Who's right?

[metal56]

As I have repeatedly pointed out, just because a concept can be expressed more easily or succinctly in dialect A than dialect B, it doesn't follow that dialect B is "lacking" in any way as an articulate speaker can find a way of getting his or her idea across.

Which leaves you in the same boat as other dialect speakers I've linked to and that you have doubted the wisdom of. They say it is lacking and you say it isn't. So, we're left with opposing opinions.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that such value judgements are totally subjective and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Can such judgements ever be objective?

[metal56]

Quote:
Why a bad one?
Because there are plenty of contexts in which it would be perfectly correct in British English.

Not in the context of a general question. Not as a first-turn question.

[lolwhites]

Can such judgements ever be objective?

Maybe not, but they can be checked, criticised and peer reviewed for journals. The quotes you've scoured the Internet for to back up your point of view don't fulfill those criteria. If you're going to quote comments people post on websites as evidence, don't be surprised when I don't smack my forehead in amazement. I honestly think you can do better than that.

Isn't it true that Standard English lacks non-finite forms of modal auxiliaries; i.e., there are only non-finite aspectual
auxiliaries in that dialect?

Is there a need for them when SE has other ways of getting the message across?

Are you a native Standard English speaker, Lolwhites? Are you mono-dialectal?

Like most educated native speakers, I adopt my speech to the situation at hand. That doesn't mean any of my "dialects" are "lacking". On the contrary, I consider them fit for purpose.

[metal56]

If you're going to quote comments people post on websites as evidence, don't be surprised when I don't smack my forehead in amazement.

The question was: Can Standard English be found lacking? Your answer is "no". Fair enough.

So, you mention your "dialects", in the plural", what dialects do you use and why?

Is there a need for them when SE has other ways of getting the message across?

For example?

[jotham]

I think that languages (and dialects) can't really be judged for their effectiveness just on their own merits. Languages are as logical or murky as the culture or mentality of the people, and whether or not they base their communication primarily on reason, or on feelings. If the people who speak a language want to be clear, objective, and precise; they will use the language accordingly, and thus language patterns will form along those lines. If a culture of people are used to feeling with the heart, using peripheral hints to beat around the bush (instead of directly saying something), and relying on intentions rather than objectivity; the language will also tend to become murky and develop patterns along those lines. Language is only a vehicle; it is only as effective a tool for expressing certain concepts as the people want to make it so.
If standard English is lacking in a way to express a certain concept, it could be that standard English speakers don't really desire to say that, or say it seldomly enough so as not to warrant special vocabulary that might optimize communication in that concept. Language performance seems a better predictor of a culture's mentality than it is of the language itself. Maybe the culture should be the object of study instead of the language per se. Put another way, maybe language as an object of study should be used to understand the culture only, and is useless to "understand" the language itself.
It goes along with how I've heard that the Inuit have seven words for snow. Well, standard English is quite capable of coming up with seven super snow words. We really aren't out in it that much, except to drive home in it after work. We don't need to clarify what kind of snow we came home in. And if we do, we can just explain it in a sentence instead of a word, because we just don't need to do it that often. So Inuit is better than English in that respect, because it must be really important to Inuit people. So is standard English lacking? Yeah, perhaps...but not to me. And probably not to all other standard English speakers.

[revel]

Hey all!

Going to support lolwhites here.

After several years living in Spain and only speaking ESL, upon arriving in New York City for a visit to friends, it took me about an hour to realize that I would have to speak more rapidly and with more sophisticated grammar and vocabulary if I wanted my friends to understand me. On arriving in Illinois, it took me about a day to slow down my speech and use the cute metaphors that my immediate family uses when talking about, well, yes, the family. Upon arriving in Wisconsin to visit less immediate family, on taking the wagon over to the neighbor's house and not understanding a word my aunt was saying about repairing the sides of the wagon, I realized that I might never be able to communicate with that neighbor clearly, but that I would have to "speak American" (as my aunt proudly asked my Spanish friend to do) in order to have meaningful conversations with those people.

Is there a "Standard English"? Well, in university I certainly studied something "standard" and yet I also studied peculiarities of other Englishes in order to fake different accents on stage; however, we didn't learn to speak Scottish but rather with a few cute sounds that would make our English sound Scottish, or Irish or German or whatever the character needed to be "authentic" and yet be understood by the audience. Should I say what I think of this debate? No, I'll keep that part of my opinion to myself.

peace,
revel.

