Educated or Uneducated Accent

>><<Why is it that if someone doesn't use the same grammar and usage as RP that they don't "sound educated"? Why is it that "accents" that aren't RP are acceptable, but actually really speaking any dialect other than it, in the aforementioned contexts, is not (as if one still has to maintain some kind of affectation of speaking some kind of "standard" English)? >>

Damian didn't mention anything about RP. <<

The reason why I mentioned RP here is that what I was saying is even though relatively minor variation in pronunciation from conservative RP is acceptable from what he has said, due to the emphasis on "accent" it seemed to say that even still grammar and usage has to be "standard", even if the pronunciation itself is not that of RP.

<<speak a single speech form both at work and at home, no matter how far it actually is from some idealized "General American">>

but would you speak to your Grandmother in the same way you would speak to your friend. There were several, less attractive, parts of my vocabulary that I left out while talking to mine!

>><<speak a single speech form both at work and at home, no matter how far it actually is from some idealized "General American">>

but would you speak to your Grandmother in the same way you would speak to your friend. There were several, less attractive, parts of my vocabulary that I left out while talking to mine!<<

Okay, yes, I should have qualified my statement a bit; by "speech form" I meant essentially "dialect", except that I left it more general to account for cases where there is very significant variation between forms which is *not* based on location, such as diglossia. Essentially, what I was referring to is the logical polar opposite of diglossia, which appears to be the case at least here.

Re: "Hell, "gimme" in itself is practically universal in actual usage here..."
--- Travis

Travis I don't think that "gimme dat" or "gimme dat ding" (also the name of a Chuck Berry song) is anything but thug and gangster talk. I know of know one that uses it.

>>Re: "Hell, "gimme" in itself is practically universal in actual usage here..."
--- Travis

Travis I don't think that "gimme dat" or "gimme dat ding" (also the name of a Chuck Berry song) is anything but thug and gangster talk.<<

And do I care what you think? Well, when it comes to anything pertaining to languages you're absolutely discredited, at least in my mind, anyways.

As for "gimme dat ding", I wouldn't exactly say that anyways, as here word-initial /T/ does not stop as [t] (or as [d], which is what the spelling you use indicates, but word-initial [t] is very often heard by English-speakers as /d/ nonetheless), but rather affricates as [tT], which it would do here due to being preceded in another word by /t/ (which itself would be realized as [?]).

>>I know of know one that uses it.<<

Of course, unless you live here (here being southeastern/southern Wisconsin), does that pertain to what I said at all? Or did you feel like "getting your five cents in" just to be either contrary or reactionary, depending on which way you look at it, for its own sake?

Know = Should be no in this context. Travis, emotions are great in the right places but when writing or discussing anything academic it's a good idea to keep 'emotionalism' out of the picture and try to reason with facts, evidence and logic. Have you had any college?

--- Brennus

>>Know = Should be no in this context. Travis, emotions are great in the right places but when writing or discussing anything academic it's a good idea to keep 'emotionalism' out of the picture and try to reason with facts, evidence and logic.<<

Oh how smug and self-righteous you are... and how ironic of you to say "and try to reason with facts, evidence, and logic", considering your own track record here. Please, you can be as smug and self-righteous as you want once you actually learn something about linguistics and stop spewing pop pseudo-linguistics for once. <omits mention of many, many things, such as the idea that there is only "three dialects of English" which was once insistently put forward here by someone who shall remain unnamed>

>>Have you had any college?<<

And why does this even matter with respect to the topic at hand, or did you just feel like throwing in a random ad hominem attack for its own sake? It's interesting that you did not even read your own words above when you wrote this, or is it only people you are arguing *with* that need be concered with "facts, evidence and logic.".

Re: "Oh how smug and self-righteous you are..."

More emotionalism. Can you just put that aside and simply debate people using facts, evidence, arguments and logic as is the traditional academic custom? And it is traditional for a reason, because it works.

>>Re: "Oh how smug and self-righteous you are..."

More emotionalism. Can you just put that aside and simply debate people using facts, evidence, arguments and logic as is the traditional academic custom? And it is traditional for a reason, because it works.<<

I think you just showed how right the statement of mine which you just yourself quoted right now.

As for debating people "using facts, evidence and logic", note that you haven't provided any arguments to *argue against* in the first place, but *only* have provided general loaded statements such as:

>>Travis I don't think that "gimme dat" or "gimme dat ding" (also the name of a Chuck Berry song) is anything but thug and gangster talk. I know of know one that uses it.<<

and

>>Have you had any college?<<

How ironic of you to try to put yourself forward as the voice of reason, when you most definitely are once one looks past the language you use and the pretension associated with it.

Correction: "when you most definitely are not" above.