These terms have seemingly grown acceptance by many teachers and speakers of English.
Do you guys like these welded terms, like Wanna, Gonna, Lemme?
Do you guys like these welded terms, like Wanna, Gonna, Lemme?
Wanna vs. Want to...Gonna vs. Going To...Lemme vs. Let me
These words are an example of cliticization (a word that syntatically acts as a free morpheme but phonetically acts as a bound morpheme):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic
Clticization is a common process in English (as well as many/most other languages) and has been ever since English has been around. Whether or not these forms are currently accepted in formal orthographic norms they are commonly used by native English speakers the world over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic
Clticization is a common process in English (as well as many/most other languages) and has been ever since English has been around. Whether or not these forms are currently accepted in formal orthographic norms they are commonly used by native English speakers the world over.
Yes, I use cliticized forms like that quite often in informal speech. In the case of "wanna", specifically, there are a lot of situations in everyday conversation where I would find it really awkward to actually say the full phrase "want to".
These written forms are literal transcriptions of pronunciation. They are used often enough in direct quotations, but they are substandard otherwise. English spelling is not phonetic, and attempting to phonetically transcribe the language is destined to cause problems, not only because most readers expect standard spelling, but also because the actual pronunciations of words may vary from one group of native speakers to another.
Many American teachers of English are functionally illiterate, so don't depend too much on what they do or do not accept. If you don't use Accepted PC Terminology to refer to a member of a statutory minority, they may get very upset, but they will often let serious errors of grammar and spelling slide, or they may not even spot them.
Recently I read a message from one American teacher that used the pseudo-word "co-insides." It took me a while to figure out that this teacher was trying to write "coincides." Apparently he or she had never seen the word in print before. In any case, it was sobering to see such poor English from someone being paid to teach others. I console myself with the thought that perhaps this teacher was hired under Affirmative Action (the alternative possibility would be that all teachers are this stupid, and that is a considerably more frightening thought).
Many American teachers of English are functionally illiterate, so don't depend too much on what they do or do not accept. If you don't use Accepted PC Terminology to refer to a member of a statutory minority, they may get very upset, but they will often let serious errors of grammar and spelling slide, or they may not even spot them.
Recently I read a message from one American teacher that used the pseudo-word "co-insides." It took me a while to figure out that this teacher was trying to write "coincides." Apparently he or she had never seen the word in print before. In any case, it was sobering to see such poor English from someone being paid to teach others. I console myself with the thought that perhaps this teacher was hired under Affirmative Action (the alternative possibility would be that all teachers are this stupid, and that is a considerably more frightening thought).
Yeah, quite often I too use these kinda cliticization in speech because it's far more easier to the tounge than the pure form.
And this is exactly what is acceptable in every language in the earth. It's why language is regarded as a living being, it borns,matures and dies.
regards
And this is exactly what is acceptable in every language in the earth. It's why language is regarded as a living being, it borns,matures and dies.
regards
How do you determine the minimum level of literacy to pick out a "functionally illiterate" person? I can't imagine the label being applied to someone automatically because they write "co-insides" in place of "coincides".
<These written forms are literal transcriptions of pronunciation.>>
Not really. They're still quite faux-netic. Accurate transcriptions of pronunciation would require true phonetic transcription.
<<They are used often enough in direct quotations, but they are substandard otherwise.>>
There is no such thing as "substandard" and if you aim to be taken seriously in a serious language-related discussion you would probably do well to stop insinuating such a thing is possible (whether or not you actually use the word your attitudes shine right thru).
<<English spelling is not phonetic,>>
No language's spelling aims to be phonetic, but most do aim to be *phonemically* accurate. However, even languages' writing systems with pretty consistent phonemics-to-orthography relationships do not achieve such 100% of the time, even just considering one dialect.
<<Many American teachers of English are functionally illiterate, so don't depend too much on what they do or do not accept.>>
....Citing/Source?...
You can't just go around saying things like that without backing it up.
<<If you don't use Accepted PC Terminology to refer to a member of a statutory minority, they may get very upset, but they will often let serious errors of grammar and spelling slide, or they may not even spot them.>>
While it's lovely you have an ax to grind with perceived PC terminology (this is not an example of PCness), this does little for your argument...
