Ask Your Question today
I'll just give one example "i could care less" this doesn't make any sense! Infact by saying this one is trying to convey the opposite of what they have said.
Obviously there are many more examples but i got stuff to do ;)
Some Americans don't have proper sense of negativity, but the British don't pronounce their "r"s when they're at the ends of words, and that's far more horrific.
Well you're talking about 4 countries , can you give an example, please? I imàgine what you are talking about is from one region in one of these countries, surely not all British people practice this horrific form of pronunciation.
Also mispronouncing 1 letter or changing a 'y' to an 'e' is hardly comparable to changing a positive to a negative.
I agree with you, OP. Unlike Clunk, I maintain that logic must have higher priority than pronunciation. "I could care less" should be "I could not care less." Also, the usage of idiomatic expressions in any language gets sloppy over time. Fortunately, English has fewer of these than the other Germanic languages.
OP also mentioned "my" vs "me", which is a logical issue. A possessive noun is a possessive noun, and an accusative noun is an accusative noun. You cannot logically use an accusative noun when you intend to use a possessive noun. That breaks the rules of syntax as set forth by the language you speak, making your sentence entirely illogical.
Also, I'm fairly certain the phrase "I could care less" came into existence because people realized the falsehood of "I couldn't care less". You can always care less.
I've always believed that dialects are languages of their own, since they have different rules from the other dialects, and a different ruleset is pretty much what makes a different language a different language. For someone to claim that Iyaric, for example, is simply a different dialect is rather stupid, yet it is considered a mere dialect. How can something like Iyaric be considered a dialect, when it has such confusing sentences as that of 1 Meqabyan 1:11?
"By him timeframe bein small - an ina him heart dullness - it would seem fe him that them Irated him - that them feed him an that them crown him ~ it would seem fe him that them Irated him - fe Seythan have deafened him reasonin lest him know him Irator Who Irated him bringin from not livin toward livin - or lest him with him kindreds know him Irator Who Irated him bringin from not livin toward livin - that them might go toward Gehannem of Fiyah foriva - it bein judged pon them with him who call them gods without them bein gods."
That is still only considered a pseudo-dialect as its furthest title from English, despite the fact that it has a completely different ruleset. There really isn't an official line anywhere that claims at what point a dialect becomes a language, besides mutual intelligibility. The problem with basing it purely off of mutual intelligibility is that it allows things that are clearly other languages to be considered mere dialects of some parent languages, even if they weren't based off of those languages at all, and just happened to be similar enough to be mutually intelligible.
I appreciate language and the intricacies that come with it enough to have created my own. The thing is, swapping negativity is no worse than changing from a possessive noun to an accusative noun. Also, not using the correct phoneme is indeed a rather large problem. Using the incorrect phoneme can do things like changing the word "like" to the word "lick" or "wire" to "were".
British and Irish people often use me in place of my like "I broke me hand" it doesnt bother me tho but Ive noticed it.
I've noticed that too . Many Australians and New Zealanders do the same . Don't some Americans do this also?
I think the difference here is that the people from these countries who do this, in general , are less well educated and from certain classes in society. Whereas the example i gave in my post includes highly educated American's and those from all classes .
I had a tutor growin up that would always hound on me for using the word "dont" in place of "doesnt". So Id say "that dont make no sense" when it should be said "that doesn't make any sense".
There's also abit of a stereotype in America of speaking in this accent its looked at as being a lowerclass, redneck slang. If you meet southerners that have been rich for generations they have a different southern accent with a hint of british in it. This is seen as the higher class more educated sounding accent. A lot of people in Alabama also have this accent.
I never knew I had an accent until I started using the internet and started voice chatting. For years I worked on getting rid of it but I quit caring about it.
People who say I could care less are what annoy me the most. I constantly correct people that say it.
Kind of, yeah. Every country has a dialect, and the US has dialects within dialects lol. Some areas even I can't understand what they're saying.
im not arguing with you here but In English a double negative is incorrect.
It probably started from people speaking English as a 2nd language where double negatives are used all the time and are correct - Portuguese, Spanish etc..
I disagree. I think language works best as a set group of rules that don't change much. Also, in the word "would", you could pronounce the "l" as an affricate with the "d", making it /wʊl͡d/, which is actually very similar to how it is pronounced today (/wʊd/).
nothin here in usa is bloody except crime scenes & hospital emergency rooms yet every fuckin thing all over england is bloody this & bloody that
why so much blood?
Yanno, I like the fundamental nature of your question. As a North American, my best guess was that it was wishful thinking possibly caused by so many restrictions on deadly weapons in the U.K. Hopefully, a smart Brit will reveal the origin of this "bloody" expression.
People in parts of the UK say things like "look at the bloody rain", " that bloody neighbour has parked over our driveway again" that type of thing. Were others may replace "bloody" for an expletive or "damned" etc.
Not a Brit so i have no idea of the origin though.
I suppose a bloody American like me will have to do the work here. I found this:
Origin
Mid 17th century from bloody. The use of bloody to add emphasis to an expression is of uncertain origin, but is thought to have a connection with the ‘bloods’ (aristocratic rowdies) of the late 17th and early 18th centuries; hence the phrase bloody drunk (= as drunk as a blood) meant ‘very drunk indeed’. After the mid 18th century until quite recently bloody used as a swear word was regarded as unprintable, probably from the mistaken belief that it implied a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ, or that the word was an alteration of ‘by Our Lady’; hence a widespread caution in using the term even in phrases, such as bloody battle, merely referring to bloodshed.
At IIN, everyone says "fuck". I prefer the pleasurable connotation. It's fucking agreeable.