[Gllug] Monthly GLLUG grammar report

[Dylan]

On Monday 25 November 2002 20:13, Jonathan Harker wrote:
> This month overall was much better!

Do we get a point each in our merit books?

> Still, pin this on the wall -
>
> Your welcome             =   You're welcome

The baneful apostrophe. Still, if we were taught what they were for rather 
than when to use them it might be easier!

> I want one to            =   I want one too
> This is to much          =   This is too much

Oh, come now - it's all too easy to mistype, especially when typing double 
letters at speed.

> Definately               =   Definitely

Johnson /et al/ have a lot to answer for. A google on *definitely* hits 
667,000 results, *definitely* hits 6,690,000. ~10% 'misuse' or errors is more 
than enough for a variant spelling to be acknowledged.

> I could of done it       =   I could have done it

Actually, it = I could've done it.

One of the most interesting developments in English syntax at the moment is 
the re-analysis of some auxiliary verbs. *wanna* and *gonna* are showing 
clear signs that they are starting to function as single words, rather than 
'contractions' of *want to* and *going to*, vis.:

- forming subjectless sentences ('wanna have a drink?' vs. 'like to have a 
drink' which needs an 'echo' or 'supportive' *do* and a subject)

- occuring in 3rd person singular: 'he wanna see the film'

[but note, these usages are still marginal for adults, but can be heard 
regularly from teenagers]

"So what does this have to do with 'could of'?" I hear you ask! Well, many 
prepositions in English can function as verbs (up the ante, down a drink, 
......) However, *of*, in virtue of its semantics, does not lend itself to 
this form of conversion. On the other hand, the reduced form of *have* and 
that of *of* are identical in rapid spontaneous speech. Given that a child 
acquiring English learns that prepositions can function as verbs, it is 
entirely reasonable that on hearing 'I could've done it' equates the two. In 
that sense, *of* here is NOT a preposition (notwithstanding the superficial 
resemblance) but a 'suppletive' variant of *have*. This is precisely how the 
infinitive marker *to* arose when English lost its verbal inflexions (c.f 
German.)

When I read the mail containing "I could of ..." I was excited to see the 
living development of the language coming through before my eyes, as 
confirmation of the process.

>
> Usual ESL exceptions apply

The usual ESL exceptions apply.

Dylan

p.s. FYI, I'm a theoretical linguist.

-- 
"Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not, we are
Between the wars"

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug