How do you pronounce ''car''?

<<perhaps you, my friend, should go and check for yourself that stupid IS a noun, maybe I used it in the wrong way, but just click this: http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/stupid and make sure.>>

But "stupid", as a noun, can only be used as a form of address, as in, "Hey stupid, why don't you (etc)". It can't be pluralized or used as a subject or object.

<<Sei andato in Italia e hai detto che hanno usato passato remoto in modo incorretto? Hahahahahaha. Puoi gridare quanto ti pare. Non fa niente.>>

Ah no no no cara amica Tiff. Mi sono sbagliato, ma nel Nord Italia è di quasi esclusivamente usare il passato prossimo, mentre nel Sud Italia si ha la tendenza ad usare il passato remoto. La ragione per questi usi "regionali" è l'influsso delle parlate dialettali. Pero, mi sembra che si doverebbe rispettare la grammatica corretta della lingua Italiana.

E non appena io avevo detto quello (sul'uso del passato remoto e il passato prossimo), alcuni italiani del Sud Italia che c'erano (di Napoli, madonna!) cominciarono a litigare sulla grammatica Italiana!! e una donna mi ha datto un buon calcio, che porca!!!

hehehe Ciao.

Un calcio nel culo, per criticare la gramatica del'Italiano. Ma gli italiani normalmente sono un pochino più amicali. hehehe

<<But "stupid", as a noun, can only be used as a form of address, as in, "Hey stupid, why don't you (etc)". It can't be pluralized or used as a subject or object.>>

That's right. ''stupid'' is a noun only in that case. In all other cases is an adjective.

Yes guys, that's what I've been talking about. I use to confuse the usage of certain nouns which don't or cannot take a plural from, but thanks.

<<E non appena io avevo detto quello (sul'uso del passato remoto e il passato prossimo), alcuni italiani del Sud Italia che c'erano (di Napoli, madonna!) cominciarono a litigare sulla grammatica Italiana!! e una donna mi ha datto un buon calcio, che porca!!!

hehehe Ciao.>>

As this is an forum in English I feel I must translate this one:

Just as I had said that (about the right usage or the Present Perfect and Past Perfect (obviously those are equivalents for Italian)), some southern Italians who were there started an argument on Italian grammar. And one Italian woman kicked my arse, bitch!

she literally did. hehe

<<If that were true, hence, you, Albert, condemn millions of people from UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America and other countries. >>

As Travis indicated, you're exactly right :)

Yet, oddly, you seem to have done the same in other instances in condemning native speech forms. Also, your comment to Travis where you implied that variation in pronunciation/speech is acceptable but variation in grammar isn't acceptable doesn't make sense. Native speakers vary not only in phonological processes (so, in accents) but in syntactical and morphological processes as well (so, in grammatical areas). This is why it's so arbitrary for prescriptivists to claim that one native grammatical construction (or phonological process, for that matter) is "incorrect" or "lazy," because in actuality all variations differ from each other. There is no one inherently "pure" form of a language which other varieties deviate from, rather they're all descendants of an earlier form of the language and have all changed in different ways. Therefore, assigning "correct" and "incorrect" labels to certain dialects and sociolects (whether we're talking about sounds, as you indicated, or grammar) of native speech is a sorely misguided approach to how human language works.

There's nothing wrong with people wanting to have a written or formal-speech "standard" (or collection of standards, as it is for many languages like Norwegian or English), but for someone to claim that everyday native usage which doesn't match up with formal written or spoken norms is "incorrect" (such as when you "corrected" the New Zealander) is absurd. I hope you see the point that Travis and I (and others) have been making in terms of how linguistics views the nature of language variation in terms of native speakers. If you have any questions feel free to ask :)

<<There's nothing wrong with people wanting to have a written or formal-speech "standard" (or collection of standards, as it is for many languages like Norwegian or English), but for someone to claim that everyday native usage which doesn't match up with formal written or spoken norms is "incorrect" (such as when you "corrected" the New Zealander) is absurd. I hope you see the point that Travis and I (and others) have been making in terms of how linguistics views the nature of language variation in terms of native speakers. If you have any questions feel free to ask :) >>

OK, gentlemen. OK. That might well be true, but some colloquialisms sound too akward to me.

