|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
I am starting to come around to a slightly more complicated view than either of the obvious positions of 'there is' or 'there isn't', having by instinct started out with a view close to Nicholas' and yours, Alex. I think I would now state it like this: there has to be a 'received context' in any discourse community, meaning a general consensus on grammar and lexical meaning - and this has to always be in a state of creative tension with the forces of liberation (who, if allowed their head, could rapidly dismantle language to a state of mutual incomprehension). Students of linguistics may recognise this is getting pretty close to Bakhtin's ideas.
In day to day exchanges, this means we have (according to our dispositions) to endure or enjoy a constant battle between the social forces whose interest lies in structuring, consolidating, centralising and focusing the language in use, and those whose interest is served by a freedom of expression, a decentralised and sometimes ecletic creation of personal ideolects. And that this process of ebb and flow is actually what language is centrally about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
We also have to remember that grammar is re-invented every generation. All native speakers of any language learn it, not by being given a set of grammar rules to memorize and apply, but by listening to and imitating native speakers. Rules are formed by hearing the language being used. For example, children learning to speak English will hear words such as children and imitate them. At some time into the learning process a child may come up with a 'new' plural form for child such as chiles or even chillers. Parents will sometimes take this as a step backwards but, in reality it is a step forward since a rule has been created afresh in the child's mind. Understanding of exceptions comes later.
The rules of grammar created by the individual child are only later overlaid with learned or received rules from teachers. The extent to which these learned rules affect the language patterns of the individual learning them will vary from person to person and, possibly, according to how closely the rules that the child constructed, follow the rules that are laid down in the classroom.
A case in point would be the old prepostion at the end of a sentence rule. In many cases the word at the end of the sentence is not a preposition but a particle of a phrasal verb. For a long time, traditional grammars did not recognize the phrasal verb and even now it seems to be popular only in the teaching of English as a second language. This has resulted in an inability to even recognize the difference between the two structures. A child will learn the phrase, e.g., that is the old friend I ran into and apply that structure to the phrase that is the burning building I ran into. The former is a legitimate use of the phrasal verb, to run into meaning meet accidentally. The latter is an example of the preposition at the end of a sentence, but since traditional grammars did not recognize the phrasal verb for many years (I might even say centuries) the speaker is faced with the disconnect of seeing a part of his internalized grammar being declared wrong. Responses to this dilemma will be different for different individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
First: tsuwm, thank you for defining how dictionaries do their definitions--I never even realized there was a difference. I suppose one dictionary that gave both types would be too cumbersome for words... (Oh, man, even I didn't see that one coming!  ) Now: maverick, you posted:
In day to day exchanges, this means we have (according to our dispositions) to endure or enjoy a constant battle between the social forces whose interest lies in structuring, consolidating, centralising and focusing the language in use, and those whose interest is served by a freedom of expression, a decentralised and sometimes ecletic creation of personal ideolects. And that this process of ebb and flow is actually what language is centrally about.Did you realize that you were also describing pretty much how all characteristics of society develop, as well as language? Who's going to have the power? One person? One person and his or her cronies/family? An elected person or group? And as you so ably enlightened me, who decides who gets to even run for election? In homes, who makes most of the decisions? All of these and more are the end result of individuals trying, by persuasion or force, to get their way. Doesn't the U.S. have something called a language Usage Board? Does anybody know how one gets onto this board? How much influence do they have over what goes into dictionaries? Nicholas, I am delighted to see you posting, sir! I agree with There isn't an official grammar. No-one has the power to make artificial rules, or to decide when a "rule" changes. --mostly. But haven't I read that France enforces language? Admitted ignorance here--perhaps the law there doesn't extend to grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 387
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 387 |
But haven't I read that France enforces language?
They have something called the French Academy, or something like that, that decides what words are legally french. I read a Smithsonian article on it, but I can't seem to find that copy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773 |
So, in prescribing something you effectively make it invalid? Mandy, I think the meaning of legal prescription might be clearer if we review its evolution: To write before -> to lay down authoritatively as a guide, direction or rule -> to impose as a peremptory order; to direct, define, mark out (= old English use = to outlaw someone) -> to assert a right or title to the enjoyment of a thing, on the ground of having previously had an uninterrupted and immemorial enjoyment of it, hence prescribing any claim against that right or title. The most common current use of prescription in US law is in the property law concept of prescriptive easement. A presciptive easement is a right to use another's property not inconsistently with the owner's rights, acquired through an open, notorious, adverse and continuous use for a statutory period (IIRC, 15 years in Michigan). For links to some prescriptive easement cases, see http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/Digest/topiclists/Property_pg3.htmPersonally, I find the professiocentric term "set-off" most annoying, given that the rest of the world uses "offset."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
The most common current use of prescription in US law is in the property law concept of prescriptive easement. A presciptive easement is a right to use another's property not inconsistently with the owner's rights, acquired through an open, notorious, adverse and continuous use for a statutory period (IIRC, 15 years in Michigan).
Well there is something that michigan did take from NY (city at least-- i don't know the state)
In NYC, (and now i am thinking specifically of Rockafeller center-- Rockerfeller Plaza --home to the christmas tree) is a private street. Once every year is is closed to the public. People who work in the building have to show their employee badges, other have to sign in, with a specific location named. If the street was left open to the public for year and a day, it would become a public street. Since it is a two block long street in midtown, and represents about 16 (potential) commercial building lots-- (each 60 by 100) the value of the street is in the billions.
easements (rights of way) on residential property take longer to establish, but less than 15 years. --I think it is about 5 years..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
If the street was left open to the public for year and a day, it would become a public street.
That is the rule thru most of New England ... When I lived in Massachusetts there was a plot of land on a corner that we all used for a shortcut ...it was and is actually private property.
Once a year, generally in the autumn after the tourist have gone home, the sawhorses went up for a couple of days and blocked the area so you could not use it. Thereby keeping the street private property.
This is always done when there is no snow ... I was told by a Legal Eagle that the blocking off has to be done when access is available, rather than just inaccessible because it's covered with three feet of snow and they hadn't gotten around to plowing it.
Along the New Hampshire seacoast there houses that are built abuting the ocean front so there are "public footpaths" for access to the beach through private property. They were established by usage over many, many years. These days the two houses abutting a public footpath often put up fences or plant rows of bushes to delineate the path. The footpaths are kind of a local secret....no signs of course ...especially where they go through the rich folks' properties! Gives us residents a shot at a beach that's not over run by tourists (oops, sorry) I mean visitors. It is a very SHORT coastline
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
There are very few foot paths to beaches in NY-- since property owners can own beach to the average high tide line.-- so beaches can be, and are private-.
The land between high and low is public domain.. One political district-- i can't remember if it is an assembly or congressional (State or federal) was gerrymandered -- and for almost a mile it ran along the coast in the intertidal area-- (since there is a ruling that districts need to be contiguous) even by NY standards it was pretty outragious. It include parts of the Bronx, a bridge, and parts of north queens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 427
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 427 |
Mandy notes:
"Law
To assert a right or title to something on the grounds of prescription.
To become invalidated or unenforceable by the process of prescription."Not having any knowledge of legal issues at all, I am not so familiar with the first definition, but isn't prescribing what happens when a crime was committed such a long time ago that it cannot be brought to justice any more? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609 |
using "they" to mean "he or she," you're going to get laughed out of the university. There was a recent thread on this topic. To summarise, opinion is divided amongst the board and the other authorities. I was taught to use "they" in this manner 40 years ago, and several "authoritative" gramatical sources vouch for its "correctness". It is not a recent change to the language, (perhaps arising when "he" was dropped as a plural in Early English ?? NicholasW??) but maybe it has become more prominent because of people wishing to show gender neutrality and finding "he or she" awkward. From Miriam -Webster Collegiate Dictionary: The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best. Rod
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,372
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
381
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
