Am I beating a dead horse?
July 8, 2005 8:23 PM Subscribe
Standard American English: In an age when the POTUS uses weak vernacular for the work nuclear, is mine just a lost cause?
I'm worried about speach. I like to say "A car." instead of "Uh car." "The car." instead of "Thuh car." I say "because" and not "becuz".
This would be easier if I could illustrate the long and short vowels.
I know it's not always necessary or appropriate, but when I'm reading to a group of kids I like to sound like I know what I'm doing. It really hit home when my 1st grader came home telling me that his teacher said that if you say "the" and it sounds like "thee", that's stupid.
Is it time for me to give up on what I've learned about speaking and writing words meant to be spoken?
languagehat, got your ears on?
I'm worried about speach. I like to say "A car." instead of "Uh car." "The car." instead of "Thuh car." I say "because" and not "becuz".
This would be easier if I could illustrate the long and short vowels.
I know it's not always necessary or appropriate, but when I'm reading to a group of kids I like to sound like I know what I'm doing. It really hit home when my 1st grader came home telling me that his teacher said that if you say "the" and it sounds like "thee", that's stupid.
Is it time for me to give up on what I've learned about speaking and writing words meant to be spoken?
languagehat, got your ears on?
Montaigne on language:posted by ikkyu2 at 8:27 PM on July 8, 2005
It's not a lost cause as long as we keep fighting. Someone on a message board keeps writing "Dennis the Mennis" in reference to the hurricane. It grates horribly on my nerves.
How do these people graduate high school?
posted by IndigoRain at 8:40 PM on July 8, 2005
How do these people graduate high school?
posted by IndigoRain at 8:40 PM on July 8, 2005
i was taught that you use "uh" and "thuh" before words starting with consonant sounds and "ay" and "thee" before words starting with vowel sounds, but i have no idea if that's actually anything like correct...
also, sesame street taught me to pronounce "exit" as "egg-sit" instead of "eck-sit," which is a lowbrow pronounciation according to an old (c. 1920) english book i stumbled upon in a store once.
posted by clarahamster at 8:41 PM on July 8, 2005
also, sesame street taught me to pronounce "exit" as "egg-sit" instead of "eck-sit," which is a lowbrow pronounciation according to an old (c. 1920) english book i stumbled upon in a store once.
posted by clarahamster at 8:41 PM on July 8, 2005
"work nuclear" ?
Jeez.
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family."
GW
posted by caddis at 8:46 PM on July 8, 2005
Jeez.
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family."
GW
posted by caddis at 8:46 PM on July 8, 2005
I'm worried about speach.
You might want to check out spelling, while you're at it. It's the new hotness. ;)
Seriously, what's your question? You're worried about "lazy" pronunciation? Problem's been with us since the dawn of language. Most people don't know any better. You clearly do. Live by example.
posted by mkultra at 8:53 PM on July 8, 2005
You might want to check out spelling, while you're at it. It's the new hotness. ;)
Seriously, what's your question? You're worried about "lazy" pronunciation? Problem's been with us since the dawn of language. Most people don't know any better. You clearly do. Live by example.
posted by mkultra at 8:53 PM on July 8, 2005
One thing I know from studying Latin is that most of its complexities came from people not wanting to pronounce things "correctly" -- but at some point, those pronunciations became fact.
My father literally cannot hear the difference between the pronunciations of the word nuclear. I can, but I know that speaking the word correctly requires some difficult tongue-work.
Honestly, though, who cares? So you speak with the "correct" accent. So you're not going to get shit for this because you attack the president and not an African-American. English has a lot of problems, some of which are the result of recent effort (or lack thereof) but, to be honest, it was doomed from the day the French landed in Normandy and ensured that we don't really have a functioning language, only a crippled bastard of a language that divorces everyday life from the realm of ideas.
posted by dagnyscott at 9:02 PM on July 8, 2005
My father literally cannot hear the difference between the pronunciations of the word nuclear. I can, but I know that speaking the word correctly requires some difficult tongue-work.
Honestly, though, who cares? So you speak with the "correct" accent. So you're not going to get shit for this because you attack the president and not an African-American. English has a lot of problems, some of which are the result of recent effort (or lack thereof) but, to be honest, it was doomed from the day the French landed in Normandy and ensured that we don't really have a functioning language, only a crippled bastard of a language that divorces everyday life from the realm of ideas.
posted by dagnyscott at 9:02 PM on July 8, 2005
"Thuh" for "the" seems to be the accepted pronunciation in most contexts, in my dialect, at least. (Pacific Northwest, Seattle.) In fact, I can't imagine saying "Ay car" instead of "uh car" for "a car." To me, that doesn't sound like correct English -- it sounds affected and very strange. But perhaps that's a Northwest thing -- I do think we tend to slur our words a bit here.
posted by litlnemo at 9:09 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by litlnemo at 9:09 PM on July 8, 2005
just wanted to point out that clarahamster is correct: the preferred pronunciation of "the" depends on whether the subsequent word begins with a consonant (thuh -- with the schwa sound) or a vowel (thee -- with a long "e").
posted by roundrock at 9:16 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by roundrock at 9:16 PM on July 8, 2005
Response by poster: dagnyscott: I'm usually pretty mellow, but did I somehow piss you off?
I'm concerned that one basic tool, that can empower anyone, regardless of race or religion, is deteriorating. Life moves on and so does language. I just don't want the language that you and I share be lost to us and become a tool available only to the rich or privileged.
If I'm wrong here, maybe you can clarify what you mean. African American? What? Normandy?
BTW: mkultra is right on, and my question is answered.
Also to clarahamster; that's exactly what I was wondering about. There are some rules there but they have been kind of lost in the last few years.
posted by snsranch at 9:21 PM on July 8, 2005
I'm concerned that one basic tool, that can empower anyone, regardless of race or religion, is deteriorating. Life moves on and so does language. I just don't want the language that you and I share be lost to us and become a tool available only to the rich or privileged.
If I'm wrong here, maybe you can clarify what you mean. African American? What? Normandy?
BTW: mkultra is right on, and my question is answered.
