Running With Quills: ELIZABETH THINKS ABOUT LANGUAGE

Welcome to Running With Quills, your online newsletter designed to keep you up to date with what your favorite authors (that would be us) are doing throughout the year. Here you will find the release dates of our new books and get information about our backlists. We'll preview our cover art here long before the books hit the stores and we'll keep you informed about works-in-progress and special projects. You'll also receive advance notice of signings and appearances. From time to time we'll give you a peek at our worlds, tell you what we're reading, and introduce you to some new authors.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

ELIZABETH THINKS ABOUT LANGUAGE

Having just received my manuscript of INNOCENT AS SIN from the copy editor, I’m spending an unusual amount of time thinking about the “proper” uses of language.

Copy editors have a “house” manual (depending on the publisher) of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. This is great if you are correcting an academic essay. If you’re “correcting” the contents of a popular culture novel, it’s not so great.

Notice the lack of contractions in the sentence concerning academic expectations. When I first began writing novels, contractions of words were allowed in conversation only, not in the narrative part of the novel. To do otherwise was bad writing. Even then, only a few contractions were accepted. Using “I’d,” “he’d,” etc. was bad. Use of the subjunctive was the hallmark of education.

A single sentence paragraph was wrong. Period.

As was a single word sentence such as the previous. As was a sentence fragment like the previous.

As was the use of the word “like” for “as.”

Shall and will? Interchanged.

That and which—interchanged, with that ahead by a length.

As for the subjunctive, the poor thing is dead, but not quite buried. (If I were you is still required. If I was you is bad, but gaining ground.)

I could go on.

And on.

For years.

The point is simple: English is a wonderfully, incredibly, stupendously protean language. (In writing a popular novel, I would lose the colon and use two sentences.)

In the common language, English changes easily, swiftly, and delightfully to cover any situation, even one previously unknown to the culture. Each change simplifies the common language for the broadest possible use and enjoyment. (I won’t even go into words acquired from other languages, a process that makes English one of the most difficult languages on earth to spell.)

You can love the process of linguistic change. You can hate it.

You can’t stop it.

I’ve chosen to accept kneeled instead of knelt, shined instead of shone, dived instead of dove, lit instead of lighted. By embracing the evolving popular language, more people understand more quickly what I’m saying. More people are comfortable with curling up with me. They trust me not to put them at arm’s length with academic necessities and niceties.

That’s why I chat with readers, whisper in their ears, let them dream with me.

What has changed about the language that you’ve noticed?

59 Comments:

Lori Foster said...: YAY, ANN!!!!!
Yeah, I'm shouting. And applauding and bouncing in my seat. (Multi-tasking at its best!)

You hit the nail on the head. And you did it so neatly, too!

I love how language changes, and how writers have adapted to use those changes to draw readers into a story, to make them a part of it so that they're not just reading proper grammar, but taking part with the characters, talking to them, thinking with them, reacting and growing with them.
It's an amazing thing - all through the use of language. Stilted, proper, seldom used grammar can alienate a reader quicker than murdering the lead character.
LOL.

I don't wanna do that. I want my characters to talk to readers just as they would if they stood before each other in real-time conversation.

Far as I'm concerned, that's not dummying-down. It's reaching out. And entertaining.
Our world could use a lot more of both.

Gigantic hugs to you, and sincere thanks for a spot-on blog!

Lori; 11:15 AM
elizabeth said...: I live to communicate. *fans eyelashes madly* *grabs falling halo* *tangles it in eyelashes* *slinks off*; 11:40 AM
Jessica said...: The English language is indeed great, flexible, and ever-evolving. Don't even get me started on the evolution when you try and speak English in another country (I lived in Australia for two years -- tip: don't ever say "root for" a team...it's a very slang term there and they'll look at you as if you said you were a slut, because basically you just did). And we don't have language bureaus like the French, to keep the evolution "pure"!!

We all have language bugaboos too. One of mine is "If I were" vs. "if I was." I've been known to shriek at novels and go "it's 'if I were,' people," as if the author can somehow hear me and magically fix it :).

