposition.
[...]
>> > I, for example, have advocated several reforms, and I think
>> > you can see similar advocacy in just about any work by
>> > descriptivist usage critics.
>>
>> Contradiction in terms. All you do is self-satisfiedly criticize
>> prescriptivists for being liars, thieves, and murderers.
>
>
> As I have demonstrated above, it is not a contradiction in terms.
>
> "[L]iars, thieves, and murderers"? Don't be so juvenile.
I expanded on that theme in this very post. It is not "juvenile",
merely hyperbolic speech. I am somewhat of an extremist, you know.
dcw
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>D.C....@ukc.ac.uk (dcw) writes:
>
>> A similar test that does work is to interchange the two words: do you
>> say "between I and you"?
>
>But lots of conjunctions sound odd when reversed. "I and you are
>friends", for example, sounds more awkward to my ear than "Me and you
>are friends". I probably wouldn't say either, but I'd say the latter
>before the former.
Yes, although that doesn't apply in this case.
Also, there are different kinds of odd. I think I hear "I and you are
friends" as unidiomatic, and "Me and you are friends" as ungrammatical;
they seem to cause problems in different parts of my mental parser.
David
rban...@shaw.ca
> On 16 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0800, rban...@shaw.ca <rban...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Who was doing the ignoring escapes me, but the fact remains that in
> > any English-speaking nation's standard dialect "between you and I" is
> > as much a mark of under-privilege (Har!) as "for/from you and I".
>
> Well. I'd say this is almost certainly true, but not in the way intended.
> In particular, I doubt that "between you and I", "for you and I", or
> "from you and I" is mark of under-privilege in any area; I'd be very
> surprised if it's more common in the non-standard speech of people of
> lower socio-economic class than that of people of higher.
>
> That said, I'd also be surprised if any of "between/for/from you and I"
> is considered standard in any English dialect area (in the sense that an
> attentive editor wouldn't remove it from prose or oratory), and even more
> surprised if "between..." is more or less standard in any area than "for..."
> or "from...". Thus, well, "between you and I" might be seen as a mark of
> under-privilege, but only insofar as the under-privileged are less likely
> in general to need to use the standard language. Even so, I wouldn't be
> surprised to find that "between you and I" is still more common in the
> nonstandard speech of the over-privileged (though I wouldn't be surprised
> to find out that it's not, either).
>
Your incapacity for surprise is not the issue, and your apparent
exclusion of all save socio-economic factors from "privilege"
illustrates, perhaps, that you are unqualified to debate the real
issue.
Anyone with any feel for the language instinctively recognises that
"for/from/to/between you/them and I" is a solecism and worthy of
scorn.
Ross Howard
That door's going to come off its hinges this week, what with Truly
sidling back in,[1] Padraig storming out, and now a1a returning with
relish.
Good to see you, anyway.
[1. Fine verb, "sidle". Nobody has a clue what it really means, of
course -- is it a sort of slinky saunter or more a semi-surreptitious
lope? (and no, that's not an invitation for a dic-cite bombardment) --
but it's a fine verb nonetheless.]
rban...@shaw.ca
> On 16 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0800, rban...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
> [...]
> >The French call the French who cannot speak proper French by various
> >names, including "canaille". Good for them!
>
> Would you care to substantiate that? Neither the "Robert" nor the
> "Grand Larousse" nor the "Littré" [*] support what for the moment
> seems to me to be an entirely gratuitous insult both to the French --
> who know perfectly well what they mean when they use the word
> "canaille" -- and to the OP / other contributors to this thread.
>
> In this n.g. it's called put up or shut up.
>
Goodness! You mean that I am (to quote a phrase from your impossibly
long chunk of dictionary definition) "worthy of scorn", not you?
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<bp91q3$5tbn$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>> On 16 Nov 2003 15:21:36 -0800, rban...@shaw.ca <rban...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > Who was doing the ignoring escapes me, but the fact remains that in
>> > any English-speaking nation's standard dialect "between you and I" is
>> > as much a mark of under-privilege (Har!) as "for/from you and I".
>>
>> Well. I'd say this is almost certainly true, but not in the way intended.
>> In particular, I doubt that "between you and I", "for you and I", or
>> "from you and I" is mark of under-privilege in any area; I'd be very
>> surprised if it's more common in the non-standard speech of people of
>> lower socio-economic class than that of people of higher.
<snip>
> Your incapacity for surprise is not the issue, and your apparent
> exclusion of all save socio-economic factors from "privilege"
> illustrates, perhaps, that you are unqualified to debate the real
> issue.
In the English with which I'm familiar, "under-privileged" is a euphemism
for 'poor'. If that's not what you meant, I apologize for
misunderstanding you; what did you mean?
> Anyone with any feel for the language instinctively recognises that
> "for/from/to/between you/them and I" is a solecism and worthy of
> scorn.
I disagree. As Hammerstein wrote, you've got to be taught.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Eric Walker
[...]
>Anyone with any feel for the language instinctively recognises
>that "for/from/to/between you/them and I" is a solecism and
>worthy of scorn.
I cherish the notion that I have some modest feel for the
language, and--presumably in consequence--assuredly recognize
forms such as "between you and I" as solecisms. But, though
there are, I reckon, few more adamantly opposed to solecism
than I, I see no reason to mark it as worthy of scorn, or any
like attribute.
I _do_ very much find a _defense_ of such forms thoroughly
worthy of scorn, but that is a quite different matter.
Eric Walker
>"CyberCypher" <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in
>message news:Xns9436EB0A2...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> "Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote on 17
>> Nov 2003:
>>
>> > "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote
>> > in message news:Xns9434D5DC4...@130.133.1.4...
>> [... 80 lines cut; the important ones are repeated below]
>> > Let's take that a bit at a time:
>> >
>> > < prescriptivists [...] are, according to Foster's
>> > definition of a dialect, just speakers of another dialect>
>> > That is true of the dialect which they actually speak in
>> > their everyday life. We cannot presume it to be true of
>> > the dialect they advocate in their prescriptivist works.
