Let's get something straight

Billy86

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Have you a link to yours?

I put "learn definition" into Google and up it came, pretty quick and easy. Here you go - https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=learn%20definition

316

Links me hole, stick it in.

dxhound2005

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Neither do I but it was auto correct. Absolutely no culture outside north side Dublin uses I seen.

Don't confuse it with I've seen which can be correct.

Strange then that the discussion about I seen v I saw has attracted comment from all over the English speaking world and beyond for years. I'm not going to provide any links but you can use Google.

It absolutely is used in culchie land. I seen it myself and heard it many times.

The other fella

Piriz wrote: »

It is in fact not easy to learn and apply this for various reasons, people don't deliberately use incorrect grammar in most cases, if you have a good command of the language you should be glad and move on to working on other things like your levels of tolerance for others.
*cue Thug Life graphic and accompanying gangster rap tune*

:D:D

Son Of A Vidic

FreeFallin wrote: »

It's 'I saw' and 'I did'. It's bulls**t how often people make this mistake verbally and in writing.

This is slowly driving me insane!

I'm sure such irrelevant trivialities will cease troubling you, when you find something worth worrying about.

Right Turn Clyde

K4t wrote: »

They're not colloquialisms, it's bad grammar plain and simple. I can say to you "I go toilet now" or "I has a cold" and you'll understand what I mean, but the fact is it will still sound silly when I say it.

Ive already corrected myself on that. A colloquialism would be grammatically correct, but informal. Vernacular, on the other hand, is the everyday language that people use, whether grammatically correct or not.

Nobody says "I go toilet now." However, using 'seen' instead of 'saw' is very common. It's a part of Irish vernacular. Your example isn't. (Incidentally, you only need to listen to people from the Caribbean/West Indies, more specifically Rastafarians, to realise just how grammatically incorrect an established vernacular can become).

Not many of us speak or write in grammatically correct sentences. I certainly don't. Try listening to film critic Mark Kermode, who always tries (then fails) to speak correctly. I can assure you, it's far more irritating than what the OP is complaining about!

It's now commonplace to correct other people on their (often rather simple) grammatical shortcomings, while ignoring our own, simply because we're unaware of them.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Neither do I but it was auto correct. Absolutely no culture outside north side Dublin uses I seen.

Don't confuse it with I've seen which can be correct.

Absolute rubbish. "I seen" is used all around this country, the UK and the US. What's with the assigning of "culture" to it?

It annoys me every time I hear such awful grammar but, unfortunately, it is becoming more and more prevalent.

Eugene Norman

Billy86 wrote: »

I put "learn definition" into Google and up it came, pretty quick and easy. Here you go - https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=learn%20definition

Archaic;informal.

Therefore not correct formally. Don't put it in a CV.

Eugene Norman

Greyson Low Bandit wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. "I seen" is used all around this country, the UK and the US. What's with the assigning of "culture" to it?

It annoys me every time I hear such awful grammar but, unfortunately, it is becoming more and more prevalent.

I've never heard it in the UK. And I used to go over there a lot. And I lived there. Nor on any UK TV show. In the U.S. a quick search indicates that some subset of black American culture use it. Still incorrect.

Hammer89

I say "I seen" and I write for a living. We can associate it with illiterate idiots until we're blue in the face, but really, it's not about grammar, is it?

Samaris

I wonder if it is a corruption of the direct past tense 'saw' etc, or if its from the other form 'I have seen'. It could be a bit of a construction holdover from Irish.

What I really dislike though is blaming grammar and txtspk on dyslexia. We should use 'u' rather than 'you' because dyslexia. You can't correct txtspk because dyslexia. I'm dyscalculaic, at times my brain processes numbers differently. It's verya nnoying and I don't have the benefit of spellcheck with them. Still doesn't mean that I can argue that the 1 in a phone number is a 7.


Yep, dyslexia sucks. But it benefits no-one to make common text speak mistakes because some people are dyslexic.

'Yuo' is a dyslexic mistake. 'U' is not. Nor is 'I seen'.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I've never heard it in the UK. And I used to go over there a lot. And I lived there. Nor on any UK TV show. In the U.S. a quick search indicates that some subset of black American culture use it. Still incorrect.

I didn't say it was correct; indeed far from it.

But it's usage is well beyond the North Dublin area that you suggested. I spend plenty of time each year in the UK and, believe me they "seen" and "done" plenty. In the US it's not a subset of any racial group at all. It's widely used in areas by many races.

Irish Guitarist

"Seen as how" annoys me.

galljga1

heldel00 wrote: »

And the "does be/do be" brigade. Shoot them all I say!

Only yesterday I heard a British television presenter ask the following question "Was you surprised when ...?" Ridiculous for prime time television.

Ali G?

Right Turn Clyde

heldel00 wrote: »

Only yesterday I heard a British television presenter ask the following question "Was you surprised when ...?" Ridiculous for prime time television.

I seen that as well.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

"Seen as how" annoys me.

Yes, isn't it "seeing as how" - if at all.

Right Turn Clyde

Greyson Low Bandit wrote: »

Yes, isn't it "seeing as how" - if at all.

What's wrong with 'seeing as how'? It's a simple expression. Are you unduly offended by it?

Irish Guitarist

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

"Seen as how" annoys me.

are you been serious

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

What's wrong with 'seeing as how'? It's a simple expression. Are you unduly offended by it?

I said if at all, because it is superfluous when a simple "as" would suffice. I never said I was offended to any extent.

I wish people would read and comprehend.

LordSutch

FreeFallin wrote: »

I think we need to take a moment to appreciate that 'I seen' and 'I done' should never be used in communication. It's 'I saw' and 'I did'. It's bulls**t how often people make this mistake verbally and in writing.

This is slowly driving me insane! To me it's as ridiculous as saying 'I driven home today' or 'I learned my friend how to swim'.

Or . . . .

The current trend sweeping across Britain "I was sat" and "I was stood" :mad:

I am absolutely fed up hearing what they call "non standard English" on the airwaves.

When I went to school it was "I was standing at the bus stop, waiting for . . ." and now its all too common to hear "I was stood at the bus stop, waiting for . . ." same goes for sat/sitting.

Drives me mad

Right Turn Clyde

LordSutch wrote: »

Or . . . .

The current trend sweeping across Britain "I was sat" and "I was stood" :mad:

I am absolutely fed up hearing what they call "non standard English" on the airwaves.

When I went to school it was "I was standing at the bus stop, waiting for . . ." and now its all too common to hear "I was stood at the bus stop, waiting for . . ." same goes for sat/sitting.

Drives me mad

It's just vernacular. Is that really such a hard concept to understand?

How on earth could you expect everyone, from the US to Australia and everywhere in between, to keep speaking the Queen's English? It's just so unreasonable considering the multitude of cultures and influences that have come together over the past 100 years and more.

We have never been more diverse and yet you want us to remain rigidly fixed to centuries old grammatical conventions (which also, by the way, evolved over time).

LordSutch

You mean it doesn't matter? Anything goes?

Personally I think grammar does matter, so I for one won't be retiring the words 'sitting & standing' from my vocabulary anytime soon. As regards what visitors to Britain think, I can say for sure that they are confused by this trend towards 'non standard' text speak!

Herpes Cineplex

Fúck me, some people really have nothing to worry about.

Right Turn Clyde

LordSutch wrote: »

You mean it doesn't matter? Anything goes?

Personally I think grammar does matter, so I for one won't be retiring the words 'sitting & standing' from my vocabulary anytime soon. As regards what visitors to Britain think, I can say for sure that they are confused by this trend towards 'non standard' text speak!

Nobody said grammar doesn't matter or that you need to delete words from your vocabulary, so stop inventing straw men for yourself and address the points that have actually been put forward.

Of course grammar matters. It's of fundamental importance. An "anything goes" attitude would lead to a breakdown in communication, which is contrary to why we speak to each other in the first place.

The responsibility of the speaker/writer is to make themselves understood. I know that's a rather simple observation, but it's why I occasionally remind people of the difference between 'their', 'there' and 'they're'. When those words are not used correctly (and we're all guilty of the odd typo) then communication suffers. The person trying to supply you with information has failed to do so, and you cannot act on the information that you should have received. That's a breakdown in communication that suits nobody. Cleary that's unacceptable. We'd come apart at the seams if we failed to understand each other.

However, you quite clearly know what is being said in the examples that you've given. You just don't like how it's being said. So while the core issue is still grammar, communication has not suffered. Information has been forwarded, received and understood.

In that instance a balance can be struck between strict grammar and local vernacular. I'm not an expert in linguistics or how language evolves, but from just looking at the world around me I suspect that such a balance is arrived at naturally. Ways of speaking that lead to a breakdown of communication will be weeded out, and what remains will become part of the local vernacular. I honestly feel that these "ordinary ways of speaking" are to be valued in their own right.

Right Turn Clyde

Herpes Cineplex wrote: »

Fúck me, some people really have nothing to worry about.

Exactly, but like all of these late night rants it's actually led to an (at times) interesting discussion.

trashcan

ruby37 wrote: »

The one that totally annoys me is when people use the word "of" instead of "have" eg.: "I should of went to the shop" instead of "I should have went to the shop".

Should have gone

heldel00

heldel00 wrote: »

And the "does be/do be" brigade. Shoot them all I say!

No thanks. I suggest those who say "begs the question" thinking it means "poses the question"... people who don't know the difference between "amount" and "number"... that "presently" can mean "shortly"...

Bím anseo = I do be here (i.e. regularly)
Táim anseo - I am here (i.e. at the moment)

English does not have the verb to express the habitual present tense, so Irish people held onto the Irish structure to express something more precisely. It's perfectly understandable and linguistically valid, and is only "bad" English to the uninitiated.

Flippyfloppy

Don't just see it, vue it

suicide_circus

The english R is fascinating

"I saw a car" becomes "I sore a caw"

LordSutch

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Nobody said grammar doesn't matter or that you need to delete words from your vocabulary, so stop inventing straw men for yourself and address the points that have actually been put forward.

Well the point you seem to be making is that it's alright to say "I was stood at the bus stop" while I would argue that the above is bad grammar, and that the correct formation of the sentence would be "I was standing at the bus stop" waiting for the bus to arrive . . . Not a straw man in sight I might add.

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

The responsibility of the speaker/writer is to make themselves understood. I know that's a rather simple observation, but it's why I occasionally remind people of the difference between 'their', 'there' and 'they're'. When those words are not used correctly (and we're all guilty of the odd typo) then communication suffers. The person trying to supply you with information has failed to do so, and you cannot act on the information that you should have received. That's a breakdown in communication that suits nobody. Cleary that's unacceptable. We'd come apart at the seams if we failed to understand each other.

Agreed, but that that takes us back to "I seen the bus coming" which is of course understandable, but bad or (non-standard) grammar non the less.

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

However, you quite clearly know what is being said in the examples that you've given. You just don't like how it's being said. So while the core issue is still grammar, communication has not suffered. Information has been forwarded, received and understood.

Of course I know what's being said... but according to what I remember from school "I seen" is incorrect, and the same can be said of "we was stood at the bus stop" which is also incorrect in my estimation (but also understandable)!

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

In that instance a balance can be struck between strict grammar and local vernacular. I'm not an expert in linguistics or how language evolves, but from just looking at the world around me I suspect that such a balance is arrived at naturally. Ways of speaking that lead to a breakdown of communication will be weeded out, and what remains will become part of the local vernacular. I honestly feel that these "ordinary ways of speaking" are to be valued in their own right.

Just ran the "I seen" and "I was stood" arguments past my wife who believes that a north of England dialect is responsible for such utterings. This non standard lingo has clearly spread in recent years to the point that even presenters on the BBC can be heard to speak in "non standard English" which will take a bit of getting used to for old fogies like myself.

Can't believe I'm defending standard English grammar.

Billy86

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Archaic;informal.

Therefore not correct formally. Don't put it in a CV.

I was just pointing out that it is in the dictionary, since you didn't seem to think it was.

Joe prim

ruby37 wrote: »

The one that totally annoys me is when people use the word "of" instead of "have" eg.: "I should of went to the shop" instead of "I should have went to the shop".

Your'e still wrong, it's "I should of goin' to the shop"

Right Turn Clyde

LordSutch wrote: »

Can't believe I'm defending standard English grammar.

I can't believe I'm defending bad grammar, but it's simply not that big of an issue for me. In fact, there's something quite endearing about that 'local vernacular' I keep harping on about.

The example you gave was "I was stood at the bus stop." But we've all heard those northern Englishmen say "I were stood at the bus stop." Or even more concisely, "I were stood at bus stop". I don't know which of those you'd find more offensive, but I just love it. It's full of character. I spent a fair amount of my childhood summers in Manchester, so perhaps that explains it.

Samaris

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Or even more concisely, "I were stood at bus stop".

I gotta admit, I can hear that just perfectly in my head too, glottal stop and all. I do like that particular bit of phrasing.

LordSutch

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I can't believe I'm defending bad grammar, but it's simply not that big of an issue for me. In fact, there's something quite endearing about that 'local vernacular' I keep harping on about.

The example you gave was "I was stood at the bus stop." But we've all heard those northern Englishmen say "I were stood at the bus stop." Or even more concisely, "I were stood at bus stop". I don't know which of those you'd find more offensive, but I just love it. It's full of character. I spent a fair amount of my childhood summers in Manchester, so perhaps that explains it.

Don't her me wrong, I think regional dialects are really interesting and fascinating to listen to, but what irks me is when a localized saying or a 'non standard grammatical construct' replces the standard form in mainstream media (BBC News) for example.

Night now, I is off to bed Z z z z

lulu1

Old Perry wrote: »

I seen some things in my time, but you done gone took the biscuit. now thats all i gots to say in the matter.[/


And so says all of us.

gormdubhgorm

FreeFallin wrote: »

I think we need to take a moment to appreciate that 'I seen' and 'I done' should never be used in communication. It's 'I saw' and 'I did'. It's bulls**t how often people make this mistake verbally and in writing.

This is slowly driving me insane! To me it's as ridiculous as saying 'I driven home today' or 'I learned my friend how to swim'.

You need to learn yourself how to go this thread that I brang up
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057398442
Trivial things that annoy you....

trashcan

suicide_circus wrote: »

The english R is fascinating

"I saw a car" becomes "I sore a caw"

What amuses me is the amount of English people who can't say two words, one of which ends in a vowel and the next starting with a vowel,without adding an "r" in between. Example - They can say Sonia, no problem. Sonia O'Sullivan however, becomes Sonyer O'Sullivan. Jessica Ennis - Jessica Rennis.