Reduction

MollyB   Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:57 am GMT
Standard English is typically concerned with reducing possibilities regarding morpholigical and syntactic variation, Right?
MollyB   Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:59 am GMT
Edit: "morphological and syntactic variation"

Sorry.
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:51 am GMT
In 100 years people will probably say "I is" rather than "I am".
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:17 am GMT
<<In 100 years people will probably say "I is" rather than "I am". >>

Perhaps they'll say "I be" instead. Maybe someday, we'll have no inflected tenses at all for most verbs -- we'll use "I did go" rather than "I went", for example. We'll say things like "more strong" rather than stronger (you can already hear this happening, BTW), and plurals will vanish. The last vestiges of case in the promouns will disappear, too.

We'll see sentences like "Ten more fast car did pass I on I way to work." (Ten faster cars passed me on my way to work.)

Then we won't have any morphological variation to worry about standardizing. It's not clear if we can get rid of both syntax and morphology at the same time, though.

I suppose you'd still have vocabulary variation and pronunciation to standardize, though.
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:48 am GMT
<<We'll say things like "more strong" rather than stronger (you can already hear this happening, BTW),>>>

I thought it was the other way around, like 'beautifuler', 'wonderfuler', 'retardeder'
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:51 am GMT
Standard English - like all "standard" languages anywhere - is an artificial construct for institutional purposes. A "useful fiction," if you like.

I have ever met a "Standard English speaker."
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:00 am GMT
This was the question. Anyone able to answer it?

Standard English is typically concerned with reducing possibilities regarding morpholigical and syntactic variation, Right?
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:53 pm GMT
<<I thought it was the other way around, like 'beautifuler', 'wonderfuler', 'retardeder'>>

I agree. "-er" seems to be increasing in use. For example, "funner" is very common now.
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:15 pm GMT
<<I agree. "-er" seems to be increasing in use. For example, "funner" is very common now. >>

Is this in the US, or the UK, CAN, AUS, NZ, Ireland, etc?

In the US, I've been noticing (on the radio, especially), the use of "more clear", "more strong", etc, rather than "clearer" or "stronger".
RayH   Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:22 pm GMT
<<In the US, I've been noticing (on the radio, especially), the use of "more <<clear", "more strong", etc, rather than "clearer" or "stronger".

As have I. I can't tell you how annoying I find it.
Jim   Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:33 pm GMT
"Ten more fast car did pass ..."

Were the cars faster or had a few fast cars already passed and then ten more passed too? Simplification will only go so far before complexity elsewhere will have to take up the slack so as to avoid ambiguity.
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:44 pm GMT
And there's the fact that "did pass" and "passed" don't mean the same thing. "did pass" is used to affirm the fact that something passed.
Guest   Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:46 pm GMT
<<Were the cars faster or had a few fast cars already passed and then ten more passed too? Simplification will only go so far before complexity elsewhere will have to take up the slack so as to avoid ambiguity. >>

I suspect when this happens, intonation and stress will become more important or complex, so as to avoid any ambiguity in cases like this.
Guest   Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:43 am GMT
There's nothing wrong about saying "more strong"
Guest   Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:46 am GMT
Seems you're all too chicken to tackle the thread question.