|
 |
Authors with unique language styles | ||
Tags: Literature | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5226 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes  Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 17 of 24 13 September 2013 at 3:28am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Well, yeah, obviously. Since he claimed "A" and I claimed "not A," and you're claiming "not not A"... he's kind of forced to agree with you, on pain of contradiction, isn't he? Is there a passage of Wodehouse you can cite to demonstrate this non-standard usage of language? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Bao Diglot Senior Member Germany tinyurl.com/pe4kqe5 Joined 5764 days ago 2256 posts - 4046 votes Speaks: German*, English Studies: French, Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin | Message 18 of 24 14 September 2013 at 12:42am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I remember Käster as writing a clear style which I could understand as a child many decades after the books had been published. Joseph Conrad is an author I'd advise intermediate learners to avoid. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Cabaire Senior Member Germany Joined 5597 days ago 725 posts - 1352 votes | Message 19 of 24 14 September 2013 at 1:26am | IP Logged | ||||||||
R. Jirgel explains in "Die präparierte Schrift" his intentions why he used this, well ..., creative orthography. Quite interesting, quite strange. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| lichtrausch Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 5958 days ago 525 posts - 1072 votes Speaks: English*, German, Japanese Studies: Korean, Mandarin | Message 20 of 24 14 September 2013 at 3:34am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Interesting. The extra depth he provides with his modified German orthography reminds me of all the extra possibilities of Japanese orthography. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5428 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 21 of 24 14 September 2013 at 6:32am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Although I usually agree with @Jeffers on most things, I wouldn't say that P.G. Wodehouse's English is non-
standard. It is in a distinctive style, yes, but it is very much standard English in the sense of being grammatical and respecting prevailing norms of proper English. There is very little in the way of regional dialectal English. I'm a great fan of Wodehouse myself and particulary enjoyed his Golf Omnibus. I've even read him in Italian, Jeeves taglia la corda, which did wonders for my Italian. I think that Wodehouse's prose aims to reflect the stuffy, pretentious, upper-class atmosphere and characters that pervade all his works. In that sense it is somewhat foreign to many of us. In the Golf Omnibus there are some delightful passages where he makes fun of Scottish English, but that's about as non-standard as he gets. Edited by s_allard on 14 September 2013 at 6:33am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
 songlines Pro Member Canada flickr.com/photos/cp Joined 5207 days ago 729 posts - 1056 votes Speaks: English* Studies: French Personal Language Map | Message 22 of 24 14 September 2013 at 9:52am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
It seems to me that Jeffers & Montmorency, on the one hand, and S-Allard & Scottscheule, on the other, may
be operating from different interpretations/ usages of the word "standard". True, his prose is grammatical. - But one might argue that the "stuffy" and "pretentious" dialogue, as well as certain archaisms specific to that time and class (does anyone still say, "What ho!", except in irony or as a joke?) is non-standard, in the sense of "not being used by the mainstream". I think both perspectives could be equally valid, depending on what one means by "standard". But perhaps, rather than quibbling over definitions, one should just enjoy this delightful trove from Goodreads . Returning this to second-language-related matters, I was rather tickled by this quote:
Delightful. I must remember not to affect said "shifty hangdog look" when attempting to speak French. I'm neither an Englishman, nor sitting on the terrace of a hotel in Cannes, but minor details.... And returning to the original thread topic, - it's an interesting question, Jeffers; I'll have to mull on it awhile. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Jeffers Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4907 days ago 2151 posts - 3960 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Hindi, Ancient Greek, French, Sanskrit, German | Message 23 of 24 14 September 2013 at 1:00pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Thank you for that brilliant quote, Songlines, it sums up Wodehouse's style perfectly. And I have to say, although Wodehouse's style is probably derived from upper-class archaisms and such, he has created something all his own. Here's another good one:
Songlines is right that by "non-standard" I do not mean "incorrect"; I am certain his grammar is impeccible. But if you were to address a person in the English of Wodehouse you would get more than hangdog looks. That is what I mean by non-standard. He creates a world which looks and sounds real, but never actually existed. He does the same with language. Partly thanks to the novels of Wodehouse (and televisual adaptations), we believe that upper class twits in the 1920s spoke and acted like Bertie Wooster and his friends. I thought so until I saw a discussion of Wodehouse with several historians and literary critics on the BCC a few years ago. In addition his novels aren't actually set in the 20s, or any specific time. I remember one of his characters making references to the atomic test at Bikini Atoll. To return to the nub of my OP: Wodehouse's language is not the way anyone should aspire to speak, unless they want to raise spirits and more than a few eyebrows. On the other hand, he is fairly easy to read, grammatically sound, and just a lot of fun. But I suppose it is like a language learner reading poetry: you won't speak like that, but you will begin to lift the lid to look into the beauties of the language. EDIT: If you've not read Wodehouse and are curious, read this little exposition by Stephen Fry (who plays Jeeves in the best adaption): http://www.pgwodehousebooks.com/fry.htm Edited by Jeffers on 14 September 2013 at 1:15pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5428 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 24 of 24 15 September 2013 at 9:41pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I don't want to belabour the issue, but I want to return to the semantics of the term non-standard because it is
often used when discussing language. "Non-standard" is not synonymous with "incorrect," as has been pointed out. But I think @Jeffers is using it in the sense of unusual, unrealistic, quaint and idiosyncratic. However, when we use the word "non-standard" in linguistics, it generally refers to features or phenomena that are 1) considered ungrammatical or inappropriate in socially proper or acceptable language and 2) used systematically by a certain number of speakers. The latter element is what distinguishes individual mistakes from non-standard speech. Thus we have dialects that are full of non-standard features that are not necessarily incorrect. Edited by s_allard on 15 September 2013 at 9:42pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
