Print

Print


Haha, that sounds a lot like my 4yr old brothers... "You help I with this?"
"Us were goin' campin' on a different day." "I want you give it to *I*!"
"Why him gived it to she?" (and the possessives are almost always "mine",
"yours", "she's", "him's", and "ours/we's". They even thought the "mine" in
"Minecraft" was a possessive, so "Faith is playin' she's craft" XD). I
don't think the rest of us were that persistent in our peculiarities of
speech, but when you get as much input from your twin as from anyone else,
I guess they stick around longer...

-Christa

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On 07/09/2017 23:24, James Kane wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Allowed?  Who by?  We don't have an 'English Academy' (like _l'Académie
>>> française_) nor, as with some language, has the US, UK or, AFAIK, any other
>>> anglophone government sought to control language.  The whole point surely
>>> is that we're noting what
>>> happens as people use the language, i.e. we're taking a desriptive
>>> not a perscriptive standpoint.
>>>
>>
> OOPs - I meant, of course, 'prescriptive'
>
> ​This ​is a bizarre point to make. For me, and certainly in Standard
>>  English, 'us saw they yesterday' is not a grammatical sentence sentence.
>>
>
> It may not be considered grammatical by you or in some prescriptivist
> construct called 'Standard English' but what I wrote, and you seem to
> forget, is:
> {quote}
> If someone says "Us saw they yesterday" we do _not_ understand this as
> inversion and meaning "They saw us yesterday.  We understand as a quaint
> dialect variant of standard English "We saw them yesterday."
> {unquote}
>
> Quite frankly, whether you consider the sentence grammatical or not is
> irrelevant.  The point I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to make
> was that most of us would understand it to mean "We saw them yesterday."
>
> It has nothing to do with being allowed by any particular prescriptivist.
>> but by the language itself.
>>
>
> That sentence _I_ find bizarre.
>
> It so happens I've been skimming through a paper on English dialect
> forms.  Here are some intersting examples, many I'm sure "not allowed"
> by Standard English!  But actually used by English speakers - and that's
> what descriptivists like And and me are interested in.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ... so he told I he ’d give I the sack, I and my father.
>
> ...but he never interfered with I, but anybody else who came down here,
> he ’d go for.
>
> We snapped he off like a damn carrot! [object _he_ referent is ‛anchor’]
>
> So he said, I could do with he for a fortnight.
>
> I did give she a hand and she did give I a hand and we did help one
> another.
>
> And it ’s still the Grasses’ house, you know, with we.
>
> All sorts of long vases; I can show you some of they, I got photographs
> here.
>
> ...and when we been going up hill, he ’d go up the hill and wait for I
> to push the bike up.
>
> She used to bring old family stockings for we girls to darn and woe
> betide anybody who didn’t do them properly.
>
> They want I to go to Charlton.
>
> [I'll omit all the "me and the boys did this" examples, as they are very
> numerous]
>
> Him and I ain’t been fishing for these last six weeks.
>
> Well, us used to be shoved out there Saturday afternoons and go pictures
> and when us come out of the first place us went was to the Island
> because the pictures we saw was cowboys.
>
> And he ‛d buy my mother two love books, and them were a penny apiece.
>
> I said, I ‛ll have an echo-sounder. But Abey and them had wireless,
> which was better really.
>
> Ray
>