- Добро пожаловать на Лингвофорум.
Автор sknente
- декабря 3, 2008, 23:50Цитата: djwebb1969 от октября 29, 2008, 16:52djwebb1969 was holding a cup of tea in his hand as he was writing this post, personally brewed by his family butler from carefully dried tealeaves handpicked by small brown children.
You are right to say "if I were you". You would be a pleb if you said "if I was you". The difference between much and many? Well if you said "many bread" or "much people", you would indeed be speaking basilectal English. Just look at Ebonics (US black English) and you can see the value of adhering to the classical standard. Standards are not arbitrary; they reflect cultural heritage. If I were to say that the plural of "child" should be "chilldies", that would be arbitrary, as it would be made up and snatched from the air, as it were. The plural is "children", and the reason why involves tracing the history from Anglo-Saxon. If US "native speakers" started to say "childs", that would be wrong - as it would show unfamiliarity with the classical standard. it is a cultural issue. At each point in history, a standard emerges, and eventually breaks down, but what the standard is at each point is determined, not by an arithmetical average of what native speakers say, including people who watch the Simpsons. It is determined by the educated elite. As educated people still see a distinction to be made in "if I were", that is the standard, whatever the great unwashed say.
Автор Grinder
- декабря 3, 2008, 22:18lol... guys u were made the same mistake (I were) I am right? r`nt I?....xD
Автор iopq
- октября 29, 2008, 21:29Actually I'd probably say "a lot of bread" and "a lot of people."
Автор djwebb1969
- октября 29, 2008, 16:52You are right to say "if I were you". You would be a pleb if you said "if I was you". The difference between much and many? Well if you said "many bread" or "much people", you would indeed be speaking basilectal English. Just look at Ebonics (US black English) and you can see the value of adhering to the classical standard. Standards are not arbitrary; they reflect cultural heritage. If I were to say that the plural of "child" should be "chilldies", that would be arbitrary, as it would be made up and snatched from the air, as it were. The plural is "children", and the reason why involves tracing the history from Anglo-Saxon. If US "native speakers" started to say "childs", that would be wrong - as it would show unfamiliarity with the classical standard. it is a cultural issue. At each point in history, a standard emerges, and eventually breaks down, but what the standard is at each point is determined, not by an arithmetical average of what native speakers say, including people who watch the Simpsons. It is determined by the educated elite. As educated people still see a distinction to be made in "if I were", that is the standard, whatever the great unwashed say.
Автор iopq
- октября 29, 2008, 16:25Yes, but if my native dialect doesn't know the difference between "much" and "many" does that mean that my writing is less beautiful? Isn't that a bit arbitrary? I'd much rather read an interesting book written in colloquial English, than a boring one written in standard English. What does standard English give us? What are the benefits of using standard English? I write in a high style in my own dialect. Some people say "If I was you..." I insist on using the subjunctive in saying "If I were you..."
Just because I am apt to write "support of" instead of "support for" doesn't make my writing worse.
Just because I am apt to write "support of" instead of "support for" doesn't make my writing worse.
Автор djwebb1969
- октября 29, 2008, 15:08I think if you read things like Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, you can see that some Americans have sought to uphold standards and have written beautiful English! But the idea that language is just for communication, and standards are a nonsense, is part of the anti-culture, often promoted I believe by the same professors in US universities who are busy promoting multi-culturalism and multi-racialism and opposing "great books". In the UK, these people introduced an English Literature university course that focused on the study of the language of bus tickets, rather than Shakespeare - it sounds like a joke, but it was in the newspapers. This was to make language "accessible". But "accessible" means "easily comprehensible to the uneducated". So if your education consists of reading accessible texts, then you haven't had an education at all! Throw away the Maya Angelou rubbish about slavery and start reading Charles Dickens!
Автор iopq
- октября 29, 2008, 14:08Yes, but what you're saying is that you use the English language well, but I don't because I follow different standards. So you're better than me because you use correct English, but I am uneducated because I use the inferior English dialect.
Автор djwebb1969
- октября 29, 2008, 10:01In support: this is always followed by of.
Support as a noun is always followed by for (except in "in support for").
Support as a verb doesn't take a preposition.
Iopq, we shouldn't just aim to convey meaning. We should aim to use our language well. In general, culture shouldn't be simply utilitarian. We have a great heritage and should keep it up.
Support as a noun is always followed by for (except in "in support for").
Support as a verb doesn't take a preposition.
Iopq, we shouldn't just aim to convey meaning. We should aim to use our language well. In general, culture shouldn't be simply utilitarian. We have a great heritage and should keep it up.
Автор Akulina
- октября 29, 2008, 07:07iopq
I agree with you to some extent, but isn't saying that "the entire world takes their culture from Hollywood" taking it a bit too far? It would be one sad world, that
I agree with you to some extent, but isn't saying that "the entire world takes their culture from Hollywood" taking it a bit too far? It would be one sad world, that
Автор Akulina
- октября 29, 2008, 07:02I could start talking about dialects right now, but I believe it's against the rules here, so I'll try not to 
Ultimately, it is a matter of perspective. Canadians appear to think that American English, Canadian English, and British English are three diffirent languages and it is therefore only natural for them to have different standards. I'm not sure I agree with that point of view, but I don't think there's any sense in imposing British (or Queen's) standards upon North America, either.
I understand that British culture is more... prominent, shall we say. Frankly, when I first moved here, I was also of the opinion that Europe is "where the culture is". I still prefer European cultures to the North American one. However, it does not mean that there is no distinct culture here; more, even Canada and the US are vastly different from each other. I do not know what you mean when you talk of "English language, full stop". It's almost like talking of "European culture, full stop". Sure, there is one, but there are subdivisions.
Personally, I find simplification of languages disturbing. After all, language affects our thinking, so what does its simplification say about the state of our minds? It would have been wonderful if we could preserve all the finer points. Yet it just never seems to work, does it? Languages just keep changing. You consider the 19th century English to be a good standard (am I right?), but, in a century or two, the modern, debased, version might appear quite satisfactory. For God's sake, Cardinal Richelieu founded the Academy to preserve the purity of French language - did it prevent it from evolving? And which version are we supposed to consider good French now - the one in France which changed a lot but is in Europe "where culture is", or the one in Quebec which is in North America but closer to the original standard?
Anyway, I hope I didn't stray too far off topic. Back to the idiom. Just to make sure, are you saing that "in support" is always "of", and plain "support" is always "for"? I'd like to use the correct British version in future
Ultimately, it is a matter of perspective. Canadians appear to think that American English, Canadian English, and British English are three diffirent languages and it is therefore only natural for them to have different standards. I'm not sure I agree with that point of view, but I don't think there's any sense in imposing British (or Queen's) standards upon North America, either.
I understand that British culture is more... prominent, shall we say. Frankly, when I first moved here, I was also of the opinion that Europe is "where the culture is". I still prefer European cultures to the North American one. However, it does not mean that there is no distinct culture here; more, even Canada and the US are vastly different from each other. I do not know what you mean when you talk of "English language, full stop". It's almost like talking of "European culture, full stop". Sure, there is one, but there are subdivisions.
Personally, I find simplification of languages disturbing. After all, language affects our thinking, so what does its simplification say about the state of our minds? It would have been wonderful if we could preserve all the finer points. Yet it just never seems to work, does it? Languages just keep changing. You consider the 19th century English to be a good standard (am I right?), but, in a century or two, the modern, debased, version might appear quite satisfactory. For God's sake, Cardinal Richelieu founded the Academy to preserve the purity of French language - did it prevent it from evolving? And which version are we supposed to consider good French now - the one in France which changed a lot but is in Europe "where culture is", or the one in Quebec which is in North America but closer to the original standard?
Anyway, I hope I didn't stray too far off topic. Back to the idiom. Just to make sure, are you saing that "in support" is always "of", and plain "support" is always "for"? I'd like to use the correct British version in future