<<Recently I read a message from one American teacher that used the pseudo-word "co-insides." It took me a while to figure out that this teacher was trying to write "coincides." Apparently he or she had never seen the word in print before. In any case, it was sobering to see such poor English from someone being paid to teach others.>>
It's not just Americans. I've seen egregious spelling errors from many English speakers regardless of nationality. However, spelling errors, especially with English, do not entail lack of education or intelligence. I wouldn't take examples like this to be indicative of a larger phenomenon of uneducated or "functionally illiterate" teachers out there.
<<I console myself with the thought that perhaps this teacher was hired under Affirmative Action (the alternative possibility would be that all teachers are this stupid, and that is a considerably more frightening thought).>>
Well, wasn't that offensive, elitist and inaccurate? And all at the same time! Nice. Your arguments are really convincing when they're laced with stuff like that.
Not really. They're still quite faux-netic. Accurate transcriptions of pronunciation would require true phonetic transcription.
<<They are used often enough in direct quotations, but they are substandard otherwise.>>
There is no such thing as "substandard" and if you aim to be taken seriously in a serious language-related discussion you would probably do well to stop insinuating such a thing is possible (whether or not you actually use the word your attitudes shine right thru).
<<English spelling is not phonetic,>>
No language's spelling aims to be phonetic, but most do aim to be *phonemically* accurate. However, even languages' writing systems with pretty consistent phonemics-to-orthography relationships do not achieve such 100% of the time, even just considering one dialect.
<<Many American teachers of English are functionally illiterate, so don't depend too much on what they do or do not accept.>>
....Citing/Source?...
You can't just go around saying things like that without backing it up.
<<If you don't use Accepted PC Terminology to refer to a member of a statutory minority, they may get very upset, but they will often let serious errors of grammar and spelling slide, or they may not even spot them.>>
While it's lovely you have an ax to grind with perceived PC terminology (this is not an example of PCness), this does little for your argument...
<<Recently I read a message from one American teacher that used the pseudo-word "co-insides." It took me a while to figure out that this teacher was trying to write "coincides." Apparently he or she had never seen the word in print before. In any case, it was sobering to see such poor English from someone being paid to teach others.>>
It's not just Americans. I've seen egregious spelling errors from many English speakers regardless of nationality. However, spelling errors, especially with English, do not entail lack of education or intelligence. I wouldn't take examples like this to be indicative of a larger phenomenon of uneducated or "functionally illiterate" teachers out there.
<<I console myself with the thought that perhaps this teacher was hired under Affirmative Action (the alternative possibility would be that all teachers are this stupid, and that is a considerably more frightening thought).>>
Well, wasn't that offensive, elitist and inaccurate? And all at the same time! Nice. Your arguments are really convincing when they're laced with stuff like that.
<<How do you determine the minimum level of literacy to pick out a "functionally illiterate" person? I can't imagine the label being applied to someone automatically because they write "co-insides" in place of "coincides".>>
Agreed completely.
Agreed completely.
"Recently I read a message from one American teacher that used the pseudo-word "co-insides." It took me a while to figure out that this teacher was trying to write "coincides." Apparently he or she had never seen the word in print before. In any case, it was sobering to see such poor English from someone being paid to teach others. I console myself with the thought that perhaps this teacher was hired under Affirmative Action (the alternative possibility would be that all teachers are this stupid, and that is a considerably more frightening thought)."
Well, if it happens to the natives then God with the English knowledge can only help non-native speakers!!!
And I strongly oppose your words against the Americans becaue haven't you heard about the Englihs Senators asking to put a vigilance over BBC for using non-standard English???
Still, I agree and appreciate your postings.
Regards
Well, if it happens to the natives then God with the English knowledge can only help non-native speakers!!!
And I strongly oppose your words against the Americans becaue haven't you heard about the Englihs Senators asking to put a vigilance over BBC for using non-standard English???
Still, I agree and appreciate your postings.
Regards
Functional illiteracy is a level of literacy below that required to get by in everyday situations. For example, a person who cannot read an advertisement might be considered functionally illiterate in most Western societies.
I think the label can be applied to someone who spells "coincides" incorrectly, particularly if that person is supposed to be a teacher. It's a very common word, and anyone who reads with any frequency at all should have seen it often enough to know how to spell it. How anyone could get through university without learning it is a mystery to me.
There is indeed such a thing as sub-standard; we teach people how to avoid it every day in ESL. Linguists and other academics in ivory towers can make grand statements about the elitism of standardization, but in the field we need to teach people how to communicate, and refusing to recognize standard forms of the language is not conducive to that end.
Esperanto aims to be phonetic in its orthography, and several other languages are effectively more or less phonetic, such as Finnish and Spanish.
Just read what American teachers write, and you'll have your proof of their illiteracy. I gave one example. I can easily go around saying things like that; I don't have to back them up. Those who are truly interested will verify for themselves, anyway, as it's never wise to believe what others say on their word alone.
I do indeed have a problem with political correctness. It's a major impediment to education and intellectual achievement. It's a pox on society, a sort of doublethink that encourages people to obey rather than reflect. I don't see any problem with stating this and attempting to counter the epidemic of PC that afflicts much of modern society today.
Yes, I know it's not just Americans; stupid and uneducated people abound throughout the world. And spelling errors _do_ correlate with intelligence. In fact, the best single-item non-IQ test you can give someone to assess intelligence is a vocabulary test.
Whether my reference to AA is offense and/or elitist or not is a matter of opinion, but it's certainly accurate. The purpose of Affirmative Action is to give preference to people who cannot otherwise succeed based on their pure qualifications. And an inevitable consequence of AA is therefore that people find themselves in jobs for which they are not qualified, if they happen to belong to the statutory minorities privileged by AA. Thus, in the United States at least, if you see someone who is woefully unqualified for a position, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person got to that position through AA, if he is a member of a statutory minority (since he lacks the qualifications to get there on qualifications alone). Of course, there are other possibilities, such as nepotism and so on, but these don't often operate in large organizations.
I think the label can be applied to someone who spells "coincides" incorrectly, particularly if that person is supposed to be a teacher. It's a very common word, and anyone who reads with any frequency at all should have seen it often enough to know how to spell it. How anyone could get through university without learning it is a mystery to me.
There is indeed such a thing as sub-standard; we teach people how to avoid it every day in ESL. Linguists and other academics in ivory towers can make grand statements about the elitism of standardization, but in the field we need to teach people how to communicate, and refusing to recognize standard forms of the language is not conducive to that end.
Esperanto aims to be phonetic in its orthography, and several other languages are effectively more or less phonetic, such as Finnish and Spanish.
Just read what American teachers write, and you'll have your proof of their illiteracy. I gave one example. I can easily go around saying things like that; I don't have to back them up. Those who are truly interested will verify for themselves, anyway, as it's never wise to believe what others say on their word alone.
I do indeed have a problem with political correctness. It's a major impediment to education and intellectual achievement. It's a pox on society, a sort of doublethink that encourages people to obey rather than reflect. I don't see any problem with stating this and attempting to counter the epidemic of PC that afflicts much of modern society today.
Yes, I know it's not just Americans; stupid and uneducated people abound throughout the world. And spelling errors _do_ correlate with intelligence. In fact, the best single-item non-IQ test you can give someone to assess intelligence is a vocabulary test.
Whether my reference to AA is offense and/or elitist or not is a matter of opinion, but it's certainly accurate. The purpose of Affirmative Action is to give preference to people who cannot otherwise succeed based on their pure qualifications. And an inevitable consequence of AA is therefore that people find themselves in jobs for which they are not qualified, if they happen to belong to the statutory minorities privileged by AA. Thus, in the United States at least, if you see someone who is woefully unqualified for a position, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person got to that position through AA, if he is a member of a statutory minority (since he lacks the qualifications to get there on qualifications alone). Of course, there are other possibilities, such as nepotism and so on, but these don't often operate in large organizations.
<<Functional illiteracy is a level of literacy below that required to get by in everyday situations. For example, a person who cannot read an advertisement might be considered functionally illiterate in most Western societies.>>
I'm pretty sure our "co-insider" person is able to read advertisements and even full-fledged novels just fine.
