[Gllug] plurals

[Dylan]

On Friday 20 June 2003 12:59, Pete Ryland wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:34:32AM +0100, Dylan wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 June 2003 16:35, 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...
> >
> > Indeed, _was_ is making the final steps towards being the only past form
> > of BE - a process which started over 600 years ago, and is already
> > complete for every other verb in the language. Similarly, _is_ is
> > becomming the only present form, or at least seems to be - and the 3rd
> > person form in general is spreading to the other persons.
>
> Normally, language progresses to form exceptions and irregularities rather
> than the other way around, as has been the case for the english verb "to
> be".

I don't know how you can reach that conclusion, can you provide evidence? As 
children acquire their native language they ALWAYS make geralisations and 
pick up irregularities late. The more common the irregularity the more stable 
it is. How many people today know that English has two distinct verbs HANG, 
with different forms? The trend of diachronic language change is most 
definitely towards simplification and regularity. Irregular forms arise 
because differentiation of meaning is compromised by regularisation, but they 
tend to be unstable and fall into a regular pattern as the changes spread.

>  Also, a counter-example to "_is_ is becoming the only present form"
> is "none are" which is commonly heard despite the fact that "none" is
> singular.

This is a major can of worms. From a technical point of view, NONE (along with 
NOBODY, NO ONE, NOTHING, etc...) are numberless. The pattern, such as it is, 
in English is inconsistent wrt number concord because it seems to be based on 
semantic contrasts and analogy. NONE has plural concord derived from its 
contrast with groups (ALL), whereas NOBODY (e.g.) has singular concord due to 
contrast with SOMEBODY.

>
> > > I were...
> >
> > In what context?
>
> My uncle (from Hucknall, Nottinghamshire)

So he's not an 'East Ender' then... It's a matter of dialect, and the 
non-Estuary dialects are generally more 'conservative' than Estuary 
(~=London.)

> uses this (as first person past
> tense, not just subjunctive).  I am of the firm belief that he knows full
> well it's wrong (how can you not?), but is trying hard to dissociate
> himself from the "toffs" by using colloquialisms like this.  I've also
> heard the usage on TV in "Steptoe and Son" and "Two Pints".
>
> > > 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).
> >
> > 150 years even...
>
> The printing press and the invention of the dictionary, and modern
> technology since, has slowed the progression of language, so I'd guess a
> few more than that.

The freedom of travel and increase in migration is now out stripping that 
effect. In fact, one could say that the stagnation of the last 200 years is 
in a state of 'catch-up.' The difference between 'Standard' (British) English 
and common usage is growing by measurable amounts on an annual basis.

Dylan
-- 
Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not
We are between the wars
- Billy Bragg

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