Has anyone ever heard brung being used instead of brought?
Here it is: Tine Tint/Tined Tint/Tined To shut
Has anyone ever heard brung being used instead of brought?
I see you speak Polish. It reminds of a number of Polish colleagues I had in Glasgow. Those poor people were being taught real English in their classes. But the stuff most people speak for real is a whole other story. They really had a hard time of it in the beginning.
If what is spoken for real by most people is different from what is being taught in the classroom, then it seems to me that theere is something wrong in the classroom.I see you speak Polish. It reminds of a number of Polish colleagues I had in Glasgow. Those poor people were being taught real English in their classes. But the stuff most people speak for real is a whole other story. They really had a hard time of it in the beginning.
Sorry, but considering what I'm referring to you're mistaken. I'm well aware of some regional or humorous examples. But in Glasgow (there'll be other examples of such an attitude) there are lots of people who take pride in being illiterate. So "careless" is putting it nicely.
I couldn't agree with you more when you say that conventional classes are often inadequate. But I'm referring specifically to pronunciation. The Polish people certainly had a good understanding of English, that was clear from the way they spoke it. But they couldn't make out what the locals were saying. That being the case because many locals wouldn't even try to speak clearly. They would shout louder and louder but not even attempt to pronounce things correctly.
Are there really lots of people in Glasgow who take pride in being unable to read and write? Do you know what the literacy figures for Glasgow are? Have you any evidence to support your claim that Glaswegians take pride in being illiterate?I'm well aware of some regional or humorous examples. But in Glasgow (there'll be other examples of such an attitude) there are lots of people who take pride in being illiterate.
Do you mean that the locals would insist on speaking their own Scottish dialect, rather than adopting a southern English one? I don't really think that is unreasonable. Most of us speak with our own accent/dialect.....But they couldn't make out what the locals were saying. That being the case because many locals wouldn't even try to speak clearly. They would shout louder and louder but not even attempt to pronounce things correctly.
Lighten up, for goodness sake! That word was just an example. And I'm not talking about e.g. older people from a remote area but younger city folks who have access to education.
Yes, there are plenty who brag about being uneducated and never touching books. No, I don't have the contact details for anyone with that attitude, nor did I record any stuch statement. But you hear it said often enough, and it's easy to deduce from other things.
I'm not sure how many are fully illiterate. But you could always look up relevant statistics if it matters to you. It's an officially recognized problem.
As a resident of Glasgow I'm well familiar with the various speech patterns and attitudes. There's nothing wrong with noticeable regional accent. There are enough people with such accents working even as TV presenters. Which means the accent doesn't stop them from being intelligible.
Not to mention, when you realize someone is struggling to understand you, common decency would make you act in a considerate way rather than shout at the person.
Plus, I did say there must be enough other examples. Don't bother claiming I'm picking on anyone. I actually started a thread here asking for tips on getting rid of my own accent.
It was just an easy, ready real-life example, nothing exclusive.
Last edited by GreyMan; 13-Sep-2011 at 21:44.
It is certainly true that Poles and other non-native speakers may have a lot of trouble confronting the English language with its different accents and dialects after listening to trained actors from tapes or CDs at school. But that is nobody's fault. Not the natives' and not the non-natives'. This is just how things are. English has extremely many varieties which differ in pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, phraseology and what have you. The speakers of those varieties grow up learning English from their parents who learned it from theirs and so on, all of them being also subject to different and ever-changing influences from all over the English speaking world. Southern English speakers happen to use the form "brung" sometimes. I do not know the historical reasons for that and perhpas nobody knows for sure. John Algeo writes in The Cambridge History of the English Language: English in North America:
According to Jerzy Wełna's [i]Weak-to-strong: A shift in English verbs?[\i]In Modern English, the standard past tense and past participle have always been brought. One can, however, find ample attestations on both sides of the Atlantic of the forms brang and brung. Certainly there must have been settlers throughout the Colonial period who said brang or brung instead of brought. These speakers doubtless influenced the younger people with whom they came into contact, thus promoting brang and brung at the expense of brought. However, there are strong indepentent linguistic reasons why brang and brung would have arisen even if all of the original settlers said only brought. Brought is a highly irregular form -- almost no verbs in English change so drastically between the present-tense form and the past and past participle. Furthermore, there are other, phonologically very similar verbs which pattern in almost exactly the way that bring/brang/brung do: ring/rang/rang, sing/sang/sung, swim/swam/swum, and drink/drank/drunk. Analogy is a powerful force for linguistic change, and highly irregular forms are likely to change, often as the result of child-language-acquisition having nothing at all to do with dialect borrowing. In the end, one must say that the original dialect forms brang and brung persisted in the New World but that both the original forms and the normal processes of linguistic change must have contributed to this persistence.
I'm not really sure what he means by that. He writes earlier onThe Old English PT/PP of the strong verb bringan are unrecorded.
Anyway, Bosworth-Toller Dictionary gives use the following sentence:bring (OE bringan): PT brang (Old English; formed to match the present tense on the analogy of SV3): PP brungen (Old English; rare; later, together with brung confined to dialects).
He ða býsene from Gode brungen hæfde. (He had brought the mandates from God.)
So it looks like it has actually been recorded.
Etymological musings aside, people speak the way they speak. I'm too old to learn Chinese so I don't like the idea of being ridiculed for not speaking like most people.
birdeen's call: That's very informative. I would never ridicule regional quirks or people who had no access to education.
For example, in some parts people say "I'm very busy like." Technically the word "like" is wrong there, but it's just part of the tradition in a way.
But in recent years you have younger people in most English speaking countries saying e.g. "I'm like late." There's no excuse for that. It's not regional, it's wrong, it makes no sense and it's spreading.
Stuff like that reduces the quality of the language.
You're not too old for anything that interests you. My mother recently developed an interest in Hindi. I'm trying to encourage her to indulge her fascination. No reason not to.
PS: I'm also guilty of saying saying I've ran, or worse I've went sometimes.