In article <Xcj5myPiEkHH07…@clark.net>,
Jonathan Crawford <arkt…@clark.net> wrote:
>My wife and I honeymooned in Britain. Imagine my shock and confusion
>when the female Avis agent informed me that she’d "have to take it off
>of me." Naturally, she was talking about placing a hold on the credit
>card for the car. Naturally.
"Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
violently allergic to it.
I hope you will tell me it is _not_ accepted usage in Britain. I see it
in American papers all the time, and hear it spoken even more often. In
fact, "off" seems to be no longer used by itself.
Does anyone hear the wrongness of "get off of me!" or "he jumped off of a
moving train", or am I the only one left to care?
Exasperated, Orbis.
–
ppros…@reed.edu The sun is in the heart, and I am sending
CAVEAT LECTOR light and warmth -HNIA-
In article <3vjp0p$…@remus.reed.edu> ppros…@reed.edu (PCP – Piotr C. Proszynski) writes:
>"Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
>you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
>violently allergic to it.
>Does anyone hear the wrongness of "get off of me!" or "he jumped off of a
>moving train", or am I the only one left to care?
>Exasperated, Orbis.
>–
>ppros…@reed.edu The sun is in the heart, and I am sending
> CAVEAT LECTOR light and warmth -HNIA-
Will the language police kindly take themselves off of this group, off
to alt.usage.english or whatever? This thread has nothing to do with
linguistics at all. I suppose I could invent some minor social
science devoted to the study of the variety of psychological reactions
of human subjects to normal historical change in their language, but
it still wouldn’t be linguistics, but a branch of psychology.
I and all my ancestors were speakers of English, ever since there has
been anything to call English. I am therefore an excellent informant
for English. I say, and on occasion, write "off of," depending on
social circumstances having to do with contextual requirements for
differing levels of formality. THEREFORE, "off of" is perfectly good
English. End of story, end of thread, I hope.
If you don’t like the locution, don’t use it, Piotr. The sum of a
multitude of tiny individual decisions like that over time is how language
changes. But kindly take discussions of "wrongness" elsewhere.
I add, in the hopes that it will ruin your day, that I am a writing
and rhetoric teacher at a branch of the University of California.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
In article <3vjp0p$…@remus.reed.edu>, ppros…@reed.edu (PCP – Piotr C. Proszynski) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In article <Xcj5myPiEkHH07…@clark.net>,
>Jonathan Crawford <arkt…@clark.net> wrote:
>>My wife and I honeymooned in Britain. Imagine my shock and confusion
>>when the female Avis agent informed me that she’d "have to take it off
>>of me." Naturally, she was talking about placing a hold on the credit
>>card for the car. Naturally.
>"Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
>you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
>violently allergic to it.
>I hope you will tell me it is _not_ accepted usage in Britain. I see it
>in American papers all the time, and hear it spoken even more often. In
>fact, "off" seems to be no longer used by itself.
>Does anyone hear the wrongness of "get off of me!" or "he jumped off of a
>moving train", or am I the only one left to care?
This isn’t new, I remember the lower orders saying that sort of thing
back in the ’50s. I blame the Americans, of course.
walter
——
PCP – Piotr C. Proszynski (ppros…@reed.edu) wrote:
: In article <Xcj5myPiEkHH07…@clark.net>,
: Jonathan Crawford <arkt…@clark.net> wrote:
: >My wife and I honeymooned in Britain. Imagine my shock and confusion
: >when the female Avis agent informed me that she’d "have to take it off
: >of me." Naturally, she was talking about placing a hold on the credit
: >card for the car. Naturally.
: "Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
: you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
: violently allergic to it.
Well you’d better get used to it, because it is, like sex, here to stay.
: I hope you will tell me it is _not_ accepted usage in Britain. I see it
: in American papers all the time, and hear it spoken even more often. In
: fact, "off" seems to be no longer used by itself.
It’s accepted usage in Britain.
: Does anyone hear the wrongness of "get off of me!" or "he jumped off of a
: moving train", or am I the only one left to care?
Languages evolve. There are no fixed rules, just common usage.
: Exasperated, Orbis.
You should learn to relax. It’s really not worth getting worked up
about.
: ppros…@reed.edu The sun is in the heart, and I am sending
: CAVEAT LECTOR light and warmth -HNIA-
–
Le Hibou (mo bheachd fhe/in:my own opinion) Email: don…@info.bt.co.uk
"Well, I have an English father and a Scottish mother. Which means
I’m both stuck-up *and* mean." — Angus Deayton
In article <3vjp0p$…@remus.reed.edu>, ppros…@reed.edu (PCP – Piotr C. Proszynski) writes:
> In article <Xcj5myPiEkHH07…@clark.net>,
> Jonathan Crawford <arkt…@clark.net> wrote:
> >My wife and I honeymooned in Britain. Imagine my shock and confusion
> >when the female Avis agent informed me that she’d "have to take it off
> >of me." Naturally, she was talking about placing a hold on the credit
> >card for the car. Naturally.
> "Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
> you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
> violently allergic to it.
That’s PCP for you.
- billf
ppros…@reed.edu (PCP – Piotr C. Proszynski) writes:
>In article <Xcj5myPiEkHH07…@clark.net>,
>Jonathan Crawford <arkt…@clark.net> wrote:
>>My wife and I honeymooned in Britain. Imagine my shock and confusion
>>when the female Avis agent informed me that she’d "have to take it off
>>of me." Naturally, she was talking about placing a hold on the credit
>>card for the car. Naturally.
