A follow-up to what I just wrote.  It is this complex variability that
makes answers like mine less acceptable to people who think there are
simple answers to such questions.  A strong prescriptivist orientation
tends to demand such simple answers.  It's not that we on this list are
lax in our standards; it's rather that we know how messy and complicated
variation in language is, so that simple answers are rarely satisfying.

Herb


Edith,
   The dictionaries I have consulted give them both as options but don't
list regions. I was born in Connecticut, but lived long stretches in
southern New Jersey, New Hamphsire, and now upstate New York. People
sometimes think I'm from the south, maybe because I like to take my
time when I talk. I say the first part of "human" the same way I say
"you". (To me, you and hue are indistinguishable.)
   But I'm mainly interested in how you tell someone it isn't evidence
of
"lazy talk" when we leave out "letters."  >

Craig

Craig, as far as I know, on the West Coast there has been no loss of h
> in human, humor, humid. I could almost blow out a candle on all three
of
> them. On the other hand, I have no h in hour or herb and I don't hear
> one on this side of the Rockies.
> Edith Wollin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Civility
>
> Herb,
>    I am very glad you sent this post.  I have been contemplating
> something of the sort since I caught up on mail this morning.  >
>    One reason I enjoyed Eduard's polemic is that it expresses rather
> blatantly a perspective not often expressed on this list precisely
> because it is politically incorrect.  (I suspect that is one reason we
> are reacting so strongly to it.) In all the talk about civility, the
> substance of his position has gotten lost.  I think you're right, that
> it's the view of many people out there.  I also think it's close to
the
> views of many on list, but I think we need to slow things down to get
> there.
>     With apologies to Eduard if I'm misrepresenting his views, I think
> he is saying that there is an ideal form of the language that people
> should aspire to. Because of his background, he is used to having a
> national academy to pass judgement on the kinds of questions we deal
> with all the time.  (Hardly a week goes by in which someone doesn't
post
> the list for advice about which choice is more "correct" when there
are
> alternatives. Eduard's not the only one to believe that some forms and
> choices are more "correct" than others.) In our country, we
> have the handbooks and style manuals.   Our progressive position
> (politically correct) is that the standard is only better because it's
a
> standard (not standard because it's better.)  In other words, as you
> mention in your talks with your class, it opens doors for us. This is
> not the way the public sees it, and it's not the vision behind the "no
> child Left Behind" movement, which tries to test whether students are
> acquiring these better choices.  From this perspective, which you
label
> a kind of elitism, everything Eduard says makes more sense.
> Children don't acquire a prestige language just by being alive.  They
> need to be exposed to it.  And, as Eduard sees it, they need to have
> their language "corrected" when it falls short.  He, and I think many
> people, believe that teachers are failing to live up to this important
> obligation, telling students (very wrongly) that it's OK to be
> themselves, when in fact it's not. They will pay for it and we will
pay
> for it as a culture.
>    Part of this point-of-view usually is the notion that people need
to
> be socialized into language, that left to their own devices, it just
> won't happen.
>    Eduard, especially as a trained linguist, could and should be
better
> able to distinguish between the grammar in the language and the
grammar
> in the school books (or academies).  I was also deeply surprised that
he
> would say there are many people in our cities with vocabularies of a
few
> hundred words.  I don't think scientific studies have ever shown
people
> like that (assuming no brain damage.) His more important point, I
think,
> doesn't require that kind of questionable statement. Students don't
> learn the kind of language they need to be successful without the
right
> kinds of experiences (exposures, interventions.)
>    My own reply to Eduard was an attempt to clarify my own position.
To
> his credit (as I see it), he agreed with much of it.  Students need
far
> more than "correctness" when they use language.  Prescriptive rules
are
> often goofy, often a distraction from more important concerns. We need
> far more attention to knowledge about language.  Many of us are also
in
> favor of tougher standards, but standards of a higher order than mere
> correctness.
>     The status quo is almost a standoff from elitist views of the
> general public (language should be correct and proper language should
be
> enforced) and the progressive view, which may disdain the prescriptive
> but doesn't have much solid advice to offer in its place.
>    I think you're right; as long as we keep on talking to each other,
we
> will never make headway in the larger world.
