"Stood to his feet" --- is this a common expression?

[fraidycat]

Well, a quick cursory Google search brought me to this example, one of many:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=6ey9BwAAQBAJ&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13&dq=%22stood+to+their+feet%22&source=bl&ots=BjS5kHQXoj&sig=EcqRJFa8pwduxjrHQxCu3olg76c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNroPZwNXLAhVIuYMKHeKFBQcQ6AEIQzAK#v=onepage&q=%22stood%20to%20their%20feet%22&f=false

I can't find a publisher/editor for this one. Eta: Createspace Independent Publishing.

 

Off to look at the next one.

Edited March 23, 2016 by fraidycat

[fraidycat]

Here's another:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=znelCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT44&lpg=PT44&dq=%22stood+to+their+feet%22&source=bl&ots=gM8pn-aygC&sig=7cxg29MsPYF_Rsp64BqK1Rn4oCY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNroPZwNXLAhVIuYMKHeKFBQcQ6AEIRjAL#v=onepage&q=%22stood%20to%20their%20feet%22&f=false

 

There are many. It is not obscure. I'm actually surprised this is, apparently, unheard of.

Westbow press. Christian self-publishing.

[fraidycat]

Here's this one on Amazon:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Reversed-Racism-written-attack-people/dp/1500875112

 

BTW, I didn't actually look hard at the example I chose. I'm not endorsing this book in any way, shape, or form.

These are independently published examples. I edited my request to include the missing "professional" in front of edit and publish.

[Chelli]

I've heard of it and used it.

 

It's very common in Arkansas where I grew up.

 

Kinsa had great examples of how it's used.

[Guest]

I've heard it, too. It doesn't even strike me as odd, which is not to say it is a phrase I use. But maybe I would if the situation merited. Kinsa's examples are exactly how I would expect to hear it.

[Nan in Mass]

Massachusetts - I don't think I've ever heard it before.

[kitten18]

I've never heard that phrase before.

[maize]

I'd really like to see where the phrase "stood TO his/their feet" has been used in Professionally published, professionally edited material, such as a book.

 

ETA: professional to my request.

Why would this matter?

 

Are you trying to prove this phrasing "wrong"? This thread has amply demonstrated that it is in common usage in some regions. That is all we need to know to determine that it is good and proper English.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I've heard it, generally in the context of a show of respect, as in church, or in the presence of royalty or another highly regarded person, or possibly in a standing ovation type situation.  It's not a generic term for standing up, or standing for a period of time, but an act of standing with emphasis and purpose.

[fraidycat]

Why would this matter?

 

Are you trying to prove this phrasing "wrong"? This thread has amply demonstrated that it is in common usage in some regions. That is all we need to know to determine that it is good and proper English.

Where have I said any such thing?

 

The Hive is a wide-read crowd. We've got members claiming they've never heard of it or seen it, and we have members who claim to have both heard and read it a lot. These are very disparate stories.

 

I expressed an interest in seeing it in a real (not self published book). I didn't demand anyone had to find it for me. Kinsa tried, which was kind of her, but it didn't match what I was wanting, so I let her know. I have personally never heard the phrase, and it sounds like clumsy English *to me*. I'm open to being proven wrong. I will keep an eye out for it now as I read.

 

FYI: I've heard some real doozy bastardizations of the English language in many different ways in many different regions. Common/regional usage does not necessarily make it good and proper.

[Tanaqui]

FYI: I've heard some real doozy bastardizations of the English language in many different ways in many different regions. Common/regional usage does not necessarily make it good and proper.

 

Yeah, "bastardization" is not a valid linguistic term, and what is common usage by native speakers is, by definition, correct for that dialect. "Correct" and "incorrect" and especially "Standard American English" (which is a dialect no better or worse than any other) are ideas established by consensus. There is no Platonic ideal of English that exists independent of English speakers. That would just be silly.

 

There are many.  It is not obscure.  I'm actually surprised this is, apparently, unheard of.

 

I've never heard it nor heard of it before in NYC, but I often find that people can be amazingly deaf to just how regional their regionalisms are. Consider the "needs washed" construction. Nearly everybody I've witnessed using it is surprised if told that it's generally considered nonstandard. Or, here's one from NYC - we stand on line, not in line. It's a very, very easy marker for who is and is not from NYC, and yet when I point it out to people they go "Well, what else would you say?"

