Which is correct: Speak well or talk good?
Or is it the reverse: Talk well or speak good?
Someone can be a good speaker or a good talker. Or someone can be well spoken. Why not the reverse of all of the above?
Many folks will say it's not logical. And they would be right, because language is not logical. It is what it is.
Many Americans are told to never split an infinitive, and to never use no double negatives.
(There, I just did both. Sue me.)
But in French, double negatives are required, as in "ne ... pas." Or in Spanish: "No tengo nada," which translates to "I ain't got nothin.'"
As for the term "ain't," teachers insist that isn't good English. But we can shorten "is not" to "isn't" and we can reduce "are not" to "aren't" and some folks shorten "am not" to "amn't."
So it's only a short linguistic step from "amn't" to "ain't."
All those examples delete the vowel from the word "not" and combine it with the relevant form of the verb "to be."
Here they are again: "Is not" becomes "isn't" and "are not" becomes "aren't."
Also, "were not" becomes "weren't" and "would not" becomes "wouldn't" or even "won't." Or maybe it should be "will not" becomes "won't." Maybe "willn't" would be a better alternative. Perhaps the earlier form was "woll," which became "will."
I hear you insisting that statement isn't logical. And you're right, because language isn't logical.
(There, I just used an apostrophe to substitute for a vowel that was abandoned.)
Also, there are people who say "amn't" rather than "am not." Is that poor grammar? Try telling that to the Irish who use that term that it's not good English and it shows that the user doesn't talk good. See how far you get insisting that the Irish are not good with language.
Conclusion: All dialects are equal. They all enable their users to communicate with others. To say that some dialects are superior to others is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Or is it the reverse: Talk well or speak good?
Someone can be a good speaker or a good talker. Or someone can be well spoken. Why not the reverse of all of the above?
Many folks will say it's not logical. And they would be right, because language is not logical. It is what it is.
Many Americans are told to never split an infinitive, and to never use no double negatives.
(There, I just did both. Sue me.)
But in French, double negatives are required, as in "ne ... pas." Or in Spanish: "No tengo nada," which translates to "I ain't got nothin.'"
As for the term "ain't," teachers insist that isn't good English. But we can shorten "is not" to "isn't" and we can reduce "are not" to "aren't" and some folks shorten "am not" to "amn't."
So it's only a short linguistic step from "amn't" to "ain't."
All those examples delete the vowel from the word "not" and combine it with the relevant form of the verb "to be."
Here they are again: "Is not" becomes "isn't" and "are not" becomes "aren't."
Also, "were not" becomes "weren't" and "would not" becomes "wouldn't" or even "won't." Or maybe it should be "will not" becomes "won't." Maybe "willn't" would be a better alternative. Perhaps the earlier form was "woll," which became "will."
I hear you insisting that statement isn't logical. And you're right, because language isn't logical.
(There, I just used an apostrophe to substitute for a vowel that was abandoned.)
Also, there are people who say "amn't" rather than "am not." Is that poor grammar? Try telling that to the Irish who use that term that it's not good English and it shows that the user doesn't talk good. See how far you get insisting that the Irish are not good with language.
Conclusion: All dialects are equal. They all enable their users to communicate with others. To say that some dialects are superior to others is a social judgment, not linguistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment