I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal
written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations.  I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman:  'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'.  But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker.  It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language.  They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe.  What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these.  English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University

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/