 

(And when you get to the front of the line, the cashier says "Following (customer/guest, often omitted), step down". This is so common and widespread that I was surprised when somebody suggested to me that elsewhere, they just say "next!" Upon reflection, I have heard that in TV and movies and commercials!)

[Tanaqui]

Also: I just did a Google Ngram search for the phrase. You can see that it emerges in the 1880s, but only makes a sharp uptick in the 1970s. I didn't search for variations such as "stand to his feet" or "stood to our feet" and the like, but I presume they follow a similar trajectory. Fraidycat, Google Ngram only searches published works, and I'm pretty sure that they, like you, don't count self-published materials. Another quick google search shows it in this article in The Telegraph.

[fraidycat]

Yeah, "bastardization" is not a valid linguistic term, and what is common usage by native speakers is, by definition, correct for that dialect. "Correct" and "incorrect" and especially "Standard American English" (which is a dialect no better or worse than any other) are ideas established by consensus. There is no Platonic ideal of English that exists independent of English speakers. That would just be silly.

 

 

I've never heard it nor heard of it before in NYC, but I often find that people can be amazingly deaf to just how regional their regionalisms are. Consider the "needs washed" construction. Nearly everybody I've witnessed using it is surprised if told that it's generally considered nonstandard. Or, here's one from NYC - we stand on line, not in line. It's a very, very easy marker for who is and is not from NYC, and yet when I point it out to people they go "Well, what else would you say?"

 

(And when you get to the front of the line, the cashier says "Following (customer/guest, often omitted), step down". This is so common and widespread that I was surprised when somebody suggested to me that elsewhere, they just say "next!" Upon reflection, I have heard that in TV and movies and commercials!)

To the bolded: which is why I said it sounds clumsy *to me*. I did not define it as correct or incorrect because I am not a language specialist. I HAVE lived in many places and have read a book or two and have not seen or heard the phrase before today, which is what prompted my wish to see, this "commonly used phrase". It's something new. I like seeing and learning new things.

[fraidycat]

Also: I just did a Google Ngram search for the phrase. You can see that it emerges in the 1880s, but only makes a sharp uptick in the 1970s. I didn't search for variations such as "stand to his feet" or "stood to our feet" and the like, but I presume they follow a similar trajectory. Fraidycat, Google Ngram only searches published works, and I'm pretty sure that they, like you, don't count self-published materials. Another quick google search shows it in this article in The Telegraph.

Thanks. Two new things! I will check this out soon. Headed to bed now.

[Tanaqui]

I did not define it as correct or incorrect because I am not a language specialist.

 

The people who study language - that is, linguists - wouldn't define a widespread usage as "correct" or "incorrect" either. They know better. The premise that all dialects are equal is a core principle of the study of language, right up there with cell theory in biology or the heliocentric model of the solar system in astronomy. However, when you use terms like "bastardization" and say that widespread usages among native speakers might not be "good and proper [English]" you are implicitly judging some dialects as more correct than others. At least, that's how it sounds to me.

 

And that statement is just very flawed.

 

Of course, standard disclaimer applies: You should use a more formal register in more formal situations, in the same way that you wear a business suit and not a bathing suit when you go on a job interview. Since people will insist on judging people on how they talk rather than on what they say, you just have to play the game. It's not right, and it's not fair, but so it goes.

[flyingaway]

It's familiar to me. I'm from lost on the plains. I suspect it's churchspeak and that those familiar with it also know travel mercies and sword drills.

[fraidycat]

The people who study language - that is, linguists - wouldn't define a widespread usage as "correct" or "incorrect" either. They know better. The premise that all dialects are equal is a core principle of the study of language, right up there with cell theory in biology or the heliocentric model of the solar system in astronomy. However, when you use terms like "bastardization" and say that widespread usages among native speakers might not be "good and proper [English]" you are implicitly judging some dialects as more correct than others. At least, that's how it sounds to me.

 

And that statement is just very flawed.