Also to clarahamster; that's exactly what I was wondering about. There are some rules there but they have been kind of lost in the last few years.
posted by snsranch at 9:21 PM on July 8, 2005
There is a balance between advocating consistency in the language and having such specific standards that you can't possibly hope to be anything but disappointed. The gripes expressed in the question are incredibly minor, and yeah, you should probably let go a bit. Fight for something interesting and substantial like correct use of words, better spelling, knowledge of punctuation. Leave the pronunciation of the word "the" alone.
For one thing, if you get together all the english speakers in the world, with all their accents,, you'll probably find there are 8 or 12 different variants of the pronunciation of "the." I defy you to tell me why one is more correct than the other. You think you're being a purist but perhaps you're being ethnocentrist. Lighten up. It's a language, not a swiss watch. Noo-kyoo-lur bugs me too, but ultimately it's minor compared to a lot of things.
I work with people who use the past-perfect for ANYTHING that happened in the past, and the future tense when they should use the conditional: "I have come in at 8 this morning and I have seen that I have 300 emails in my inbox. When I will finish lunch I will have a chance to look at them."
Now that's worth fixing, for comprehension as well as standardization. Flipping out if someone has a trace of "thuh" instead of "thee," now that's OCD IMHO.
posted by scarabic at 9:28 PM on July 8, 2005
For one thing, if you get together all the english speakers in the world, with all their accents,, you'll probably find there are 8 or 12 different variants of the pronunciation of "the." I defy you to tell me why one is more correct than the other. You think you're being a purist but perhaps you're being ethnocentrist. Lighten up. It's a language, not a swiss watch. Noo-kyoo-lur bugs me too, but ultimately it's minor compared to a lot of things.
I work with people who use the past-perfect for ANYTHING that happened in the past, and the future tense when they should use the conditional: "I have come in at 8 this morning and I have seen that I have 300 emails in my inbox. When I will finish lunch I will have a chance to look at them."
Now that's worth fixing, for comprehension as well as standardization. Flipping out if someone has a trace of "thuh" instead of "thee," now that's OCD IMHO.
posted by scarabic at 9:28 PM on July 8, 2005
Check the dictionary. "The" is pronounced "thuh" before a consonant sound. As for "a," it's fine to say it like "uh" -- the "ay" pronounciation is typically used when stressing that syllable. (The "uh"-like sound is actually a schwa, but you get the idea.)
These pronounciations are standard American English. You're not beating a dead horse; you're beating a nonexistent horse. If you're going to be a stickler, make sure you're right. "Thee car" is in the neighborhood of "I felt badly for him" (though not quite as fingers-on-the-chalkboard awful).
posted by TPIRman at 9:32 PM on July 8, 2005
These pronounciations are standard American English. You're not beating a dead horse; you're beating a nonexistent horse. If you're going to be a stickler, make sure you're right. "Thee car" is in the neighborhood of "I felt badly for him" (though not quite as fingers-on-the-chalkboard awful).
posted by TPIRman at 9:32 PM on July 8, 2005
Response by poster: Scarabic: Excellent insight. Part of my reasoning for the question was for teaching children. But I really see your point. There are many other things to be worried about other than the and thuh.
posted by snsranch at 9:34 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by snsranch at 9:34 PM on July 8, 2005
I'm concerned that one basic tool, that can empower anyone, regardless of race or religion, is deteriorating. Life moves on and so does language. I just don't want the language that you and I share be lost to us and become a tool available only to the rich or privileged.
Okay this is laughable. And I don't say that in a mean way. It really is just ridiculous. Language isn't like a ripe apple which will rot if left on the windowsill. It doesn't "deteriorate." It changes. And it has been changing for a long time and will continue to change. And no single point in that history will be the "best" point.
I do think that it's valuable for a language to stay constant over time. If you've ever read Chaucer then you know the reasons why. Constancy brings continuity to a culture, the ability for your great*50 grandson to read and understand your poetry. There's value in this, in more people being able to understand each other rather than fewer. I embrace that value. And, by that standard, the world is in a fucking Golden Age. Billions of people, perhaps even a majority, speak one of a few major languages nowadays, well enough to talk to each other. We are losing the beautiful diversity of the past, and many worthwile distinctivenessess are falling by the wayside.
Yes, that's sad. Yes, it's conformist. But it's also practical and perhaps good things will come of it, like exchange of ideas, mutual understanding, peace. If your emphasis is on more people being able to communicate with each other, you should actually be jumping for joy right now (from a historical perspective).
But I guess that's all just me. You just seem concerned with people doing it your way and unconcerned with anything else, like the purpose of having a language in the first place. Perhaps you greatly enjoy turning up your nose at people or wringing your hands at the sorry condition of the world, imagining yourself as one of the lights holding back the darkness. If you enjoy this, by all means don't let me stop you.
posted by scarabic at 9:44 PM on July 8, 2005
Okay this is laughable. And I don't say that in a mean way. It really is just ridiculous. Language isn't like a ripe apple which will rot if left on the windowsill. It doesn't "deteriorate." It changes. And it has been changing for a long time and will continue to change. And no single point in that history will be the "best" point.
I do think that it's valuable for a language to stay constant over time. If you've ever read Chaucer then you know the reasons why. Constancy brings continuity to a culture, the ability for your great*50 grandson to read and understand your poetry. There's value in this, in more people being able to understand each other rather than fewer. I embrace that value. And, by that standard, the world is in a fucking Golden Age. Billions of people, perhaps even a majority, speak one of a few major languages nowadays, well enough to talk to each other. We are losing the beautiful diversity of the past, and many worthwile distinctivenessess are falling by the wayside.
Yes, that's sad. Yes, it's conformist. But it's also practical and perhaps good things will come of it, like exchange of ideas, mutual understanding, peace. If your emphasis is on more people being able to communicate with each other, you should actually be jumping for joy right now (from a historical perspective).
But I guess that's all just me. You just seem concerned with people doing it your way and unconcerned with anything else, like the purpose of having a language in the first place. Perhaps you greatly enjoy turning up your nose at people or wringing your hands at the sorry condition of the world, imagining yourself as one of the lights holding back the darkness. If you enjoy this, by all means don't let me stop you.
posted by scarabic at 9:44 PM on July 8, 2005
snsranch - I hope it's obvious I was drafting that second reply before I saw your comment on the first. I'm encouraged by your openmindedness. Forgive my snottery.
posted by scarabic at 9:45 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by scarabic at 9:45 PM on July 8, 2005
Fighting for correct usage is always a lost cause. By the time corrections are appearing in usage guides and pedants are complaining, it's because something's happening so often that it's already too late. (I say this as a pedant.)
You can gnash your teeth and get upset about it, or not. That's pretty much the extent of your choice in the matter.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 9:54 PM on July 8, 2005
You can gnash your teeth and get upset about it, or not. That's pretty much the extent of your choice in the matter.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 9:54 PM on July 8, 2005
all of the usages you cite seem pretty normal to me ... i live in the upper midwest ... and our dialect is hardly uneducated
this kind of thing doesn't matter the way it used to
posted by pyramid termite at 9:57 PM on July 8, 2005
this kind of thing doesn't matter the way it used to
posted by pyramid termite at 9:57 PM on July 8, 2005
Response by poster: 23skidoo: Cool, I was just thinking (for example) that people don't take the president seriously because he says nucular. Therefore it might serve kids to try to speak well. I get what you're saying though. And it makes sense.
But all in all, I've had a good lesson tonight, and I thank everyone.
On preview: scarabic, ofcourse, and thank you. I wouldn't ask if it wasn't a real concern and now I know better.
posted by snsranch at 9:58 PM on July 8, 2005
But all in all, I've had a good lesson tonight, and I thank everyone.
On preview: scarabic, ofcourse, and thank you. I wouldn't ask if it wasn't a real concern and now I know better.
posted by snsranch at 9:58 PM on July 8, 2005
Alright mister 'enry 'iggins! I agree with scarabic, although I'm not going to be so harsh :)
I'm concerned that one basic tool, that can empower anyone, regardless of race or religion, is deteriorating. Life moves on and so does language. I just don't want the language that you and I share be lost to us and become a tool available only to the rich or privileged.
If English is deteriorating then it has been since its inception. Not to mention Latin/Italian, Greek, German, Chinese, Japanese, et al. And don't even get me started on French. You're just going to have to accept the fact that languages change; books and movies may have slowed the processes but they are powerless to stop it. You may look at it and say that we've lost something but I look at it and say that English speech has become more streamlined and efficient.
And it may just be speculation, but I think the only people who truly care about uh/A, thuh/thEE, and nuclear/nucular are people who pat themself on their back during cocktail hour. It only raises their esteem in their own eyes.
On preview: I was just thinking (for example) that people don't take the president seriously because he says nucular.
People who don't take the President seriously wouldn't do so in any event. His pronunciation of nuclear has nothing to do with it.
posted by sbutler at 10:03 PM on July 8, 2005
I'm concerned that one basic tool, that can empower anyone, regardless of race or religion, is deteriorating. Life moves on and so does language. I just don't want the language that you and I share be lost to us and become a tool available only to the rich or privileged.
If English is deteriorating then it has been since its inception. Not to mention Latin/Italian, Greek, German, Chinese, Japanese, et al. And don't even get me started on French. You're just going to have to accept the fact that languages change; books and movies may have slowed the processes but they are powerless to stop it. You may look at it and say that we've lost something but I look at it and say that English speech has become more streamlined and efficient.
And it may just be speculation, but I think the only people who truly care about uh/A, thuh/thEE, and nuclear/nucular are people who pat themself on their back during cocktail hour. It only raises their esteem in their own eyes.
On preview: I was just thinking (for example) that people don't take the president seriously because he says nucular.
People who don't take the President seriously wouldn't do so in any event. His pronunciation of nuclear has nothing to do with it.
posted by sbutler at 10:03 PM on July 8, 2005
Standard American English: In an age when the POTUS uses weak vernacular for the word "nuclear," is mine just a lost cause?And that's just the spelling and punctuation, nevermind grammar or style.
I'm worried about speech. I like to say "a car" instead of "uh car"; "the car" instead of "thuh car"; and "because" and not "becuz."
This would be easier if I could illustrate the long and short vowels.
I know it's not always necessary or appropriate; but when I'm reading to a group of kids, I like to sound like I know what I'm doing. It really hit home when my 1st grader came home telling me that his teacher said that if you say "the" and it sounds like "thee," that's stupid.
Is it time for me to give up on what I've learned about speaking and writing words meant to be spoken?
Languagehat, got your ears on?
It's not that I disagree with your point. But you're knocking trivial details that don't obscure meaning in speech, and it seems to me you're guilty of exactly the same flaw in your writing. Glass houses and all that -- but more importantly, maybe recognizing that will help you ease up on other people.
posted by cribcage at 10:06 PM on July 8, 2005
cribcage: I take issue with your semi-colons. Especially the third one.
posted by Turd Ferguson at 10:38 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by Turd Ferguson at 10:38 PM on July 8, 2005
If English is deteriorating then it has been since its inception...You're just going to have to accept the fact that languages change"
Or more simply, there was never such an "inception" in the first place.
If no one ever committed linguistic "mistakes," we'd all be speaking Ur-language.
posted by sellout at 10:49 PM on July 8, 2005
Or more simply, there was never such an "inception" in the first place.
If no one ever committed linguistic "mistakes," we'd all be speaking Ur-language.
posted by sellout at 10:49 PM on July 8, 2005
turd ferguson: I take issue with your hyphenation of "semicolon". And the placement of the period outside the quotation marks in the previous sentence.
posted by Turd Ferguson at 11:36 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by Turd Ferguson at 11:36 PM on July 8, 2005
Is it time for me to give up on what I've learned about speaking and writing words meant to be spoken?
Let me just weigh in during languagehat's absence, on scarabic's side mainly. No, it isn't time to give up on what you've learned; it's time to unlearn what you think you learned.
