Example 1: I never hear this outside of BBC documentaries. I'd say it's reliable non-standard outside of places with large Brit populations.

Example 2: I do hear this one pretty often, it's a 'white' saying in Miami, you hear it from the crackers but no one else. I've heard it a few times in Canada as well, it seems to be a pretty normal saying among younger folks.

Example 3: This one I've never heard.

Example 4: Never heard this one either. Edit: Actually yeah I've heard that one in the northeast from severe, and I do mean severe, Boston and NYC accents.

alexielnet wrote:

Example 4. The "a" in the word "rag" sounds like the "a" in "rage".

This is the only way I know how to say rag. Is it not correct?

Ray`g, ray`j. Ray`g, ray`j. Rag rhymes with bag and flag and ... leg.

(For the assignment, can't you just pretend you converse entirely in internet memes or leet speak?)

Thank you everyone for your replies. This is really helpful. The point of the exercise, as I understand it, is to reinforce the idea (for those of us studying the topic) that variation from the "standard" does not make a usage wrong.

The reason I use the British form of "schedule" is because of this show called "Space Cases" I watched when I was really young. I liked the way the "principal" lady said that word, so I adopted it. I have trouble saying it the American way now, because I'm so accustomed to the British clipping of the penultimate syllable in that word that I really have to think before I say it.

"Come with", as I far as I can tell, is a Northern clipping due to the fact that the object is understood and it is not necessary to specify it.

"For + (adj)" is apparently a Minnesota dialect feature originating from Scandinavian language influences.  It would be used to say something like, "You're little sister gave you that doll? Oh for sweet!"

Ragnarok wrote:

This is the only way I know how to say rag. Is it not correct?

The answer to your question is that yes, it is correct. It's a variation, like the merger of the vowel in "pin" and "pen" so they sound alike (which is not a feature of my dialect). In my dialect, any time an "a" is followed by a "g", it makes the [e] sound as in "laid" or "lake". Another way to pronounce the word "rag" would be so that the vowel sounds like the vowel in "lad". I can say it that way if I think about it, but it doesn't sound right to me. I don't share the "leg" sounding like "bag" feature. That is really interesting and certainly not wrong. As far as claiming I speak only in net speak, I actually thought about doing that and bringing in a bunch of kitty macros, but I actually find that kind of language annoying (though I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't use it) so I decided to do the assignment the way the teacher intended.

Thanks again everyone. I hope that other people find the topic of English usage variation as interesting as I do. In that spirit I will add that I have trouble deciding whether to spell the color between black and white as "grey" or "gray". They are both technically correct, but I my usage is not consistent.

Last edited by alexielnet (11-30-2007 10:49:22 PM)

Do you need more replies?  I use "come with" sometimes, but not consistently.  It must have rubbed off on me from my University of Chicago friends -- who are from all over, so I can't say where they got it from.  I don't think I say "Can I come with," though; I only use it when I'm giving an invitation.  "You want to come with?"

Of course, the usual caveats apply about how it's hard to know how we talk, because we don't really listen to ourselves very carefully and if we did we'd probably speak differently anyway.

alexielnet wrote:

"For + (adj)" is apparently a Minnesota dialect feature originating from Scandinavian language influences.  It would be used to say something like, "You're little sister gave you that doll? Oh for sweet!"

That's intresting, sometimes I say "For serious." but I'm not sure where I picked it up from. I don't know anyone from Minnesota, anyway!

As you can see to the left, I am from Connecticut.  I am exactly in between NYC and Boston... about 90 miles from each.  Now that you know where I am, here's my data for you. ;)



Example 1. I pronounce schedule with an initial [sh] instead of [sk]. This is a non-standard pronunciation in my region, though it is the standard in other places, i.e. England.

SKedule for me.  Much as I adore British English, the only time I say SHedule is when I (attempt to) speak British.




Example 2. I say "Can I come with?" instead of the standard "Can I come with you?"

I have never even heard the former until I read this.  Always "can I come with you?" for me.




Example 3. I say "For sweet!" instead of the standard "That is sweet." (Meaning adorable)

Never heard "for sweet!" ever before, either.  "That's sweet" in contracted form is how I'd usually say it.




Example 4. The "a" in the word "rag" sounds like the "a" in "rage".

Not for me... I say it as just plain  \ˈrag\    That said, I can't detect my own accent, so there may be some sort of inflection there that I can't hear.  I often wish I knew what my accent sounded like!

mazoboom wrote:

Example 2. I hear this every so often and I irrationally get filled with rage every time I hear it.  I'm not sure why, but I absolutely need an object to that preposition, or my OCD goes haywire.

Yeah. There are several reasons for this use. One reason is the German influence in the Minnesota area. Another is that the use of "with" is shifting from a preposition to a particle, which is simply part of the verb. The third is that the rule about prepositions was just decided by a few grammarians who appeared during the 17th and 18th centuries who declared that because the word began with a "pre", that it must come "before". Actual usage has always varied, even among the so-called elite.

Of course, I have my own issues when it comes to various usages, such as pronouncing "ask" as "ax". Still, by actually studying grammar, I've come to see how silly prescriptive grammar really is outside of formal writing and some forms of formal speech. Grammars were mostly written by elitists who appealed to their own sensibilities rather than the actual rules people were following when speaking. These arbitrary rules were then used (and continue to be used) to marginalize people whose English use varies from the standard. Through the study of linguistics, I've come to enjoy the richness of language variation.