November 16, 2004

• Richer - I think you want another infinitive there- you're going to help to gut them. Comme "je vais aider a laver nos chaussettes." And more than one deer is still deer, foolishly enough.
• In my dialect it would usually be: 'I'm going to help gut them.' or 'I'm going to help to gut them.' 'I'm going to help and gut them' would imply that gutting the dear was your special job, rather than an activity you were participating in with other people. Eg. 'I'm going to help and gut them, while my mother knarls the antlers.' When spoken, this phrase would often have a fractional pause after 'and' and a slight emphasis on 'gut'. I have no idea why this is so in terms of gramatical theory. I'm going from what seems natural as a speaker of the language. Oh, and while we're on the topic, the plural of 'deer' is 'deer', but you can also use counting words as in the Chinese. Eg. 'my parents have three head of deer in the garage.' (I think 'head' is the right counting word for deer) Generative English grammar is fun!
• correct? hmm ... nope. Try, "I'm going to help gut them" or "I'm going to help dress them"* Defintely not the quintisential expert on the subject but removing the 'and' from your sentence or using the proper term, 'dress' feels right. *earings and other attire optional ;)
• If the subject is gutting deer, I believe the correct form is "I'm gonna help gut 'em." You can use "going to" if you're talking about dressing the deer. And fish tick is right about the plural for deer, unless you are referring to fawns when the plural becomes deeries.
• I'm going to help gut them or I'm going to help in the gutting of them. or They are going to gut them and I'm going to help. as Dreadnought said, the "and" makes it sound like 2 seperate tasks are occuring. "And" can be a synonym for "as well as" so that would be "help as well as gut." And yes, there is no such word as "deers."
• Actually, jccalhoun, in this case 'and' is a special word that (I think) only applies to specifying kinds of participation. Example: 'I'm going to be a race official and fire the starting gun.' does not imply that the speaker is going to be a race official as well as firing the starting gun. Rather, it implies that firing the starting gun is how the speaker is going to do their job as a race official.
• To hell with grammar! When's the venison ready? I have lots of recipes.
• I'm going to _______ and _______ something right about now.
• Dreadnought and jccalhoun are both right. There are more than a few conflicting rules in english grammar. i before e etc... Most of the times the rule can be solved by context. In common english, "I'm going to help gut them" is the most effective way of communicating the point. "They are going to gut them and I am going to help" is a very formal version of the same thing. "They are going to gut them and I am to help" implies that the speaker has previously been instructed to do something. Given additional context, the audience could assume that the speaker is unwilling to help. eg: as small child saying it in dismay. By adding "going/gonna" the speaker can denote a willingness to participate, making a clearer impression of how the speaker feels about it. I have been told by others that english can be very difficult to learn, seeing this thread kinda proves it. As I said both are right, based on context. It can be difficult to disprove someones idea of english, as often, everyone is right.
• If you've caught multiple skinned and finned aquatic vertebrates you'd say "I have caught multiple fish". If you wanted, however, to indicate that there is more than one variety of skinned and finned aquatic vertebrates you'd say "Eel and shark are two types of fishes". I don't know if "fishes" is required in the latter case but it's certainly permissible. Does the same work for deer (and deers)? "There are three deer in that field" but "Whitetail and Mule are deers you might see in Colorado"?
• The correct way to say it is that you are going to help gut the deer. The "and" is superfluous and should be discarded. The people arguing for it are doing so on the basis of spoken, informal English, in which case being correct is not a consideration. (The real reason is that when used like this, "going" takes the preposition "to," making it a verbal, not a verb. "And" is a conjunction, not a preposition, so it does not direct action, which is what you want.) In spoken English, the sentence would be "I'ma gonna go gut me some deers."
• Okay, so this wont fly. But what about "try and ____"?
• (beaten by my own g00gl3 sk1llz)
• "Try to" is standard. "Try and" is an idiom.
• Thanks everyone.
• example: It is futile to try to understand english grammar; obviously no one can agree on it.
• "Try to" is standard. "Try and" is an idiom. And a generally less-accepted idiom, at that. In American English (gotta love that phrase), in any case.
• Ya'll git that thar English gutted yet?
• some folk'll never gut a deer/ and then again some folk'll....
• Richer, it would be far more correct to say "I'm going to butcher their foul carcasses with my brothers in evil, Tito and Ngotti, the two demonic yellow sex-dwarves of old Nantucket legend: our ancient upholstery scissors shall drink deep in their blood and I will wash my armpit hair in their mutilated guts". Or something like that.
• Actually, quidnunc, "desecrated" is more commonly accepted when applied to guts.
• Don't make me set my twin demonic yellow sex-dwarves on you, BBF.
• some folk call it a kaiser blade . . . mmmmHmmm!
• I heard on the internets that there are some deers somewhere?
• They're in a hole. Wearing their ex-wive's wedding dresses.
• u guys just crack me up!
