>>  And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would
>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the
>> right form.

> "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I
> doubt he can supply the usual form.

> >>  And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would
> >> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the
> >> right form.

> > "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I
> > doubt he can supply the usual form.

> Josh tended (and still does occasionally) to overregularize irregular
> verbs rather than pick the wrong irregular form.  So "bringed",
> "catched", "buyed", and the like.  "Brang" never seemed to be common
> among his cohort, either when he was little or now.

>> * Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>>>  And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would
>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the
>>> right form.

>> "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I
>> doubt he can supply the usual form.

>>>>  And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would
>>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the
>>>> right form.

>>> "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I
>>> doubt he can supply the usual form.

>> Josh tended (and still does occasionally) to overregularize irregular
>> verbs rather than pick the wrong irregular form.  So "bringed",
>> "catched", "buyed", and the like.  "Brang" never seemed to be common
>> among his cohort, either when he was little or now.

> I think "brung" is more common than "brang" -- because of that
> principle I mentioned that pasts are reanalyzed as participles rather
> than preterites, as in  "I played the piano" : "I rung the bell."

> >>>>  And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would
> >>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the
> >>>> right form.

> >>> "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I
> >>> doubt he can supply the usual form.

> >> Josh tended (and still does occasionally) to overregularize irregular
> >> verbs rather than pick the wrong irregular form.  So "bringed",
> >> "catched", "buyed", and the like.  "Brang" never seemed to be common
> >> among his cohort, either when he was little or now.

> > I think "brung" is more common than "brang" -- because of that
> > principle I mentioned that pasts are reanalyzed as participles rather
> > than preterites, as in  "I played the piano" : "I rung the bell."

> Are there dialects that have bring/brung/brung, in just this verb, as

>>>>>  And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would
>>>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the
>>>>> right form.

>>>> "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I
>>>> doubt he can supply the usual form.

>>> Josh tended (and still does occasionally) to overregularize irregular
>>> verbs rather than pick the wrong irregular form.  So "bringed",
>>> "catched", "buyed", and the like.  "Brang" never seemed to be common
>>> among his cohort, either when he was little or now.

>> I think "brung" is more common than "brang" -- because of that
>> principle I mentioned that pasts are reanalyzed as participles rather
>> than preterites, as in  "I played the piano" : "I rung the bell."

> Are there dialects that have bring/brung/brung, in just this verb, as
> opposed to the widespread tendency to replace every strong past with the
> participle form when it's different?  I know that there are many
> dialects that have bring/brang/brung, both in the USA and Britain,
> though I don't know offhand which ones they are, and of course don't
> know whether one of them is spoken where Oliver's child and his friends
> might have picked it up (as opposed to it being a personal innovation by
> them).

>> There was a time when Catholic women were expected to cover their
>> heads when attending Mass.  It was not uncommon to see a woman who had
>> forgotten her hat or scarf with a Kleenex atop her head.  It was a
>> particularly amusing sight when beehive hairdos were popular.

>I may have mentioned this previously in AUE, but I know who went to a
>Roman Catholic school, was very good in maths, and occasionally
>muddled words; she once said her mother wore a "mantissa" to mass.

>> On 2009-10-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can
>>> _produce_ them.

>> ISTR reading that children understand lots of linguistic phenomena
>> before they can produce them, including phonemes that they can't
>> articulate yet.  I came across examples (in a book by David Crystal, I
>> think, but I'm not certain) in which a small child mispronounces a
>> word, then gets annoyed when the parent repeats the mispronunciation
>> and says "No, I said ____!" with the same mispronunciation.

>"My fiss".

>> > No, it doesn't, because no child would or could say "When did your
>> > brother hitted you?", because any child who can make do-support
>> > questions knows that do-support operates on the infinitive, not on the
>> > preterite.

