[barmar]

semeai, on 2012-September-10, 11:16, said:

I'd guess that language evolution has been slower this past century, due to radio and TV broadcasts.

WTF, OMG!

[semeai]

barmar, on 2012-September-10, 11:20, said:

WTF, OMG!

Maybe this was more true prior to the 1990's or so.

[dwar0123]

semeai, on 2012-September-10, 11:16, said:

I'd guess that language evolution has been slower this past century, due to radio and TV broadcasts.

I disagree, how often is a new idiom put into a show and then spreads like wildfire. I would actually argue that it has accelerated language evolution. While the broadcasts are themselves a permanent record, the speed and mass consumption that a single source can achieve can truly warp language far faster then ever before.

[semeai]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-10, 11:25, said:

I disagree, how often is a new idiom put into a show and then spreads like wildfire. I would actually argue that it has accelerated language evolution. While the broadcasts are themselves a permanent record, the speed and mass consumption that a single source can achieve can truly warp language far faster then ever before.

Perhaps as far as vocabulary goes. It seems like it would standardize and preserve grammar though. I understand that some of these idioms mess with grammar, but I'd still guess the net effect would end up on the "preserve" side.

[barmar]

Modern technology has probably resulted in increased change in vocabulary -- every new invention needs a name, and think of all the neologisms and portmanteaus that have come out of Internet technologies (the word "webinar" is the one I find grating).

But they probably haven't done too much to grammar. You'd think that global communication would have homogenized language, but maybe it's too soon. Or maybe it's hard for me to tell -- the US has been primarily an exporter of entertainment media, so it's more likely that other countries would be picking up our style than the other way around. But from what I've heard, this mostly happens in vocabulary ("le weekend"), not grammar. I think this is because children learn grammar very early in life, before they're exposed to much global media. There's probably a similar explanation for why regional accents are so persistent, even though most of the people we see on TV and movies do not share those accents (unless you're from New York or California).

[kenberg]

I think accents have softened some. In the 1960s, when the Interstates were only patially constructed, I drove from Minnesota to Texas, partly through eastern Oklahoma. I pulled into a gas station, the attendant came out (yes, many years back) and it was touch and go. The car was by the puif I wanted less than a fill.mp so it was clear that I wanted gas but how much? He just kept pumpig, figuring I would somehow indicate if I wanted less than a fill. Any give and take through conversation was out of the question.

I understand that this is, or at least once was, the case in England. People from one area simply cannot understand people from another area.

Not entirely on topic, but this discussion of grammar and class brought to mind the haunting opening of Springsteen's Nebraska.

I saw her standing, on her front lawn
Just twirling her baton
Me and her went for a ride sir
and ten innocent people died.

The "me and her" and the twirling baton together paint a vivid picture.

[phil_20686]

kenberg, on 2012-September-10, 18:31, said:

The "me and her" and the twirling baton together paint a vivid picture.

I suppose the inference that she `possesses'/objectifies the protagonist is lost to modern authors, who imagine this is the same as "her and I". This is why poor grammar makes me sad

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2012-September-07, 09:57, said:

I think most people however are attempting to rewrite their sentences so that that form of the possessive isn't used, avoiding the "which is right - they all look ugly" problem).

You might find it interesting to get a copy of "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod". The book is written from a German perspective but the same is true for all of the Germanic family of languages.

barmar, on 2012-September-10, 10:01, said:

Probably the most interesting thing about the direction of language evolution is that it implies that when humans first created language, they gave it an enormous number of rules. Why did the early humans feel the need for all those cases, genders, etc.?

The idea that simpler sounding language is better is common in English speaking countries. Of course one sometimes has to use quite complicated constructions to make it sound so simple - that is all part of the art of writing. However, living in Germany for a while has shown me that this idea is not universal. Here simple language is not particularly appreciated, at least not in the circles I have met. Simple language is instead a mark that you are less educated. The rules of the language are effectively a form of social signposting. It may be that in early human settlements, where social markers were perhaps less well developed than they are now, language played an important role in the social elite showing and maintaining that position. Or perhaps the early scholars just were not clever enough to work out that a less structured syntax would work out in all cases. Who cares? SOme people will always feel superior because they know the rule better; same with bridge really - "What, you did not know that 4NT in this situation is obviously 4 diamonds and 6 clubs? Newb!"

