Non-Standard Words and Constructions that Should Become Standard

[Pacifica]

If there's a particularly useful/nice/logical word or construction that isn't accepted in standard English (or another language) but is dialectal, slang, etc. or deemed incorrect for whatever reason, but which you believe ought to be accepted, post it here.

I just now for some reason thought again of the perfectly fine and logical, unjustly scorned "amn't", which gave me the idea for this thread.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

There are many.

Steven Pinker had a talk on this. He be saying that them rules should not be so strict.

 

[Serenus]

Standard Spanish has this in present-tense contrary-to-fact conditions:
Si tuviera dinero, te daría un poco (daría <- conditional)
If I had money, I'd give you some

...and has this in past-tense contrary-to-fact conditions:
Si hubiera tenido dinero, te hubiera/habría dado un poco (hubiera dado <- pluperfect subjunctive, habría dado <- perfect conditional)
If I had had money, I would've given you some

As you can see, this is asymetrical. Why is a subjunctive allowed in the past, but not in the present? My dialect makes this regular by allowing the subjunctive in the present as well.
Si tuviera dinero, te diera/daría un poco (diera <- imperfect subjunctive, daría <- conditional)
If I had money, I'd give you some

I kind of wish this were more accepted.
(....or "was" more accepted, if you don't like this English subjunctive... )

 

[Pacifica]

Somewhat similarly, in French, the regular construction for contrary-to-fact conditions is imperfect (for present) or pluperfect (for past) indicative in the protasis and conditional in the apodosis. (In present contrary-to-fact protases, this is very similar to Greek.)

For example: "Si tu étais (imperfect indicative) là, j'irais (present conditional) mieux" = "If you were here, I would feel better."

But people sometimes use the confitional in both parts, e.g. "Si tu serais là, j'irais mieux". "Si" is even sometimes omitted: "Tu serais là, j'irais mieux".

I think the version with two conditionals is more logical. In spite of this, I don't particularly wish it were more accepted. It still sounds wrong to me for some reason (though I'm guilty of using that construction myself sometimes, especially the one without "si"!).

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

As I've mentioned before, there is no logical argument against 'alright'. It is formed on the basis of words like 'already' and 'altogether', and would make unambiguous the distinction between 'the answers are all right' meaning they're all correct and the same phrase meaning that they're just about adequate.

 

[Matthaeus]

I just now for some reason thought again of the perfectly fine and logical, unjustly scorned "amn't", which gave me the idea for this thread.

Don't you mean "ain't"?

 

[Pacifica]

Don't you mean "ain't"?

No, I don't mean "ain't". I meant what I wrote: "amn't".

I like "ain't" too, but I hate "aren't I".

 

[Matthaeus]

No, I don't mean "ain't". I meant what I wrote: "amn't".

Hmm funny, never heard or seen that before.

I like "ain't" too, but I hate "aren't I".

Hos come? Cause it's irregular when in a question?

 

[Pacifica]

Hos come? Cause it's irregular when in a question?

Because it just sounds like a person disagreement.

 

[Matthaeus]

True, it's bizarre. I agree with you. Am I not? Aren't I?

 

[Terry S.]

No, I don't mean "ain't". I meant what I wrote: "amn't".

I like "ain't" too, but I hate "aren't I".

I don't understand where 'aren't I?' comes from, but there is likely something quite old going on there. In Scots a commonly heard first person singular denial runs,"Ah'm urny!" meaning, "I (emphatically) am not!"

 

[Pacifica]

I don't understand where 'aren't I?' comes from, but there is likely something quite old going on there.

I read an explanation once, which I think was either linked to or mentioned by a member of this forum, but I don't remember what it was exactly. I think part of it was that it isn't the "are" that it seems to be, and so isn't a person mismatch; but it sounds so identically like it that I can't help but hate it.

 

[Terry S.]

I think part of it was that it isn't the "are" that it seems to be, and so isn't a person mismatch; but it sounds so identically like it that I can't help but hate it.

If the reference ever comes back to you, please let me know. I'd love to know what's at the root of this. It bugs me too.

 

[Pacifica]

Searching on Google, I have just found this, which may actually be the article I read back then, though I'm not sure.

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

I suspect I've railed against the apostrophe before. In the vast majority of cases it doesn't actually provide any help to the reader. This is far more controversial than it deserves to be.