But to me, the ultimate in language is when you read a novel and it's a seamless exercise, as if the author speaks the same language and you wonder if he/she has spent time in your head listening to you. He/she somehow magically "gets it." And I have to say, Elizabeth, you would fall in that list. So thanks for many hours of reading pleasure and for walking around a bit in my head (in a non-creepy way, of course).; 12:16 PM
Kay said...: Dear Ladies,

I taught Spanish for over 20 years. It's only "easier" because the spelling is much more phonetic that most other European languages. Now I can barely spell words in English. In Spanish, the subjunctive MUST be used in certain circumstances. Teaching it to English speakers who have never learned about it is a real challenge.

One of the "new" Englishisms is using the nominative case instead of the objective. I can accept, "It's me." for "It is I.", an example of the object used as a subject. However, "Be sure to tell Sue and I if there is a problem.", and other such examples make me cringe. The same people who would never say "tell I" instead of "tell me" happily throw "I" after a noun or pronoun and "and". The Shadow by Shelly Munro is full of such excruciating phrases. In the early 1980s, my school's
principal would often say "___ and I" as the object of a verb or preposition.
Since what we say most eventually becomes accepted, I fear that I will be cringing even more in the future.
Saludos,
Kay; 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with Jessica's comments on an author's voice - well put! If I get caught up in how something is written versus what it says - I usually put the book down. And that goes both ways; I don't want to look up every other word, but neither do I want to read four-word sentences only.

And I like good grammar. I believe it still has an important purpose and I want my children to learn to write correctly.

Carolyn; 1:21 PM
DFender said...: Huh. This topic may be too intellectual for me. LOL. The biggest english language changes I've noticed have happened over the last 10 years or so. Probably since I began to use the internet regularly, really.

In trying to get complete strangers to "hear" my voice I started spelling a lot of words just like I think I say them. Instead of typing "want to" I spelled "wanna". Instead of typing "going to", typing "gonna".

All kindsa (ha!) new words were created, or at least made more common, by strangers attempting to connect to each other and "sound real".

As others have said, if I'm enjoying the storyline and characters of a book rather than wrestling with the grammar and punctuation, well hell, I'm enjoying it!

Well done, Betty of the halo-tangled-eyelashes.

Deb; 1:40 PM
AgTigress said...: Because of its immense global popularity, English has a staggering number of dialects and dialects-within-dialects. Like all languages, it also has formal, written forms and colloquial, spoken forms. The written forms are essentially conservative, the spoken ones dynamic - many of the changes in spoken language are fleeting trends that do not stick (who says 'groovy, man!' any more?).

I support EL's comments totally as far as dialogue is concerned. It requires a very good ear for language for a writer to evoke the speech-patterns of different characters in such a way that it deepens their reality. Much of my knowledge of American English (which differs from British English in far more ways than some of you may think) derives from the natural, well-written dialogue in novels by writers such as those who contribute to this site.

When it comes to the authorial voice, I'm afraid I have to disagree. The innate conservatism of the written language is actually one of the things that enables us to read books written 300 years ago, to understand texts by authors whose native language is Korean or Portuguese, or to communicate easily with speakers of other contemporary Englishes. It is the written language that holds English together over space and time. It changes too, naturally, but it changes far more cautiously than speech, and in such a way that everyone can keep up.

Furthermore, the distinction between the voice of the author, in 'written English' (even if it is fairly informal) and the voices of her characters, communicating with each other and with us in purely spoken, colloquial forms, provides one of the pleasures of reading a novel. The change of pace, vocabulary and syntax adds texture and interest.; 3:17 PM
Jayne Ann Krentz said...: Great blog, Ann. I think the bottom line for a writer of popular fiction has to be clarity combined with visceral impact.

Say, does anyone remember having to diagram sentences? Oddly enough, I was actually pretty good at that. Wonder if they still do that in school.

--Jayne; 3:21 PM
talpianna said...: I agree with the Tigress. The vivid depiction of contemporary colloquial speech (more or less invented by Mark Twain in THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN) is one of the great strengths of fiction; but I still expect a certain amount of formality from the omniscient narrator. As an example, I find it entirely acceptale for a character like a lowlife crook or a tough cop to use a lot of four-letter words; but I despised it in the one book I red in which it was a frequent characteristic of the omniscient narrative voice. Such infelicities as "between you and I" and "If you was" in the narrative voice are also something up with which I will not put. I refuse to conversate or fellowship with people who write like this!; 3:49 PM
Jayne Ann Krentz said...: AgTigress, you make some excellent points. And speaking as a former librarian, I have to agree that it is probably a very good thing that written language changes more slowly than spoken language!

Maybe it is a Darwinian thing: Spoken language (and now email) allow for all sorts of evolutionary experiments. Those which survive do so in the written form.

--Jayne; 4:52 PM
Suzanne Simmons said...: Jayne writes: Say, does anyone remember having to diagram sentences? Oddly enough, I was actually pretty good at that.

And I was terrible at it, JAK! And I still ended up being an English Lit major in college. Talk about ironic. (Especially since I was very good at math.)

Excellent blog, EL! One thing I've learned as a popular fiction writer -- in fact, I'm still learning it every day: we're conveying and selling emotion above all else.

--Suzanne; 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...: I hate, just hate when people don't change their past tense verbs correctly

it drives me bonkers

i know that i shouldn't let it

even on television, they say (for example) dived instead of dove

oh well, i guess i'm going to find a hole in academia that is just waiting for me, so i don't have to listen to people say things like dived, (sigh!)

anita; 6:53 PM
Louis said...: I do remember diagramming sentences.
I was fairly good at it....Its been all of probably seventy years since I've done any diagramming...don't ask me to do it now.

I think the internet has changed communicative English so much that it's not the same "olde" English it used to be.; 6:55 PM
Stella said...: Since I don't have a halo (even a purely imaginary one...) to drop, I'll just smile. Lovely blog, Ann.

English is, indeed, a vibrant and evolving language. What fun. Norman Mailer just said, for an interview, that he invented the word "incestuary" in his latest novel. Hitler was a second or third incestuary. This refers to the question of whether Hitler was the child of the second or third incestuous relationship in his immediate family line. Sounds a perfect word for the job to me.

What do I hope as I write? That I will not impose myself between the reader and the story. I don't want a reader to be aware of me at all. Reading should be effortless.

Stella muttering, "Halo?"; 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Some changes I can accept as I read and others still present a real challange to me. At present, the thing that make me want to change it with a red pen is "this one is as bad (good, etc.) as what the other one is". It make me want to scream. Unfortunately, I seem to run into it more and more. When I say I want to change it with a red pen, it must be really bad, because as a retired librarian, I NEVER would write in a book.;-)

Mary; 8:40 PM
talpianna said...: Jayne, I diagrammed a sentence just the other day! Not entirely correctly, but I think I made my point. There was an argument on dictionary.com.forum over whether one should say "He is one of those people who always want the impossible" or "He is one of those people who always wantS the impossible," and I proved the first correct with a diagram.

Go me!; 9:29 PM
AgTigress said...: Anita said: "even on television, they say (for example) dived instead of dove."

* * *

For the record, 'dived' has been not only the correct form, but the only one in British English for at least a couple of centuries - I don't have the OED to hand at the moment, so I can't tell you just when dove was last recorded in BE. I am assuming it is the older form, but even that may not be the case.

This is the kind of thing that I meant when I said that the differences between British and American English are often greater than people realise. American quite often retains older forms than BE, contrary to what many may expect. The first time I read 'dove' as the past tense of 'dive', I was baffled for a few moments: I read it as the noun 'dove', meaning a species of bird, and naturally, the sentence made no sense.

This disparity between dialects exists even in written English, and it is far more marked and fluid in the spoken language, so the retention of a conventional and standard written form is important for any writer who hopes her work will be read easily by the widest possible audience. Too colloquial a style, far from drawing in more readers, may actually prove a barrier to many of them, especially those for whom English is not their first language.; 2:25 AM
justine said...: I have to comment on this topic. I have not read the other comments, so I hope I am not repeating. As a high school reading teacher, I have noticed quite a shift in the use of written language. (All of my students are struggling readers.) When I first started I was shocked that some of my 16 and 17 year olds could not seem to write a complete sentence if their lives depended on it. What I see is quite a bit of what I'll call 'text messaging' language. It is a horrible combination of letters and numbers and lord knows what else. What worries me is that the kids do not seem to understand when this type of writing is appropriate. They have developed such bad habits through the use of IM and spell check, that when they do have to depend on their own writing skills, they appear to be- I hate to use this word- stupid. I tell them that people (especially future employers) will judge them by the fact that they can't spell simple words like 'because', and have no clue which word to choose: there or their. I could go on, but I'll spare everyone the details of my daily battle for literacy, with students who quite honestly do not care.; 3:50 AM
Stella said...: Justine: I detest text messages. Thank goodness you're dealing with students who want to use such "shorthand" in their writing.

Tigress: As you know, I also have British roots and still battle with a few words that get mangled in translation. For me, there was no "dove." It didn't make sense and it was ugly. Dive, dived. I'm not budging.

Stella; 5:16 AM
AgTigress said...: How right you are, Stella!

For anyone who is interested, I have now checked up on dived/dove in the OED.

Interesting stuff. In Old English, there were two similar and closely related verbs, dúfan and dýfan, with different nuances of the senses 'dive, sink', 'immerse' and 'dip'. The former had a strong formation of the past participle, giving rise later to 'dove', and the latter a weak formation, the forerunner of 'dived'. By about 1300 AD, however, the two verbs had coalesced, and the 'weak' past participle had become standard. So 'dived' has been the Standard (British) English past tense of 'dive' for some 700 years.

However, as often happens, the form 'dove' evidently survived in some regional English dialects, and presumably speakers of those dialects took it over to North America, where it took root again, probably in the 17th century. I suspect, though I don't know, that 'dove' is a regional usage even in the USA, but in any case, any suggestions that 'dived' is non-standard, incorrect or recent (!) are completely mistaken.

:-); 7:33 AM
Lori Foster said...: Deb, what we'll say online shouldn't be what we'd say in a formal letter. LOL. I use "wanna" and "y'all" and the like all the time online. But if I wrote my editor or... if I actually wrote anyone, I wouldn't do that.

I'm so glad "whom" isn't used much anymore. I've never gotten the hang of it.

And my big thing is that few people speak in formal language, so I won't write characters in casual conversation being formal. Copy edidtors try to force it on my poor characters, but I back 'em up and stet those changes. ;-)
Now if I had a character where that formal grammar worked, I'd be A-ok with it.

So many great comments.
Ann, I think we all agree that you're the bestest. (har!)

Hugs,

Lori; 8:29 AM
elizabeth said...: agritress--when I started out, publishers ranked "dived" as an absolute no-no right up there with "I got you flowers" instead of "I've gotten you flowers." "Gotten was the only past tense of got. Gotten is hanging in longer than I expected, but is losing its hold. The substitution of "got" for "have" is racing forward.

Got Milk?

I love English!

It's as flexible, curious, and voracious as my grandchildren. (And yes, I cling to my two commas in a three series. In some ways I'm just plain stubborn.); 9:21 AM
Pia said...: Elizabeth,

I love your topic especially with my heritage of being 1/4 American, 1/4 Spanish, 1/4 Chinese and 1/4 Filipino who speaks a little of everything.

Aside from the proper past tenses to the acceptable ones, I was also surprised by the growing number of words we have, an example is a word formed based on a Filipino dictator's wife,"Imeldific" that was added to the encyclopedia.

Stella, I agree with you, I too detest text messages, when I receive something like, "hi i wll mit you l8r at 7 - brns n nble bellsqr. c u."
I always call the person back and say "huh"?

