Comments on: I been, I seen, I done http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/omit-auxiliary-help-verb-english/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Fri, 24 May 2013 00:55:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: John Larsson http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/omit-auxiliary-help-verb-english/#comment-355486 John Larsson Sat, 02 Feb 2013 20:08:51 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=26430#comment-355486 Sorry for being so late, but this fascinating blog is so new to me! How shall I put this? I once studied law. At first you don't understand one word of it, then you understand everything and at last you end up with understanding how little you really understand! Isn't this also the case with languages? There are differences in our (western) languages in how much grammar means and what is idiomatics outside grammar, but generally we have a rather rigid understanding of "our" language as a grammar with a certain number of word classes, a certain number of "tenses" and so forth. In other languages, even languages ind old cultures as in East Asia, language can not be defined with the same terminology; the language in this part of the world is a bunch of nouns; expressing tenses and reflexions comes with subtile understandings of the sequence in which these nouns are presented! I moved from Sweden to Denmark as adult and I also converted to Danish rather quickly (you know started to "think" in Danish!) Maybe one is more observant when one is converting language, but one "sense" in Danish puzzled me very much. In Denmark you can hear "jeg vil mene" ("I will mean"). I started to make notes at this and my "statistics" showed that the persons saying so, never said "jeg mener" ("I mean"), and these persons only used this way of expressing in first person singular! There is no special "tense" in Danish, but a minority (maybe being extra ambivalent!) is trying to change the grammar! ;-) Sorry for being so late, but this fascinating blog is so new to me!
How shall I put this? I once studied law. At first you don’t understand one word of it, then you understand everything and at last you end up with understanding how little you really understand! Isn’t this also the case with languages? There are differences in our (western) languages in how much grammar means and what is idiomatics outside grammar, but generally we have a rather rigid understanding of “our” language as a grammar with a certain number of word classes, a certain number of “tenses” and so forth. In other languages, even languages ind old cultures as in East Asia, language can not be defined with the same terminology; the language in this part of the world is a bunch of nouns; expressing tenses and reflexions comes with subtile understandings of the sequence in which these nouns are presented!
I moved from Sweden to Denmark as adult and I also converted to Danish rather quickly (you know started to “think” in Danish!) Maybe one is more observant when one is converting language, but one “sense” in Danish puzzled me very much. In Denmark you can hear “jeg vil mene” (“I will mean”). I started to make notes at this and my “statistics” showed that the persons saying so, never said “jeg mener” (“I mean”), and these persons only used this way of expressing in first person singular! There is no special “tense” in Danish, but a minority (maybe being extra ambivalent!) is trying to change the grammar! ;-)

]]> By: John Cowan http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/omit-auxiliary-help-verb-english/#comment-287052 John Cowan Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:07:46 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=26430#comment-287052 Mencken reports several more such preterite-like participles in non-standard use in the 1920s: <i>I have beat, I have knew, I have laid</i> (reclined), <i>I have rang, I have shook, I have showed, I have span, I have sprang, I have took, I have throve, I have wore, I have wrang, I have wrote</i>. Many of these came with participle-like predicates as well: <i>I beat, I beaten, I have beat</i>. Since the strong verbs no longer follow any but analogical patterns, it is not surprising that they get mixed up in the dialects or even in the standard language: the present tense of <i>run</i> would be <i>rin</i> if the standard were tracking its historical origin, and it still is <i>rin</i> in Scots. Mencken reports several more such preterite-like participles in non-standard use in the 1920s: I have beat, I have knew, I have laid (reclined), I have rang, I have shook, I have showed, I have span, I have sprang, I have took, I have throve, I have wore, I have wrang, I have wrote. Many of these came with participle-like predicates as well: I beat, I beaten, I have beat.

Since the strong verbs no longer follow any but analogical patterns, it is not surprising that they get mixed up in the dialects or even in the standard language: the present tense of run would be rin if the standard were tracking its historical origin, and it still is rin in Scots.

]]> By: annie morgan http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/omit-auxiliary-help-verb-english/#comment-287040 annie morgan Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:49:59 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=26430#comment-287040 That one gave me the horrors! It also reminded me of an accusatory/defensive conversation between two under-ten-year-olds in a Toronto settlement house overheard by my mother back in the 1930's. "You done it" "I didn't done it" "You did done it. I seed you done it". Your article has left my grammatical sensibilites frazzled for the entire day. Hugely entertaining, and will be chortled over again before nightfall. That one gave me the horrors! It also reminded me of an accusatory/defensive conversation between two under-ten-year-olds in a Toronto settlement house overheard by my mother back in the 1930′s.
“You done it”
“I didn’t done it”
“You did done it. I seed you done it”.
Your article has left my grammatical sensibilites frazzled for the entire day. Hugely entertaining, and will be chortled over again before nightfall.

]]>