British customs and the quality of service…then the coo-kool rooster tips the bad service and records a new song. I love tipping; but they don’t lik’em.
15% on full service, up to 20% for sentimental reasons (server having really rough night or known money problems…or you frequent the place & are generally favored)
40-45% of full price on anything ‘comped’
1-10% on take-out, or semi-self serve, or no service ‘joints’–handing you a donut across a deli counter isn’t considered service either is doing a half turn to deliver the coffee of the day.
Sounds harsh but that’s the restaurant biz’s way of looking at it.
Since the trend in recent lessons seems to be dates and their affordability, I thought I’d share a nice tip to anybody out there in the Los Angeles area, especially those near the Hollywood area who are into good live music to bring a date to…
A singer/songwriter/lyricist friend of mine by the name of Aimee Mann is going to be doing a free in-store appearance at 6pm June 3rd at Amoeba Records in Hollywood to promote her new CD. You can take this link to her website to hear her latest…
It’s a free show at a cool, spacious venue featuring a very talented musician. I’ll be going with my significant other (plus friends), and I’d recommend it to anybody in the area as a great free date, if dating and music are what you are into. Not sure how many of this student body is actually in the Los Angeles area, but it seemed like it was worth noting, especially given the ‘affordable date’ theme of recent lessons. Seemed like too good of a freebie not to share.
¡hey!
I would like to know the words “Black Jack.”
why does this card game is called like that!?
Black!? Jack!?? whose jack!?
that’s it!
saludos from Venezuela
p.d: habla en español
I was looking around and watched the TV. The news said: Universal studios and Hollywood streets in fires. That’s a terrible new for the cinema world and really a shame, the firemen reached to the incident place quicly to put out the fire. Some people use the word S.O.S to ask help, were this word come from ???, why we usually use this word to ask help ??? I heared its an acronym, well don’t know ..Hope you can help me in this incognite
Teach, How board are you getting. Your not having as much fun? Your Minions are crazy-geeks. What did you expect, smart people don’t have time for this crap. Beautiful people aether. Cheer up , at least we don’t crap on the carpet……much.
Hey Marina! Hope all is well. Here is a word I think is relevent to current events. The word is ‘politics’. Could it be that this word is made up of two words? The first, ‘poly’, meaning many. The second ‘tick’, a blood sucking insect. You’re doing great!!
Actually.. I could maybe provide the answer to that question.
The word ‘poltics’ comes from the Greek word ‘poli’ which means city and back in ancient Greece when each city was a different state, the word ‘politiki’ (in other words, politics) was used to describe all the things and the issues that had to do with the city-state, such as Athens.
You see, it’s quite the advantage of being Greek these days
THE POLL-A-TAKERS of today[politician] are not leaders at all. They take a poll to see what they think. 56% of the American People are morons. No wonder the US is in trouble?
And politics is a brother (big?) of police being both sons of greek city administation…
Poll comes from “head” so probably nothing to do with police or politics.
Another close word which has no relation with police is policy (of insurrance) comes from polyptychum a register a roll.
My lucky guess is that it also comes from 2 Greek words. ‘Lampros’ which actually means very shiny, but can also mean other things like great (in size) or in quality. For example lampro mialo means a great brain/mind. And the other part of that word, ‘phony’, comes from the Greek word ‘phony’ for voice. The same word is used for words like telephone (tele comes from the ancient Greek word for far) or microphone (micro comes from the Greek word for small).
So there you go another mystery solved by your trusty Troublemaker1991… tbh, this does not work for me xD need to find another slogan… or just let dear Marina do her job
let me ask you about an English word DA (actually I am not quite sure how to spell it cause I am not native). I find it interesting that DA occurs in so many languages including English, German, Russian and others – perhaps its origin might be the same for all of them.
Couldn’t help but notice that yore Bazooms were plastered / covered up with banners… am wondering if you / we were the victim of his producers prudish behavior… or if it was done to focus the viewers attn on yore beautiful eyes ?
Looks like you had a “Banner Day” on The Factor.
Words to consider: banner day, bazooms, Ta-Tas, getting plastered
P.S. i don’t watch his show …so don’t know if you got special treatment ?
Don’t be afraid of being informed, You will not be made fun of here. Being stupid is not SEXY. O’Reilly’s smart thou He’s a megalomaniac narcissist . He dose appreciates the Teachers ……BRAINS AND GOOD LOOKS. So he’s ok with me.
tha was great dude! i dig south park but dont watch much just because i cant handle any tv with commercials. i probably relate most with cartman overall. i love the ep where hes hunting hippies
Dear Marina,
I know I have already asked for one word, sorry (that’s not an apology but the word I asked for) but if you could explain one (or more) of the following words I’d also be grateful. They are mushroon, kiss and kinky. Of course asking for all these words would be too much but even one of them would be terrific. Thanks, and keep up the good work!
I usually tip 15% of the bill, if the gratuity isn’t already added in and the service is good. If it is superior, I tip much better.But I have given a two cent tip when the service was really lousy. That is considered the ultimate insult, as not tipping could be considered forgetfulnes by the server, if they receive two cents, they know they weren’t forgotten, but rather that the customer voiced their oppinion of the service by “putting their two cents in”
I generally tip 15%, too. I spent nine years dealing various casino games, and I relied on tips for my livelihood. I learned that Canadians and the British do not generally tip. Most Asians don’t tip. Americans and Latinos generally do tip. Must be a cultural thing… Anyway, I no longer work in a casino, but I know the importance of tipping as a result of those nine years. So unless the service is lamentable, I will tip 15%
well went to the cocomment thing and the only thing i could figure out is that i must be extra dense ’cause it was to confusing for this kid. thanks for the invite, but i’ll just keep on hangin’ out here. i’ve only had the internet for about 6 weeks and in that time i’ve come to the conclusion that this site is the only reason why i still have it…hope that puts a smile on your face.
Hey guys.. check out the top conversation in my cocomment widget and help me out with this discussion on this guy’s website about the idea of bad grammar. Come make some comments on his website and participate with me if you’d like!
i posted there…frankly i think there’s a meld of “bad grammar” and “slang” in the poster’s head. There absolutely must be rules for communication, which are bent by slang, but to say there is no such thing as bad grammar…well…
annuddermale… i never said that there aren’t any rules. only that there are various rules in various types of speech and that all are relative and should be evaluated without bias. when one is analyzing speech independently of one’s own cultural concepts, such as a linguist does, one cannot make a value judgment. it would be like me saying as a social scientist, this is the way the majority of us do it, so the rest of you are doing it wrong. that type of thinking is not acceptable in the social sciences. would you ever say that the majority of people in the u.s. are white, so white is good. what you are stating is that another person’s rules of grammar are not correct or acceptable within your perceived cultural environment. it is a contextual judgment that you are making.
Is it though, buzzword? I mean.. there are concrete rules within science and mathematics.. why can’t there be rules in language.. in otherwords.. why isn’t a double negative a positive in language when it is a positive in science? Isn’t it a slippery slope to allow “proper grammar” to just disappear?
When I am speaking about proper grammar.. I mean the ability to form sentences where the other person understands what you are saying.. allow it to stray too far and you may not be able to understand the other person at all.
I do agree that with the advent of texting.. the playing field has been leveled somewhat.. as proper grammar used to be the indicator of someone with a good education.. but everyone uses “text” speak these days.. BUT.. what’s the point of education if you can’t teach someone some basic rules of communication? I mean.. how do you teach your kid to speak if you don’t have any rules? Even the purveyors of “bad grammar” have some rules that they follow, right?
I agree that grammar rules are relative to the cultural environment, but find your implication that it is wrong (”one cannot make a value judgment”) specious. Language is fluid and culture is one of the influences that affects language, but cultural norms dictate grammar rules. Certainly evaluating grammar abjectively is difficult, but that does not mean it is wrong, nor does it mean that judgements cannot be made effectively.
Your use of the Airplane jive-talk scene is fallacious, in my opinion. The jive talkers are speaking a sub-language of English, and, whereas I would not judge their grammar “bad” for Jive, it is absolutely wrong for normal American English. Hence the stewardess’ problem with trying to communicate.
When one enters a different culture, one is judged based on that culture’s norms. Hand gestures considered acceptable, even good, in one country are judged rude in another country. That is a value judgement and is valid in context of the culture.
I’m not as sure about Marina’s example regarding text messaging, as to me that is not so much bad grammar but shorthand spelling. But u r a total sweetie, Marina – dig it?
Of course we need rules to communicate even for language, and of course a commubity can set his own set of rules, and as Marina show us words or expressions permeate in time and geografy. The real question in my opinion is to understand Timbaland’s intention.
You probably read Thureau, and will agree that a poet has not only the right but even the obligation of desobedience of grammar. Is Timbaland a poet? No. In my mind a rap lyric desobeing grammar but being poetic is not bad grammar. Then is Timbaland’s intention to speak a “different” language. Probably it is a matter of identification to a “sub”-culture. Are this lyrics representative of jive or ebonics “literature”? I don’t think so. The intention is probably not to create a piece of “literature” of a diferent “grammar”. The intention is to make young people able to feel part of a “community” by spekaing a common “jargon”. In my mind the intention of Timbaland is not speaking a diferent language with his own grammar but speaking something easy to understand and at the same time specific. Simplifying the “usual” standard grammar not to speak anothe language but to make it easy (even lazy) and state a diference in the “disrecpect” of the established “grammar”.
ah, but the question comes down to who should adapt…the community or the individual…
when i taught biology, i emphasized that individuals vary, but it is populations which evolve…i think the same could be be said of language…individuals may find their own way of communicating using individual grammar rules, but communities/cultures will decide what is worthy of being incorporated and becoming an accepted part of the language…
until that time, individuals who vary too far from the norm (outliers) will be considered grammatically-incorrect…and must learn the old axiom:
micheldiego, linguistics and anthropology are sciences. good science minimizes the influence of subjectivity upon research and experimentation. objectivity is the goal of a any scientific study. your expectations of literature or poetry has no bearing upon the scientific study and understanding of another persons cultural performance and associated rules. i am talking about science not literature or art. you use the term, “my mind” this is of significance. you cannot establish to me the proof that your mind, containing the cultural rules, values and expectations of your society are the baseline by which all other people’s cultural identities are to be compared. at least not to produce a valid scientific theory that can be replicated or tested.
Buzzword, I will never try to “desconstruct” grammar. Yet I “believe” that Kerouac or Rimbaud in their time had a desobedience obligation, and a creative role in “interpretating” and making language evolve. Language is alive and needs CREATION. Annudermale, probably you will agree with me in stating that language “evolve”. Adapt or die? maybe. Or maybe just being alive. Should be interesting in having Dawkins opinion on this matter, and perhaps on “l’air du temps” of modern english. Can poets be the creators of what will be the “evolution” of the language which is already in “l’air du temps”. Whatever, Timbaland lirycs are not poetic, still some slam lyrics are.
Maybe part of the disconnect here is the loading of the words “bad” and “good.” I don’t think that the “Bad Grammar” parody uses the word “bad” in the sense of “evil.” It’s not saying someone who says “I are” is worse than someone who says “I am.” Bad grammar just means incorrect grammar.
A definition of “bad” is “inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: e.g. a bad guess.” If two people guess something, and one of them gets it wrong and the other gets it right, the one who got it wrong made a “bad guess.” That doesn’t make that person a bad person, or even a bad guesser. After all, that person may be a philanthropist who usually guesses everything right, but this time made a bad guess.
The same goes for “bad grammar.” Using bad grammar doesn’t mean you aren’t a good person. I hear a lot of people whose first language is not English using awful grammar. Some of them use grammar that’s not just bad, but downright abysmal. So, what? They’re fine people who haven’t yet mastered the language.
Others use “bad grammar” when writing poems and novels. There’s a lot of bad grammar featured in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and the C.S. Lewis made up a stack of words in his poem Jabberwocky. Those are masterpieces of literature.
And, some “bad grammar” or “nonstandard English” spellings and meanings, eventually become “good grammar” and “standard English.” That must be tempered, however, by the general proposition upon which we all seem to agree. There are rules. If there are rules, they can be broken. If they can be broken, there is bad grammar. QED.
How does one determine what’s right or wrong is another question. If a debate arises as to whether one particular item is, in fact, bad grammar? Where do we look to find the rules? Who do we talk to? How does one build an argument to support a contention one way or the other? It can’t be that “anything goes.” If “anything goes” then there are no rules – and from what I can see, everyone has agreed “there are rules” (whatever they may be).
In the case of the English language, we have a couple of choices. For each item at issue, we can take a vote of each English language speaker (which would be the only way to get at their own knowledge or belief – their own “grammar in their head). The only way to get into someone’s head using present technology is to ask them. It seems to me to be more than obviously unfeasible to do that every time, on every issue, just in case the majority opinion has shifted.
So, what are we to do then? Well, it seems to me, as I’ve said before, that there are people that do this stuff for a living. They aren’t in a government office. They are people that work as lexicographers, linguists, and grammarians. They work on making dictionaries and they work on making books that expound upon English grammar. If I had a question regarding the proper usage of “who” and “whom,” I’d look it up. I wouldn’t ask around in order to “get inside someone’s mental grammar.” Looking it up in a generally respected source is probably the best way to get a good understanding of what is correct.
That doesn’t mean that dictionaries and grammar sources are “prescriptive.” Technically, they are expository of what the writers of the book believe to be the then current (at the time of writing) correct grammar or word usage. Whether they are “prescriptive” is in how they are used. They can be used prescriptively, and often should be used prescriptively (for example in grammar school, when kids are being taught English). If the textbook is not used prescriptively in grammar school or high school, then the teacher has no basis for grading papers. That’s obvious.
However, in general, people are free to take rules expounded in a grammar book and toss them out if they are found to be unsatisfactory. There has to be caution laid upon that, however. It is highly likely that the writers of a grammar book or a dictionary did more work on the subject, educated themselves better, and researched a bit more than the average person out there (me included). So, all else being equal, on most issues, a respected source like the OED is probably more likely to be correct than Joe Shmo on the street.
you fail to mention the value that genetic diversity has had to the success of the species. a population that lacks genetic diversity lacks the resources to adapt to a changing environment. a few individuals may have in their genetic makeup the key to human survival if they are resistant to a disease or environmental shift. such an event could wipe out the majority of a human population yet a few of the individuals once considered outliers would survive and so to the species. diversity is detrimental to survival. your statement, “adapt or die” is about as simplistic description of evolution as i’ve ever heard. further still your attitude to those populations that are on the outskirts of society and are experiencing oppression and in some cases genocide is cold and heartless. would your sentiments be the same if you were to address the refugee camps in Darfur? adapt or die? a diversity of people and languages are a benefit to our humanity and species.
alright. I googled for “mental grammar” as this is what I was talking about the whole time.
qoute:
By “grammar,” I mean the internal mental grammar — the system of rules for a language that is stored in the brain/mind of a human being who is a native speaker of that language. I’m not using the word to refer to a system of rules printed in a book or on a computer screen. Your internal grammar is completely independent of the grades teachers may have given you in grammar classes; if you’ve always thought you were “really bad at grammar,” please set that thought aside.
It seems to me that aLx has scored an own goal by referring us to Suzette Haden Elgin’s “real world linguistics 101″.
In that she clearly states that
When you want to use language to communicate meaning, you have to use it according to its rules, which linguists call its grammar.
Note that she stated “its rules, which linguists call its grammar” i.e. the rules and grammar belonging to the language, and not “the rules and grammar which various individuals hold in their heads”.
True, she goes on to say that each individual has what linguists refer to (confusingly) as an “individual grammar” in their heads; however, that is not the grammar (good grammar) of the language but that individual’s imperfect understanding of the language’s grammar which can be close to what is commonly understood to be “good grammar” or far removed from it (bad grammar).
I suggest that aLx’s insistence on his views of language which seem to conflict with everyone else’s, is not “real world linguistics 101″ but “Ivory Tower Linguistics”.
no, bob, I’ve always been saying this. I said that grammar is something in your head etc., it’s internal, individual. I did say that by “grammar” I do not mean textbook grammars.
I never said that there are no rules. of course there are rules, of course language is rule-governed. but those rules are no textbook rules. this is crucial. the set of rules that allows you to use your mother tongue is set up at an early age. you’re not even able to read, you already know all the rules of your language.
so, this is why I said we’re talking about totally different things. “grammar” to me means individual grammar.
fighting about, say, double negatives is just a fight about style or taste or something, not about grammar.
Can you give an example of a grammar rule? (defining grammar using your intended meaning).
Also, you mention that at an “early age…you already know all the rules of your language.” I’m not sure I’m getting that. Are you suggesting that everyone who uses a language knows all the rules of their language? In other words, is it your contention that while their are rules, these rules are specific to each individual? Thus, the only way to break a grammar rule is to speak it incorrectly relative to how your own mind thinks you should speak?
I am trying to get what you mean by “individual grammar.” If by “individual grammar” you mean that every individual has his own grammar rules, which are self-contained in his or her own mind, then breaking the rule simply consists of imposing a rule upon oneself and then breaking that self-imposed rule. Is that what you are saying?
If so, that would mean that Prose Perro can say “I think me are come home tomorow yesterdayly.” ALx can then say “that’s bad (incorrect) grammar.” But, aLx might be wrong, if Prose Perro’s individual grammar says that it’s not incorrect. In fact, aLx’s statement that Prose Perro’s grammar was wrong is both right and wrong. ALx is right that Prose Perro’s grammar was “bad” under aLx’s individual grammar, but aLx is wrong under Prose Perro’s individual grammar.
I’ll change my terminology a little bit. “grammar”, as I used the term before, is now “i-language (internal/individual language)”. the description of the rules of a linguistic system which a particular group of people uses to communicate, I’ll call “grammar”.
note that this is just a description. it’s describing a set of rules. it’s just stating what you’ve found to be the case. that is important.
this is totally different from a textbook grammar. textbook grammars are prescriptive.
let me ask you this. I know, I’ve stressed that point before, but it’s an important one. most languages are only spoken. now, you wouldn’t say that the language those people that speak, but not write, doesn’t follow any rules just because you can’t pull out a big book out of a shelf, right? so, this is what grammar is to me. try and imagine that there are no books, that there is no written language, and then think about what grammar in this particular case means.
let’s have marina write an email to suzette haden elgin, telling her we got this weird discussion on here and asking her to present her point of view. D
I never said there weren’t any rules. just that all rules are equal. no good, no bad. just different rules for different speech varieties. it is an issue of recognizing the validity of a people’s language, their cultural rules.
learning another culture’s rules would be good if you needed to function in their cultural environment. when people say, “you should practice good grammar” what they are really saying is that knowing these rules will help you gain acceptance in a particular cultural setting such as, academics, economics, etc. but by using the word “good”, which is value based one is also saying, “your grammar is bad, your way is bad, your cultural rules are bad.” which is not true.
By escaping the trap of thinking of nonstandard Black English as a set of “errors,” and instead treating it as really is, a different system, not a wrong one, standard English can be taught by helping children develop an awareness of the contrast between their two speech varieties, and learn to use one without losing their pride in the other.
further there is a danger in associating the concept of “good” grammar with education, in that one’s education then becomes associated with intelligence. thus “good” grammar becomes associated with intelligence. individuals speaking non standard varieties of english that have not received formal education retain the same levels of intelligence as those that do speak the “standard” form and have received formal education. their lack of access to education because of language or disinterest in acquiring that education cannot be used to determine there intelligence.