 

Of course, standard disclaimer applies: You should use a more formal register in more formal situations, in the same way that you wear a business suit and not a bathing suit when you go on a job interview. Since people will insist on judging people on how they talk rather than on what they say, you just have to play the game. It's not right, and it's not fair, but so it goes.

Ok, I'm still up.

 

Bolded: Noted.

 

I have actually said it sounds clumsy to me, so of course it sounds like I'm judging it. I am. I did. I own it. It doesn't make me right or wrong, nor am I judging the whole dialect as "incorrect" by saying that this one sentence does not sound nice. Not bad. Not wrong. Clumsy. In MY Opinion.

 

This is not the first discussion on this forum about "proper" or "good" usage of language. Rants/discussions about text-speak and FB posts jump immediately to mind. It's common usage, so by Maize's definition, and your backing - it's good and proper. Also noted. Therefore, I can haz cheezburger.

 

Even though I am here to learn and learned a new, somewhat commonly used phrase, I won't personally be using it any time soon, outside of this discussion.

 

Thanks for the links. I'll look when I'm more awake and have time.

Edited March 23, 2016 by fraidycat

[creekland]

The people who study language - that is, linguists - wouldn't define a widespread usage as "correct" or "incorrect" either. They know better. The premise that all dialects are equal is a core principle of the study of language, right up there with cell theory in biology or the heliocentric model of the solar system in astronomy. However, when you use terms like "bastardization" and say that widespread usages among native speakers might not be "good and proper [English]" you are implicitly judging some dialects as more correct than others. At least, that's how it sounds to me.

 

This is true with linguists and I firmly believe all locals pronounce their places/words correctly as has come up in a previous thread.

 

That said, it's not a view shared by grammar teachers or many others in school settings, much less the professional settings you're talking about and that's the way I took Fraidy's posts.

 

I use y'all all the time - very proper in my hubby's former life (prior to marriage) and a word I really like.  That doesn't make it "correct" overall even if it has very wide acceptance in places.  Linguists won't mind, of course, but their judgment isn't the only one out there.  And these sorts of judgments - esp in threads on the Hive - certainly aren't judgments of character!  (Or maybe they are from the grammar professionals?)

 

A student using "Stood to his feet" in a writing at our school will likely get red marks back on their paper.  That's not judgment of character.  It's judgment about writing and "correct" English.

 

ETA:  I'm not an English person, but I expect (and grade for) correct writing when I assign projects.  I'm glad I read this thread (and some other regional sayings threads).  It will allow me to check on the student's background before taking points off if this were to ever come up.  I don't allow our regional mistakes either ("Yous" being the most common).

Edited March 23, 2016 by creekland

[creekland]

Or, here's one from NYC - we stand on line, not in line. It's a very, very easy marker for who is and is not from NYC, and yet when I point it out to people they go "Well, what else would you say?"

 

(And when you get to the front of the line, the cashier says "Following (customer/guest, often omitted), step down". This is so common and widespread that I was surprised when somebody suggested to me that elsewhere, they just say "next!" Upon reflection, I have heard that in TV and movies and commercials!)

 

Another interesting one.  I come from far northern NY (North Country) and I've never heard either of these.  We very rarely travel to NYC not being city lovers.  I suppose that's obvious at this point!

 

Phrases certainly are regional - and interesting to learn about.

[Laura Corin]

This is true with linguists and I firmly believe all locals pronounce their places/words correctly as has come up in a previous thread.

 

That said, it's not a view shared by grammar teachers or many others in school settings, much less the professional settings you're talking about and that's the way I took Fraidy's posts.

 

I use y'all all the time - very proper in my hubby's former life (prior to marriage) and a word I really like.  That doesn't make it "correct" overall even if it has very wide acceptance in places.  Linguists won't mind, of course, but their judgment isn't the only one out there.  And these sorts of judgments - esp in threads on the Hive - certainly aren't judgments of character!  (Or maybe they are from the grammar professionals?)

 

A student using "Stand to your feet" in a writing at our school will likely get red marks back on their paper.  That's not judgment of character.  It's judgment about writing and "correct" English.

 

ETA:  I'm not an English person, but I expect (and grade for) correct writing when I assign projects.  I'm glad I read this thread (and some other regional sayings threads).  It will allow me to check on the student's background before taking points off if this were to ever come up.  I don't allow our regional mistakes either ("Yous" being the most common).