Language has grammar, and words have pronunciations, but these are both variable. Writing for a scientific paper, a daily newspaper, an internet message board, and a postcard have different rules. "The" pronounced with a schwa is common everywhere I've ever been, and it does not represent a deterioration of English any more than "Wenzday" or "comfterble" do. It's just the way the language is changing, and it's a fairly harmless thing.
Look, when I was a kid, I got indignant about grammar and spelling. It wasn't for years that I figured out I was a prescriptivist jerk about things. I was always taught "Ain't ain't a word" (which I liked for the sheer meta value, of course), until I realized there was no better way to say, oh, "Love ain't nothin' but sex mis-spelled". It was only later I found out that "ain't" had a long history of denigration by prescriptivist grammarians hailing from flat parts of the country, whereas the pronunciation "ain't" derived from the Elizabethan-era English inflections still spoken in less-flat parts of the country. In other words, it's a correct word depending on dialect, and the attempt to erase it was an attempt to erase a dialect.
I liked to say, during the 90s, that the Yugoslav wars were an attempt to use violence to control how people pronounced "milk". (I may have stolen this from someone else.)
The language isn't what you find in a dictionary, or Fowler, or Strunk & White. Those are all just descriptions of the language. The language itself is a living, breathing thing of beauty. You can't control it, and you shouldn't. People remain understood if they want to be. If they're still understood, the language isn't broken.
posted by dhartung at 11:46 PM on July 8, 2005
Let me just weigh in during languagehat's absence, on scarabic's side mainly. No, it isn't time to give up on what you've learned; it's time to unlearn what you think you learned.
Language has grammar, and words have pronunciations, but these are both variable. Writing for a scientific paper, a daily newspaper, an internet message board, and a postcard have different rules. "The" pronounced with a schwa is common everywhere I've ever been, and it does not represent a deterioration of English any more than "Wenzday" or "comfterble" do. It's just the way the language is changing, and it's a fairly harmless thing.
Look, when I was a kid, I got indignant about grammar and spelling. It wasn't for years that I figured out I was a prescriptivist jerk about things. I was always taught "Ain't ain't a word" (which I liked for the sheer meta value, of course), until I realized there was no better way to say, oh, "Love ain't nothin' but sex mis-spelled". It was only later I found out that "ain't" had a long history of denigration by prescriptivist grammarians hailing from flat parts of the country, whereas the pronunciation "ain't" derived from the Elizabethan-era English inflections still spoken in less-flat parts of the country. In other words, it's a correct word depending on dialect, and the attempt to erase it was an attempt to erase a dialect.
I liked to say, during the 90s, that the Yugoslav wars were an attempt to use violence to control how people pronounced "milk". (I may have stolen this from someone else.)
The language isn't what you find in a dictionary, or Fowler, or Strunk & White. Those are all just descriptions of the language. The language itself is a living, breathing thing of beauty. You can't control it, and you shouldn't. People remain understood if they want to be. If they're still understood, the language isn't broken.
posted by dhartung at 11:46 PM on July 8, 2005
Ah, it's true, I would say "thee apple" instead of "thuh apple", now that I think about it. But otherwise, it's pretty clearly an "uh" before a consonant, as some have already said.
posted by litlnemo at 11:51 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by litlnemo at 11:51 PM on July 8, 2005
You may be interested in this article (PDF), a clear and readable refutation of many of the prescriptivist notions that seem to be embodied in the question.
Also, the question presupposes something along the lines of "English is getting worse." I challenge you to come up with a way to establish that this is true, or to even show that the claim is a verifiable one. Things you may need: a clear precise defensible theory of what it is for a language to be bad, or in a bad state; proof that English is changing in that direction.
I know it's not always necessary or appropriate, but when I'm reading to a group of kids I like to sound like I know what I'm doing.
I think you need to consider what you are actually concerned about: the English language itself, or whether you (and your children) are speaking a prestige dialect of English. It sounds to me like you are worried about the latter, but if so, you're fighting a lost cause. To the average american, it will sound infinitely more like you know what you're doing if you speak something like British Received Pronunciation, than any American dialect.
posted by advil at 12:21 AM on July 9, 2005
Also, the question presupposes something along the lines of "English is getting worse." I challenge you to come up with a way to establish that this is true, or to even show that the claim is a verifiable one. Things you may need: a clear precise defensible theory of what it is for a language to be bad, or in a bad state; proof that English is changing in that direction.
I know it's not always necessary or appropriate, but when I'm reading to a group of kids I like to sound like I know what I'm doing.
I think you need to consider what you are actually concerned about: the English language itself, or whether you (and your children) are speaking a prestige dialect of English. It sounds to me like you are worried about the latter, but if so, you're fighting a lost cause. To the average american, it will sound infinitely more like you know what you're doing if you speak something like British Received Pronunciation, than any American dialect.
posted by advil at 12:21 AM on July 9, 2005
Of all the things you could pick on in modern English usage, you want to fight against the schwa? That, I think, is a battle you will lose.
"Ay car" instead of "uh car" and "cross thee street" instead of "thuh street" sounds like a badly written speech synthesizer to me, not like standard English.
I would say "thee apple" instead of "thuh apple"
I'd say "thuh *weak glottal stop* apple." Or something between "thuh" and "theh." The only place it sounds natural to me to say "thee" is before words starting with an uh-sound. Thee ulterior.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:26 AM on July 9, 2005
"Ay car" instead of "uh car" and "cross thee street" instead of "thuh street" sounds like a badly written speech synthesizer to me, not like standard English.
I would say "thee apple" instead of "thuh apple"
I'd say "thuh *weak glottal stop* apple." Or something between "thuh" and "theh." The only place it sounds natural to me to say "thee" is before words starting with an uh-sound. Thee ulterior.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:26 AM on July 9, 2005
Thanks, advil, for a link to that PDF: it made my evening. Especially these two paragraphs:
Some of these may seem distinctly 19th-century. But in grammar the 19th century never really went away. Mott Media still markets Thomas Harvey’s textbook under the title Harvey’s Revised English Grammar,5 Harvey was born in 1821, and his grammar was published soon after the Civil War (1868). It still treats English as having a number distinction in the second person pronouns (thou vs. you). But the massive home school industry to which Harvey’s grammar and the McGuffey readers are still sold ignores little things like whether the textbook describes a language that nobody speaks any more.
And of course Strunk and White’s toxic little com- pendium of bad grammatical advice, The Elements of Style,6 is still a best-seller, despite the fact that for nearly a hundred years it has been treated as a holy text and only very slightly revised, even in 1957 when White’s name was added to the by-line and the fifth chapter was added. Even the page breaks have stayed the same for decades. Both authors were already born when the 20th century began. Strunk was born seven years before Custer’s last stand. The relevance is that Strunk’s attitudes on usage and grammar and how to describe syntactic phenomena were formed long before the 19th century ended.
Excellent. Especially rings true since I just had an argument with my sister over S&W.
posted by sbutler at 1:28 AM on July 9, 2005
Some of these may seem distinctly 19th-century. But in grammar the 19th century never really went away. Mott Media still markets Thomas Harvey’s textbook under the title Harvey’s Revised English Grammar,5 Harvey was born in 1821, and his grammar was published soon after the Civil War (1868). It still treats English as having a number distinction in the second person pronouns (thou vs. you). But the massive home school industry to which Harvey’s grammar and the McGuffey readers are still sold ignores little things like whether the textbook describes a language that nobody speaks any more.
And of course Strunk and White’s toxic little com- pendium of bad grammatical advice, The Elements of Style,6 is still a best-seller, despite the fact that for nearly a hundred years it has been treated as a holy text and only very slightly revised, even in 1957 when White’s name was added to the by-line and the fifth chapter was added. Even the page breaks have stayed the same for decades. Both authors were already born when the 20th century began. Strunk was born seven years before Custer’s last stand. The relevance is that Strunk’s attitudes on usage and grammar and how to describe syntactic phenomena were formed long before the 19th century ended.
Excellent. Especially rings true since I just had an argument with my sister over S&W.
posted by sbutler at 1:28 AM on July 9, 2005
Kudos to scarabic, sbutler, and especially dhartung for excellent answers, and to all for avoiding the flamefests that usually accompany these matters (I remember in particular an actual MeFi FPP about "nucular" that went south fast). I'll just add the following quote regarding the issue of "deteriorating":
I just don't want the language that you and I share be lost to us and become a tool available only to the rich or privileged.
This is an admirable sentiment, but it's precisely the shibboleths ("proper" pronunciation, spelling, punctuation, and grammar) that keep language "a tool available only to the rich or privileged." If the public at large can learn to accept the way normal people speak (yes, even including President Bush) as perfectly good English, taking the prestige varieties as simply another form to be used when called for (like a good suit), that will be a tremendous blow against the rich or privileged and a strike for true democracy.
On S&W, see my discussion here and various posts at Language Log (for example, this one).
posted by languagehat at 7:31 AM on July 9, 2005
The world has been hastening towards its imminent end for as long as anyone cares to remember, and language with it. Not only does language always change, but if one is to believe the authorities, it always changes for the worse. 'Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration,' declared Samuel Johnson in the introduction to his Dictionary of the English Language.(That's from a lively and knowledgeable new book, The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher.) I suspect most of us who care passionately about words went through a phase, like dhartung and myself, where we got indignant about whatever shibboleths we'd absorbed a feeling for, and that's entirely understandable; one of the main things they do in first-year linguistics classes is knock it out of you by showing you in detail how language changes and (at least as important) that it changes—constantly and unstoppably. It's natural to want to preserve the variety we're familiar with, but it's like trying to keep the tide from moving out.
The critics of the English language today are divided on the question of who is to blame for its current ills: the headline-hungry press, sound-biting politicians, or the slovenly habits of the young. But they are all united by the conviction that English is in a parlous state. What a falling-off was there, from the English of even just two generations ago, in the good old days when – as a reviewer in the Times Literary Supplement recently reminisced – ‘a mistake was a mistake and not a sign of free expression’.
That may be so, but it was not quite the opinion of the ‘authorities’ in those good old days. In 1946, for instance, George Orwell (about whom it was once said that he could not blow his nose without moralizing on conditions in the handkerchief industry) wrote in the journal Horizon: 'most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way'. A bad way compared of course to the language of previous generations, which was purer and more correct than the English of his own time. Perhaps, but had Orwell consulted his predecessors, he would have encountered different sentiments. In 1848, a century before Orwell’s article, the renowned linguist August Schleicher dismissed the English of his day as the most ‘ground-down’ of all the Germanic languages. English only showed 'how rapidly the language of a nation important both in history and literature can sink', and it was improbable that 'from such language-ruins the whole edifice will be raised anew'. Instead, he added gloomily, the language is likely to 'sink into mono-syllabicity'.
Or take this chilling prediction of impending doom: 'The greatest improprieties … are to be found among people of fashion; many pronuncia¬tions, which thirty or forty years ago were confined to the vulgar, are gradually gaining ground; and if something [is] not done to stop this growing evil ... English is likely to become a mere jargon.' Everyone has read such sentiments expressed in countless letters to broadsheet editors, so there is nothing especially surprising about this particular one, except, perhaps, that it was written some threescore years and ten before Schleicher’s proclamation, in 1780, by one Thomas Sheridan (actor, advocate of correct elocution, and father of the playwright Richard Brinsley Sheridan). What Sheridan found most galling was that the decline of English was of such recent origin, since according to him, only seventy years earlier, 'during the reign of Queen Anne [1702–14] … it is probable that English was … spoken in its highest state of perfection'.
Really? The cognoscenti at the time would have begged to differ. Right in the middle of Queen Anne’s reign, Jonathan Swift embarked on what would go down in posterity as one of the most astoundingly bigoted rants in the distinguished history of this genre. His 1712 ‘Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue’ starts with the following fanfare: 'I do here, in the Name of all the Learned and Polite Persons of the Nation, complain ... that our Language is extremely imperfect; that its daily Improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily Corruptions ...' and that’s only the beginning. So the English of today is not what it used to be, but then again, it never was.
I just don't want the language that you and I share be lost to us and become a tool available only to the rich or privileged.
This is an admirable sentiment, but it's precisely the shibboleths ("proper" pronunciation, spelling, punctuation, and grammar) that keep language "a tool available only to the rich or privileged." If the public at large can learn to accept the way normal people speak (yes, even including President Bush) as perfectly good English, taking the prestige varieties as simply another form to be used when called for (like a good suit), that will be a tremendous blow against the rich or privileged and a strike for true democracy.
On S&W, see my discussion here and various posts at Language Log (for example, this one).
posted by languagehat at 7:31 AM on July 9, 2005
If I'm wrong here, maybe you can clarify what you mean. African American? What? Normandy?
I know I didn't make much sense. Sometimes in trying to keep from going on forever I don't explain myself very well. OK.
It seems to me that obsessing over pronunciation, which has no real effect on the quality of communication, is just a way of claiming that people who are educated as you are are somehow better. People who are educated as you are are, of course, generally upper-class and generally white. This is why it's generally considered somewhat questionable to say "My dialect is superior!" because that amounts to race/class discrimination. But you hide that by using an outlying example of an upper-class white man who has found it beneficial in politics to maintain a generally frowned-upon accent.
As for Normandy: if you've ever studied another language, or studied the history of the English language, you'll realize that it's pretty much a hopeless cause. Something that REALLY effects the quality of communication -- having vocabulary that is understandable to everyone -- has not been available in English for many, many centuries. In most languages, "big words" can be broken down into roots IN THAT LANGUAGE, and the roots are generally words that refer to everyday objects or really basic ideas. In English, if you want to break down a "10-cent word", you have to know French and Latin.
posted by dagnyscott at 8:11 AM on July 9, 2005
I know I didn't make much sense. Sometimes in trying to keep from going on forever I don't explain myself very well. OK.
It seems to me that obsessing over pronunciation, which has no real effect on the quality of communication, is just a way of claiming that people who are educated as you are are somehow better. People who are educated as you are are, of course, generally upper-class and generally white. This is why it's generally considered somewhat questionable to say "My dialect is superior!" because that amounts to race/class discrimination. But you hide that by using an outlying example of an upper-class white man who has found it beneficial in politics to maintain a generally frowned-upon accent.
As for Normandy: if you've ever studied another language, or studied the history of the English language, you'll realize that it's pretty much a hopeless cause. Something that REALLY effects the quality of communication -- having vocabulary that is understandable to everyone -- has not been available in English for many, many centuries. In most languages, "big words" can be broken down into roots IN THAT LANGUAGE, and the roots are generally words that refer to everyday objects or really basic ideas. In English, if you want to break down a "10-cent word", you have to know French and Latin.
posted by dagnyscott at 8:11 AM on July 9, 2005
"Correct" English (or any other language) pronunciation is in the ear of the beholder, and the insistence that one particular segment of the pronunciation continuum is somehow "right" or "better" is usually a sign of nostalgia, elitism, cliqism or all of the above.
The setting of a "standard" of any language is most often a linguistic landgrab by the ruling class of a society to set up easy to spot, hard to fake class distinctions.
Seriously, language is for communicating, not being right.
Having said that, I'm such a snob that I actually correct people when they make "mistakes", like adjectives for adverbs, etc.
posted by signal at 10:05 AM on July 9, 2005
The setting of a "standard" of any language is most often a linguistic landgrab by the ruling class of a society to set up easy to spot, hard to fake class distinctions.
Seriously, language is for communicating, not being right.
Having said that, I'm such a snob that I actually correct people when they make "mistakes", like adjectives for adverbs, etc.
posted by signal at 10:05 AM on July 9, 2005
'I'd say "thuh *weak glottal stop* apple." Or something between "thuh" and "theh." The only place it sounds natural to me to say "thee" is before words starting with an uh-sound. Thee ulterior.'
Well, I wasn't using IPA to write the sounds, so it was less clear than it could have been. I definitely say "the," when it is before a vowel, with a sound closer to "thee" than "thuh." But it's not a full-fledged clearly spoken "thee," more like a "thuh" with a shading towards "ee" at the end. It's a different vowel sound than the sound I use at the end of "the" when a consonant follows.
So what I was trying to do was to confirm that the two sounds are different (at least to those of us raised in the Seattle area), but I would still find the original poster's emphasis on "thee" and "ay" to be off-putting and strange.
posted by litlnemo at 11:37 AM on July 9, 2005
Well, I wasn't using IPA to write the sounds, so it was less clear than it could have been. I definitely say "the," when it is before a vowel, with a sound closer to "thee" than "thuh." But it's not a full-fledged clearly spoken "thee," more like a "thuh" with a shading towards "ee" at the end. It's a different vowel sound than the sound I use at the end of "the" when a consonant follows.
So what I was trying to do was to confirm that the two sounds are different (at least to those of us raised in the Seattle area), but I would still find the original poster's emphasis on "thee" and "ay" to be off-putting and strange.
posted by litlnemo at 11:37 AM on July 9, 2005
And now having read the wager that languagehat links to, I say go for it! :)
posted by litlnemo at 11:40 AM on July 9, 2005
posted by litlnemo at 11:40 AM on July 9, 2005
And now having read the wager that languagehat links to, I say go for it! :)
No! IT'S A TRAP!
posted by sbutler at 12:01 PM on July 9, 2005
No! IT'S A TRAP!
posted by sbutler at 12:01 PM on July 9, 2005
This is what makes ask.meta perhaps the best Web site in the world.
A couple of points that have been hinted at and covered -
The most "uneducated" accent in this country, and one that I still have traces of, is that of the Southern U.S. As some posters have pointed out, some scholars have proposed that the Southern dialect of English is closest to Elizabethan English and could make a cultural claim to the greatest tradition and "purity." I think Southern accents are likely affected by Gaelic as well, but I don't have great sources for that other than my knowledge of the Irish influence in Southern settlement.
Bush's accent and pronunciation is largely fake, by the way. Or at least, I've read links from here that describe his early gubernatorial campaigns as being quite different from his Presidential affectations (i.e. he appeared much smarter).
My "shibboleths" are improper superlatives for words like fun. In other words, I hate when people say "funner" or "funnest", but I've heard it a fair amount on television, so that battle may be lost. I was taught to say "more fun" or "most fun."
On the other end, as my peccadillo above is directed toward what might be considered the uneducated class, I detest the word "towards." This is the bane of academic paper titles, such as "Towards a more XXXX XXXXXXX." I've found that "towards" is acceptable, although "toward" is considered more correct. I suppose I hate the phrase also as it usually indicates the article's author(s) have no definite ideas or discoveries, but would like to pile on the corrective trend of the moment. Maybe my missive could be titled: "Towards a More Language-Inclusive Metafilter."
posted by Slothrop at 12:13 PM on July 9, 2005
A couple of points that have been hinted at and covered -
The most "uneducated" accent in this country, and one that I still have traces of, is that of the Southern U.S. As some posters have pointed out, some scholars have proposed that the Southern dialect of English is closest to Elizabethan English and could make a cultural claim to the greatest tradition and "purity." I think Southern accents are likely affected by Gaelic as well, but I don't have great sources for that other than my knowledge of the Irish influence in Southern settlement.
Bush's accent and pronunciation is largely fake, by the way. Or at least, I've read links from here that describe his early gubernatorial campaigns as being quite different from his Presidential affectations (i.e. he appeared much smarter).
My "shibboleths" are improper superlatives for words like fun. In other words, I hate when people say "funner" or "funnest", but I've heard it a fair amount on television, so that battle may be lost. I was taught to say "more fun" or "most fun."
On the other end, as my peccadillo above is directed toward what might be considered the uneducated class, I detest the word "towards." This is the bane of academic paper titles, such as "Towards a more XXXX XXXXXXX." I've found that "towards" is acceptable, although "toward" is considered more correct. I suppose I hate the phrase also as it usually indicates the article's author(s) have no definite ideas or discoveries, but would like to pile on the corrective trend of the moment. Maybe my missive could be titled: "Towards a More Language-Inclusive Metafilter."
posted by Slothrop at 12:13 PM on July 9, 2005
The white text on the Green has never seemed more like a chalkboard.
While we're mostly hearing that English isn't really getting worse, look at the average Elizabethan poem, or check out 18th-century graffiti. It's classy stuff -- the flowery style conveys subtle wit even when talking about the town whore.
Contrast with Orwell's stripped-down prose, which serves his utilitarian goals better than the language of two centuries before. The newer, freer English brings this advantage, but the Elizabethan coyness can't be forced into Orwellian prose.
Now check out the casual style of Nick Hornby. Contrast the dramatic choppiness of Chuck Palahniuk. Revel in the richness of Neil Gaiman. Read some Malcolm Gladwell for clear but complex academic communication. Language hasn't deteriorated; it's expanded. More styles are allowed, so more meaning can be conveyed by style alone.
But in certain areas, we do see a deterioration. I defy anyone to match a modern presidential speech with Lincoln's Gettysburg address, or any Lincoln speech. Here the culprit is the weak speech that Orwell, Strunk and White, and all decent book editors despise. It's not new. It's an old problem that we all have to fight.
But that's just style. Grammar is, indeed, mutable. A broken rule sounds good, like a cigarette should.
posted by NickDouglas at 12:28 PM on July 9, 2005
While we're mostly hearing that English isn't really getting worse, look at the average Elizabethan poem, or check out 18th-century graffiti. It's classy stuff -- the flowery style conveys subtle wit even when talking about the town whore.
Contrast with Orwell's stripped-down prose, which serves his utilitarian goals better than the language of two centuries before. The newer, freer English brings this advantage, but the Elizabethan coyness can't be forced into Orwellian prose.
Now check out the casual style of Nick Hornby. Contrast the dramatic choppiness of Chuck Palahniuk. Revel in the richness of Neil Gaiman. Read some Malcolm Gladwell for clear but complex academic communication. Language hasn't deteriorated; it's expanded. More styles are allowed, so more meaning can be conveyed by style alone.
But in certain areas, we do see a deterioration. I defy anyone to match a modern presidential speech with Lincoln's Gettysburg address, or any Lincoln speech. Here the culprit is the weak speech that Orwell, Strunk and White, and all decent book editors despise. It's not new. It's an old problem that we all have to fight.
But that's just style. Grammar is, indeed, mutable. A broken rule sounds good, like a cigarette should.
posted by NickDouglas at 12:28 PM on July 9, 2005
look at the average Elizabethan poem
A common fallacy. We don't see "the average Elizabethan poem," we see the crème de la crème, selected for us by generations of anthologists. If you had to read a few hundred pages of average (which is to say, bad) Elizabethan poems, you'd go stark raving mad. By the same token, in a couple hundred years, when people have forgotten all the crap we get so exercised about and remember us by our very best, this will be looked back on as a golden age of English, I double-dog guarantee you. Remember, 90% of everything is crud.
As for Lincoln, give me a break. I defy you to match any previous presidential speech with Lincoln's Gettysburg address. That's just silly.
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on July 9, 2005
A common fallacy. We don't see "the average Elizabethan poem," we see the crème de la crème, selected for us by generations of anthologists. If you had to read a few hundred pages of average (which is to say, bad) Elizabethan poems, you'd go stark raving mad. By the same token, in a couple hundred years, when people have forgotten all the crap we get so exercised about and remember us by our very best, this will be looked back on as a golden age of English, I double-dog guarantee you. Remember, 90% of everything is crud.
As for Lincoln, give me a break. I defy you to match any previous presidential speech with Lincoln's Gettysburg address. That's just silly.
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on July 9, 2005
caddis:
I parsed that as "the work nuclear", like "the task eternal".
(in foppish, dramatic[1] voice) Mine the task nuclear!
The idea is to fake erudition via heavily affected sentence structure. Or at least, judging by the content of the rest of the post, that's what I assumed the OP was going for.
[1] when speaking to someone under 16 or so, use the word "emo" here instead, so as to be better understood.
posted by decklin at 2:59 PM on July 9, 2005
I parsed that as "the work nuclear", like "the task eternal".
(in foppish, dramatic[1] voice) Mine the task nuclear!