>    I was giving a public talk on grammar a few weeks back, when a
person
> in the audience asked "whatever happened to the "h" in "human."  It
was
> her position, and I think she expected me to verify it, that we should
> pronounce words as they are spelled, and that the loss of the "h" is
> evidence of laziness and a falling off of the language.  I confessed
> that I don't say the "h" in human, hour, humid, humor, that we don't
> (any of us) say the D in Wednesday, the k in knight, and so on.  Bu
this
> is the general level of understanding the world brings to these
> questions.  Somehow, we need to be patient and win people over one at
a
> time.
>     (What happened to the h, by the way?  I have been meaning to ask.
> Does it have something to do with the vowel sounds that follow it?)
>     I, for one, would hate to lose people like Eduard from the list.
>
> Craig
>
>  Like many of us, I suspect, I've been giving some thought to our
recent
>> experience with Eduard Hanganu.  While it is unquestionably true that
>> he has insulted people on the list and that he has, to a lesser
degree
>
>> than he claims, been treated roughly by some of us, I think there is
>> an important side to the entire experience of the last few weeks that
>> has been missed.  Eduard's presence represents the world that we work
>> in breaking in upon our discussions.  The findings of linguistic,
>> sociolinguistic, and educational research that inform our discussions
>> of language variation, dialect, correctness, appropriateness, and
>> related issues are not findings that are widely known or accepted
>> beyond language specialists.  Many of us have lamented the prevalence
>> of myth and misinformation about language among the general public
and
>
>> especially in school boards, PTAs, and even Colleges of Education and
>> Departments of English.  What we haven't come up with is a good
>> information strategy to combat this misinformation and to correct the
>> ill effects of it.  In some of the earlier discussions of the New
>> Public Grammar, this need has been discussed, but even there little
>> progress has been made.  The laudable work on scope and sequence is
>> valuable but only builds a common body of pedagogical theory and
>> content that we can agree on among ourselves.  It doesn't address the
>> problems of the audiences we have to present it to and convince.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eduard represents that audience:  intelligent, articulate, passionate
>> about education, but whose views of language have not been affected
by
>
>> the linguistic and sociolinguistic research of the past half century
>> and more.  It's not that people like Eduard are wrong on a few
points.
>
>> It's rather that Eduard has a coherent view of language, society, and
>> education that appeals to a certain elitism in society and that holds
>> fast to measures of correctness that serve as gateways to success.
In
>
>> my undergrad Language and Society classes we get to a certain point
>> where I ask my students to consider implications of their command of
>> standard English, to use a term which I acknowledge to be
>> problematical, compared to that of their high school classmates who
>> didn't go on to post-secondary education.  This leads usually to a
>> fairly incisive discussion of the ways in which Standard English and
>> beliefs about it serve as a gateway to achievement in American
>> society.  Certainly, one can achieve career and financial success
>> without a good command of it; just watch local ads by car dealers and
>> carpet merchants.  But it takes remarkable ability to do so.  Those
>> who succeed at the English standards that are expected have doors
open
> to them more easily.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eduard's presence among us is an opportunity to talk with someone
>> whose background, interests, and opinions represent the very audience
>> we need to be addressing, and I fear we have shown our lack of
>> preparation for this task.  We have to expect our ideas to be
>> attacked.  They threaten dearly held cultural beliefs, as we have all
>> seen on many other occasions.  And for that very reason we can't
>> expect such discussions to proceed without some rough spots.  But we
>> are the ones trying to change these attitudes, and that places a
>> special responsibility on us.  The painful lesson of these past few
>> weeks is that we haven't risen well to that challenge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our task is much more than an academic and pedagogical one, as
crucial
>
>> as that part of it is; our task has an even more important political
>> and social public relations side to it, and that's the kind of
>> activity we academics are too ready to neglect, sometimes to the
point
> of disdain.
>>
>>
>>
>> Herb
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger
>> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:45 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Civility
>>
>>
>>
>> Between a very long self-defense and very short general apology,
>> Eduard Hanganu wrote: "It makes me sad to see how biased people can
>> be, and how unfair. Is is (sic)possible that out of 250 people on
this
>
>> mail list nobody has seen how *rude* and *offensive* Johanna Rubba
has
>
>> been towards me under the false pretense of promoting fairness,
>> decency, and civilized  dialogue on this forum?"
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that Mr. Hanganu is unaware of how biased and unfair
he
>
>> appears to be in many of his own comments on this list. Perhaps a few
>> examples might help him understand why we are all rushing to
Johanna's
>
>> well-deserved defense (and sometimes as well to our own defenses). As
>> one who has felt personally insulted by Mr. Hanganu, perhaps I have a
>> stake in presenting some of these examples, and perhaps I could begin
>> by offering him the benefit that I suspect he is unaware of the
>> insults! we feel and that he did not intend them to be insulting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are a few:
>>
>> *	"Forgive me, but your perspective (and Craig's also) reflects
>> the provincial attitude so common in this country among the English
>> teachers and linguistists (sic)."
>>
>> I've already responded personally (and I might add with good humor)
to
>
>> this. I still doubt the accuracy of calling me provincial; after all,
>> Mr. Hanganu does not know me from Adam. I don't know, by the way,
that
>
>> there is any statistical evidence to support the claim that such
>> provincialism is common among my colleagues or among American
>> linguists generally. Also, I might point out that my previous
response
>
>> did not point out his constant misspelling of the word "linguists."
>>
>> *	"Probably you don't know too much about the L'Academie
>> Francaise, the Romanian Academy on Language, and other academic
forums
>
>> in Europe which have been regulating language (structure and use) for
>> centuries."
>>
>> My last response should have proven this hasty assumption to be a
>> fallacy. I have some knowledge of the history of language, and I am
>> well aware of the academies. My opinion of such academies, I admit,
is
>
>> not as high as Mr. Hanangu's opinion, but that is beside the point.
>> The comment would have not been so insulting had the word 'probably'
>> been replaced with 'perhaps', for he does not know what my education
> consists of.
>> There's not enough space here to fill in that lack of information.
>>
>> *	"The United States has practically no history compared with
>> Europe. My country goes back TWO THOUSAND years, and most contries
>> (sic) in Europe have as much history also."
>>
>> Now this is a curious statement. I'm not sure what "no history" is
>> intended to mean, but the chauvinism is so obvious in this statement
>> (emphasized by the all capitals) that I'm surprised it did not jump
>> out of the screen and smack Mr. Hanangu in the face. Doe! s he really
>> think that he is better than me because his continent has an older
>> history than my country? My ancestors go back to Europe and the
Middle
>
>> East. We have a history that's over four thousand years and spoke, in
>> different eras of our history, English, Polish, Russian, Yiddish,
>> Spanish, and Hebrew (and perhaps other languages, too). Does that
mean
>
>> I am better than he is? I would never make such a rude assumption.
>>
>> *	"The idea that the 'native speaker knows more grammar than has
>> ever
>> 	been printed in any grammar books' is PURE NONSENSE."
>>
>> The capitals again provide the insult. One can disagree with the
>> concept, but here Mr. Hanangu clearly calls the holders of this idea
>> (like perhaps Johanna Rubba, Herb Stahlke, Craig Hancock, [I'd add
>> 'me', but I'm not in their linguistic league], ... ) nonsensical.
>> Argue the merits of the idea, not the intelligence of the people who
>> hold it. This is called an Ad Hominem fallacy. It's al! so insulting.
>>
>> *	"I believe that a less provincial perspective, a better
>> understanding about how other languages function will protect us from
>> a narrow and much too confident notion that the way language is
>> handled in the United States is the best way."
>>
>> Although the words "I believe" help to soften this insult, there are
>> three problems with this comment. first it suggest that the rest of
>> have little understanding of the functions of languages; then that we
>> are narrow minded and cocky. Finally, it assumes that we all believe
>> that only citizens of the USA know how to "handle" language (whatever
>> that means). Perhaps there are some of us who do think that way, but
I
>
>> would be hard pressed to know who they are from my near decade long
>> involvement with the members of this assembly. Certainly, I am sure
>> that I don't think that way. I never looked on linguistics as a
>> nationalistic study. Who does? I would like to know.
>>
>> T! here are five example here from only a single posting by Mr.
> Hanangu.
>> I would not be so rude as to try to match his 13 misrepresentations
of
>
>> Johanna's postings in his recent "apology." I'm sure I could find
>> more, but I don't have the time or the interest right now.
>>
>>
>>
>> My one hope is that he see this not in the apparently paranoid
fashion
>
>> that I have inferred from his last posting, but in the spirit that it
>> was intended: That is to return to thoughtful and civil discussion of
>> the issues that we are all interested in. Remember the Greek origin
of
>
>> the term argument is clarification, not diatribe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's return to argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul D.
>>
>>
>>
>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). To join or leave
>> this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
>> leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface
>> at:
>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/