[Gllug] plurals

[Pete Ryland]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Daniel Ahrens wrote:
> > > English grammar at shool), the rule that dictates 'if I were ....'
> > > as opposed to 'I was....' ?
> >
> > The word "subjunctive" springs to mind ...
> 
> >Indeed, this is a subjunctive usage.  However, AFAIK it is (originally) a
> >US-ism.
> 
> Uuuuh... ooohhh.. I don't think it is that simple. If you listen to East
> Enders (East End of London) speak (not the ones on the telly, the real
> ones) they regularly employ:
> 
> We was...
> 
> 
> I were...

This is a different usage, i.e. not the subjunctive "*If* I was", but
instead a colloquialism of "I was".  I don't think the two usages are
related.

> Language is a dynamic entity that does not conform well to rules. It's like
> music: people invented and played a variety of instruments first and then
> invented the rules for them (eg. harmonics, chords etc). It's the same in

The rules for harmonics are dictated by physics, not invented. :-)

> any language: grammar rules are formed after the fact and not before. That's
> why for me personally trying to tie down one usage of certain words,
> sentences etc. has to end in failure, because you cannot halt the march of
> history and time.

I did say *orginally*!  I've noticed the former usage seeping into other
English-speaking parts indeed.

> I will bet a million bucks that a thousand years from now the English that
> we speak nowadays (regardless if it's Oxford or Webster, who cares) won't
> be spoken then. (That is if we haven't blown ourselves up by then).
> Personally I think leaving languages to develop on their own is more
> reasonable than to constantly try and interfere with the development
> process by saying that one thing is correcter than another (thereby trying
> to arrest a dynamic process), when it can't be.

The only issue with that is that when different places develop a language
differently you end up with no consistent standard language and
communication becomes more difficult.  Something about the Tower of Babel.
Communicating ideas in English is difficult enough without splintering the
language.

> As long as we all know what is meant with eg. 'phunkso brother' why bother
> about public school type debates about which grammar or spelling or
> whatever is correcter than the next.

Interesting point.  I actually have no idea what that phrase means, although
I've heard it used in the song.  Can you enlighten me please?

> Anyway, this geek club should perhaps transfer to a language oriented
> discussion list. :) Sorry, had to state the obvious here.

It has been suggested before.  I think you just have to face the fact that
geeks are often pedants and language is such an easy thing to be a pedant
on.

> When this discussion first kicked off I was more embarrassed for our
> female colleague(s) on this list than how you spell the plural of the darn
> thang.

Why?

> Let's kick some ass and grow up, shall we?

Feel free to ignore the thread. :-)

BTW, someone told me the other day that the "'s" possesive form is actually
a contraction for "his".  Is this right?

Pete

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