Saying someone is using good or bad grammar is not a moral judgment. Apparently, everyone is in agreement. There are rules to grammar, spelling, meaning, etc. If there are rules, they can be broken. QED.
bob, your description of this approach to linguistics as, “ivory tower linguistics” is misplaced. as this approach to linguistics is very applicable to those linguists and anthropologists working in the field far from the ivory towers of academics and u.s. mainstream culture. this approach allows the researcher to function without bias among the people and language of interest. as someone who has studied amid the poverty of the developing world, i can tell you that this approach is rooted in the common, often harsh realities of human existence. by recognizing that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as one’s own, no matter how foreign, is an act of selfless understanding and respected scientific methodology. this is not the view of aLx alone, i don’t know who you include in your, “everyone else’s” but many respected linguistic and anthropological researchers apply it to their work. aLx and if i may, myself are not the only ones.
The longer this conversation goes on, the more confused I get!
To start with the last post by Buzzword, what I meant by “Ivory Tower Linguistics” was any formal study of language by anyone who calls themself a linguist and what I meant by “everyone else” was the “ordinary person in the street” who has no interest in studying language but only wants to use it to convey meaning to other “ordinary persons in the street”.
Next, let’s talk about “Good / Bad” Grammar. What I understand by “Good Grammar” is Grammar as it is taught in schools using Government approved textbooks – what you call prescriptive grammar.
“Bad Grammar” is anything that does not conform to this textbook grammar and is a continuum from minor variations through to a structure which is so different from the school-taught version that it is unintelligible to someone who has not encountered it before. (See Buzzwords link to “Jive” speak.)
it seems that i need a translator to get my point across.
I do not regard myself as an expert in language, (for example, I couldn’t recognise a subjunctive if I stepped in one on the street) and I have no problems with people using language which does not conform to what I was taught in school, as long as I can reasonably easily work out what a person is trying to say to me.
Also, I have had the good fortune to work in a number of foreign countries alongside people who were learning English, as well as working with foreign workers here in the UK, and I have always been popular with them because I have always tried to learn at least some of the local language or dialect and have taken the trouble to answer their questions about what is the “correct” way to say something in English.
When answering their questions, I have never felt able to say, “You must say it this way.” I have always said, “This is the way I would say it but other people might tell you another way.” So I have demonstrated that I recognize that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as my own, no matter how foreign, and have acted consistently in a selfless way in trying to increase understanding.
Having got that out of the way, what are we actually arguing about here?
Re-reading all that has gone before, it seems to me that the crux of aLx’s and Buzzwords crusade is the use of the words “Good” and “Bad” and, as a Buddhist who is supposed to reject duality, I have to agree. Those words should, maybe, be expunged from all dictionaries, but none of us are going to live to see the day.
Maybe it is just a question of acknowledging that people have come to use those words unthinkingly without consciously attaching a value to what they are referring to.
Nevertheless, the terms “good grammar” and “bad grammar” are in common use. As I understand it, the title of Jamesatwar’s and Marina’s video was inspired by the reaction of school English teachers to the video titled “The way I are”.
The artists who produced that video must have realised that it would provoke a reaction when they put it into the public domain, and, as Buzzword has said before on this site, when you do something in public you had better be prepared to be offended, so I find it slightly incongruous that he is now defending a public figure who has been lampooned.
You can’t expung the words “good” & “bad” they have changed their meanings almost opposite of the original meaning & maybe even back again, depending on context, ie “goody two shoes” although “good” means “good”, but has a negative connotation. “Bad” has changed, to be admired, as Michael Jackson noted in his song I’m Bad .
Now could be just be bad again. But, pre Michael, it was I’m Bad, I’m Nationwide. Ironicaly the guy in ZZ Top named Beard, the drummer (without the beard) ran into my wife in California many years ago, (pre me) & invited her to a party in the ZZ Top penthouse. She was underage at the time (now thats bad). She declined, at least thats what she tells me.
Bad & Good are good words just a little inconsistant in their meanings. Cheers
yo, thanks for the clarification bob. i respect your attempts in diplomacy, that’s really cool. for the record i wasn’t offended by the video, unlike the blogger that inspired this deep blue. however i support the validity his argument regarding the concept of “good and bad” grammar. dude really, it takes something really heinous to offend me. i appreciate the effort in understanding our position. and you summarized simply enough. thanks.
imagine a ball game described in a book. two kids take a look at it and want to play this game. there are images in the book showing the game. the ball in those images is red. the kids don’t have a red ball. only a yellow one.
if they start playing the game with the yellow ball — do they play a game other than the game described in the book?
not a great example, IMO…i ref junior, collegiate, and adult volleyball…that sport, and i’m sure almost all other sports, has proscribed specifications for the ball…too wide a variance and you’re not playing the game as described by the ruleset…
so if the kids used a yellow volleyball to play softball, then, yes, they are playing bad ball…
That’s about as relevant as asking if people are reading the same post in here if their computer displays it in red letters instead of black.
Neither a “good” example nor a “bad” one, but a specious one.
If the game is, for example, golf, then the answer would be that they are playing the same game. That’s because golf doesn’t have a rule requiring the ball be of a particular color.
At this point in this conversation, I’d like to chime in with the following lyrics of a song by The Police, one about words and grammar…
Don’t think me unkind
Words are hard to find
They’re only cheques I’ve left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
Poets, priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for their submission
And no one’s jamming their transmission
‘Cos when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
And if Sting’s take on things isn’t intellectual enough for you, try looking into Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories about the psychological power of grammar and the way it can be used just right as a sort of mind control. Rather than dwell too much on the ineffectiveness of bad grammar, it might be better to delve into the effectiveness of good grammar and how our brains are hardwired to it. De doo doo doo De da da da… Peace, Errin : )
As several contributions to this special issue point out, ideologies of race are also ideologies of language, an unsurprising convergence given the long standing association between ethnoracial and linguistic differentiation promoted both in early linguistic theorizing and in (other) nationalist projects (Bauman and Briggs 2000). The ideology of linguistic markedness. In particular, the difficulty (which afflicts only white people) in seeing whites as racialized is matched by the difficulty (again, only for whites) in hearing white speakers’ language as racialized: as specifically white rather than neutral or normative-or standard. In such an arrangement, unmarked status confers power by allowing whiteness to move through the social world ghost-like, unseen and unheard, evident only in its effects. Likewise, the notion of a linguistic “standard,” which in the U.S. context is closely bound up with whiteness (Lippi-Green 19997), implies both unmarkedness (standard as ordinary) and power (standard as regulative)
Although there are numerous sociolinguistic treatments of Standard English from a variety of perspectives (e.g., Crowley 1989; Milroy and Milroy 1999; Silverstien 1996), scholarly opinion is remarkably unanimous. in nearly every discussion Standard English is located in opposition to nonstandard English (and sometimes to other languages); many commentators point out that Standard English, as it is usually defined, is not spoken at all but is a particular register of written language; and a number of authors note that Standard English does not, properly speaking, exist but rather is a prescriptive ideal. Such analyses, valuable as they are for correcting misapprehensions about the nature of sociolinguistic variation, do not always carefully distinguish between the notion of an idealized prescriptive standard, usually based on a formal written language, and the spoken vernacular believed most closely to approximate it. This spoken Standard English, as a primarily informal or coloquial variety, differs from formal written Standard English (Carter 1999; Cheshire 1999) but is still granted ideological authority as “the standard.” Thus spoken Standard English is positioned in relation not only to nonstandard English but also to what I call superstandard English. A linguistic superstandard is a variety that surpasses the prescriptive norm established by the standard. While available to some standard and nonstandard speakers rather than situational variety the superstandard is restricted neither to formal contexts nor to written language. For some speakers, the superstandard may be the everyday, “unmarked” variety for ordinary interaction.
Superstandard English contrasts linguistically with Standard English in its greater us of “supercorrect” linguistic variables: lexical formality, carefully articulated phonological forms, and prescriptively standard grammar. It may also go beyond traditional norms of prescriptive correctness, to the point of occasionally over-applying prescriptive rules and producing hypercorrect forms. But the recognition of such difference is at least ideologically as linguistically motivated. it is precisely because of the robustness of the ideology of Standard English in the Unites States that those linguistic varieties generally classified as nonstandard-African American Vernacular English foremost among them-are regularly held up as divergent from the standard despite considerable overlap in grammar, phonology, and the lexicon. By the same token, the superstandard need not deviate substantively from the colloquial standard in order to be considered distinctive; because it is marked with respect to Standard English forms, even relatively slight use of supercorrection and hypercorrection can call attention to itself. Superstandard English is therefore a marked variety that may contrast ideologically both with the unmarked colloquial standard and with marked nonstandard English. However, because it draws on the prescriptive standard, it also contributes to the linguistic ideologies that elevate one linguistic variety over others. How these varieties come to e associated with particular racial positions-that is, how they become racialized styles-is likewise the work of ideology.”
I’m not sure this has something to do with “The way I are” or with “Bad grammar”
I will repeat here what I’ve written on bradshaw’s blog.
I’m sure that Timbaland himself does not think his lyrics where ment to be a piece of “ebonics” literature. By the way, what is he saying: “I ain’t got no money…” Is he serious? You really think this is a serious piece of poetry? This lyrics are easy, catchy fun. It’s ment to be sung and danced. It’s a masterpiece of course but not a grammar masterpiece. And in fact saying it’s bad grammar could be considered as a compliment! You are “right” in defending how “right” any language, dialect even jargon can be. Then if you want to consider the sociology of this particular song, could you consider the fact that the song itself is a spoof. We have a guy saying he has no money in a Cerruti suit, then a girl saying “Baby if you strip, you can get a tip” and “you can still touch my love, it’s free” in a sexy outfit with a sexy voice. Haven’t you noticed it is a parody? Then the grammar of the lyric: do you really think they are “the way they are” to honour AAVE.
The tittle itself IS A PARODY “the way I are”…it does not mean this song is in Jive but this song is catchy and easy to learn by any american with a potential acces to itunes store? Let’s relax and understand that Marina is not attacking AAVE, and that Timbaland is just (pretty well) singing.
Thank you for posting that, Buzz. It’s both interesting and startling at the same time; I say startling because the idea of standard English being a tool of “White Supremacy” is completely foreign to me – something I had never considered and something I find difficult to understand.
I can accept that standard / super-standard language is perceived as an indicator of education but the racial connection escapes me. I have known and seen on television many people of non-white ethnicity who speak much better English than I do, (for instance, Robert Mugabe, the dictatorial president of Zimbabwe, to name but one) but does that make them white? The idea appears ludicrous to me. Perhaps this attitude is peculiar to the United States.
So how could a society go about rectifying this situation?
Would you like to see a similar situation as in Norway, which has two official languages, Bokmål (literally book language derived from Danish as the Danes were a former ruling force) and Nynorsk (an artificial language cobbled together by attempting to amalgamate the common features of all the local dialects.)?
Do you think that teaching both standard English and African American English Vernacular in schools would help African Americans to feel more integrated and less marginalized?
If that were to be implemented, where would it stop? Would you also have to start teaching “Coonass” and “Pennsyltuckian”?
Regarding your other reply to me, I wasn’t trying to be diplomatic in my posts (diplomacy is not something I’m gifted in and I do have to try to be so) but rather just trying to get my head around your and aLx’s arguments in the spirit of the fifth of Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, namely “Seek first to Understand, THEN to be Understood”
This has been a great read, although tough at times, the posting times don’t always go along with the order of my reading. ’sall good. To use another sports analogy to help with context for rules of grammar. Hockey I will use, but soccer, basketball… team games need rulebooks & officials to enforce (give teeth to) the rules. The game of hockey couldn’t be played without them. Hockey rules differ worldwide & in different leaques, but the game is recognizable as hockey, because of the structure of the game, not the rules. Coaches who teach Hockey do not teach the rules, but how to play the game, Skating, stickhandling, checking etc. Postional play & defending etc. are taught as the player advances in skills. How to think hockey is engrained in the player. even toughness & a fighting spirit are developed, but a coaches job is not to teach “The Rules”.
The rules however are important to the game & how it’s played. Knowledge of the rules is Important, but when a skilled team plays another skilled team how the game is officiated is more important than the rules themselves, if a referee called every infraction of the rules the game becomes boring & hard to watch, “the rules” give teeth to the officials so that the whole thing doesn’t get out of hand, but the best games happen when the ref. can put the whistle in his pocket & let ‘em play, breaking the rules often but knowing if things got out of hand penalties would ensure & thus the teams’ chance of victory would be diminished.
When international hockey happens the rules have to be ammended to be agreeable to all in the tournament, which sometimes hinders a teams’ effectiveness as styles develop to fit within the framework where they developed, the best teams adjust but don’t change their desire to push the envelope & see how far they can go outside the rules without getting penalized, thus bending the rules past the breaking point without penalty & conversely gaining reward & recognition.
Sometimes recognition for breaking the rules is all that is remembered. No gold for you both teams disqualified but It was world news in the day. THE WAR BETWEEN CANADA & RUSSIA.
As for me, no expert in the linquistics field, I enjoy reading & listening to the different,(Not deficiant) ways of speaking in english & usually pay closer attention if I have to decifer the grammar a little. I like reading the posts by the people who are just learning english or are from different cultures, can almost hear the accents at times.
I have a friend, whose dad is french Canadian, I asked the dad if he “thought” in english or french & his mother tongue is french, He said (& he had to think about it) english. Also he & his wife, both french language raised, spoke in the house, english because it was easier gramaticaly.
So I say don’t be afraid to break the rules. fear not the grammar bullies
Proper use of punctuation is essential for proper communication, therefore we need phonetic punctuation to help us with our verbal skills.
Magic e could only have been produced b.e. (before ecstasy) couldn’t it?
Now the PC police (Political Correctness police) would have banned it.
Can’t have the kids sniggering at the back of the class, can we?
please read the following article i think it would be of some help in understanding some of the issues being discussed in this deep blue. don’t be scared off by the language, there are some moments of clarity amidst all the scholarly jargon. also i posted a portion of an article (language ideology) above, please read the rest of the article, the link is provided below it, as it provides further context that may alter your opinion either way (i’m an idiot or hey, i may have a point). admittedly i can be both.
damn, link doesn’t take you directly to the pdf… under online papers, click on, grammatical ideology and its effect on speech kroch & small 1978. this article is well worth the read, you don’t have to read the whole thing, introduction would suffice. this and the other articles are really interesting. so hard to find academic papers the public can access for free, one of my gripes.
I am curious, buzz. I am not sure if you saw my question above, so I’ll ask it again.
You said in one of your posts that you weren’t saying there were no rules (which implies that you were saying that there are rules, of one sort or another).
rules which organize components of language. i am not arguing against the existence of rules, just that a linguist cannot make a biased evaluation of those rules resulting in a judgement of good or bad (subjective). a linguist may say that the dominate cultural group expresses the expectation that other cultural groups within the shared public arena adopt their performance rules in order to be recognized and be allowed to participate. those rules are considered to be the “good” rules as they satisfy the social expectations of the dominate culture regardless of the cultures under submission. The linguist cannot lend authority to those rules.
You say, “rules governing double negatives” – fine. That’s a rule. We can agree on that. So, if you break that rule, that’s what “bad grammar” means. It doesn’t mean “morally wrong” grammar. It means “incorrect grammar.” Grammar that breaks the rules is “bad grammar.” So, if you say that there is a rule, then breaking the rule is “bad grammar.” That’s what I’m getting at.
However, you go on to say “..but you can make up any rule you like…” What is that supposed to mean? Is the double negative rule you cited a rule or not? Or, are you saying that there really isn’t a rule, because someone else can just say the opposite rule – double negatives are required? So, it sounds like you’re hedging. You want to say, essentially, that there are rules, but then there aren’t any rules. If I’m wrong, please explain it simply.
Is the double negative rule a rule? Yes or no. (you already said yes)
If it’s a rule, can’t it be broken? And, if it can be broken, then what is so all fired horrible about calling broken rules “bad grammar?”
you know cultures develop multiple often contradictory rules. catholics, as a rule, pray before a meal. jews, as a rule, pray after a meal. atheists, as a rule, don’t pray before, during or after a meal. all three, rules. imagine a dinner together at the all american diner, each follows their own rules, each broke the rules of the other, each satisfied their own rules, which rule is good, which rule is bad? a broken social rule is often called bad etiquette. who has used bad etiquette, good etiquette?
You ask, “Which rule is good, and which rule is bad?” We’re talking about the rules of English grammar. The rules aren’t good or bad. The rules just are. “Bad grammar” is when one breaks the rules.
Your examples may be instructive, but they have to be put in the proper light. In your analogies, Catholics, Jews and atheists would be akin to different languages, like English, Spanish and German. Each has its own rules. If one is a Catholic that got divorced, uses contraceptives, and curses Jesus as a fraud, then one might say that he or she is a “bad Catholic” in the sense of “breaking the rules of Catholicism.” A Jew, too, who works on Saturday, eats ham and shellfish, and gives Yahweh the finger after every meal might be considered a “bad Jew” in the sense of breaking the rules of Judaism. An atheist may announce his belief in an almighty creator who meddles in human affairs and looks like a human being, and in that case be called a “bad atheist.’
ok… the double negative is a rule that exists. if this is my rule and i accept it, i then ignore it and do not follow this rule, i have broken my rule. i want to see where your going with this.
if i may, i believe my catholic, jew, atheist analogy was very well lit. and you did not, i believe answer the questions i posed. each belief does not represent a different language but the same language/ different rules. in your example they all broke their own rules, in mine they all followed their own rules. but if each followed their own rules they are breaking each other’s rules and they all practicing bad etiquette. can all the rules be right or wrong?
buzz, I tried to understand what you just wrote, but it sounds like double-talk.
What I get is this:
You are in agreement that there are rules. However, you believe there are only self-imposed rules, and that there are no common rules for the English language (rules that apply irrespective of the will of the individual).
Am I correct? If not, what did you mean to say?
If I am correct, then you’ve basically said that there are no rules. I can say that double negatives are wrong one day, and then change the rule the next, and I can never know if anyone else is breaking the rule because I can’t read their mind. I can’t even trust what they tell me, because they may not be honest with me. Thus, in your view, there are no rules for English grammar (at least none that anyone can know).
As I reread your second paragraph, I have to say, it is really not understandable. You said, “If I may, i believe my catholic, jew, atheist analogy was very well lit.” What does that mean? Well lit? And you say I did not think it was well lit? Why do you say that? And, I don’t get how different people speaking different languages based on different “rules” is “bad etiquette.” What is that?
Marina – do you think most of this debate boils down to whether people think the word “bad” in “bad grammar” is intended to be some sort of pejorative comment against the speaker/writer? I get the impression that the people who object to the term “bad grammar” base a good deal of their ire on the assumption that to say someone is using “bad grammar” means they are a bad or worse person.
no! let’s look at a hard science like physics. if a magnet repels another magnet, is that magnet a bad magnet? if a magnet attracts another, is that a good magnet? you can’t say (good or bad) because that type of evaluation does not exist at that level of analysis.
you know may be you are speaking as an expert informant on your own language rather than as an expert on language. not meant to be an insult, just trying to understand. you are not negating your own cultural expectations, right?
further the behavior of the magnet (avoiding divine explanations) probably didn’t actually break any laws, but was behaving according to other laws that can satisfactorily explain the behavior.
Buzz – this is crazy. Plenty of physicists when encountering something that didn’t work would say that “it’s bad.” Certainly, engineers and quality control people do it all the time, and a lot of them are physicists (and they’ve certainly studied physics). If parts are bad, including magnets, it means they don’t work.
As for your other post, regarding speaking as an expert. None of that has any relevance to the issue.
You’re asking me if I’m negating my own cultural expectations? I’m not sure what you mean by “cultural expectations.” Can you give me an example of one of your cultural expectations? Maybe then I’ll know what mine are. So as not to evade your question, however, I will say that I have not negated anything at all, so that would include any cultural expectations. I’ve negated nothing.
More and more, buzz, I’m getting convinced that you just don’t like the word “bad.” It’s not even right to say the word “bad” in connection with magnets that don’t work?