>"Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
>you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
>violently allergic to it.
Don’t you say both "on" and "on to"? "Off" and "off of" parallel them.
- David Librik
lib…@cs.Berkeley.edu
In article <3vk89a$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
> I and all my ancestors were speakers of English, ever since there has
> been anything to call English. I am therefore an excellent informant
> for English. I say, and on occasion, write "off of," depending on
> social circumstances having to do with contextual requirements for
> differing levels of formality. THEREFORE, "off of" is perfectly good
> English. End of story, end of thread, I hope.
Not a chance. Your misuse of the language is not corrected by having english
ancestors. Quite what branch of logic you are attempting to appeal to
in arguing this is not clear to me.
–
Peter H. M. Brooks
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <807704708…@psyche.demon.co.uk> pe…@psyche.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <3vk89a$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
> scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
>> I and all my ancestors were speakers of English, ever since there has
>> been anything to call English. I am therefore an excellent informant
>> for English. I say, and on occasion, write "off of," depending on
>> social circumstances having to do with contextual requirements for
>> differing levels of formality. THEREFORE, "off of" is perfectly good
>> English. End of story, end of thread, I hope.
>Not a chance. Your misuse of the language is not corrected by having english
>ancestors. Quite what branch of logic you are attempting to appeal to
>in arguing this is not clear to me.
>–
>Peter H. M. Brooks
Peter, for linguists, the language _is_ what native speakers speak. I am by
definition a native speaker. Sorry if reference to my ancestors was
too elliptical a way for me to make this point. "Misuse" is a complex
social and cultural construction, usually involving considerable input
from class and ethnic interests. As such, it is of interest to social
scientists, including sociolinguists. Nevertheless, "misuse" is not a
meaningful issue to linguists.
Besides having a linguistics degree, I also spend a good deal of time
teaching undergraduates to write academic English. I explain to them
that this English is the customary form of English used among
academics. It is likely to differ very greatly from their native
dialect of English. These differences do not count as "misuse,"
either in their native language, or in academic English.
As numurous posters have pointed out, in the United States,
constructions involving prepositions that seem to strike you as
"misuses" serve to make systematic and consistent semantic
distinctions. That such use would serve to confuse or irritate
other speakers or
readers in Britain serves only to indicate that dialects in the two
countries differ. This is not news. Nor is it proof of "misuse." It
is proof only of difference.
That this thread arose over use of prepositions is not accidental.
Use of prepositions in English is quite unstable, subject to considerable
variation both horizontally and vertically (that is, regionally and
within the class structure), and shows considerable change historically.
Preposition use is quite different in English in late 18th century
books, for instance. Again, this change is normal, and shows only
change, not misuse, on the part of the 18th century, or of us.
That certain social formations take it upon themselves to inforce
certain prestige dialects as "correct," and label others as "misuse," is, as
I said, of interest to social scientists who study such things. I
will forebear comment on the class structure in Britain, and the
complex variations in English that are related to it, except to say
that if you want to study language, you have to stop believing what
your English teachers and your class background taught you,
and learn to see that these things
are part of that complex phenomenon we call language,
_not_ scientific observations about it.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
In article <403g5k$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
> definition a native speaker. Sorry if reference to my ancestors was
> too elliptical a way for me to make this point. "Misuse" is a complex
> social and cultural construction, usually involving considerable input
> from class and ethnic interests. As such, it is of interest to social
> scientists, including sociolinguists. Nevertheless, "misuse" is not a
> meaningful issue to linguists.
Scriptural lecture received and understood. Of course there is a complex
social and cultural construction, that is how one knows which is wrong
and which is right. Misuse is defined by the usage of the lower orders,
plebs, proles whatever term you wish to use.
If you teach proles that their language is just as good as that of
educated people, you make them happy proles, but you don’t get them
jobs. As you are probably aware Pygmalion, though out of fashion,
is as clear a reflection of the real world as when Shaw penned it.
I can see that you clearly don’t like the real world where linguistic
ineptitude clearly marks the underclass, but whistling in the dark
will not make it go away.
–
Peter H. M. Brooks
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <DCxwqL….@festival.ed.ac.uk> elp94…@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk (David Stockley) writes:
>In article <3vk89a$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
> scri…@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) wrote:
>>I and all my ancestors were speakers of English, ever since there has
>>been anything to call English. I am therefore an excellent informant
>>for English. I say, and on occasion, write "off of," depending on
>>social circumstances having to do with contextual requirements for
>>differing levels of formality. THEREFORE, "off of" is perfectly good
>>English. End of story, end of thread, I hope.
>Please, please, please, please tell me that this paragraph is meant to
>be ironic: "excellent informant for English", "contextual
>requirements…????" What is it about Americans that causes them to
>hate the language so much? Is it the language’s name, shall we find
>some alternative that doesn’t mention a country, what about gibberish??
>Dave
> =====Faculty of Law=====
> The University of Edinburgh
Well Dave, I don’t hate the language; I hate language police. This
group is about linguistics. I explained in another post that the
sub-discipline sociolinguistics studies things like "contextual
requirements," etc. I deal with the sorry results of the language
police day in and day out in my professional life–18-year-old native
speakers of English who are afraid to use "me" after a preposition
because of shibboleths about saying things, when in grade school, like
"Me and Johnny went to the store," a perfectly normal formulation in
many dialects of English for centuries. The shibboleth extends far beyond
the original concern of the teacher (language cop), and becomes
systematic hypercorrection; I call it "me-avoidance." I have an
endless supply of such consequences.