>>
>> There you go with your insistence that all prescriptivists
>> are liars, thieves, and murderers. If you read what Eric
>> Walker writes about language and then read the language he
>> actually writes, you will see very clearly that he advocates
>> the dialect he writes. I would also bet that he is as
>> consistent as anyone can be about the dialect he speaks.
I well recall, after the publication of my first (and, so far,
only) book, how many persons who knew me well and had read the
book remarked to me how much my writing resembled my speech.
But that is really not the point. If a person who is a liar,
thief, and even murderer proclaims that truth-telling, respect
for the property of others, and the sanctity of life are
important ethical principles, does his personal status reduce
those principles to garbage? Or do they have a worth
independent of the habits of any particular person who might
articulate them?
[...]
>Nothing I said indicates that I think *any* prescriptivists
>are hypocrites. I figure that most of the time that
>prescriptivists' practice does not follow their advice, they
>are not aware of it, and so cannot be called hypocritical.
Yet there is an implication, in that and what came before, that
the number of instances in which those who advocate reason and
rule fall from grace in their own work is substantial. Making
polite about their not realizing it does not alter the form of
the attack, which is that prescriptive grammar is an artifice
so unnatural that it is not adhered to even by those who
advocate it. Balls.
[...]
>I should have added that if it is a matter of only *one*
>person using the variety of English in question, then that
>variety is an idiolect rather than a dialect. If a
>prescriptivist's son, for example, learns to talk like his
>father, and his father actually speaks as he himself
>advocates, then the variety in question is a dialect. If the
>prescriptivist is the only person in the world who speaks as
>he advocates, then it's an idiolect and not a dialect.
This insistence that sound English is meaningless unless one
can find numerous users all following it exactly is a very
clever, though monstrous, fallacy. Sound English is an ideal,
a norm, a baseline: even if there is not, and has never been,
one soul in the whole of history who always and ever spoke and
wrote exactly that English, the ideal remains: it is what those
possessed of logic and an interest in language use that is both
precise and elegant _aim at_. If a target is missed, whether
by a hair or a mile, it remains the target. That is, it does
if we advocate prescriptive English; those who advocate
descriptive English take the bull's eye to be wherever the shot
did hit, even if a blind cripple fired the gun.
[...]
>[quote]
>
>American academic writing relies on a dialect called standard
>American English. The dialect is also used in business, the
>professions, government, the media, and other sites of social
>and economic power where people of diverse backgrounds must
>communicate with one another. It is "standard" not because it
>is better than other forms of English, but because it is
>accepted as the common language, much as the dollar bill is
>accepted as the common currency. You'll recognize standard
>American English as the dialect used in this handbook, in
>magazines and newspapers, and on television news. But you
>might also notice that the dialect varies a lot, from the
>formal English of a President's "State of the Union" address
>through the middle formality of this handbook to the informal
>chitchat between anchors on morning TV.
>
>[end quote]
>
>
>The different methods of speaking the standard dialect
>mentioned here are called "registers" by linguists.
And what is all that in aid of? The differences between
"formal" and "informal" use of sound English, while certainly
real, lie chiefly in such things as the frequency of use of
contractions, the degree of ellipsis considered reasonable, and
the extent to which slang words and terms are acceptable. None
of that has any bearing whatever on the matters commonly at
issue in this forum, notably grammar. "I do not have any such
items" is sound formal English"; "I don't have any" is sound
informal English"; "I don't got none" is unsound English, and
no matter the number of instances of its use down at the Dew
Drop Inn that the Merriam Gang and their accomplices bother to
record, it remains unsound English.
[...]
>You are aware, I take it, that it is prescriptivists who would
>prefer that language did not change, although they will
>grudgingly admit that it does.
Old son, when you go to a flat-out lie instead of mere
character assassination, you sure don't skimp. And tell us,
please, just when are you going to stop beating your wife?
[...]
>It is a matter of cold logic: For any given rule of English,
>if it is identified as a rule by descriptivists, then it is
>describing how the language actually works . . . .
It is a matter of cold logic: if numerous drivers, perhaps a
clear majority, run STOP signs, then the law is that STOP signs
mean "Go right ahead without stopping." QED. And also Pfui.
[...]
>If a prescriptivist identifies the very same rule, he is
>describing how the language actually works: It is still a
>descriptive rule.
Some day, to pass a rainy afternoon, I am going to Google up
all the times the nonsensicality of that canard has been
exposed Right Here in River City. _All_ "prescriptive" rules
are descriptive in origin and nature. The sole difference of
account between "descriptivists" and "prescriptivists" is the
population they observe for their samples. Prescriptive
grammar is derived from the actual uses of those who have, in
various ways, demonstrated a concern for, a knowledge of, and a
skill with the tongue; descriptive grammarians bend the elbow
down at the Dew Drop Inn. It is that simple.
>If a so-called prescriptivist identified as rules of English
>only those which described how the language actually worked,
>it would no longer make any sense to identify him as a
>prescriptivist: He would logically be a descriptivist.
The true source of all this flatus is a confounding of the tool
and the users. An idiot who uses a monkey wrench instead of a
hammer to drive in nails, or a hammer instead of a screwdriver
to pound screws in, has not changed the nature and purpose of
monkey wrenches or hammers (or screwdrivers): he has only
illuminated his idiocy for us. Sound English remains sound
English regardless of the abuses it is hourly exposed to. So
long as a reasonable fraction of the handymen in the world
still know how to use hammers and wrenches and screwdrivers and
all their kin to effectively construct sound, solid things,
those who abuse tools are idiots, and the tools remain what
they are. So with English.
>> > However, I am extremely skeptical of the proposition that
>> > anyone, including prescriptivists themselves, actually
>> > speak the sort of English which they advocate.
[anyone speak? well, you said it so it must be sound, since
we, and the Merriam Gang, now have an instance of it on record]
Your skepticism is your property, and you are welcome to keep
it if it please you. But be aware that it has no more
relevance to the real world than any of the other hash you have
been slinging.
[...]
>That prescriptivists consistently violate their own advice is
>not an original thought of mine. I have many times given the
>titles of works about the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate
>which point it out as a fact, not a mere speculation.
Yes, and . . . ? If I look back on my day and decide that at
one point I was uncharitable to someone, and at another was
unfair, have I then rendered the ideas of charity, fairness,
and of ethics as a whole an obviously untenable and meaningless
affair? Have I justified taking the spectrum of observable
human behavior as the proper basis for an ethical code?
This kind of thing gets tiresome, inasmuch as all this will be
obvious to any reasonably bright 11-year-old, so why we need to
keep repeating it baffles me.
>That does not mean that it is logically impossible that a
>prescriptivist exists who actually speaks as he advocates, nor
>is it impossible that an artificial dialect advocated by such
>a prescriptivist could become a standard dialect, and thus
>could be a true dialect--even if the prescriptivist himself
>could not speak it!
What is a sane person to say about such stuff? The same thing,
I suppose, as Edward R. Murrow so often said: Good night and
good luck.
Robert Lieblich
> rban...@shaw.ca wrote:
[ ... ]
> >Anyone with any feel for the language instinctively recognises that
> >"for/from/to/between you/them and I" is a solecism and worthy of
> >scorn.
>
> That door's going to come off its hinges this week, what with Truly
> sidling back in,[1] Padraig storming out, and now a1a returning with
> relish.
I thought the style looked familiar. The poster appears to be in
Canada. Sure looks like Clarence a1a, in which case I'd say that
battery acid is more likely than relish.
> Good to see you, anyway.
Perhaps surprisingly, I find myself sharing that sentiment. Welcome
back, a1a (if that *is* you).
--
Charlie
Raymond S. Wise
news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:16:22 -0600, Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[...]
> >You are aware, I take it, that it is prescriptivists who would
> >prefer that language did not change, although they will
> >grudgingly admit that it does.
>
> Old son, when you go to a flat-out lie instead of mere
> character assassination, you sure don't skimp. And tell us,
> please, just when are you going to stop beating your wife?
When you make a baseless claim that I am attempting "a flat-out lie" you go
beyond the bounds of what I will accept. *Plonk!*
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Simon R. Hughes
> "Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
> news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net...
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:16:22 -0600, Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>You are aware, I take it, that it is prescriptivists who would
>>>prefer that language did not change, although they will
>>>grudgingly admit that it does.
>>
>> Old son, when you go to a flat-out lie instead of mere
>> character assassination, you sure don't skimp. And tell us,
>> please, just when are you going to stop beating your wife?
>
>
> When you make a baseless claim that I am attempting "a flat-out lie" you go
> beyond the bounds of what I will accept. *Plonk!*
I thought prescriptivists would change language back to an
earlier form (and then they often get the earlire form wrong, but
that's not a requirment). They don't deny the change, they would
simply prefer to reverse it.
So was it "a flat-out lie"? I doubt it; but neither was it the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Raymond S. Wise
news:joj3uozsxi7y.1p...@40tude.net...
Being called wrong is one thing. Being accused of lying something else
entirely.
Opus the Penguin
> Being called wrong is one thing. Being accused of lying something
> else entirely.
You're lying! There's at least some overlap between the two concepts.
Hmmm... that doesn't really work, does it? I'll concede the point.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Eric Walker
>"Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
>news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net...
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:16:22 -0600, Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >You are aware, I take it, that it is prescriptivists who
>> >would prefer that language did not change, although they
>> >will grudgingly admit that it does.
>>
>> Old son, when you go to a flat-out lie instead of mere
>> character assassination, you sure don't skimp. And tell us,
>> please, just when are you going to stop beating your wife?
>
>When you make a baseless claim that I am attempting "a
>flat-out lie" you go beyond the bounds of what I will accept.
>*Plonk!*
Jolly good. It is not a matter of great concern to me, but if
anyone interested in fact instead of artificial dudgeon still
retains some shred of interest, I think this worth noting:
In numerous threads, including this one but running back many a
moon, I have asserted, vigorously, that such allegations about
those who believe in the merits of prescriptive grammar are
purest hogwash. I will stand at the head of the line of those
about to say that "That does not, of itself, prove anything":
indeed, of itself it does not. But it was and is very surely
known to Mr. Wise that such was my frequent assertion.
Had he questioned that assertion, or stated a firm belief to
the contrary, that would be ordinary back-and-forth as we are
all accustomed to. But when he flatly (and not without his
usual tinge of condescension) asserted a contrary position _in
the guise of a clearly known fact_, then, putting it simply and
directly, he called me a liar. That, in my perhaps biased
view, erases any righteousness for his indignation when the
compliment was simply (and openly) returned.
The quite separate question of the truth of the matter at
issue--do prescriptivists prefer that language not change?--is
available to anyone who will open and read a few random pages
of any reputable grammar or usage manual of the sort that Mr.
Wise would doubtless call "prescriptive". Curme's _English
Grammar_, Follett's _Modern American Usage_, Fowler's original
_Modern English Usage_, Bernstein's _The Careful Writer_: find,
if you can, in any of those, an assertion or even an intimation
that English would be best off forever frozen as it is, or that
change of any sort is categorically deprecated. You will
search in vain.
Wilson Follett expressly addressed the divide between
prescriptive and descriptive English at some length and with
much wit in the 28-page "Introductory" to his _Modern American
Usage_, a delightfully sane essay that is perhaps the best
summation of the matter available[1], and which is recommended
to all having any least concern over the matter, and especially
to those who may, from lack of exposure to primary sources,
have been seduced into believing the--yes, Virginia--lies of
those who have constructive or actual knowledge of the falsity
of their claims, but who cannot bring themselves to state the
simple truth for reasons best known to themselves. (Recall: we
are not speaking of the merits or demerits of either position,
but only of definite knowable and known facts, such as what the
partisans of each position regularly state.)
His killfiling me will save me some future time and effort in
pointless responses at no cost whatever in sleep or distress.
[1] Eric Partridge's short and acid essay has not the balance
and richness of Follett's more moderate, though still definite,
exposition.
Eric Walker
>"Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> wrote in
>message news:joj3uozsxi7y.1p...@40tude.net...
>
>> I thought prescriptivists would change language back to an
>> earlier form (and then they often get the earlire form
>> wrong, but that's not a requirment). They don't deny the
>> change, they would simply prefer to reverse it.