How about “bad reception” on a radio? How about a “bad connection” when troubleshooting electronics? How about a “bad ticker” when talking about one having heart trouble?
You said, “further the behavior of the magnet (avoiding divine explanations) probably didn’t actually break any laws, but was behaving according to other laws that can satisfactorily explain the behavior.”
Uhhhh… yeah… that’s what I said…. magnets when they repel/attract aren’t breaking laws, they are obeying them. But, whatever,, it’s an irrelevancy anyway. Let’s stay focused.
1. We are in agreement that there are rules of proper English grammar.
2. We are in agreement that one of those rules involves the use of “double negatives.”
3. This brings us to the question of “can the rule regarding double negatives be broken?” Can I get a yes or a no on that?
dude, i’m negatin’ shit all the time! all i’m saying is that a scientist must step outside of his or her own cultural/personal biases and abandon perceptions that may influence the interpretation of the subject matter. personal testimony: i work well with immigrants and within cultures in developing countries. the people i meet often exhibit characteristics/behavior that may be distracting or offensive to other people. not me, no problems. however, i come from appalachia. if find myself dealing with an unemployed racist meth addict from kentucky who abuses his wife and neglects his kid i want to punch the fucker in the head. now when i feel this, i become aware that i am letting some of my cultural background interfere with my work. thats what i mean. are you aware of your own bias or cultural norms?
You’re “negatin’ shit” all the time?” Like what? I don’t know what that means.
And, “all” you are saying is that a scientist must step outside of his or her own cultural/personal biases and abandon perceptions that may influence the interpretation of the subject matter? Of course! A scientist should avoid all biases, if possible (not just cultural or personal ones). However, all biases that a person has are personal to him or her. One either has a bias or one doesn’t. If one has a bias, it is a personal bias. It’s not someone else’s bias.
Also, how does one abandon a “perception?” A perception is something one perceives (i.e. becomes aware of, understands, identifies by means of one’s senses). A scientist’s whole career is based on his perceptions.
I think that your personal “testimony” doesn’t have anything to do with the price of tea in China. One, you’re obviously not a scientist, so what does that have to do with your discussion of scientists shedding biases.
And, it’s very good that you refrain from letting your judgments interfere with your job. However, what does that have to do with linguistics or grammar?
Am I aware of my own bias? Yes. I am aware of some of them. I’m sure there are others I am not aware of. Being aware of a bias is what allows one to shed or minimize it. Most biases, however, and particularly the most damaging ones, are the ones of which we are not aware. It’s an innate predisposition.
Am I aware of my “cultural norms?” Do you mean “social standards of appropriate behavior?” I personally don’t have any cultural norms. The culture in which I live has cultural norms, and I have an understanding of what those cultural norms are, but that’s it. An individual can’t have a cultural norm – he can only abide by them.
I know.. I know… I’m interested in seeing what you all have to say.. and I agree that the idea of “good grammar” is often used as a way for “upper class” and “lower class” people to try to separate themselves.
In other words, people make a mental determination that another person is possibly lacking in education when they use “improper???” (WHAT WORD CAN I USE???) “incorrect” grammar? When you go in for a job interview.. do you speak the same way as you would around your friends? If you are trying to help people succeed in this world, is it bad to try to teach them some grammar rules so that they can at least “appear to be intelligent” to others?
Are we becoming so pc that we cannot teach children grammar in school… or that we should start telling them that it is ok to use double negatives, and you can say “the way I are”.
At what point do we just throw everything away.. and stop educating people. Without a general set of rules it will become IMPOSSIBLE to teach children language or writing skills.. or anything… there will be too much diversity and it will make the job for teachers IMPOSSIBLE!
you could say, their own grammar, perhaps native, familiar, perhaps casual or informal grammar. i think that, “informal” is used frequently, have to check. i think we should teach english in schools but teach kids as well that it is just another way of speaking to get what you want. “standard” english isn’t better than their informal grammar but it does allow access to things beyond their immediate community. and that they should have pride in their culture and language and maintain as it further completes their identity. i think we should teach them it is ok to speak in two, three whatever different ways. the u.s. is a pluralistic society there are multiple ways of speaking. the kids can handle it we can handle it. what some kids can’t handle is someone making the subjective relative statement, that your language, your way expressing who you are is bad and that “standard” english is universally absolutely without a doubt gooder. so yea, i’m all for teaching “standard” english in the schools, rules and everything. no reason you can’t respect and acknowledge everyone’s diversity either.
another thing, i get the pc thing a lot. i realize you weren’t directing it toward me. pc to me is pandering to people, like politicians do for shallow, selfish egotistical reasons. sometimes i’m defending women’s rights, children, generally people’s dignity and autonomy. this isn’t pc, this is basic respect and recognition of another person or people. the pc accusation gets applied inappropriately i think. real pc is unacceptable. i don’t think my position is based on politically correct interests. although i am talking about a lot of rules and subjective judgments, prospero would be happy to know.
This is very interesting but yet.
Isn’t it possible that sometime, some writters are just lazy when they write their lyrics. And when it comes to hip/hop or rap or slam isn’t it possible to recognize very good grammar (I’m not speaking about standard english, I’m speaking about being ELOQUENT) and sometimes very bad grammar.
If you had to teach children, will you use Timbaland’s work? or prefer LKJ or Bob Dylan? Maybe we can recognize there is “good grammar”?
i’m thinking formal and informal may be good descriptions that you could use. like, “do you want to improve your formal grammar”, “formal grammar is just so damn sexy!” that kind of stuff. formal is often associated with dressing up ya know. so it kinda fits. and informal is just who we are most of the time or want to be anyway. what do you think?
i understand not wanting to hurt another person’s feelings by telling someone their grammar is incorrect, but, well, someone needs to have thicker skin if he/she cannot take a bit of correction…
saying, “that’s bad grammar, you need to say it this way” is not a value judgement of an individual – it’s education…
sorry, but if a person’s grammar is wrong for the envirions in which they’ve immersed themselves, the grammar is wrong…and can be improved…
You said, “you could say, their own grammar..” Yes, you “could” say that, but it would be useless. Their own grammar? Then Marina is correct. You can’t teach them anything because they all have their own grammar. You can’t even know if they are using “their own grammar” wrong because they might have a different “grammar” every day. It’s pointless.
I think you seem to be mainly concerned with people not being considered “bad” or “less” than other people. And, I have to say, that you’re concern there is quite honorable and quite warranted. People who use bad grammar should not be made to feel like they are morally bad. However, the issues with language are not really any different than the issues with kids learning how to play baseball. They learn how to play baseball, and they have to play by a set of rules. If they break the rules, then they aren’t playing right. You can’t have 9 fielders and a batter all with their own rules of the game. If the batter hits the ball and fails to touch first base as he rounds to go to second, it serves no purpose for him to say “my rules” say “I don’t have to touch first if I step right over it.”
The whole concept of a “rule” is that it applies to more than one person. You don’t have “your own rules” for almost anything. If you come waltzing into town and say “my own rules” say there’s no such thing as private property and you start scooping money out of cash registers, you’ve broken the rules whether your own personal opinion tells you so or not.
Then you say, “so yea, i’m all for teaching “standard” english in the schools, rules and everything. no reason you can’t respect and acknowledge everyone’s diversity either.” That’s exactly what I’m saying (and it appears Marina is saying the same thing too). Buzz, if you use “nonstandard” English, than it’s bad grammar. It’s not a moral judgment, buzz. A person is still a good person even if he or she uses bad grammar, nonstandard grammar, or informal grammar. I do it all the time. When I’m at a gathering of friends, sometimes I use slang, profanity, incorrect usage, etc., and I do so with wild abandon. It’s still bad grammar.
I think you’ve made a mountain out of a mole hill. Be clear on this. I think I speak for everyone when we say that we do not think people who use nonstandard English are “bad” people. All of us do it all the time. Sometimes even our trusty and incredibly attractive teacher will make grammar mistakes. She too has used “bad grammar.” So what?
in linguistics, it’s all about structure. I’m talking syntax, morphology, phonetics/phonology, semantics. a structure, as I’m sure you know, consists of two things. elements and the relations b/w those elements.
here’s another important distinction. surface structure / deep structure. “deep structure” we better replace by “logical structure” or “underlying structure”.
the surface structure of a sentence (better and henceforth: phrase / CP) is what you read / hear.
phrases start (in your head) out with the underlying structure. surface structure is then generated by basically moving things around.
I’ll try to explain it as roughly and simply as I can.
consider the following phrase.
(i) paul seems to sleep.
you asked me about what rules there are, or what rules I am talking about. one rule you acquire as a child is that english is an SVO language. subject first, then verb, then object(s). this goes for a simple declarative CP. so, you’re acquiring the rules of word order. no one is explicitly taught that rule, at some point you just know.
back to the CP above. the subject in there is “paul”. but paul is not the logical subject of “seem”, it’s just the grammatical subject, it’s there because english is an SVO language, and it’s not, like italian, a language that can just drop the subject. paul does not “seem”, he is not a “seemer”. paul is the logical subject of “sleep”, he’s the sleeper.
the underlying structure of (i) is:
(ii) [ e seems [ paul to sleep ]].
(e stands for “empty category”.)
but “seems paul to sleep” will not be the phrase you’re going to say. “seem” is what we’d call a “raising verb”. “paul” will be raised into a position higher than it is in now:
(iii) [ paul seems [ t to sleep ]].
(t stands for “trace” which basically means “there was something which is not there anymore.”)
this is called “subject-to-subject raising”; the subject of the subordinate verb has been raised into the position of the subject of the matrix verb.
so, this is how we get (i).
the knowledge of rules that no one has been taught, but which they just know, is called “tacid knowledge”. you don’t have direct access to that knowledge.
now, this is a rule to which there are, I’m sure, exceptions. linguists have to live with that. it’s not like in physics or mathematics (I don’t know much about either of the last two so I could be wrong on this one).
I guess we not only have the difficulty of prescriptivist vs descriptivist, but also of clarifying if we’re talking about underlying or surface structures.
When you say, “I guess we not only have the difficulty of prescriptivist vs descriptivist, but also of clarifying if we’re talking about underlying or surface structures” you unnecessarily multiply the issues and basically change the argument to a different one.
Nobody is arguing about whether “prescriptivism” or “descriptivism” is better or worse or even if rules are prescriptive or descriptive. It doesn’t matter for the purposes of the debate over whether there is or is not something called “bad grammar.” Similarly, it does not matter, for the purposes of this argument, whether we are talking about underlying or surface structures. While those are interesting and mind-numbing issues, they are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
It doesn’t matter whether the SVO rule you suggested is taught or learned by osmosis or whatever. It’s a rule of grammar. If it is a grammar rule, and it can be broken, then breaking it is “bad grammar.”
Can it be broken? If you’re answer to that is “yes” then what Marina and everyone else on my side (I am daring to speak for others, and apologize to anyone who might not want me to do that) is saying is that “bad grammar” means, in essence, “broken rule.”
That’s why I wanted you or buzz to write out a rule. Neither of you did though. Neither of you actually wrote out what the rule you were talking about was. He said “the rule about double negatives,” but didn’t explicitly state it. You proceeded into a discussion of SVO, but didn’t explicitly state a rule (you just discussed overarching concepts).
A grammar mistake is something like, “Buffy bringed the umbrella to John who are jumping in the rain.”
That’s not a different structure. That’s wrong.
Disclaimer: Depending on the context, it may be fantastic writing. Maybe it’s part of a larger poem and this line just makes it. Maybe it’s part of a novel, and the writer is quoting a character who said that. It’s not a moral judgment, and it doesn’t mean the writer is “wrong” (in the sense of being unrighteous). It’s just wrong in the sense of being incorrect English grammar. That’s “bad grammar.”
marina, i know your busy with the move and everything and i may be beating a dead horse, but… at this point i would like someone to at least consider that our position has some rationale. like there is a purpose to taking this approach. i think one of the problems is that some of us come from social science backgrounds and others come from literary backgrounds. so we approach language in subtly different ways. anyway here is another link. yawn.
interesting read…slanted, of course, and a mite inflammatory, but it provides food for thought…
question, though: why would the author use the very rules he professes to abhor?…or is it not the use of said rules, just correcting someone who is informal in grammar in an environment where formal grammar is preferred that is ridiculed?
If this if true when the king of France created the Franch Academy (1635) as a prescriptive institution in order to establish the rules of the french language, it was a mistake. Should have been better for France enabling vernacular languages to keep creating their own “rules”. Dozens od patois, dialects and sub-dialects arround the country, and the scientist and thinkers obliged to communicate in latin since it was the only language of some “technical” use (maybe because latin had a set of rules, a grammar).
Perhaps any generalisation is dangerous. Maybe this discussion is very American. Maybe if there was more sense of cultural heritage or a history of internal division in this country, prescriptive grammar could be seen diferently.
annuddermale, if you mean; linguists ridicule the language that they as academics are expected to use, then yes they do. when i studied and did student teaching in anthropology at university, i frequently pointed out the irony of teaching the need for cultural relativism in our discipline while wearing professional attire and using formal academic terminology that were not my own casual manner of performing. that type of mockery is quite common in the social sciences.
micheldiego, yea i would say that was a political mistake. this discussion is not, “very american” it is primarily an academic debate, that is uncommon in the social sciences. the history of america is a history of immigration, internal division, class stratification, socioeconomic disparity, segregation, civil war, civil rights, riots… from within your segment of american culture there may not seem to be a lack of cultural heritage or internal division but if you ask another american cultural group you may be surprised by their experiences. by the micheldiego, i am well versed in the writings of the transcendentalists, the beat poets, and music is one of my passions. my subjective opinions and expectations of art as it applies to me is something i try to keep separate from my role as a social scientist. otherwise i am biased and unable to approach cultures with an open mind. check out the following link.
micheldiego, unless i misunderstood you and your argument is that because america is a diverse pluralistic society and that prescriptive grammar is a response to that, perhaps an attempt by the dominate culture to normalize minority behavior. then i would likely agree with portions of that argument.
I have no sufficient time yet to understand all the article, will enjoy reading it this week-end., I had a quick view of it and want to share a couple of things with you:
Any dominant culture tries to normalize a minority, this is so true. As an interesting example I will suggest “Mondovino”, a documentary about wine and terroir I hope you saw. A more etymological example will be the “standard” English etymology: standard = post = flag = king.
I will probably agree with you and the author of the article. On this point and on all the consequences we know…(even add a couple of things about gender if I had time)
But this article also says something else: that any minority defends itself also by standardizing. “recent ethnic and nationalist revivals have contribute to the standardization and preservation of many languages” “many languages…particularly those lacking a script tend to die…” It is hard to survive without a script and a grammar…Example: if you know the Brazilian capoeira, you will notice that the smaller the group of capoeiras the harder the rules they impose on themselves trying to preserve at best their own cultural heritage.
We can see then that prescriptivism can be offensive or defensive. Or, may be the standardization is a cause in a case a consequence in the other. Minorities which are fortunate to have some codes may survive. Standard cause their survival. Majorities naturally tend to impose their code. Standard is a consequence of power. From an evolutionary point of view it is very interesting noticing here that perhaps the less “adapted” language may survive because it is prescript by the strongest group (the group of the king). S Gould somewhere explains why the qwerty standard is the surviving standard while it was not the more efficient set of “rules” for typing (in fact because it was not the more efficient, as it was slower it worked well with the machines available at that time).
May I speak about evolution of language and of more or less “adapted” languages? Being both hosts of HFW we probably share some belief in permeation and evolution of languages. “The transition from the garden of Eden to the Tower of Babel is, apparently paradoxically, chiefly a result of contacts between groups, not isolation.” quoting Eriksen. This poses the Babel issue. Personally I hesitate between two utopias. Perhaps all languages descend from an original unique common language, eventually one word, eventually the name of god. Perhaps several languages have appeared and have evolved at different time, but obey to some law, or to some “l’air du temps” which make them from time to time solve the same problems with the same solutions, by “coincidence”. When we find some similarity one language to another the question is: are the languages similar because their contact or because the absence of contact. When finding a connection between two diferent languages are we seeing the finger of god, or a coincidence, a proof that disorder makes order? Isn’t this question what etymology is?
What all this has to do with the French revolution? The article you sent illustrates the necessity of prescriptivism from the dominant point of view in France in 1789. What I said what meant to illustrate a defensive point of view it was also in France but in 1635 Richelieu wanting to avoid the French language (which was not dominant by far at that time) to disappear, perhaps did not choose correctly as a defensive move by a king could only be view as preparing an offensive. What I wanted to point out is that prescriptivism is necessary for both the majority and the minority. But at the same time evolution is inevitable, and even if prescriptivism try to extinct some usage, if this usage is the finger of god, or due to l’air du temps, it will at some point prevail. Call me an optimist, in fact I have read Umberto Ecco writings on Babel, and I put little trust in the unique original (eventually divine) language, so I only rely on a roll of dice to from time to time free us of the necessary rule of prescriptivism.
Sure, but we’re arguing past each other. You guys are arguing that it’s not good to call something “bad grammar” because it’s a moral judgment that the person is bad.
However, even the article to which you linked would not defend the sentence, “Buffy bringed the umbrella to John who are jumping in the rain.” Or, would it? What say you on that point?
I mean, do you really think the “Buffy” sentence is “just as right?” Don’t beat around the bush on it. Yes or no?
It seems to me that there is a difference in respecting a new dialect, and disbanding all rules of English grammar (except those that each individual invents in his own head and chooses voluntarily to impose on himself).
prospero811, okay, i’m not pulling this approach out of my ass. nor is aLx. although aLx’s arguments are more linguistic based and mine more anthropological they are both very complimentary. the concepts that we have been discussing are very common concepts. all you have to do is google some of the shit we have been discussing and you’ll get a load of arguments and descriptions. they probably do better at explaining than we have.
i could state your argument very simply, i understand basic reasons for your position. i understand the benefits to teaching a “formal” grammar. i understand the reasons why societies have attempted to establish and maintain a “standard” language. however throughout this entire debate you seem unable to even fathom the basic rational for our position on the concept of a “standard” english or “good, bad” grammar. an indication that i have failed in explaining it to you in a manner that you could a least understand it, not agree with it mind you, just understand it.
i completely abandon every analogy or attempt to explain these concepts. every attempt seems to lead to further confusion. again just google the subjects discussed here and do some research, what you find will do better justice to these concepts than i have. they have been accepted by a large portion if not majority of the linguists and social scientist that i have studied under and read articles by. although this is not an indicator of the validity of an argument it does indicate that the positions are in some way comprehensible and their details can be compared and discussed beyond the limits of my ability to to do so. i have read very good articles criticizing descriptive linguistics, the authors seem to at least grasp the basis of the descriptive position and structural elements that aLx refers to. i don’t think they make a convincing argument but they do have an understanding of the underlying rationale. something that i have not been able to provide you with. so i must admit failure in providing this understanding to you.
the positions i have tried to explain and defend i acquired during my education and further study, perhaps with further reading you may come to understand why so many scientist have chosen the approaches we have discussed here. however, at this point i do not think that i am able to bridge this conceptual gulf that you are so interested in crossing. good reason why i didn’t become a teacher. perhaps, well, more than likely we will be returning to this subject again in the future. peace out dawg.
Marina, Also it was a great pleasure I know for all of we/us students to see you in whole form on the screen in the tips game.You are sooo still the Hot Teacher!! Scotthorn
First one is correct, i. e., standing with your toes on the same line as all others in the party. In my case, that’d probably be the pickle-jar party. Ooops, gotta go. Revenuers a-comin’ through the briarpatch!
