From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:42:19 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>In article <pjh.714307570@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <pjh.714232717@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>>>>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

I seem to have opened rather a can of worms with this one. I did not
intend to cause any offence to Shakespeare ["supernatural being of
your choice" rest his bones] or to anybody else. The point I was
trying to make was regarding the apparent implicit assumption that
"Shakespeare _must_ be a good writer - his plays have survived -
*therefore* anything he writes _must_ be correct/grammatical etc."
From what you say, he does appear to have been a "good" writer -
depending on your individual definition of the word "good" of course.
I wasn't really trying to say that he _wasn't_ a good writer, just
that the fact that he has survived doesn't automatically make him so.
In fact, sometimes it appears that people feel he is somebody they
_ought_ to read and like (because he is one of the "greats") but they
don't necessarily.

It also appears that I did misinterpret your remarks on our definition
of grammar being what has survived to us from the past. I confess I am
not totally sure of the various distinctions between "grammar",
"style" and various other terms that come up. I know what _I_ mean by
those that I use.......

For this reason, I have refrained from commenting on most of this post
as I appear to be getting way out of my depth.

....

>>>I guess "informal" and "conversational" have suddenly come to mean
>>>"wrong."  News to me...

>>That is not what I said. I meant that something which was formally
>>correct was not "colloquial". 

>ALERT! ALERT!  We have two meanings of "formal" on the loose.  

>Most things that are colloquial *are* formally correct, in the sense of
>"correct in their form."  Colloquial speech includes certain types of
>simile, metaphor, etc., and many usages not found in, say, a business
>letter.  But these usages are no less correct for being colloquial.  

>So let's distinguish between the "formal" of a business letter and the
>"formal" of grammatical form.

I was actually meaning "formal" as the opposite of "informal" as in
"the sort of thing one would write in a business letter".

.....

>>>It might be inappropriate to use this or that usage in a formal business
>>>letter or in a scholarly address or a textbook.  But that does not make
>>>the usage incorrect in other settings.  

>>>Some things, however, are indeed incorrect in all settings: those are
>>>things that are ungrammatical.  Such as placing the article after the
>>>noun.

>>But some things which _are_ ungrammatical are colloquiallisms, like
>>saying "you and I" instead of "you and me" or saying "should of"
>>instead of "should've"

...

>As for "should of," this is simply a matter of transcription.  *Writing*
>it is incorrect, to be sure; and very few people do so.  But most people
>elide the 'h' in "Should have", or at least don't stress it; this is
>entirely natural, and happens in formal speech, too.  And I haven't
>heard many people say "should of" with a real 'aw' sound for "of",
>either.

I know people who write "should of" and it annoys the hell out of me.
I also hear a distinction between "should have", "should 'ave",
"should've" (pronounced "should uv" (sorry, I don't know the "correct"
symbols) with the stress on the should and a very short "u" sound) and
"should of".

.....

>>>Now let's look at Shakespeare's audience again.  It consisted mainly of
>>>the nobility and citizenry of London -- not the common, uneducated
>>>rabble.  

>>I think there was quite a lot of the "common, uneducated rabble" in
>>his audience, actually. (At least, according to the various people I
>>have heard talking about it.)

>I doubt it.  I doubt that very many peasants ever saw a Shakespeare play.  
>Tradesmen and craftsmen, perhaps; but those were not the rabble.  I
>expect thatthe literacy rate among his audience was many, many times
>that of the general populace.

As I said (or implied) I was passing on information I had been told
elsewhere. If you can't believe what you are told as "true" until
better information turns up then what are you to do.

....

>>You said above that that his knowledge was
>>intuitive. How many expressions in English are counter intuitive?

>Depends on whose intuition you poll.  Besides, what's your point?  I
>meant "intuitive" in the sense of "not having been learned from a book,"
>which is easy to prove, as the first English grammar was written some
>time after his death.  Nor do we know of a school that taught it.
>You're using a different meaning of "(counter-)intuitive."  

