Help With Grammar

[Minoosh]

...and even better is a dynamite writer who can do it within the rules. His work stands a chance of being readable after the next 50 years.

This makes me think of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, where different dialects and grammars are used for storytelling purposes. Standardized rules may matter most in standardized English, but the way people speak itself communicates something.

Of course Twain was and continues to be pilloried by various factions of language police for the words and dialects he chose to feature.

 

[Didymus]

With comparisons, it's a different kettle of fish:

"The rubber-suited fishermen were better prepared for the weather than Cody and I."

But I suspect many would end it with "Cody and me".

In this case the rule of thumb is, "Add the implied verb." Thus:
"The rubber-suited fishermen were better prepared for the weather than Cody and I were."
This clarifies the choice between the nominative and the accusative.

 

[SezMe]

I think the most important consideration in that case is good style which is not the same as "proper grammar". I think that "proper grammar" is neither necessary nor is it sufficient for what might be called "transparent prose".

Yes, but I'd want to avoid "proper" becoming a binary thing. Some improper grammar may not cause loss of transparency but going too far may. Like so many things, judgment is called for.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Somehow the French manage to say, "Ma mère et moi aiment manger du gâteau" without the end of civilisation as we know it.

Cue comments about the French not being civilised....

 

[angrysoba]

About those praising anything in use as good grammar, I would say that I may deal with "ain't" and "me neither" as part of some grammar, but that I have some problems with "I seen them two boys run out", and I would like to see what them free style grammar lovers sketch to make "I ate a whole nother apple" grammatically sound. Maybe dictionaries will show an entry with "nother: adj. additional".

I don't see any reason why dictionaries will not, in principle, end up having an entry for "nother" if enough people start using it.

After all there have been similar language mutations in English such as when "napron" became "apron" due to the regular co-occurrence of the article "a" leading people to think they were saying "an apron". This process is apparently called rebracketing and it has also transformed "a nadder" into "an adder" and "an ekename" into "a nickname", and "al one" (all one) became "alone".

Guy Deutscher in his book The Unfolding of Language suggests three main ways in which language changes which are:

Economy: "Lazy" people reducing their speech until the words are worn down through use. Jonathan Swift was particularly incensed at the "lazy" people who pronounced these words without sounding out the final syllable: "What does Your Lordship think of the Words, Drudg'd, Disturb'd, Rebuk't, Fledg'd, and a thousand others, every where to be met in Prose as well as Verse? Where, by leaving out a Vowel to save a Syllable, we form so jarring a Sound, and so difficult to utter, that I have often wondred how it could ever obtain."

Expressiveness: Due to the falling out of meaning of particular words or parts of words, some element is used to "beef up" the meaning of a word. For example, perhaps someone may add a whole nother "pre" to "prepared" to form "preprepared". Similarly, a weak-looking full stop at the end of a sentence may not have the sense of finality that a writer or speaker wants so that person may end up saying, "period!" to underline the point. And if that is not strong enough, "Period. The End." Or we may add an infix to "absolutely" such as "abso-bloody-lutely"

Analogy: A lot of irregular past tense verbs and plural forms have become regular over the years. Or indeed the aforementioned rebracketing where we overgeneralize a rule or perceive one that isn't there.

 

[Minoosh]

In case anyone has not had the pleasure:

Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

 

[aleCcowaN]

I don't see any reason why dictionaries will not, in principle, end up having an entry for "nother" if enough people start using it.

...

Well, certainly languages change, but that doesn't mean that something spoken in the twenty-second century is correct or advisable in twentieth century's standards.

In "a whole nother apple" it seems the speakers perceive it as "a nother whole apple" but they feel they have to change the adjective order, as if it were (or was, if you like) "cotton white t-shirts" and they felt the logical order to be "white cotton t-shirts". I wonder what is in the speakers' minds moving them to "change the order" into "a whole nother".

About the mechanics of change I know there are some strange forces among groups of speakers. I'd add "making sense" to those you listed. For instance, folk etymology, the kind that made the incomprehensible "bridegoom" -meaning "man of the bride", brydguma in Old English, with guma analogue to Latin homo- into "bridegroom" ("he who takes care of the bride's horses?"). But that doesn't mean that the bunch of people in these fora mixing up affect with effect would end up imposing a change in dictionaries.

Well, maybe I'm a bit traditionalist. You'll never read or hear me answering a "how are you?" with an "I'm good".

 

[angrysoba]

In case anyone has not had the pleasure:

Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

I've had the pleasure, many times, and I do enjoy reading Orwell, but some of the things he says in that paper need to be taken with a grain of salt.

This writer has a whole nother thing in mind however with an abso-bloody-lutely great sackful of salt:

George Orwell is well known to have legions of admirers who will leap to the keyboard to attack anyone who criticizes their hero. We academics are all supposed to admire him, and especially to regard his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” (henceforth P&EL) as a deathless masterpiece of political and literary insight, and to urge our students to read it. Two distinguished evolutionary biologists devoted recent blog posts to ladling renewed praises on P&EL: Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne, referring with approval to a piece by Lewis Spurgin.

Well, apologies in advance to Orwell fans, but I have always found P&EL sickening. A smug, arrogant, dishonest tract full of posturing and pothering, and writing advice that ranges from idiosyncratic to irrational. Let me comment on just one of its sillinesses.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, certainly languages change, but that doesn't mean that something spoken in the twenty-second century is correct or advisable in twentieth century's standards.

No, but I was simply agreeing with you that "Maybe dictionaries will show an entry with "nother: adj. additional"." by pointing out that, yes, maybe they will.

And given that you said, "I would like to see what them free style grammar lovers sketch to make "I ate a whole nother apple" grammatically sound." I thought I would show you, although I probably shouldn't have as I don't identify as a "free style grammar lover".

In "a whole nother apple" it seems the speakers perceive it as "a nother whole apple" but they feel they have to change the adjective order, as if it were (or was, if you like) "cotton white t-shirts" and they felt the logical order to be "white cotton t-shirts". I wonder what is in the speakers' minds moving them to "change the order" into "a whole nother".

It's called an infix. Try this link to edumacate yourself.

However, when you ask yourself "what was in their mind?" maybe the speaker thought it sounded better that way. And I wonder if you really think that the adjective order that you expressed up there is more logical or not, because the second of the two is a more common adjective order than the one that you seem to think is the "logical".

About the mechanics of change I know there are some strange forces among groups of speakers. I'd add "making sense" to those you listed. For instance, folk etymology, the kind that made the incomprehensible "bridegoom" -meaning "man of the bride", brydguma in Old English, with guma analogue to Latin homo- into "bridegroom" ("he who takes care of the bride's horses?"). But that doesn't mean that the bunch of people in these fora mixing up affect with effect would end up imposing a change in dictionaries.

I'm not sure I understand this. But wouldn't a folk etymology be a kind of analogy? There are some cases of backformations in which English verbs are created from Latin nouns. Apparently "donation" came into the English language and the verb was assumed to be "donate".

Well, maybe I'm a bit traditionalist. You'll never read or hear me answering a "how are you?" with an "I'm good".

Okay.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, but I'd want to avoid "proper" becoming a binary thing. Some improper grammar may not cause loss of transparency but going too far may. Like so many things, judgment is called for.

I agree. It is not a good idea to go too far.

Similarly I don't like things that are too expensive, too long, too short or too difficult. And when it comes to food, I don't like that which is too sweet, too spicy, too salty or too bland. But as you say, in these things judgement is called for.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's called an infix. Try this link to edumacate yourself.

Are you sure? The infix here should be "whole" infixed into "another", which provides another with an attribute of ...?

It looks to me "a whole nother apple" to rather be something playful somebody created and many repeat without even noticing the playful part.

However, when you ask yourself "what was in their mind?" maybe the speaker thought it sounded better that way. And I wonder if you really think that the adjective order that you expressed up there is more logical or not, because the second of the two is a more common adjective order than the one that you seem to think is the "logical".

I was saying that "white cotton shirt" would be the "correct" adjective order and "cotton white shirt" not so "correct", and comparing the last to "another whole apple".

I'm not sure I understand this. But wouldn't a folk etymology be a kind of analogy? There are some cases of backformations in which English verbs are created from Latin nouns. Apparently "donation" came into the English language and the verb was assumed to be "donate".

For a folk etymology to be an analogy you need something for the thing to be analogue to. I know just a few examples of folk etymologies in English, but by scanning the wiki entry for this subject I couldn't find any case of "analogy".

Back-formations and a lot of regular changes in languages are indeed analogies, but that is not a folk etymology.

 

[angrysoba]

Are you sure? The infix here should be "whole" infixed into "another", which provides another with an attribute of ...?

It looks to me "a whole nother apple" to rather be something playful somebody created and many repeat without even noticing the playful part.

Maybe, and...?

I was saying that "white cotton shirt" would be the "correct" adjective order and "cotton white shirt" not so "correct", and comparing the last to "another whole apple".

Oh, I see what you are saying now. I think. In fact, I think you may have made a mistake with your analysis. I don't think that this is a case of switching "another whole apple" with "a whole nother apple". I think you should see "whole" as being something like "completely" or "totally".

As in...

That's a completely different issue.

That's a whole nother issue.

Or at least that's what I think.

For a folk etymology to be an analogy you need something for the thing to be analogue to. I know just a few examples of folk etymologies in English, but by scanning the wiki entry for this subject I couldn't find any case of "analogy".

Back-formations and a lot of regular changes in languages are indeed analogies, but that is not a folk etymology.

Okay, but the point about folk etymology tends to be "it seems like this word" hence the analogy part.

 

[Brainster]

What annoys me is that whom has mostly disappeared from the language, after I finally figured it out.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

What annoys me is that whom has mostly disappeared from the language, after I finally figured it out.

Whom just doesn't slip off the tongue.

 

[SezMe]

Ask not for who the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Where's exactly the joke?

I mean, I expected whom and thee to be in that phrase, or who and thou for a reason unknown to me.

 

[GlennB]

"Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

 

[aleCcowaN]

So, ironically, it was a typo

 

[Minoosh]

I've had the pleasure, many times, and I do enjoy reading Orwell, but some of the things he says in that paper need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Orwell was kind of a reverse snob when it came to words of Latin origin. "Cuts, scrapes and bruises" vs. "Lacerations, abrasions and contusions." I find fancy diction useful for the same reason Orwell deplored it: It softens the impact. I found this out by accident, using the "PC" terms somewhat ironically, then finding out it had stopped me from saying something hurtful. Latinate words are also useful for the literary trick of mixed diction.

It looks to me "a whole nother apple" to rather be something playful somebody created and many repeat without even noticing the playful part.

It could have gone through this cycle: A dialect emerges without playful intent. That dialect is then used for a playful effect.

Do you mind my asking: What is your first language? You write English like (as) a native speaker would.

ETA: A double negative is correct in Spanish and French; in the U.S. it's associated with loose usage.

Whom just doesn't slip off the tongue.

What sounds right matters. Once a "mistake" ceases to jar people, it pretty much becomes correct - or at least less objectionable.

Somehow I don't think Mick Jagger would have scored big with "I can't get any satisfaction."

 

[aleCcowaN]

Do you mind my asking: What is your first language? You write English like (as) a native speaker would.

Argentine Spanish. I'm flattered that, warts and all, I may pass as a native speaker for a few second.

ETA: A double negative is correct in Spanish and French; in the U.S. it's associated with loose usage.

Did I use a double negative? Certainly I'm trying all the time to force Spanish subjunctive into English and some phrases I write have a very strange structure, suggesting negation or contradiction.

However, I know indeed that those blokes wearing hoodies, who are interrogated by TV cops and say "I ain't see nobody" certainly are not the sons of the U.S. ambassador in Belgium, caught by mistake during their student exchange program.