Finally, I wanted to address the "If I would have" point. It is true that this is technically wrong in the current rules of English. What is less known is that there was a time when this was the correct form. It is not impossible that this might change again in the future if enough people decide that they prefer the sound of it. A further issue is that some authorities think that there is a functional difference between "If I had" and "If I would have", namely that the latter implies willingness. They argue from this that both should be acceptable.

Personally, I think that as long as everything is understood it is ok, even those things that grate on me somewhat (very unique, dropped ly on adverbs, etc). If I could speak German half as well as someone speaking English with all of these errors I would be very happy!

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-12, 09:22, said:

The idea that simpler sounding language is better is common in English speaking countries. Of course one sometimes has to use quite complicated constructions to make it sound so simple - that is all part of the art of writing. However, living in Germany for a while has shown me that this idea is not universal. Here simple language is not particularly appreciated, at least not in the circles I have met. Simple language is instead a mark that you are less educated. The rules of the language are effectively a form of social signposting. It may be that in early human settlements, where social markers were perhaps less well developed than they are now, language played an important role in the social elite showing and maintaining that position. Or perhaps the early scholars just were not clever enough to work out that a less structured syntax would work out in all cases. Who cares? SOme people will always feel superior because they know the rule better; same with bridge really - "What, you did not know that 4NT in this situation is obviously 4 diamonds and 6 clubs? Newb!"

I wasn't arguing that simpler is better, just expressing my surprise that they devised such complexity so early.

Almost everything that humans have created started simple and increased in complexity over time. Early bows and arrows were very crude, but over time we improved on them. Early languages, with all their cases and declensions, seem like the linguistic equivalent of the compound bow, which no Neanderthal-era human could ever have created.

There is a difference in language, though. When you use simpler language, it requires more effort to understand. Anything that is not said explicitly must be inferred. The speaker and listener have to have shared understandings of the world, the speaker has to know which things are safe to leave out because of this, and the listener must fill in these blanks. So while the language seems simpler, the process of using it is actually more complex. Redundancy reduces errors. And if you know anything about computer programming, you can see this demonstrated in the lack of flexibility in most programming languages -- it's hard for us to program computers to understand language in the way we use it routinely ourselves (some languages developed in the last couple of decades seem more flexible than older languages, but it's just that the designer added more explicit cases that they recognize -- they don't try to figure out what you mean when a novel construct is encountered).

[kenberg]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-12, 07:49, said:

I suppose the inference that she `possesses'/objectifies the protagonist is lost to modern authors, who imagine this is the same as "her and I". This is why poor grammar makes me sad

I usually understand you, even if I disagree. In this case I have no idea at all what you are saying. Am I the "modern author" you are referring to? Or Springsteen? And he has, or I have, missed or lost what inference? I had not thought the lines the least bit complicated and I see them as describing the setting with a power and brevity that is seldom matched.

[phil_20686]

kenberg, on 2012-September-12, 10:29, said:

I usually understand you, even if I disagree. In this case I have no idea at all what you are saying. Am I the "modern author" you are referring to? Or Springsteen? And he has, or I have, missed or lost what inference? I had not thought the lines the least bit complicated and I see them as describing the setting with a power and brevity that is seldom matched.

It is meant to say readers. Malapropism, sorry.

But yes, the use of "her and me", is supposed (I think) to carry the inference that she was the boss of their liaison, as opposed to using "her and I" which would suggest that they were partners, since "her and me" carries the inference that I am her possession, since its the possessive case.

[barmar]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-12, 15:41, said:

But yes, the use of "her and me", is supposed (I think) to carry the inference that she was the boss of their liaison, as opposed to using "her and I" which would suggest that they were partners, since "her and me" carries the inference that I am her possession, since its the possessive case.