>> Not completely true.  With irregular verbs, (and even some regulars)
>> these kinds of errors definitely arise.  Here are some real examples
>> from the Brown corpus (Adam, Age (in the cited examples) 3;4 - 3;10, Eve
>> 2;2, Sarah 4;5-5;0)

>> Of course I agree with the general sentiment that the child will figure
>> it out her own.  Somehow, given the disappearance of the OP, I wonder if
>> this is simply a troll.

>> Alan

>> Yes/No questions:

>> *** File "adam29.cha": line 1261. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: oh (.) did I caught it ?

>> *** File "adam30.cha": line 2207. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: did you broke that part ?

>> *** File "adam31.cha": line 3423. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: did the milk broke ?

>> *** File "adam31.cha": line 3810. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: did you made a mistake ?

>> And with wh-questions:

>> *** File "adam36.cha": line 4637. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: what movie did I saw ?

>> *** File "eve17.cha": line 4506. Keywords: did, did
>> *CHI: what did you doed [: did] [* +ed] ?

>> *** File "sarah111.cha": line 110. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: how did I untangled it ?

>> *** File "sarah127.cha": line 1449. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: how did you caught him ?

>> And some even wackier ones:

>> *** File "adam34.cha": line 2001. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: did was it be a comb ?

>> *** File "adam39.cha": line 1404. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: did there be some ?

>> *** File "adam39.cha": line 1407. Keyword: did
>> *CHI: did it be there ?-

>That's one weird kid.

>>>>>  And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would
>>>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the
>>>>> right form.

>>>> "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I
>>>> doubt he can supply the usual form.

>>> Josh tended (and still does occasionally) to overregularize irregular
>>> verbs rather than pick the wrong irregular form.  So "bringed",
>>> "catched", "buyed", and the like.  "Brang" never seemed to be common
>>> among his cohort, either when he was little or now.

>> I think "brung" is more common than "brang" -- because of that
>> principle I mentioned that pasts are reanalyzed as participles rather
>> than preterites, as in  "I played the piano" : "I rung the bell."

> Are there dialects that have bring/brung/brung, in just this verb, as
> opposed to the widespread tendency to replace every strong past with the
> participle form when it's different?  I know that there are many
> dialects that have bring/brang/brung, both in the USA and Britain,
> though I don't know offhand which ones they are, and of course don't
> know whether one of them is spoken where Oliver's child and his friends
> might have picked it up (as opposed to it being a personal innovation by
> them).

>> Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues
>> like that in child language acquisition?

> Well, "over time" _every_ change has something to do with language
> acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of
> articulation and difficulty of comprehension.

> > On Oct 29, 10:15 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's
> >> > normal in AAVE.

> >> Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues
> >> like that in child language acquisition?

> > Well, "over time" _every_ change has something to do with language
> > acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of
> > articulation and difficulty of comprehension.

> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them.
> Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this
> thread ("me and Bob did it" vs "Bob and I did it") --- I guess you
> could say that something like "ease of syntactic generation" is
> driving that?

> > On Oct 29, 10:15 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's
> >> > normal in AAVE.

> >> Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues
> >> like that in child language acquisition?

> > Well, "over time" _every_ change has something to do with language
> > acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of
> > articulation and difficulty of comprehension.

> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them.
> Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this
> thread ("me and Bob did it" vs "Bob and I did it")

> > [1] I'm using subject here purely syntactically: in "The army destroyed
> > the city", "the army" is the subject and in "The city was destroyed by
> > the army", "the city" is the subject.  By analogy, in "the army's
> > destruction of the city", "the army" is the 'subject' of the noun
> > phrase, and in "the city's destruction by the army", "the city" is the
> > subject.  Feel free to replace this term with one more to your liking,
> > such as "Possessor", as I'm not interested in debating this point.

> Noun phrases don't have subjects. If they did, they'd be verb phrases.