Marina, Off the subject. What type of sports car did you just get? If it’s a real good one I can suggest some avenues to safely learn to explore it’s limits and have fun. Take care,Scotthorn
oh MY GOD Teach; At the end of this bit, The …..yell or cat yawl. SCARY SH1T. Stood the hair up on my neck. PLEACE no more. Such a sound could come from You. Remind me never piss You off.
I enjoyed your teacher’s pet video. Do you have a whole pack of dogs? I would like to know why groups of anilmals with hoofs are usually refered to as herds but when speaking of sheep the group is called a flock as if they were more closely related to seagulls than cows? And are groups of fishes a school because groups of students are found in schools or is it that groups of students are in schools because they are moving about like the fishes?
Have you read Gary Shteyngart’s funny novel Absurdistan? If so can you comment on his portrayal of life in St. Petersburg?
I love your channel. And of course i have a huge crush on my teacher!
excuse me Ms. (student here tend to call their teacher Ms., Mr..) lol….you look hot with your black top and blue eyes….i would like to know the origin of ” going commando” ….because why would going out in no underwear be called going commando?
oh…i just checked the lessons and see only two (count ‘em, TWO) words beginning with the letter “e”! That is egregious (which is one word I’d like to know, too, since I understand it once meant something good but now means the opposite)…
but how did ewe>/b> come to mean a female sheep?
I don’t care if you have to ram it down our chop, don’t pull the wool over our eyes, please tell us about this ba-a-a-a-d word…
I’d like to request information on the word “comprise” which is used incorrectly all the time. People incorrectly say “comprised of.” There should be no “of” because it’s already in the word itself.
Mike, Its your browser not properly refreshing. I have the same problem. Try clearing out your cache and restart your browser. That should do the trick.
Capman911, you are too kind. But I’m only human just like all the other prisoners. I’ll figure out a way to piss you off like I do everyone else, eventually. Meantime, keep the shiny side skyward…
Speaking of tips and service. I became confused when I heard these terms which reference the word ’service’. Internal Revenue ‘Service’
U.S. Postal ‘Service’ Telephone ‘Service’ T.V. ‘Service’ Civil ‘Service’
City & County Public ‘Service’ Customer ‘Service’ and ‘Service’ Stations This is not what I thought ’service’ meant. But today, I overheard two farmers talking, and one of them said he had hired a bull to ’service’ a few cows. BAM!!! It all came into perspective. I now understand what all those ’service’ agencies are doing to us.
I hope you are as enlightened as I am.
but u might be a hillbilly if you believe the following bulletin:
The Pentagon announced today the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Hillbilly Special Forces. These Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas boys will be dropped off into Iraq and have been given only the following facts about terrorists:
1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don’t like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.
5. They are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the death of Dale Earnhardt.
Well I’ll be hog-tied, batter-dipped and fricaseed! Never in all my born days wuz so ponderous a pile o’ honorable mentions poured over my shiny ol’ skull.
‘Cept for one thing. Neither Pennsyltuckians nor West Virginsylvania boys got invited to go huntin in that big ol’ sandy holler over yonder. Kinda leaves me out waterin’ the dumpster, dont’cha think?
Maia Marina, can we have the etymology of the world……scorpion……I was once stung by a scorpion and it just occurred to me to ask about philology of this word
and for the homework: i usually tip the standard 15% and yes if the person does a bad job and is not helpful and is not very friendly and does not know what they are doing i will give less of a tip. but if they are friendly and they go the extra mile to make sure i am happy like cracking a joke or two and just making the meal enjoyable then i will raise the tip.
Oh, yes.
15-20% I think is average.
10-15% if not average service.
I don’t believe that someone should jump through fiery hoops for a TIp.
They’re wages are low so I see no sense in demeaning the person.
put on a bikini top (stuffed, if needed – i’ve know some male coaches that didn’t), and do a vid while pretending to be funny & sexy…i guarandandtee ya the boys will pay attention…
‘course, so will the school board…
btw, i don’t know ’bout where u r, but school’s out here now, and no way they’ll b holdin’ football practice this time of year…
Tipping amount is definitely based on the quality of service. And the best tip for very, very poor service is not nothing – you could have forgotten. Instead, it’s to leave apenny or a nickle or something like that.
Here’s a curious phrse I didn’t notice as being done before:
Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth
It would be interesting if you could do that one some time.
I enter a restaurant fully willy to shell out a roughly 20 to 25% tip. I ratchet that amount down if the quality of service warrants it. In an entirely unrelated subject, in a previous lesson, Marina
recommended her favorite tea. I will do the same. Let me preface it by saying that adults should avoid calories in their drinks (alcohol excepted). That means drink coffee plain. As far as tea goes, I recommend “green and white fushion tea” by Stash. Offered at Amazon. It’s a pleasant tasting Japanese & Chinese green tea, white tea (which is made from the flower of the green tea plant), and assorted other green teas. It requires none of that creamer stuff or sugar. It mellows you out.
Maybe the trend is preparing us for Marina opening her own Celebrity-Owned Restaurant?
So the guessing game today is:- If Marina had a restaurant, what would she call it?
Borscht n’ Tears?
Borscht, Vodka and Beers?
Hot Food for Words?
Congrats’ aLx, you’ve been honoured & collected. Nice Russian ladies have a thing , it seems, for collecting pets. For your own peace of mind, don’t watch the end segment of the Vid. peace
Isn’t it obvious? It’s for all those members of S.O.U.P. who are crying into their beers because they are not where you are today. (Congratulations BTW)
Maybe not her own restaurant but she does have her own “Mart” I have photos proving this. I’ll try to get them uploaded for you after I get back from the crab boat “Time Bandit” party.
OMG what a party! I left at 11:20am (as you see in my last post) and returned at 2:00am. 14 hours of fun! Im so freaking tired. (hic) and a bit intoxicated.wow spell check is on full blast. (*hic*). Had too many women on board and not enough guys. I was forced to party with 4 chicks. (hick)… Im disappointed that I didn’t catch any crabs. The guys said I really don’t want to. I didn’t go into the hot tub or suna. But took some pics. The boat has a new look. Well the bow has a new thing on it. shsssshhhh Im not sure If I can post them yet. I”ll have to ask Eddie. Its really cool graphic. I”ll upload them when I get some sleep first. I R 2 tired.
dude. 130. damn. I mean, I like cats, I really do, and they seem to like me. but 130 cats in one room? what the hell. not to mention that this isn’t really how cats are supposed to live … and the neighbor is right about the noise … ever heard cats mating?
i didn’t know cats got along that well, my cat hates the other cats in the nieghborhood. He has stuck a truce with my bird though. Wild birds are still on the menu. First time musta been good for her.
If you post here don’t expect special treatment compared to if you posted at her YOUTUBE site.
She’s very busy and there are so many posts- so be patient please.
I have a couple things to request, one may not be answered according to the extent of the words you do.
First off, I am learning Spanish, so I’m curious about the roots of that as well as the roots of English, since cognates between Spanish and English are very common.
I’m curious about the word “socorro”, which generally is used as “help me”, in a sort of pleading way. What’s curious is that the word ayudame, from the verb ayudar, to help, also means “help me”, but in the way such as “assist me”, or something along those lines. However, it translates directly to “help me”. Any reason why these two words are translated into the same thing. May it be incorrect to say that “ayudarme” translates into “help me”, by common US language standards/US slang standards?
If you cannot do that, I already know all about the roots of this word, but I think it’d be interesting to teach them this because it is the longest word currently in the dictionary. The word is: “pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicoconiosis”, that’s split into, and pronounced as: new-m-ah-n-oh-ul-truh-my-crow-scah-pik-sihl-ihk-oh-cone-ee-oh-sys, in case you had trouble pronouncing it. I actually learned this on my first day in Advanced English, and strangely it has stuck in my head. Anyways, great video, and quite an entertaining interest to take!
Hello greyioutcast,
Ayudar is not the same as socorrer. Ayudar is helping in the sense of giving a hand, socorrer then means you help somebody in danger. If you help your kid with the homework should be ayudar never socorrer. If you are a fireman entering a house on fire it is socorrer never ayudar.
Yeah that’s one thing you are going to find in comparing latin based languages to english. In english we tend to oversimplify and use one word for many meanings. We make up for this by paying attention to what context it is being used in. However in all latin based languages, it is much more specific. They were actually formed to be simpler in that you don’t necessarily need to put the sentence into context to understand exactly what they are saying. Kinda cool, but when you are going from english to learning one of these languages, and you get more advanced, you have to stop translating literally and start thinking about EXACTLY what you are meaning to say…and this is a perfect example of why.
English “succor” means the same thing and comes from the same root. It is seldom used and even less often understood (this is because it sounds identical to “sucker,” generally considered a derogutory term).
Marina also posts the answer to your question in the “HELP” section, a button on the toolbar, top of this page. See you soon in your new identity, I hope.
What I gathered from what she said: the payments “tip” the servants toward you, meaning they are more inclined to favor you, as they are “tipped” toward you.
Stips originally is greek. Gave stips and then stipendium. It is unlikely it originate tip pulling 1500 years directly from Rome to England and without appearing with this sense in other languages, latin languages particullaly.
The english heritage from stips is common in several other languages for exemple pension or expense are comming from tips/stipendium and are common in similar spelling in other languages.
I have another possible etymology for tips: look at my post yesterday at 3.41 and today in an answer to melikadothechacha at 10.01.
The Norvegian “tipla” drink gave tipple in english arround 1400, and tip appears arround 1600.
Well because you can reply, you are a subscriber to HFW, hence automatic notification is presumed. I usually get notification of new videos about 12 hours after the fact, via e-mail. I guess, check your e-mail filter settings to insure that you allow HFW in, as well as check your junk e-mail box. If you have done all of that, I’m sort of stuck. I’ve got three e-mail possibilities: hotmail/aol/verizon.com, so if one e-mail doesn’t work, I can switch to another. Or, maybe a firewall/webserver/client issue is an issue. Do you still get e-mails from other philologist/people/friends?
I have gotten e-mail notices before but, now for some reason they stopped coming. you can try sending it with a new address if you want. I would prefer the hotmail one tho.
Ok, thedragon, lets’ try again. My ISP/Verizon was down, but now back in business. 1. Make sure after you sign in to HFW, your account info, your important e-mail address is correct. 2. I can’t change your e-mail settings at HFW, only you can( I only sugggested that before, because if one e-mail address doesn’t work maybe the other one will). 3. You can let Microsoft diagnose and fix your PC for free with their program called Auto-Care/acliteinstaller.exe https://account.live.com/autocare.aspx ,run the MSN installation related issues, and or MSN client e-mail related issues. 4. Go to MSN live search QnA: http://qna.live.com/ and ask your question again, and someone with way more intelligence could help. 5. Don’t forget to check your e-mail filter settings, something once happened to pagedoll, not sure what, maybe she or her computer thought the HFW e-mail was junk or spam. So she never got another e-mail from HFW until she cleaned that up on her account settings for her e-mail. I know sometimes those e-mail filter settings are hard to get to if you haven’t done it in a while. Hope this is a help for you. If you do all that stuff, which will take 2 hours, things should work, or let us know what you found out. I once paid a Dell assistant about $150.00 to fix my driver for my printer, of which I could have done myself, or bought a new printer for that money. I paid geek squad $250 to tell me that my aol dialup service (2 years ago)showed some kind of problem, but basically worked 99.99%.
Sometimes the most obvious escapes me. I guess that you got my reply via HFW e-mail, right? That would mean then that HFW still has some issues with their web server, of which they are apparently working on. They deleted the rating for her videos because it bogged their server down, sometimes it takes me 10 tries to login in order to reply, some people can’t reply until they reload the page, or delete their cache. Or maybe you replied to my post when you went to this website, which changes options for answers. An easy answer is just to keep this website as one of your favorites/or mozilla bookmark it and check in every so often.
Dragon if you are using Internet explorer open it up then click on tools.
At the bottom is internet options. Open that up and click on privacy settings. Then click on popup settings. In this screen you’ll a section to add programs that will bypass the popup settings, add in http://www.fotforwords.com then click on add then close out the ip program all together. I f you are using firefox got to tools then options then content. You can add in http://www.hotforwords.com in both of the exceptions by the pop ups and the load images automaticlly. Maybe that will help.
Mike
I was wondering if you know where the expression “Cock of the Walk” originated, I assume that it a reference to a popular alpha male. I would also assume that it could have roots in the controversial sport of cock fighting and is the name for the top rooster, and of course my final assumption is that it has phallic undertones. However it is well known that assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, so I will not pretend to be the guru here that is why we have you. So if you would be so kind please use your vast resources to satisfy my curiosity. Thank you.
The trend is that Marina is either opening a restaurant or going out on dates. Hopefully, she is playing the field to find the right guy for her. Could be tough for a woman of such intelligence and sexiness to find a worthy match, but we should all definitely wish her the best. We can’t keep her couped up inside all day making video lessons for us, can we? That’d be treating her like a servant that is inferior. Personally, I prefer superior servants to crack the whip on, but I digress…
I would like to make a word request related to tip, and that word is freebie. Kind of connected as they are both gratuitous. I’d be quite interested to hear it’s origin, just please not in game form. While I learn off the game lessons, I never get the answer right! Arrgh!
I could be wrong but I believe that the term pussy comes from the distinction between male and female cats. Males are known as “Toms” and females are “Pussies”. Like I said my theory could be based on pure bullshit so I do apologize if I’m misleading you.
I also hate it when I go someplace and the waiter always tries to steer me or usually my guest to the most expensive items and tries to pump up the bill all night long with exotic suggestions made directly to my guest. For these people I really would like to give them nothing at all and in one case is exactly what they got as they certainly were not looking out for me but for the restaurant. If they want to get paid then they should look towards their employer as they are the ones they served and not I. In an expensive restaurant, the lower the bill accompanied with great service and truly caring about the customer the higher the tip. Getting freebies by the waiter or management will also assure a larger tip and maybe even a return visit.
usually 10%, if the service was bad that’s lower. Not only in a restaurant, but also the hair-dresser.
[Why do you have the phrase intelligence is sexy, and yet most of the time your head isn't completely in the frame?]
British customs and the quality of service…then the coo-kool rooster tips the bad service and records a new song. I love tipping; but they don’t lik’em.
15%-20% if the service is good more if she is a cute.
the word scarf !
mmmk i want to know the origin of the word Phrontistery
You rock girl.Nice rooster sound.
The video is not available =(
Is that how they make the rooster noise in Russia? –COOOK – ree – COOL! hehe
How fun.
You rock as always. One runs short of superlatives after a while. Thanks!
15 % tip, if its good service though i go higher, but if service is crap then 0%.
One thing that is annoying is when you leave a tip then another waiter comes across cleans table and takes it. Only seen it happen in Spain.
Oh wonderfull Marina ! would like to know all about the origin of the verb “to be”… It sounds so strange. To be or not to bee that is the question…
15% on full service, up to 20% for sentimental reasons (server having really rough night or known money problems…or you frequent the place & are generally favored)
40-45% of full price on anything ‘comped’
1-10% on take-out, or semi-self serve, or no service ‘joints’–handing you a donut across a deli counter isn’t considered service either is doing a half turn to deliver the coffee of the day.
Sounds harsh but that’s the restaurant biz’s way of looking at it.
Woo hoo finally got one!
Since the trend in recent lessons seems to be dates and their affordability, I thought I’d share a nice tip to anybody out there in the Los Angeles area, especially those near the Hollywood area who are into good live music to bring a date to…
A singer/songwriter/lyricist friend of mine by the name of Aimee Mann is going to be doing a free in-store appearance at 6pm June 3rd at Amoeba Records in Hollywood to promote her new CD. You can take this link to her website to hear her latest…
http://www.aimeemann.com/
It’s a free show at a cool, spacious venue featuring a very talented musician. I’ll be going with my significant other (plus friends), and I’d recommend it to anybody in the area as a great free date, if dating and music are what you are into. Not sure how many of this student body is actually in the Los Angeles area, but it seemed like it was worth noting, especially given the ‘affordable date’ theme of recent lessons. Seemed like too good of a freebie not to share.
Peace, Errin : )
¡hey!
I would like to know the words “Black Jack.”
why does this card game is called like that!?
Black!? Jack!?? whose jack!?
that’s it!
saludos from Venezuela
p.d: habla en español
Is the Teach in New York to do O’Reilly,?? Is that why She so quiet.?
Where does the term “eighty six “come from
I was looking around and watched the TV. The news said: Universal studios and Hollywood streets in fires. That’s a terrible new for the cinema world and really a shame, the firemen reached to the incident place quicly to put out the fire. Some people use the word S.O.S to ask help, were this word come from ???, why we usually use this word to ask help ??? I heared its an acronym, well don’t know ..Hope you can help me in this incognite
What are the origins of the words:
Hobknobbing
Fetish
Bye bye
I’ve been so curious about this that its killing me. Please help me Marina as one of your Original Subscribers…Love Jess
I got 1. What’s the origin of the phrase “tongue and Cheek” and why is it called tongue and cheek
Dear Marina, I have a word request
Where does the word ‘pic-nic’ comes from? It seems kinda wierd to me to be honest with you.
why is a donut called a donut? Also, why can you spell it doughnut or donut?
Marina,
Where the heck did the word “rinkydink” come from?
The word drives me crazy – Thanks!!
Why is New York known as the Big Apple?
why is a place you buy alcohol known as a package store?
Mahalos
Ron
Teach, How board are you getting. Your not having as much fun? Your Minions are crazy-geeks. What did you expect, smart people don’t have time for this crap. Beautiful people aether. Cheer up , at least we don’t crap on the carpet……much.
Hey Marina! Hope all is well. Here is a word I think is relevent to current events. The word is ‘politics’. Could it be that this word is made up of two words? The first, ‘poly’, meaning many. The second ‘tick’, a blood sucking insect.
You’re doing great!!
twood22
Actually.. I could maybe provide the answer to that question.
The word ‘poltics’ comes from the Greek word ‘poli’ which means city and back in ancient Greece when each city was a different state, the word ‘politiki’ (in other words, politics) was used to describe all the things and the issues that had to do with the city-state, such as Athens.
You see, it’s quite the advantage of being Greek these days
THE POLL-A-TAKERS of today[politician] are not leaders at all. They take a poll to see what they think. 56% of the American People are morons. No wonder the US is in trouble?
And politics is a brother (big?) of police being both sons of greek city administation…
Poll comes from “head” so probably nothing to do with police or politics.
Another close word which has no relation with police is policy (of insurrance) comes from polyptychum a register a roll.
Hello Marina! This is my first comment on your site and I have a word for you
The word is : Lamprophony
the word means : Loudness and clarity of voice
Where this word comes and why does it means that ?
My lucky guess is that it also comes from 2 Greek words. ‘Lampros’ which actually means very shiny, but can also mean other things like great (in size) or in quality. For example lampro mialo means a great brain/mind. And the other part of that word, ‘phony’, comes from the Greek word ‘phony’ for voice. The same word is used for words like telephone (tele comes from the ancient Greek word for far) or microphone (micro comes from the Greek word for small).
So there you go
another mystery solved by your trusty Troublemaker1991… tbh, this does not work for me xD need to find another slogan… or just let dear Marina do her job 
hmmm…lampros meaning “large” brought to mind “lampoon”…which is to satirize someone or something…
not that i think they’re related…
note to all: i said satirize, not satyrize (which isn’t a word, anywho)
hmmm…Marina?…any relationship between satire & satyr?…seems in both cases someone’s gettin’ fooked…
Dear Marina,
let me ask you about an English word DA (actually I am not quite sure how to spell it cause I am not native). I find it interesting that DA occurs in so many languages including English, German, Russian and others – perhaps its origin might be the same for all of them.
Thank you,
europe_guy
Is the o’reilly show on june 2 still a lock?
Marina, where does the word “graffiti” come from?!
