The use of the article - Page 2

I dind't know what's Ebonics . Now i know.
tahnks :D

No hay por qué mezclar corrección con diferencias dialectales.

No hay 100 millones de mexicanos que piensen que atrás de los arbustos es correcto. El problema es justo el inverso. Pensar que ha de serlo cuando sólo unas pocas personas hablan de ese modo y, además, en cuanto profundizas un poco, se dan cuenta de que es más correcta otra opción, es tratar de imponer un uso porque le apetece a unos poquitos. O, quizá, pasarse de la raya en defender lo que no necesita que se defienda. Van a seguir hablando así independientemente de que cualquier persona diga que eso está mal.

Pondré un ejemplo del desbarajuste posible:

A. Correcto: Me sea caido el cafés.
B. Más correcto: Se me ha caído el café.

Hay gente que habla y escribe como en A. De aquí sólo se pueden sacar conclusiones descriptivas, nunca preceptivas. No tendría ningún sentido decir que A es correcto porque lo dicen muchas personas.

No existe actualmente ninguna escuela gramática seria que se dedique a la prescripción. Todas son descriptivas. No estamos en el siglo XIX. La RAE no funciona así.

No creo que sea una buena opción sacar a relucir los derechos de las personas en cuanto alguien habla de corrección.

Por supuesto que existe la descripción. Cuando escribo un post que incluye los modismos beso blanco y beso negro estoy siendo descriptivo. No lo he mirado en el DRAE.

¿Hace falta elegir entre descripción y corrección? Por favor...

Yes, please, keep it open (instead of pointing out the rest of the world...).

Do you think Ebonic is, or is not, English? Anyway, I don't think Ebonic is not a not "very" correct way of speaking English.

You could say that caló, panocho, bable, castúo are not Spanish. But their speakers know these languages are not Spanish. And they've got their own grammars, written or not written.

This is really interesting, because there is no corresponding non-standard Spanish. I think realizing this is the key to untie this cultural misunderstanding. If any of you, English native speakers, see the Spanish language as perfectly corresponding with English language, you are missing the point. In Spanish, there exist dialects (as in English), but there is no sub-standard Spanish.
To be continued...

I accept what you say. Do you think this is specific to Spain or does it cover the Americas as well? In English, we certainly have sub-standard usage as well as and dialect (such as Ebonics.)

PS: Some of my corrections are for errors, but others are for readability.
I wanted people to understand exactly what you were saying.

To have, Alfonso, you leave me doing a comment about it, Why do you believe it.? I feel your idea about the use correct of the Spanish or your point's very diplomatic, 'cause you've said, what we the Mexicans, Spanish, must we speak with the uses what you've commented, and as david said about it, it's silly think that 100 millions of Native speakers of spanish, they don't speak with idioms very distintinct, at least I don't know if you're correct in your mean of speak always, but here in Mexico, I've met to a lo of people and shall you believe me that, all the people speak same, they say words as these examples (Atras de, tu te llevas con ese), I know, what maybe the words're bad said, but that is the mean of speak of the people Native Latinoamericans, my question's the people in your contry, they don't speak in a mean similary, the point is what the people, as you and me and all us, we've forms of speak very distinct, please you shall accept opinions of others people type, I believe, what we can learn more things above languages, and I'm agreed with David, the point is that 100 millions of people or more, speak with modismos, and they've not said that their form of speak ain't the correct mean of speak.


You've came to Mexico sometime.?

Have a good week.

I think there is sub standard usage of a language no matter where you are or what language you are speaking.

No one, I think, agrees with its usage but we must accept the fact that it is there and it is widely used.

I don't think the majority of the American people agreed with "Ebonics" but it happened and it was accepted. Why don't we have "hillbilly" talk accepted as an official dialect? Don't some dictionaries recognize the word "aint" as an official word just because it was widely used? Does this make it a correct use of "isn't & aren't"?

Great discussion!

Elaina:cool:

Often, Elaina, the idioms're widely used for comfort, I've a doubt the use of the idioms as (isn't 're' s, ain't 'd, aren't 've and anothers.) it're well used and accepted in U.S.A and europe too.

These short words for me, it're helpfuls.

Crotalito,

Most of the 'short words' you create are not proper, not in written form at least. For example, we only place the contraction for are ('re) behind the words 'you,' 'we,' and 'they'.
For example:
we're = we are; they're = they are; you're = you are

These are not proper:
idioms're, girls're, people're

These are other proper contractions that stem from the 'to be' verb:
I am = I'm; it is = it's; he is = he's; she is = she's

The contraction of is ('s) can be used almost everywhere a noun is followed by the linking verb is. For example:
My father's older than my mother. = My father is older ...
That's green. = That is green. (But, we never write "This's green.")

(Don't confuse the contraction ('s) with the possessive ending. For example:
My father's car is blue. = El carro de mi padre es azul.)

Contractions are often made out of the helping verbs have and will, and their negated forms, haven't and won't. For example,
I will go with you. = I'll go with you.
I will not go with you. = I won't go with you.
I have seen the Pope. = I've seen the Pope.
I have not seen him. = I haven't seen him. = I've not seen him. (But we don't write "I'ven't seen him.")
You should have gone to the movies with us. = You should've gone ...
I could have gone, but I did not want to. = I could've gone but I didn't want to.

We often make a contraction out of the auxiliary verb would. For example:
They would like to see a movie. = They'd like to see a movie.
I would rather read a book. = I'd rather read a book.

We have many other contractions. Here is a long list I gleened from the Internet:

Positive Contractions

I'm --- I am --- Example: I'm waiting for my friend.
I'll --- I will --- Example: I'll see you tomorrow.
I'd --- I had / I would --- Example: I'd better leave now. OR I'd like more pie, please.
I've --- I have --- Example: I've worked here for many years.
You're --- You are --- Example: You're joking!
You'll --- You will --- Example: You'll be sorry!
You'd --- You had / would --- Example: You'd left before he arrived. OR You'd like her.
You've --- You have --- Example: You've been to London many times.
He's --- He is / has --- Example: He's on the phone now. OR He's been playing tennis since he was 6.
He'll --- He will --- Example: He'll be here tomorrow.
He'd --- He would / had --- Example: He'd prefer to meet you later in the week. OR He'd finished eating before the guests arrived.
She's --- She is / has --- Example: She's watching TV at the moment. OR She's had a lot of trouble lately.
She'll --- She will --- Example: She'll be at the meeting.
She'd --- She had / would --- Example: She'd been working for two hours when he telephoned. OR She'd like to have a glass of wine.
It's --- It is / has --- Example: It's very difficult to concentrate. OR It's been a long time since we saw each other last.
It'll --- It will --- Example: It'll be here soon.
It'd --- It would / had --- Example: It'd be difficult to say no. OR It'd been a long time since we saw each other.
We're --- We are --- Example: We're working hard on the Smith account this week.
We'll --- We will --- Example: We'll begin when he arrives.
We'd --- We had / would --- Example: We'd better hurry up if we want to catch the train. OR We'd like to see you in the office.
We've --- We have --- Example: We've been waiting for you!
They're --- They are --- Example: They're studying German this afternoon.
They'll --- They will --- Example: They'll finish soon if they concentrate.
They'd --- They had / would --- Example: They'd eaten their lunch when she stopped by to say hello. OR They'd rather not come to the meeting.
They've --- They have --- Example: They've just purchased a new home.
There's --- There is / has --- Example: There's a hotel in the next town. OR There's been too many telephone calls today!
There'll --- There will --- Example: There'll be a price to pay!
There'd --- There had / would --- Example: There'd better be a good explanation for this. OR There'd be a good reason for that.
That's --- That is / has --- Example: That's why I can't come. OR That's been on my mind lately.
That'll --- That will --- Example: That'll happen sooner than you think.
That'd --- That would / had --- Example: That'd be the reason why. OR That'd happened before my time.

Negative Contractions

aren't --- are not --- Example: They aren't coming next week.
can't --- can not --- Example: I can't understand you.
couldn't --- could not --- Example: He couldn't get his shoes on!
didn't --- did not --- Example: We didn't visit Rome.
doesn't --- does not --- Example: He doesn't play golf.
don't --- do not --- Example: They don't like cheese.
hadn't --- had not --- Example: I hadn't thought of that!
hasn't --- has not --- Example: She hasn't telephoned yet.
isn't --- is not --- Example: She isn't listening to you.
mustn't --- must not --- Example: Children mustn't play with fire.
needn't --- need not --- Example: You needn't worry about that.
shouldn't --- should not --- Example: You shouldn't smoke cigarettes.
wasn't --- was not --- Example: I wasn't joking when I said that.
weren't --- were not --- Example: They weren't invited to the party.
won't --- will not --- Example: I won't be able to attend the conference.
wouldn't --- would not --- Example: She wouldn't be surprised if he showed up at the party.

Yeah, Rusty, I know it, but in really, I'm a lil baggy to the write something, and I feel more comfort used the contractions in place uncommons, but I believe, what you're understanding me the post, that I've wrote in the forums, for example I've wrote this, (The house of my mother has houseflies, and in the windows's the insecticide) for me, this is more comfort, only you tell me, Do you've understood all my own postes.?

For that, I've used widely the contractions in the post, I know, what that's not correct in mean very formal, but when you write in mean informal, I can used the contraction.

Ah, another thing thank very much for your list, it'll be of great usefulness for me.

I've laid the accepted contractions before you, and agree that others are possible. Anyone who reads books a lot will definitely find others. But care should be taken. Inventing contractions for your own convenience while writing to others might prove difficult for your audience to read.

I understand a lot of what you write, but have to rely on my knowledge of Spanish to decipher some of it. Adding contractions doesn't make it more readable, but does show initiative on your part.

I'll correct what you wrote so that you can learn more.

¿Cuando escribes to have, quieres decir: haber, o, mejor dicho, a ver?

No puedes traducir a ver por to have.

I think you could say instead: Let's see; well...

I think you are taking register as sub-standard language; or sociolecto as sub-standard language; or dialect as sub-standard language. These are different things explained through different concepts. The point is what do you mean when you say sub-standard language applied to a language that is not English. The difference between standard and non standard English maybe is really clear. This doesn't happen with Spanish. Even those minoritarian forms that break important points in the grammar system are considered correct. This is the case, for example, of the argentinian voseo. And the criteria to accept this is not prescriptive, but descriptive.

I think, the Spanish linguistic tradition doesn't call to a peculiar way of speaking sub-standard Spanish. Nobody use that concept. Even, it's not necessary that phrase, as there is not such a fact, such a being, to be called so. There are a lot of concepts really productive and efficient in gathering (grouping?) the different ways of talking, but none of them is sub-something: registro, dialecto, idiolecto, sociolecto, variedad diastrática, variedad diatópica, variedad diacrónica... I never felt the needing to call any way of speaking español sub-standard or something. Will it be a cultural decision? Perhaps. Is our culture more flexible with variations from the standard than the anglosaxon culture. Maybe. I'm sick and tired of talking to American students, and I can say that the cultural shock they and I have is harder than the one I feel when talking to Armenian people...

Alfonso estamos hablando en semánticos. Acepto que la palabra substandard parece despectiva. Pero en mi opinión el sentido lanzado
por los americanos en este forum no es nada despectivo. Tal vez se
puede borar la desdichada palabra substandard y poner una palabra
que suena menos negativa. La verdad es que muchos inglesparlantes usan
el doblenegativo. Ejemplo: I don't have no idea.
y otros usos del idioma que no son correcto gramáticamente. Eses usos
no son dialectos ni jergas. Si una persona se los usa mucho frequentamente es un signo que no leen mucho o no aprendieron bien en escuela ¿Que palabra propongas tú en lugar de substandard?

Alfonso, Haber: To have.

Thanks, for your correctios about it, I'll try of don't use much the contractions.

OK, but you should use: Let's see, well... when you mean A ver.

• To have. :bad:
• Let's see. :good:
• Well. :good:

Porque una cosa es haber y otra cosa es a ver (como vamos a ver).

No discuto si es despectiva o no la palabra. En realidad, es lo que menos me preocupa, si sirve para dar cuenta de una realidad. En general, las palabras no son despectivas, sino el uso que se hace de ellas. Subestándar sería un buen ejemplo de palabra ambivalente. No tengo nada que reprochar a esta palabra aplicada al inglés.

Ahora, si tratas de encontar un español subestándard, te diré que no existe. Luego no te diré ninguna palabra.

No existe un equivalente del I don't know nothing en español, pues la norma, salvo en la ortografía, es muy amplia, y admite muchísimas variaciones y localismos. No tiene ningún sentido llamar a esto subestándard, ni nada parecido, pues se identifica con diversos usos igualmente dentro de la norma. Ésta es la diferencia con respecto al inglés. De ahí que utilice las palabras vulgar o incorrecto (son distintas) para referirme a realidades que no pueden explicarse de otro modo. Éstas son las categorías que se utilizan en español, porque la lengua española está parcelada de distinta manera a como lo está el inglés.

En español, puedes hablar de correcto y de incorrecto. Y, de acuerdo con otros criterios, puedes hablar de idiolecto, sociolecto, dialecto, registro, jerga, variedades diatópicas, diastráticas, diacrónicas, etc.

Si consideras desdichada la palabra substandard, y pretendes cambiarla por un eufemismo... es que hay algo que te coacciona en el uso del lenguaje y te impide nombrar la realidad por su nombre más apropiado.

El eufemismo que buscas no varía la realidad. Sólo la esconde. Y la esconde mal.

Creo que cuando se habla del inglés substandard, en su escencia, se refiere a registro y dialecto. De acuerdo al registro y al dialecto, el vocabulario, la pronunciación etc pueden variar. Por ejemplo, en el registro 1 del inglés hablado (y menos frecuentemente escrito) la frase I want to ... se convierte en I wanna. La idea de substandard English es la misma, sería inglés del registro 1 o quizá un poco menos, sólo que el substandard English no es muy aceptado por los que se creen en la clase media para arriba. Lo que yo en mi ignorancia llamaría substandard Spanish sería lo siguiente (que realmente se trata de dialecto y registro en mi opinión):

standard -- substandard
pues sí - pos sí
ahorita - orita
cuidad - cuidad
haya - haiga
bueno - gueno
broncee - broncie (verbos que terminan en -ear en modo subjuntivo)

Lo que quiero decir es que en inglés usamos substandard para referirnos a formas de hablar del registro 1 de ciertos dialectos. No es que esas formas de hablar sean incorrectas, sólo son menos aceptadas.

No sé si me explico :(

Let's see, Alfonso thanks.