I've started reading Jochen Vogt's Einladung zur Literaturwissenschaft (Invitation to Literary Science), which was recommended to me by the prof, who I'll have for a lit class in the fall.The entire first chapter goes on about how there are too many people studying literature as a default field. The author goes on to warn students about how much work goes into literature, especially writing.
Everything that I read re-confirmed for me what I already knew:
I'm not interested in studying literature.
Unfortunately, I have to take a certain number of courses in it between now and the Ph.D, even though I'm focusing on linguistics. I guess I'll just keep reading this intro to lit book and suck it up.
10 comments:
Which is correct:
(a) There was a table and two chairs by the window.
(b) There were a table and two chairs by the window.
You can delete this post. Please email me: ten.xyn@egase
Traditional grammars will tell us that the second option (b) is correct. The table and chairs are the subject, so the verb would have to match.
However, in many dialects (including my own), "there is" (expressed usually as "there's") has become a set phrase used to indicate existence, regardless of what follows. Since it is becoming an idiomatic set phrase, the verb form no longer needs to match the complement (in this case, the table and chairs). Since it is used by native speakers under normal circumstances, it is correct from a descriptive linguistics point of view.
Form (a) is analogous to the Spanish verb form "hay" (there is/there are). Ex: Hay una silla (There is a chair)
Hay dos sillas (There are two chairs)
Any other questions?
The point you make about idiomatic construction sounds very reasonable. To my layman's mind, (a) "sounds better". Grammar evolves through usage, although this might lead to paradoxes. (a) is not incorrect, but what about:
(a') There was two chairs and a table by the window.
E.
E:
That's an interesting point. I don't think that (a') is in my dialect, though I could be mistaken. You know how it is; the more often you read/say something the more correct/incorrect it can sound!
The more I think about it, the more likely I am to accept it.
At any rate, I immediately thought of my black neighbor's manner of speech when I read it.
I would suggest that it is grammatical in some dialects of spoken English, though I wouldn't feel comfortable writing it in a formal setting.
Karen,
What I found intriguing is that (a) is considered acceptable (or even preferred) but (a') is not (at least in the "accepted" dialects). And yet the only difference between them is the order of mention of the table and chairs. Usage prevails over logic. At least usage that evolves in the professional/academic/literary spheres.
In other spheres, "Me and him, we was... " is incorrect, offensive to the refined ear, but as clear as crystal.
E
E:
Welcome to the wonderful world of socio-linguistics, from which we learn that all value judgments placed on language (beyond whether they are comprehensible among a given speech community) are resultant of personal and societal prejudices!
As regards "me and him" or even "him and me" in subject position or "he and I" in object position, my professor said that there does not seem to be coding for case in many dialects of English when it comes to coordinating constructions (x and y). For example, although it is quite likely that no one would ever say *for I, it is quite common to hear "for him and I" or even "for he and I".
As far as parallels in other languages, I think it is possible to say
Him and me, we are going to the store
in French: Lui et moi, nous allons au magasin.
I found this example online:
Mais lui et moi allons avoir 32 ans.
'But him and me are going to be 32 years old.'
Unfortunately I am mono-lingual, if that's a word.
What I find amusing, in a mildly contemptuous way, is the use of ill-sounding and incorrect grammar in an attempt to demonstrate superiority.
"I would like to propose a toast to he and she, whom are clearly the best grammarians on the planet."
Did I overdo that?!
By contrast, when someone speaks "dialect", I'm not focused on grammar at all. On the other hand, I suspect that linguistic sophistication is required for sophisticated thought, at least in certain realms.
E
E:
There are various theories about how language and thought are linked. As of yet, there is a lack of consensus.
Current thought is that all people are equally capable of acquiring a complete linguistic system barring severe deprivation (think kid locked in a closet for the first years of life).
While I would like to believe this, it is also possible that it is just because of the current atmosphere of political correctness.
As far as "the use of ill-sounding and incorrect grammar in an attempt to demonstrate superiority," I completely agree and said as much at http://alenaae.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-versus-whom.html
:)
BTW, "monolingual" is very much a word. :)
> Current thought is that all people are equally capable of acquiring a complete linguistic system barring severe deprivation (think kid locked in a closet for the first years of life).
> While I would like to believe this, it is also possible that it is just because of the current atmosphere of political correctness.
It would not seem unreasonable that the prevailing environment and other circumstances attendant to the evolution of a people would influence various capabilities in a general sense, including those which are language-related. I neither believe this nor disbelieve it. There are of course those who would roll a grenade into my tent for being so biased as even to entertain such a notion!
E
Post a Comment