ANYWAY v.s. ANYWAYS

Pete   Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:36 am GMT
I have noticed, that those who say I'm wrong, are Americans mostly. You don't like me correcting your incorrect grammar, huh? Well, now I understand why some English people say you, Americans, have spoiled English. And now speak English no longer, but you speak American.

You can condemn me, and label me as a stupid linguistic purist. But I know a lot of people, all over the world, agree with me.
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.

Then, of course, maybe Americans have turned Englsih into their own language ( bastardized, perhaps, in your eyes).

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 . . .
Kirk   Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:54 am GMT
<<I have noticed, that those who say I'm wrong, are Americans mostly. You don't like me correcting your incorrect grammar, huh? Well, now I understand why some English people say you, Americans, have spoiled English. And now speak English no longer, but you speak American.>>

Nope, nationality has nothing to do with it. There are actually probably more American prescriptivists who've posted on this site (I won't name names) than those from other places, and we and other linguists/linguistically oriented people disagree just as much with them as people espousing the same views from other places. Prescriptivism is prescriptivism, no matter the geographical origin.

<<You can condemn me and label me as a stupid linguistic purist. >>

I don't have the time or interest to condemn you as an individual. However, it's your comments which aren't linguistically sound. I wouldn't call your views on lanaguage "purist," but perhaps something approaching "misguided, unrealistic, and uninformed." That's a start.
.   Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:58 pm GMT
It's most of you, English speakers people who suffer from "SPOIL-MY-OWN-LANGUAGE - ITIS". A serious illness in some people, like in the guy of another post saying that he pronounces "CAR" like /kja:r/.
Travis   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:02 am GMT
>>I have noticed, that those who say I'm wrong, are Americans mostly. You don't like me correcting your incorrect grammar, huh?<<

Of course, that begs the question of just who defines what "correct" means in the first place. And no, that who is not whoever your English teacher(s) may happen to be or prescriptivists of likes of Fowler and others of his sort.

>>Well, now I understand why some English people say you, Americans, have spoiled English. And now speak English no longer, but you speak American.<<

Of course, such English people oh so conveniently overlook when various forms in their own native dialects happen to be innovations and when the forms in use in NAE dialects happen to actually be conservatisms. They happen to overlook things ranging from their non-use of the subjunctive in everyday speech to the numerous phonological changes that have happened in English English since the split between NAE and English English.

>>You can condemn me, and label me as a stupid linguistic purist. But I know a lot of people, all over the world, agree with me.<<

Just because they agree with you means nothing. Just because many people believe something does not mean it is so.
Albert   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:17 am GMT
<<Just because they agree with you means nothing. Just because many people believe something does not mean it is so.>>

Yes, it does. The majority of people don't believe that the sun is actually green and just looks yellow because of the blueness of the sky, because that's not true. The majority of people don't believe that the Earth is actually flat, because that's not true.
Lazar   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:28 am GMT
<<Yes, it does.>>

See how far that will get you in a logic course. (It's referred to as argumentum ad populum.)
Albert   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:35 am GMT
<<Yes, it does.>>

Lazar, the majority of people don't believe that the sun is actually green and just looks yellow because of the blueness of the sky, because that's not true. The majority of people don't believe that the Earth is actually flat, because that's not true. So clearly, because many or most people believe something clearly means that it's true or at least that it's very likely to be true.
Albert   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:36 am GMT
I meant to quote Lazar's:

<<See how far that will get you in a logic course. (It's referred to as argumentum ad populum.)>> and not myself.
Albert   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:40 am GMT
This, of course, excludes what the majority of young children believe in.
Travis   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:42 am GMT
>>Lazar, the majority of people don't believe that the sun is actually green and just looks yellow because of the blueness of the sky, because that's not true. The majority of people don't believe that the Earth is actually flat, because that's not true. So clearly, because many or most people believe something clearly means that it's true or at least that it's very likely to be true.<<

Correlation causality does not make. Just because may people believe the sun is yellow and the sun does happen to be yellow, for instance, does not mean that it is necessarily the many people believing that the sun is yellow which makes the sun yellow. Likewise, it is not necessarily the many people not believing that the Earth is flat which makes the Earth not flat.
Pete   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:47 am GMT
<<Pete,

My friend, you lost this argument the minute you pressed 'send' back on the second page with your initial post. (I never use "anyways," by the way...always "anyway"...but that doesn't change the illogical nature of your argument). One would only need a recording of you speaking colloquially in your native language to be able to pick out similar impurities in your speech. There is no such language as "American," by the way.>>

I tell you, when I speak my beautiful language, Spanish, I try to avoid dumb expressions as much as possible. However sometimes thay pop up and I can't help it, of course. Especially when I am among Central American people, and Mexicans living in the USA who speak a terrible Spanihs, using literal translations from English like for example: saying "DAR PARA ATRAS" or "IR PARA ATRAS" for "GIVE BACK" and "GO BACK", that's the most annoying shit I've ever heard why using those bastardized English-like espressions when we have specific verbs for that "DEVOLVER" and "VOLVER", if you speak Spanish you can understand what I mean.

So I always try to let them know that Spanish, one of the most beautiful Romance languages, is that a beautiful way to express yourself, it's almost poetic. A language cannot be a method of torture.

<<I would, however, like to take a minute to correct your English. Being the strict prescriptivist you are, I am sure you'll be glad I did so.

You wrote: <<ANYWAY, I may accuse you of being ignorants of the English grammar. >>

Notice your use of the term ignorant. In English "ignorant" is an adjective...this is not the case in some other languages like Spanish, for example, where it can also function as a noun. You can accuse someone of being ignorant of something, but calling them "an ignorant" is incorrect English, as such a noun doesn't exist.>>

Yes, I'm happy with that. Thanks very much. What I really want is to speak correct English, to comunicate as I do in Spanish or Italian. I didn't know there was no noun for the adj ignorant. It's good to know that there are some actually intelligent people here.
Pete   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:50 am GMT
<<There is no such language as "American," by the way.>>

I know. Then ask the English, not me...
Kirk   Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:09 am GMT
<<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.
Bardioc   Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:53 pm GMT
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.