I seen her...that is to say I SAW her

Benny Lava

Maybe this has always been the case but it appears that more and more people are abandoning proper grammar in favour of these horrid phrases.

SO many people are saying "I seen" instead of "I saw" and "I done" instead of "I did".

Has anyone else noticed an increase?

DEVEREUX

I'm guilty of saying "seen" instead of "saw". Throw me to the wolves!

Freddy B

I agree OP. However, I wouldn't recommend using the word "horrid" to make a point. Makes you sound like a Victorian schoolmistress. Or a prig

partyatmygaff

Horrid, abysmal, atrocious, horrific, horrible e.t.c....

Horrid isn't archaic so I can't see why it shouldn't be used. I hate it when people say "I seen". It's embarassing to not know proper grammar for your first language. As far as I know, "I saw" is the simple past tense and "I have seen" would be the present perfect tense and "I had seen" would be the past perfect tense.

DonalN

Aye, there do be a lot of them there folks pickin up on the bad grammer these past comin days.....to be sure, to be sure ;-)

Benny Lava

DEVEREUX wrote: »

I'm guilty of saying "seen" instead of "saw". Throw me to the wolves!

Will do!

Freddy B wrote: »

I agree OP. However, I wouldn't recommend using the word "horrid" to make a point. Makes you sound like a Victorian schoolmistress. Or a prig

What word would you use to emphasise a monstrosity of this degree?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Horrid, abysmal, atrocious, horrific, horrible e.t.c....

Horrid isn't archaic so I can't see why it shouldn't be used. I hate it when people say "I seen". It's embarassing to not know proper grammar for your first language. As far as I know, "I saw" is the simple past tense and "I have seen" would be the present perfect tense and "I had seen" would be the past perfect tense.

Indeed. It's not as if it's a complex construction.

Benny Lava

DonalN wrote: »

Aye, there do be a lot of them there folks pickin up on the bad grammer these past comin days.....to be sure, to be sure ;-)

I knew this would happen in a thread like this.

partyatmygaff

DonalN wrote: »

Aye, there do be a lot of them there folks pickin up on the bad grammer these past comin days.....to be sure, to be sure ;-)

:eek: :pac:

Benny Lava wrote: »

What word would you use to emphasise a monstrosity of this degree?

Abominable? Invidious? Or if you really want to be sensational...
Scandalous :pac:

mike65

http://grammarstars.blogspot.com/2007/09/saw-seen-spin.html

Yakuza

partyatmygaff wrote: »

:eek: :pac:

Abominable? Invidious? Or if you really want to be sensational...
Scandalous :pac:

"egregious" /thread

Donkey Oaty

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Horrid isn't archaic so I can't see why it shouldn't be used.

Outside of publishing houses, there usually isn't a list of things you should or shouldn't use that you can consult on matters of style.

You either got it or you ain't, partyatmygaff!

pickarooney

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Horrid, abysmal, atrocious, horrific, horrible e.t.c....

Horrid isn't archaic so I can't see why it shouldn't be used. I hate it when people say "I seen". It's embarassing to not know proper grammar for your first language. As far as I know, "I saw" is the simple past tense and "I have seen" would be the present perfect tense and "I had seen" would be the past perfect tense.

The split infinitive is forgivable but you should really learn how to spell 'embarrassing' and that sentence is very poorly constructed overall.

partyatmygaff

pickarooney wrote: »

The split infinitive is forgivable but you should really learn how to spell 'embarrassing' and that sentence is very poorly constructed overall.

I had my French exam the day I wrote that post

The particulars of english spelling, grammar and syntax weren't exactly at the forefront of my mind, so to speak.

partyatmygaff

pickarooney wrote: »

The split infinitive is forgivable but you should really learn how to spell 'embarrassing' and that sentence is very poorly constructed overall.

I know a better construction would be

It is an embarrassment to not know the proper grammatical rules for your first language.

I was going to type that instead but it sounded a bit too formal.

asahi

We're speaking Hiberno-English, so we don't have to stick to the rules of Standard English, do we?

partyatmygaff

Anglo-English and Hiberno-English don't have many differences. Our dialect of English is fairly similar to "Standard" English.