Even more important is students who think that there is something
wrong with them because they do not arrive at university speaking and
writing academic English, because their native dialects of English
differ significantly from it. I just teach them academic English as
another dialect of English, different from, but related to, their own.
But this is difficult, because of the way the students have
internalized the ideology of "correct English," or even worse,
"standard English." There is no such thing in the U.S., and arguably
there isn’t in Britain either. Anyway, I consider this sort of linguistic
oppression a massive waste of the intellectual potential of my
students. And I have no doubt about whom to blame.
I wasn’t being ironic; I was being sarcastic, and elliptical. For
linguistics, the language _is_ was native speakers speak, and to some
degree, write.
I love English, and the eight or so other languages I have studied
over the last thirty years or so. I love the two
languages that I speak moderately well other than English. I love the two
classical languages I read with some ability. I love language, and
have devoted most of my life to studying it, and learning about it,
and teaching about it.
I love my native dialect of English too, which, as I tell my students,
they would have great difficulty understanding at first, especially if
they were listening to me and my brothers gab around a few beers.
I see nothing wrong with this; I love language in all its variety and
diversity. It is its great wealth. I encourage the same attitudes in
my students.
However, I dislike intensely ignorance on the part of those in
a position to inform themselves more fully. I especially dislike threats of
violence over things where violence has no place. You will remember
that my original post, with its sarcasm, was addressed to someone
named Piotr, who said that he would hit someone who used the locution
"off of." The post he was responding to was a story about a woman who had
used this expression. Need I say more about people like this?
By the way, the name of my country is the United States. In the
Western hemisphere, citizens of many countries call themselves
Americans, America being the name of both continents, after all.
Last, I was trying, apparently inneffectively, to make the point that
the language you grow up speaking is your own. It is your property,
in the many senses of the word property, as, it is proper to you to
speak it. I cannot misuse what is my own, not in the sense that Piotr
meant, by saying something like "off of." The most likely way one may
misuse one’s own language is by believing propaganda about it
promulgated by the ignorant.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
In article <1995Aug7.170156.29…@onionsnatcorp.ox.ac.uk> g…@natcorp.ox.ac.uk (Glynis Baguley) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In article <3vlmdt$…@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk> don…@srd.bt.co.uk (Donald Fisk) writes:
>> PCP – Piotr C. Proszynski (ppros…@reed.edu) wrote:
>> : In article <Xcj5myPiEkHH07…@clark.net>,
>> : Jonathan Crawford <arkt…@clark.net> wrote:
>> : >My wife and I honeymooned in Britain. Imagine my shock and confusion
>> : >when the female Avis agent informed me that she’d "have to take it off
>> : >of me." Naturally, she was talking about placing a hold on the credit
>> : >card for the car. Naturally.
>> : "Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
>> : you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
>> : violently allergic to it.
>> Well you’d better get used to it, because it is, like sex, here to stay.
>[...]
>I agree with those who have responded that comments like Piotr’s are out
>of place on sci.lang, but I do think it’s legitimate to question, in a
>purely descriptive spirit, whether `off of’ is accepted usage in
>Britain. I say it may occur in some dialects, but is far from common,
>and does not occur in the standard dialect. I suspect that Jonathan’s
>shock was so great that he translated `off’ into `off of’ because that
>is his usage, not the British Avis agent’s.
>–
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>{ Glynis.Bagu…@oucs.ox.ac.uk }
>{ Oxford University Computing Services }
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glynis, I agree that questions in a descriptive spirit are perfectly
in order. But do note that what is at issue in Piotr’s post is something
like a threat of violence, apparantly against a woman, in the name of
enforcing linguistic conformity to some unknown standard, other than
his own. I see no descriptive spirit, but the spirit of fascism.
His comment is quite reminiscent of Goebbels, I think it was, saying
"When I hear the word culture, I reach for my pistol."
I realize that Piotr was probably just finding a way to
express the depths of his detestation, but I don’t see why I, or anyone
else, should be exposed to it.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
In article <3vk89a$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
scri…@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) wrote:
>I and all my ancestors were speakers of English, ever since there has
>been anything to call English. I am therefore an excellent informant
>for English. I say, and on occasion, write "off of," depending on
>social circumstances having to do with contextual requirements for
>differing levels of formality. THEREFORE, "off of" is perfectly good
>English. End of story, end of thread, I hope.
Please, please, please, please tell me that this paragraph is meant to
be ironic: "excellent informant for English", "contextual
requirements…????" What is it about Americans that causes them to
hate the language so much? Is it the language’s name, shall we find
some alternative that doesn’t mention a country, what about gibberish??
Dave
=====Faculty of Law=====
The University of Edinburgh
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <3vlmdt$…@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk> don…@srd.bt.co.uk (Donald Fisk) writes:
> PCP – Piotr C. Proszynski (ppros…@reed.edu) wrote:
> : In article <Xcj5myPiEkHH07…@clark.net>,
> : Jonathan Crawford <arkt…@clark.net> wrote:
> : >My wife and I honeymooned in Britain. Imagine my shock and confusion
> : >when the female Avis agent informed me that she’d "have to take it off
> : >of me." Naturally, she was talking about placing a hold on the credit
> : >card for the car. Naturally.
> : "Off of"? "OFF OF"?! There is no other idiom I detest as much as this. If
> : you were talking to me I might even punch you. I’m not sure why, but I’m
> : violently allergic to it.
