Grammar debate- is this true?

[AGBF]

Anyway, in linguistics, grammaticality - whether a construction is grammatical or ungrammatical in any given language - is only investigated within the variety of the language in question. Something that is grammatical (i.e. correct) in one variety of English may be ungrammatical in another.

I am going back to the original issue...or at least what I perceived to be the original issue. (I realize that I may not be "the issue definer" for this thread.)

If a word can be correct in one variety of English but not in another (which I completely accept, by the way), what happens when someone who appears to be speaking one variety slips in a word from another variety?

Using the word "axe" for "ask" may be "grammatical (i.e. correct) in one variety of English" but be "ungrammatical in another". I believe that to be the case. I hear "axe" and know that the speaker means "ask". But I do not expect to hear the word "axe" (meaning "ask") when someone is speaking standard English. If someone is speaking standard English and says "axe" for "ask" it is ungrammatical. The speaker has used the grammar that is correct in one language incorrectly in another.

I know in the long run that language changes. Followers of the linguistics school of thought always stress this fact. One day "axe" may be used grammatically in the language I am referring to as "standard English". Then again, it may not. No one can predict the future.

Deb/AGBF

 

[VapidLapid]

An interesting question, Deb. I wonder how much the casualness of spoken language, verses the formality of written language, plays in this. I think the example of a court stenographer is a good place to question from. If the court stenographer hears "I axed him" and records it as "I asked him" then has the CS has misrepresented the testimony? What if the speaker says "axed", but means "asked", and visualizes their speech correctly? Then if the CS records it as "axed" is that not a misrepresentation too? Also what of the (rare) case of the CS who hears "asked" as "axed", and transcribes it as such? One's written speech may rightly be held to account. One's spoken speech may be questioned on the spot, except in the case of the court stenographer who can ask only for the speaker to repeat, not clarify. Some, not all, speakers of language errors know the right spelling or usage, but have pronunciation deficits picked up from anywhere, or anyone, in their history, or just plain glottal laziness. I propose we call them "glottons". My point is that the speaker may have the correct speech, and the wrong pronunciation. If the speaker is a British murderer, who says on the stand, "He tired me, so I axed him...", which of these meanings does the CS hear and record, "He threw a tyre at me so I axed him", or "he was a bore, so I axed him", or, "he was a bore, so I asked him...to leave"?

edited to un-split an infinitive.

 

[VRBeauty]

If I were that court reporter I'd report that as "I aksed him," since that's what I think is happening - the speaker is transposing two sounds. But yes, that is an assumption on my part.

 

[AGBF]

If the court stenographer hears "I axed him" and records it as "I asked him" then has the CS has misrepresented the testimony? What if the speaker says "axed", but means "asked", and visualizes their speech correctly?

I thought about this for a while, VL. At first I thought that you might have a valid point and that perhaps a court stenographer should write "asked" when someone said, "axed" because "axed" means "asked". Then I realized that what I really feel is that if "axed" is going to be accepted as a variant of "asked" it has to be accepted into this language (standard English) and the variant spelling of "ask" and the variant pronunciation of "ask" has to be accepted into this language. Otherwise each individual hearing spoken language could take it upon himself to decide that what he heard meant what he decided it meant. Each court reporter (for example) would be a law unto himself.

Deb/AGBF

 

[AGBF]

If I were that court reporter I'd report that as "I aksed him," since that's what I think is happening - the speaker is transposing two sounds. But yes, that is an assumption on my part.

"ak-sed" and "axed" do not sound the same to me.

Deb

 

[Gem Queen]

a court reporter writes the spoken word, meaning verbatim, not what they think it should be. If you say "I seen em," that is what you write. My job is to write exactly what they say, not decide what they really mean.

 

[Gem Queen]

Vapid Lapid, hence the years in school and the high standards of proper grammar and punctuation.

 

[AGBF]

Vapid Lapid, hence the years in school and the high standards of proper grammar and punctuation.

It doesn't really matter except that I have been enjoying your contributions to this thread, Gem Queen, but I did not know to which of VapidLapid's comments you were directing this comment of yours. (Therefore I did not not understand your rejoinder about the years of study of grammar and punctuation.)

I have to admit to being-and to always having been-fascinated by court reporting/stenography. It seems to the observer to be an impossible task. I once thought it might be a good career for my daughter, who has impeccable grammar and who writes beautifully, but when I researched the programs that taught it they seemed to be as rare as hen's teeth! It also appears that there may be a trend towards minimizing the number of human court reporters. Do you believe that that will happen?

Deb/AGBF

 

[VRBeauty]

If I were that court reporter I'd report that as "I aksed him," since that's what I think is happening - the speaker is transposing two sounds. But yes, that is an assumption on my part.

"ak-sed" and "axed" do not sound the same to me.

Deb

a court reporter writes the spoken word, meaning verbatim, not what they think it should be. If you say "I seen em," that is what you write. My job is to write exactly what they say, not decide what they really mean.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not a court reporter!

I think my mind hears in context. And fortunately, I've yet to hear anyone say "I axed him" in a context that brings to mind blood and gore, hence, I "read" a phrase like that as "aksed" rather than "axed."!

 

[Gem Queen]

I know you hear in context, but that is not how reporters are trained.
For example, an expert witness, who is a forensic accountant, says business valuation, and you say to yourself, because maybe you don't normally sit in family law, he must have meant business evaluation.
Wait, it gets better. Later, an attorney calls you to produce a transcript. You produce the transcript and you have the word evaluation instead of valuation in the transcript, even though your steno notes clearly said valuation. That attorney gets the transcript and sees the error, and calls you to let you know.
Do you say, we'll, I wrote valuation when I was taking down the testimony, but I figured you said the wrong word.
As a reporter, That is why you write what you hear.
I don't think it will be any time soon that we are traded for electronic recording. Our lobbyists fight hard for that. But the stories I hear in family law.... You can't pay for that kind of entertainment. I'm sure my comment about family law will change the whole path of this string. We've had some pretty big names here. I'm in Southern California.