 

 

I think that what you are talking about is register.  In my home town, it is correct to say, 'I was stood waiting for him'.  That's an oral, casual register.  If someone wrote that in school, or in a published book (not as a quotation) then they would be using the wrong register.  I think that the key is (as in the bathing suit/business suit comparison early) that children be taught about different registers and that adults remember them too.

 

[creekland]

I think that what you are talking about is register.  In my home town, it is correct to say, 'I was stood waiting for him'.  That's an oral, casual register.  If someone wrote that in school, or in a published book (not as a quotation) then they would be using the wrong register.  I think that the key is (as in the bathing suit/business suit comparison early) that children be taught about different registers and that adults remember them too.

 

 

Can't say I've heard the word, register, in that context before, but it could be common.  I haven't had an English class since my freshman year of college and that was a couple of moons ago.  Last grammar class was 8th grade - though homeschooling perhaps kept that up a little more.  ;)

 

Then that phrase... does it mean the person was stood up waiting for him (the person being waited for didn't show up - the person waiting didn't have to actually be standing) or just that someone was standing somewhere waiting for them?

 

It's another phrase I haven't heard before... Apparently I'm getting my "learn something new every day" quota filled early today.   :coolgleamA:

[Laura Corin]

 

Then that phrase... does it mean the person was stood up waiting for him (the person being waited for didn't show up - the person waiting didn't have to actually be standing) or just that someone was standing somewhere waiting for them?

 

It's another phrase I haven't heard before... Apparently I'm getting my "learn something new every day" quota filled early today.   :coolgleamA:

 

It's the latter.  It means, 'I was standing waiting for him'.  Common in Bristol but I don't know about elsewhere in south west England.

 

ETA: register is here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%29

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Laura Corin

[Aiden]

I've heard it, generally in the context of a show of respect, as in church, or in the presence of royalty or another highly regarded person, or possibly in a standing ovation type situation.  It's not a generic term for standing up, or standing for a period of time, but an act of standing with emphasis and purpose.

 

Yes, this.

 

You would "stand to your feet" for a dignitary, a bride walking down the aisle, or to show respect for the reading of God's Word in a very conservative church.

 

You would "stand to your feet" if you were sitting and someone said something that you felt compelled, on principle, to stand up against: for example, something like, "After Bob heard Joe make the awfully racist comment, Bob slowly stood to his feet, looked Joe in the eye, and said ..."

 

You would not "stand to your feet" because you needed to get up and go somewhere, for example.

 

Edited to add: This was common usage where I grew up in the Southeast. I don't recall if I heard it in any of the many other places I've lived.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Aiden

[Tanaqui]

I don't allow our regional mistakes either ("Yous" being the most common).

 

Regionalisms aren't mistakes. They're just a different, equally valid way of speaking (and when it comes to youse or y'all or yinz, an equally valid way of speaking that neatly fills a gap found in Standard American English).

 

It is both more accurate and more effective to tell students "This way of speaking and writing is appropriate at home or with friends, or in casual works, but you need to use this other dialect when writing formal papers or on job interviews" than to tell them "The way everybody in your community talks is a mistake and wrong". And when you use terms like "mistake" or "bastardization" or "incorrect" you might think you're not saying the latter, but people are going to hear it.

 

If someone wrote that in school, or in a published book (not as a quotation) then they would be using the wrong register.

 

Depends what sort of book you're writing. A great many novels use nonstandard dialects to a large extent, even in the narrator's voice. Some of them are quite highly acclaimed.

 

Or to give another example, think of political speeches. We might expect the President to speak habitually in a formal register, but look at Bush! He got elected in no small part because voters thought of him as somebody they could have a beer with, and that would not have worked so well if he spoke all the time like a college professor. A quick, easy way to seem practical and down-home is to toss "ain't" into a speech or a question and answer session. Ain't is definitely nonstandard, and not part of any more formal register, but in some races the politicians throw that word around like it's going out of style, all in an effort to seem less elitist than the other guy.

 

You would not "stand to your feet" because you needed to get up and go somewhere, for example.

 

Thanks for that context, it wasn't clear to me :)

[Carol in Cal.]