Could you please do the word cruciverbalist
Could you please do “Charlie Horse” as in the cramps you get in your leg?
Marina how about the word hypermedia.
Word Request: Medal, like an award you get for something you do, usually good at
Word request:
Where does the word “soccer” come from? Why do some countries call the game football and others call it soccer?
I always tip 20% to waiters. But sometimes a good bartender will get more than that. I do not tip at Starbucks or any place like that though.
So that’s how you get to be the Teacher’s Pet.
I’ve never sat next to her.
That’s sad.
If the Teacher’s pet doesn’t get to sit next to her, what’s the point? This should appeal to you. 
Police
its origins interest me
Wife beater… as in a white t-shirt
Marina Dearest:
Saw yore interview on O’Reily…
Couldn’t help but notice that yore Bazooms were plastered / covered up with banners… am wondering if you / we were the victim of his producers prudish behavior… or if it was done to focus the viewers attn on yore beautiful eyes ?
Looks like you had a “Banner Day” on The Factor.
Words to consider: banner day, bazooms, Ta-Tas, getting plastered
P.S. i don’t watch his show …so don’t know if you got special treatment ?
Don’t be afraid of being informed, You will not be made fun of here. Being stupid is not SEXY. O’Reilly’s smart thou He’s a megalomaniac narcissist . He dose appreciates the Teachers ……BRAINS AND GOOD LOOKS. So he’s ok with me.
( does appreciate, ) i r stuid.
Guys watch South Park? season 6, Bebe’s Boobs Destroy Society. agh agh agh! too funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tANgunpXZ-w&feature=related which one of the Guys are you?
tha was great dude! i dig south park but dont watch much just because i cant handle any tv with commercials. i probably relate most with cartman overall. i love the ep where hes hunting hippies
No commercials need be tolerated: http://www.southparkzone.com/
Thanks for that propero811
Guys; notice how the pretty little Blond controls the minions? and why?
Algolagniac, Algolagnia… or my made up word:
“Algolagniacaphobia” ( ¿fear of giving or rcvg pain ?)
P.S. if i ever had “Philologistaphobia” am sure that u have cured me !
goeduck I believe is the spelling its a large clam at least this is what their called in western north america
geoduck
What is the orgin and root word for etymology?
Dear Marina,
I know I have already asked for one word, sorry (that’s not an apology but the word I asked for) but if you could explain one (or more) of the following words I’d also be grateful. They are mushroon, kiss and kinky. Of course asking for all these words would be too much but even one of them would be terrific. Thanks, and keep up the good work!
My parents have a big male cat named Kinky. When they found him, he had a broken tail.
I usually tip 15% of the bill, if the gratuity isn’t already added in and the service is good. If it is superior, I tip much better.But I have given a two cent tip when the service was really lousy. That is considered the ultimate insult, as not tipping could be considered forgetfulnes by the server, if they receive two cents, they know they weren’t forgotten, but rather that the customer voiced their oppinion of the service by “putting their two cents in”
I generally tip 15%, too. I spent nine years dealing various casino games, and I relied on tips for my livelihood. I learned that Canadians and the British do not generally tip. Most Asians don’t tip. Americans and Latinos generally do tip. Must be a cultural thing… Anyway, I no longer work in a casino, but I know the importance of tipping as a result of those nine years. So unless the service is lamentable, I will tip 15%
2 cents a wicked insult, but the ultimate is to dine & dash
Hi Marina, I’d like to request “Charlie Horse”, as in the cramps you get in your leg…Thanks
How do you know Marina gets cramps in her legs?
Drop your drawers??? Why are they called drawers?
I would like it if you could please tell me the origin of the word “analysis.”
Beautiful is my word request and Ugly too!
I once met a beautiful mind at Coyote Ugly.
Teach, Ms, OuR-LOVe-A , OR-[my]-LOVe-A,. very cute. shshshshshshhhhh!
ps where is Your cacapoo [dog] ?
Hej Marina! Do you know where the expression “wet your whistle” came from? (have a drink) kram och puss
I’d like to request the origin of the word “Chess” as in the board game. Thanks Hotforwords. And I really enjoy learning in your videos.
well went to the cocomment thing and the only thing i could figure out is that i must be extra dense ’cause it was to confusing for this kid. thanks for the invite, but i’ll just keep on hangin’ out here. i’ve only had the internet for about 6 weeks and in that time i’ve come to the conclusion that this site is the only reason why i still have it…hope that puts a smile on your face.
I’d like to request the origin of the expression “Stoned”. Meaning to be intoxicated from drugs. Thanks.
Hey guys.. check out the top conversation in my cocomment widget and help me out with this discussion on this guy’s website about the idea of bad grammar. Come make some comments on his website and participate with me if you’d like!
That poor guys page is a shadow of Yours. What happened to The Minions…..Help out Teacher,,,,,,, guys
I should’ve just copied the comments and replies from this site …
i posted there…frankly i think there’s a meld of “bad grammar” and “slang” in the poster’s head. There absolutely must be rules for communication, which are bent by slang, but to say there is no such thing as bad grammar…well…
there ain’t no such…
it seems that i need a translator to get my point across.
Iron Maiden rocked so hard! I’ll go see them again for sure! Good ol’ Bruce is pretty cool.
iron maiden
annuddermale… i never said that there aren’t any rules. only that there are various rules in various types of speech and that all are relative and should be evaluated without bias. when one is analyzing speech independently of one’s own cultural concepts, such as a linguist does, one cannot make a value judgment. it would be like me saying as a social scientist, this is the way the majority of us do it, so the rest of you are doing it wrong. that type of thinking is not acceptable in the social sciences. would you ever say that the majority of people in the u.s. are white, so white is good. what you are stating is that another person’s rules of grammar are not correct or acceptable within your perceived cultural environment. it is a contextual judgment that you are making.
Is it though, buzzword? I mean.. there are concrete rules within science and mathematics.. why can’t there be rules in language.. in otherwords.. why isn’t a double negative a positive in language when it is a positive in science? Isn’t it a slippery slope to allow “proper grammar” to just disappear?
When I am speaking about proper grammar.. I mean the ability to form sentences where the other person understands what you are saying.. allow it to stray too far and you may not be able to understand the other person at all.
I do agree that with the advent of texting.. the playing field has been leveled somewhat.. as proper grammar used to be the indicator of someone with a good education.. but everyone uses “text” speak these days.. BUT.. what’s the point of education if you can’t teach someone some basic rules of communication? I mean.. how do you teach your kid to speak if you don’t have any rules? Even the purveyors of “bad grammar” have some rules that they follow, right?
I agree that grammar rules are relative to the cultural environment, but find your implication that it is wrong (”one cannot make a value judgment”) specious. Language is fluid and culture is one of the influences that affects language, but cultural norms dictate grammar rules. Certainly evaluating grammar abjectively is difficult, but that does not mean it is wrong, nor does it mean that judgements cannot be made effectively.
Your use of the Airplane jive-talk scene is fallacious, in my opinion. The jive talkers are speaking a sub-language of English, and, whereas I would not judge their grammar “bad” for Jive, it is absolutely wrong for normal American English. Hence the stewardess’ problem with trying to communicate.
When one enters a different culture, one is judged based on that culture’s norms. Hand gestures considered acceptable, even good, in one country are judged rude in another country. That is a value judgement and is valid in context of the culture.
I’m not as sure about Marina’s example regarding text messaging, as to me that is not so much bad grammar but shorthand spelling. But u r a total sweetie, Marina – dig it?
argggg!!! objectively…
i need coffee…
Of course we need rules to communicate even for language, and of course a commubity can set his own set of rules, and as Marina show us words or expressions permeate in time and geografy. The real question in my opinion is to understand Timbaland’s intention.
You probably read Thureau, and will agree that a poet has not only the right but even the obligation of desobedience of grammar. Is Timbaland a poet? No. In my mind a rap lyric desobeing grammar but being poetic is not bad grammar. Then is Timbaland’s intention to speak a “different” language. Probably it is a matter of identification to a “sub”-culture. Are this lyrics representative of jive or ebonics “literature”? I don’t think so. The intention is probably not to create a piece of “literature” of a diferent “grammar”. The intention is to make young people able to feel part of a “community” by spekaing a common “jargon”. In my mind the intention of Timbaland is not speaking a diferent language with his own grammar but speaking something easy to understand and at the same time specific. Simplifying the “usual” standard grammar not to speak anothe language but to make it easy (even lazy) and state a diference in the “disrecpect” of the established “grammar”.
ah, but the question comes down to who should adapt…the community or the individual…
when i taught biology, i emphasized that individuals vary, but it is populations which evolve…i think the same could be be said of language…individuals may find their own way of communicating using individual grammar rules, but communities/cultures will decide what is worthy of being incorporated and becoming an accepted part of the language…
until that time, individuals who vary too far from the norm (outliers) will be considered grammatically-incorrect…and must learn the old axiom:
adapt or die!
micheldiego, linguistics and anthropology are sciences. good science minimizes the influence of subjectivity upon research and experimentation. objectivity is the goal of a any scientific study. your expectations of literature or poetry has no bearing upon the scientific study and understanding of another persons cultural performance and associated rules. i am talking about science not literature or art. you use the term, “my mind” this is of significance. you cannot establish to me the proof that your mind, containing the cultural rules, values and expectations of your society are the baseline by which all other people’s cultural identities are to be compared. at least not to produce a valid scientific theory that can be replicated or tested.
Buzzword, I will never try to “desconstruct” grammar. Yet I “believe” that Kerouac or Rimbaud in their time had a desobedience obligation, and a creative role in “interpretating” and making language evolve. Language is alive and needs CREATION. Annudermale, probably you will agree with me in stating that language “evolve”. Adapt or die? maybe. Or maybe just being alive. Should be interesting in having Dawkins opinion on this matter, and perhaps on “l’air du temps” of modern english. Can poets be the creators of what will be the “evolution” of the language which is already in “l’air du temps”. Whatever, Timbaland lirycs are not poetic, still some slam lyrics are.
Maybe part of the disconnect here is the loading of the words “bad” and “good.” I don’t think that the “Bad Grammar” parody uses the word “bad” in the sense of “evil.” It’s not saying someone who says “I are” is worse than someone who says “I am.” Bad grammar just means incorrect grammar.
A definition of “bad” is “inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: e.g. a bad guess.” If two people guess something, and one of them gets it wrong and the other gets it right, the one who got it wrong made a “bad guess.” That doesn’t make that person a bad person, or even a bad guesser. After all, that person may be a philanthropist who usually guesses everything right, but this time made a bad guess.
The same goes for “bad grammar.” Using bad grammar doesn’t mean you aren’t a good person. I hear a lot of people whose first language is not English using awful grammar. Some of them use grammar that’s not just bad, but downright abysmal. So, what? They’re fine people who haven’t yet mastered the language.
Others use “bad grammar” when writing poems and novels. There’s a lot of bad grammar featured in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and the C.S. Lewis made up a stack of words in his poem Jabberwocky. Those are masterpieces of literature.
And, some “bad grammar” or “nonstandard English” spellings and meanings, eventually become “good grammar” and “standard English.” That must be tempered, however, by the general proposition upon which we all seem to agree. There are rules. If there are rules, they can be broken. If they can be broken, there is bad grammar. QED.
How does one determine what’s right or wrong is another question. If a debate arises as to whether one particular item is, in fact, bad grammar? Where do we look to find the rules? Who do we talk to? How does one build an argument to support a contention one way or the other? It can’t be that “anything goes.” If “anything goes” then there are no rules – and from what I can see, everyone has agreed “there are rules” (whatever they may be).
In the case of the English language, we have a couple of choices. For each item at issue, we can take a vote of each English language speaker (which would be the only way to get at their own knowledge or belief – their own “grammar in their head). The only way to get into someone’s head using present technology is to ask them. It seems to me to be more than obviously unfeasible to do that every time, on every issue, just in case the majority opinion has shifted.
So, what are we to do then? Well, it seems to me, as I’ve said before, that there are people that do this stuff for a living. They aren’t in a government office. They are people that work as lexicographers, linguists, and grammarians. They work on making dictionaries and they work on making books that expound upon English grammar. If I had a question regarding the proper usage of “who” and “whom,” I’d look it up. I wouldn’t ask around in order to “get inside someone’s mental grammar.” Looking it up in a generally respected source is probably the best way to get a good understanding of what is correct.
That doesn’t mean that dictionaries and grammar sources are “prescriptive.” Technically, they are expository of what the writers of the book believe to be the then current (at the time of writing) correct grammar or word usage. Whether they are “prescriptive” is in how they are used. They can be used prescriptively, and often should be used prescriptively (for example in grammar school, when kids are being taught English). If the textbook is not used prescriptively in grammar school or high school, then the teacher has no basis for grading papers. That’s obvious.
However, in general, people are free to take rules expounded in a grammar book and toss them out if they are found to be unsatisfactory. There has to be caution laid upon that, however. It is highly likely that the writers of a grammar book or a dictionary did more work on the subject, educated themselves better, and researched a bit more than the average person out there (me included). So, all else being equal, on most issues, a respected source like the OED is probably more likely to be correct than Joe Shmo on the street.
annuddermale,
you fail to mention the value that genetic diversity has had to the success of the species. a population that lacks genetic diversity lacks the resources to adapt to a changing environment. a few individuals may have in their genetic makeup the key to human survival if they are resistant to a disease or environmental shift. such an event could wipe out the majority of a human population yet a few of the individuals once considered outliers would survive and so to the species. diversity is detrimental to survival. your statement, “adapt or die” is about as simplistic description of evolution as i’ve ever heard. further still your attitude to those populations that are on the outskirts of society and are experiencing oppression and in some cases genocide is cold and heartless. would your sentiments be the same if you were to address the refugee camps in Darfur? adapt or die? a diversity of people and languages are a benefit to our humanity and species.
this is exactly what I was saying. we’re talking about different things.
alright. I googled for “mental grammar” as this is what I was talking about the whole time.
qoute:
–> real world linguistics 101.
It seems to me that aLx has scored an own goal by referring us to Suzette Haden Elgin’s “real world linguistics 101″.
In that she clearly states that
Note that she stated “its rules, which linguists call its grammar” i.e. the rules and grammar belonging to the language, and not “the rules and grammar which various individuals hold in their heads”.
True, she goes on to say that each individual has what linguists refer to (confusingly) as an “individual grammar” in their heads; however, that is not the grammar (good grammar) of the language but that individual’s imperfect understanding of the language’s grammar which can be close to what is commonly understood to be “good grammar” or far removed from it (bad grammar).
I suggest that aLx’s insistence on his views of language which seem to conflict with everyone else’s, is not “real world linguistics 101″ but “Ivory Tower Linguistics”.
no, bob, I’ve always been saying this. I said that grammar is something in your head etc., it’s internal, individual. I did say that by “grammar” I do not mean textbook grammars.
I never said that there are no rules. of course there are rules, of course language is rule-governed. but those rules are no textbook rules. this is crucial. the set of rules that allows you to use your mother tongue is set up at an early age. you’re not even able to read, you already know all the rules of your language.
so, this is why I said we’re talking about totally different things. “grammar” to me means individual grammar.
fighting about, say, double negatives is just a fight about style or taste or something, not about grammar.
O.k. – there are rules.
Can you give an example of a grammar rule? (defining grammar using your intended meaning).
Also, you mention that at an “early age…you already know all the rules of your language.” I’m not sure I’m getting that. Are you suggesting that everyone who uses a language knows all the rules of their language? In other words, is it your contention that while their are rules, these rules are specific to each individual? Thus, the only way to break a grammar rule is to speak it incorrectly relative to how your own mind thinks you should speak?
I am trying to get what you mean by “individual grammar.” If by “individual grammar” you mean that every individual has his own grammar rules, which are self-contained in his or her own mind, then breaking the rule simply consists of imposing a rule upon oneself and then breaking that self-imposed rule. Is that what you are saying?
If so, that would mean that Prose Perro can say “I think me are come home tomorow yesterdayly.” ALx can then say “that’s bad (incorrect) grammar.” But, aLx might be wrong, if Prose Perro’s individual grammar says that it’s not incorrect. In fact, aLx’s statement that Prose Perro’s grammar was wrong is both right and wrong. ALx is right that Prose Perro’s grammar was “bad” under aLx’s individual grammar, but aLx is wrong under Prose Perro’s individual grammar.
alright, let’s try this. maybe that helps.
I’ll change my terminology a little bit. “grammar”, as I used the term before, is now “i-language (internal/individual language)”. the description of the rules of a linguistic system which a particular group of people uses to communicate, I’ll call “grammar”.
note that this is just a description. it’s describing a set of rules. it’s just stating what you’ve found to be the case. that is important.
this is totally different from a textbook grammar. textbook grammars are prescriptive.
let me ask you this. I know, I’ve stressed that point before, but it’s an important one. most languages are only spoken. now, you wouldn’t say that the language those people that speak, but not write, doesn’t follow any rules just because you can’t pull out a big book out of a shelf, right? so, this is what grammar is to me. try and imagine that there are no books, that there is no written language, and then think about what grammar in this particular case means.
err. correction.
“… you wouldn’t say that a certain language which people speak, but not write, doesn’t follow …”
oh, hey, I got an idea.
let’s have marina write an email to suzette haden elgin, telling her we got this weird discussion on here and asking her to present her point of view.
D
how’s that?
marina,
I never said there weren’t any rules. just that all rules are equal. no good, no bad. just different rules for different speech varieties. it is an issue of recognizing the validity of a people’s language, their cultural rules.
learning another culture’s rules would be good if you needed to function in their cultural environment. when people say, “you should practice good grammar” what they are really saying is that knowing these rules will help you gain acceptance in a particular cultural setting such as, academics, economics, etc. but by using the word “good”, which is value based one is also saying, “your grammar is bad, your way is bad, your cultural rules are bad.” which is not true.
damn, block quote should have ended after stanford link. those words following the link are my own and not part of the quote.
Saying someone is using good or bad grammar is not a moral judgment. Apparently, everyone is in agreement. There are rules to grammar, spelling, meaning, etc. If there are rules, they can be broken. QED.
What’s an example of a grammar rule?
bob, your description of this approach to linguistics as, “ivory tower linguistics” is misplaced. as this approach to linguistics is very applicable to those linguists and anthropologists working in the field far from the ivory towers of academics and u.s. mainstream culture. this approach allows the researcher to function without bias among the people and language of interest. as someone who has studied amid the poverty of the developing world, i can tell you that this approach is rooted in the common, often harsh realities of human existence. by recognizing that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as one’s own, no matter how foreign, is an act of selfless understanding and respected scientific methodology. this is not the view of aLx alone, i don’t know who you include in your, “everyone else’s” but many respected linguistic and anthropological researchers apply it to their work. aLx and if i may, myself are not the only ones.
Marina – I must be missing something – I can’t locate the discussion you are talking about. Can you help post a link in a reply to this message?
here.
The longer this conversation goes on, the more confused I get!
To start with the last post by Buzzword, what I meant by “Ivory Tower Linguistics” was any formal study of language by anyone who calls themself a linguist and what I meant by “everyone else” was the “ordinary person in the street” who has no interest in studying language but only wants to use it to convey meaning to other “ordinary persons in the street”.
Next, let’s talk about “Good / Bad” Grammar. What I understand by “Good Grammar” is Grammar as it is taught in schools using Government approved textbooks – what you call prescriptive grammar.
“Bad Grammar” is anything that does not conform to this textbook grammar and is a continuum from minor variations through to a structure which is so different from the school-taught version that it is unintelligible to someone who has not encountered it before. (See Buzzwords link to “Jive” speak.)
I do not regard myself as an expert in language, (for example, I couldn’t recognise a subjunctive if I stepped in one on the street) and I have no problems with people using language which does not conform to what I was taught in school, as long as I can reasonably easily work out what a person is trying to say to me.
