Re: Grammar

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:27:21 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )"  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>Holger Dansk wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:01:40 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Holger Dansk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:19:53 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>It has nothing to do with being black, or with mouth structure.  It is
>> >>>simply another dialectal pronunciation of English.  Yours is no more
>> >>>correct than theirs.
>> >>
>> >>Hog dodo.
>> >>
>> >>It's as incorrect as anything can bet you nitwit.
>> >
>> >Your English is incorrect for this context.
>> >
>> >>Don't you know right from wrong?
>> >
>> >I am a linguist; there is no morality in language.  There are many
>> >dialects and each is appropriate to its own context, so that there is
>> >no "correct" or "incorrect" language, except with regards to a
>> >specific context.
>> 
>> We are not talking about local dialects here.  We are talking about the
>> English language in the entire world
>>
>There certainly isn't one world standard English. People in India, the
>UK, the US, Australia, all sound different. I don't believe most
>dictionaries tell you how to make each sound. In other words, the
>dictionary might say that you should use a 'short a' in some word but it
>won't exactly specify what a 'short a' actually is. This allows for
>vowel rotations and other shifts that obviously exist in various
>dialects.
>
>
>> and what is right or wrong in the
>> use of it.  You seem to be confused.  Just because there is a dialect in
>> east Tennessee where people say "tar" for a tire, "far" for fire, "war"
>> for wire, "diddle" for baby chicken instead of biddy, etc., does not
>> mean that this is correct English.  Correct English conforms to correct
>> pronunciation.  Otherwise, why have dictionaries giving the correct
>> pronunciation?
>> 
>Actually, dictionaries exist with 'correct' pronunciations for various
>standards, say British English, American English, etc. but have you
>looked to see if they explain in detail how to make the letter 't' sound
>and explain in detail its various allophones and where they are
>'correctly' used?
>

>> >>What's the matter with you?
>> >
>> >I'm more educated than you are about the nature of language in
>> >general, and about the English language in particular.
>> 
>> You, evidently, have become too educated about language and have become
>> confused about the basic and fundamental rules of speaking and
>> pronouncing English correctly as it should be today in the United States
>> and not how it is pronounced in strange ways by people is certain areas
>> of the United States and the world.  Even worse, you strive to find out
>> some excuse for many negroes having pronouncing it wrong for a few
>> hundred years 
>>
>There is evidence that various African American dialects retain features
>from older forms of the English language than those current in vogue in
>the United States as 'standards'. It might be you who speaks funny and
>they had it correct all the time!

You are very confused.  We are talking about the correct way to speak
English in the United States.  Sometimes, a dictionary will give you two
different correct ways to pronounce a word.  However, when there is only
one way, that means there is "only one way".

We are not talking about the way English is pronounced in sub-saharan
Africa, in Europe, or in Australia or Japan, etc., but only in the
United States.  Understand?

Holger