Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think Tdol was referring to the use of 'if I was' in a conditional sentence. Prescriptivists would probably say that the correct use is 'if I were': If I were you, I wouldn't do that.
    Descriptivists would accept the use of 'if I was' in that context.

  2. #12
    RonBee's Avatar
    RonBee is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    16,570
    Post Thanks / Like
    "If I was you" seems a bit odd to me. I guess that makes me a prescriptivist. :wink:

    "If I were you" = 113,000
    "If I was you" = 18,900

    http://ms101.mysearch.com/jsp/GGmain...f+I+was+you%22
    Hm.

  3. #13
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    43,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Will
    Then why did tdol say 'If I was' was regarded as wrong by prescriptivists.

    P.S.: In all likelyhood, if you went to the movie theater, you saw a movie.
    I was referring to the second conditional use, where prescriptivists often favout the use of the past subjunctive:
    If I were you, I'd take it back to the library.

  4. #14
    Will Guest
    Ah, so I see. And with that definition, I guess that'd make me a prescriptivist because I think the rules are there for reason - to be followed.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What are the arguments ????

    Quote Originally Posted by RonBee
    For example, I daresay that nobody would say that "Me rode the bus" is correct English.
    I do believe that descriptionists consider the language used by the American slaves to be a form of English, as too the street English used by US gan'sters and rappers. I believe the argument is that the isn't one acceptable form of English, but many.

    Iain

  6. #16
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    43,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is. The argument gets heated when it concerns teaching these forms. I favour description, as far as possible, as a source of rules, but favour teaching fairly standard English.

  7. #17
    Will Guest
    In regard to the language used by gangstas and rappers, I think what you're looking for is ebonics. It's completely incomprehnesaible, yet I hear it all the time. I don't think that ebonics, even with descriptivists, can be taken seriously. I know I don't take anyone who speaks ebonics seriously, though I don't really talk to those people at all most of the time. I've got to work on this rambling thing.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Will
    In regard to the language used by gangstas and rappers, I think what you're looking for is ebonics. It's completely incomprehnesaible, yet I hear it all the time. I don't think that ebonics, even with descriptivists, can be taken seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by Center for Applied Linguistics
    a. The variety known as "Ebonics," "African American Vernacular English" (AAVE), and "Vernacular Black English" and by other names is systematic and rule-governed like all natural speech varieties. In fact, all human linguistic systems--spoken, signed, and written--are fundamentally regular. The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years.Characterizations of Ebonics as "slang," "mutant,""lazy," "defective," "ungrammatical," or"broken English" are incorrect and demeaning.
    Evidence that linguists, whatever the flavour, do indeed take Ebonics, or AAVE seriously. 8)

    Iain

  9. #19
    Will Guest
    I could care less what linguists say about ebonics, because, if you had to listen to that trite dribble for any length of time, you'd see that all it is is laziness. You're basically saying, "well, this whole proper grammar thing is stupid." I don't take it, ebonics, seriously one bit. The operative word there is "I." So, let's keep in mind, this is all opinion. But, seriously, about ebonics, I really don't care if linguists take it seriously. It's, like I said before, trite dribble. But, God forbid if someone gets offended in this country because they're too darn lazy to remember something useful. Sorry, rambling again.

  10. #20
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Japan
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    43,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    While I recognise variations of English as acceptable, when something becomes incomprehensible to the wider speech community, it is not going to help its speakers greatly.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •