Re: OT: passport languages

Quoting David Barrow <davidab@...>:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Why not? But tell me one thing: how many English-speaking people are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>there
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>for each Dutch-speaking in the US?"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Corrections are solicited.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>It's correct!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>For each Dutch-speaking person or each Dutch-speaking one
> >>>>
> >>>>adjectives need their nouns or pronouns in *Standard English when used
> >>>>attributively
> >>>>
> >>>>* Of course dialects may vary and even Standard speakers may not always
> >>>>stick to the rules :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Is the misplacement of that asterisk intentional?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>What do you mean? Where should it go?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Asterisks meant to indicate footnote usually go behind stuff - one'd
> >expect "... in Standard English* when ...". A prefixed asterisk, in
> >linguistics contexts, usually indicates an unattested form - I was
> wondering
> >where you were pulling some sort of joke re: the existence of a "Standard"
> English.
> >
> >
> I should have put it after, but then it should be Standard* English
> shouldn't it?  I'm referring to this particular variety of English.
Well, given what it says in the footnote, I assumed it was a comment on the
phrase "Standard English", not on the modifier "Standard". It seems more
natural to me that why - the comment's about Standard _English_, not the
phenomenon of Standard forms of languages in general, or so I read it. But if
you meant it to go specifically with "Standard", that's of course the way.

                                                         Andreas

Reply