Oh honestly.  This is a classical board and we are arguing about whether proper English even exists?  I find this mind boggling.

[Tanaqui]

Oh honestly.  This is a classical board and we are arguing about whether proper English even exists?  I find this mind boggling.

 

Let me ask you a question, Carol. Exactly who do you think is in charge of determining which English is "proper" or not? How do you think we make this determination?

[SproutMamaK]

I've never heard this phrase, at least not that I can recall. "Stood up" or "Got to his feet" are in more common usage where I live (Ontario).

[Mergath]

I've never heard it phrased that way before. I'm a native Minnesotan. Around here people would say "stood up" or "rose to his feet."

[8circles]

I think everyone should speak in a mid-atlantic accent.  It would be fun.

[Tanaqui]

I think everyone should speak in a mid-atlantic accent.  It would be fun.

 

Meanwhile, I'm firmly convinced that a classic NYC accent is the only correct one... but I'm aware that this is something of a minority opinion :)

[8circles]

Meanwhile, I'm firmly convinced that a classic NYC accent is the only correct one... but I'm aware that this is something of a minority opinion :)

 

I can honestly say I don't know what that sounds like.  I'm sure I've heard it but I couldn't tell you which one it is.

[Mergath]

Meanwhile, I'm firmly convinced that a classic NYC accent is the only correct one... but I'm aware that this is something of a minority opinion :)

 

Or we could all speak in a Minnesotan accent. My friends from other parts of the country all seem to find mine pretty amusing. :P 

[8circles]

Or we could all speak in a Minnesotan accent. My friends from other parts of the country all seem to find mine pretty amusing. :p

I love me a Minnesotan accent.  We do hear it around here in WI sometimes.

[Mergath]

I love me a Minnesotan accent.  We do hear it around here in WI sometimes.

 

I grew up on the northern border, so mine used to be very "Fargo." My accent has faded somewhat over the years, but most of the people I grew up with sound like Sarah Palin.  :lol:

[Carol in Cal.]

Let me ask you a question, Carol. Exactly who do you think is in charge of determining which English is "proper" or not? How do you think we make this determination?

California via Hollywood.  Duh. 

 

 

(Kidding, of course)

[Tanaqui]

I can honestly say I don't know what that sounds like.  I'm sure I've heard it but I couldn't tell you which one it is.

 

You can hear some examples in the trailer here. Or if you ever watched All in the Family, Archie Bunker has a good old school accent, though some of his usages were already on their way out. For example, he says "terlet" where most people would say "toilet", and "boid" where they'd say "bird". This used to be fairly common in NYC English, but I never heard it in real life myself.

 

Every so often, there's a hue and cry about how the NYC accent is "disappearing". This supposed disappearance can be attributed to two things - time, and population movement.

 

Time is simple. Living languages aren't static. Nobody speaks exactly the same way they spoke twenty years ago, much less a hundred! And it's not reasonable to expect that they would.

 

Population movement is also simple. The old school speakers of NYC English have moved out of NYC as they got more money, taking their accent with them. You can still hear it - they mostly all moved out in groups. Hello, Jersey Shore! And as they moved out, new immigrants and transplants moved in, bringing their own speech patterns to influence the dialect.

[Tanaqui]

California via Hollywood.  Duh. 

 

 

(Kidding, of course)

 

I'm not. If you're going to postulate the existence of some variety of English that is "proper" (or more proper than all the others), you must have some idea of its origins.

 

You say that you're just shocked we're having this conversation on a classical board. I thought this board was, above all else, about the promotion of knowledge and learning.

 

Which promotes learning more? Shutting down conversation with "This is proper, this is improper"? Or opening up conversation?

 

Several commenters have said they've learned new things on this thread. I certainly have! What have you learned?

[texasmama]

Common in my world, as well.

[creekland]

Regionalisms aren't mistakes. They're just a different, equally valid way of speaking (and when it comes to youse or y'all or yinz, an equally valid way of speaking that neatly fills a gap found in Standard American English).

 

It is both more accurate and more effective to tell students "This way of speaking and writing is appropriate at home or with friends, or in casual works, but you need to use this other dialect when writing formal papers or on job interviews" than to tell them "The way everybody in your community talks is a mistake and wrong". And when you use terms like "mistake" or "bastardization" or "incorrect" you might think you're not saying the latter, but people are going to hear it.

