Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: passport languages

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Saturday, August 30, 2003, 21:48
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

Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>