Posted: Mar 14, 2019 3:06 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:Dialogue is more flexible than text as abbreviation is useful when talking especially when talking quickly
But some times it just goes too far . The bastardisation of isnt it ? to innit ? is the classic example of this
As a phrase it is vulgar and the original is far better even if more energy is required for the extra syllable
Stephen Frys pet hate are statements asked as questions due to the inflection at the end of the sentence
Apparently rather popular with young Australian women for some reason though he didnt elaborate why
People can have very strong views on what is acceptable and unacceptable in language. But, unfortunately for them, language pays little heed.
(Book no.13 on my list in this year's book challenge thread
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/books/book-challenge-thread-2019-t55732-60.html
has a good overview of this.)
The gradual shortening of words and dropping of endings and syllables is a constant in language.
Guy Deutcher, in the book I mentioned up thread details the course of the negative across the centuries in English (and also French). I'll try to repeat his discussionhere (if memory serves..)
The original negator was 'ne'. But as this was a single syllable ending in a vowel, it was prone to erosion. But, a language can't make do without a negator* and so steps were taken by speakers to get over their reduced pronunciation. Ne got combined with other words to form the expression 'ne a wit' (something similar to Not a jot). Now we have a three syllable expression with a nice hard consonant at the end. But, the reduction process kicked off again and the form got contracted to 'nawit' (which led to 'nowt' in certain dialects'). Nawit then eroded to 'not' which is where we are today.
French did something similar with ne being combined with other words and after a long process coming out as ne... pas' meaning 'not a step'. Erosion and renewal are constant processes in languages.
On the subject of 'innit' it is interesting to me that it seems to be used by certain speech groups as the default tag question.
'Iz cool, innit?' adheres to the rules of English. But I've heard such instances as 'That was wicked, innit?'
English is especially productive in tag question formation, requiring reversing the polarity and selecting the correct verb tense and pronoun, and using 'do' or 'will' or other words, depending on the original statement.
He is late, isn't he?. They are late, aren't they? He isn't late, is he? They aren't late, are they? They like it, don't they? She disagreed, didn't she? She'll meet us, won't she?
In Japanese there is a general tag question that applies to all constructions. ですね？Desu ne?
You can tack it on to any statement and it still serves as a tag.
(I think that something similar applies with German 'Nicht Wahr?, but I'll happily be corrected by any German speakers here.)
Perhaps 'innit' is becoming such a default tag in English...
* I'm reading a book now on some very strange, outlier languages, and it seems that maybe some languages can do without a negative. More when I reach that chapter.