Page 14 of 15 First ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last
Results 131 to 140 of 146
  1. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.
    I agree with Lycen on this point. What is "Manglish", and why would you say it's a dialect?

  2. #132
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaisahab View Post
    It's quite simply my appreciation and understanding of my language which I have been speaking, reading and studying for more than 50 years (and teaching for somewhat less).
    The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English notes that native speakers rarely exhibit good judgment on how their language works.

    I don't recall right now if they gave/give reasons but one, for sure, is the prevalence of so many errant rules/prescriptions that pretty much anyone who grew up on this planet was exposed to.

    Another is the prevalent but silly notion that all registers of English must abide by one standard. This comes about from the grammar marm syndrome that afflicts most everyone exposed to the same errant rules mentioned above.

  3. #133
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    I agree with Lycen on this point. What is "Manglish", and why would you say it's a dialect?
    For any group on the planet, exposed to new conditions, or in this case, a group of people exposed to a new language, the likelihood that these people are going to keep perfectly to the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and all other features found in a mother tongue [English] is zero to nil.

    Those features that develop are as legitimate as the features that develop in a pidgin or a creole. They aren't Standard English, I made no such claim, but they are highly communicative structures/collocations that work for that new group.

    That's all I was saying, Pro.

  4. #134
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    I'm well aware of what reported speech does.

    If that's the case, Proesl, and given the quality of your postings, I must assume that is the case, it then puzzles me why would you state,

    "[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

    https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/a...upposed-5.html

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    For any group on the planet, exposed to new conditions, or in this case, a group of people exposed to a new language, the likelihood that these people are going to keep perfectly to the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and all other features found in a mother tongue [English] is zero to nil.

    Those features that develop are as legitimate as the features that develop in a pidgin or a creole. They aren't Standard English, I made no such claim, but they are highly communicative structures/collocations that work for that new group.

    That's all I was saying, Pro.
    That's a clear and acceptable viewpoint, as well as one to be respected. However, I don't view these "new Englishes" as dialects. A dialect within the broad and general range of a standardized language does not develop from errors made by learners of that language.

    Errors made by English speakers learning other languages do not give rise to dialects such as "Engchese", "Francglish" or Engluguese". Therefore, Chinese speakers learning English should not give rise to "Chinglish". I think the notion of this is rather comical, quite frankly.

  6. #136
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post

    That's a clear and acceptable viewpoint, as well as one to be respected. However, I don't view these "new Englishes" as dialects. A dialect within the broad and general range of a standardized language does not develop from errors made by learners of that language.
    One word, American!

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    Errors made by English speakers learning other languages do not give rise to dialects such as "Engchese", "Francglish" or Engluguese". Therefore, Chinese speakers learning English should not give rise to "Chinglish". I think the notion of this is rather comical, quite frankly.
    If these languages were the language of the world, they sure would be. I believe you're making the same false assumption you said Kon was making. The facts clearly show that this is what's happening and whether we deign to bestow the word "dialect" on these real language changes, the simple fact remains, it's happening, it's language, it's communicative. These changes don't become part of English, though some have, "Confuscius say, ...", they belong to the people who use them in their home area.

    We're not talking about a collection of funny translations, we're talking about language devices that persist for very good reasons, mentioned above.

    Just as Non-standard English is not to be judged by the norms of Standard English, these language changes need not be, can not be judged by the norms of English.

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    If that's the case, Proesl, and given the quality of your postings, I must assume that is the case, it then puzzles me why would you state,

    "[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

    https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/a...upposed-5.html
    What! This, to me, is just as odd as your bringing in "must have" and "should have" into the thread dealing with the third conditional.

    What you've posted has no bearing on this discussion. Bye bye now. It's only worth so much. I don't feel that this is worthy of further discussion. You are mixing things that are not related because you've decided to make them related. Can you not see that because something appears to be a report of a previous sentence does not mean that it necessarily is? It seems not.
    Last edited by PROESL; 23-Sep-2009 at 06:08.

  8. #138
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    That has nothing to do with this. Bye bye now. It's only worth so much. No great problems will solved or battles won here, and it's not necessary either. Bye bye now.
    That really doesn't seem like you, Proesl. You made, in this thread, what clearly seems to be a statement that contradicts what you said [you've said ??] in another thread. I gave a link so that you could address it where it should be addressed.

    I'm not asking you to address this yesterday. I understand that it's an extremely difficult concept, note the absence of all the usual suspects.

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    One word, American!



    If these languages were the language of the world, they sure would be. I believe you're making the same false assumption you said Kon was making. The facts clearly show that this is what's happening and whether we deign to bestow the word "dialect" on these real language changes, the simple fact remains, it's happening, it's language, it's communicative. These changes don't become part of English, though some have, "Confuscius say, ...", they belong to the people who use them in their home area.

    We're not talking about a collection of funny translations, we're talking about language devices that persist for very good reasons, mentioned above.

    Just as Non-standard English is not to be judged by the norms of Standard English, these language changes need not be, can not be judged by the norms of English.
    I don't believe that the expansion of such points of view is relevant to ESL and EFL. It's not practical.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: I thought I had

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    That really doesn't seem like you, Proesl. You made, in this thread, what clearly seems to be a statement that contradicts what you said [you've said ??] in another thread. I gave a link so that you could address it where it should be addressed.
    No, I have made no contradictory statements. Speaking of "would" and it's application to past time has nothing to do with how I've compared the two sentences that you insist must be reported speech. You should refrain from telling one what one seems like or does not seem like.
    Last edited by PROESL; 23-Sep-2009 at 06:38.

Page 14 of 15 First ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last

Posting Permissions

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