[metal56]

If the people who speak a language want to be clear, objective, and precise; they will use the language accordingly, and thus language patterns will form along those lines. If a culture of people are used to feeling with the heart, using peripheral hints to beat around the bush (instead of directly saying something), and relying on intentions rather than objectivity; the language will also tend to become murky and develop patterns along those lines. Language is only a vehicle; it is only as effective a tool for expressing certain concepts as the people want to make it so.

I don't know of any language which is one, but not the other. All languages and dialects give the speaker the possibility to be objective and/or subjective. And much of what you call "beating about the bush" can merely be rules of conduct.

<

If standard English is lacking in a way to express a certain concept, it could be that standard English speakers don't really desire to say that, or say it seldomly enough so as not to warrant special vocabulary that might optimize communication in that concept.

Or that Standard English is not yet complete, which is probably more true.

And probably not to all other standard English speakers.

Oh, it is to this one.

[metal56]

Should I say what I think of this debate? No, I'll keep that part of my opinion to myself.

You can always send a private message to me.

[jotham]

Standard English is not yet complete, which is probably more true.

Well, we are changing the vocabulary a little, but not the concept. When I say a language isn't efficient or effective at expressing a point, you are saying it isn't complete. You seem to be seeing language as static, and I see it as plastic. (Being complete is subjective anyhow; who decides what is complete or not.) I doubt that any language is really complete, unless you're willing to defend that any culture is. But every language has the flexibility to communicate what the culture and people want to communicate. When the population see that their language is incomplete for what they want to communicate, they can "complete" the language very easily by changing or abbreviating patterns, making up words, or borrowing from other languages or within their own dialects. So standard English can't be seen as lacking, as if it were some permanent kind of helpless thing.
The Inuit may find English incomplete, or lacking, to express the different varieties of snow, but they can make up new words to express it, or even use their own Inuit words, and make English more complete. After all, English borrows words from all kinds of languages without chagrin for this purpose, probably more so than other languages. That probably makes English one of the most "complete" languages in the world — at least presently. Segments of the population pursue all kinds of different interests, which require an understanding of concepts that the general population doesn't have. And when they associate together to talk about these things forming new patterns and words, they help make the language complete. Jobs require special communication of key concepts that standard English just doesn't provide; and we call that jargon, since most people don't have a clue or don't care. And it fits in rather nice with standard English.
You are right that all languages can be used objectively and subjectively, which suggests they are more complete than you seem to be admitting. I meant tendencies though. Our Western culture has a long history of people intensely interested in the arts, literature, poetry, etc. (subjective) and sciences (objective) and all of this in many fields. It has had the effect of rendering the language very competent in a wide array of topics. Other cultures may have historically emphasized on the arts (like poetry), but maybe not so much on science. Their language may reflect the fact — but it doesn't mean the language is stuck there, or is permanently lacking. As the culture educates itself, and new-found scientists do research, become familiar with objectivity in the language, and communicate so on a daily basis, slowly the thinking and language begin to transform and take in these realities. (Perhaps Japan is a good example). The language becomes more "complete."
When you say that standard is lacking or incomplete, it seems like a dead-end, as if it were hopelessly innate; I would say that languages or dialects are neutral, or even full of potential — it is only as incomplete or lacking as the current population that speaks it.

[metal56]

When I say a language isn't efficient or effective at expressing a point, you are saying it isn't complete.

Note that I gave it as ONE option to consider.

You seem to be seeing language as static, and I see it as plastic.

Hmm. "Standard English is not yet complete, which is probably more true." Does "not yet complete" pose a static situation?

But every language has the flexibility to communicate what the culture and people want to communicate.

But not always as succintly, efficiently, precisely as some others. That's what you get with many artificial languages, or dialects such as Standard English. Other English dialect speakers are often told to choose Standard English over their normal way of usage. Many of those speakers, myself included, feel that a lot is lost regarding succintness and precision, dynamism and force, and so on. If you can't see/believe that, then you are either so deep into standardised usage, or you don't need to express certain things that other dialect speakers do.