> > On Nov 5, 11:22 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:

> > > [1] I'm using subject here purely syntactically: in "The army destroyed
> > > the city", "the army" is the subject and in "The city was destroyed by
> > > the army", "the city" is the subject.  By analogy, in "the army's
> > > destruction of the city", "the army" is the 'subject' of the noun
> > > phrase, and in "the city's destruction by the army", "the city" is the
> > > subject.  Feel free to replace this term with one more to your liking,
> > > such as "Possessor", as I'm not interested in debating this point.

> > Noun phrases don't have subjects. If they did, they'd be verb phrases.

> What part of "I'm not interested in debating this point" did you not
> understand?

>> On 2009-10-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> On Oct 29, 10:15Â am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>>>> On 2009-10-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>>> Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie?
>>>>> It's normal in AAVE.

>>>> Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues
>>>> like that in child language acquisition?

>>> Well, "over time" _every_ change has something to do with language
>>> acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of
>>> articulation and difficulty of comprehension.

>> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of
>> them. Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started
>> this thread ("me and Bob did it" vs "Bob and I did it")

> True, articulation has nothing to do with this.

>> --- I guess you could say that something like "ease of syntactic
>> generation" is driving that?

> Or some sort of simplicity of the case marking rule.  Here's one (for
> English):

> (i) NP subjects of tensed clauses get marked with Nominative case.
> (ii) NP 'subjects'[1] of noun phrases get marked with Genitive case.
> (iii) all other NPs get marked with Accusative case.

> In the situation of "Me and John left" or "John and me left" "me and
> John"/"John and me" is the subject, NOT just "me", so rule (iii)
> applies. Evidence for this supposedly heretical claim: "John and I
> met" ≠ John met and I met.

> The rule also predicts Acc for "me and John's book" (cf. ?my and
> John's book/?John's and my book). Although in this case the ordering
> matters: "*John and me's book".

> It also predicts that the default case form in English is Acc, as in:

> Me, I don't like that. (*I, I don't like that)
> Who is it? It's me. (*It's I)
> John is bigger than me (*John is bigger than I)

> The prescriptive rule here is more complex, since it requires
> Nominative case on NP subjects of tensed clauses and NPs contained in
> coordinated NP subjects of tensed clauses.  This of course gets
> overgeneralized by many speakers to "Nom on all coordinated NPs",
> yielding the "between you and I", and "John and I's" (google "John
> and I's wedding" for plenty of real examples of this.)  Nominative
> case is also hypercorrected in the "It's I" and "bigger than I" cases
> as well.

> [1] I'm using subject here purely syntactically: in "The army
> destroyed the city", "the army" is the subject and in "The city was
> destroyed by the army", "the city" is the subject.  By analogy, in
> "the army's destruction of the city", "the army" is the 'subject' of
> the noun phrase, and in "the city's destruction by the army", "the
> city" is the subject.  Feel free to replace this term with one more
> to your liking, such as "Possessor", as I'm not interested in
> debating this point.

>> > On Oct 29, 10:15 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2009-10-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's
>> >> > normal in AAVE.

>> >> Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues
>> >> like that in child language acquisition?

>> > Well, "over time" _every_ change has something to do with language
>> > acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of
>> > articulation and difficulty of comprehension.

>> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them.
>> Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this
>> thread ("me and Bob did it" vs "Bob and I did it") --- I guess you
>> could say that something like "ease of syntactic generation" is
>> driving that?

> Analogy?

> > In article <ng7bs6xmgf....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> >> On 2009-10-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>> On Oct 29, 10:15Â am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> >>>> On 2009-10-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>>>> Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie?
> >>>>> It's normal in AAVE.

> >>>> Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues
> >>>> like that in child language acquisition?

> >>> Well, "over time" _every_ change has something to do with language
> >>> acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of
> >>> articulation and difficulty of comprehension.

> >> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of
> >> them. Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started
> >> this thread ("me and Bob did it" vs "Bob and I did it")

> > True, articulation has nothing to do with this.

> >> --- I guess you could say that something like "ease of syntactic
> >> generation" is driving that?

> > Or some sort of simplicity of the case marking rule.  Here's one (for
> > English):

> > (i) NP subjects of tensed clauses get marked with Nominative case.
> > (ii) NP 'subjects'[1] of noun phrases get marked with Genitive case.
> > (iii) all other NPs get marked with Accusative case.

> > In the situation of "Me and John left" or "John and me left" "me and
> > John"/"John and me" is the subject, NOT just "me", so rule (iii)
> > applies. Evidence for this supposedly heretical claim: "John and I
> > met" ≠ John met and I met.

> > The rule also predicts Acc for "me and John's book" (cf. ?my and
> > John's book/?John's and my book). Although in this case the ordering
> > matters: "*John and me's book".

> > It also predicts that the default case form in English is Acc, as in:

> > Me, I don't like that. (*I, I don't like that)
> > Who is it? It's me. (*It's I)
> > John is bigger than me (*John is bigger than I)

> > The prescriptive rule here is more complex, since it requires
> > Nominative case on NP subjects of tensed clauses and NPs contained in
> > coordinated NP subjects of tensed clauses.  This of course gets
> > overgeneralized by many speakers to "Nom on all coordinated NPs",
> > yielding the "between you and I", and "John and I's" (google "John
> > and I's wedding" for plenty of real examples of this.)  Nominative
> > case is also hypercorrected in the "It's I" and "bigger than I" cases
> > as well.

> It would be interesting if your analysis could predict or explain a
> hierarchy of hypercorrection. In what constructions are hypercorrect
> forms most likely to occur and why?

> > Note:

> > [1] I'm using subject here purely syntactically: in "The army
> > destroyed the city", "the army" is the subject and in "The city was
> > destroyed by the army", "the city" is the subject.  By analogy, in
> > "the army's destruction of the city", "the army" is the 'subject' of
> > the noun phrase, and in "the city's destruction by the army", "the
> > city" is the subject.  Feel free to replace this term with one more
> > to your liking, such as "Possessor", as I'm not interested in
> > debating this point.

> You're not? I'll have a go anyway.

> I can see it making sense at some level of analysis -- an underlying
> sentence behind the noun phrase or something -- but I would think that
> in cases where the scope is on the whole sentence rather than the phrase
> alone this view may lead to confusion.

> What do you make of examples like "the army('s) (me/my) destroying the
> city"/"the city('s) (me/my) (being) destroyed by the army"?

> But this reminds me of an old thought of mine (and I may well have aired
> it before and forgotten what came out of it (and it's probably a
> banality to linguists anyway)): The details of the grammar of any
> natural language can be analysed in different mutually exclusive ways,
> none of which fits perfectly. This lack of perfection gives a
> flexibility of expression, interpretation and reinterpretation that is
> essential for language to work.

> --
> Trond Engen

> > You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a
> > different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker
> > extends the language examples they have heard in different ways. That
> > is, everybody speaks their own idiolect.

> I thought you were an implacable enemy of Robert A. Hall, Jr., whose
> position that was.

>> > You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a
>> > different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker
>> > extends the language examples they have heard in different ways. That
>> > is, everybody speaks their own idiolect.

>> I thought you were an implacable enemy of Robert A. Hall, Jr., whose
>> position that was.

> You have me confused with somebody else. I have nothing but good
> feelings for Hall. He gave my etymology for "pidgin" a good word -
> which it needs. I still think it's right.

> >> > You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a
> >> > different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker
> >> > extends the language examples they have heard in different ways. That
> >> > is, everybody speaks their own idiolect.

> >> I thought you were an implacable enemy of Robert A. Hall, Jr., whose
> >> position that was.

> > You have me confused with somebody else. I have nothing but good
> > feelings for Hall. He gave my etymology for "pidgin" a good word -
> > which it needs. I still think it's right.

> For them of us what aren't keeping up with the hate list, what is your
> etymology?  I've never been particularly convinced by "business".
> --
> Online waterways route planner:http://canalplan.org.uk
>            development version:http://canalplan.eu