The idea is to fake erudition via heavily affected sentence structure. Or at least, judging by the content of the rest of the post, that's what I assumed the OP was going for.
[1] when speaking to someone under 16 or so, use the word "emo" here instead, so as to be better understood.
posted by decklin at 2:59 PM on July 9, 2005
My first French teacher was from Brooklyn and sounded like it. It wasn't until years later, when I heard DeGaulle speak, that I suddenly understood what the big deal about French was.
There's a lot of sneering at prescriptivists and their alleged patting of selves on back here. A lot of patting of selves on back here for not being like them. A little charity, please. The English teachers who correct grammar and pronunciation are trying to give a leg up to those who, unlike our president, do not have the advantages of money, class, and background that will allow employers to overlook nucular. (It's true! People do judge you by the words you use!)
Fine, language is an ever changing thing. Got it. But if English is to be the linga franca of the world, the road to personal improvement, it would be a charity to those trying to learn it, both foreign and domestic, to provide as many (relatively) hard and fast rules as possible, as many masters of the language to model themselves after. I've said it before, and I stand by it- you do the new immigrant or the ghetto child no favors by telling him that spelling, diction, grammar, and pronunciation are no big deal.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:09 PM on July 9, 2005
There's a lot of sneering at prescriptivists and their alleged patting of selves on back here. A lot of patting of selves on back here for not being like them. A little charity, please. The English teachers who correct grammar and pronunciation are trying to give a leg up to those who, unlike our president, do not have the advantages of money, class, and background that will allow employers to overlook nucular. (It's true! People do judge you by the words you use!)
Fine, language is an ever changing thing. Got it. But if English is to be the linga franca of the world, the road to personal improvement, it would be a charity to those trying to learn it, both foreign and domestic, to provide as many (relatively) hard and fast rules as possible, as many masters of the language to model themselves after. I've said it before, and I stand by it- you do the new immigrant or the ghetto child no favors by telling him that spelling, diction, grammar, and pronunciation are no big deal.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:09 PM on July 9, 2005
you do the new immigrant or the ghetto child no favors by telling him that spelling, diction, grammar, and pronunciation are no big deal
This is very true, and no sensible descriptivist denies it. But you also do him or her no favors by telling them they are dumb as rocks if they don't speak "proper English," and this is the message sent by virtually all prescriptivists, whether they intend it or not. All that stuff about using "correct grammar" for the sake of being understood is pure bullshit; you can be understood just as well, and often better (cf. "begging the question"), if you say it "wrong." The point is to avoid being judged unfairly. But prescriptivists cannot make this point clearly, because they deeply believe that "good English" is in fact a sign of intelligence and logical ability. Which shows their own lack of same. (Um, present company excepted, of course.)
posted by languagehat at 8:19 PM on July 9, 2005
This is very true, and no sensible descriptivist denies it. But you also do him or her no favors by telling them they are dumb as rocks if they don't speak "proper English," and this is the message sent by virtually all prescriptivists, whether they intend it or not. All that stuff about using "correct grammar" for the sake of being understood is pure bullshit; you can be understood just as well, and often better (cf. "begging the question"), if you say it "wrong." The point is to avoid being judged unfairly. But prescriptivists cannot make this point clearly, because they deeply believe that "good English" is in fact a sign of intelligence and logical ability. Which shows their own lack of same. (Um, present company excepted, of course.)
posted by languagehat at 8:19 PM on July 9, 2005
Check out the Language Log update, They have ears, but they hear not, where Mark Liberman provides links to speech samples by historical speakers - Tennyson, Yeats, HD, Churchill, Plath and Frost - which ought to demonstrate that "thuh" and "uh" are the long-standing normal form even in prestigious speech.
posted by raygirvan at 8:30 AM on July 10, 2005
posted by raygirvan at 8:30 AM on July 10, 2005
But prescriptivists cannot make this point clearly, because they deeply believe that "good English" is in fact a sign of intelligence and logical ability.
No doubt it is an attractive stance for the power trippers, and deliberately trying to make anyone feel dumb as a rock is simply rude, like any power play.
That said, I have to ask, what does the descriptivist do when it comes time to teach? On the walls of my daughter's gradeschool are examples of art work with mis-spellings. The teacher either missed this (which I doubt) or did not feel it important to correct (which means I must be on guard). The teacher's job was to correct this, in the nicest possible way of course. She did not. The child's feelings are spared, but will not be later on when she wants a job and imagines that the interview could not have went any better.
(By the way, you've been known to correct my sometimes admitttedly free use of language use in the past. Granted, it was Latin, and I don't take offense if I am reminded of things I should have known, but still.)
Present Company, for the record, rejoices in the useful, if weird, addition of Ms to the language, but nearly pukes on seeing s/he.
Too late in the post, but another time I'll grapple the aesthetic issue. No arguing over taste? There's nothing but arguing over taste.
In the nicest possible way, of couse.
Cheers
posted by IndigoJones at 11:47 AM on July 11, 2005
No doubt it is an attractive stance for the power trippers, and deliberately trying to make anyone feel dumb as a rock is simply rude, like any power play.
That said, I have to ask, what does the descriptivist do when it comes time to teach? On the walls of my daughter's gradeschool are examples of art work with mis-spellings. The teacher either missed this (which I doubt) or did not feel it important to correct (which means I must be on guard). The teacher's job was to correct this, in the nicest possible way of course. She did not. The child's feelings are spared, but will not be later on when she wants a job and imagines that the interview could not have went any better.
(By the way, you've been known to correct my sometimes admitttedly free use of language use in the past. Granted, it was Latin, and I don't take offense if I am reminded of things I should have known, but still.)
Present Company, for the record, rejoices in the useful, if weird, addition of Ms to the language, but nearly pukes on seeing s/he.
Too late in the post, but another time I'll grapple the aesthetic issue. No arguing over taste? There's nothing but arguing over taste.
In the nicest possible way, of couse.
Cheers
posted by IndigoJones at 11:47 AM on July 11, 2005
(Does the above read snide or truculent? Not intended to.)
posted by IndigoJones at 2:22 PM on July 11, 2005
posted by IndigoJones at 2:22 PM on July 11, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.