Back when I was a Pre-K and K teacher in NJ, I was surprised at how 4 year olds would try to emulate their older siblings or neighbors by saying things like "What up, yo" or "Don't be hatin'", sometimes it seems funny but I never encourage them. I always try to talk to them with properly structured sentences, as it should be.; 9:43 AM
Karibear said...: A couple points, if I can remember them since my computer just died for the umpteenth time last evening, and I’m not very sanguine about today.

People use a different form of English on the internet for email, some blogs, newsgroups, etc. I learned very early on with newsgroups on usenet to say as much as possible as precisely as possible while using as little space as possible, including using what have become standard abbreviations. That’s where LOL came from, also ROFLMAO, OT, FUAD, and probably hundreds of others. There used to be sites of nothing but abbrevs with their meanings. And I learned the hard way to say exactly what I meant in such a way that it couldn’t be misinterpreted - I got massively flamed once for saying I didn’t think a pit-type dog would be a good family dog, when what I meant was that it wouldn’t be a good choice for MY family. A lot of words got shortened, as well. Thru for through, tho for though, cuz for because, and so on. That’s where wanna and gonna and many others came into being.

Then there’s verbal communication. There was an article in a national magazine maybe 15 years ago with the title “Said Is Dead.” It explained how like, go, and all took the place of said in conversations, as in “So he goes ‘Why won’t you hang out with me?’ and I’m like ‘Not in this lifetime, creep,’ and he’s all ‘FU, B’ and takes off.” The first time I ever heard this in use was by a grad student in psychology from the U. of Oregon.

Then there’s ‘real’ English. I love the grammar and structure of it. I learned to read so young and read so voraciously I pretty much internalized it all, and I just ‘knew’ what was right or wrong, which words were the right ones, and so on. I didn’t actually learn the names of the parts of speech or rules of grammar until I was in high school and took Spanish. Then I worked back from Spanish grammar to English grammar and finally understood why things worked the way they did. I never quite understood why there was such a difference in the way we were taught foreign languages and English - in Spanish, we spent the first year learning the rules, the second year we learned the exceptions to the rules, and after that is was simply building vocabulary. English was so much more difficult, when it should have been easier, considering that we’d been accustomed to it our entire lives.; 9:51 AM
AgTigress said...: Elizabeth said: "when I started out, publishers ranked "dived" as an absolute no-no right up there with "I got you flowers" instead of "I've gotten you flowers."

Yet in the 1973 edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (which is a dictionary of American English, of course), 'dived' and 'dove' are both given as past participles of 'dive' - and in that order, too: more than thirty years ago.

Could it be that some publishers of popular fiction were actually insisting on what they saw as more American language, or even, more informal language, and have now become more relaxed about equally-correct alternative forms? The same would apply with gotten/got: the former is now exclusively American, while the latter is acceptable in all regional varieties of English.; 10:03 AM
Lou said...: Fascinating discussion ladies (and Louis). I was not good at diagraming sentences, yet I majored in English in college. "Go figure!"

I wonder what will happen to the lives of the children such as the ones that Justine is teaching. Do they not know that at some point in time they will have to go to work? Have their parents not taught them that they will need to present an appropriate picture to a prospective employer? Or are they planning to run drugs and get shot?

Justine, you are to be congratulated for trying to make a difference in a very difficult situation.; 10:35 AM
elizabeth said...: agtigress--absolutely! When I worked for British publishers, a whole new paradigm came into play.

Publishers change more slowly than newspapers and dictionaries. It makes working in popular fiction fascinating.

PS--really enjoyed HORSES. Precise, stimulating text and beautifully chosen art for illustration.; 11:08 AM
DFender said...: I agree, Lori. How I write on-line has practically nothing to do with the structure of my business correspondence. It is, though, interesting for me to watch all the mangling of the english language in on-line communities, e-mail and text messaging. My kids laugh because if I text them I use "you" instead of "u" and "Geeeez, Mom, it takes you FOREVER to text back". No wonder since I actually spell words out fully. LOL!

Happy Thursday!
Deb; 11:09 AM
AgTigress said...: EL: thank you. I'm glad that you enjoyed it. Dogs is taking shape in my mind, though all that is on paper so far is a proposal and some lists.; 12:33 PM
elizabeth said...: agtigress--Dogs should be fascinating. Cultures view dogs so differently. I'll look forward to the book; not soon, though. These things take so much time.; 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I dislike intensely the culture of the internet that stops people from using complete sentences; and encourages misspellings for speed.

