I don't have to. They know just as well as we do that English is spoken in the United States.
ANYWAY v.s. ANYWAYS
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 4
<<I tell you, when I speak my beautiful language, Spanish, I try to avoid dumb expressions as much as possible.>>
What is "dumb" is entirely subjective. Also, if it's a native form of Spanish, it by definition cannot be incorrect. Yes, certain forms are socially stigmatized or absent in formal writing but that's a far cry from that meaning that such things are wrong. Incorrect Spanish is only the Spanish spoken by nonnatives who do an imperfect job of emulating native speech.
Here's one example of native language variation in Spanish. Last year I studied abroad in Argentina and I noticed several grammatical constructions used by everyone there which don't match up with "correct" standard formal written Spanish. However, everyone in Argentina uses them, even the most educated of speakers. One example of this is saying "delante tuyo" instead of standard "delante de vos/tí." However, it would be ridiculous to claim that the millions of native Spanish speakers (I suspect this feature is not unique to Argentine Spanish) who speak this way are making a "mistake." I know my Argentine friends commented on the phenomenon and were well aware that such forms were unacceptable in formal writing, but that doesn't mean they were incorrect in using them in their daily speech.
The same could be said about using "anyway" or "anyways" in English. Just as certain dialects of Spanish permit "delante tuyo" (altho they wouldn't write that way), some English dialects permit "anyways," with little to no stigmatization, just like "delante tuyo" is rarely stigmatized in Argentina in the spoken context. To the contrary, it's really the normal, expected form there.
What is "dumb" is entirely subjective. Also, if it's a native form of Spanish, it by definition cannot be incorrect. Yes, certain forms are socially stigmatized or absent in formal writing but that's a far cry from that meaning that such things are wrong. Incorrect Spanish is only the Spanish spoken by nonnatives who do an imperfect job of emulating native speech.
Here's one example of native language variation in Spanish. Last year I studied abroad in Argentina and I noticed several grammatical constructions used by everyone there which don't match up with "correct" standard formal written Spanish. However, everyone in Argentina uses them, even the most educated of speakers. One example of this is saying "delante tuyo" instead of standard "delante de vos/tí." However, it would be ridiculous to claim that the millions of native Spanish speakers (I suspect this feature is not unique to Argentine Spanish) who speak this way are making a "mistake." I know my Argentine friends commented on the phenomenon and were well aware that such forms were unacceptable in formal writing, but that doesn't mean they were incorrect in using them in their daily speech.
The same could be said about using "anyway" or "anyways" in English. Just as certain dialects of Spanish permit "delante tuyo" (altho they wouldn't write that way), some English dialects permit "anyways," with little to no stigmatization, just like "delante tuyo" is rarely stigmatized in Argentina in the spoken context. To the contrary, it's really the normal, expected form there.
Terry Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:52 am GMT:
<<You may be right, Pete. As far as Americans changing English, for better or for worse. But I do like to think of the English language as a "living language" as the experts say, (not that I always agree with the so-called experts ) and therefore it's always changing. I fear that if it stops changing it will be like Latin and die.>>
I don't like the term ''living'' applied to language in this very general way. Yes, language has something in common with the general notion of ''living'', but it also differs in some aspekts. Living also menas dying after a foreseable periode of time. But language need not to die after a foreseable periode. A language may live as long as there are speakers of it. Changing does not imply living, the wether is changing, but does it live? -- Certainly not! The development of a living being is biologically determined, but does that also hold on language? If so, that would mean that language development would be highly determined. Do you really believe that? It's more likely that language development is highly arbitrary, depending mostly on non-linguistical factors such as e.g. politics or the influence and the strength of influence of other languages.
To consider a language as ''living'' in the way an animal or a plant lives is as far as I know a century-old linguistical theory -- besides other theories.
It's a very romantic theory, therefore it has many supporters.
Is e.g. Latin e dead lanuage? Maybe there aren't people with Latin as mother tongue, but it is tought and still spoken. And if you say, that there are no words for modern days things in Latin, why not inventing such words, according to the known rules for building up latin words, of course?
Even Hebrew was reactivated, so why not Latin? Many auxillary languages are based on Latin, Latin is still used for building up words in science, the descendents of Latin are still spoken all over the world. So when do you consider a language as dead?
<<Then, of course, maybe Americans have turned Englsih into their own language ( bastardized, perhaps, in your eyes).>>
The other way round: If English was turned by whomever into their own language (more precise into there own variety of English, which maybe hard to understand for others or for non-native speakers), is it then justified to still call it English?
<<There are many variations on the language as we see on this site and so I guess my attitude is, live and let live. Speak the language as it speaks to you. In other words, live it and don't fuss too much, easier said than done and all of that. But still . . . >>
If we want English as a language for international and intercultural communication, there must be a kernal of the language which is not allowed to change, otherwise English will not be able to serve this purpose.
<<You may be right, Pete. As far as Americans changing English, for better or for worse. But I do like to think of the English language as a "living language" as the experts say, (not that I always agree with the so-called experts ) and therefore it's always changing. I fear that if it stops changing it will be like Latin and die.>>
I don't like the term ''living'' applied to language in this very general way. Yes, language has something in common with the general notion of ''living'', but it also differs in some aspekts. Living also menas dying after a foreseable periode of time. But language need not to die after a foreseable periode. A language may live as long as there are speakers of it. Changing does not imply living, the wether is changing, but does it live? -- Certainly not! The development of a living being is biologically determined, but does that also hold on language? If so, that would mean that language development would be highly determined. Do you really believe that? It's more likely that language development is highly arbitrary, depending mostly on non-linguistical factors such as e.g. politics or the influence and the strength of influence of other languages.
To consider a language as ''living'' in the way an animal or a plant lives is as far as I know a century-old linguistical theory -- besides other theories.
It's a very romantic theory, therefore it has many supporters.
Is e.g. Latin e dead lanuage? Maybe there aren't people with Latin as mother tongue, but it is tought and still spoken. And if you say, that there are no words for modern days things in Latin, why not inventing such words, according to the known rules for building up latin words, of course?
Even Hebrew was reactivated, so why not Latin? Many auxillary languages are based on Latin, Latin is still used for building up words in science, the descendents of Latin are still spoken all over the world. So when do you consider a language as dead?
<<Then, of course, maybe Americans have turned Englsih into their own language ( bastardized, perhaps, in your eyes).>>
The other way round: If English was turned by whomever into their own language (more precise into there own variety of English, which maybe hard to understand for others or for non-native speakers), is it then justified to still call it English?
<<There are many variations on the language as we see on this site and so I guess my attitude is, live and let live. Speak the language as it speaks to you. In other words, live it and don't fuss too much, easier said than done and all of that. But still . . . >>
If we want English as a language for international and intercultural communication, there must be a kernal of the language which is not allowed to change, otherwise English will not be able to serve this purpose.
<<I don't like the term ''living'' applied to language in this very general way. Yes, language has something in common with the general notion of ''living'', but it also differs in some aspekts. Living also menas dying after a foreseable periode of time. But language need not to die after a foreseable periode. A language may live as long as there are speakers of it.>>
Oops, too many punas. We were sitting around drinking with frineds last night and I was popping back and forth online to see the discussions. Too bad I didn't pop off before I became incoherent. Even my typing isn't that bad! I won't even bother to try to edit it or even to make sense of this post.
Oops, too many punas. We were sitting around drinking with frineds last night and I was popping back and forth online to see the discussions. Too bad I didn't pop off before I became incoherent. Even my typing isn't that bad! I won't even bother to try to edit it or even to make sense of this post.
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 4