Breaches, Breeches and Britches
Pages: 12
Yes, I am a "word nerd," and proud of it.
While doing some interwebz research on "Breach vs. Breech" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/breach-breech-usage) the article I read mentioned "breeches" as referring to "pants."*
Weird, I've only heard/used "britches." https://www.askdifference.com/breeches-vs-britches/
*M'ok, I know that "pants" means different things to Brits and us Murricans. :)
While doing some interwebz research on "Breach vs. Breech" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/breach-breech-usage) the article I read mentioned "breeches" as referring to "pants."*
Weird, I've only heard/used "britches." https://www.askdifference.com/breeches-vs-britches/
*M'ok, I know that "pants" means different things to Brits and us Murricans. :)
| *M'ok, I know that "pants" means different things to Brits and us Murricans. :) |
Yep, pants is an abbreviation for underpants. A lot of people say pants, where the English would say trousers.
The truth of the matter is 'underpants' is a special case of 'pants' which is derived from 'pantaloons' a type of 'trouser' worn with or without 'breeches' or 'knee-breeches'.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/pantaloons
Sadly, US English, being a confused derivative of proper English, leaves Americans in the same boat as Superman, breaching the laws of good taste, wearing their panties on the outside of their costumes.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/pantaloons
Sadly, US English, being a confused derivative of proper English, leaves Americans in the same boat as Superman, breaching the laws of good taste, wearing their panties on the outside of their costumes.
| Sadly, US English, being a confused derivative of proper English |
The word proper infers that some dialects are more valued than others.
My linguist friends tell me that many of the US southern black dialects are closer to the "proper" English of Shakespeare's time then the English spoken by the Queen today.
I think when you say proper what you mean is the English I prefer.
In some cases, that may be true.
but, the language is called ENGLISH. The place that came from is called ENGLAND. I believe they get to say what is proper and what is another (improper) dialect. The same could be said of French, SPAINish (intentional misspelling) and other such languages that have a natural home place.
There is PROPER american english. The Americans get to define what that means. Being american, I am annoyed for example by random Us in words from england's english, same as they are confused by our pants.
but, the language is called ENGLISH. The place that came from is called ENGLAND. I believe they get to say what is proper and what is another (improper) dialect. The same could be said of French, SPAINish (intentional misspelling) and other such languages that have a natural home place.
There is PROPER american english. The Americans get to define what that means. Being american, I am annoyed for example by random Us in words from england's english, same as they are confused by our pants.
Last edited on
I'm definitely speaking beyond my expertise, but I believe the only people who police their language is the French. I'm sure even the French have no authority outside of France.
In most cases a written language is not actually actually a language but representations of the language.
You have the right to call any dialect you want the proper language, but you should be aware of why you're calling it proper. My guess is the reason you call it proper is because the people you respect are using that dialect.
In most cases a written language is not actually actually a language but representations of the language.
You have the right to call any dialect you want the proper language, but you should be aware of why you're calling it proper. My guess is the reason you call it proper is because the people you respect are using that dialect.
Last edited on
| I'm definitely speaking beyond my expertise, but I believe the only people who police their language is the French. |
| You have the right to call any dialect you want the proper language |
How do you define "dialect"? Not everyone who speaks the same language speaks exactly the same. Some of those subgroups could be said to speak a dialect of the larger language, but where do you draw the line separating one dialect from another? Are the people who say "I could care less" speaking a different dialect from the people who say "I couldn't care less"? Similarly, is "I don't want nothing to do with it" a dialectical difference? Can there be a dialect with no spelling rules and no pronunciation rules, as long as the language is intelligible? Can there be a dialect spoken by a single person?
I am speaking beyond my expertise.
I did not know that the Spanish also police their language.
The written representation of a language is not the language. How a word is spelled and who enforces the spelling rules is completely different problem. Pronunciation, syntax, and semantics are part of the language.
How a linguist would define a dialect would have to be arbitrary at some level. But there are extreme differences between Gerodie Englsh, and West Philadelphia Engish. But a speaker of Gerodie could probably understand a West Philadelphian if each spoke slow enough.
If someone wants to say that one is better or more proper than the other that is their right.
I did not know that the Spanish also police their language.
The written representation of a language is not the language. How a word is spelled and who enforces the spelling rules is completely different problem. Pronunciation, syntax, and semantics are part of the language.
How a linguist would define a dialect would have to be arbitrary at some level. But there are extreme differences between Gerodie Englsh, and West Philadelphia Engish. But a speaker of Gerodie could probably understand a West Philadelphian if each spoke slow enough.
If someone wants to say that one is better or more proper than the other that is their right.
Last edited on
No, writing systems are languages in their own right, distinct from their oral counterparts. They have different rules and they can evolve separately, to some degree, although it would be highly unusual for a written language to evolve a different syntax from its oral language. I for one don't know any such example.
For example, in Japanese, knowing a sound only tells you part of the meaning, and you would need to know the context or see it written to know the full meaning. The Japanese are very fond of using the ambiguity in spoken language for wordplay. It's also perfectly possible to remember how to write something but not how to say it, or vice versa. Japanese is such an extreme example because the spoken language strayed relatively far as it evolved, while the written language stayed more static (perhaps as a result of low literacy rates in the past?).
For example, in Japanese, knowing a sound only tells you part of the meaning, and you would need to know the context or see it written to know the full meaning. The Japanese are very fond of using the ambiguity in spoken language for wordplay. It's also perfectly possible to remember how to write something but not how to say it, or vice versa. Japanese is such an extreme example because the spoken language strayed relatively far as it evolved, while the written language stayed more static (perhaps as a result of low literacy rates in the past?).
| No, writing systems are languages in their own right, distinct from their oral counterparts |
A written language certainly can be a language. I would say that most written languages are just representations of spoken language. So, I don't disagree with you, but I would probably always choose different words.
American sign language and British sign language are two separate and distinct languages.They're written representations would be similar. A person signing American sign language cannot understand someone signing British sign language. This would prove your point that a written language is distinct from a spoken language.
Still, I've never seen an example of someone who can only speak English and only write in Spanish. So I would say they can be distinct.
I used to believe in the concept of proper English. Then I found that the experts (linguist) almost never hold this opinion. Usually when people say your language is not proper what they mean is it's not my preference, or it's not how I was taught to speak.
Last edited on
| I would say that most written languages are just representations of spoken language. |
| Still, I've never seen an example of someone who can only speak English and only write in Spanish. |
| I used to believe in the concept of proper English. Then I found that the experts (linguist) almost never hold this opinion. |
| I really dislike anti-prescriptionism |
Never saw the term anti-prescription before but I do believe it is a fair description of me. I'm not PC, if you tell me I can't do or say something you better have reason. Telling me it's not PC or proper will always get push-back.
I find the arguments linguist make persuasive.
No one is ever going to tell you can't speak or write a certain way. If you speak or write "improperly" they will simply think you're uneducated, won't listen to you, won't hire you, etc. etc. That's just the way the world works. You're free to behave as if "properly" and "improperly" don't mean anything, but the consequences will still apply to you.
| robertb wrote: |
|---|
| Usually when people say your language is not proper what they mean is it's not my preference, or it's not how I was taught to speak. |
Which, in part, is what I alluded to with the opening post. :)
Interesting discussion!
Circling back to
I would argue no. I am no language theory guy, so whatever that is worth, but mistakes (even if heavily confined to one region) are not generally going to be a real dialect**. In any flavor of english, those mean completely different things, and there are no two flavors where they mean the same thing in a formal setting.
in all versions, the first means you do care, at least some.
in all versions, the second means you do not care, at all.
only when branching out into the under-educated will someone try to argue they are the same, even when they are used that way in some casual speech.
** of course it depends on how you define dialect, too. If you follow that its how a language is spoken in one or more geographical region(s), then one person's gibberish isn't a dialect. In that sense, if everyone in a region makes the same mistake, it could be a part of the dialect even while being wrong/improper even where it is used, as in our example. There are areas where in casual speech the two phrases are treated as if they both mean you don't care at all, but in those same areas, if writing a grammatically correct paper or giving a speech to an educated audience, they are still wrong. I don't know what to say about that, other than its just people being people.
As far as it goes, I find mistakes funny, esp in journalism. Somewhere along the way, even though their degree specializes in communication, language, etc, the majority of writers and speakers in the news/media mess up constantly. A simple example is the word suspicious. If you are breaking into my neighbors window with a crowbar wearing a ski mask, *I* am suspicious. YOU are suspect. But they always make the perp suspicious (of what, is never clear).
Circling back to
| Are the people who say "I could care less" speaking a different dialect from the people who say "I couldn't care less"? |
I would argue no. I am no language theory guy, so whatever that is worth, but mistakes (even if heavily confined to one region) are not generally going to be a real dialect**. In any flavor of english, those mean completely different things, and there are no two flavors where they mean the same thing in a formal setting.
in all versions, the first means you do care, at least some.
in all versions, the second means you do not care, at all.
only when branching out into the under-educated will someone try to argue they are the same, even when they are used that way in some casual speech.
** of course it depends on how you define dialect, too. If you follow that its how a language is spoken in one or more geographical region(s), then one person's gibberish isn't a dialect. In that sense, if everyone in a region makes the same mistake, it could be a part of the dialect even while being wrong/improper even where it is used, as in our example. There are areas where in casual speech the two phrases are treated as if they both mean you don't care at all, but in those same areas, if writing a grammatically correct paper or giving a speech to an educated audience, they are still wrong. I don't know what to say about that, other than its just people being people.
As far as it goes, I find mistakes funny, esp in journalism. Somewhere along the way, even though their degree specializes in communication, language, etc, the majority of writers and speakers in the news/media mess up constantly. A simple example is the word suspicious. If you are breaking into my neighbors window with a crowbar wearing a ski mask, *I* am suspicious. YOU are suspect. But they always make the perp suspicious (of what, is never clear).
Last edited on
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspicious
Well, here's the thing. Language is a meme (in the original sense of the word), and phrases in common use are also memes, even if they're not part of the language. In some places, "I could care less" is the "correct" phrase (in the sense that it is the phrase that is commonly used to express that idea). Rather than talk about dialects, we should talk about memomes in order to cover phrases such as this one.
| 1. tending to arouse suspicion 2. disposed to suspect 3. expressing or indicative of suspicion |
| I would argue no. I am no language theory guy, so whatever that is worth, but mistakes (even if heavily confined to one region) are not generally going to be a real dialect**. |
Pages: 12