You and your native language

[eido]

I read about grammar because mine needs improving. I get pissed at myself because I use "there's" for plurals, among other things. It's a habit. I like reading about the why of English when I come across it, but I'm not a natural noticer of patterns in language, so I don't seek stuff out. What I do read I like to be in simple language, because although I find the information interesting, it's hard for me to keep track of all the specialized terms, especially those that describe pronunciation. I like zjones like to learn about dialect/pronunciation. I have what can be considered a "neutral" American accent, and knowing about the other US accents is intriguing. I like to listen to them mostly - if there's facts about them that's a bonus, even better. Everything I know about grammar comes from Spanish class and forum scavenging.

[Cainntear]

It’s an old Germanic pattern called “verb second”.

I had a feeling you'd know about this! My question, though, is more about why it sounds old-fashioned with the pronoun but not with the noun. Perhaps that's just a reflection of what I was exposed to growing up.

Ah, right... got you now. I suppose with the nouns it's more common in books. I didn't really notice myself as I was reading pretty fast, and the " 'are you coming?' asked John " type was kind of common in a lot of the books I read in my younger years (children's classics like C.S.Lewis, Tolkien etc).

I wouldn't even know if it was uncommon now.

[Cainntear]

I get pissed at myself because I use "there's" for plurals, among other things.

And what's wrong with that? Most English speakers do, so that's the modern pattern. I expect it to be fully accepted in writing within 20 years.

[tarvos]

I also do that. Don't do it when speaking formally but informally sure

[Decidida]

Yes, I study my native language. One of my reasons for studying Spanish and now also Creole, is so that I can teach English phonics better and change my English to be more understandable to Latin American speakers. Lately, I have been reading and studying Plain English resources like these ones.

https://www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf

https://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/checklists/

https://www.techscribe.co.uk/techw/plain-english.htm

I took an important English test yesterday and the professor begged me to do something specific on it, saying he really did not want me to be the first A student that failed that test. He says I am undisciplined. LOL. I have been studying my native language intensively before I went to college, and i guess I accomplished something on my own, because ... the professors have a lot to say about my writing.

I guess my writing strength is my voice, not my English skills. I'm not sure how that is going to carry over into other languages.

I will never be done studying my native language.

[Speakeasy]

I get pissed at myself because I use "there's" for plurals, among other things.

And what's wrong with that? Most English speakers do, so that's the modern pattern. I expect it to be fully accepted in writing within 20 years.

I make a conscious effort at saying "there're" and I feel no shame at doing so. The two of you are too young to have been drilled in the sublte differences in pronunciation of "there, their, they're, there're" as I endured in the 1950's. Getting these right by the middle of the 2nd grade was like receiving a Boy Scout badge.

Returning to the central theme of this thread, yes, I continue to derive pleasure in reviewing English grammar and the history of the language, despite my advancing years.

[Iversen]

In my first message in this thread I mentioned that I feel I ought to learn more about our Danish dialects, while I didn't see the point in doing a lot more than I already do to improve my vocabulary or change my communication style. As for grammar I'm not terribly impressed by the level of the grammars of Danish I have seen, and I'm too lazy to write one myself.

[Whodathunkitz]

The two of you are too young to have been drilled in the sublte differences in pronunciation of "there, their, they're, there're" as I endured in the 1950's. Getting these right by the middle of the 2nd grade was like receiving a Boy Scout badge.

.

Every day's a school day! I'm from East Anglia in England originally. Generally long vowels and "com-pu-ter" is pronounced "com-poo-ta". For me
"I oughta
fought her" - the 2 lines rhyme (Oughta short for "Ought to have")

Their / There (almost the same to me, I just noticed a slight change in stress/intonation - not quite sure)

They're (slight difference on the 're - extended r/e - they-er)
There're (I would never use this - or I would pronounce it identically to "there are")


My son corrects my English to the midlands way - says (sez for me) - to say-es (midlands).

1950s pronunciation - where - Canada? Was it a bit like received pronunciation?

[Speakeasy]

... 1950s pronunciation - where - Canada? Was it a bit like received pronunciation?

If there ever was a Canadian version of “received pronunciation” in the 1950’s, I would imagine that it would have been the “Standard Canadian English” which closely resembled the “Standard/General American English” of the period. At the time, it was projected as a “middle-American accentless accent” as spoken by newscasters. For example, during the period, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's radio and television personalities were evaluated on their degree of conformity to the broadcaster's self-defined standard and, if adjustments were deemed necessary, these employees were required to undergo an extended programme of voice-training. To a certain extent, American broadcasters were held to a similar standard. In an interview just before his retirement, Peter Jennings, who had been the sole “anchor” for the American ABC World News in the 1980’s ad 1990’s, attributed his acceptance by American television viewers to the voice-training he had received at the CBC earlier in his career; very few people were ever aware that he was Canadian. Now, that’s “received speech” in action!

It is impossible for me to say by what means and to what extent “Standard Canadian English” percolated to the level of the Canadian Public School System of the period. However, I can definitely recall being drilled on the subtle differences in pronunciation of “there, there’re, their, they're” as of the 1st grade. In addition, during this formative period, my pronunciation was corrected at home by my parents both of whom were raised in England (even though neither of them spoke "English received speech"). However, as Cainntear observed, the contraction “there’re” is increasingly being replaced by the grammatically incorrect “there’s”, a matter which I suspect is due to a combination of natural changes in the language and the total abandonment of the teaching of English grammar in the school system since the 1970’s. This does not stop me from cringing whenever I hear "there's" used in the plural.

We will now resume our regular programming.

EDITED:
Typos.

[Cainntear]

I make a conscious effort at saying "there're" and I feel no shame at doing so.

I never suggested you should feel shame for it, but if you have to make a conscious effort to do so, it cannot be part of your native language -- your native language is the language you speak without conscious effort.

The two of you are too young to have been drilled in the sublte differences in pronunciation of "there, their, they're, there're" as I endured in the 1950's. Getting these right by the middle of the 2nd grade was like receiving a Boy Scout badge.

Again, if you have to be trained to do it, it's not part of your native language.

However, as Cainntear observed, the contraction “there’re” is increasingly being replaced by the grammatically incorrect “there’s”, a matter which I suspect is due to a combination of natural changes in the language and the total abandonment of the teaching of English grammar in the school system since the 1970’s. This does not stop me from cringing whenever I hear "there's" used in the plural.

It is not grammatically incorrect. It is grammatically correct in the native language of a great many speakers.

As you say -- there are two factors at play here. The first is the natural change in the language -- English has become almost entirely SVO and a huge number of speakers no longer have any active concept of verb-second whatsoever, so "there" here has been reanalysed as the subject in the structure. No English-speaker ever agrees verb with object (eg it's me, not *it am I; it's us, not *it are we) so without verb-second, there is no way for the "there is"/"there are" distinction to be grammatical.

The abandonment of "teaching grammar" is the abandonment of telling people that their native language is incorrect, and imposing arbitrary "rules" on them. It is sad that this hasn't been replaced with the teaching of grammar awareness, i.e. drawing kids' attention to their own patterns of speech. Grammar awareness leads to a much better ability to write clear language and to better punctuation. Sadly, the people who want grammar back in the classroom almost always want to tell kids that they're speaking wrong, and no-one's championing proper grammar awareness classes that start with pupils' actual native language.