Forum: Author Hangout

grammatically incorrect

'Correct' grammar is both contextual and subjective, making it nigh on impossible for anyone who is not a native speaker to understand the 'rules'. It's hard enough for those of us who have English as our first language to understand the (varying sets of) 'formal' rules. Heck, some 'rules' aren't actually 'rules', but the opinion of someone that has spread (cf not ending a sentence with a preposition or splitting infinitives).

How I would say something to my kids, to my parents, to my boss, in a class, during a speech, etc, all vary and have varying levels of 'correct' grammar (whatever the heck that is).

A perfect example can be found in the Showtime series Billions where a political candidate is told he has to use 'chomping at the bit' even though it is technically incorrect because that is what New Yorker want to hear, and they'd never vote for someone who used the technically correct 'champing'.

It's right up there with the 'not a word' claims about words that are 'incorrect' (cf 'irregardless').

That said, you are completely correct that the double 'are' would likely never be uttered in any dialect or even slang in the US in everyday conversation.

'Correct' grammar is both contextual and subjective

I'm lousy at grammar, but the basic sentence contains a subject and a predicate. I think of it as a noun and verb. In my example, there was no verb so it was a grammatically incorrect sentence. It was simply an example of someone speaking incorrect grammar.

I'm lousy at grammar, but the basic sentence contains a subject and a predicate. I think of it as a noun and verb. In my example, there was no verb so it was a grammatically incorrect sentence. It was simply an example of someone speaking incorrect grammar.

But they were clearly implied, and eliding implied words is common in English.

"How are you?"

"Fine." (vs. 'I am fine.')

"What's your name?"

"Mike" (vs. 'My name is Mike.')

So, "You two together?" simply follows those patterns. It might not be correct in a specific context, but it clearly communicates a meaning.

Languages aren't static, and elision is a common feature of changing language. That's why grammars are purely subjective and contextual (which was my point).

FWIW, I hear "You two together?" (or similar equivalents) uttered often enough that in the context of everyday speech, they're accepted. I might say it amongst my friends, but I wouldn't say it in a formal situation. Different contexts, different 'correct' grammar.

"Fine." (vs. 'I am fine.')

That is also an example of dialogue that is not grammatically correct.

We are not disagreeing. We're both saying people speak grammatically incorrect and it's accepted.

And in fiction, even in the narrative grammatically incorrect is acceptable, like fragmented sentences for effect.

And in fiction, even in the narrative grammatically incorrect is acceptable, like fragmented sentences for effect.

Contextual, as I stated. And it's not just fiction or common speech, it's everywhere. What's acceptable grammar in one place might not be in another. Which was my point.

Grammar is both contextual and subjective. It is also, as are dictionaries, descriptive, not prescriptive.

Grammar is both contextual and subjective. It is also, as are dictionaries, descriptive, not prescriptive.

Thank you for that!

I had this driven home in my English 101 class. The professor talked about working in the inner city in, I think, Philadelphia. The language there was different - one example was that they had normalized 'to be' - so instead of 'I am', 'you are', 'they are', it became 'I be', 'you be', 'they be'. In context that was correct, though it sounds odd to our ears. Still, it fulfilled the role of language - it correctly communicated the ideas that the speaker was trying to convey to the audience. He wanted us all to be thinking about language and our use of it as a living thing, changing as needed, instead of something static that was decreed by someone in their ivory tower.

But they were clearly implied, and eliding implied words is common in English.

"How are you?"

"Fine." (vs. 'I am fine.')

"What's your name?"

"Mike" (vs. 'My name is Mike.')

So, "You two together?" simply follows those patterns. It might not be correct in a specific context, but it clearly communicates a meaning.

The first two cases are answers to questions. The third is asking a question. A significant difference.

AJ

In my experience "Fine" as a one word response is generally sarcastic and/or ironic it is almost never used literally.

In Britland, it's more usually a ritualistic response implying that an accurate answer would be more than the responder wishes to tell and more than the questioner wishes to hear.

It is also used sarcastically.

"Honour Guardsman Simperkin, today you have been volunteered to clean the latrines with a toothbrush."

"Fine, Sir."

AJ

It is also used sarcastically.

In the movie "Swing Vote," it's used like someone responding "whatever."

This called to mind a George Carlin bit:

"How are ya?" "Fine." BULLSHIT! Nobody's 'fine'. Hair is fine. "How's your hair?" "Fine!" That makes a lot more sense to me.

Some guys are 'great'. Y'ever hear that? How are ya? "Great! This is great! Goddamn! This is great! Look! They're gonna kill that guy! Isn't that great?"

Not me. I'm not nice, I'm not fine, I'm not great. People ask me how I am, I say, "I'm fairly decent." No superlatives. Nothing to gossip about. I say,"I'm relatively okay." Or 'moderately neato'. Then they have to ask their children how I am. If I'm in a particularly jaunty mood, I'll look them right in the eye and say, "I'm not unwell, thank you." Which pisses them off 'cause they have to figure that one out for themselves.

"I'm not unwell, thank you."

Reminds me of 'Dollar Bill' on Billions — "I am not uncertain" when he has insider information to make a trade a 'lock'.

The latter verges on the rhetorical.

And those nuances make English 'fun' for those for whom it's not their first language.

"So are you two together?" versus "So you two are together?"

The latter verges on the rhetorical.

I don't think the 2nd one is rhetorical. More of a surprise. "he said, incredulously."

More of a surprise. "he said, incredulously."

If only we could hear the speaker actually saying those words so we could more correctly divine their intent.

AJ

If only we could hear the speaker actually saying those words

Which is why "incredulously" is one adverb I use with a dialogue tag.

"Sarcastically" too. Although I try to make it clear with the narrative when I can, something I don't know how to do with "incredulously."