to not want school to teach my kids how to speak in the way the teachers wants?

[bellabreeze]

Having irish accents the teacher of some of my kids has told me they would do little speech classes so they speak different.. its not the accent but its things like saying 'ting' not 'thing' and dat not that and stuff like that really.. I think.. I don't think it is important enough to waste time doing? But maybe I am wrong?

I'm not adjudicating. I am stating that you're wrong, because I'm pretty convinced this is the case.

You are free to disagree, and I haven't noticed you struggling with that concept.

Hmmm .... I'm wondering if there is a difference between having an accent and not being able to hear the distinction between certain consonant sounds (as I said R and L for a Japanese speaker, V and W for some Indian languages, and it sounds like D and Th for Irish accented speakers?)

It may be worth learning to distinguish the sounds at a young age because it seems like once you are older it is hard/impossible to learn. Whereas changing from Northern to Southern vowelsor vice versa etc.. Seems much more mutable

On the other hand speaking with a clear Japanese or posh Indian accent is not seen as a disadvantage in life, where speaking with a traveller's Irish accent is. Is it racist to try to "fix" it, or racist not to? I don't know

I don't think that "racism" is the right term, Himalaya. "Discrimination" or "prejudice" are, I think, more accurate terms for the sentiment you allude to.

Personally, no, I think the opposite: it would be discrimination for schools and teachers not to teach standard English pronunciation (why do some pupils not merit being given access to standard English and others do?).

himalaya - I get what you're saying. But then, I don't know how to hear the two distinct Irish-accented sounds someone mentioned upthread, so I reckon we're all essentially in the same boat ... I guess the issue is, where do you stop trying to teach a child exciting new sounds? And do you choose to do it all just at the point when they're learning about what reading is? I'm not sure I would.

What are "exciting new sounds"?

Different languages and accents, bonsoir, contain different sounds. It's what we've been discussing for a while.

I have never heard anyone describe learning a new language or acquiring a new accent as "exciting new sounds". No wonder we are at odds with terminology, LRD - yours is quite unusual.

But we are not talking about learning a new language, bonsoir.

We're talking about different accents.

English spoken in an Irish accent is still, despite your incomprehension, English.

This thread is the perfect microcosm of a decades-old battle over the English language. There are two main schools of thought/ideologies/factions in this battle: Prescriptivist and Descriptivist.

Briefly: A Prescriptivist is essentially a conservative who believes that language should be legislated for. A Descriptivist, on the other hand, wants to catalogue language as it?s actually used. In the context of this here argument, it is useless, as some have done on this thread, to refer to dictionaries. Some dictionaries are conservative (Prescriptivist, essentially), and some are liberal or descriptive. Dictionaries depend on the personal sensibilities of their makers. (Makers, because even where panels are included, opinions on usage and pronunciations vary: what is published is often the result of a majority vote.)

I urge anyone who is seriously interested in this stuff to read the essay ?Authority and American Usage? in David Foster Wallace?s collection Consider the Lobster. It requires quite a bit of commitment on the part of the reader but is absolutely illuminating.

"Different languages and accents, bonsoir"

"But we are not talking about learning a new language, bonsoir.

We're talking about different accents."

You really are confused, LRD, aren't you?

Curtsey - I don't agree that this thread is about that argument (though some posters are intent on making it so!).

What do you think the thread is about then, Bonsoir ? Because Curtsey gave a pretty good description as far as I can see.

I think it has become very much about that argument.

The key word is 'learning', bonsoir. Rather ironically.

The one you forgot to read, or quote.

Dear, dear ... it does help to read all the nice words, not just the ones you can sound out for yourself.

You can read the thread again if you don't understand my position. Which is not one that supports the idea that "language in a constant state of flux" and a "standard language" are mutually exclusive concepts. On the contrary, they can co-exist very harmoniously!

I think it might take a wee bit more than reading the thread to 'understand' your 'position'.

I was asking for you to elucidate the meaning of "exciting new sounds" and you still haven't done so, LRD.

When I google "exciting new sounds" I get lots of links to songs from Southern Arizona. I don't think that's what you mean but maybe you could confirm?

That isn't what the prescriptive/descriptive war is about either.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking, Bonsoir .

Languages such as German or French which have a body to protect language as it stands might have a claim to some sort of attempt at standardisation. I would argue that it doesn't quite work, and that it tends to ghettoise some dialects and groups.

English has no body which protects it. As thus, it constantly evolves. Even organisations like the BBC, which you may expect to use "standard" English doesn't do so. Which would lead directly to the argument that there is no such thing.

Why is an institution required in order to have a commonly accepted standard? It isn't. All sorts of things, in all walks of life, have standards that are not institutionalised.

Because, as you can see from this thread, Bonsoir , there is no commonly accepted standard.

Curtsy, thanks for the precis. Really interesting, and I'll dig out and read that essay.

Do, perfectstorm. It's not an easy ride but you'll emerge feeling ...changed, somehow! DFW=smart.

'Exciting' means fun, interesting, stimulating.

'New' is the opposite of old; something novel, something you've not experienced yet.

'sounds' are things we hear.

I am trying to get down to your level, you see.

I'm not sure I can simplify any more.

And the point was, LRD? Still waiting...