 

You're welcome to your opinion.  I'm welcome to mine.

 

I highly suggest my students conform to mine when I'm grading.   :coolgleamA:

 

FWIW, I don't (usually) mark spelling or grammar mistakes wrong on tests since I'm math/science and know that many of us aren't terribly good at that when doing things quickly with no resources.  When there are papers or projects due - things students can take the time to check, etc - that's when I expect it done properly and they know this ahead of time.

 

Who decides proper?  Beats me, but I go with what's taught in our English classes.  When they change, I will too.  Mistakes are mistakes.  Some words/phrases common in our local area are mistakes when it comes to English.  I'm not afraid to tell them that at all, though I also freely admit it's fine to use them in everyday local conversation.  They might want to reconsider if they go outside of our area.

 

In the real world, people are judged by their manner of speaking and any projects/presentations they give.  Those listening/attending expect to hear/see proper grammar and spelling even if it's just something local within a business.  If it's not there, mentally it leads to an automatic lessening of what's being presented.  That's never good, except in cases where they want to be thought of as "common" like your Bush example.  Other elected candidates do the same as they see fit.  It seems to work quite well to be honest, so is a worthwhile consideration - just as using correct grammar is in other situations.

 

You might think that's wrong - and possibly there's a little bit of truth to your position, but we don't live and work in an ideal world.  We live and work in the real world and need to adjust our actions accordingly.

 

I also seldom correct kids grammar-wise when they are (informally) speaking and I don't give a hoot about their dialect.

 

That's my position and I'll admit I'm keeping it.

[Carol in Cal.]

 If you're going to postulate the existence of some variety of English that is "proper" (or more proper than all the others), you must have some idea of its origins.

 

You say that you're just shocked we're having this conversation on a classical board.

The idea that there is no such thing as proper English is antithetical to all normative spelling, grammar, and writing instruction that are foundational to classical education.  That idea is the novelty that must be justified, not the idea that there IS proper English and that it should be taught.  Go ahead and justify it if you can, but realize that you're in a funny place to be attempting to do so.

[Laura Corin]

I get to decide, of course. The clue is in the name. You all have to stop writing 'gotten' immediately.

[Tanaqui]

The idea that there is no such thing as proper English is antithetical to all normative spelling, grammar, and writing instruction that are foundational to classical education.  That idea is the novelty that must be justified, not the idea that there IS proper English and that it should be taught.  Go ahead and justify it if you can, but realize that you're in a funny place to be attempting to do so.

 

You're welcome to your opinion.  I'm welcome to mine.

 

Linguistics is a science, and the basic principles can be considered facts - not an opinion, and not a novelty. The fact that teaching students to be bidialectical rather than telling them that their dialect is wrong is a teaching practice associated with better long-term results is also not an opinion.

 

Carol, I find your attempts to avoid answering the question as to who defines proper English to be mealy-mouthed and illogical. Creekland, I find your inability to grasp the simple concept that other dialects are not "incorrect" to be frustratingly closeminded.

[Tanaqui]

I agree that there is, in fact, a canon of "proper English".  Otherwise, why bother teaching spelling, writing, or grammar at all?

 

Well, given how many falsehoods are taught as "grammar", I sometimes think we'd be better off not teaching it. And I don't just mean falsehoods like "there is some version of English that is correct" (a statement rather akin to telling ESL students that they must never speak Spanish, even at home), I mean things like "the dog was watching the house is a passive sentence" or "you must always omit the word 'that' whenever possible". And then you add in poor instruction along the lines of "prepositions are words on this list, so memorize it" and... sheesh. And the teaching of grammar is a field astonishingly reluctant to use modern knowledge. We learn new things about English grammar and how it works every year, but people still teach the same things that their third grade teacher learned from HER third grade teacher, who was reading out of a book 100 years old! Can you imagine teaching biology the way it was taught in the 1850s? But when it comes to grammar, my goodness, all bets are off.