Isn't the possessive case in both "her and me" and "her and I"? How does the choice of first person pronoun suggest a different relationship with her?

[phil_20686]

barmar, on 2012-September-12, 19:42, said:

Isn't the possessive case in both "her and me" and "her and I"? How does the choice of first person pronoun suggest a different relationship with her?

Ok, so the way I see, it the sentence is grammatically incorrect, as as it should be either "She and I" or "we" went for a ride, since they are the subject of the verb. Me and her are the object forms, and should be the object of the verb.

SO firstly, if you choose to use "she and I" rather than we, that normally indicates that either (1) you made the decision separately, it just happened to be the same, e.g. "She and I went looking for treasure" implies that they had no knowledge of the other persons decision. (2) There is an implication of dissent, or of a division or responsibility. e.g. "My squad and I advanced", since the officer is responsible, and the squad is obliged to follow orders, this is better usage than "we".

So obviously, "her and me" is incorrect grammatically. "her and I" is one of those wrong things that has passed into usage with a specific meaning. "Her and I went for a ride" is synonymous with"I took her for a ride"*, i.e. it is the "I" who is driving, and she who is the passenger, and hence only one of us is the subject of the verb. (* in the non-sexual meaning of this sentence)

In this case, because of the repetition of of her, I parsed this as "She and me" with the her used instead of she only because of the use of her throughout. In which case it follows that she was the subject, and I was the passenger. I have always assumed that this is how most people would parse this song. I think that the "vivid image" that ken was referring to was the emotive implication of an infatuation, which follows logically if you parse it as "she and me".

Perhaps I think too much about this stuff Just seemed the obvious way to interpret it.

[barmar]

Expecting proper grammar from poetry or music lyrics is a bit much. Whenever I think about the preposition rule, I think of the Billy Joel song "Just the Way You Are". Can you image:

I just want someone
to whom I can talk;
I love you just the way you are.

?

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2012-September-13, 15:18, said:

Expecting proper grammar from poetry or music lyrics is a bit much. Whenever I think about the preposition rule, I think of the Billy Joel song "Just the Way You Are". Can you image:

I just want someone
to whom I can talk;
I love you just the way you are.

?

[kenberg]

Oops, a double post. OK, I will say a bit more.

My point about the Nebraska lyrics was that it was a deliberate use of bad grammar to set the stage, and I thought this was extremely successful.

The song is intended to be from the viewpoint of the killer. The actual person, Charles Starkweather, was a high school dropout who could not much hold a job. "Me and her went for a ride sir" is probably about how he would put it. I am not all that much of a Springsteen fan, but I regard Nebraska as truly exceptional.

[BunnyGo]

Thought that this was relevant.

http://xkcd.com/1108/

[dwar0123]

BunnyGo, on 2012-September-13, 23:47, said:

Thought that this was relevant.

http://xkcd.com/1108/

Rather timely, that is today's new one, all of 47 minutes old when you linked it.

[barmar]

I just logged in so I could post the same link.

That xkcd guy is brilliant.

[phil_20686]

barmar, on 2012-September-13, 15:18, said:

Expecting proper grammar from poetry or music lyrics is a bit much.

Its not so much "expecting" as interpreting. Grammar creates richer shades of meaning, to the extent that it can change the way one interprets entire phrases. When you say, as ken did, "it paints a vivid picture", that is because some subtle interplay of the diction, grammar, and personal experiences lead to a confluence of (sometimes conflicting) meanings and pictures in your mind. But there is still a "why". In a way, in poetry, its not so important what they intended it to mean.(And that is the most post structuralist thought you will ever get from me ).

After a little thought I laid out why those words painted a vivid picture, rather than alternatives, and of course, it seems cumbersome when you lay it out. I am sure many men have experienced an infatuation with a wholly unsuitable girl who led you into doing things you should not have. To me the expression "she and me" expresses the idea/connotation, that I was not wholly in control.

Perhaps coupled with the fact that my youngest nephew uses the construction "X and I" when he is trying ot convince you that it wasn't his idea while his older brother only ever uses "we". But I am wise to his games