I must presume you so believe at least in part owing to reports
of what they believe received from sources such as Mr. Wise. I
much recommend you instead to primary sources (one I cited on a
parallel post is Wilson Follett's "Introductory" to his _Modern
American Usage_).
I would prefer that all get their information from such more
articulate sources than I, but I would say, if pressed to put
it in a sentence or two, that the prescriptivist recognizes
language as a construction of the human mind, and feels that it
is appropriate that the human mind interact with its status and
development--that we encourage and adopt changes that augment
the powers of our tongue, discourage and deprecate changes that
diminish that power, and take some care to discern which is
what. It is a reality that much the greater part of changes
that arise for consideration are likely, when given that
consideration, to be seen to, on balance, diminish the
language, so careful users of our tongue will deprecate more
potential changes than they will encourage; but that is
scarcely a doctrinaire resistance to change simply as change.
>> So was it "a flat-out lie"? I doubt it; but neither was it
>> the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
It was a flat-out lie because Mr. Wise had constructive, and
almost certainly actual, knowledge that the assertion is
factually, demonstrably (read Follett) wrong. If he in fact
lacked actual knowledge, despite the substantial constructive
knowledge--meaning that however often he was told explicitly
that the thing was not so he refused to make any least effort
to turn to primary sources for proof or disproof--then he was
making a highly offensive statement (and do recall that that
statement effectively and not with subtlety called me a liar)
with no grounds whatever. It matters not to me which offense
you find more grievous.
>Being called wrong is one thing. Being accused of lying
>something else entirely.
Indeed. Perhaps you should contemplate that and take it to
heart. Oh, sorry, you don't read my posts anymore.
Raymond S. Wise
news:53e814da.03111...@posting.google.com...
I have a feel for language, as my posts demonstrate. "Between you and I" is
a construction which I once found annoying, but it no longer bothers me. It
is nonstandard, but that does not make it worthy of scorn. For those who
speak it as part of their first dialect, it is not a solecism, but either an
idiom or a grammatical usage (grammatical for those who consistently follow
the rule of "'I' in coordination").
CyberCypher
> <rban...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:53e814da.03111...@posting.google.com...
[...]
>> Anyone with any feel for the language instinctively recognises
>> that "for/from/to/between you/them and I" is a solecism and
>> worthy of scorn.
> I have a feel for language, as my posts demonstrate. "Between you
> and I" is a construction which I once found annoying, but it no
> longer bothers me. It is nonstandard, but that does not make it
> worthy of scorn. For those who speak it as part of their first
> dialect, it is not a solecism, but either an idiom or a
> grammatical usage (grammatical for those who consistently follow
> the rule of "'I' in coordination").
And here, Raymond, you support my previous assertion that there is no
"Standard American English". If the structure is an idiom, then it
ought to be acceptable and standard even if not used by everyone. There
are plenty of standard English idioms that are not in everyone's
dialect. That doesn't make them ungrammatical or unidiomatic in Stadard
American English, though.
If it's grammatical only for those who consistently follow the rule of
"I" instead of "me" in coordinated NP+Pro objects, then it is
grammatical only for a part of the speakers of English and not for
those who find that rule ungrammatical. If that is the case, then what
constitutes "Standard American English"? How can something be both
grammatical and ungrammatical in one given standard? Used and not-used,
in the case of idioms, I can understand and accept, but grammatical and
ungrammatical at the same time I cannot. Nor can I accept that "only"
placed before the predicate can modify only one NP in the predicate; it
must modify either the main verb or the entire predicate or one cannot
call English language in which word order is important. Oh, I know.
this is an argument about about logic and we know that logical
arguments have no force in linguistic debates.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net, "Eric Walker"
<ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
> This insistence that sound English is meaningless unless one
> can find numerous users all following it exactly is a very
> clever, though monstrous, fallacy. Sound English is an ideal,
> a norm, a baseline: even if there is not, and has never been,
> one soul in the whole of history who always and ever spoke and
> wrote exactly that English, the ideal remains: it is what those
> possessed of logic and an interest in language use that is both
> precise and elegant _aim at_.
I think many of us who find fault with your characterizations of sound
English do not do so because we disagree that there should be an ideal to be
aimed at, if not achieved (though we'd call that "standard English", not
"sound English"); it is rather your conceit that this ideal is somehow more
logical, precise and elegant than any dialectical or nonstandard usage, that
causes the trouble. After all how is "between you and I" any less logical,
precise or elegant than "between you and me"? There is no _logical_ reason
why a preposition should be followed by "me" rather than "I"; neither
increases the precision of the phrase; and if any is more "elegant", it is
"I", which saves one space in writing.
> If a target is missed, whether
> by a hair or a mile, it remains the target. That is, it does
> if we advocate prescriptive English; those who advocate
> descriptive English take the bull's eye to be wherever the shot
> did hit, even if a blind cripple fired the gun.
Not at all. You continue to parade this gross mischaracterization of
descriptivism despite being corrected numerous times. It is every bit as
false as those descriptions of prescriptivists to which you so vehemently
object (eg, that they oppose all change).
When a non-native speaker of English says "I am knowing him for many years",
it does not thereby become "English" (not even "nonstandard English")
according to descriptivism. When a half-drunk bud-swilling lout shouts "me
and Jim gonna kick some ass tonight", the descriptivist does not maintain
that such language should therefore be accepted as suitable for use in any
and all social situations.
I believe your consistent mischaracterization of the descriptivist position
stems from your mistaken ideas about how languages actually work. You seem
to believe that languages continue to operate because someone somewhere sits
down and thinks about how the language is being used, and then comes up with
"grammatical rules" which from then on serve to guide future users of the
language, with a more rigorous system. And that, failing this constant
maintenance, a language risks eventual degeneration into meaningless grunts
and bellows. A survey of any number of illiterate languages still extant
around the Earth will quickly disabuse any unbiased observer of such silly
notions. The preservation of mutual communication depends far more on the
maintenance of social contact than on conscious tweaking of the language
used. As long as the members of a society maintain regular contact, the
language they use for communication will remain robust, precise and elegant,
with no need for any conscious intervention or interpretation of the rules
of that language. This is because, unlike driving an automobile, the use of
language comes automatically to humans. If you want to make an analogy
between traffic and language, the better analogy lies in pedestrian traffic
on a crowded sidewalk or through a crowded museum or stadium. We do not
usually provide marked lanes, or signs and lights for pedestrian traffic in
such situations, and if we did, people likely wouldn't pay them any
attention anyway.
Eric Walker
[...]
>I think many of us who find fault with your characterizations
>of sound English do not do so because we disagree that there
>should be an ideal to be aimed at, if not achieved (though
>we'd call that "standard English", not "sound English"); it is
>rather your conceit that this ideal is somehow more logical,
>precise and elegant than any dialectical or nonstandard usage,
>that causes the trouble.
No, it is not, because I do not believe that, and I have
vigorously and plainly said so here many times, and now do
again. Try, for once, paying some attention:
"Standard English" and "Sound English" are not equated by any
legerdemain on my part: their equivalence is tautological.
English that is Standard is Sound _because_ it is Standard.
The point of a standard is not that it is necessarily the best,
or even a superior, form, but that it has--how is immaterial--
become *the standard*. We articulate our thoughts in that
standard language, and deduce the thoughts of others from their
language on the assumption that it is standard, only so that we
may be assured of agreeing on the mechanical forms.
As I have said elsewhere, no one not possessed of a working
time machine can do anything now about which form is the
"standard". We can only look at what we have as a baseline
standard and at proposed changes to that baseline standard, and
judge those possible changes by whether they would augment or
diminish the powers of that baseline standard form to express
our thoughts with precision and elegance.
>After all how is "between you and I" any less logical, precise
>or elegant than "between you and me"? There is no _logical_
>reason why a preposition should be followed by "me" rather
>than "I"; neither increases the precision of the phrase; and
>if any is more "elegant", it is "I", which saves one space in
>writing.
Don't argue it with me: hop into your time machine, go back,
and make the needful changes.
>> If a target is missed, whether by a hair or a mile, it
>> remains the target. That is, it does if we advocate
>> prescriptive English; those who advocate descriptive English
>> take the bull's eye to be wherever the shot did hit, even if
>> a blind cripple fired the gun.
>
>Not at all. You continue to parade this gross
>mischaracterization of descriptivism despite being corrected
>numerous times. It is every bit as false as those
>descriptions of prescriptivists to which you so vehemently
>object (eg, that they oppose all change).
In fact, I am rarely or never corrected. You have not now
"corrected" anything I have said, you have only objected to it.
Why is it a "gross mischaracterization"? Does "imply" means
the same thing as "infer"? That is a Yes or No question. If
you answer "Yes", you demonstrate that adopting common
ignorance as a touchstone diminishes the tongue; if you answer
"No", then you have the task of explaining why descriptivist
dictionaries[1] say that they do.
>When a non-native speaker of English says "I am knowing him
>for many years", it does not thereby become "English" (not
>even "nonstandard English") according to descriptivism.
Which none, and certainly not I, have claimed. For example,
the article Follett cited was carefully entitled "Can *Native*
Speakers of a Language Make Mistakes?" [emphasis added]
>When a half-drunk bud-swilling lout shouts "me and Jim gonna
>kick some ass tonight", the descriptivist does not maintain
>that such language should therefore be accepted as suitable
>for use in any and all social situations.
Ooh, I _love_ your artful dodging: "any and all social
situations". Do I err, then, in inferring that it is
maintained by the descriptivist that it is language suitable
for _some_ "social situations"? Else why the qualification?
In fact, it is suitable for _no_ occasion. "Jim and I're gonna
kick some ass tonight" is unexceptionable for the described
circumstances, and no sane prescriptionist would object to it
in those circumstances.
Please remind me not to walk anywhere around where you and
like-minded souls are walking.
You make a large number of assertions in the long paragraph
above that have no demonstrable basis save your fervent belief
that they are so. It would seem, indeed, that you are arguing
that grammar as a practical field of study is utterly
pointless, an attitude widely enough held to be reflected in
the lack of teaching of such things in our schools today:
doubtless you, and your fellow travellers, think it great
progress that students no longer waste their time on such
nonsense, and can productively investigate, oh, say "cultural
diversity" instead.
But does not sheer logic suggest to you that a lot more poker
will get played when the players are not constantly arguing
about whether deuces are or are not wild, or whether they
should be, or whether one-eyed jacks should be wild instead or
also?
No one claims that without reference to some standard and some
authorities to interpret that standard that "a language risks
eventual degeneration into meaningless grunts and bellows."
But it does risk, severely, degenerating into a collection of
ever many more, and more nearly mutually unintelligible,
dialects, which will often be based on social or economic class
divisions. The risks and outright dangers of that are scarcely
hypothetical: we can see them beginning to come into play even
now, with something approaching (and possibly reaching) half
the citizenry of the United States being "functionally
illiterate", and accordingly unable to earn a decent living or
to understand much of what is going on around them (invariably
to their detriment).
Of course, descriptivists may not agree: they seem to think
that dialects are swell, idiolects even better, and damn the
torpedos however much the ship is listing from their hits.
[1] A descriptivist dictionary is to be sharply differentiated
from a descriptive one. All good dictionaries are descriptive,
the OED being the exemplar: they tell us in some detail who
used and uses what words how and when and where, and let us
draw our own conclusions. Descriptivist dictionaries are
merely prescriptive dictionaries that prescribe bad medicine:
they in effect argue a descriptivist position. The offal
originating at the G. & C. Merriam Co. is the exemplar there.
Raymond S. Wise
I've been puzzling over this for a while, since I couldn't make heads or
tails of it. Finally, I realized that you think that I think that "between
you and I" is a standard usage. On the contrary, I have specified that it is
a nonstandard usage.
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> As I have said elsewhere, no one not possessed of a working
> time machine can do anything now about which form is the
"No one not ..." is Unsound English, Eric. You could have used "No one
unpossessed...", though.
Matti
Robert Lieblich
Or "no one lacking ... " I sometimes think Eric does not edit his
AUE postings as carefully as he does the work for which he is paid.
--
Bob Lieblich
I sure don't
Eric Walker
Hmmm?
Even my desk dictionary has a sense of "possess" that covers
the ground: "to put (someone) in possession of property, facts,
etc.; cause to have something specified (usually with _of_)."
"I am possessed of a time machine" is sound enough English, and
means simply "I own a time machine". The general form "X is
possessed of Y" seems, from my reading experience, not terribly
unusual (it was not marked "rare", "archaic", or "obsolete",
not that those are reliable indicators anyway).
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> >"Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote...
> >
> >> [...]
> >> As I have said elsewhere, no one not possessed of a working
> >> time machine can do anything now about which form is the
> >> "standard". [...]
> >
> >"No one not ..." is Unsound English, Eric. You could have
> >used "No one unpossessed...", though.
>
> Hmmm?
>
> Even my desk dictionary has a sense of "possess" that covers
> the ground: "to put (someone) in possession of property, facts,
> etc.; cause to have something specified (usually with _of_)."
>
> "I am possessed of a time machine" is sound enough English, and
> means simply "I own a time machine". The general form "X is
> possessed of Y" seems, from my reading experience, not terribly
> unusual (it was not marked "rare", "archaic", or "obsolete",
> not that those are reliable indicators anyway).
Some might think you were being deliberately obtuse there, Eric, given
that I permitted the use of "unpossessed" (Robert's "lacking" is
better). It's the combination "no one not" which is Unsound.
Matti
Eric Walker
I think I see what you are saying, but . . . . Let's look at
the possibilities:
1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
[at issue]
2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
[clearly wrong]
3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
[clearly wrong]
4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
[right]
I submit that #1 is simply a correct negation of #4.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Let's look at the possibilities:
>
> 1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> [at issue]
>
> 2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> [clearly wrong]
>
> 3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> [clearly wrong]
>
> 4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> [right]
>
> I submit that #1 is simply a correct negation of #4.
By "wrong", do you intend 'factually incorrect' or 'grammatically
questionable'? Because to me, (3) is certainly factually incorrect, but
certainly not grammatically questionable. On the other hand, (1) is not a
negation of (4) at all, in the way I understand "negation" (i.e.,
'assertion that something is untrue'), but merely a converse. The
negation of (4) is (3).
Eric Walker
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:00:52 -0800 (PST), Eric Walker
<ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's look at the possibilities:
>>
>> 1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
>> [at issue]
>>
>> 2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
>> [clearly wrong]
>>
>> 3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
>> [clearly wrong]
>>
>> 4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
>> [right]
>>
>> I submit that #1 is simply a correct negation of #4.
>
>By "wrong", do you intend 'factually incorrect' or
>'grammatically questionable'?
Factually incorrect. Well, looking again, both.
>Because to me, (3) is certainly factually incorrect, but
>certainly not grammatically questionable.
Hm? I have the key to a functioning TARDIS: I am, therefore,
possessed of a time machine. But #3 says that that puts me
into a class of persons that cannot travel in time. That is
factually incorrect.
>On the other hand, (1) is not a negation of (4) at all, in the
>way I understand "negation" (i.e., 'assertion that something
>is untrue'), but merely a converse.
Right. I meant that it is a _double_ negation, which works out
to a positive. Once again, haste has done its appointed job.
#1 = #4 in meaning.
>The negation of (4) is (3).
Either 3 _or_ 2 would be a form of negation of 4.
Jonathan Jordan
news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net...
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:00:52 -0800 (PST), Eric Walker
> <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Let's look at the possibilities:
> >>
> >> 1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> >> [at issue]
> >>
> >> 2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> >> [clearly wrong]
> >>
> >> 3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> >> [clearly wrong]
> >>
> >> 4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> >> [right]
> >>
> >> I submit that #1 is simply a correct negation of #4.
> >
> >By "wrong", do you intend 'factually incorrect' or
> >'grammatically questionable'?
>
> Factually incorrect. Well, looking again, both.
>
> >Because to me, (3) is certainly factually incorrect, but
> >certainly not grammatically questionable.
>
> Hm? I have the key to a functioning TARDIS: I am, therefore,
> possessed of a time machine. But #3 says that that puts me
> into a class of persons that cannot travel in time. That is
> factually incorrect.
I don't think there's any argument that (3) is factually incorrect
(unless no time machines work). The question is whether it is
grammatically questionable. I think it's OK, though I don't think I'd
say it myself.
> >On the other hand, (1) is not a negation of (4) at all, in the
> >way I understand "negation" (i.e., 'assertion that something
> >is untrue'), but merely a converse.
>
> Right. I meant that it is a _double_ negation, which works out
> to a positive. Once again, haste has done its appointed job.
> #1 = #4 in meaning.
No. (4) says that if you have a time machine, you can time travel.
It says nothing about what you can or can't do if you don't have a
time machine, which is what (1) is about. They mean different things.
Jonathan
Matti Lamprhey
> "Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote...
> > >> [Compressed a bit]
> > >> 1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
>
> It says nothing about what you can or can't do if you don't have a
> time machine, which is what (1) is about. They mean different things.
In a logical context, yes. Otherwise: not really.
Another example is the use of "or"; to a logician this is always
inclusive, whilst in natural conversation it's very often assumed to be
exclusive.
Matti
Jonathan Jordan
news:bq2322$1s1esm$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Jonathan Jordan" <jonatha...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote...
> > "Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote...
> > > >> [Compressed a bit]
> > > >> 1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> > > >> 2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> > > >> 3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> > > >> 4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> >
> > [...] (4) says that if you have a time machine, you can time
travel.
> > It says nothing about what you can or can't do if you don't have a
> > time machine, which is what (1) is about. They mean different
things.
>
> In a logical context, yes. Otherwise: not really.
My instinct is that they mean different things. Is yours different,
and if so how?
> Another example is the use of "or"; to a logician this is always
> inclusive, whilst in natural conversation it's very often assumed to
be
> exclusive.
Agreed - the logical operator "or" behaves differently from the
English word "or".
Jonathan
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> > "Jonathan Jordan" <jonatha...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote...
> > > "Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote...
> > > > >> [Compressed a bit]
> > > > >> 1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> > > > >> 2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> > > > >> 3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> > > > >> 4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> > >
> > > [...] (4) says that if you have a time machine, you can time
> > > travel. It says nothing about what you can or can't do if you
> > > don't have a time machine, which is what (1) is about.
> > > They mean different things.
> >
> > In a logical context, yes. Otherwise: not really.
>
> My instinct is that they mean different things. Is yours different,
> and if so how?
The natural inference of 4. is that time travel is conditional on the
possession of a time machine, and therefore that those who lack one
can't manage it. For a logician, no such inference may be drawn. Thus
the statements mean different things (i.e. they have different
implications) for a logician only.
Matti
Jonathan Jordan
I still don't agree with you - to me that isn't the "natural
inference" at all. If I change the sentences to:
1a. no one not possessed of a car can travel to Scotland
4a. one possessed of a car can travel to Scotland
do you still think the "natural inference" is that they mean the same
thing? If not, what's changed?
Jonathan
Opus the Penguin
Hmmm. I guess my own inference from 4 would be unnatural by that
definition. I don't take 4 as in any way closing off other prospects. I
agree with ... hang on, let me count the little > signs ... Jonathan
that only the first example closes off the possibility of other methods
of time travel.
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> > > Matti wrote...
> > > > Jonathan wrote...
I've been careful to avoid saying in terms that these examples "mean the
same thing".
To be more precise, I'm saying that, to non-logicians, "If A then B"
(strongly) implies "If not-A then not-B". It's a reasonable natural,
but not a valid logical, inference.
Matti
Jonathan Jordan
You said that they meant different things "to a logician only",
though.
> To be more precise, I'm saying that, to non-logicians, "If A then B"
> (strongly) implies "If not-A then not-B".
OK, it's a common mistake, at least in some contexts.
> It's a reasonable natural,
> but not a valid logical, inference.
Sorry, are you saying that (1a) above is a "reasonable natural
inference" from (4a)?
I don't think we're going to agree on this.
Jonathan
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti wrote:
> >
> > To be more precise, I'm saying that, to non-logicians, "If A then B"
> > (strongly) implies "If not-A then not-B".
>
> OK, it's a common mistake, at least in some contexts.
No, it's not a mistake. We need a formula, using natural language, to
express that whether B happens is heavily dependent *both ways* upon
whether A happens. That formula is "If A then B"; the stronger version
"If and only if A then B" is implicit.
Logicians have adopted this formula to indicate a dependency in only one
direction; that is, there is no link between that and "If not-A then
not-B". This is not how non-logicians interpret the formula.
For example, I might say to you "If it doesn't rain tomorrow I will go
out." If it rains tomorrow, a logician will claim to have been given
absolutely no clue about the likelihood of my going out or stopping in.
Non-logicians, on the other hand, will be surprised to see me going out.
Do you think that they are mistaken?
Matti
Opus the Penguin
> For example, I might say to you "If it doesn't rain tomorrow I
> will go out." If it rains tomorrow, a logician will claim to have
> been given absolutely no clue about the likelihood of my going out
> or stopping in. Non-logicians, on the other hand, will be
> surprised to see me going out. Do you think that they are
> mistaken?
If they're very surprised, yes. If they're mildly surprised, no.
In your example, you are implying that rain will spoil your reason for
going out tomorrow. Thus, if it rains tomorrow, you'll have to make
other plans to replace the ones that were spoiled. We don't know
whether those plans will involve going out for a different reason. All
we know is that the reason you *did* have for going out has been
shelved because of the rain. Since you did not mention having a non-
sunshine-dependent reason for going out, we suspect you'll stay in.
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>
> > For example, I might say to you "If it doesn't rain tomorrow I
> > will go out." If it rains tomorrow, a logician will claim to have
> > been given absolutely no clue about the likelihood of my going out
> > or stopping in. Non-logicians, on the other hand, will be
> > surprised to see me going out. Do you think that they are
> > mistaken?
>
> If they're very surprised, yes. If they're mildly surprised, no.
I'm not going to argue with that.
>
> In your example, you are implying that rain will spoil your reason for
> going out tomorrow.
Yes.
> Thus, if it rains tomorrow, you'll have to make
> other plans to replace the ones that were spoiled. We don't know
> whether those plans will involve going out for a different reason. All
> we know is that the reason you *did* have for going out has been
> shelved because of the rain. Since you did not mention having a non-
> sunshine-dependent reason for going out, we suspect you'll stay in.
It'll be interesting to see if Jonathan admits a similar suspicion,
though.
Matti
Eric Walker
The levels of quotation are getting cumbersome. Here is, I
think, the basics. I set forth (as later compressed by Another
Hand):
1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
Then, much farther on:
>If I change the sentences to:
>1a. no one not possessed of a car can travel to Scotland
>4a. one possessed of a car can travel to Scotland
>do you still think the "natural inference" is that they mean
>the same thing? If not, what's changed?
The question is a fair one, but in fact something _has_
changed. In the revised sentences, there is nothing to say or
suggest that a car is the _only_ means by which one could
travel to Scotland; in the original, it is implicit that a
"time machine" _is_ the only means by which one could travel in
time, for the implicit definition of "time machine" is "the
means necessary to travel through time". It is as if "a car"
were changed to "a means to move through space".
Recasting the originals, we could say, as to time machines and
travelling through time, "If you have one, you can; if you
don't, you can't", which is in essence #4 combined with #1.
That is a fair proposition if a time machine is, as stated, the
sole means of accomplishing the feat.
Jonathan Jordan
> "Jonathan Jordan" <jonatha...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote...
> > Matti wrote:
> > >
> > > To be more precise, I'm saying that, to non-logicians, "If A
then B"
> > > (strongly) implies "If not-A then not-B".
> >
> > OK, it's a common mistake, at least in some contexts.
>
> No, it's not a mistake. We need a formula, using natural language,
to
> express that whether B happens is heavily dependent *both ways* upon
> whether A happens. That formula is "If A then B"; the stronger
version
> "If and only if A then B" is implicit.
I could easily come up with a sentence where I don't think it is
implicit. How about "If you read the Daily Mail you are exposed to a
lot of right-wing propaganda"? Do you think "If you are exposed to a
lot of right-wing propaganda then you read the Daily Mail" is
implicit?
> Logicians have adopted this formula to indicate a dependency in only
one
> direction; that is, there is no link between that and "If not-A
then
> not-B". This is not how non-logicians interpret the formula.
>
> For example, I might say to you "If it doesn't rain tomorrow I will
go
> out." If it rains tomorrow, a logician will claim to have been
given
> absolutely no clue about the likelihood of my going out or stopping
in.
> Non-logicians, on the other hand, will be surprised to see me going
out.
> Do you think that they are mistaken?
Could you define your meaning of "logician"?
To answer your question, I think I've probably said something similar
and then gone out in the rain. To me, that someone says something
like that suggests that rain is _one of the factors_ that decides
whether they will go out tomorrow. It doesn't imply that it's the
only one. So I would accept what Opus the Penguin says - mildly
surprised OK, very surprised mistaken.
Now, will you answer my question, which didn't actually involve the
word "if"?
Jonathan
Jonathan Jordan
news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net...
>
> The levels of quotation are getting cumbersome. Here is, I
> think, the basics. I set forth (as later compressed by Another
> Hand):
>
> 1. no one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> 2. one not possessed of a time machine can time travel
> 3. no one possessed of a time machine can time travel
> 4. one possessed of a time machine can time travel
>
> Then, much farther on:
>
> >If I change the sentences to:
> >1a. no one not possessed of a car can travel to Scotland
> >4a. one possessed of a car can travel to Scotland
> >do you still think the "natural inference" is that they mean
> >the same thing? If not, what's changed?
>
> The question is a fair one, but in fact something _has_
> changed. In the revised sentences, there is nothing to say or
> suggest that a car is the _only_ means by which one could
> travel to Scotland; in the original, it is implicit that a
> "time machine" _is_ the only means by which one could travel in
> time, for the implicit definition of "time machine" is "the
> means necessary to travel through time". It is as if "a car"
> were changed to "a means to move through space".
I changed the sentences because I suspected that that was the cause of
the confusion.
> Recasting the originals, we could say, as to time machines and
> travelling through time, "If you have one, you can; if you
> don't, you can't", which is in essence #4 combined with #1.
> That is a fair proposition if a time machine is, as stated, the
> sole means of accomplishing the feat.
OK.
Jonathan
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> > Jonathan wrote...
> > > Matti wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To be more precise, I'm saying that, to non-logicians, "If A
> > > > then B" (strongly) implies "If not-A then not-B".
> > >
> > > OK, it's a common mistake, at least in some contexts.
> >
> > No, it's not a mistake. We need a formula, using natural language,
> > to express that whether B happens is heavily dependent *both ways*
> > upon whether A happens. That formula is "If A then B"; the
> > stronger version "If and only if A then B" is implicit.
>
> I could easily come up with a sentence where I don't think it is
> implicit. How about "If you read the Daily Mail you are exposed to a
> lot of right-wing propaganda"? Do you think "If you are exposed to a
> lot of right-wing propaganda then you read the Daily Mail" is
> implicit?
No, but then I think it more likely that the original thought would be
expressed as "Reading the Daily Mail exposes you to a lot of right-wing
propaganda", because this form lacks that reverse implication.
> > Logicians have adopted this formula to indicate a dependency in only
> > one direction; that is, there is no link between that and "If not-A
> > then not-B". This is not how non-logicians interpret the formula.
> >
> > For example, I might say to you "If it doesn't rain tomorrow I will
> > go out." If it rains tomorrow, a logician will claim to have been
> > given absolutely no clue about the likelihood of my going out or
> > stopping in. Non-logicians, on the other hand, will be surprised to
> > see me going out. Do you think that they are mistaken?
>
> Could you define your meaning of "logician"?
I'm using the term loosely, meaning someone who is applying Logic's
stricter interpretation of elements like "if", "then", "and" & "or".
> To answer your question, I think I've probably said something similar
> and then gone out in the rain. To me, that someone says something
> like that suggests that rain is _one of the factors_ that decides
> whether they will go out tomorrow. It doesn't imply that it's the
> only one. So I would accept what Opus the Penguin says - mildly
> surprised OK, very surprised mistaken.
>
> Now, will you answer my question, which didn't actually involve the
> word "if"?
I've ignored one or two of your previous questions because I think
they've concentrated on side-issues within the specific examples at the
time, and at the same time I've tried to restate the issue in general
terms instead. Perhaps you could repeat the question you refer to.
Matti
Jonathan Jordan
I think someone who infers the reverse implication from Eric Walker's
"one possessed of a time machine can time travel" might also infer the
reverse implication from that, except that in Eric Walker's sentence
you feel the reverse implication to be true and in those sentences you
don't.
> > > Logicians have adopted this formula to indicate a dependency in
only
> > > one direction; that is, there is no link between that and "If
not-A
> > > then not-B". This is not how non-logicians interpret the
formula.
I think it depends on whether they expect the reverse implication to
be true. If they're not inclined to think it true, I don't think
they're likely to infer it.
I accept that if they are inclined to think it true, then they often
do infer it. But I think this is a common cause of misunderstanding,
particularly on scientific topics. (And I mean science in general,
not just mathematics, and certainly not just logic.)
> > Now, will you answer my question, which didn't actually involve
the
> > word "if"?
>
> I've ignored one or two of your previous questions because I think
> they've concentrated on side-issues within the specific examples at
the
> time, and at the same time I've tried to restate the issue in
general
> terms instead. Perhaps you could repeat the question you refer to.
The one about my sentence (4a), which was a slight alteration of Eric
Walker's sentence (4):
4a. one possessed of a car can travel to Scotland
Do you think the reverse implication is a "reasonable natural
inference"?
I think your answer to my "Daily Mail" question (which involved
something that I think is a more natural sentence) is enough, though.
Jonathan