|
|
Do we say "a man of many brains" or "a man of
<So I'm done. No more arguing with M56 until I can be sure I'm not going to fall into a black hole over some stupid technicality. >
It's you who began getting technical: <<I wouldn't say "of much brain" is idiomatic English in the sense that it's a common expression, because it isn't. >>
<How can there be a single standard English anyway?>
Has anyone said there is? Not me. All dialects, including Standard dialects, allow speakers the possibility to express in a formal to informal way. In Standard English, "much + noun" is seen as lying toward the formal end of the scale and "a lot of" toward the informal end. So, "much brain" appears in formal, somewhat literary registers and "a lot of" appears more in informal, conversational registers. That's a fact. As much/a lot of daily use lies toward the informal end of the scale, it is not surprising that "a lot of brain/s" is more commonly heard over "much brain". It's the same with: much courage/a lot of courage/a lot of balls (Ask why we don't hear "much balls".) much pain/a lot of pain much money/a lot of money etc.
<I'm regarding Standard English as a literary language with a version used in formal speech.>
Standard English is not a language. Standard English is a dialect and one part of the many dialects that go to make up the English language. <It is largely frozen to represent a highly idealized version of formal speech at approximately the start of the 19th century, with primarily vocabulary change occurring in it since that point in time and only relatively minor grammatical change (such as the optional replacement of "whom" with "who"). > You seem to be living with a 19th century definition of Standard English. Try reading this book: http://www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/ That book is an account of Standard English as it exists today. <Of course, there are informal speech varieties which are widely understandable throughout large sections of the English-speaking world, but these are not necessarily applicable to the entire English-speaking world in the way that standard literary English is.> Once again, Standard English allows one to express oneself in a formal, medium formal and informal way. If you want to go on spouting your own individual take on that, it's your choice, but you will be misrepresenting Standard English as it stands toaday. Read more, get out and meet those involved in writing about Standard English/es in a modern conetx. Think again.
>>Standard English is not a language.<<
I was not using the word "language" in the sense of how, say, English is a language. Rather, I was using the term "literary language" in the sense that things such as Standard German and the Kanto dialect of Japanese are literary languages. >>Standard English is a dialect and one part of the many dialects that go to make up the English language.<< No, it is not a dialect, as a dialect would be a particular variety spoken in a particular area. Standard English has no phonology to speak of in and of itself; consequently, it itself is purely literary as such, even though features of it are definitely present in actual spoken varieties of English (such as standard varieties such as Received Pronunciation and General American). One cannot define it as a dialect, as the spoken varieties which are generally considered to be standard have significantly differing phonologies to the point that they cannot practically be considered as being the same dialect even with a very broad usage of the word "dialect". >>Once again, Standard English allows one to express oneself in a formal, medium formal and informal way. If you want to go on spouting your own individual take on that, it's your choice, but you will be misrepresenting Standard English as it stands toaday. Read more, get out and meet those involved in writing about Standard English/es in a modern conetx. Think again.<< The main thing here is that I make a distinction between Standard English as in the universal formal written language common to the English-speaking world as a whole and spoken standard varieties of English, which are in no fashion common to the entire English-speaking world. The latter definitely contain features of Standard English, and in many ways are essentially extensions of that which include actual phonologies and typical spoken features such as cliticization and reduction. But even still, the significantly differing phonologies mean that one really cannot speak of a single spoken Standard English. Of course, one might be able to speak of a spoken Standard English if one ignores phonology altogether and only consider the term Standard English to apply to the morphology, syntax, usage, and lexicon of the various spoken standard varieties of English while allowing significant variation in phonology in such.
I see that we're still in the "terminology technicality black hole"....
<Standard English is not a language. Standard English is a dialect and one part of the many dialects that go to make up the English language.>
Point taken!
M56 is brimming with brilliant insight into linguistics. Admiration for you!
<No, it is not a dialect, as a dialect would be a particular variety spoken in a particular area.>
According to whom? ""... in the dialect known as standard English. In many important respects this dialect is different from other English dialects, and some people may find it surprising to see it referred to as a dialect at all. However, in so far as it differs grammatically and lexically from other varieties of English, it is legitimate to consider it a dialect: the term dialect can be used to apply to all varieties, not just to non-standard varieties." Trudgill 1974, p. 17." 'Trudgill concludes in this matter, that "...Standard English is a dialect that differs from the others in that it has greater prestige, does not have an associated accent and does not form part of a dialect continuum". Hence, Standard English is purely a social dialect.' "In the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ world, ‘dialect’ is used to cover any variety of language that can be delimited linguistically or (more rarely) socially; thus, Standard English is a dialect – a description of it that goes against most lay understandings." Paul Kerswill Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
"The main thing here is that I make a distinction between Standard English as in the universal formal written language common to the English-speaking world as a whole and spoken standard varieties of English, which are in no fashion common to the entire English-speaking world."
You are the only person I know who define a separate Standard English that is only formal. And, you haven't explained why we sometimes use "can" over "could, as one example, or "will" and "would" in Standard English. Or is it that you think only "could" and "would" Standard English? And please tell us why you would consider the third choice here to be nonstandard: 1. Essential measures should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity. 2. One should undertake any necessary measures at the earliest opportunity. 3. You should do whatever you have to as soon as you can. ......................
<I see that we're still in the "terminology technicality black hole".... >
You are were you want to be, Kef. There are many other threads to play in if you don't like what's going on here.
<<M56 is brimming with brilliant insight into linguistics. Admiration for you! >>
I agree. He speaks as a linguist, and not as a layman, and in the case of pointing out the availabilty of different registers in Standard English, the former approach is more useful, more precise.
>><No, it is not a dialect, as a dialect would be a particular variety spoken in a particular area.>
According to whom? ""... in the dialect known as standard English. In many important respects this dialect is different from other English dialects, and some people may find it surprising to see it referred to as a dialect at all. However, in so far as it differs grammatically and lexically from other varieties of English, it is legitimate to consider it a dialect: the term dialect can be used to apply to all varieties, not just to non-standard varieties." Trudgill 1974, p. 17."<< Note that I am using the term "dialect" in a stricter sense than Trudgill, in that I am using it just in the literal sense of the word, that is, a variety spoken in a particular area, as opposed to, say, a variety spoken in a particular social group (a sociolect). Note that I do not use the term with connotations of nonstandardness, unlike some - a dialect can very well be standard. However, I am excluding Standard English from being considered as an actual dialect in that there is no particular continuum of, well, subdialects within some particular area corresponding to it. General American and Received Pronunciation could be called spoken forms of Standard English, but they together do not constitute a single dialect. >>'Trudgill concludes in this matter, that "...Standard English is a dialect that differs from the others in that it has greater prestige, does not have an associated accent and does not form part of a dialect continuum". Hence, Standard English is purely a social dialect.'<< Does not have an accent? The two most clearly standard spoken varieties, Received Pronunciation and General American (I am not calling them dialects, especially in the case of RP, which is more a sociolect than a dialect) are definitely accented to speakers of each other. There is no single spoken standard variety that can be claimed to "not have an accent" (even though I would dispute that notion as well even in that case). Another note is that the main spoken varieties, while highly idealized, still are associated with actual dialect continua. General American is approximated by many dialects in the US, which generally have slight variations relative to it, and is based off historical dialects in approximately the southwestern Midwest around WW2. Similarly, while RP is probably even more idealized than General American, it is still not all too far from, say, Home Counties dialects as well. >>"In the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ world, ‘dialect’ is used to cover any variety of language that can be delimited linguistically or (more rarely) socially; thus, Standard English is a dialect – a description of it that goes against most lay understandings."<< That's stretching the term "dialect" quite a bit, and to say that such a meaning of dialect is used in the "'Anglo-Saxon' world" as a whole across the board is a stretch as well.. I myself prefer to just use the deliberately vague term "variety" to cover such, and to reserve the term "dialect" to refer to stricter sense of the speech in any given area. >>Paul Kerswill Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University<< So? That does not make the positions layed out any more right, as they should be evaluated in their own terms rather than terms of whoever happens to say them, especially since they do not concern particularly specialized areas in linguistics on which in-depth knowledge would be rather limited amongst the general population (such as, say, the linguistics of Nahuatl languages).
>><<M56 is brimming with brilliant insight into linguistics. Admiration for you! >>
I agree. He speaks as a linguist, and not as a layman, and in the case of pointing out the availabilty of different registers in Standard English, the former approach is more useful, more precise.<< Can you cut out the useless cheerleading, please? You are obviously not actually contributing anything to the discussion here.
<Note that I am using the term "dialect" in a stricter sense than Trudgill, in that I am using it just in the literal sense of the word, that is, a variety spoken in a particular area, as opposed to, say, a variety spoken in a particular social group (a sociolect). >
No, you are using it in its limited sense to suit your needs. The literal sense of the word is: Dialect (Page: 405) Di"a*lect (?), n. [F. dialecte, L. dialectus, fr. Gr. , fr. to converse, discourse. See Dialogue.] 1. Means or mode of expressing thoughts; language; tongue; form of speech. This book is writ in such a dialect As may the minds of listless men affect. Bunyan. The universal dialect of the world. South. 2. The form of speech of a limited region or people, as distinguished from ether forms nearly related to it; a variety or subdivision of a language; speech characterized by local peculiarities or specific circumstances; as, the Ionic and Attic were dialects of Greece; the Yorkshire dialect; the dialect of the learned. In the midst of this Babel of dialects there suddenly appeared a standard English language. Earle. [Charles V.] could address his subjects from every quarter in their native dialect. Prescott. Syn. -- Language; idiom; tongue; speech; phraseology. See Language, and Idiom. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=dialect dialect 1577, from M.Fr. dialecte, from L. dialectus "local language, way of speaking, conversation," from Gk. dialektos, from dialegesthai "converse with each other," from dia- "across, between" + legein "speak" (see lecture). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dialect&searchmode=none |