I understand the logic, but dislike reading a paragraph or phrase that has so many missteps.

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON PARAGRAPHS! I am convinced some people have utterly forgotten that a paragraph is a great place to start a new thought. Or, as EL does above, emphasize a point.

I must admit, I have a couple of friends that I feel like getting the red pen out to separate paragraphs....or I may never understand the overall points in my jumping from point to point in one LONG EXTENDED paragraph.

BTW I am rereading Remember Summer. And while recently rereading The Wrong Hostage, I found it most helpful to have my Rand-McNally open to the Greater San Diego map page. I was able to view everything "geographically!"; 1:28 PM
Kalen Hughes said...: I can not accept kneeled for knelt, or leaped for leapt. I just can't. *sob* They just strike me as WRONG and make my shoulders go tight. And the less said about shinned the better . . . *shudder*; 2:57 PM
Lou said...: Tigress - dogs. You would be great at covering the history of the evolution of dogs both in the breed context and the different ways cultures view dogs as pets or food. I hope you pursue that idea.

Remember Summer - I love that book. I had the good fortune to attend the 1984 Olympics in LA, and was there at the converted golf course (south of LA). I spent the entire day watching magnificent horses jump what seemed to be impossible jumps. An unforgetable experience!; 3:30 PM
AgTigress said...: Kalen: all those pairs, and more, are both considered correct and acceptable in British English, though there are shades of meaning and usage involved the appropriate choice for the context. 'Shined' is the normal past tense of 'shine' used in the 1611 Authorised Version of the Bible (the King James Version, to Americans), and it is the preferable form when used transitively, as in 'he shined (not shone) his shoes'.

I have the impression that AE - or perhaps AE publishers - are inclined to be more prescriptive than ours.

:-); 3:59 PM
AgTigress said...: Lou: no, it isn't going to be that kind of book. ;-)

It will be, like its predecessor, a book based on illustrations of artefacts from all periods and regions.

:-); 4:01 PM
Karen said...: Hi Ann, enjoyed all the comments!

And...when is the book hitting the shelves???; 4:12 PM
Lou said...: Oops, I haven't yet read your book on horses *she says as she blushes beet red and hides her face*.

I'm now on my way to Borders!

I would still look forward to a book based on illustrations of artefacts from all periods and regions as dogs have been close to man for such a long time. I would think there would be a wealth of artefacts from which to choose.; 4:31 PM
elizabeth said...: Lou--we might have run into each other. I was there, too, running from jump to jump on the event course!; 4:53 PM
Louis said...: Elizabeth, Lou....

I was there too with the jumpers. My DW and DD and I, being horse people, enjoyed them thourghly.....such a long walk to the parking area...after a day of walking jump to jump.

The abreivated language started with the early telegraphers...tired hands?
The early radio operators also shortened words. Mostly leaving the vowels out.; 6:40 PM
Stella said...: This is a most enjoyable blog, Ann. The comments are insightful and informative.

Pia, the mashing of our language such as you describe, is scary. I'm afraid it will widen the divide between those who do well and those who just "get along." Language has one function; communication. If we can only make ourselves understood my a section of Enlish-speaking people, we're challenged.

Tigress, you have brought me great pleasure on this topic. It's fun to consider the differences between American and Engligh English!

All of you enrich the discussion. Thank you.

Stella; 5:14 AM
nellsquirrel said...: For those who asked if they still diagram sentences. Yes, they do. At least in my son's school.

My problem is I was horrible at it as a kid and I still am! LOL!; 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Diagramming sentences and grammar, 8th grade, Mrs. Trainham, was actually one of the memories I have that makes me understand the "pack" mentality.

