People who say "I seen" and "onder"

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's about what's socially acceptable. I seen is perfect grammar. But some people such as yourself don't understand how language works and will look down on people for speaking perfect but different English.

Could you please tell us how "I seen" is perfect grammar?

alberto67 wrote: »

Could you please tell us how "I seen" is perfect grammar?

For the same reason "I saw" is. It's a regional variation. It just so happens that "I saw" is the dominant version. If everyone around you started to say "I seen" instead of "I saw", newsreaders said "I seen". All characters in TV shows said "I seen", woild there be some linguistic inherent reason that made "I saw" the "correct" version?

The reason most people say "I saw" is because of social influence, not because its "correct".

Reminds me of a time my sister was teaching kids dancing in Ranelagh. She was told to pronounce skirt like 'skort' by a parent.

LLMMLL wrote: »

For the same reason "I saw" is. It's a regional variation. It just so happens that "I saw" is the dominant version. If everyone around you started to say "I seen" instead of "I saw", newsreaders said "I seen". All characters in TV shows said "I seen", woild there be some linguistic inherent reason that made "I saw" the "correct" version?

The reason most people say "I saw" is because of social influence, not because its "correct".

No, I completely disagree.
That's just your opinion and you're presenting it as fact.

Ficheall wrote: »

Why do they have to be native speakers, then? If there's a group of French people speaking some grammatically incorrect pidgin English, why isn't that also correct English?

Pidgins would be a debatable area and I'm trying to keep things simple. For example, a pidgin language doesn't usually have the same flexibility or complexity as a native language, until the children of pidgin speakers turn it into a Creole. Whether it even resembles native English at this point would be another factor.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

By 'regional variation' do you mean enough people from a geographic region get it wrong that it's considered correct...because that's language evolving?

The original change may be die to people getting it wrong. It.may be due to people being creative with language and a trend starting.

Even if it is due to initial "mistakes" catching on, who's to say that "I seen" was the mistake?

Of course language has evolved but people have probably been saying "I seen" for at least the last 30 years or so.
"Should of" is relatively recent and is a by-product of text speak.
Why then are children taught to say I saw at school and not I seen?
Why would a radio or tv broadcaster never say should of?
Because it's incorrect, and bad grammar, that's why.

furiousox wrote: »

Of course language has evolved but people have probably been saying "I seen" for at least the last 30 years or so.
"Should of" is relatively recent and is a by-product of text speak.
Why then are children taught to say I saw at school and not I seen?
Why would a radio or tv broadcaster never say should of?
Because it's incorrect, and bad grammar, that's why.

I seen has been around a lot longer than 30 years.

I'm not sure what you mean about children being taught to say "I saw". Children aren't taught to speak. They pick it up naturally. Saw will only say "I saw", others will pick up both "I seen" and "I saw". Everyone will pick up "I saw" because its dominant in our culture and any engagement with media such as a kids cartoon will lead to them encountering "I saw".

Schools used to train people out of their regional accents but that's pretty frowned upon now, at least by linguists. It may still happen.

Nobody says "should of". They write it. Everyone says the same thing which phonetically is "shuduv". You've no idea if a newscaster has "should of" or "should have" in mind when he/she is speaking.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I seen has been around a lot longer than 30 years.

I'm not sure what you mean about children being taught to say "I saw". Children aren't taught to speak. They pick it up naturally. Saw will only say "I saw", others will pick up both "I seen" and "I saw". Everyone will pick up "I saw" because its dominant in our culture and any engagement with media such as a kids cartoon will lead to them encountering "I saw".

Schools used to train people out of their regional accents but that's pretty frowned upon now, at least by linguists. It may still happen.

Nobody says "should of". They write it. Everyone says the same thing which phonetically is "shuduv". You've no idea if a newscaster has "should of" or "should have" in mind when he/she is speaking.

Children aren't taught to speak, but at school they are taught proper grammar.
I have heard people saying "should of" in conversation.
I'm pretty sure a newsreader's autocue says "should have" and not "should of".
I'm focusing on grammar, whereas you seem to be focusing on language?

alberto67 wrote: »

LLMMLL,

Is that what you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English

Is that what I mean by what? I'm talking about all languages. Hiberno-english is not the only regional variation, whether that be in the world, in English , or even in Ireland.

jimgoose wrote: »

Now. You invite someone with real class round for same, an aristocrat. You start eating your breakfast out of a fire-shovel and he/she will ask you if you have another fire-shovel, so they can eat properly too.

See what I'm getting at?

Yes, of course. Posh people like to eat off shovels. Who knew ? :P

LLMMLL wrote: »

What phrases from Cork are you taking about?

You're entitled to have your opinions on language (even thought theyre incorrect) but you should at least realise why you have those opinions. Basically you've looked down on people for the way they speak for years. It's made you feel better, and now changing your opinion would no longer allow you to feel superior.

Wow. I was joking about being judgemental but you went full on Lord Linguistics there. Well done. Didn't even knock a stir out of you.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Wow. I was joking about being judgemental but you went full on Lord Linguistics there. Well done. Didn't even knock a stir out of you.

I'm not trying to hide my judgement of you