• The people arguing for it are doing so on the basis of spoken, informal English, in which case being correct is not a consideration. This is a complete misunderstanding of how language works. "Spoken, informal English" is otherwise known as "English"; formal written English is a culturally favored "high" version, of a kind that is available in many languages to help demarcate an elite (you don't use "correct" grammar, as defined by our priestly/grammatical class, therefore you are not One Of Us and can be patronized/ignored/shot). The only scientifically acceptable meaning of "correct" in the context of language is 'what is said by most native speakers'; the opinions of people who went to Oxford or read William Safire religiously are utterly irrelevant. "Try and" and "try to" are pretty much in free variation in current use (ie, they're equally "correct"); I don't think "help and" is very common (ie, most speakers would say "I'm going to help gut them.").
• I was so inspired by this that I dug some ground venison out of the freezer and we had Bambi-burgers for supper. /recipe available. Richer, let me know how it turns out. My daughter has been deer hunting over the last few weeks after just getting her licence. She's had several good shots but passes because it's the rule that you must gut your own deer. umm...by the way, they are supposed to be gutted immediately, not after a few days. Our next grammatical discussion will be on the dire consequences of food poisoning.
• languagehat, the language leveller! Power to the Peoples :)
• One of them is my little brother's first kill. I don't know what has been done to them yet, but I think we'll be safe: my godmother, who's in charge, has 20 years of hunting behind her, and I've never heard of food poisoning in my family.
• nicely ranted Mr. Hat. And keep the skinned animals off my lawn you kids!
• Ah, then I suspect that a discussion of the potential to gut these deer, is moot, by now. Pass on congratulations to your brother. It's an auspicious occasion.
• Well, yes, Languagehat, but still... When someone whose first language isn't English asks "What's the correct English form in this case?", to answer "There are no correct English forms, only prevalent ones." seems to verge on the unhelpful. "Correct" English may be an arbitrary social construct, but it does exist, and it is something people might reasonably need to know about if they're going to move in an English-speaking society. I think that when this issue comes up, most people tend to think of cases in which, say, a child's accent is mocked in the playground and corrected in the classroom, oppressing and putting them off school. We're all against that sort of thing. But you must also think of the child who says to itself: I have nothing in common with the idiots I was born among: in my soul I am the love-child of Oscar Wilde and Dorothy Parker and I want to talk and write like them. What are you going to say to such a child - "Don't be a snob, we all think your ghetto dialect is colourful and charming, and you must go on speaking it. I refuse to explain to you what 'correct English' is." I'm sure you wouldn't. Sorry folks - I'll try and avoid ranting on so much oops...
• When I was a child, I had no idea who Dorothy Parker and Oscar Wilde were. And usually, linguist advocate the teaching of a common dialect, while taking in account that children may not speak said dialect (like in that good'ol Oakland School Board controversy.
• )
• When someone whose first language isn't English asks "What's the correct English form in this case?", to answer "There are no correct English forms, only prevalent ones." seems to verge on the unhelpful. I agree with that, although l/h was specifically referring to something js said, not to Richer's question per se. But, yeah, looking again at Richer's question, I hazard to say that he was in fact asking why "to try and help" is "incorrect". Hence the question "what are the rules?". And js seems to put forward a reasonable explanation about the use of the conjunctive. But the question I'd like to put to js and languagehat is this: what would be correct form for "the blues"? HUH? EH?!? goddam whitey.
• Just English not being my first language doesn't mean I'm a dumbass. No need to sugarcoat the answer like I'm an 8 years old.
• (holy shit, that was an awful sentence)
• No need to sugarcoat the answer like I'm an 8 years old Huh? I didn't even give an answer (because unlike you, I am a dumbass).
• But kick my ass if I've insulted you, I didn't mean to :( *begs for forgiveness*
• Plegmund: Absolutely, but as the keed says, I was answering js, not Richer. As for the original question, the reason "to help and gut them" is "incorrect" is that it's not what English speakers say (by and large, dialects excepted); the supposed "use of the conjunctive" has nothing to do with it. By contrast, "try and do it" is perfectly correct because it is what people say. Logical/pseudogrammatical arguments to the contrary are irrelevant. I once knew a guy so obsessed with the supposed logic of language that when he gave me the "'I don't know nothing' means 'I know something'" line and I responded that in French a double negative equals a negative (je ne sais rien = 'I don't know anything'), he told me the French language was incorrect. I was left speechless. what would be correct form for "the blues"? It's all how you FEEL it, maaaan! *waits for somebody to kick quidnunc's ass*
• Apparently I already got my foot up there :( the supposed "use of the conjunctive" has nothing to do with it. But that's what I hears English speakers say when asked to explain why I shouldn't say "try and help". So, ain't it the "correct" pseudogrammatical argument (that would be offered in response)? *He asks tongue-in-cheek to the high power*
• [This is exactly the kind of conversation that makes me wish I could meet this hat of many tongues]
• I've heard the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive grammar explained this way: NB - this is based on one linguistics course, I defer to lh and other more knowledgeable people on all things, and am happy to be corrected. Prescriptive grammar consists of rules invented/defined by people who want to establish/reify an educated and/or elite dialect. In English, many of these rules were based on Latin, as a more prestigious language; a classic example of the sillyness this could lead to is the rule against split infinitives, since one cannot split infinitives (one word) in Latin. Descriptive grammar (right word?) describes the rules of a language as created by its speakers. There are always rules one must follow, or else you either don't make sense, or else it sounds very foriegn. Word order is very important in English, for instance, just to keep the meaning clear. I was told that linguists study descriptive grammar by asking native speakers how they would say X. Answers here include people speaking from both sides of prescriptive versus descriptive. The descriptive answer from me would be that in my dialect (Canadian Urban) Richer's sentance would sound strange - like someone speaking in another dialect. I would probably say "I'm going to help gut them." (Pronounced "I'm going to help gut 'em", because that "th" is hard to say after the "t" of gut.) The larger question - should we continue to use/teach/enforce prescriptive grammar? No, and yes. I have to say I love dialect - I think one of the most fascinating (and beautiful) pursuits of linguistics is dialect study and the sheer diversity of forms. But I also recognise that in all societies, throughout history, there are prestige and stigmatised dialects, and there is discrimination against dialects that are not prestige. To speak in a stigmatised dialect restricts employment opportunities, affects relations with authorities, changes how people who are not of that dialect react to you. And, for all the talk of equality and how class/race/region don't matter, this discrimination isn't going to go away. So I would say we do need to teach Standard English to all children, not because it is better, but simply because it is a skill they need to get ahead. Then perhaps, after they are in power, they can promote the destigmatisation of their own dialect. Things are changing - in Britain, regional dialects have made a real comeback in prestige. But new stigmatised dialects (perhaps lower class urban) will replace the country dialect. In many places, people who speak the language as a second language and make mistakes face a great deal of dicrimination. I want to hope the world can improve, but it feels inevitable - there are always people on the bottom, and many people scrambling up, eager to grab onto what is above and step on what is below. Now the paranoia sets in - I always make spelling and grammatical mistakes in posts on grammar. But we can all just fall back on the wonderfulness of just saying it don't matter, it's what's inside that counts.
• I responded that in French a double negative equals a negative Hmm. More of a negative formed in two parts, wouldn't you say? Not quite the same thing.
• I'm helping to gut the deer right now.
• No Richer, don't do it. Blood on the keyboard is ghastly to try and remove. (Regardless of language, idiom or grammar.)
• Turns out we're actually dressing the deer. It's going to be long (3 deer).
• isn't it "gut out the deer"?
• Frankly, I like 'l'arranger' much better. And I learned a new expression from my Godmother: 'écharogner': destroy the meat fiber with your knife because of your dressing inexperience.
• For those who don't know, Richer's mother has made a verb out of "charogne", which is a putrefying dead body. Yay!
• (godmother)
• Oh, and wild meat dressing + beer = great family experience. I recommend it.
• Rock on, écharogner ;)
• Does dressing the deer involve hats, gloves, and jewelry, or is it a semi-formal occasion?
• The proper attire for a deer dressing is a warm coat you're not afraid to soil (it's done in a cold garage) and lots of very sharp knives of all shape and sizes. You also need a couple of meat hooks, a meat grinder, some saws and a knife sharpener (they do grow dull).
• Speaking of écharognage, I rembered where I also heard it: a big tattooed guy in a bar telling you "m'as t'écharogner mon hostie" does not bode for the rest of your evening or your general well-being.
• according to this page: écharogner mal couper, déchiqueter to rip up, cut to pieces, cut badly And according to other pages (in French), it applies mostly to meat. But it's often seen in the 'give a beating' sense.
• Thanks, Richer. I don't really know anything about Kebecois, and the word weren't (sic) in me Petit Bobert. Ta!
• Richer,I didn't realise you are a Quebecois. Being fairly close to PQ, I've mingled a lot with bi-lingual folks in university and casually. Your grasp of the nuances of English is definitely on the higher end of the scale compared to even some profs I had in Ottawa. /but then again, I suspected many of them being obtuse deliberately. Our venison is always done after-hours at a friendly butcher shop. If anyone wants a couple of deer-skins I found two left in the bush the other day where some illicit hunters had done a field-dressing.
• What do you do with deer skins?
• Deerskin, when tanned is a wonderful soft, flexible and lightweight leather with a fine pore. My darlin' buys them to make things with such as moccasins and mukluks, when he's motivated. He's skinned and tanned them in the past but it a lot of work for what one can buy them for, if one knows a local source. Some people just have them tanned and leave the hair on, as a throw or rug, but the things shed like mad and I banned them from the upstairs. I have enough trouble with dog and cat hair and parrot feathers.
• Eeew! dxlifer's got dogskins, catskins and parrotskins in the house!!
• jb: Well done! I hereby appoint you Auxiliary Languagehat, Simian Division.
• Now I'm a blushing monkey, thank you.