<<There is indeed such a thing as sub-standard; we teach people how to avoid it every day in ESL. Linguists and other academics in ivory towers can make grand statements about the elitism of standardization, but in the field we need to teach people how to communicate, and refusing to recognize standard forms of the language is not conducive to that end.>>
There's nothing wrong with standardization of written norms but they should not be confused with spoken norms.
<<Esperanto aims to be phonetic in its orthography, and several other languages are effectively more or less phonetic, such as Finnish and Spanish.>>
That is patently false. I don't mean to be rude but I don't think you grasp the difference between "phonemic" and "phonetic." All of those languages, and other languages, aim for *phonemic* accuracy. For example, Spanish orthography does a great job at being phonemically consistent but it hardly attempts to represent the phonetic level. This would involve unnecessary letters for allophones which by definition aren't contrastive. Orthography only needs to aim for contrastive phonemics. Let's look at an example from (Latin American) Spanish:
orthography: <el abogado me dio el vino tinto>
phonemic: /el abogad_do me d_djo el bino t_dint_do/
phonetic: [el aBo"gaDo me Djo el "Bino "t_din_dt_do]
Clearly the orthgraphy aims for representing the contastive phonemic level, not the phonetic one.
<<Just read what American teachers write, and you'll have your proof of their illiteracy. I gave one example. I can easily go around saying things like that; I don't have to back them up. Those who are truly interested will verify for themselves, anyway, as it's never wise to believe what others say on their word alone.>>
Well, I certainly agree with you on that last point.
<<I do indeed have a problem with political correctness. It's a major impediment to education and intellectual achievement. It's a pox on society, a sort of doublethink that encourages people to obey rather than reflect. I don't see any problem with stating this and attempting to counter the epidemic of PC that afflicts much of modern society today.>>
My point was this has nothing to do with PCness, regardless of your views on it.
<<Yes, I know it's not just Americans; stupid and uneducated people abound throughout the world.>>
Well it's comforting to know your arrogance and woefully-unfounded elitism are equal-opportunity...
<<And spelling errors _do_ correlate with intelligence.>>
Only one way. I've read different research on this and while there does appear to be a clear link between naturally good spellers and being above-average in terms of intelligence, it doesn't work the other way. Being a bad speller is not indicative of intelligence. There are plenty of bad spellers who are quite intelligent.
<<In fact, the best single-item non-IQ test you can give someone to assess intelligence is a vocabulary test.>>
Knowledge of vocabulary does not equal spelling capacity. You're equating two very separate things.
<<Whether my reference to AA is offense and/or elitist or not is a matter of opinion, but it's certainly accurate. The purpose of Affirmative Action is to give preference to people who cannot otherwise succeed based on their pure qualifications. And an inevitable consequence of AA is therefore that people find themselves in jobs for which they are not qualified, if they happen to belong to the statutory minorities privileged by AA. Thus, in the United States at least, if you see someone who is woefully unqualified for a position, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person got to that position through AA, if he is a member of a statutory minority (since he lacks the qualifications to get there on qualifications alone). Of course, there are other possibilities, such as nepotism and so on, but these don't often operate in large organizations.>>
This is still mostly a rant on AA (not the topic at hand) and, whether or not it's true, it's not wholly relevant to the subject at hand. You're tying things together that are at best tangentially related.
I'm pretty sure our "co-insider" person is able to read advertisements and even full-fledged novels just fine.
<<There is indeed such a thing as sub-standard; we teach people how to avoid it every day in ESL. Linguists and other academics in ivory towers can make grand statements about the elitism of standardization, but in the field we need to teach people how to communicate, and refusing to recognize standard forms of the language is not conducive to that end.>>
There's nothing wrong with standardization of written norms but they should not be confused with spoken norms.
<<Esperanto aims to be phonetic in its orthography, and several other languages are effectively more or less phonetic, such as Finnish and Spanish.>>
That is patently false. I don't mean to be rude but I don't think you grasp the difference between "phonemic" and "phonetic." All of those languages, and other languages, aim for *phonemic* accuracy. For example, Spanish orthography does a great job at being phonemically consistent but it hardly attempts to represent the phonetic level. This would involve unnecessary letters for allophones which by definition aren't contrastive. Orthography only needs to aim for contrastive phonemics. Let's look at an example from (Latin American) Spanish:
orthography: <el abogado me dio el vino tinto>
phonemic: /el abogad_do me d_djo el bino t_dint_do/
phonetic: [el aBo"gaDo me Djo el "Bino "t_din_dt_do]
Clearly the orthgraphy aims for representing the contastive phonemic level, not the phonetic one.