 

Come to think of it, a great deal of writing advice is provably false and hypocritical as well. People will say on one hand "don't use passives" or "never use singular they" and then three sentences later, in the same book, they're doing just that! They'll say "good writers don't do this" and then when you give them a list of good writers - Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, Stephen King, whoever - who do just that, they go "well, that doesn't count, those five thousand examples are the exception".

 

So that leaves spelling. Honestly, if I thought we could get spelling reform I'd be all for it, but we can't and we won't. (Most arguments against spelling reform are pretty stupid when we come right down to it, but the big one - inertia - isn't. Changing all the books and signs and re-educating everybody would cost a lot of money that's probably better spent elsewhere.)

[KungFuPanda]

I've heard "fill your boots." Does "stood to his feet" mean to step up? Or just to stand up?

[Lady Florida.]

I've never heard it and it sounds odd to me.

[Tanaqui]

Ah, it took me a while to find this link, but I think it goes to show my point marvelously.

 

Diagramming sentences.

 

I know the subject has come up here before. How many curricula are using an obsolete method of sentence diagramming? And they're being published today. Why doesn't anybody care that we're using outdated methods to teach kids this one subject? We wouldn't insist our kids all use slide rules to learn trig (well, probably we wouldn't) so why not teach them a better method of doing grammar? Obsolete tools, obsolete terminology, obsolete understanding.

 

I'd really rather not teach my kid anything at all on the subject than to teach them things that aren't true or useful.

[KungFuPanda]

Is it like "fill your boots?" Does it mean just to stand up, or to step up with some purpose?

[TranquilMind]

It's familiar to me. I'm from lost on the plains. I suspect it's churchspeak and that those familiar with it also know travel mercies and sword drills.

Really?  I've also heard it in formal gatherings/meetings. "Let us all stand to our feet to welcome so and so...."

[eternalsummer]

Oh honestly.  This is a classical board and we are arguing about whether proper English even exists?  I find this mind boggling.

 

We're not arguing about whether it exists; I haven't seen anyone say that formal registers don't exist.

[eternalsummer]

You're welcome to your opinion.  I'm welcome to mine.

 

I highly suggest my students conform to mine when I'm grading.   :coolgleamA:

 

FWIW, I don't (usually) mark spelling or grammar mistakes wrong on tests since I'm math/science and know that many of us aren't terribly good at that when doing things quickly with no resources.  When there are papers or projects due - things students can take the time to check, etc - that's when I expect it done properly and they know this ahead of time.

 

Who decides proper?  Beats me, but I go with what's taught in our English classes.  When they change, I will too.  Mistakes are mistakes.  Some words/phrases common in our local area are mistakes when it comes to English.  I'm not afraid to tell them that at all, though I also freely admit it's fine to use them in everyday local conversation.  They might want to reconsider if they go outside of our area.

 

In the real world, people are judged by their manner of speaking and any projects/presentations they give.  Those listening/attending expect to hear/see proper grammar and spelling even if it's just something local within a business.  If it's not there, mentally it leads to an automatic lessening of what's being presented.  That's never good, except in cases where they want to be thought of as "common" like your Bush example.  Other elected candidates do the same as they see fit.  It seems to work quite well to be honest, so is a worthwhile consideration - just as using correct grammar is in other situations.

 

You might think that's wrong - and possibly there's a little bit of truth to your position, but we don't live and work in an ideal world.  We live and work in the real world and need to adjust our actions accordingly.

 

I also seldom correct kids grammar-wise when they are (informally) speaking and I don't give a hoot about their dialect.

 

That's my position and I'll admit I'm keeping it.

 

 

Again, you're mistaking the idea that there are different ways of writing or speaking in different situations that are situationally appropriate or even required with the idea that some of these ways are inherently "correct" or "incorrect" outside of those situations.

 

No one has suggested (and no linguist would ever suggest) that writing an academic paper in an informal register, using various aspects of regional dialects, is always valid or should be accepted or not "graded wrong" or whatever.

 

Nothing people around you say when they are not attempting to speak in a different register are "mistakes."  They're "mistakes" in terms of academic writing, but these people (just people speaking in your community, I gather) are not writing an academic paper.  They're speaking English, presumably their native language, in the way that is natural to them.  

 

They define what is "correct English" (insofar as that phrase makes sense) for that interaction  - everyday speech.