|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
easyasabc
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 179
Location: Japan
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:23 am Post subject: Re: dictionary |
 |
|
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for the 'Catch 22' explanation!
Re: the "anyways' thing.
I wasn't worried about if it is in the dictionary or not, if it's acceptable slang, if we should teach slang etc etc etc.
I was more interested in the fact that someone said it was commonly used in Australia because I certainly do not think it is used there.
I wonder if the person who originally wrote that comment was Australian or had lived there or was just making some kind of misinformed statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ellienihon
Joined: 20 Sep 2003
Posts: 34
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:13 am Post subject: Catch 22/ military code |
|
|
It is from military code and the book. I believe there was an actual military code that created such a situation. I found this at http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcatch22.html
In fact, Heller originally wanted to name his dilemma Catch-18, but a book by Leon Uris called Mila 18, historical fiction about the Warsaw ghetto uprising during WWII, had just been published, and the publishers were afraid there would be confusion. (Mila 18 was a street address.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J-Pop
Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 215
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: Catch 22/ military code |
|
|
| ellienihon wrote: |
It is from military code and the book. I believe there was an actual military code that created such a situation. I found this at http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcatch22.html
In fact, Heller originally wanted to name his dilemma Catch-18, but a book by Leon Uris called Mila 18, historical fiction about the Warsaw ghetto uprising during WWII, had just been published, and the publishers were afraid there would be confusion. (Mila 18 was a street address.) |
ellienihon,
Thanks for the link!
Too, that's very interestsing re: Leon Uris, Joseph Heller & the publishers.
A bit of a side note: Have you read that Uris book, Mila 18? If so, what's your opinion?
Anyway, I'm happy that ellienihon," gave me an excuse to throw in my 2 cents (ni yen? dos pesos? ) on the matter of
"Anyways," VERSUS
"Anyway."
As noted by hagakuri, "anyways," is (apparently) in at least one dictionary. However, as noted by hagakuri, it is also classified as "non-standard."
The areas I wanted to mention: the difference between "hearing" (& speaking) and writing.
What seems to be the case is this: it is not uncommon to hear "anyways" used by people. A key word, I think, is hear. That is, the word is used more often (IMO) in spoken language, rather than in writing--especially in FORMAL ("Standard Written") types of writing. Thus, as another poster has already astutely noted, "anyways" is, more or less, in the same category as "ain't.
I have used "ain't" (even in the classroom, as a teacher, in order to drive home a point). Yet I wouldn't use "ain't" in formal writing (Standard Written English), unless, of course there was a clear & sound reason to do so. A paper on slang, non-standard English usage or sociolinguistics--for example.
Another poster (hm, can't find it in this thread? maybe in the "country versus city" thread??), mentioned the idea of regional variations in how people speak. This might explain why, in certain regions perhaps, you might hear "anwyays," used more often.
When someone (me included) hears a term used, from the time you're a child especially, it seems quite "normal," & it's sometimes quite surprising, to later learn it might not actually be considered as, "standard," or "correct."
So, in Standard Written English, or "Formal Writing," (maybe informal, too depending on the sit.) I think the the "correct" (standard) word to use is "anyway." Yet when speaking, depending on the social context, "anyways," is perfectly acceptable.
FWIW, many people use (& think of) language written on the internet--like on Dave's ESL Cafe?--to be quite "informal." Thus, extreme informality, even rudeness, is common, it seems.  (Being "anonymous" is a big factor, too, no?)
Martha Kolln the author of an excellent grammar book, Understanding English Grammar, presents a well-researched, insightful & easily understood discussion on the concept of standard English:usage rules, grammar rules & the issue of "correctness."
(I've mentioned her book before, sorry for the repeat, for this who've already heard this!)
She also talks about "ain't" regional variations, "social class," dialects, and much more. I highly recommend the book.
I'm really enjoying this thread! Lots of good comments
Wow, it seems there are some really smart people here   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura C
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Posts: 211
Location: Saitama
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Denise,
No, by 'Homeresque' I mean the fine gentleman responsible for The Iliad.
 Sorry. Am slightly delirious as I finish work on Friday for ever and evermore.
Laura |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BenJ
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 209
Location: Nagoya
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Retiring? Congrats!
Never heard 'anyways' in Australia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura C
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Posts: 211
Location: Saitama
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not that old, BenJ! Just moving to pastures new... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kovac
Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 6:20 pm Post subject: Never mind the confusion heres the Catch |
|
|
Nevermind everybody trying to determine the true definition of Catch 22 amongst ourselves...ever tried explaining it to an advanced language student !?!? I had read Hellers C22 many times, its firm fave (pity the film never reached the cult status the book did....Alan Arkin..did an ace job as Yossarian...and Jon Voigt as minderbinder...classic !)
But when incidentally using the phrase "Its a catch 22 situation" in an advanced class...then having to trying to outline the meaning...MADRE DIOS...spent about 30 mins with perpetual questions being thrown at me....TRICKY....
Off the cuff, I remember a beardie old lecturer of mine once saying no one person will ever read The Hobbit and Catch 22 and enjoy both equally...hmmmm....catch 22 ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shmooj
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 1758
Location: Seoul, ROK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:26 pm Post subject: Re: Never mind the confusion heres the Catch |
|
|
| kovac wrote: |
| Off the cuff, I remember a beardie old lecturer of mine once saying no one person will ever read The Hobbit and Catch 22 and enjoy both equally...hmmmm....catch 22 ! |
Heh, this wasn't a sly way to get the class to attempt to read two books on the reading list was it?  Personally, old Bilbo bored me to tears. Give me Catch 22 anyday.
Now Lord of the RIngs is a different story (lit.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dez
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| denise wrote: |
| Laura C wrote: |
it's a great Homeresque word (and no, that's not a word either!)
|
Aaaaaah, but that's the beauty of the language--the coinage of new words!! Homeresque is perfectly comprehensible and fills a gap in the language--how else can we explain that something is of, like, or attributable to Mr. Simpson (I assume that is the Homer that you were referring to?)? Homeresque, Homerlike (doesn't sound quite as nice), etc.
Speaking of new words--I have seen a few of my students use the word "nicotinism" in their writing. First, I'd just like to confirm with you guys/gals that it is not, in fact, a word. Second, having established that it isn't, why the hell not? It makes perfect sense! (to me, at least...)
d |
I've heard Clavenesque used many times to refer to someone who frequently spouts tidbits of trivia like Cliff Claven from Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: dictionary |
|
|
| easyasabc wrote: |
Re: the "anyways' thing.
I wonder if the person who originally wrote that comment was Australian or had lived there or was just making some kind of misinformed statement.
|
That would be me that said it originally. Yes, I've lived there. No, I'm not Australian. I'm a kiwi. Over the last three years I've been in Japan I've noticed (back in NZ and Oz for a six month holiday) it being used more and more often. Perhaps "commonly" was somewhat misleading - 'well known, used, accepted and growing in use' might be somewhat more accurate. But it would have been a whole lot more cumbersome to write it that way. :)
It's one of the nice things about living outside a country you're familiar with for extended periods: you notice all the more how the language has changed in the time you've been away.
YMMV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:38 pm Post subject: uber "Standard English"? |
|
|
| J-Pop wrote: |
So, in Standard Written English, or "Formal Writing," (maybe informal, too depending on the sit.) I think the the "correct" (standard) word to use is "anyway." Yet when speaking, depending on the social context, "anyways," is perfectly acceptable.
FWIW, many people use (& think of) language written on the internet--like on Dave's ESL Cafe?--to be quite "informal." Thus, extreme informality, even rudeness, is common, it seems. :lol: (Being "anonymous" is a big factor, too, no?)
Martha Kolln the author of an excellent grammar book, Understanding English Grammar, presents a well-researched, insightful & easily understood discussion on the concept of standard English:usage rules, grammar rules & the issue of "correctness."
|
Can you tell me what you mean by "Standard Written English", please?
Are you equating it directly and only to formal writing and ascribing this as being correct?
The reason I ask is that it's not all that clear to me what you're getting at exactly - I get the impression that you might think there is something actually called "Standard English" (in this instance, a written form of it) over and/or above all the many "Standard Englishes" that are out there.
If you were just saying that written Englishes for formal settings tend to be, well, more formal then, ummm, yeah, obviously; one would hope that people that teach the language are aware of that. :) Sorry, don't mind me, just slightly confused today. :) ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
denise
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 3419
Location: finally home-ish
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dez wrote: |
| I've heard Clavenesque used many times to refer to someone who frequently spouts tidbits of trivia like Cliff Claven from Cheers. |
Dez--awesome avatar! Can you actually do that?!?!
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J-Pop
Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 215
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: uber "Standard English"? |
|
|
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
Can you tell me what you mean by "Standard Written English", please?
Are you equating it directly and only to formal writing and ascribing this as being correct?
The reason I ask is that it's not all that clear to me what you're getting at exactly - I get the impression that you might think there is something actually called "Standard English" (in this instance, a written form of it) over and/or above all the many "Standard Englishes" that are out there.
If you were just saying that written Englishes for formal settings tend to be, well, more formal then, ummm, yeah, obviously; one would hope that people that teach the language are aware of that. Sorry, don't mind me, just slightly confused today. |
Good questions! Hey, you're fortunate if you only experience confusion on certain days. For some of us, it's a regular occurrence!!
Actually, I lifted the term "Standard Written English," directly from the Kolln book. My understanding: it's a spin-off of the term "Standard English," or properly spoken English--applied to writing.
I think it's clear--in her book--she is NOT "promoting" the validity of the concept (neither do I), she simply recognizes that, in the minds of many people, there is such a thing as "correct" spoken English. She has a separate, nicely done, section on this whole idea. I know there's been a lot of writing on this notion of "standard" English, a frequent topic (at one time, not sure about now) in sociolinguistics.
Though "correct" (Standard) English is a debatable term--it's questionable whether such an animal exists--still, in many people's minds it is valid & does exist. I know in my uni courses, many of the foreign students (almost all of em?) & ESPECIALLY those in the TESOL program--definitely thought there is, in fact, ONE STANDARD English. It seems to me this notion is also behind the Japanese desire (other countries also) to employ "Native Speaker" teachers of English.
I think most people who have studied the origins of the concept, Standard English think it's probably rooted in notions formed during the Victorian time period, both in Britain & the USA. What?, roughly from the early or mid-1800's to more or less the beginning of WW1? (I'm winging it on that one, sorry).
BTW, excellent points about the existence of "standard Englishes." There has been some decent writing in just the last ten years or so on this topic & also on the related ideas of "regional standard Englishes," (maybe the same thing as what you're referring to) in connection with a so-called, "Global English."
So I think the term is merely referring to--yes--what you mentioned in your last paragraph. My only (possible) quibble: the term does not necessarily & only refer to "formal" writing, produced for "formal" settings.
Maybe another way of thinking of Standard Written English: it refers to written English that is expressed in grammatically correct, properly-spelled, whole clauses, phrases & sentences, strung together in such a way that one's intended meaning is clear .
Pretty basic, I think, nothing necessarily complex. IMHO.
Not sure if that answers your question(s). Hope so. If not, run it by me again & I'll try--again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
denise
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 3419
Location: finally home-ish
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to interrupt the "standard Englishes" discussion--which I find absolutely fascinating--but I'm stuck on the "-esque" issue & coining new words--so far in this thread we've had Homeresque and Clavenesque.
It occurred to me that, for some strange reason, "esque" does not really go well with monosyllabic words. Say you've got two friends--Tom and Jerry. Actions or attitudes typical of Jerry would be Jerry-esque, but what about actions/attitudes typical of Tom? "Tom-esque" just doesn't sound right, for some inexplicable reason. Are there any rules out there as to the coinage of new words? Sure, there are "rules" about which phonemes can/cannot go together, but what about in the "esque" case?
OK, enough of my idiocy for now. (But surely there's more to come!)
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest of Japan
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1601
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe we use "ish" for shorter words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
