Illogic upon illogic!
Nov. 2nd, 2004 10:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Notable quote found in my sociolinguistics packet. This is a quote that sociolinguists would tend to disagree with.
You could have fooled me. I thought it was correct to write 'we were' and incorrect to write 'we was'. I did not realise it was just a question dialect: I thought it was a question of grammar or, if you do not like that word, of logic. You cannot use the singular form of the verb with a plural pronoun.
(emphasis totally mine)
Logic? Logic? How can he think of talking about logic in a system where the singular second person plural is supposed to take, oh yes, a plural form of the verb? I was, you were, he/she/it was, we/you/they were. That's logic? Or does he say "you was"? If so, I'm impressed. Most people taking his stance wouldn't.
Head-hurty....
You could have fooled me. I thought it was correct to write 'we were' and incorrect to write 'we was'. I did not realise it was just a question dialect: I thought it was a question of grammar or, if you do not like that word, of logic. You cannot use the singular form of the verb with a plural pronoun.
(emphasis totally mine)
Logic? Logic? How can he think of talking about logic in a system where the singular second person plural is supposed to take, oh yes, a plural form of the verb? I was, you were, he/she/it was, we/you/they were. That's logic? Or does he say "you was"? If so, I'm impressed. Most people taking his stance wouldn't.
Head-hurty....
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 07:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 07:51 am (UTC)