> Well you’d better get used to it, because it is, like sex, here to stay.
[...]
I agree with those who have responded that comments like Piotr’s are out
of place on sci.lang, but I do think it’s legitimate to question, in a
purely descriptive spirit, whether `off of’ is accepted usage in
Britain. I say it may occur in some dialects, but is far from common,
and does not occur in the standard dialect. I suspect that Jonathan’s
shock was so great that he translated `off’ into `off of’ because that
is his usage, not the British Avis agent’s.
–
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{ Glynis.Bagu…@oucs.ox.ac.uk }
{ Oxford University Computing Services }
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pe…@psyche.demon.co.uk, thus:
> …
>I can see that you clearly don’t like the real world where linguistic
>ineptitude clearly marks the underclass, but whistling in the dark
>will not make it go away.
This misses the point. You could teach them that their speech is non-,
rather than sub-, standard but that the local high-prestige patois is
a game they would do well to play (like these expensive, useless pieces
of cloth we all have to tie around our necks). But in the _real_ world,
someone has to do the nasty jobs that we don’t want to do. The "lower
classes" will be less docile if they start thinking of themselves as the
_other_ classes. Your cynicism seems half-hearted – I’m not sure you’re
really a cynic at all.
—
Dave "I’ll punch, er, reprove anyone who tells me I should have
put a smiley on that" Lewis
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <807821921…@psyche.demon.co.uk> pe…@psyche.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <403g5k$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
> scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
>> definition a native speaker. Sorry if reference to my ancestors was
>> too elliptical a way for me to make this point. "Misuse" is a complex
>> social and cultural construction, usually involving considerable input
>> from class and ethnic interests. As such, it is of interest to social
>> scientists, including sociolinguists. Nevertheless, "misuse" is not a
>> meaningful issue to linguists.
>Scriptural lecture received and understood. Of course there is a complex
>social and cultural construction, that is how one knows which is wrong
>and which is right. Misuse is defined by the usage of the lower orders,
>plebs, proles whatever term you wish to use.
Yes, various social classes use different versions of the language.
There is some reason, other than the social and political power of the
upper middle class, why these differences constitute misuse?
Incidently, for those not in the know, neither the British nor the
American upper class cares one whit about "misuse." They speak
exactly as they please. "Misuse" is a prememinently bourgious
concern.
>If you teach proles that their language is just as good as that of
>educated people, you make them happy proles, but you don’t get them
>jobs. As you are probably aware Pygmalion, though out of fashion,
>is as clear a reflection of the real world as when Shaw penned it.
>I can see that you clearly don’t like the real world where linguistic
>ineptitude clearly marks the underclass, but whistling in the dark
>will not make it go away.
Ineptitude means you have trouble understanding them? Or that they are
different and therefore wrong? Or that the standards for getting a
job reflect the habits and values of your class and not theirs, and
therefore THEY are wrong? My, my. I really wasn’t aware that there
was anyone with enough education to use the net would be quite so
straightforward these days. Learn something everyday, don’t we?
>–
>Peter H. M. Brooks
I don’t teach proles. I teach students. I teach them about the
attitudes of people like you, too, toward their native dialects. I
teach them how to write the language I am now writing. I even teach
them not to misuse commas in the way you did in your second sentence
above. In the U.S. this is called a comma splice. What do you call
it? But most of all, I teach them to value all the variations of
their often several languages, and teach them to be conscious of the
context in which they are using them, in order to communicate
effectively.
I am well aware of the nature of the real world. It informs my
teaching at every step. I assure you, students who graduate from the
University of California get jobs, if anyone gets a job, although I do
not consider "getting a job" to be the main purpose of a university
education.
I wish to add that it has never been clearer to me why my prole ancestors
took such pleasure in shooting at your ancestors. Glad we won; glad
you lost. It is not hard to see why you did. Go back to to
soc.culture.british, where, I gather, class snobbery is encouraged, judging
from the lack of posts from there taking you up on your class values.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
Sorry if I intrude…
scri…@cats.ucsc.edu, thus:
>I wish to add that it has never been clearer to me why my prole ancestors
>took such pleasure in shooting at your ancestors. Glad we won; glad
Who’s reaching for the gun now, Dan? Besides, I thought his ancestors
were petit bourgeouisie (not sure I got it right either), not aristocracy.
And "correct" comma usage? I think you owe us an "oops" for that (wry
grin optional). Don’t get me wrong – I’m basically in your camp. But I’m
not sure that _you_ are entirely in your camp. Looked to me like there
was more than salt in your fowling piece back there.
What intrigues me more than prepositions is this puritanism that rolls
like a boulder down through the centuries in my country, by sheer inertia.
Liberal or conservative, it’s always a crusade, the enemy is always
Satan (or a certain German political figure whose name will remain
uninvoked by me), and poor old God always ends up getting dragged into
it. I have an idea (probably wrong) that the Tories at least have the
decency to say "I want it because I want it, that’s all."
And why does it so often end up as an unrestrained attack on the enemies
of … egalitarianism? Never mind "doth protest too much" – it starts
to look like outright ambivalence after a while.
>Dan Scripture
I keep contemplating this with something akin to awe.
—
Dave Lewis, ma…@panix.com, NYC
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <406kjl$…@panix2.panix.com> ma…@panix.com (Dave Lewis) writes:
>Sorry if I intrude…
>scri…@cats.ucsc.edu, thus:
>>I wish to add that it has never been clearer to me why my prole ancestors
>>took such pleasure in shooting at your ancestors. Glad we won; glad
>Who’s reaching for the gun now, Dan? Besides, I thought his ancestors
>were petit bourgeouisie (not sure I got it right either), not aristocracy.
