[Gllug] plurals

[Pete Ryland]

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".  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.

> > I were...
> 
> In what context?

My uncle (from Hucknall, Nottinghamshire) 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.

> > 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.
> 
> Just remember that Chaucer and Shakespeare (among many others) were
> lambasted in their time for degrading the language.

I've always thought of Shakespeare as equivalent to "Coronation Street" -
entertainment for the masses.  Better than watching a bear get ripped apart
by dogs I guess.

Pete

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