Teacher Discussion Forums

Is this true, IYHOs?

"Dialects may often use unique words and phrases to represent aspects of verb tense that standard English cannot express as succinctly."

http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/ameri ... s/smokies/

Link doesn't work

Stephen Jones wrote:Link doesn't work

Try typing this into Google Search:

"Dialects may often use unique words and phrases to"

I fixed the link.

My wife uses "I says" when she's telling a story: "So he says .......and I says............."* but "I say" when she's talking about what she habitually says.

Which might be considered as a useful distinction.

* As if there was a character in the third person narrative called "I"

Grammaticalization will often from language to language or often from dialect to dialect, but the passage doesn't actually give any examples that back up metal's original quote.

How is 'might could' more succint than 'might be able to" or 'liketa froze to death' than 'nearly froze to death'.

And even if Metal's original statement were true, it still wouldn't provide evidence for an affirmative answer to the question in the title.

Grammaticalization will often from language to language or often from dialect to dialect,

You might could be missing a verb there, Stevie.

And even if Metal's original statement were true, it still wouldn't provide evidence for an affirmative answer to the question in the title.

Do you mean that Standard English is never found lacking?

JuanTwoThree wrote:.

* As if there was a character in the third person narrative called "I"

Here's a passage that suggest the same:

"The use of so-called "double modal" constructions is quite common in the South and Southwest. I come from Dallas originally, and such constructions as you have cited are common there in everyday speech, and they serve a real linguistic purpose: modal forms such as 'could' and 'should' are ambiguous in Modern English, as they have both an indicative and a subjunctive sense. For example, "I could come" can mean either "I was able to come" (past indicative of 'can') or "I would be able to come" (subjunctive). In German, the two forms are distinct: "ich konnte kommen" vs. "ich koennte kommen". The use of double modal constructions with 'may' or 'might' serves to reintroduce this distinction. Thus, for a Southerner, "I might could come" or "I may could come" carry the subjunctive meaning, whereas "I could come" is only indicative in meaning....

The use of double modals in Southern American English fills a gap in Standard English grammar, namely the loss of inflectional distinction in English between indicative and subjunctive modals. Dialect or regional forms are often more progressive in gap-filling than is a standard language. Consider the sad case of 'you', which is ambiguous in Standard English between singular and plural meanings. Here the regional forms have been quite productive: "y'all" in the South (only plural!!!!) or similar forms elsewhere."

I'm not convinced by the "fills a gap" argument. These things usually only "fill a gap" when sentences are taken in isolation, but in th ereal world context nearly always resolves any ambiguities. It's true that in writing people need to be more careful, but in speech, intonation also makes things clear that wouldn't be immediately obvious on a printed page.

lolwhites wrote:I'm not convinced by the "fills a gap" argument. These things usually only "fill a gap" when sentences are taken in isolation, but in th ereal world context nearly always resolves any ambiguities.

I don't imagine that dialect speakers of the American South made their decision to use "must could", etc. by only considering out-of-context "should" and "could".

Nor do I, but since you decided upon the title Standard English found lacking? I thought it would be fair to point out that just because "Standard" doesn't use verb forms to make a given distinction, it doesn't follow that it's "lacking" in any way.

lolwhites wrote:Nor do I, but since you decided upon the title Standard English found lacking? I thought it would be fair to point out that just because "Standard" doesn't use verb forms to make a given distinction, it doesn't follow that it's "lacking" in any way.

If certain speakers feel they cannot express themselves succintly by using standard English terms, wouldn't that form lack something for such speakers?

If certain speakers feel they cannot express themselves succintly by using standard English terms, wouldn't that form lack something for such speakers?

Name one.

lolwhites wrote:

If certain speakers feel they cannot express themselves succintly by using standard English terms, wouldn't that form lack something for such speakers?

Name one.

Speakers who use multiple negation must use it for a reason, mustn't they?