>And "correct" comma usage? I think you owe us an "oops" for that (wry
>grin optional). Don’t get me wrong – I’m basically in your camp. But I’m
>not sure that _you_ are entirely in your camp. Looked to me like there
>was more than salt in your fowling piece back there.
>What intrigues me more than prepositions is this puritanism that rolls
>like a boulder down through the centuries in my country, by sheer inertia.
>Liberal or conservative, it’s always a crusade, the enemy is always
>Satan (or a certain German political figure whose name will remain
>uninvoked by me), and poor old God always ends up getting dragged into
>it. I have an idea (probably wrong) that the Tories at least have the
>decency to say "I want it because I want it, that’s all."
>And why does it so often end up as an unrestrained attack on the enemies
>of … egalitarianism? Never mind "doth protest too much" – it starts
>to look like outright ambivalence after a while.
>>Dan Scripture
>I keep contemplating this with something akin to awe.
>–
>Dave Lewis, ma…@panix.com, NYC
Dave, I don’t recall invoking God. The comma business I regret, since
once you’re down to spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc., the thread
is truly dead. However, in lame defense, I do note that I said that
in discussion of _writing_ English. There are no standards for
writing non-standard English, other than the technical ones linguists
use for transcribing any language, and they do not concern themselves
with commas, believe me.
The guy was getting on my nerves. I have no problem with war or
revolution. I was once a soldier. But there is a difference between
belting someone over a point of dialect variation (Piotr)
and shooting someone in class
warfare (me).
This is probably the place to say that I have maligned
soc.culture.british. I spent part of the afternoon perusing this
group, and find that my correspondent is the only one in the business
of defending the British class system. That’s after perusing about
600 postings, a week’s worth, more or less.
As to my correspondent’s class origins, much less his ancestors’,
I simply do not know. Because of the
rather bitter tone in some of what he says, and the very peculiar
reading of _Pygmalion_, I have begun to suspect that he may be someone
who has successfully escaped an oppressed position in the British
class system. I can understand his bitterness.
_Pygmalion_, so far as I know, although I do not teach it, not being a
literature teacher, is an attack on British class attitudes. Shaw,
after all, was a Fabian socialist. The play is in no way an affirmation of
the attitudes my correspondent represented. But it certainly does
address the misery that British class attitudes generate.
I may have misunderstood my correspondant, though, as I pointed out
above.
It is quite true, that both in Britain and the U.S., you will be
forever dirt unless you can control the academic standard version of
English. That is _precisely_ what I teach my students. In
California, this is an issue that matters, and has to be handled
carefully. About half of my students are not native speakers of
English. The rest are native speakers of various dialects that have
only a family resemblence to academic English. There is no official
language in the U.S. And at a university, of course, many languages
are used, depending on context and purpose. However, my corespondent
seems to
have gotten me confused with some feel-good PC type, which I am not.
I have a much darker view of the world than that. The biggest
difference between Britain and the U.S. about English is that by and
large, the focus in the U.S. is on the ability to write acceptable English.
"Acceptable" is defined by class practice, that of the white upper
middle class, who still fill the majority of the upper reaches of
academia, and for that matter, business positions. Anyway,
up to a point, a great deal of latitude is allowed for
regional and class differences in speech in the U.S.
The whole issue here is sort of like Latin in the Middle
Ages, if you take my point.
It may be that my correspondent and I are actually disagreeing over
method: the best way I know to get people without it to acquire
_written_ academic English is to tell them that it is just another
version of English. My correspondent, drawing on what experience I do
not know, may be suggesting that things are much worse than that, that
one most completely disown one’s "prole" background, and take on the
values of the middle class. From what I know of Thatcherite Britain,
this may very well be true. It’s not quite that bad here yet, although it
is getting that way fast.
There is an ethical issue here, one that you picked up on, Dave, and one I
do not wish to avoid. I tell my students that the university will
change them. It is not a supermarket where they can walk in and buy a
career. Unless they have middle or upper middle class backgrounds,
their education is likely to change everything about them: how they
talk, how they walk, what they wear, what they eat, what they read,
what they watch in the theater and on the tube. Their education may
alianate them from their family, their former friends, and their
former neighborhood. I suggest that they be as conscious as they can
of these changes, and remember to value their families, their friends,
and their communities. In short, I suggest that they become
bicultural, consciously, rather than disown their former selves, in
order to get an education.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
In article <405sa9$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
> His comment is quite reminiscent of Goebbels, I think it was, saying
> "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my pistol."
Don’t you mean Goering?
–
<<*** Phil Hunt *** phi…@storcomp.demon.co.uk ***>>
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <807704708…@psyche.demon.co.uk>, pe…@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <3vk89a$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
> scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
> > I and all my ancestors were speakers of English, ever since there has
> > been anything to call English. I am therefore an excellent informant
> > for English. I say, and on occasion, write "off of," depending on
> > social circumstances having to do with contextual requirements for
> > differing levels of formality. THEREFORE, "off of" is perfectly good
> > English. End of story, end of thread, I hope.
> Not a chance. Your misuse of the language is not corrected by having english
> ancestors. Quite what branch of logic you are attempting to appeal to
> in arguing this is not clear to me.
> —
> Peter H. M. Brooks
Misuse is not an appropriate subject for sci.lang, which is clearly spelled
out in the FAQ, we invite you to read it.