Also, I have had the good fortune to work in a number of foreign countries alongside people who were learning English, as well as working with foreign workers here in the UK, and I have always been popular with them because I have always tried to learn at least some of the local language or dialect and have taken the trouble to answer their questions about what is the “correct” way to say something in English.
When answering their questions, I have never felt able to say, “You must say it this way.” I have always said, “This is the way I would say it but other people might tell you another way.” So I have demonstrated that I recognize that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as my own, no matter how foreign, and have acted consistently in a selfless way in trying to increase understanding.
Having got that out of the way, what are we actually arguing about here?
Re-reading all that has gone before, it seems to me that the crux of aLx’s and Buzzwords crusade is the use of the words “Good” and “Bad” and, as a Buddhist who is supposed to reject duality, I have to agree. Those words should, maybe, be expunged from all dictionaries, but none of us are going to live to see the day.
Maybe it is just a question of acknowledging that people have come to use those words unthinkingly without consciously attaching a value to what they are referring to.
Nevertheless, the terms “good grammar” and “bad grammar” are in common use. As I understand it, the title of Jamesatwar’s and Marina’s video was inspired by the reaction of school English teachers to the video titled “The way I are”.
The artists who produced that video must have realised that it would provoke a reaction when they put it into the public domain, and, as Buzzword has said before on this site, when you do something in public you had better be prepared to be offended, so I find it slightly incongruous that he is now defending a public figure who has been lampooned.
You can’t expung the words “good” & “bad” they have changed their meanings almost opposite of the original meaning & maybe even back again, depending on context, ie “goody two shoes” although “good” means “good”, but has a negative connotation. “Bad” has changed, to be admired, as Michael Jackson noted in his song I’m Bad .
Now could be just be bad again. But, pre Michael, it was I’m Bad, I’m Nationwide. Ironicaly the guy in ZZ Top named Beard, the drummer (without the beard) ran into my wife in California many years ago, (pre me) & invited her to a party in the ZZ Top penthouse. She was underage at the time (now thats bad). She declined, at least thats what she tells me.
Bad & Good are good words just a little inconsistant in their meanings. Cheers
yo, thanks for the clarification bob. i respect your attempts in diplomacy, that’s really cool. for the record i wasn’t offended by the video, unlike the blogger that inspired this deep blue. however i support the validity his argument regarding the concept of “good and bad” grammar. dude really, it takes something really heinous to offend me. i appreciate the effort in understanding our position. and you summarized simply enough. thanks.
here’s a thought.
imagine a ball game described in a book. two kids take a look at it and want to play this game. there are images in the book showing the game. the ball in those images is red. the kids don’t have a red ball. only a yellow one.
if they start playing the game with the yellow ball — do they play a game other than the game described in the book?
not a great example, IMO…i ref junior, collegiate, and adult volleyball…that sport, and i’m sure almost all other sports, has proscribed specifications for the ball…too wide a variance and you’re not playing the game as described by the ruleset…
so if the kids used a yellow volleyball to play softball, then, yes, they are playing bad ball…
That’s about as relevant as asking if people are reading the same post in here if their computer displays it in red letters instead of black.
Neither a “good” example nor a “bad” one, but a specious one.
If the game is, for example, golf, then the answer would be that they are playing the same game. That’s because golf doesn’t have a rule requiring the ball be of a particular color.
However, if the kids don’t have a ball, but have a Frisbee, they can play Frolf, but not golf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePGLJ3Z_zz8
At this point in this conversation, I’d like to chime in with the following lyrics of a song by The Police, one about words and grammar…
Don’t think me unkind
Words are hard to find
They’re only cheques I’ve left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
Poets, priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for their submission
And no one’s jamming their transmission
‘Cos when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
And if Sting’s take on things isn’t intellectual enough for you, try looking into Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories about the psychological power of grammar and the way it can be used just right as a sort of mind control. Rather than dwell too much on the ineffectiveness of bad grammar, it might be better to delve into the effectiveness of good grammar and how our brains are hardwired to it. De doo doo doo De da da da… Peace, Errin : )
Noam Chomsky’s concept is known as generative grammar. Here’s a link to a wikipedia article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar
There’s a reason the pen is mightier than the sword.
do you prefer minimalism or government & binding?
“Language Ideology and Superstandard English
As several contributions to this special issue point out, ideologies of race are also ideologies of language, an unsurprising convergence given the long standing association between ethnoracial and linguistic differentiation promoted both in early linguistic theorizing and in (other) nationalist projects (Bauman and Briggs 2000). The ideology of linguistic markedness. In particular, the difficulty (which afflicts only white people) in seeing whites as racialized is matched by the difficulty (again, only for whites) in hearing white speakers’ language as racialized: as specifically white rather than neutral or normative-or standard. In such an arrangement, unmarked status confers power by allowing whiteness to move through the social world ghost-like, unseen and unheard, evident only in its effects. Likewise, the notion of a linguistic “standard,” which in the U.S. context is closely bound up with whiteness (Lippi-Green 19997), implies both unmarkedness (standard as ordinary) and power (standard as regulative)
Although there are numerous sociolinguistic treatments of Standard English from a variety of perspectives (e.g., Crowley 1989; Milroy and Milroy 1999; Silverstien 1996), scholarly opinion is remarkably unanimous. in nearly every discussion Standard English is located in opposition to nonstandard English (and sometimes to other languages); many commentators point out that Standard English, as it is usually defined, is not spoken at all but is a particular register of written language; and a number of authors note that Standard English does not, properly speaking, exist but rather is a prescriptive ideal. Such analyses, valuable as they are for correcting misapprehensions about the nature of sociolinguistic variation, do not always carefully distinguish between the notion of an idealized prescriptive standard, usually based on a formal written language, and the spoken vernacular believed most closely to approximate it. This spoken Standard English, as a primarily informal or coloquial variety, differs from formal written Standard English (Carter 1999; Cheshire 1999) but is still granted ideological authority as “the standard.” Thus spoken Standard English is positioned in relation not only to nonstandard English but also to what I call superstandard English. A linguistic superstandard is a variety that surpasses the prescriptive norm established by the standard. While available to some standard and nonstandard speakers rather than situational variety the superstandard is restricted neither to formal contexts nor to written language. For some speakers, the superstandard may be the everyday, “unmarked” variety for ordinary interaction.
Superstandard English contrasts linguistically with Standard English in its greater us of “supercorrect” linguistic variables: lexical formality, carefully articulated phonological forms, and prescriptively standard grammar. It may also go beyond traditional norms of prescriptive correctness, to the point of occasionally over-applying prescriptive rules and producing hypercorrect forms. But the recognition of such difference is at least ideologically as linguistically motivated. it is precisely because of the robustness of the ideology of Standard English in the Unites States that those linguistic varieties generally classified as nonstandard-African American Vernacular English foremost among them-are regularly held up as divergent from the standard despite considerable overlap in grammar, phonology, and the lexicon. By the same token, the superstandard need not deviate substantively from the colloquial standard in order to be considered distinctive; because it is marked with respect to Standard English forms, even relatively slight use of supercorrection and hypercorrection can call attention to itself. Superstandard English is therefore a marked variety that may contrast ideologically both with the unmarked colloquial standard and with marked nonstandard English. However, because it draws on the prescriptive standard, it also contributes to the linguistic ideologies that elevate one linguistic variety over others. How these varieties come to e associated with particular racial positions-that is, how they become racialized styles-is likewise the work of ideology.”
Mary Bucholtz, Texas A&M University, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(1):84-100.
I’m not sure this has something to do with “The way I are” or with “Bad grammar”
I will repeat here what I’ve written on bradshaw’s blog.
I’m sure that Timbaland himself does not think his lyrics where ment to be a piece of “ebonics” literature. By the way, what is he saying: “I ain’t got no money…” Is he serious? You really think this is a serious piece of poetry? This lyrics are easy, catchy fun. It’s ment to be sung and danced. It’s a masterpiece of course but not a grammar masterpiece. And in fact saying it’s bad grammar could be considered as a compliment! You are “right” in defending how “right” any language, dialect even jargon can be. Then if you want to consider the sociology of this particular song, could you consider the fact that the song itself is a spoof. We have a guy saying he has no money in a Cerruti suit, then a girl saying “Baby if you strip, you can get a tip” and “you can still touch my love, it’s free” in a sexy outfit with a sexy voice. Haven’t you noticed it is a parody? Then the grammar of the lyric: do you really think they are “the way they are” to honour AAVE.
The tittle itself IS A PARODY “the way I are”…it does not mean this song is in Jive but this song is catchy and easy to learn by any american with a potential acces to itunes store? Let’s relax and understand that Marina is not attacking AAVE, and that Timbaland is just (pretty well) singing.
Thank you for posting that, Buzz. It’s both interesting and startling at the same time; I say startling because the idea of standard English being a tool of “White Supremacy” is completely foreign to me – something I had never considered and something I find difficult to understand.
I can accept that standard / super-standard language is perceived as an indicator of education but the racial connection escapes me. I have known and seen on television many people of non-white ethnicity who speak much better English than I do, (for instance, Robert Mugabe, the dictatorial president of Zimbabwe, to name but one) but does that make them white? The idea appears ludicrous to me. Perhaps this attitude is peculiar to the United States.
So how could a society go about rectifying this situation?
Would you like to see a similar situation as in Norway, which has two official languages, Bokmål (literally book language derived from Danish as the Danes were a former ruling force) and Nynorsk (an artificial language cobbled together by attempting to amalgamate the common features of all the local dialects.)?
Do you think that teaching both standard English and African American English Vernacular in schools would help African Americans to feel more integrated and less marginalized?
If that were to be implemented, where would it stop? Would you also have to start teaching “Coonass” and “Pennsyltuckian”?
Regarding your other reply to me, I wasn’t trying to be diplomatic in my posts (diplomacy is not something I’m gifted in and I do have to try to be so) but rather just trying to get my head around your and aLx’s arguments in the spirit of the fifth of Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, namely “Seek first to Understand, THEN to be Understood”
This has been a great read, although tough at times, the posting times don’t always go along with the order of my reading. ’sall good. To use another sports analogy to help with context for rules of grammar. Hockey I will use, but soccer, basketball… team games need rulebooks & officials to enforce (give teeth to) the rules. The game of hockey couldn’t be played without them. Hockey rules differ worldwide & in different leaques, but the game is recognizable as hockey, because of the structure of the game, not the rules. Coaches who teach Hockey do not teach the rules, but how to play the game, Skating, stickhandling, checking etc. Postional play & defending etc. are taught as the player advances in skills. How to think hockey is engrained in the player. even toughness & a fighting spirit are developed, but a coaches job is not to teach “The Rules”.
The rules however are important to the game & how it’s played. Knowledge of the rules is Important, but when a skilled team plays another skilled team how the game is officiated is more important than the rules themselves, if a referee called every infraction of the rules the game becomes boring & hard to watch, “the rules” give teeth to the officials so that the whole thing doesn’t get out of hand, but the best games happen when the ref. can put the whistle in his pocket & let ‘em play, breaking the rules often but knowing if things got out of hand penalties would ensure & thus the teams’ chance of victory would be diminished.
When international hockey happens the rules have to be ammended to be agreeable to all in the tournament, which sometimes hinders a teams’ effectiveness as styles develop to fit within the framework where they developed, the best teams adjust but don’t change their desire to push the envelope & see how far they can go outside the rules without getting penalized, thus bending the rules past the breaking point without penalty & conversely gaining reward & recognition.
Sometimes recognition for breaking the rules is all that is remembered. No gold for you both teams disqualified but It was world news in the day. THE WAR BETWEEN CANADA & RUSSIA.
As for me, no expert in the linquistics field, I enjoy reading & listening to the different,(Not deficiant) ways of speaking in english & usually pay closer attention if I have to decifer the grammar a little. I like reading the posts by the people who are just learning english or are from different cultures, can almost hear the accents at times.
I have a friend, whose dad is french Canadian, I asked the dad if he “thought” in english or french & his mother tongue is french, He said (& he had to think about it) english. Also he & his wife, both french language raised, spoke in the house, english because it was easier gramaticaly.
So I say don’t be afraid to break the rules. fear not the grammar bullies
Proper use of punctuation is essential for proper communication, therefore we need phonetic punctuation to help us with our verbal skills.
Magic e could only have been produced b.e. (before ecstasy) couldn’t it?
Now the PC police (Political Correctness police) would have banned it.
Can’t have the kids sniggering at the back of the class, can we?
please read the following article i think it would be of some help in understanding some of the issues being discussed in this deep blue. don’t be scared off by the language, there are some moments of clarity amidst all the scholarly jargon. also i posted a portion of an article (language ideology) above, please read the rest of the article, the link is provided below it, as it provides further context that may alter your opinion either way (i’m an idiot or hey, i may have a point). admittedly i can be both.
damn, link doesn’t take you directly to the pdf… under online papers, click on, grammatical ideology and its effect on speech kroch & small 1978. this article is well worth the read, you don’t have to read the whole thing, introduction would suffice. this and the other articles are really interesting. so hard to find academic papers the public can access for free, one of my gripes.
the conflict between prescriptivists and descriptivists nicely summarized here
http://home.mindspring.com/~csheffie/editor/id8.html
perhaps a middle ground here…
http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html
and chomsky who is still relevant and arrogant and annoying…
http://thelousylinguist.blogspot.com/2007/12/chomsky-on-prescriptivism.html
then sit back relax and watch youtube its just fucking easier than reading all this shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joLwxO76jng&feature=related
I am curious, buzz. I am not sure if you saw my question above, so I’ll ask it again.
You said in one of your posts that you weren’t saying there were no rules (which implies that you were saying that there are rules, of one sort or another).
Like what, for instance?
rules which organize components of language. i am not arguing against the existence of rules, just that a linguist cannot make a biased evaluation of those rules resulting in a judgement of good or bad (subjective). a linguist may say that the dominate cultural group expresses the expectation that other cultural groups within the shared public arena adopt their performance rules in order to be recognized and be allowed to participate. those rules are considered to be the “good” rules as they satisfy the social expectations of the dominate culture regardless of the cultures under submission. The linguist cannot lend authority to those rules.
What’s an example of a rule?
rules governing double negatives for instance, but you can make up any rule you like. what are you getting at?
O.k. – this is my problem with your argument.
You say, “rules governing double negatives” – fine. That’s a rule. We can agree on that. So, if you break that rule, that’s what “bad grammar” means. It doesn’t mean “morally wrong” grammar. It means “incorrect grammar.” Grammar that breaks the rules is “bad grammar.” So, if you say that there is a rule, then breaking the rule is “bad grammar.” That’s what I’m getting at.
However, you go on to say “..but you can make up any rule you like…” What is that supposed to mean? Is the double negative rule you cited a rule or not? Or, are you saying that there really isn’t a rule, because someone else can just say the opposite rule – double negatives are required? So, it sounds like you’re hedging. You want to say, essentially, that there are rules, but then there aren’t any rules. If I’m wrong, please explain it simply.
Is the double negative rule a rule? Yes or no. (you already said yes)
If it’s a rule, can’t it be broken? And, if it can be broken, then what is so all fired horrible about calling broken rules “bad grammar?”
you know cultures develop multiple often contradictory rules. catholics, as a rule, pray before a meal. jews, as a rule, pray after a meal. atheists, as a rule, don’t pray before, during or after a meal. all three, rules. imagine a dinner together at the all american diner, each follows their own rules, each broke the rules of the other, each satisfied their own rules, which rule is good, which rule is bad? a broken social rule is often called bad etiquette. who has used bad etiquette, good etiquette?
.
You ask, “Which rule is good, and which rule is bad?” We’re talking about the rules of English grammar. The rules aren’t good or bad. The rules just are. “Bad grammar” is when one breaks the rules.
Your examples may be instructive, but they have to be put in the proper light. In your analogies, Catholics, Jews and atheists would be akin to different languages, like English, Spanish and German. Each has its own rules. If one is a Catholic that got divorced, uses contraceptives, and curses Jesus as a fraud, then one might say that he or she is a “bad Catholic” in the sense of “breaking the rules of Catholicism.” A Jew, too, who works on Saturday, eats ham and shellfish, and gives Yahweh the finger after every meal might be considered a “bad Jew” in the sense of breaking the rules of Judaism. An atheist may announce his belief in an almighty creator who meddles in human affairs and looks like a human being, and in that case be called a “bad atheist.’
Buzz – I notice you just ignored my inquiry:
You identified the double-negative rule as a rule that you acknowledge exists.
If it’s a rule, can’t it be broken? Would you please just answer yes or no, and then explain why/how if you need to?
ok… the double negative is a rule that exists. if this is my rule and i accept it, i then ignore it and do not follow this rule, i have broken my rule. i want to see where your going with this.
if i may, i believe my catholic, jew, atheist analogy was very well lit. and you did not, i believe answer the questions i posed. each belief does not represent a different language but the same language/ different rules. in your example they all broke their own rules, in mine they all followed their own rules. but if each followed their own rules they are breaking each other’s rules and they all practicing bad etiquette. can all the rules be right or wrong?
buzz, I tried to understand what you just wrote, but it sounds like double-talk.
What I get is this:
You are in agreement that there are rules. However, you believe there are only self-imposed rules, and that there are no common rules for the English language (rules that apply irrespective of the will of the individual).
Am I correct? If not, what did you mean to say?
If I am correct, then you’ve basically said that there are no rules. I can say that double negatives are wrong one day, and then change the rule the next, and I can never know if anyone else is breaking the rule because I can’t read their mind. I can’t even trust what they tell me, because they may not be honest with me. Thus, in your view, there are no rules for English grammar (at least none that anyone can know).
As I reread your second paragraph, I have to say, it is really not understandable. You said, “If I may, i believe my catholic, jew, atheist analogy was very well lit.” What does that mean? Well lit? And you say I did not think it was well lit? Why do you say that? And, I don’t get how different people speaking different languages based on different “rules” is “bad etiquette.” What is that?
Marina – do you think most of this debate boils down to whether people think the word “bad” in “bad grammar” is intended to be some sort of pejorative comment against the speaker/writer? I get the impression that the people who object to the term “bad grammar” base a good deal of their ire on the assumption that to say someone is using “bad grammar” means they are a bad or worse person.
no! let’s look at a hard science like physics. if a magnet repels another magnet, is that magnet a bad magnet? if a magnet attracts another, is that a good magnet? you can’t say (good or bad) because that type of evaluation does not exist at that level of analysis.
you know may be you are speaking as an expert informant on your own language rather than as an expert on language. not meant to be an insult, just trying to understand. you are not negating your own cultural expectations, right?
However, if somebody gives me a magnet, and it doesn’t work, then I might say that magnet is bad.
When a magnet repels, it is obeying the laws of physics, not breaking them.
you might, but for a physicist that would not be an acceptable description.
further the behavior of the magnet (avoiding divine explanations) probably didn’t actually break any laws, but was behaving according to other laws that can satisfactorily explain the behavior.
Buzz – this is crazy. Plenty of physicists when encountering something that didn’t work would say that “it’s bad.” Certainly, engineers and quality control people do it all the time, and a lot of them are physicists (and they’ve certainly studied physics). If parts are bad, including magnets, it means they don’t work.
As for your other post, regarding speaking as an expert. None of that has any relevance to the issue.
You’re asking me if I’m negating my own cultural expectations? I’m not sure what you mean by “cultural expectations.” Can you give me an example of one of your cultural expectations? Maybe then I’ll know what mine are. So as not to evade your question, however, I will say that I have not negated anything at all, so that would include any cultural expectations. I’ve negated nothing.
More and more, buzz, I’m getting convinced that you just don’t like the word “bad.” It’s not even right to say the word “bad” in connection with magnets that don’t work?
How about “bad reception” on a radio? How about a “bad connection” when troubleshooting electronics? How about a “bad ticker” when talking about one having heart trouble?
You said, “further the behavior of the magnet (avoiding divine explanations) probably didn’t actually break any laws, but was behaving according to other laws that can satisfactorily explain the behavior.”
Uhhhh… yeah… that’s what I said…. magnets when they repel/attract aren’t breaking laws, they are obeying them. But, whatever,, it’s an irrelevancy anyway. Let’s stay focused.
1. We are in agreement that there are rules of proper English grammar.
2. We are in agreement that one of those rules involves the use of “double negatives.”
3. This brings us to the question of “can the rule regarding double negatives be broken?” Can I get a yes or a no on that?
dude, i’m negatin’ shit all the time! all i’m saying is that a scientist must step outside of his or her own cultural/personal biases and abandon perceptions that may influence the interpretation of the subject matter. personal testimony: i work well with immigrants and within cultures in developing countries. the people i meet often exhibit characteristics/behavior that may be distracting or offensive to other people. not me, no problems. however, i come from appalachia. if find myself dealing with an unemployed racist meth addict from kentucky who abuses his wife and neglects his kid i want to punch the fucker in the head. now when i feel this, i become aware that i am letting some of my cultural background interfere with my work. thats what i mean. are you aware of your own bias or cultural norms?
You’re “negatin’ shit” all the time?” Like what? I don’t know what that means.
And, “all” you are saying is that a scientist must step outside of his or her own cultural/personal biases and abandon perceptions that may influence the interpretation of the subject matter? Of course! A scientist should avoid all biases, if possible (not just cultural or personal ones). However, all biases that a person has are personal to him or her. One either has a bias or one doesn’t. If one has a bias, it is a personal bias. It’s not someone else’s bias.
Also, how does one abandon a “perception?” A perception is something one perceives (i.e. becomes aware of, understands, identifies by means of one’s senses). A scientist’s whole career is based on his perceptions.
I think that your personal “testimony” doesn’t have anything to do with the price of tea in China. One, you’re obviously not a scientist, so what does that have to do with your discussion of scientists shedding biases.
And, it’s very good that you refrain from letting your judgments interfere with your job. However, what does that have to do with linguistics or grammar?
Am I aware of my own bias? Yes. I am aware of some of them. I’m sure there are others I am not aware of. Being aware of a bias is what allows one to shed or minimize it. Most biases, however, and particularly the most damaging ones, are the ones of which we are not aware. It’s an innate predisposition.
Am I aware of my “cultural norms?” Do you mean “social standards of appropriate behavior?” I personally don’t have any cultural norms. The culture in which I live has cultural norms, and I have an understanding of what those cultural norms are, but that’s it. An individual can’t have a cultural norm – he can only abide by them.
But what’s your point?
hey marina, you started this! there should be more pink in this deep blue.
I know.. I know… I’m interested in seeing what you all have to say.. and I agree that the idea of “good grammar” is often used as a way for “upper class” and “lower class” people to try to separate themselves.
In other words, people make a mental determination that another person is possibly lacking in education when they use “improper???” (WHAT WORD CAN I USE???) “incorrect” grammar? When you go in for a job interview.. do you speak the same way as you would around your friends? If you are trying to help people succeed in this world, is it bad to try to teach them some grammar rules so that they can at least “appear to be intelligent” to others?
Are we becoming so pc that we cannot teach children grammar in school… or that we should start telling them that it is ok to use double negatives, and you can say “the way I are”.
At what point do we just throw everything away.. and stop educating people. Without a general set of rules it will become IMPOSSIBLE to teach children language or writing skills.. or anything… there will be too much diversity and it will make the job for teachers IMPOSSIBLE!
Right? Or am I missing something here?
you could say, their own grammar, perhaps native, familiar, perhaps casual or informal grammar. i think that, “informal” is used frequently, have to check. i think we should teach english in schools but teach kids as well that it is just another way of speaking to get what you want. “standard” english isn’t better than their informal grammar but it does allow access to things beyond their immediate community. and that they should have pride in their culture and language and maintain as it further completes their identity. i think we should teach them it is ok to speak in two, three whatever different ways. the u.s. is a pluralistic society there are multiple ways of speaking. the kids can handle it we can handle it. what some kids can’t handle is someone making the subjective relative statement, that your language, your way expressing who you are is bad and that “standard” english is universally absolutely without a doubt gooder. so yea, i’m all for teaching “standard” english in the schools, rules and everything. no reason you can’t respect and acknowledge everyone’s diversity either.
another thing, i get the pc thing a lot. i realize you weren’t directing it toward me. pc to me is pandering to people, like politicians do for shallow, selfish egotistical reasons. sometimes i’m defending women’s rights, children, generally people’s dignity and autonomy. this isn’t pc, this is basic respect and recognition of another person or people. the pc accusation gets applied inappropriately i think. real pc is unacceptable. i don’t think my position is based on politically correct interests. although i am talking about a lot of rules and subjective judgments, prospero would be happy to know.
This is very interesting but yet.
Isn’t it possible that sometime, some writters are just lazy when they write their lyrics. And when it comes to hip/hop or rap or slam isn’t it possible to recognize very good grammar (I’m not speaking about standard english, I’m speaking about being ELOQUENT) and sometimes very bad grammar.
If you had to teach children, will you use Timbaland’s work? or prefer LKJ or Bob Dylan? Maybe we can recognize there is “good grammar”?
i’m thinking formal and informal may be good descriptions that you could use. like, “do you want to improve your formal grammar”, “formal grammar is just so damn sexy!” that kind of stuff. formal is often associated with dressing up ya know. so it kinda fits. and informal is just who we are most of the time or want to be anyway. what do you think?
i understand not wanting to hurt another person’s feelings by telling someone their grammar is incorrect, but, well, someone needs to have thicker skin if he/she cannot take a bit of correction…
saying, “that’s bad grammar, you need to say it this way” is not a value judgement of an individual – it’s education…
sorry, but if a person’s grammar is wrong for the envirions in which they’ve immersed themselves, the grammar is wrong…and can be improved…
You said, “you could say, their own grammar..” Yes, you “could” say that, but it would be useless. Their own grammar? Then Marina is correct. You can’t teach them anything because they all have their own grammar. You can’t even know if they are using “their own grammar” wrong because they might have a different “grammar” every day. It’s pointless.
I think you seem to be mainly concerned with people not being considered “bad” or “less” than other people. And, I have to say, that you’re concern there is quite honorable and quite warranted. People who use bad grammar should not be made to feel like they are morally bad. However, the issues with language are not really any different than the issues with kids learning how to play baseball. They learn how to play baseball, and they have to play by a set of rules. If they break the rules, then they aren’t playing right. You can’t have 9 fielders and a batter all with their own rules of the game. If the batter hits the ball and fails to touch first base as he rounds to go to second, it serves no purpose for him to say “my rules” say “I don’t have to touch first if I step right over it.”
The whole concept of a “rule” is that it applies to more than one person. You don’t have “your own rules” for almost anything. If you come waltzing into town and say “my own rules” say there’s no such thing as private property and you start scooping money out of cash registers, you’ve broken the rules whether your own personal opinion tells you so or not.
Then you say, “so yea, i’m all for teaching “standard” english in the schools, rules and everything. no reason you can’t respect and acknowledge everyone’s diversity either.” That’s exactly what I’m saying (and it appears Marina is saying the same thing too). Buzz, if you use “nonstandard” English, than it’s bad grammar. It’s not a moral judgment, buzz. A person is still a good person even if he or she uses bad grammar, nonstandard grammar, or informal grammar. I do it all the time. When I’m at a gathering of friends, sometimes I use slang, profanity, incorrect usage, etc., and I do so with wild abandon. It’s still bad grammar.
I think you’ve made a mountain out of a mole hill. Be clear on this. I think I speak for everyone when we say that we do not think people who use nonstandard English are “bad” people. All of us do it all the time. Sometimes even our trusty and incredibly attractive teacher will make grammar mistakes. She too has used “bad grammar.” So what?
prose perro 11,
in linguistics, it’s all about structure. I’m talking syntax, morphology, phonetics/phonology, semantics. a structure, as I’m sure you know, consists of two things. elements and the relations b/w those elements.
here’s another important distinction. surface structure / deep structure. “deep structure” we better replace by “logical structure” or “underlying structure”.
the surface structure of a sentence (better and henceforth: phrase / CP) is what you read / hear.
phrases start (in your head) out with the underlying structure. surface structure is then generated by basically moving things around.
I’ll try to explain it as roughly and simply as I can.
consider the following phrase.
(i) paul seems to sleep.
you asked me about what rules there are, or what rules I am talking about. one rule you acquire as a child is that english is an SVO language. subject first, then verb, then object(s). this goes for a simple declarative CP. so, you’re acquiring the rules of word order. no one is explicitly taught that rule, at some point you just know.
back to the CP above. the subject in there is “paul”. but paul is not the logical subject of “seem”, it’s just the grammatical subject, it’s there because english is an SVO language, and it’s not, like italian, a language that can just drop the subject. paul does not “seem”, he is not a “seemer”. paul is the logical subject of “sleep”, he’s the sleeper.
the underlying structure of (i) is:
(ii) [ e seems [ paul to sleep ]].
(e stands for “empty category”.)
but “seems paul to sleep” will not be the phrase you’re going to say. “seem” is what we’d call a “raising verb”. “paul” will be raised into a position higher than it is in now:
(iii) [ paul seems [ t to sleep ]].
(t stands for “trace” which basically means “there was something which is not there anymore.”)
this is called “subject-to-subject raising”; the subject of the subordinate verb has been raised into the position of the subject of the matrix verb.
so, this is how we get (i).
the knowledge of rules that no one has been taught, but which they just know, is called “tacid knowledge”. you don’t have direct access to that knowledge.
now, this is a rule to which there are, I’m sure, exceptions. linguists have to live with that. it’s not like in physics or mathematics (I don’t know much about either of the last two so I could be wrong on this one).
I guess we not only have the difficulty of prescriptivist vs descriptivist, but also of clarifying if we’re talking about underlying or surface structures.
When you say, “I guess we not only have the difficulty of prescriptivist vs descriptivist, but also of clarifying if we’re talking about underlying or surface structures” you unnecessarily multiply the issues and basically change the argument to a different one.
Nobody is arguing about whether “prescriptivism” or “descriptivism” is better or worse or even if rules are prescriptive or descriptive. It doesn’t matter for the purposes of the debate over whether there is or is not something called “bad grammar.” Similarly, it does not matter, for the purposes of this argument, whether we are talking about underlying or surface structures. While those are interesting and mind-numbing issues, they are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
It doesn’t matter whether the SVO rule you suggested is taught or learned by osmosis or whatever. It’s a rule of grammar. If it is a grammar rule, and it can be broken, then breaking it is “bad grammar.”
Can it be broken? If you’re answer to that is “yes” then what Marina and everyone else on my side (I am daring to speak for others, and apologize to anyone who might not want me to do that) is saying is that “bad grammar” means, in essence, “broken rule.”
That’s why I wanted you or buzz to write out a rule. Neither of you did though. Neither of you actually wrote out what the rule you were talking about was. He said “the rule about double negatives,” but didn’t explicitly state it. You proceeded into a discussion of SVO, but didn’t explicitly state a rule (you just discussed overarching concepts).
different structures.
Not all mistakes in grammar are different structures.
A grammar mistake is something like, “Buffy bringed the umbrella to John who are jumping in the rain.”
That’s not a different structure. That’s wrong.
Disclaimer: Depending on the context, it may be fantastic writing. Maybe it’s part of a larger poem and this line just makes it. Maybe it’s part of a novel, and the writer is quoting a character who said that. It’s not a moral judgment, and it doesn’t mean the writer is “wrong” (in the sense of being unrighteous). It’s just wrong in the sense of being incorrect English grammar. That’s “bad grammar.”
marina, i know your busy with the move and everything and i may be beating a dead horse, but… at this point i would like someone to at least consider that our position has some rationale. like there is a purpose to taking this approach. i think one of the problems is that some of us come from social science backgrounds and others come from literary backgrounds. so we approach language in subtly different ways. anyway here is another link. yawn.
http://www.pagliere.net/alan/subtopics/language/vrarticle.html
interesting read…slanted, of course, and a mite inflammatory, but it provides food for thought…
question, though: why would the author use the very rules he professes to abhor?…or is it not the use of said rules, just correcting someone who is informal in grammar in an environment where formal grammar is preferred that is ridiculed?
If this if true when the king of France created the Franch Academy (1635) as a prescriptive institution in order to establish the rules of the french language, it was a mistake. Should have been better for France enabling vernacular languages to keep creating their own “rules”. Dozens od patois, dialects and sub-dialects arround the country, and the scientist and thinkers obliged to communicate in latin since it was the only language of some “technical” use (maybe because latin had a set of rules, a grammar).
Perhaps any generalisation is dangerous. Maybe this discussion is very American. Maybe if there was more sense of cultural heritage or a history of internal division in this country, prescriptive grammar could be seen diferently.
annuddermale, if you mean; linguists ridicule the language that they as academics are expected to use, then yes they do. when i studied and did student teaching in anthropology at university, i frequently pointed out the irony of teaching the need for cultural relativism in our discipline while wearing professional attire and using formal academic terminology that were not my own casual manner of performing. that type of mockery is quite common in the social sciences.
micheldiego, yea i would say that was a political mistake. this discussion is not, “very american” it is primarily an academic debate, that is uncommon in the social sciences. the history of america is a history of immigration, internal division, class stratification, socioeconomic disparity, segregation, civil war, civil rights, riots… from within your segment of american culture there may not seem to be a lack of cultural heritage or internal division but if you ask another american cultural group you may be surprised by their experiences. by the micheldiego, i am well versed in the writings of the transcendentalists, the beat poets, and music is one of my passions. my subjective opinions and expectations of art as it applies to me is something i try to keep separate from my role as a social scientist. otherwise i am biased and unable to approach cultures with an open mind. check out the following link.
http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/Joe22pages/eriksen.htm
micheldiego, the link i just provided comments on the historic actions of the french government to influence language that you mentioned.
micheldiego, unless i misunderstood you and your argument is that because america is a diverse pluralistic society and that prescriptive grammar is a response to that, perhaps an attempt by the dominate culture to normalize minority behavior. then i would likely agree with portions of that argument.
I have no sufficient time yet to understand all the article, will enjoy reading it this week-end., I had a quick view of it and want to share a couple of things with you:
Any dominant culture tries to normalize a minority, this is so true. As an interesting example I will suggest “Mondovino”, a documentary about wine and terroir I hope you saw. A more etymological example will be the “standard” English etymology: standard = post = flag = king.
I will probably agree with you and the author of the article. On this point and on all the consequences we know…(even add a couple of things about gender if I had time)
But this article also says something else: that any minority defends itself also by standardizing. “recent ethnic and nationalist revivals have contribute to the standardization and preservation of many languages” “many languages…particularly those lacking a script tend to die…” It is hard to survive without a script and a grammar…Example: if you know the Brazilian capoeira, you will notice that the smaller the group of capoeiras the harder the rules they impose on themselves trying to preserve at best their own cultural heritage.
We can see then that prescriptivism can be offensive or defensive. Or, may be the standardization is a cause in a case a consequence in the other. Minorities which are fortunate to have some codes may survive. Standard cause their survival. Majorities naturally tend to impose their code. Standard is a consequence of power. From an evolutionary point of view it is very interesting noticing here that perhaps the less “adapted” language may survive because it is prescript by the strongest group (the group of the king). S Gould somewhere explains why the qwerty standard is the surviving standard while it was not the more efficient set of “rules” for typing (in fact because it was not the more efficient, as it was slower it worked well with the machines available at that time).
May I speak about evolution of language and of more or less “adapted” languages? Being both hosts of HFW we probably share some belief in permeation and evolution of languages. “The transition from the garden of Eden to the Tower of Babel is, apparently paradoxically, chiefly a result of contacts between groups, not isolation.” quoting Eriksen. This poses the Babel issue. Personally I hesitate between two utopias. Perhaps all languages descend from an original unique common language, eventually one word, eventually the name of god. Perhaps several languages have appeared and have evolved at different time, but obey to some law, or to some “l’air du temps” which make them from time to time solve the same problems with the same solutions, by “coincidence”. When we find some similarity one language to another the question is: are the languages similar because their contact or because the absence of contact. When finding a connection between two diferent languages are we seeing the finger of god, or a coincidence, a proof that disorder makes order? Isn’t this question what etymology is?
What all this has to do with the French revolution? The article you sent illustrates the necessity of prescriptivism from the dominant point of view in France in 1789. What I said what meant to illustrate a defensive point of view it was also in France but in 1635 Richelieu wanting to avoid the French language (which was not dominant by far at that time) to disappear, perhaps did not choose correctly as a defensive move by a king could only be view as preparing an offensive. What I wanted to point out is that prescriptivism is necessary for both the majority and the minority. But at the same time evolution is inevitable, and even if prescriptivism try to extinct some usage, if this usage is the finger of god, or due to l’air du temps, it will at some point prevail. Call me an optimist, in fact I have read Umberto Ecco writings on Babel, and I put little trust in the unique original (eventually divine) language, so I only rely on a roll of dice to from time to time free us of the necessary rule of prescriptivism.
Sure, but we’re arguing past each other. You guys are arguing that it’s not good to call something “bad grammar” because it’s a moral judgment that the person is bad.
However, even the article to which you linked would not defend the sentence, “Buffy bringed the umbrella to John who are jumping in the rain.” Or, would it? What say you on that point?
I mean, do you really think the “Buffy” sentence is “just as right?” Don’t beat around the bush on it. Yes or no?
It seems to me that there is a difference in respecting a new dialect, and disbanding all rules of English grammar (except those that each individual invents in his own head and chooses voluntarily to impose on himself).
prospero811, okay, i’m not pulling this approach out of my ass. nor is aLx. although aLx’s arguments are more linguistic based and mine more anthropological they are both very complimentary. the concepts that we have been discussing are very common concepts. all you have to do is google some of the shit we have been discussing and you’ll get a load of arguments and descriptions. they probably do better at explaining than we have.
i could state your argument very simply, i understand basic reasons for your position. i understand the benefits to teaching a “formal” grammar. i understand the reasons why societies have attempted to establish and maintain a “standard” language. however throughout this entire debate you seem unable to even fathom the basic rational for our position on the concept of a “standard” english or “good, bad” grammar. an indication that i have failed in explaining it to you in a manner that you could a least understand it, not agree with it mind you, just understand it.
i completely abandon every analogy or attempt to explain these concepts. every attempt seems to lead to further confusion. again just google the subjects discussed here and do some research, what you find will do better justice to these concepts than i have. they have been accepted by a large portion if not majority of the linguists and social scientist that i have studied under and read articles by. although this is not an indicator of the validity of an argument it does indicate that the positions are in some way comprehensible and their details can be compared and discussed beyond the limits of my ability to to do so. i have read very good articles criticizing descriptive linguistics, the authors seem to at least grasp the basis of the descriptive position and structural elements that aLx refers to. i don’t think they make a convincing argument but they do have an understanding of the underlying rationale. something that i have not been able to provide you with. so i must admit failure in providing this understanding to you.
the positions i have tried to explain and defend i acquired during my education and further study, perhaps with further reading you may come to understand why so many scientist have chosen the approaches we have discussed here. however, at this point i do not think that i am able to bridge this conceptual gulf that you are so interested in crossing. good reason why i didn’t become a teacher. perhaps, well, more than likely we will be returning to this subject again in the future. peace out dawg.
I’d like to request “Charlie Horse”, as in the cramps you get in your leg…Thanks
Marina, Also it was a great pleasure I know for all of we/us students to see you in whole form on the screen in the tips game.You are sooo still the Hot Teacher!! Scotthorn
Marina,
How about “toe (or is it tow?) the party line”?
Pat
First one is correct, i. e., standing with your toes on the same line as all others in the party. In my case, that’d probably be the pickle-jar party. Ooops, gotta go. Revenuers a-comin’ through the briarpatch!
i toed someone once…
but that’s not open for discussion…
Marina, Off the subject. What type of sports car did you just get? If it’s a real good one I can suggest some avenues to safely learn to explore it’s limits and have fun. Take care,Scotthorn
Hej Marina! Why do they call a pimple a “zit”? puss
oh MY GOD Teach; At the end of this bit, The …..yell or cat yawl. SCARY SH1T. Stood the hair up on my neck. PLEACE no more. Such a sound could come from You. Remind me never piss You off.
ps, If I can speak for the minions, TOO short.
Hello my dear teacher,
I enjoyed your teacher’s pet video. Do you have a whole pack of dogs? I would like to know why groups of anilmals with hoofs are usually refered to as herds but when speaking of sheep the group is called a flock as if they were more closely related to seagulls than cows? And are groups of fishes a school because groups of students are found in schools or is it that groups of students are in schools because they are moving about like the fishes?
Have you read Gary Shteyngart’s funny novel Absurdistan? If so can you comment on his portrayal of life in St. Petersburg?
I love your channel. And of course i have a huge crush on my teacher!
Rev
excuse me Ms. (student here tend to call their teacher Ms., Mr..) lol….you look hot with your black top and blue eyes….i would like to know the origin of ” going commando” ….because why would going out in no underwear be called going commando?
I’d like to request “Charlie Horse”, as in the cramps you get in your leg…Thanks
I find the word “flabbergast” pretty funny. Could you do its origin my teacher?
oh…i just checked the lessons and see only two (count ‘em, TWO) words beginning with the letter “e”! That is egregious (which is one word I’d like to know, too, since I understand it once meant something good but now means the opposite)…
but how did ewe>/b> come to mean a female sheep?
I don’t care if you have to ram it down our chop, don’t pull the wool over our eyes, please tell us about this ba-a-a-a-d word…
oops…still need an edit function…
I’d like to request information on the word “comprise” which is used incorrectly all the time. People incorrectly say “comprised of.” There should be no “of” because it’s already in the word itself.
thanks
Marina the replys are disapearing again. Thanks.
Mike
Mike, Its your browser not properly refreshing. I have the same problem. Try clearing out your cache and restart your browser. That should do the trick.
Thanks Jack. That did the trick. Keep forgetting about the cache.
Yeah, and if you have any cache left over, I could use a few sawbucks.
Man I could jawjack with you all day pennsyltucky9. You’r a blessing just to have around.
oh, gawd, would u two jawbirds get a room?…
and if u cache ur cachet, do u get any cash?…
That’s Udderly reDickless, anuddermale.
Capman911, you are too kind. But I’m only human just like all the other prisoners. I’ll figure out a way to piss you off like I do everyone else, eventually. Meantime, keep the shiny side skyward…
I almost always tip 20% roughly estimated. I rarely have poor service, but would make it slightly less if experienced.
alas…I’m hot for teacher….
Speaking of tips and service. I became confused when I heard these terms which reference the word ’service’. Internal Revenue ‘Service’
U.S. Postal ‘Service’ Telephone ‘Service’ T.V. ‘Service’ Civil ‘Service’
City & County Public ‘Service’ Customer ‘Service’ and ‘Service’ Stations This is not what I thought ’service’ meant. But today, I overheard two farmers talking, and one of them said he had hired a bull to ’service’ a few cows. BAM!!! It all came into perspective. I now understand what all those ’service’ agencies are doing to us.
I hope you are as enlightened as I am.
that is bang-on!…
That would surley take care of them terrorists.
Wow! I have been enlightened. Thanks Mike. I always wondered about that. I’ve been having problems sitting down lately. Now its so clear to me.
Hope they wear protection.
Answer to your waterin the dumpster bring back memmories of my old bar hopping days and a lot of nights.
Its suppose to be my firefighter helment. I think I’ll switch back to my harley. You really can’t figure it out the picture is to small.
What is the origin of Hillbilly?
Pennsyltucky9
naw…he’s just a prime example…
but u might be a hillbilly if you believe the following bulletin:
The Pentagon announced today the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Hillbilly Special Forces. These Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas boys will be dropped off into Iraq and have been given only the following facts about terrorists:
1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don’t like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.
5. They are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the death of Dale Earnhardt.
Well I’ll be hog-tied, batter-dipped and fricaseed! Never in all my born days wuz so ponderous a pile o’ honorable mentions poured over my shiny ol’ skull.
‘Cept for one thing. Neither Pennsyltuckians nor West Virginsylvania boys got invited to go huntin in that big ol’ sandy holler over yonder. Kinda leaves me out waterin’ the dumpster, dont’cha think?
New gravatar, Mike? Either that or I think there might be a fishbowl stuck on your head. Naw…what the hell is that thing?
Who do you keep looking at
in your house 
See I knew it #2. as for the homework, good service, good tip, bad service, bad tip, thats how I do it.
Cockendicker This is a word known to be used on Live TV by Jerry Lewis during his telethons in the 1970’s and 80’s he used a many times
I looked through three or four dictionaries and couldn’t find the word or it’s definition. Even went to the Oxford English Dictionary.
Maia Marina, can we have the etymology of the world……scorpion……I was once stung by a scorpion and it just occurred to me to ask about philology of this word
oh and by the way i think your really pretty and i love your accent =P
ok i have a few
am and pm?
flea market?
bees knees?
snob?
love?
thanks marina!
and for the homework: i usually tip the standard 15% and yes if the person does a bad job and is not helpful and is not very friendly and does not know what they are doing i will give less of a tip. but if they are friendly and they go the extra mile to make sure i am happy like cracking a joke or two and just making the meal enjoyable then i will raise the tip.
am = antemeridian (before noon)
pm = post meridian (after noon)
Meridian is the middle point of the sun in the sky.
Hello Marina,
My record fell. Seven in a row is good. I’ll keep guessing. These are challenging and fun.
Thanks Marina
Oh, yes.
15-20% I think is average.
10-15% if not average service.
I don’t believe that someone should jump through fiery hoops for a TIp.
They’re wages are low so I see no sense in demeaning the person.
I NEED YOUR HELP…EMERGENCY!!!
I’m an assistant coach for a semi-pro football team. I coach the defense, and I adopted the word AUDACITY as our motto.
Fact is: some of these guys barely read never mind understanding what the true meaning of AUDACITY is!
Please do a segment on the word AUDACITY and please do it quickly! Our season starts in a couple of weeks!
They may not listen to my explanation of the word; I know they’ll listen to yours!!!
Thanks too much and best thoughts for continued success & happiness!
Jim
iim, that was almost brilliant…
put on a bikini top (stuffed, if needed – i’ve know some male coaches that didn’t), and do a vid while pretending to be funny & sexy…i guarandandtee ya the boys will pay attention…
‘course, so will the school board…
btw, i don’t know ’bout where u r, but school’s out here now, and no way they’ll b holdin’ football practice this time of year…
lynx
Tipping amount is definitely based on the quality of service. And the best tip for very, very poor service is not nothing – you could have forgotten. Instead, it’s to leave apenny or a nickle or something like that.
Here’s a curious phrse I didn’t notice as being done before:
Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth
It would be interesting if you could do that one some time.
I usually tip based on service…I top out at 20%
I enter a restaurant fully willy to shell out a roughly 20 to 25% tip. I ratchet that amount down if the quality of service warrants it. In an entirely unrelated subject, in a previous lesson, Marina
recommended her favorite tea. I will do the same. Let me preface it by saying that adults should avoid calories in their drinks (alcohol excepted). That means drink coffee plain. As far as tea goes, I recommend “green and white fushion tea” by Stash. Offered at Amazon. It’s a pleasant tasting Japanese & Chinese green tea, white tea (which is made from the flower of the green tea plant), and assorted other green teas. It requires none of that creamer stuff or sugar. It mellows you out.
Maybe the trend is preparing us for Marina opening her own Celebrity-Owned Restaurant?
So the guessing game today is:- If Marina had a restaurant, what would she call it?
Borscht n’ Tears?
Borscht, Vodka and Beers?
Hot Food for Words?
marinaded?
Cute, but I think she’s very much alive.
Marinated.
said that already…
marinadelray << Marina the California babe
marinanette << annudder name for Marina Sycophant
okay…i’d do more but i gotta get some dang work done here sometime…
hm. why would you suggest tears?
–> moscow doesn’t believe in tears.
Congrats’ aLx, you’ve been honoured & collected. Nice Russian ladies have a thing , it seems, for collecting pets. For your own peace of mind, don’t watch the end segment of the Vid. peace
Isn’t it obvious? It’s for all those members of S.O.U.P. who are crying into their beers because they are not where you are today. (Congratulations BTW)
I was having problems with certain items not showing up on
my ip when I would log on to HFW. I thought it might help him,
it did me.
Maybe not her own restaurant but she does have her own “Mart” I have photos proving this. I’ll try to get them uploaded for you after I get back from the crab boat “Time Bandit” party.
Lucky kfoifj”[apfpjdiehc. Wish I were there.
I was watching The Catch on the box last night, Jack.
That sure is a tough way of earning a crust(acean).
OMG what a party! I left at 11:20am (as you see in my last post) and returned at 2:00am. 14 hours of fun! Im so freaking tired. (hic) and a bit intoxicated.wow spell check is on full blast. (*hic*). Had too many women on board and not enough guys. I was forced to party with 4 chicks.
(hick)… Im disappointed that I didn’t catch any crabs. The guys said I really don’t want to. I didn’t go into the hot tub or suna. But took some pics. The boat has a new look. Well the bow has a new thing on it. shsssshhhh Im not sure If I can post them yet. I”ll have to ask Eddie. Its really cool graphic. I”ll upload them when I get some sleep first. I R 2 tired. 
I had heard that one of the crabbing boats was supposed to be painted green this year. Do you know which one it is?
dude. 130. damn. I mean, I like cats, I really do, and they seem to like me. but 130 cats in one room? what the hell. not to mention that this isn’t really how cats are supposed to live … and the neighbor is right about the noise … ever heard cats mating?
i didn’t know cats got along that well, my cat hates the other cats in the nieghborhood. He has stuck a truce with my bird though. Wild birds are still on the menu.
First time musta been good for her.
Ever hear porcupines mating?
hi, did you delete my dafiina comment, ?? is that what you do on your website?????
No, it’s still there where you left it.
Getting old? Memory not what it was? this might help
If you post here don’t expect special treatment compared to if you posted at her YOUTUBE site.
She’s very busy and there are so many posts- so be patient please.
My mistake, it is “pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicoVOLCANOconiosis”. I apologize for the mistake, I realized it after I submitted it.
I have a couple things to request, one may not be answered according to the extent of the words you do.
First off, I am learning Spanish, so I’m curious about the roots of that as well as the roots of English, since cognates between Spanish and English are very common.
I’m curious about the word “socorro”, which generally is used as “help me”, in a sort of pleading way. What’s curious is that the word ayudame, from the verb ayudar, to help, also means “help me”, but in the way such as “assist me”, or something along those lines. However, it translates directly to “help me”. Any reason why these two words are translated into the same thing. May it be incorrect to say that “ayudarme” translates into “help me”, by common US language standards/US slang standards?
If you cannot do that, I already know all about the roots of this word, but I think it’d be interesting to teach them this because it is the longest word currently in the dictionary. The word is: “pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicoconiosis”, that’s split into, and pronounced as: new-m-ah-n-oh-ul-truh-my-crow-scah-pik-sihl-ihk-oh-cone-ee-oh-sys, in case you had trouble pronouncing it. I actually learned this on my first day in Advanced English, and strangely it has stuck in my head. Anyways, great video, and quite an entertaining interest to take!
Hello greyioutcast,
Ayudar is not the same as socorrer. Ayudar is helping in the sense of giving a hand, socorrer then means you help somebody in danger. If you help your kid with the homework should be ayudar never socorrer. If you are a fireman entering a house on fire it is socorrer never ayudar.
Yeah that’s one thing you are going to find in comparing latin based languages to english. In english we tend to oversimplify and use one word for many meanings. We make up for this by paying attention to what context it is being used in. However in all latin based languages, it is much more specific. They were actually formed to be simpler in that you don’t necessarily need to put the sentence into context to understand exactly what they are saying. Kinda cool, but when you are going from english to learning one of these languages, and you get more advanced, you have to stop translating literally and start thinking about EXACTLY what you are meaning to say…and this is a perfect example of why.
English “succor” means the same thing and comes from the same root. It is seldom used and even less often understood (this is because it sounds identical to “sucker,” generally considered a derogutory term).
Terror vs Terrific. What’s up there?
btw how do I post a pic of myself?
thanks
go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and follow the instructions…
Now why didn’t I tell elite-panda that instead of going through the whole spill on how to get an avatar. Smart man annuddermale.
Go to gravatar.com
Marina also posts the answer to your question in the “HELP” section, a button on the toolbar, top of this page. See you soon in your new identity, I hope.
pennsyltucky9
succor up…
Hi Marina,
The answer to the tip game did not really describe the origin of the word “tip” just its usage.
Could it be from the Latin stips “alms, small payment” from stipendium “tax, pay, gift,”?
What I gathered from what she said: the payments “tip” the servants toward you, meaning they are more inclined to favor you, as they are “tipped” toward you.
Stips originally is greek. Gave stips and then stipendium. It is unlikely it originate tip pulling 1500 years directly from Rome to England and without appearing with this sense in other languages, latin languages particullaly.
The english heritage from stips is common in several other languages for exemple pension or expense are comming from tips/stipendium and are common in similar spelling in other languages.
I have another possible etymology for tips: look at my post yesterday at 3.41 and today in an answer to melikadothechacha at 10.01.
The Norvegian “tipla” drink gave tipple in english arround 1400, and tip appears arround 1600.
WHAT MEANS MINGLE AND WHERE IT COMES
MEMO
Oh wo is me I for some strange reason stopped getting e-mails to tell me when my lovely teacher presents her new lesson. Oh what will I do?
Love
TheDragon
Well because you can reply, you are a subscriber to HFW, hence automatic notification is presumed. I usually get notification of new videos about 12 hours after the fact, via e-mail. I guess, check your e-mail filter settings to insure that you allow HFW in, as well as check your junk e-mail box. If you have done all of that, I’m sort of stuck. I’ve got three e-mail possibilities: hotmail/aol/verizon.com, so if one e-mail doesn’t work, I can switch to another. Or, maybe a firewall/webserver/client issue is an issue. Do you still get e-mails from other philologist/people/friends?
I have gotten e-mail notices before but, now for some reason they stopped coming. you can try sending it with a new address if you want. I would prefer the hotmail one tho.
Ok, thedragon, lets’ try again. My ISP/Verizon was down, but now back in business. 1. Make sure after you sign in to HFW, your account info, your important e-mail address is correct. 2. I can’t change your e-mail settings at HFW, only you can( I only sugggested that before, because if one e-mail address doesn’t work maybe the other one will). 3. You can let Microsoft diagnose and fix your PC for free with their program called Auto-Care/acliteinstaller.exe https://account.live.com/autocare.aspx ,run the MSN installation related issues, and or MSN client e-mail related issues. 4. Go to MSN live search QnA: http://qna.live.com/ and ask your question again, and someone with way more intelligence could help. 5. Don’t forget to check your e-mail filter settings, something once happened to pagedoll, not sure what, maybe she or her computer thought the HFW e-mail was junk or spam. So she never got another e-mail from HFW until she cleaned that up on her account settings for her e-mail. I know sometimes those e-mail filter settings are hard to get to if you haven’t done it in a while. Hope this is a help for you. If you do all that stuff, which will take 2 hours, things should work, or let us know what you found out. I once paid a Dell assistant about $150.00 to fix my driver for my printer, of which I could have done myself, or bought a new printer for that money. I paid geek squad $250 to tell me that my aol dialup service (2 years ago)showed some kind of problem, but basically worked 99.99%.
Sometimes the most obvious escapes me. I guess that you got my reply via HFW e-mail, right? That would mean then that HFW still has some issues with their web server, of which they are apparently working on. They deleted the rating for her videos because it bogged their server down, sometimes it takes me 10 tries to login in order to reply, some people can’t reply until they reload the page, or delete their cache. Or maybe you replied to my post when you went to this website, which changes options for answers. An easy answer is just to keep this website as one of your favorites/or mozilla bookmark it and check in every so often.
Dragon if you are using Internet explorer open it up then click on tools.
At the bottom is internet options. Open that up and click on privacy settings. Then click on popup settings. In this screen you’ll a section to add programs that will bypass the popup settings, add in http://www.fotforwords.com then click on add then close out the ip program all together. I f you are using firefox got to tools then options then content. You can add in http://www.hotforwords.com in both of the exceptions by the pop ups and the load images automaticlly. Maybe that will help.
Mike
what do those emails have to do with popups?
I was having problems with certain items not showing up on my ip when I would log on to HFW. I thought it might help him, it did me.
You are simply Exquisite Marina, Thanks Gorgeous.
I feel tipping should vary from 0% to 25% depending on the quality of service one receives.
How much would you tip your waiter if he entertained you as well as being absent minded ?
Well that would depend on the type of entertainment I was provided with
.
I was wondering if you know where the expression “Cock of the Walk” originated, I assume that it a reference to a popular alpha male. I would also assume that it could have roots in the controversial sport of cock fighting and is the name for the top rooster, and of course my final assumption is that it has phallic undertones. However it is well known that assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, so I will not pretend to be the guru here that is why we have you. So if you would be so kind please use your vast resources to satisfy my curiosity. Thank you.
i was wondering where the word dictatorship came from can u help me?
The trend is that Marina is either opening a restaurant or going out on dates. Hopefully, she is playing the field to find the right guy for her. Could be tough for a woman of such intelligence and sexiness to find a worthy match, but we should all definitely wish her the best. We can’t keep her couped up inside all day making video lessons for us, can we? That’d be treating her like a servant that is inferior. Personally, I prefer superior servants to crack the whip on, but I digress…
I would like to make a word request related to tip, and that word is freebie. Kind of connected as they are both gratuitous. I’d be quite interested to hear it’s origin, just please not in game form. While I learn off the game lessons, I never get the answer right! Arrgh!
Peace, Errin : )
i normally go with 15% but depends on the service if they get more or less.
I would like you give the orgin of “cabal”. As in “there is a cabal of prigs at Hot For Words trying to bamboozle the citizens of Pago Pago”.
I’d like to know why pussy is a slang term for a womens vagina
I could be wrong but I believe that the term pussy comes from the distinction between male and female cats. Males are known as “Toms” and females are “Pussies”. Like I said my theory could be based on pure bullshit so I do apologize if I’m misleading you.
I think Marina covered that already in a video. I don’t know which one though. Sorry. Maybe someone here can find the reference to it.
I remember the same thing Jack, but after she said pussy I lost all train of thought.
Wasn’t it on Maxim Radio?
I saw the movie Octopussy eight times.
15-20%
yes
I also hate it when I go someplace and the waiter always tries to steer me or usually my guest to the most expensive items and tries to pump up the bill all night long with exotic suggestions made directly to my guest. For these people I really would like to give them nothing at all and in one case is exactly what they got as they certainly were not looking out for me but for the restaurant. If they want to get paid then they should look towards their employer as they are the ones they served and not I. In an expensive restaurant, the lower the bill accompanied with great service and truly caring about the customer the higher the tip. Getting freebies by the waiter or management will also assure a larger tip and maybe even a return visit.