|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 11, 2008 12:45:31 GMT
Exactly, Dave! Would you still be delighted to have me, even if I wasn't explaining things?! And the answer must be: "No!" Sue
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 11, 2008 13:01:41 GMT
So why do we accept the construction, Sue?
I take it that we all agree that we DO accept it as normal English? - I had her explain it to me; I had the gardener chop it down; I had these trousers made in Morocco; I had him promise me
(And that last example pushes us further: did he promise ME, or did he promise an action?)
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 11, 2008 13:11:00 GMT
So why do we accept the construction, Sue? I accept a great deal from others that I wouldn't use myself. I don't actually use this construction (at least, not that I am aware) because to me it sounds awkward, but I do hear it. But then I hear a great deal that sounds awkward to me. I suppose people say this sort of thing because it is briefer than the alternative (and requires slightly less thought,) and possibly it's an attempt not to sound too "correct". Being frightfully "correct" in the face of staunch opposition can sound a bit prissy to some ears. I allow myself occasionally to sound prissy because I'm an English teacher and so, to some extent, it's expected! Sue
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 11, 2008 16:06:42 GMT
I accept a great deal from others that I wouldn't use myself. I don't actually use this construction (at least, not that I am aware) because to me it sounds awkward, but I do hear it. Which brings us back to "Standard English". How can one possibly define such a thing -- would one exclude things which "sound a bit awkward"?
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 11, 2008 18:57:57 GMT
Which brings us back to "Standard English". How can one possibly define such a thing -- would one exclude things which "sound a bit awkward"? I would never presume to try to define "Standard English"! It would be nigh on impossible to decide which standard, before you even started looking at the English. Perhaps that could be the subject of another thread - we could drive ourselves crazy figuring it all out, and when we finally arrived at a consensus, Verbivore could publish a manual, and we'd all be rich! Sue
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 11, 2008 19:15:10 GMT
I think elsewhere I've called standard English the English used by most writers. It's a description, not a prescription, and it contains a lot of variation. It can vary by genre, for instance journalism vs fiction. Of course not everyone will find this defintion helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 11, 2008 19:37:33 GMT
Of course not everyone will find this defintion helpful. Because it's not a definition, perhaps? Like describing an elephant as "one of those grey things", it's more vague description than definition. Do "most writers" have one English in common?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 11, 2008 19:43:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 11, 2008 20:10:47 GMT
Yes, I've seen that. Indeed, I've read the whole book.
But neither Peter Trudgill nor the book itself attempt to define standard (or Standard) English. Indeed, the point made is rather that one can't -- with which I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 11, 2008 21:28:43 GMT
elsewhere I've called standard English the English used by most writers Yes, I remember your saying that before, Goofy, and that your opinion was based on the fact that you read a lot. I don't know how much you actually read, but even if you devoted every waking minute to reading (reading while you ate and performed other bodily functions), and slept only six hours per night, and even if you were ninety years old and had started reading at the age of four, I cannot imagine you'd have read enough to have a working knowledge of "standard English" as she is spoken/written throughout the ages and throughout the world. I can hardly imagine that anyone actually knows this, because I cannot imagine that there is any universal standard. But that's only my humble take on the matter. Sue
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 11, 2008 22:09:04 GMT
Sue, I think you misunderstand me. All I meant was that if you want to write, read a lot and emulate the authors you admire. My definition of standard English isn't a good definition, as Paul pointed out, it's just a useful term. At least I think it's useful. I agree there is no universal standard if by universal standard we mean a form that everyone agrees on. But there's no reason that a standard should be monolithic. But, MWDEU has done a good job of compiling usage over many centuries and genres. And there's the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 12, 2008 16:12:10 GMT
Sue, I think you misunderstand me. Yes, I think I had! I shall have to read more carefully. Sue
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 12, 2008 16:27:45 GMT
It's also very likely that I wasn't explaining myself well.
|
|
|
Post by rickcarpenter on Jun 12, 2008 17:28:29 GMT
I'd say that the following are debatable in some derived usages, but not incorrect as is: One week's notice = notice of one week. Two weeks' notice = notice of two weeks. For instance, in Aug 2007, my wife and I celebrated being married for twenty-five years. According to that shown above, we could have said our twenty-five years' anniversary? Instead, we talked about our twenty-five year anniversary (perhaps more correctly written twenty-five-year anniversary?), or simply our twenty-fifth anniversary. Rick
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 12, 2008 17:38:49 GMT
simply our twenty-fifth anniversary. I tried to cover that on the page with forty-week pregnancy, Rick.
|
|