The point of noting his ancestors is to inform the
denizens of soc.culture.british that the fact that American usage or spelling
is different from British usage does not make it by definition wrong. It’s
just different. Some folks in that group seem a bit weak on that point.
Some of the differences result from drift on this side of the Atlantic,
some from
drift on your side. Defining your drift as "correct" is not science, it’s
politics. We did not learn your language imperfectly, we inherited it from
our ancestors, of whom we are proud, as we expect you should be of yours.
From time to time some British person launches a broadside against American
English, such as the recent beauty from David Stanley, I quote below.
>Please, please, please, please tell me that this paragraph is meant to
>be ironic: "excellent informant for English", "contextual
>requirements…????" What is it about Americans that causes them to
>hate the language so much? Is it the language’s name, shall we find
>some alternative that doesn’t mention a country, what about gibberish??
>Dave
Frankly, I can’t imagine what motivates a person to post such …stuff.
I wonder, was some female relative raped by an American soldier on leave?
In any case such seething hatred seems out of place in sci.lang, or anywhere
else, for that matter. Perhaps Mr. Stanley was referring to the academic
vocabulary in the above passage. If so, he did not make himself clear.
He then should be assured that not all Americans use academic language.
If I misunderstood Mr. Scripture’s intent in referring to our ancestors,
I apologize. It’s what I would have meant. Also I found Mr. Scripture’s
postings very entertaining. I found his anger quite understandable in the
context of Mr. Brooks reference to _proles_, a word that implies to me,
as it did to Mr. Scripture, an unquestioning acceptance of the English class
system. The class system is the close relative and the direct cause of racism
in America.
–
R.T.Edwards r…@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
In article <40656o$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
A delightfully muddled bit of emotional nonsense. If you can’t avoid
getting cross with people who express non-pc points, maybe you
ought to take up stamp collecting or train spotting.
> upper middle class, why these differences constitute misuse?
> Incidently, for those not in the know, neither the British nor the
> American upper class cares one whit about "misuse." They speak
> exactly as they please. "Misuse" is a prememinently bourgious
> concern.
So, why do you find it necessary to make this non linguistic point? Well,
clearly in an attempt to put me down my suggesting that I am bourgious.
Not very scientific, old chap.
> Ineptitude means you have trouble understanding them? Or that they are
> different and therefore wrong? Or that the standards for getting a
> job reflect the habits and values of your class and not theirs, and
> therefore THEY are wrong? My, my. I really wasn’t aware that there
> was anyone with enough education to use the net would be quite so
> straightforward these days. Learn something everyday, don’t we?
The possibility you have not considered is that they are inept at expressing
the ideas they try to express. I do hope that you do learn new things
every day.
> I don’t teach proles. I teach students. I teach them about the
So, you are an elitist. You judge your students (yanks to a man, one
imagines) and find that they are not proles. Remarkable.
> teach them how to write the language I am now writing. I even teach
> them not to misuse commas in the way you did in your second sentence
> above. In the U.S. this is called a comma splice. What do you call
> it? But most of all, I teach them to value all the variations of
Get a grip on your argument. Is it liberty hall, where any usage is
just fine or have you got a thing about commas? Or maybe you feel that
it is both find to use language just as you wish, and also fine to
criticise usage when it suits you. A most interesting view of the
‘scientific’ approach to linguistics.
> I am well aware of the nature of the real world. It informs my
> teaching at every step. I assure you, students who graduate from the
> University of California get jobs, if anyone gets a job, although I do
> not consider "getting a job" to be the main purpose of a university
> education.
You appear confused about the purpose of education. If it is not to
distinguish right from wrong what is its value?
> I wish to add that it has never been clearer to me why my prole ancestors
> took such pleasure in shooting at your ancestors. Glad we won; glad
> you lost. It is not hard to see why you did. Go back to to
> soc.culture.british, where, I gather, class snobbery is encouraged, judging
> from the lack of posts from there taking you up on your class values.
Marvelous ad hominem. You must be quite the wit in the tearoom.
You do appear to have a wee chip on you shoulder regarding those prole
ancestors, though. I wonder why ‘class snobbery’ as you term it is
so upsetting to you – particularly when, earlier on, you pointed
out that you don’t teach any proles.
I am impressed by your grown up attitude to winning and losing, though.
Particularly the winning of events before you were even born.
Which ‘university’ was it that you said you represented?
–
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <807884460…@storcomp.demon.co.uk> phi…@storcomp.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <405sa9$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
> scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
>> His comment is quite reminiscent of Goebbels, I think it was, saying
>> "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my pistol."
>Don’t you mean Goering?
>–
><<*** Phil Hunt *** phi…@storcomp.demon.co.uk ***>>
Yup. Sure did. Thanks, Phil.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
In article <406r0p$…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
scri…@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
> The guy was getting on my nerves. I have no problem with war or
> revolution. I was once a soldier. But there is a difference between
> belting someone over a point of dialect variation (Piotr)
> and shooting someone in class
> warfare (me).
You shot me? In class warfare? Good Lord, you have a strange view of
shooting for an ex-soldier. Why not think about why I got on your
nerves and consider, for the sake of your nerves, that you could
be wrong.
> This is probably the place to say that I have maligned
> soc.culture.british. I spent part of the afternoon perusing this
> group, and find that my correspondent is the only one in the business
> of defending the British class system. That’s after perusing about
> 600 postings, a week’s worth, more or less.
