|
|
No dialect?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
<Isn't Standard English tied to the location of London? >
It is, but it came to London from the English East or Central (depending on which books you read) Midlands dialect.
>>Isn't Standard English tied to the location of London?<<
I assume you mean Received Pronunciation, as you certainly cannot speak of a single "Standard English" as an actual spoken variety; mind you that Received Pronunciation is most definitely not the standard variety of English in North America. You can only speak of a single "Standard English" in the context of Englsh as a written language.
<I assume you mean Received Pronunciation, as you certainly cannot speak of a single "Standard English" as an actual spoken variety; >
No, I mean Standard English. English was standardised a long time before it went to America.
>>No, I mean Standard English. English was standardised a long time before it went to America.<<
A standard form of English was created before the British settlement of North America began, but the English that was taken by such settlers with them was *not* the present day Standard English. Remember that the British settlement of North America started in the late 1500s, which was still during the Early New English period. This is as opposed to the standard literary English we know today, which was standardized during the mid-late 1700s. Hell, Samuel Johnson was not even alive yet at that time...
<Hell, Samuel Johnson was not even alive yet at that time... >
Why do you write two equal adverb expressions together? yet = at this/that time Your sentence contains tautology.
You could find out more about just how the teacher below learned AAVE;
"Two decades ago, English teachers were themselves urged to code-switch—to learn African American Vernacular English and perhaps even to use it in the classroom. For the 1979-80 school year, for example, the language arts consultant to the King Elementary School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, was required to have "extensive knowledge of black English, and experience in teaching black English speaking students" (Ann Arbor 20). Books that included "some Black English expressions" were considered valuable as children made the transition from monodialectism to bidialectism (Yellin 153), and teachers were advised to learn the grammar of AAVE (Kochman 251)." http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V16_I2_Howard.htm This book could be useful: African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolution, Educational Implications. By John Russell Rickford.
>><Hell, Samuel Johnson was not even alive yet at that time... >
Why do you write two equal adverb expressions together? yet = at this/that time Your sentence contains tautology.<< It's not a tautology, it just contains some redundancy. I really do not understand why you care one bit about such, honestly. Also, "yet" is not really synonymous with "at that time". "At that time" purely refers to the state of something at a particular fixed point in time. On the other hand, "yet" refers to the relationship between two points in time, even if one has not even happened yet. Of course, the only reason why I have to even speak of this difference is because you obviously are mindlessly thinking in terms of dictionary definitions and like.
<I really do not understand why you care one bit about such, honestly. >
Because I'm trying to learn English and using native speakers as a model. If you keep writing "redundancies", how am I to learn to write well? And, I still think yours was tautology: 1a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition.
<"At that time" purely refers to the state of something at a particular fixed point in time. On the other hand, "yet" refers to the relationship between two points in time, even if one has not even happened yet. >
So it's OK to say "He hasn't arrived yet at this time", is it?
>>And, I still think yours was tautology:
1a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition.<< That's the thing - the particular usage of "tautology" that you are using more refers to things like speaking of "ATM machines" and "PIN numbers". (Note that the word "tautology" actually has another completely different, as it also means a statement that is inherently true in and of itself.) >>So it's OK to say "He hasn't arrived yet at this time", is it?<< It's grammatical English, even if it might be a bit lengthy. Yes, one does not really need both "yet" and "at this time", but using both at once is not ungrammatical.
<(Note that the word "tautology" actually has another completely different, as it also means a statement that is inherently true in and of itself.) >
And how many English teachers and grammarians do you think are referring to that meaning when talking daily about language use and errors?
<It's grammatical English, even if it might be a bit lengthy. Yes, one does not really need both "yet" and "at this time", but using both at once is not ungrammatical. >
What does "grammatical" mean to you?
LOL!
< It's grammatical English, even if it might be a bit lengthy. Yes, one does not really need both "yet" and "at this time", but using both at once is not ungrammatical.> 'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.' is also grammatical. So what? You do know the difference between possible and probable, don't you?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
|