<<Just read what American teachers write, and you'll have your proof of their illiteracy. I gave one example. I can easily go around saying things like that; I don't have to back them up. Those who are truly interested will verify for themselves, anyway, as it's never wise to believe what others say on their word alone.>>
Well, I certainly agree with you on that last point.
<<I do indeed have a problem with political correctness. It's a major impediment to education and intellectual achievement. It's a pox on society, a sort of doublethink that encourages people to obey rather than reflect. I don't see any problem with stating this and attempting to counter the epidemic of PC that afflicts much of modern society today.>>
My point was this has nothing to do with PCness, regardless of your views on it.
<<Yes, I know it's not just Americans; stupid and uneducated people abound throughout the world.>>
Well it's comforting to know your arrogance and woefully-unfounded elitism are equal-opportunity...
<<And spelling errors _do_ correlate with intelligence.>>
Only one way. I've read different research on this and while there does appear to be a clear link between naturally good spellers and being above-average in terms of intelligence, it doesn't work the other way. Being a bad speller is not indicative of intelligence. There are plenty of bad spellers who are quite intelligent.
<<In fact, the best single-item non-IQ test you can give someone to assess intelligence is a vocabulary test.>>
Knowledge of vocabulary does not equal spelling capacity. You're equating two very separate things.
<<Whether my reference to AA is offense and/or elitist or not is a matter of opinion, but it's certainly accurate. The purpose of Affirmative Action is to give preference to people who cannot otherwise succeed based on their pure qualifications. And an inevitable consequence of AA is therefore that people find themselves in jobs for which they are not qualified, if they happen to belong to the statutory minorities privileged by AA. Thus, in the United States at least, if you see someone who is woefully unqualified for a position, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person got to that position through AA, if he is a member of a statutory minority (since he lacks the qualifications to get there on qualifications alone). Of course, there are other possibilities, such as nepotism and so on, but these don't often operate in large organizations.>>
This is still mostly a rant on AA (not the topic at hand) and, whether or not it's true, it's not wholly relevant to the subject at hand. You're tying things together that are at best tangentially related.
<<And spelling errors _do_ correlate with intelligence.>>
Please, tell this to a dyslexic person. Do not be surprised when he or she is hurt, offended, and/or may want to hurt you in return (physically, mentally or emotionally).
Please, tell this to a dyslexic person. Do not be surprised when he or she is hurt, offended, and/or may want to hurt you in return (physically, mentally or emotionally).
<<Please, tell this to a dyslexic person. Do not be surprised when he or she is hurt, offended, and/or may want to hurt you in return (physically, mentally or emotionally).>>
Altho he might argue that worrying about offending a dyslexic person would fall under the umbrella of the "pox of society" that is the "epidemic of PC."
Puh-leez, Mxsmanic. I know some incredibly intelligent dyslexic people who obviously are poor spellers but this has no relation whatsoever to the level of education they've acquired or their basic intelligence. This also applies even to non-dyslexics. Some people just seem to be "wired" to be better spellers while others aren't. This doesn't mean naturally bad spellers shouldn't try and improve their spelling, but it still does not entail that they have a corresponding lack of intelligence at all. Your comments contradict all research that's been done in this area.
Altho he might argue that worrying about offending a dyslexic person would fall under the umbrella of the "pox of society" that is the "epidemic of PC."
Puh-leez, Mxsmanic. I know some incredibly intelligent dyslexic people who obviously are poor spellers but this has no relation whatsoever to the level of education they've acquired or their basic intelligence. This also applies even to non-dyslexics. Some people just seem to be "wired" to be better spellers while others aren't. This doesn't mean naturally bad spellers shouldn't try and improve their spelling, but it still does not entail that they have a corresponding lack of intelligence at all. Your comments contradict all research that's been done in this area.
Correlation? Mxsmanic might be educated but he's also very stupid. That's a good co-relation.
How did this guy find a soapbox here?
How did this guy find a soapbox here?