Overtly defending, there is the rub. I am glad that you admit to having
maligned the group, though, I am glad that you have it in you to admit
to error.
> As to my correspondent’s class origins, much less his ancestors’,
> I simply do not know. Because of the
> rather bitter tone in some of what he says, and the very peculiar
> reading of _Pygmalion_, I have begun to suspect that he may be someone
> who has successfully escaped an oppressed position in the British
> class system. I can understand his bitterness.
How do you read Pygmalion? You will not that Shaw provides an ample
preface to help you understand the play.
> _Pygmalion_, so far as I know, although I do not teach it, not being a
> literature teacher, is an attack on British class attitudes. Shaw,
> after all, was a Fabian socialist. The play is in no way an affirmation of
> the attitudes my correspondent represented. But it certainly does
> address the misery that British class attitudes generate.
> I may have misunderstood my correspondant, though, as I pointed out
> above.
You may well have misunderstood – many people. What is this misery?
Surely it is obvious that far more misery has emerged from people not
understanding their place?
> regional and class differences in speech in the U.S.
> The whole issue here is sort of like Latin in the Middle
> Ages, if you take my point.
‘Sort of like’, from a linguist?
> It may be that my correspondent and I are actually disagreeing over
> method: the best way I know to get people without it to acquire
> _written_ academic English is to tell them that it is just another
> version of English. My correspondent, drawing on what experience I do
> not know, may be suggesting that things are much worse than that, that
> one most completely disown one’s "prole" background, and take on the
> values of the middle class. From what I know of Thatcherite Britain,
> this may very well be true. It’s not quite that bad here yet, although it
> is getting that way fast.
I am not suggesting any such thing.
> There is an ethical issue here, one that you picked up on, Dave, and one I
> do not wish to avoid. I tell my students that the university will
> change them. It is not a supermarket where they can walk in and buy a
> career. Unless they have middle or upper middle class backgrounds,
> their education is likely to change everything about them: how they
> talk, how they walk, what they wear, what they eat, what they read,
> what they watch in the theater and on the tube. Their education may
> alianate them from their family, their former friends, and their
> former neighborhood. I suggest that they be as conscious as they can
How does this sit with your suggestion that linguistics is not
connected with class?
–
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <rte-0808951340050…@mac-118.lz.att.com> r…@elmo.lz.att.com (Ralph T. Edwards) writes:
>[deletions]
>The point of noting his ancestors is to inform the
>denizens of soc.culture.british that the fact that American usage or spelling
>is different from British usage does not make it by definition wrong. It’s
>just different. Some folks in that group seem a bit weak on that point.
>Some of the differences result from drift on this side of the Atlantic,
>some from
>drift on your side. Defining your drift as "correct" is not science, it’s
>politics. We did not learn your language imperfectly, we inherited it from
>our ancestors, of whom we are proud, as we expect you should be of yours.
>[deletions]
>Perhaps Mr. Stanley was referring to the academic
>vocabulary in the above passage. If so, he did not make himself clear.
>He then should be assured that not all Americans use academic language.
Even I don’t use academic language all the time.
I also must admit that in my first response, I had
not seen the tell-tale soc.culture.british
origin.
>If I misunderstood Mr. Scripture’s intent in referring to our ancestors,
>I apologize. It’s what I would have meant. Also I found Mr. Scripture’s
>postings very entertaining. I found his anger quite understandable in the
>context of Mr. Brooks reference to _proles_, a word that implies to me,
>as it did to Mr. Scripture, an unquestioning acceptance of the English class
>system. The class system is the close relative and the direct cause of racism
>in America.
I completely agree with this last point.
>–
>R.T.Edwards r…@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
Ralph,
You didn’t misunderstand at all. That is exactly
what I meant. Thanks for the support. I was
beginning to feel rather alone out here with my
neck sticking out.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
> I agree with those who have responded that comments like Piotr’s are out
> of place on sci.lang, but I do think it’s legitimate to question, in a
> purely descriptive spirit, whether `off of’ is accepted usage in
> Britain. I say it may occur in some dialects, but is far from common,
> and does not occur in the standard dialect.
Indeed. I just scanned the LOB corpus (1 million words). There are 589
instances of "off", but no instance of "off of". (Unless there’s a bug
in my off-the-cuff shell script, which is well possible.) Anyone care
to do a similar check on some other corpus?
(The LOB corpus is of British English.)
In article <807907978…@psyche.demon.co.uk> pe…@psyche.demon.co.uk writes:
[significant deletions]
>> I don’t teach proles. I teach students. I teach them about the
>So, you are an elitist. You judge your students (yanks to a man, one
>imagines) and find that they are not proles. Remarkable.
I don’t know just what "yanks" means in Britain these days, nor do I
know why I keep this up–the teacher in me, I suppose. Anyway, about
60% of my students are women, for starters. That is the percentage
for all nine branches of the university these days. Around a third a
various kinds of Asian-Americans, predominently Chinese, Vietnamese,
Korean, and Filipino. Another quarter are Hispanic of some kind:
Chicano (which means someone of Mexican descent born in the U.S.),
Mexican, either immigrant or occasionally Mexican national, and a
large admixture of immigrants from the whole western hemisphere south
of the U.S. border. About 5% are African Americans.
The remainder are various kinds of folks, who in
the U.S. count as white, but this does not mean that their ancestors
came from Britain. They might very well be Greek or Armenian,
ancestrally. Or Italian, or Irish, or you name it. Getting a large
sprinkling of recent central European immigrants these days, too, and
an occasional Russian immigrant. Had one in class two years ago.
This is all probably not what you meant by "yanks to a man," is it?
When I said I teach students, not proles, I meant that my students
are young, bright, ambitious individuals.
And that is whom I teach. There class
backgrounds vary considerably, and this does matter, because the ones
from very underprivileged backgrounds have some trouble adjusting to
the university, because it is a very different culture from the one
they know best. They do not, however, have any trouble expressing
themselves. Yes, the University of California is an elite
institution. Yes, my students are the best students from their
respective highschools. I do have students who have trouble
expressing themselves, both in speech and in writing, but because
English is not their first language–or even their second, or third,
or fourth, and so on. My personal record here is a young woman,
immigrant from Burma, for whom English was her _seventh_ language
(after two kinds of Chinese, Burmese, Korean, Vietnamese, French, and
finally English. She’d been here three years. She, of course, was
_excellent_ at languages, and was doing fine after a quarter or two.
You would, I’m sure, have figured that she couldn’t express hereself had you
met her in class the first day.
>> teach them how to write the language I am now writing. I even teach
>> them not to misuse commas in the way you did in your second sentence
>> above. In the U.S. this is called a comma splice. What do you call
>> it? But most of all, I teach them to value all the variations of
>Get a grip on your argument. Is it liberty hall, where any usage is
>just fine or have you got a thing about commas? Or maybe you feel that
>it is both find to use language just as you wish, and also fine to
>criticise usage when it suits you. A most interesting view of the
>’scientific’ approach to linguistics.
I am rather sorry I said this bit about the comma, but I was trying,
as you see above, to point out that I teach my students to write what
I call academic English, for lack of a better term. They absolutely
have to know how to do it. You have been setting yourself up as some
sort of something, I can’t quite figure what, twit, maybe, so I
couldn’t resist taking a shot at you.
>> I am well aware of the nature of the real world. It informs my
>> teaching at every step. I assure you, students who graduate from the
>> University of California get jobs, if anyone gets a job, although I do
>> not consider "getting a job" to be the main purpose of a university
>> education.
>You appear confused about the purpose of education. If it is not to
>distinguish right from wrong what is its value?
Where we differ is about the nature of right and wrong. I consider
class oppression wrong. I am an excellent teacher at one of the best
universities in the world, where I also got one of my degrees. I am
not confused, nor am I wrong. Education is very much about ethics,
ultimately. Not explicitly, except in a philosophy or politics class,
but implicitly, in how you teach, how you deal with people. Like,
seeing them as students, as learners, not proles, for instance.
>> I wish to add that it has never been clearer to me why my prole ancestors
>> took such pleasure in shooting at your ancestors. Glad we won; glad
>> you lost. It is not hard to see why you did. Go back to to
>> soc.culture.british, where, I gather, class snobbery is encouraged, judging
>> from the lack of posts from there taking you up on your class values.
>Marvelous ad hominem. You must be quite the wit in the tearoom.
There is no such thing as a tearoom, or any cultural correlate, at my
university. We don’t even have what is here called a "faculty club."
We decided we didn’t want one.
>You do appear to have a wee chip on you shoulder regarding those prole
>ancestors, though. I wonder why ‘class snobbery’ as you term it is
>so upsetting to you – particularly when, earlier on, you pointed
>out that you don’t teach any proles.
>I am impressed by your grown up attitude to winning and losing, though.
>Particularly the winning of events before you were even born.
We, in the kind of family I come from, means oneself, one’s family
members, and all one’s ancestors. It is not an uncommon expression in
the right context, although a bit old fashioned, but then, I’m 50
years old. But as it happens, my main concern was that I understood
something about the fury and rage of those ancestors that I hadn’t
really understood before. Thanks.
>Which ‘university’ was it that you said you represented?
>–
>Peter H. M. Brooks
I don’t think you really get it. You’d get yourself killed here if
you said some of the things you have said on this group, at least in
certain places. I’ve seen a very large number of people die for very
stupid reasons. Please take care if you visit the U.S.
Anyway, I have not had occasion to say the kinds of things I have said
to you for longer than I can remember. I have not encountered anyone
like you for a very long time. I am generally accounted a fairly nice
guy. I am rather sorry that I did encounter you.
Class snobbery upsets me because
it oppresses people, among them on occasion my students. It does not
oppress me, since, as I have indicated, I am part of the most
privileged ethnic group in the U.S., and obviously have an upper-middle
class education and profession. It actually is possible, you know, to
be upset, to get angry, on behalf of others. My own interest, my own
security isn’t, and hasn’t been, at issue in this discussion, and I
can’t imagine how it could be.
Just in case you still don’t understand, I teach at one of the
nine campuses of the University of California, generally accounted one of
the best universities in the world, according to any measure you care
to apply. Although it has its problems, and they are getting worse, I
still count it as a privilege and an honor to teach here.
As I said in a post that may have appeared, or may yet appear, you are
kind of a puzzle to me. I know lots of folks from Britain, some were
even my professors. I know quite a lot about how the English clas
system works, and has worked, in the past. I have not always been an
English teacher, nor is that the only thing I’ve studied. Anyway, I
can’t figure just what’s going on with you, and since you’re not
telling, I guess I’ll never know. You will notice that I have
provided, in both this and other posts, a good deal of personal
information about myself, as well as calling you on your class
attitudes, which I find abhorrent. Unless you are willing to do the
same, I have nothing more to say to you.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz