Re: Re: [tied] French Gerund v. Participle
>>> Nor does it mean the same thing. People who speak FrenchWhy are you imposing a style of speech on me? I'm simply stating
>>> may be speaking English.
>> So would "people speaking French"!
> No. If they are speaking French, they are not speaking
how I speak English as a native speaker and my usage is just as
justified as yours. In my usage, "people speaking French" does
_NOT_ imply that they only speak French. You're assuming nonsense.
> I can't speak for French, [...]Then why are you speaking ignorantly on it?
> [..] but they are not in general used interchangeably in English.This is a subjective statement of course. All I can legitimately
say to that is: I just don't experience this usage as being as
uncommon as you perceive it to be.
> There are, of course, some specific contexts in which they can beAnd so you thereby admit to the fact that the door is open for an
> interchanged with very little change of sense, [...]
_absolute_ interchangeability to surface in everyday speech instead
of holding on to a thin contrast. There is no semantic reason for
the contrast here and both can indeed mean the same thing to some
without a great amount of confusion at all.
>> "people speaking English"Relevant. This is a sample of usages.
>> (2230 entries)
> Of course both forms are acceptable and reasonably common;Thank you, that's what I'm getting at... in both English and
> the point is that they are not synonymous,No, they are not synonymous in all dialects of English, you mean
to say. I don't know why you're trying to discredit me as a
native English speaker or why you pick debates with me that are
simply arguementative for no strong reason.
> And of course *all* of this is irrelevant to Kim's originalActually it is because English and French, despite being very
different languages, are intertwined historically, geographically,
politically, culturally and linguistically. What is normal in
English can often end up being normal in French, especially in
Canada where the two languages co-exist under one government. So
the usage of the gerundive here is, as far as I've seen, a situation
seen in both languages, facilitated by a large degree of
- On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:34:50 -0800 (PST), Glen wrote:
>Reread the above, the first sentence in particular.
>> Glen, the original assertion (more of an obiter dictum, but never
>> mind) was that the French participial construction, although common in
>> writing, is rarely used in speech. You challenge this on the basis of
>> Canadian French, of which indeed I have no knowledge, so let me
>> qualify the claim by restricting it to metropolitan French.
>What does "metropolitan French" mean?The French of France. No offence intended to Winnipeg, Vancouver or
any other metropolis.
>> Now what you are trying to prove with the above statistics from GoogleReread first sentence.
>> I cannot guess.
>That it's not "rare".
>Kim:I can't dispute your experience, though one might suspect a degree of
>> The point at issue is a difference between speech and writing.
>That particular point is without question but I don't think it's
>exactly accurate to say that this special use of the gerundive
>is exclusively "literary" or "rare". It just doesn't seem to be
>from my own experience if my two cents are worth anything.
influence from English on Canadian French. I deny that your Google
statistics prove anything at all except that the construction can be
found in written sources, which was never at issue.
- At 8:58:19 PM on Wednesday, November 3, 2004,
> Brian:I'm not; I'm reporting normal (in this case meaning both
>>>> Nor does it mean the same thing. People who speak
>>>> French may be speaking English.
>>> So would "people speaking French"!
>> No. If they are speaking French, they are not speaking
> Why are you imposing a style of speech on me?
standard and most common) English usage.
> I'm simply stating how I speak English as a native speakerNor in mine. What it says is that they are speaking French
> and my usage is just as justified as yours. In my usage,
> "people speaking French" does _NOT_ imply that they only
> speak French.
at the moment to which the statement refers. At some other
moment they may be speaking English, or Yup'ik, or Dyirbal,
for all I know.
>> I can't speak for French, [...]I'm not speaking about it at all.
> Then why are you speaking ignorantly on it?
>>> "people speaking English"It's a sample of constructions; it tells you nothing about
>>> (2230 entries)
> Relevant. This is a sample of usages.
the intended senses of those constructions. Since your
claim is about the senses as well as the constructions
themselves, the data are not germane to your claim.
>> Of course both forms are acceptable and reasonablyNo, you're making a much stronger claim of synonymy, about
> Thank you, that's what I'm getting at... in both English
> and French.
which the statistics say exactly nothing. If you were
thinking with your head instead of responding defensively, I
expect that you'd realize this immediately.
>> the point is that they are not synonymous,I doubt that they are synonymous in any dialect of English,
> No, they are not synonymous in all dialects of English,
> you mean to say. I don't know why you're trying to
> discredit me as a native English speaker
though they may be so in your idiolect. I'm not trying to
discredit you as a native English speaker, but I'm not
impressed by your knowledge of English varieties in general.
> or why you pick debates with me that are simplyIf I actually picked debates with you just to be
> arguementative for no strong reason.
argumentative, I'd be posting constantly. Every once in a
while, however, you make a statement -- usually about
methodology but sometimes about matters of fact -- that
strikes me as blatantly wrong, and I comment. Correcting
blatantly wrong statements does not in my book qualify as
being argumentative 'for no strong reason'.
Dead Dobbin having been thoroughly thumped, I've no more to
say on the subject.
>>What does "metropolitan French" mean?Hmm, then why not just call it "European French" to avoid confusion?
> The French of France. No offence intended to Winnipeg, Vancouver or
> any other metropolis.
> I can't dispute your experience, though one might suspect a degree ofYes, and I admit this. I remember sitting in an extra-credit course
> influence from English on Canadian French.
that taught us basic linguistics and IPA symbols. The teacher made
claims on "Canadian English" but I knew for a fact that many Canadians
weren't pronouncing it this way (Are Manitobans slurring their words?
Maybe). However, I did notice that I was pronouncing "day", not as
/dEj/ (the "proper" Canadian English way) nor even a lazy /dEI/ but
rather /de/, no doubt influenced by my upbringing in French. The
deviant pronunciation wouldn't be terribly noticeable in English
anyway as long as the "d" is alveolar.
> I deny that your Google statistics prove anything [...]Yes, so do I. They _hint_ at everyday speech. That's all I'm getting
at. So when it's claimed that the gerundive is oddly used here in
either French or English, I have to argue against it. It's not that
unusual based on my own experience. Of course, this is a subjective
debate and so I think we'll have to learn to disagree. It's good
though to at least share experiences about a language to gain more
> [...] at all except that the construction can be found in writtenYes, but the Internet is hardly "literary" by normal standards.
> sources, which was never at issue.
It's a soupkitchen of thought and a large brunt of it is written
by the regular joe-shmoes that got their hands on a computer and an
internet connection to lend their opinion in the way they feel
most natural -- their own everyday speech as they type it.
Quite different from _published_ text in print which tends to follow
much more closely the formulaic, less natural ways of conveying an
idea. A distinction has to be made between simply "written" and
"literary". We can all write in various styles to express the same
view without changing one's medium of expression. I don't have to
use weird conjugational forms like "fîmes" for example. I can just
type how I talk and that's what the majority on the internet do.
> I'm not trying to discredit you as a native English speaker,And I'm not impressed with your arrogance. I hardly care whether
> but I'm not impressed by your knowledge of English varieties
> in general.
you're impressed with me or not. Do you think I should be?
Get off your high horse.
I'm here to talk about a _subjective_ view of a language and so to
attempt, as in your underhanded quote above, to imply that I'm
unknowledgeable about my own native language AND a language that you
admit you can't even speak is entirely irrational, mean-spirited and
doesn't help this Forum.
You've done this before with me in particular because you must have
some hate-on with me, some insecurity that surfaces now and again
when you're feeling blue, I guess. What's happened so far is that
I've stated my view, then you disagree with it and stick a few insults
in. Kim on the other hand has been calmly relating another opinion that
differs from mine. So we all just live different lives. No biggy.
So why are you so determined in denying other people's own experiences!
Why are you so stressed out? Just accept that my "idiolect" is
different and I'll accept that yours differs from mine. The end.