I was in the advanced classes, with a group of other very bright kids. Sadly, the grammar needed as the 8th grade English curriculum was too dull for the class of thirty, so the pack of new teenage girls that predominated tortured out teacher. She was a nice, learned but quiet woman, and didn't have the fortitude for that bunch that I was with. I was appalled at their inhumanity to a woman just doing her job, teaching us something most of us were already quite good at. Sigh. It was horrible, they reduced her to tears more than once, as I recall.; 7:51 AM
Carrie from Wisconsin said...: Hi all,

Wow! I think this has been one of the most commented on blogs in some time. While I am only 34 years old, I was taught the English language by nuns. Therefore, I tends to pronounce the 't' in words such as often and moisten. I never thought about it much until I first started dating the man whom (or would that be who? I've never gotten it right either) would later become my husband. He thought it was so, take your pick from funny, comical, weird, unusual, etc.. (I always want to put a double period, one for the abbreviation and one for the end of the sentence. Whether it's correct or not I am doing it today!)

I have forgotten some of the rules, but I do have a business writing book that clarifies as many of the word mix-up questions as possible. Some of those are the who/whom, effect/affect and various other word dilemmas that may confuse or offend possible readers. It was written by one of the professors at UWM (University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee). I chose not to consult it today.

As for dialects and such. I have a great story for you. It was several years ago. I don't know if it was a joke or truly intentional, but our local white pages had the same company (same address) under two different listings: Auto Parts and Otto Parts. The rumor was that the two different spellings was because that was how some people talk. It was like that for only that year, but it brings up a really good point about the use of phonetics. Teaching language through phonetics encourages bad spelling because it teaches people to spell the words the way they sound. If you don't understand the sound in the first place, you won't be able to spell it right anyway.

Think of that deliciously low character, Eliza Doolittle. If she spoke properly, we'd never know that she was uneducated and from the streets.

What about cowboys? They have a distinctive speech pattern and "drawl" that many can recognize. It's the best way to signify that a character is really a cowboy.

Also, words can help put a person in a place, such as Wisconsin and specifically, the area of Milwaukee. One word that we have here that no one, and I mean no one, recognizes anywhere I've been is "bubbler". I know, I always forget to say "water fountain" or "drinking fountain". The word brat is a bit more well known now thanks to John Madden, but for a long time people thought a brat was a bad kid instead of a meat sausage. We have all sorts of foods that people don't know. Take our cheeses, for example, we make about 350 different kinds here. When I listed off a few staples to guy from New Jersey, he only recognized a few and that's because, in recent years, they are marketed by Kraft. When I was a kid, the best treat was a trip to the cheese mart. The one we went to was in Jackson, WI. It would have cheeses from the local makers. Sorry, back to the topic.

There are so many things that words can do and I have to agree that the variances tend to limit the language. That's why our dictionaries are huge. All of the words in the American English language cannot be contained in just one volume anymore, it's rather sad. Many of the words that are added to the dictionaries will be forgotten when the fad is over. There are many new words that I will not miss when they fall to the wayside and one of them is "bling".

Carrie; 8:25 AM
Carrie from Wisconsin said...: Anonymous,

Unfortunately, I have known a class or two that was proud, for some reason, to say that they were the reason that a particular nun stopped teaching. This nun was very nice and a great teacher. I think she just wanted to do something else with her life. To me, this was the beginning of the "coddled" students. Rather than say, "you don't measure up" because it would make them feel bad, we "lower the bar" instead. This causing our students to fall behind when it comes to foreign students. I was appalled when I learned that grade school children were allowed to use calculators to do very simple math. It took too long otherwise. What happened to the notion of "What do you do if you don't have a calculator or a dictionary to teel you what you need?" If an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) ever goes off, these kids will be dumbfounded because their batteries won't work and the Internet will be down. This is the reason why I still believe in hard copy versions of books. If everything is digital and not on paper somewhere, it may be lost forever!!

Carrie; 8:35 AM
elizabeth said...: Carrie--I used to call it a bubbler (yep, born in WI) and still think it's the best description!; 9:31 AM
Lou said...: Louis and Ann-Elizabeth - hah, if we had known each other we coulda had a party!

