don't sign nothing

[2006]

You stole my color 'blue', 2006. Now I have to use red.

I'm afraid that your logic is off. There isn't an English speaker on the planet who would gloss "don't say nothing" as 'say something',
You are taking things out of context. I was talking about the claim that nonstandard English is as logical as standard English is. It's not!
unless, as Soup noted, the intonation were such that it held that meaning.

That's the magic of language. And this illustrates the paucity of thinking that has gone into prescriptivism. Imagine, looking to Robert Lowth for advice on English. An absolutely preposterous idea!







The motive is perfectly clear, 2006. It's imperative that we describe language as it's actually used. Of course you can do that if all you want be is a descriptivist. But you can't be sure that you are aware of all the usages in the world; so you will only be describing the uses that you know of. And if you are aware of all the uses, you will offer the student a mass of information with no guidance. After all, there is no incorrect English as far as you are concerned.
That's the only way that ESLs can ever hope to become truly fluent in language. Your ambition is winning out over reality. You're not going to make many ESLs as fluent as you are, but there is a good chance many of them will be very confused! We've seen, time and again, prescriptions put forward here at this site that can't be defended. That is strictly your own biased opinion.

Calling something "correct/incorrect", as I've noted many times with substantial backing from language science, is simply inaccurate. Again, this is only your opinion.

The better question is, why do some studiously ignore the science, favoring instead canards, old wives tales, pure fabrications.
By "language science" you mean descriptivism.

I hope this will be my last post on this thread. You can have your blue back.

[riverkid]

I hope this will be my last post on this thread. You can have your blue back.

riverkid wrote:
I'm afraid that your logic is off. There isn't an English speaker on the planet who would gloss "don't say nothing" as 'say something',

2006 wrote: You are taking things out of context. I was talking about the claim that substandard English is as logical as standard English is. It's not!

[present replies are in purple]

We'd have to get our terms straight before we can discuss this. Not "substandard", 2006, "nonstandard".



riverkid wrote:
That's the magic of language. And this illustrates the paucity of thinking that has gone into prescriptivism. Imagine, looking to Robert Lowth for advice on English. An absolutely preposterous idea!
The motive is perfectly clear, 2006. It's imperative that we describe language as it's actually used.

2006 wrote:
Of course you can do that if all you want be is a descriptivist. But you can't be sure that you are aware of all the usages in the world; so you will only be describing the uses that you know of. And if you are aware of all the uses, you will offer the student a mass of information with no guidance. After all, there is no incorrect English as far as you are concerned.

First things first. I've never said that "there is no incorrect English".

Your logic, again, is a bit off. I don't have to be aware of all the usages for all the dialects of English. I only have to give accurate information as to what is standard and nonstandard English for my dialect. I can offer advice, subject to correction, for what works for other dialects.

But for the issue at hand; telling ESLs that a double negative equals a positive is highly misleading because it doesn't, in either standard or nonstandard English in any dialect of English.

riverkid wrote:
That's the only way that ESLs can ever hope to become truly fluent in language. We've seen, time and again, prescriptions put forward here at this site that can't be defended. Calling something "correct/incorrect", as I've noted many times with substantial backing from language science, is simply inaccurate.

2006 wrote:
Your ambition is winning out over reality. You're not going to make many ESLs as fluent as you are, but there is a good chance many of them will be very confused! That is strictly your own biased opinion. Again, this is only your opinion.

It's hardly only my opinion, 2006. One good example, you haven't been able to defend the prescriptive notion that a double negative equals a positive.

riverkid wrote:
The better question is, why do some studiously ignore the science, favoring instead canards, old wives tales, pure fabrications.

2006 wrote:
By "language science" you mean descriptivism.

Indubitably, that's what I mean. It would be a stretch of monstrous proportions to even suggest that prescriptivism had any connections to science.

You might as well keep blue for a while longer.

[2006]

riverkid wrote:
I'm afraid that your logic is off. There isn't an English speaker on the planet who would gloss "don't say nothing" as 'say something',

2006 wrote: You are taking things out of context. I was talking about the claim that substandard English is as logical as standard English is. It's not!

[present replies are in purple]

We'd have to get our terms straight before we can discuss this. Not "substandard", 2006, "nonstandard".



riverkid wrote:
That's the magic of language. And this illustrates the paucity of thinking that has gone into prescriptivism. Imagine, looking to Robert Lowth for advice on English. An absolutely preposterous idea!
The motive is perfectly clear, 2006. It's imperative that we describe language as it's actually used.