I interpreted your use of "intuitive" as "that which is known
instinctively and doesn't have to be learnt" (learnt in any way, not
necessarily from a book).

>>Remember the expression 'the exception which "proves" the rule'
>>(leaving aside what was actually meant by "prove"). If you define as
>>correct "the language as used by those ancient writers whose works
>>survive" 

>Now, where did I do that?  That's not much of a definition.

As I said above, that was what you _appeared_ to be saying and as such
I obviously misinterpreted you.

>Well, now that I've explained it, could I get a second opinion?  

Yes.

......

>>>In general, native speakers simply don't make mistakes of grammar.

>>I simply do not believe this statement. Of course they do. Look above
>>in what I have been writing, I am sure you will find several
>>grammatical errors. 

>Well, your spelling (i.e., your typing) may need a bit of work, 

I am an N finger typist (2<N<10) having started typing lessons but
never finished them. I also don't what watch what I type but watch the
keyboard.

>In the strict sense of grammar as the structure of the language, no,
>native speakers do *not* make mistakes of grammar.  They may say things
>at variance with formal usage, or may speak a dialect with rules quite
>different from that of the upper class, but people speak grammatically.

>>People are _taught_ grammar (or not as the case
>>may be in this country) they do not know it "instinctively". 

>Stuff and nonsense.  Are you telling me that no illiterate ever spoke
>well?  You learn grammar by learning to speak, and very few people learn
>to read first.  

You have just agreed with me. People _learn_ grammar as they learn to
speak. I did not say they were taught it from books. (The comment "or
not as the case may be" was a comment on the fact that British schools
used to teach "Grammar" so that everybody (most people?) used to know
what the various parts of speach were and how to use them. The fact
that they no longer do makes it difficult when one wants to use an
unfamiliar construction and not know how to. O.K. so it may not
necessarily "matter" whether we do get it "correct" but some of us
like to and regret the fact that we don't know the structure of our
language well enough. Also, there are times when it gives a bad
impression to use colloquiallisms instead of "propper" English.)

>You learn the structure of your mother tongue by
>learning to speak it, period.  Nobody has to tell you what a verb is
>before you can use one!

No, but you learn (gradually) that certain classes of words mean
things that are done and that there usually has to be something doing
the thing. They may not know this explicitly but they certainly know
it implicitly. Even a simple sentence as "me want cake" shows some
knowledge of grammar. The "want" shows what it being done and the
child knows that something has to want (me) and something has to be
wanted (cake).

>In fact, take a hundred good writers and speakers, and ask them the
>definition of "adverb."  Most of them will get it wrong, I bet.

Most of them will know that they can use words such as quickly, slowly
etc. to show _how_ things can be done.

>>Listen to
>>a child learning to talk - it will make several grammatical mistakes
>>which will (sometimes) be corrected and added to its knowledge of what
>>is correct and what isn't. What happens when the "correcter" doesn't
>>know what is correct? The child learns an incorrect usage. So of

>Au contraire!  After a certain age, people do NOT speak baby-talk. 

Before a certain age they do particularly when the are starting to
learn to speak. This is not really relevant.

>They
>learn by listening to what other people say, and by finding out what
>communicates well and what doesn't.  Very little of a child's language
>knowledge comes from correction; long years of observation and
>experiment have demonstrated this.  Correction (when done kindly)
>doesn't hurt, but it has very little effect.  There is a huge literature
>on the subject; I suggest you read a little of it.

My point was that they learn from those around them. Some of what they
learn may be from people explicitly telling them what to say, though I
agree that a lot of it is just from listening to what goes on aroungd
them.

>>course native speakers make grammatical errors (in my experience, they
>>are sometimes worse at it than people who learn the language as a
>>foreign language).

>What errors *are* those?  Are they errors of grammar?  Or are they
>errors of style?   

You tell me. I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

>Are they perhaps variants of dialect?  

Not what I was thinking of.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any good examples at the moment. 

Philippa

--
Philippa Hogben   pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if mailing from Janet)
Any mistakes are mine, all mnie.

I am not a .sig virus. I am a free bug.