09.26.08
Posted in American vs. British, grammar at 6:39 am by Bill Brohaugh
I shall be brief. Or will be brief. Or something. I share the usage confusion of the Motivated Grammar blog, in the recent post “In which I realize I’ll never use ’shall’ as an Englishman would”:
I [use the word] intermittently, and I have a fairly clear idea in my head of a few instances when one ought to use shall:
(1) We shall overcome.
(2) Shall we dance?
(3) You Shall Know Our Velocity!
Okay, that’s about it.
I shan’t look for more examples, either. But in case the precise use of will and shall confuses you, consider this 1900 visual guide presented by Motivated Grammar:
To me, this kind of looks like a Buck Rogers decoder ring, or a map of Dante’s Nine Circles of Hell. Check out the example in the upper left: “Because what must be will be” (the future’s not ours to see! Que sera, sera, which I believe to be the official elevator music between at least two Circles of Hell).
Permalink
09.05.08
Posted in American vs. British, Shakespeare, myths and misconceptions, regionalisms, word history at 7:27 am by Bill Brohaugh
When discussing false origins, Everything You Know About English Is Wrong
concentrates on individual words. I do take a poke at “3 sheets to the wind,” “raining cats and dogs” and a couple of other phrases that have been given false histories. For phrases, allow me to alert you to The Phrase Finder website, one of many interesting sources. There you can look up numerous phrases and their origins (and even find them grouped along such themes as “phrases from Shakespeare”), and sign up for a phrase-a-week newsletter.
Yesterday’s newsletter, for instance, pokes at “chip on your shoulder,” supposedly from placing wood chip on, yes, one’s shoulder as a dare to begin a fight. But site operator Gary Martin writes,
Anyone who might be inclined to doubt that origin can take heart from an alternative theory. This relates to working practices in the British Royal Dockyards in the 18th century. In Day and Lunn’s The History of Work and Labour Relations in the Royal Dockyards, 1999, the authors report that the standing orders of the [Royal] Navy Board for August 1739 included this ruling:
Shipwrights to be allowed to bring [chips] on their shoulders near to the dock gates, there to be inspected by officers.
The permission to remove surplus timber for firewood or building material was a substantial perk of the job for the dock workers.
In readable and interesting analysis, Martin then examines which is the actual origin of the phrase, and if you “knew” that one of the origins was right, well, everything you know about English is wrong, eh?
To read Martin’s analysis and learn the likely true origin, visit here.
By the by, the site is British, so part of the fun of the newsletter is learning about phrases that we Yanks (or at least this particular Yank) haven’t encountered before. Come a cropper? More on that anon.
Permalink
07.05.08
Posted in American vs. British, assorted weird crap, language change, pronunciation at 6:43 am by Bill Brohaugh
Once again in the spirit of the 4th of July weekend, I shall now reenact the least-famous battle of the American Revolution: The Battle of Bumpkin Hill. The Bumpkins—that’s us.
In a recent David Crystal blog, Crystal noted that a blog correspondent had written “to say she is ‘fascinated by the American habit (inability?) to say mirror, terror, etc as we do in two discrete syllables. mir-r, ter-r, is what we hear.’ Why do they do it?, she asks. She offers four explanations:” And then the four explanations—which I tend to believe were not intended to be insulting—followed:
1. A desire to be stylish or a reluctance to be too correct/too English?
2. Their frequent desire to speed speech up, as in giving a year as Two thousand eight instead of Two thousand and eight?
3. A form of shyness, like saying duiper instead of nappy?
4. Or maybe a Deep South accent becoming unable to embrace it?
Well, at least the correspondent didn’t include possible explanations involving “cowboy,” “Jed Clampett,” or “bloody ingrate colonists.” Obviously, I’m a mite irked by the theories, not because of the correspondent’s refusal to allow that regional differences are a natural part of language change, but by the implication that all Americans are self-absorbed idiots consciously disdaining correctness. Most of us are self-absorbed idiots consciously disdaining correctness, but by no means all of us.
Crystal, bless him, was purely educational in his response, and when a commenter challenged some of the thoughts, he kindly explained, “I’m allowing the post to appear without editing, but I would like to flag up that I don’t welcome intemperate expression on my blog. Some of the views that come in to me are often, from a linguistic point of view, wildly misconceived, but there is nothing to be gained by reacting to them with hostility.” I respect that. But because I’m one of those Americans afflicted with his own form of shyness, and one of those afflicting you with his own blog, allow me to examine the correspondent’s possible explanations one by one from this side of the pond:
1. A desire to be stylish or a reluctance to be too correct/too English? Yes, every syllable that comes out of Americans’ mouths goes through a “How correct/English is it?” mental filter before being uttered. As far as “stylish”—I had a paisley shirt in 1965. Does that count?
2. Their frequent desire to speed speech up, as in giving a year as Two thousand eight instead of Two thousand and eight?
BadConcision!BadConcision! We use such shortenings to catch up on time lost running everyday words and phrases like “t’rbl mr’r” through our “How correct/English is it?” mental filter. (I mean, filt’r.)
3. A form of shyness, like saying duiper instead of nappy? Americans? Shy? That perhaps is the first time I’ve heard that accusation. But specific to the example, we say diaper because it’s the word we use. It’s not like we say elevator instead of lift or truck instead of lorry out of squeamishness. Oh, don’t say lorry! It makes me blush! Besides, ninety-nine percent of Americans don’t know what the hell a nappy is. (It’s a diminutive of [oh, I’m blushing now!] napkin, a word with several uses, among them “sanitary napkin,” a phrase we do use.)
4. Or maybe a Deep South accent becoming unable to embrace it? Yes. All Americans speak in a Deep South accent. With Shallow South dialects near the Canadian border. Particularly in Wisconsin, Idaho, and parts of North by Northwest, starring Cary Grant (who was English). Perhaps Cary was from the Deep South Wales.
How many people consciously shape their pronunciations out of “desire,” “reluctance,” conscious rejection of correctness, deliberate wallflowerism or “shyness,” and/or whatever the hell #4 meant? Crystal—again,bless him—responded with a dispassionate discussion of regional pronunciation. One quote in particular: “Where did the American /r/ come from in the first place? Think of the people on the Mayflower, and where many of them came from,” in essence holding a mir-r back on portions of . . . well, need I say more?
Permalink
and 
. Feel free to 