2006 wrote:
Of course you can do that if all you want be is a descriptivist. But you can't be sure that you are aware of all the usages in the world; so you will only be describing the uses that you know of. And if you are aware of all the uses, you will offer the student a mass of information with no guidance. After all, there is no incorrect English as far as you are concerned.

First things first. I've never said that "there is no incorrect English".

Your logic, again, is a bit off. I don't have to be aware of all the usages for all the dialects of English. I only have to give accurate information as to what is standard and nonstandard English for my dialect. I can offer advice, subject to correction, for what works for other dialects.

But for the issue at hand; telling ESLs that a double negative equals a positive is highly misleading because it doesn't, in either standard or nonstandard English in any dialect of English.

riverkid wrote:
That's the only way that ESLs can ever hope to become truly fluent in language. We've seen, time and again, prescriptions put forward here at this site that can't be defended. Calling something "correct/incorrect", as I've noted many times with substantial backing from language science, is simply inaccurate.

2006 wrote:
Your ambition is winning out over reality. You're not going to make many ESLs as fluent as you are, but there is a good chance many of them will be very confused! That is strictly your own biased opinion. Again, this is only your opinion.

It's hardly only my opinion, 2006. One good example, you haven't been able to defend the prescriptive notion that a double negative equals a positive.

riverkid wrote:
The better question is, why do some studiously ignore the science, favoring instead canards, old wives tales, pure fabrications.

2006 wrote:
By "language science" you mean descriptivism.

Indubitably, that's what I mean. It would be a stretch of monstrous proportions to even suggest that prescriptivism had any connections to science.

You might as well keep blue for a while longer.

definitely my last post here...
1...I corrected the "substandard" mental typo.
2...Logically a double negative is a positive. That's very clear, and language should be as logical as possible.
3...Discussing this further would be a total waste of my time.

[riverkid]

definitely my last post here...

1...I corrected the "substandard" mental typo.

Are you a native speaker, 2006. Of course you are and a knowledgeable one to boot. So even we natives make typos. [this relates to Banderas's thread]

2...Logically a double negative is a positive. That's very clear, and language should be as logical as possible.

You keep resorting to the word 'logic' and its different forms when they support your position not at all. What logic is it that says a double negative is a positive when it so clearly is NOT.

Nothing could be more apparent. It's apparent to ESLs, to little children, to, well, to absolutely everyone except prescriptivists. Why do prescriptivists, a group that constantly screams about the importance of clarity in language, cleave to rules that do nothing but confuse?

In this case, the only actual confusion for ENLs is on a conscious level; as I've mentioned a number of times, at the processing level of language there is zero confusion. Of course we mustn't forget the confusion these prescriptions cause second language learners.


3...Discussing this further would be a total waste of my time.

Perhaps less discussion and more proof would now be in order, 2006.

[e2e4]

Calm down guys! (as to I've heard this phrase is in use in Australia and at New Zealand )

Maybe, as a learner, I should keep my mouth shut but

Perhaps less discussion and more proof would now be in order, 2006.

Don't talk.
Stop talking.
Say nothing.
Stop saying.

Could someone say it shorter? Probably not. From that point of view

Don't say nothing or
Don't say anything

and in accordance to the rules of the well known Bosnian English grammar those are both wrong.

Don't say a word! could be in use even though not a shortest but the right solution (choice), sometimes.

[Soup]

... in accordance to the rules of the well known Bosnian English grammar ...

You've made my day.

[e2e4]

[stuartnz]

Calm down guys! (as to I've heard this phrase is in use in Australia and at New Zealand )

"in" Australia but "at" NZ? Who's telling us to calm down, and why?

We say calm down "in" NZ, too, and we have also for the most part left behind the silliness of trying to insist that rules of mathematical logic must or should be applied to language.

Certainly, the arguments against the double negative in English look more than a little shaky when the history of the language is considered, as in this excellent summary. Of course, Chaucer was just a thoroughly evil abuser of English, going way beyond mere double negatives and even daring to use "they" as an epicene singular pronoun.

[e2e4]

I thought the New Zealand would be recognised as an island if I used the preposition at instead of the preposition in.

Australia as a continent or country ~in
New Zealand as a country ~ in
New Zealand as a island ~ at

[stuartnz]

I thought the New Zealand would be recognised as an island if I used the preposition at instead of the preposition in.

Australia as a continent or country ~in
New Zealand as a country ~ in
New Zealand as a island ~ at

Aotearoa/New Zealand is a country, not an island. There are 3 main islands, Te Ika a Maui, Te Wai Pounamu, and Rakiura, plus scores of little islands. So if you want to speak of NZ as a singular enity, it has to be as a geopolitical unit, one country, not a geographical unit, one island. Noho ora mai!