Re: My version

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > > > http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/A0450100.html
> > > >
> > > > Usage note :
> > > >
> > > > In many dialects [I add : of American English that is to
> > > > say], people use as in place of that in sentences like <We
> > > > are not sure as we want to go> or <It's not certain as he
> > > > left>. This construction is not sufficiently well established
> > > > to be used in writing.
> > >
> > > Along with other constructions exemplified in the same
> > > dictionary entry (<Them as thinks they can whup me jest come
> > > ahead> and <The car what hit him never stopped>), I wonder, and
> > > ask the connoisseurs of American English on the List, if this
> > > type of constructions isn't simply the product of an ignorance
> > > of English grammar. Are the above constructions used by all
> > > social groups in a geographical area, or are they the
> > > prerogative of the uneducated ones? Because my notion of
> > > a 'dialect' is that it can be spoken by all the members of the
> > > social fabric, including the educated ones (as is the case with
> > > Italian dialects).
> >
> > But not the uneducated ones, who don't know the proper grammar?
> > That was a surprise. Isn't Romance the product of people who
> > didn't know the proper Latin grammar?
>
> I can't understand your objection, Torsten. Did I write that
> dialecs are spoken by educated people only?

No, you wrote that a certain way of speaking of a certain class of
people was a deviation from a norm and not a language.

> What I wanted to stress is that, if the varieties of US English the
> above slang expressions belong in are only used by uneducated
> people, but yet are never used by the educated people, this fact
> alone would indicate that those varieties of US English are not
> 'true' dialects because a 'true' dialect is normally spoken by
> people from all walks of life in a given geographical area.

I think that is an Italian definition. You know of course that the
status of dialects in Italy, because of your country's history is much
different from that of countries which have always had a central power
structure.

> At least, this is the case with all old dialects in Italy (and, I
> think, everywhere in Europe).

Wrong. People in this part of Europe, apart from some diehards, try to
get rid of their dialect, if they want to get up in life.

> If this condition isn't satisfied, we should speak of a
> 'sociolect', not of a true 'dialect'.

According to dialectology as it's been practised in this country,
Vestjysk has one gender (like English), most dialects on the islands
and in Vendsyssel have three and the rest have two, like the standard
language. Vestjysk has a preposed definite article, like most other
West European languages, the rest of the dialects and the standard
language have a suffixed definite article, like the other North
Germanic languages. Those are significant grammatical differences.
Should they have concluded instead that these differences were the
result of people improperly learning the proper Danish standard
two-gender language?


Torsten