[jotham]

I didn't word that quite right. Instead of "every language has the flexibility to communicate what the culture and people want to express," I should say "every language has the flexibility of changing and transforming in order to communicate what the culture and people want to express."
When you say a language has a lack, I wonder if you mean a lack of "dynamism and force" like when delivering the punch in a joke — using four-letter words or ain't, etc. I don't think anyone would judge you for that, if well executed for emphasis (or whatever communicational purpose) and sporadically. If, however, you talk to us about language or some other serious topic and use might could all the time because you believe it strengthens the force of your argument, every time...well, it might could help you express yourself succinctly, but I can't imagine it helping us digest it any better. Communication is two way: it has to be easy on the hearer as well as the speaker. If two speakers are in the same dialect, then fine and dandy. If the hearer is from another, then your own dialect may not communicate as expressly as you think. But if it really helps you get your point across, you should write in your dialect all the time to us. If it really be workin', I can't don't fathom no one ain't beatin' ya over the head no how.

[metal56]

I

didn't word that quite right. Instead of "every language has the flexibility to communicate what the culture and people want to express," I should say "every language has the flexibility of changing and transforming in order to communicate what the culture and people want to express."

I'd word it differently:

"every language/dialect has the potential to change and transform in order to communicate what the culture and people want to express."

When you say a language has a lack, I wonder if you mean a lack of "dynamism and force" like when delivering the punch in a joke---using four-letter words or ain't, etc.

Nothing as narrow as that. Doesn't Standard English have four-letter words, BTW?

If, however, you talk to us about language or some other serious topic and use might could all the time because you believe it strengthens the force of your argument, every time...well, it might could help you express yourself succinctly, but I can't imagine it helping us digest it any better.

Who do you mean by "us"?

Communication is two way: it has to be easy on the hearer as well as the speaker.

And many turns of phrase from Standard English are not easy on some people's ears. You do see that, don't you? Or do you think that it is the hearer who is at fault if they find certain Standard English expressions and phrases not to their taste, unacceptable, odd, or other?

But if it really helps you get your point across, you should write in your dialect all the time to us. If it really be workin', I can't don't fathom no one ain't beatin' ya over the head no how.

I might just do that. I've spent years learning your dialect, being beaten over the head with it. Now, are you ready to spend the same amount of time studying mine? If so, come back later and we can converse in it. Until then, I'll have to do like most dialect speakers and placate you by conversing in what I assume is your only dialect, i.e. Standard English.

[metal56]

How do you, PERSONALLY, determine S/Standard English?

[Stephen Jones]

Not in the context of a general question. Not as a first-turn question.

It's just as acceptable in those circumstances as the Present Perfect.

[jotham]

How do you, PERSONALLY, determine S/Standard English?

I'm pretty humble enough to not make PERSONAL determinations. I always look at the experts whose judgment I can rely on, who have studied current and historical usage, and who have been down the road I'm traveling. I am humble enough to know that I have a lot to learn, and that I haven't learned standard English enough, or rather, that I can learn infinitely more English. I am a perfectionist that is never content with just enough. I am still asked grammar questions that I have to look up. I don't just go off spouting off my personal opinions if I don't have to. Put another way, I try to make my personal opinion and those of professionals the same.
When I am asked tricky grammar questions, I consult several resources. If I get two or three authorities that say the same thing, then I am pretty safe in asserting that it is standard English, while citing the authorities so that they know it isn't just little ole me. An authority that has proven himself to be excellent in this field is Bryan Garner and his Modern American Usage. I think he has a no-nonsense approach to usage that assures grammarians without provoking linguists. Perhaps it would be good reading for you and help you see these issues from a different light.
I think a lot of your anxiety may have to do with a misunderstanding of grammarians. There are extreme ones out there that are very few who want to bring the language back to two hundred years ago. Mainstream grammarians, like Bryan Garner, are not of that variety.
I respect dialects. I particularly like southern accents, especially from Virginia and the East Coast. I grew up where the southern accent, though not dominant, wasn't unheard. On occasion, I even revert to pronouncing things that way. Sometimes when I'm slightly irritated and want to talk common sense in a classroom or meeting, I find myself slipping into that because, like you said, it helps me deliver my message and seems to give me an aura or personality that is more "common sense." It is kind of a rhetorical device. But I don't think I would ever revert to ungrammatical structures, especially if I were a teacher of American kids, and definitely being around Chinese speakers all the time, who are always — I'm painfully aware — imitating my speech.