So yes, we DO have to follow the rules of standard English

asahi

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Anglo-English and Hiberno-English don't have many differences. Our dialect of English is fairly similar to "Standard" English.

So yes, we DO have to follow the rules of standard English

Why? What happens if we don't?


We don't pronounce the language the way it says to in the dictionary (listen to an English person say the word "car") so why should religiously follow the grammar rules?

partyatmygaff

asahi wrote: »

Why? What happens if we don't?


We don't pronounce the language the way it says to in the dictionary (listen to an English person say the word "car") so why should religiously follow the grammar rules?

Take for example an English teacher in Ireland and an English teacher in England.

They both have different accents (Usually) and may have their own distinct phrases but they both generally adhere to the same grammar rules when they're writing.

Nothing will "happen" if you don't follow the proper grammatical rules. It's not as if we're going to hunt you down for incorrect syntax

asahi

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Take for example an English teacher in Ireland and an English teacher in England.

They both have different accents (Usually) and may have their own distinct phrases but they both generally adhere to the same grammar rules when they're writing.

Why should they not extend the fact that Hiberno-English has a distinct vocabulary and pronunciation rules to allow that it also has distinct grammar?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thirtythirty

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

+1

"I seen" is just a short step from "I done", and then you're only a stone's throw away from "I do be"!

"Hairdresser talk" is another one that makes me cringe

partyatmygaff

asahi wrote: »

Why should they not extend the fact that Hiberno-English has a distinct vocabulary and pronunciation rules to allow that it also has distinct grammar?

We do not have any distinct grammar rules.

Yakuza

spottyelephant wrote: »

+1

"I seen" is just a short step from "I done", and then you're only a stone's throw away from "I do be"!

Don't forget the double gerund "I'm going doing that now". /Shudder

Donkey Oaty

spottyelephant wrote: »

+1

"Hairdresser talk" is another one that makes me cringe

Do you mean stuff like "Are you going anywhere nice on your holidays this year?"

SomeDude

Here's another one! It's amazing the number of highly educated people I hear saying things like "we bet that team last week". I cringe every time I hear it.

pickarooney

partyatmygaff wrote: »

We do not have any distinct grammar rules.

"I'm after" ?

Don't forget the double gerund "I'm going doing that now". /Shudder

I'm going swimming now?

Donkey Oaty

Okay, quick test: which of the following sentences is correct?

1) Asahi wondered if we should consider speaking naturally rather than conform to an idealised standard of English, and raised interesting issues about the significance of regional/local dialects in our increasingly globalised culture.

2) Asahi wanted some patronising career advice and a list of linguistic pet hates.

partyatmygaff

pickarooney wrote: »

"I'm after" ?

That is colloquial spoken English. The matter at hand here is written English. Personally, I have never seen anyone write "I'm after...." in an English essay for example. If I wrote "I'm after...." in an English essay I would more than likely get marked down for mechanics as strictly speaking it is not grammatically correct.

pickarooney

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That is colloquial spoken English. The matter at hand here is written English.

It's not. This thread is about spoken English.
Besides, how many English essays written by Irish students have you met and how can you be sure one would be marked down for using "I'm after +ing"?

enda1

I'd say the usage is actually on a decrease.
It is a very Dublin thing, though I think not as prevalent as it was previously before the half-Americanisation of most of the county...

bette

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I had my French exam the day I wrote that post

The particulars of english spelling, grammar and syntax weren't exactly at the forefront of my mind, so to speak.

Sans blague?

Donkey Oaty

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Personally, I have never seen anyone write "I'm after...." in an English essay for example.

Fair enough - although I'd say you would have read the form if you marked essays that quoted from Ulysses.

If I wrote "I'm after...." in an English essay I would more than likely get marked down for mechanics as strictly speaking it is not grammatically correct.

It is perfectly grammatically correct, though not by the rules that you follow. However, back to written usage - it does happen. Take this line from a letter by John Daly, the gold commissioner of Maryborough, Victoria, in the nineteenth century:

"I am just after forming a new camp of my own to which I have given the name Maryborough and expect to be fixed here for some time.”

I'm not having a go at you, partyatmygaff, but you seem to be implying that there's a moral superiority about using one form over another.

There are pragmatic reasons, certainly, but are we talking about the way things are or the way things should be?

FlutterinBantam

A lot of these 'Irishisms' are as a result of direct comparison with the Irish language.

'I do be' equivocates to 'Bím' as in 'Bím ag súil ar an trá go minic' 'I walk on the beach often' or the literal translational 'I do be walking on the beach often'


So I'd throw out a bit of slack to people who say that.:D

partyatmygaff

pickarooney wrote: »

It's not. This thread is about spoken English.
Besides, how many English essays written by Irish students have you met and how can you be sure one would be marked down for using "I'm after +ing"?

Well considering that i'm still in fifth year and regularly read my friend's essays as well as many others (For example the ones posted on the Leaving Cert section of boards) I can safely say that I have never come across anyone saying "I'm after..." in an essay. It's simply too colloquial for formal writing.

enda1

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well considering that i'm still in fifth year and regularly read my friend's essays as well as many others (For example the ones posted on the Leaving Cert section of boards) I can safely say that I have never come across anyone saying "I'm after..." in an essay. It's simply too colloquial for formal writing.

Not all "essays" are written in formal English.

The word fuck would not be considered a good formal word but is not an incorrect word either.

partyatmygaff

enda1 wrote: »

Not all "essays" are written in formal English.

The word fuck would not be considered a good formal word but is not an incorrect word either.

Using expletives in any essay (Why did you put essay in quotation marks by the way?) would be looked down upon. Not because of its formality moreso because expletives are generally considered as being the lowest form of expression.

enda1

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Using expletives in any essay (Why did you put essay in quotation marks by the way?) would be looked down upon. Not because of its formality moreso because expletives are generally considered as being the lowest form of expression.

I don't consider expletives the lowest form of expression.
I think they can express emotion and context quite efficiently!

The Raven.

asahi wrote: »

We're speaking Hiberno-English, so we don't have to stick to the rules of Standard English, do we?

The proverbial use of 'we' again ! That habitual usage is peculiarly 'Hiberno'. Generally speaking, the posters on the English forum occasionally discuss Hiberno-English, but don't necessarily speak it.

The term 'Hiberno-English' is often used as an excuse to break the rules of Standard English. However, the problem with breaking these rules is that the language rapidly degenerates into a form of dialect, which becomes somewhat remote from the original language, and impacts negatively on communication between communities.

To get back on topic, yes indeed the 'seen' and 'done' scenario has returned with a vengeance. It was in common usage by poorly educated people when I was growing up in rural Ireland. It disappeared for a long period but now it is back, notably with young foreign children, whose parents' first language is not English, and they are therefore unsure of the correct grammar, but their children pick it up from their Irish peers.

There is an earlier thread on this subject:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055422496

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is a very good post, Donegal, with very apt examples!

Yakuza

pickarooney wrote: »

"I'm after" ?



I'm going swimming now?

I should have been clearer. "I'm going swimming" is fine (as are most going + gerund constructions), as swimming is a noun (verbal noun / gerund) in that context, but "going doing that now" just does not sit right with me, it should be "going to do that now".

AFAIK, "I'm after" is an anglicisation of the Irish construction "Tá mé tar éis".
"Tá mé tar éis dul go dtí na siopaí" - I've just been to the shops, but gets literally translated as "I'm after going to the shops".

asahi

Yakuza wrote: »

"I'm after going to the shops".

That sounds grand to me.

It would be sad day if we all had to speak like little Englishmen.

Yakuza

asahi wrote: »

That sounds grand to me.

It would be sad day if we all had to speak like little Englishmen.

I agree, I was just explaining what I understand to be the origins of "I'm after XXXX". I use a mixture of standard English or Hiberno English as the situation merits. Stuff like "I seen" and "I done" is neither, just bad grammar

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

A lot of these 'Irishisms' are as a result of direct comparison with the Irish language.

'I do be' equivocates to 'Bím' as in 'Bím ag súil ar an trá go minic' 'I walk on the beach often' or the literal translational 'I do be walking on the beach often'


So I'd throw out a bit of slack to people who say that.:D

Correct. It's called the present habitual tense. Asking Irish people to speak correct English is ridiculous. We speak Hiberno-English, not British-English. We have different quirks about how we say things.