I was lucky enough to not only see a full day of cross country jumping, but also saw the steeplechase and part of the road and track. We also went behind the scenes to the barn to watch as they tended the horses between each arduous trial. (This is where I found out that they put heavy grease on the front end and legs of the horses so that they will slide off the jump if they have the misfortune to strike the jump with a body part - fascinating!!); 12:04 PM
Shoshana said...: I didn't know where they came from until I took a class in Old English, but one of the things I've noticed (maybe it's regional?) is that nobody uses 'wit' or 'unc' anymore -wit in the sense of, 'we two' and unc in the sense of 'the two of us'. Apparently English used to have a singular, dual, and plural form for most nouns, verbs, and pronouns. I'd only ever heard wit and unc before that class, but I have to admit I haven't heard them much lately!
Does anyone else recognize them?; 2:10 PM
elizabeth said...: No, I sure don't.; 4:58 PM
Shoshana said...: Huh. And yet we still say, 'a pair of trousers' or 'eyeglasses' for a single set. Remnants of the dual form, maybe?
Lol, but then, I grew up around folks who spoke quite colourfully. 'Git yer shoon on, a walk'll do unc good.'
Something I still have trouble with is when to use further and when to use farther! I don't see either often enough to tell. Is it 'How much further?' or 'It's not much farther!'?; 1:00 AM
elizabeth said...: That's the problem with the teaching method that goes: Don't do this, do that. Forever afterward, this vs that are firmly confused in what passes for my brain my brain.; 11:05 AM
Shoshana said...: Oh, wow, that's a phrase combination I hadn't heard before! And such a fun one...
I'd say I'd try to remember it, but I don't think forgetting will be a problem! =)
That's a fun tid-bit; thank you.
P.S. I finally talked my grandmother into reading your books; now we're fighting over who gets which books first! Hee hee, I think we'll be starting a second collection soon!; 6:26 PM
elizabeth said...: As a grandmother myself--Go granny!; 8:56 AM
Shoshana said...: Nonsense; being the elder she's had more time than I have to discover your books. She had plenty of years to read them first! It's my turn! Lol, it's a good thing she's such a fast reader. ;)
No, it's only going to get tricky if my mom doesn't bring her own with her when she comes to visit...(Mom's the fastest reader of us at six books a day average but we're not too far behind; when we grab 'our' books for the day the shelves can get denuded, which is the only reason we have trouble. If we'd just bother to put everything back in between it'd be fine. Fortunately my grandfather is a wise man; he waits!)

Did you hear about that new IRS/US government ruling over anti-money-laundering laws and regulations for the gold/jewellery/gemstone dealers? I found out about it today, and my FIRST thought was, 'I wonder what the Donovans will come up with!'; 8:06 PM
elizabeth said...: I heard some comments, but nothing to get my teeth into. Do you have a URL that's informative?; 8:58 AM
Shoshana said...: Yup, hang on. Found in browsing the IRS site, so the link they provided should be fairly authoritative.
Okay, here's their new bulletin on it:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=154465,00.html

They have a further link to the site that makes the publications for the businesses affected, www.fincen.gov, but frankly it looks like you'd have to search in there, too, and I have to go take my car to the shop! Lol...
Anyway, hope the link works.

Bother. It doesn't look like you can just click on it. Try copy & pasting, maybe? Computers are not my strong suit...; 7:26 AM
elizabeth said...: Cut and paste worked just fine. Thanks!; 11:05 AM
Shoshana said...: You're perfectly welcome!

I can even direct you to a more informative site, now I've done a bit of research.

http://www.fincen.gov/pa_352_jewelry.pdf; 10:15 PM
elizabeth said...: Have you ever thought that bureaucrat-speak should be a separate language?

Thanks again. There are a lot of nuggets amid the verbiage.; 2:23 PM
Shoshana said...: I'm always telling people that the 'mature' form of a democracy is a bureaucracy.

Except it's easier when I'm saying it because then I don't have to try and spell it!

(that was my way of agreeing in a round-about manner); 10:48 PM

Previous Posts

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

ELIZABETH THINKS ABOUT LANGUAGE

59 Comments: