I referred to the outwith (and the without) before I moved up here, but then I went through a phase of deliberately using conjunctions like herewith, hereunder, hereout, heretofore, therebeneath, thereinafter and suchlike. Later on (after moving up here) this developed into the development of stupid things like "foreweekmorrow" and "foreyestermorrownoon".
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Grammatical errors that great
(74 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"If all the native speakers say it one way and the foreign speaker says it a different way it cannot be argued that the natives are wrong"
Sort of. But if the native speakers are all using grammatically incorrect phrases against the 'rules' then is it not the case that those native speakers 'are' incorrect?
As an example above and those in Aberdeen saying 'how' instead of 'why'. The word, as per its definition, is being used completely and utterly incorrectly. However, it is being used that way by x000s of people, so does that legitimise its use into being 'correct'?
"doing international law, you draw your own conclusions"
Only knew of 3 of us from the UK doing that, and the Finnish guy I chatted to once at the uni residence, don't think he even went to the same uni.
"Any ability exhibited by foreign language speakers can only model itself on what the native language speakers do"
I'd disagree... It can model itself on books and classes which, by their nature, tend to be more 'controlled', leading to 'correct' use. Obviously once you've been surrounded by native speakers for some time you will pick up colloquialisms as well, but in terms of sticking to the rules of grammar I would suspect a foreign person educated to a high level in a certain language will likely have a better grasp of grammar in that language than the average native speaker.
I am, of course, now regretting the turn of phrase I used. :P
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think that finding out that the English don't use/understand 'outwith' was as surprising as finding out that Americans don't use/understand 'fortnight'.
Posted 9 years ago # -
'Outwith' has existed throughout the whole Middle English period (earliest citation from 1230!).
And there's a (sadly forgotten?) 'inwith' also attested.
Posted 9 years ago # -
There were very few instances of English teachers doing more than scratching the surface of the depths of the language at my school - whilst some of us were capable of correctly applying "him" and a few to who "whom" came naturally it was our French and German teachers who taught us the distinctions between (and the names of) Dative and Accusative - we had picked up the habit through use of English, but hadn't been taught why.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Obviously at this point somebody has to suggest that usage is the final arbiter. At least as far as English is concerned.
We're not in France, after all.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Also, '-ize'. Not an Americanization.
Nor is soccer.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@The Boy
I've been trying but people seem wedded to the idea that there's a "correct" language. There is no natural language which is defined by a body other than its speakers. I include the French in this: l'Academie Francaise is no more a deciding factor in whether a word is used by the speakers of France than the Daily Mail is a factor in whether people go out on a Friday night, get drunk/high, have fights and engage in premarital sex.
Posted 9 years ago # -
WC: it's also not correct to apply standardised ruling class English grammar rules to Scots language then declare non-conforming Scots usage wrong. Judged as standard English it may well be wrong. Judged as Scots it may be perfectly correct. Scots has its own grammatical rules. It doesn't matter that they're not taught in schools or carved on tablets of stone.
Of course when someone's speaking a comfortable hybrid Scots English then it's all up for debate...Posted 9 years ago # -
@dougal
Agree with all of that. I only mention the French as I find it a convincing argument against the sorts of people you often find arguing in favour of 'correct' use language.
And as a French passport holder I'm allowed to perpetuate negative attitudes towards my fellow countryfolk as long as it might help me in an argument.
Posted 9 years ago # -
In which case language is an entirely fluid notion (certainly seems the case) and grammar and spelling 'rules' are merely constructs that can be ignored or disapplied. Which seems fair enough if the meaning is obvious.
New question for debate:
Should grammar therefore not be taught in schools as in the end it is meaningless when native speaker usage will determine how the language is formed?Posted 9 years ago # -
"it's also not correct to apply standardised ruling class English grammar rules to Scots language then declare non-conforming Scots usage wrong. Judged as standard English it may well be wrong. Judged as Scots it may be perfectly correct. Scots has its own grammatical rules"
Fair point, so now I need to know if 'how' instead of 'why' is a Scots norm, or more localised / localized. And if it's the latter do local variations also count as 'correct' and therefore we go deeper, so there isn't Scots English, but rather Aberdonian English, and Glaswegian English, and Geordie English, and Scouse English. Which then ties in with my query about teaching grammar and how pointless that may actually be.
Fascinating subject, never thought the thread would meander this way!
Posted 9 years ago # -
p.s. mean that genuinely by the way, not sarcasm. Always like learning on a subject from people who clearly know more than I do, and any questions are not 'challenges' as such, just me trying to get straight in my own head what I think/thought and what may actually be the case!
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I'm going into town."
"How?"
"To get the messages."
I think the "How?" is short for "How come?" or "How did you come to decide to do that?"
Posted 9 years ago # -
I used to use "how?" in that context as a youngling and I'm born and bread Edinburger.
I think it was beat out of me (figuratively) by my dad who gets unduly annoyed at speak of that ilk. Though swears like a (para) trooper when it suits him.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think the "How?" is short for "How come?
It doesn't help though.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I believe that there is no 'right or wrong', and it's the transmission of information that matters. What helps immeasurably though is learning when to use language in a particular way - the context or register. That's the tricky bit.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I'm going into town."
"How?"
"By bicycle."
Posted 9 years ago # -
Linguistics is a really complex and fascinating science. I encourage any interested layman to read Language Log, a group blog written by linguists from various fields and the world over (including an Edinburgh Uni grammar guy, Geoff Pullum) which always throws up something interesting.
I grew up in East Lothian and 'how?' for Standard English 'why?' was in the local dialect. So, just east coast (from Aberdeen to Dunbar) or all over Scotland? Not sure but I bet someone's researched it.
As for teaching grammar - well, we all reach school being able to speak already. By the time you sit down to "learn English" you're a fluent and competent speaker (albeit with a small vocabulary). The question is how much do we need to know to have an introspective knowledge of our language? The difference between a noun/verb/adjective is basic and the kind of thing that is fundamental to using a dictionary. Which is good for essay reading and writing, then later on for learning foreign languages. I haven't much of a clue what a dative or an accusative is nor what a copula is. Do I need this information? It's a bit specialised and too obscure for most people to value.
Instead I think emphasis should be made (and there's good work being done on this) that "home tongues" are not wrong and that what you learn in school is just a lingua franca.
Kidspoem/Bairnsangs (Liz Lochhead)
it wis January
and a gey dreich day
the first day Ah went to the school
so my Mum happed me up in ma
good navy-blue napp coat wi the rid tartan hood
birled a scarf aroon ma neck
pu'ed oan ma pixie an' my pawkies
it wis that bitter
said noo ye'll no starve
gie'd me a wee kiss and a kid-oan skelp oan the bum
and sent me aff across the playground
tae the place Ah'd learn to say
it was January
and a really dismal day
the first day I went to school
so my mother wrapped me up in my
best navy-blue top coat with the red tartan hood,
twirled a scarf around my neck,
pulled on my bobble-hat and mittens
it was so bitterly cold
said now you won't freeze to death
gave me a little kiss and a pretend slap on the bottom
to the place I'd learn to forget to say
it wis January
and a gey dreich day
the first day Ah went to the school
so my Mum happed me up in ma
good navy-blue napp coat wi the rid tartan hood,
birled a scarf aroon ma neck,
pu'ed oan ma pixie an' ma pawkies
it wis that bitter.
Oh saying it was one thing
but when it came to writing it
in black and white
the way it had to be said
was as if you were posh, grown-up, male, English and dead.Posted 9 years ago # -
Scottish bank customer: Can I withdraw 500 pounds please?
Bank Clerk: How do you want it?
Scottish bank customer: Because I'm going on holiday.Posted 9 years ago # -
@WC re earlier question on Unspeak. It has a decent chunk on business jargon, but it also includes things like ethnic cleansing not being a synonym for genocide.
(The use of cleanse as a verb of cleaning has implications of improvement, religion and purity. In describing acts of genocide with such language, we imply that the actions are justifiable.)
The best sentence I read yesterday was a (justified) complaint that a report was overly complex. The sentence read (without irony) "could you verbalise the answer in plain English?"
Posted 9 years ago # -
Poor spoken english doesnt really bother me too much, for many pretty clever people its all down to regional variation.
However, what really grinds my gears is some of the truly appalling english and grammar following (one presumes) editing and proof reading in magazine adverts - Your/You’re, There/Their/They’re, It’s/Its are some of the usual suspects.
Might seem petty, but I have a self imposed a ban on purchasing any product where the advert appears to be written by a two year old.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I remember much anger when the representative from the SQA, talking about the new Curriculum for Excellence to parents at James Gillespie's, used the phrase "Exemplification will be provided by the practitioner".
When asked to say it again, but in plain English, he simply repeated the phrase to much derision from the audience.
I believe he meant to say "Teachers will give examples"....
Posted 9 years ago # -
But back on topic - my teeth are set on edge at work by things like:
"aswel" for 'as well'
"Myself" for 'me' - eg "Please speak to myself".
"use" for "you" (plural)- "Use need to resolve this issue"
Misuse of "did" and "done" - "Use done a good job" / "I've did a good job".Then there's the random use of apostrophes in lists of plurals:
"Apples, orange's, grape's and limes"
Arrgghhhhhhh!
*and breathe* :-)
Posted 9 years ago # -
"How?"
Also, "How no?" instead of "Why not?"
Posted 9 years ago # -
'yous', not 'use'.
Fine, imo. Though depending on the company.
See also: 'yince' instead of 'once'.
Posted 9 years ago # -
My great aunt spoke a fairly-close-to-Scots sort of a dialect of English and would use "yin" and "yince". She was of rural Midlothian and the West Coast incomers on my Gran's side would use "wan" and "wance".
"Youse" as a plural of you seems fairly endemic inwith central belters. A colleague from Norniron also used to use youse.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@The Boy - no problem with people saying "Yous" or "Youse", but I was referring to it being used in formal business writing at work (where it's written as 'use')!
Posted 9 years ago # -
I love this forum.
Or indeed, I love youse guys.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm told -
'Youse is more accepted in Irish English than Scottish English'
Can be a useful plural.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