"Do be" as FB pointed out, which is derived from the present habitual tense which doesn't exist in the English language. Or stuff like "I have it done" (Tá sé déanta agam) instead of "I did it".

Then there is the "th's". Personally, speaking correct English feels a little dirty to me. It's would feel very forceful and disingenuous.

drakshug

After 15 years teaching English abroad I came back to find basic English grammar had been thrown out. My pet hate is the prevalence of "I'm loving it".
Present continuous is not used for emotions. It should be "I love it".
However, there are structures peculiar to certain circles of English such as the double negative in Scots/Ulster English or the use of the definite article in Gaeltachtd Scots and Irish.
Being unable to differentiate between seen and saw is very Irish and Scottish but is also a grammatical faux pas and just labels you as a skanger. English partitions time very exactly and the difference between present perfect and past simple has a very distinctive meaning.

Yakuza

drakshug wrote: »

My pet hate is the prevalence of "I'm loving it".

You can lay the blame for that square at the feet of McDonalds :rolleyes:

pickarooney

drakshug wrote: »

After 15 years teaching English abroad I came back to find basic English grammar had been thrown out. My pet hate is the prevalence of "I'm loving it".
Present continuous is not used for emotions. It should be "I love it".

I believe the reason for that lies in the use of 'love' as a non-emotional equivalent for 'enjoy', a verb that can comfortably used in the present continuous.

For instance, if asked your opinion on the third series of a television program, you may want to say that you're enjoying it thus far but at the same time use a stronger verb to convey more than mere enjoyment.

Of course, even respected songwriters such as Irving Berlin have been using the construct (in its future form) since the 1920s, so it's hardly a recent innovation either.

Donkey Oaty

Yakuza wrote: »

You can lay the blame for that square at the feet of McDonalds :rolleyes:

The McDonald's slogan is in fact "i'm lovin' it"!

The business publication Management Today had this to say:

From the lower case 'i', declaring a youthful disregard for grammar, to the mysterious 'it', this slogan is desperate to give Big Mac [McDonald's] a tiny hint of outlaw chic. Take, for instance, that 'lovin", with its provocative apostrophe intended to suggest cool, rebellion and black speech, just as it has since the days of Mark Twain. Some may even detect in the slogan a hint of the 'loved-up' language of the E generation.

Love it!

Dunjohn

McDonalds tends to follow and exploit trends, it rarely starts them. "I'm loving it" was already being used by one of their target audiences before they adopted it, though they probably are to blame for making it so ubiquitous.

The Raven.

dlofnep wrote: »

Asking Irish people to speak correct English is ridiculous. We speak Hiberno-English, not British-English. We have different quirks about how we say things.

'We' again :rolleyes::rolleyes:!! Who, precisely, do you mean by 'we'?

The majority of Irish people were brought up speaking English, and only learned Irish at school as a second language. There is nothing 'ridiculous' about expecting them to speak it correctly, as all the rules of grammar and spelling etc. were taught in schools.

However, if some people wish to speak 'Hiberno-English', they are perfectly entitled to do so, just as those who wish 'to speak correct English' should be afforded the same privilege.

dlofnep

The Raven. wrote: »

'We' again :rolleyes::rolleyes:!! Who, precisely, do you mean by 'we'?

The people of Ireland.

The Raven. wrote: »

The majority of Irish people were brought up speaking English, and only learned Irish at school as a second language. There is nothing 'ridiculous' about expecting them to speak it correctly, as all the rules of grammar and spelling etc. were taught in schools.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

We grow up in a society that speaks Hiberno-English, which is a dialect of English that has evolved over hundreds of years. It's irrelevant if we studied "English" in school - We speak Hiberno-English.

The Raven. wrote: »

However, if some people wish to speak 'Hiberno-English', they are perfectly entitled to do so

It's not a matter of wishing to do so or not. It's just a matter of fact. Irish people speak Hiberno-English. The same way that Americans speak American-English. You seem to have a serious problem with the fact that Ireland has it's own dialect of English. The way we speak is a result of two languages intermixing in society. It doesn't matter if the Irish language is no longer prevalent as it once was - the foundation is already set and has been set for many generations.

You can speak whatever way you wish - but the genuine dialect of Ireland, is Hiberno-English and this is not up for debate. It's merely a matter of fact. Deal with it.