Oh, by the way, if that other guy can say CAN'T as /kjan/

then I can perfectly pronounce:

ARSE as /jas/

>>Oh, by the way, if that other guy can say CAN'T as /kjan/

then I can perfectly pronounce:

ARSE as /jas/<<

Of course, are you a native speaker of English then? From what you yourself have said on here you haven't, unless you find a native speaker who *does* natively use such a pronunciation of "arse", you cannot claim that such is "correct" in any dialect of English, as correctness is linguistically defined in terms of *native* speakers of any given language/dialect.

I meant to say, in my post above, "on here you aren't, so unless you find a native speaker".

<<OK, gentlemen. OK. That might well be true, but some colloquialisms sound too akward to me.>>

Well, you can think that on a personal level. We all do. For instance, certain grammatical constructions in English used in dialects other than my own occasionally sound "off" or "awkward" to my ears. However, my subjective impression of them as "weird" is far different from considering them "incorrect" simply because I don't happen to use them or because those forms don't comply with formal written norms.

<<Oh, by the way, if that other guy can say CAN'T as /kjan/

then I can perfectly pronounce:

ARSE as /jas/>>

You're missing the point. /kjan/ is a pronunciation caused by regular sound change rules that have occurred in that particular dialect by native speakers. As far as I know, /jas/ is not a pronunciation used anywhere for "arse." You see, language variation in terms of phonological phenomena is not random but is a result of very complex, very regular and predictable processes. You're perfecetly free to not pronounce "can't" as /kjan/, because you are not a native speaker of that dialect, and, as a nonnative English speaker you've chosen to emulate another variety. That's perfectly fine. However, to claim that other native varieties of English (or any language, for that matter) are "incorrect" is ridiculous. You're free to not emulate such native speech norms but to label them wrong is unacceptable and betrays a sorely misguided view of how language works.

No, I'm not a native-speaker. I still make very crappy mistakes. However,
I can still fuck around saying /kjan/ or /jas/ and claim that I am from Jamaica. Hence, the people in that particular area would be obliged to respect my way of speaking.

Right, I suppose you are right. And I also think that if I were a native-speaker my opinions about incorrectness would be taken more seriously.

This is like trying to find out why the world was created in this way and not in any other way.

>>That's perfectly fine. However, to claim that other native varieties of English (or any language, for that matter) are "incorrect" is ridiculous.<<

Of course, it is! I haven't said that! I clearly said, long ago, that I didn't know that was the way of speaking in Jamaica, OK? Now, if it sounds annoying to me, that's my problem, and only mine... I thought that was a mispronunciation, OK?

I said that about going to Jamaica because I was annoyed and I didn't believed that /kjan/ pronunciation was true. But now I know it.

<<However, I can still fuck around saying /kjan/ or /jas/ and claim that I am from Jamaica.>>

Read my post above. You're still missing the fact that /kjan/ is a native form and /jas/ isn't. You're comparing apples to oranges.

<<And I also think that if I were a native-speaker my opinions about incorrectness would be taken more seriously.>>

Well, not necessarily. I've heard plenty of native speakers of English who've made the same claims you've made (regarding other varieties of English as supposedly being "incorrect" or "sloppy" or whatever). The fact that you're a nonnative English speaker has very little to do with your comments towards the correctness and incorrectness of language. If you were a native speaker of any given language (let's call it "Language X") and said that certain other dialects or constructions of Language X were sloppy or incorrect I would strongly disagree with you even tho I wasn't a native speaker of Language X. It's the linguistic principle that matters here, not what your native language happens to be.