|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 5, 2012 16:23:43 GMT -5
I think when it comes to song lyrics, grammar rules can be, should be, and often are, suspended. Lyrics are emotions, feelings, experiences, recollections, stories, told often in the First person. They should be sung as though the performer is presenting to you (the listener) the lyrics, whatever they may be, for the very first time. Good Grammar is not all that important to the experience, what is important is getting the performer and the listener to connect through the message the song has and hoping it ignites an emotional response in the listener. Perfect grammar is often a very sterile thing, and does not lend itself to the best possible emotional reaction the song is trying to project. I never really pay attention to the grammar of a song. I'm looking to connect with the performer/composer through the music and actually prefer it if the grammar is more spontaneous in feeling and delivery within the song. So I wouldn't really care how much "bad" grammar appears in any song, much less Beatle songs. I agree unless its unintentional.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 5, 2012 16:37:12 GMT -5
I always thought it was meant as "Love To You" with the last two words switched to attract attention. I say that because in the lyrics he says "I'll make love to you if you want me to" or is it "if you want me too". That's exactly what I suggested, above. Finally, we agree on something.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 5, 2012 16:39:32 GMT -5
By the same token, if we're talking the Queen's English, really it should be, 'Everybody's got something to hide except my monkey and I'. No way! "Except" in this title is a preposition, which must always be followed by a noun -- and an object-noun, if there is a distinction. The choice is between "me" and "I", and the object-noun is "me". So, John's grammar was correct.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 5, 2012 16:56:06 GMT -5
An expression that gets on my nerves is "at the end of the day..." At the end of what day? Why not just say "in the end" as in "and in the end..."
Another expression that is annoying is when someone refers to people as though he (the person making reference) is of a higher species as in "let's go people". You are a people too. It sounds condescending. Maybe I'm being too harsh. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 5, 2012 17:00:29 GMT -5
I've know the secret for a week or two Nobody knows just we twoThat should be Nobody knows, just you and I Maybe it would have been better as: I've known a secret for a week or two. Nobody knows just we do.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 5, 2012 17:21:40 GMT -5
An expression that gets on my nerves is "at the end of the day..." At the end of what day? Why not just say "in the end" and in "and in the end..." Another expression that is annoying is when someone refers to people as though he (the person making reference) is of a higher species as in "let's go people". You are a people too. It sounds condescending. Maybe I'm being too harsh. What do you think? I think you're being too harsh. You asked!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 5, 2012 18:19:16 GMT -5
. . . So I wouldn't really care how much "bad" grammar appears in any song, much less Beatle songs. Guess you missed this, too: Not as a put-down or to suggest that correct grammar must always be used in literature, but simply as a fun exercise.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 5, 2012 18:30:26 GMT -5
. . . As I’ve said, it’s perfectly fine to say, “have got” if you’re in America, though it is less formal than plain old “have.” . . . That's only because our dying empire is being preceded by our dying lack of education. Remember Ebonics? "Light" is becoming "lite," "night" is becoming "nite," and "who are you?" is becoming "who you be?" Now, I'm for a good joke about this, like when this African-American female celebrity said that Jesus used Ebonics when he said, "I be he." That's funny and I get it. But, it seems that more and more, laziness is moving the agenda. Instead of trying to correct misuses of language, people are just saying, "Oh, well, that's just vernacular and is just as correct as formal English. I will go with "have gotten" or "has gotten," but not with "have got" or "has got."
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 5, 2012 20:49:04 GMT -5
Then let's add:
"For I have got Another Girl"
This is supposed to be fun!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 5, 2012 21:27:16 GMT -5
"So The Next Time You See Rain It Ain't Bad." "Mamunia."
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jan 5, 2012 22:07:35 GMT -5
Now that we're bringing solo stuff into the discussion, I always thought the phrase "those freaks was right when they said you was dead" would set most (if not all) English majors' teeth on edge.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 6, 2012 0:45:46 GMT -5
. . . So I wouldn't really care how much "bad" grammar appears in any song, much less Beatle songs. Guess you missed this, too: Not as a put-down or to suggest that correct grammar must always be used in literature, but simply as a fun exercise.Actually, I'm enjoying reading all the "corrections" being offered up as a fun exercise. As a musicianand performer, I just wanted to post an opinion on the subject of your thread. I didn't think you were suggesting that correct grammar is necessary. Although as an offshoot to your thread; Is correct grammar more "expected" in written literature as opposed to song lyrics? Language has so many variables today, who's to say what is truly "correct" grammar?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 6, 2012 0:52:22 GMT -5
Now that we're bringing solo stuff into the discussion, I always thought the phrase "those freaks was right when they said you was dead" would set most (if not all) English majors' teeth on edge. Yes! Keep those coming, too. How about It Don't Come Easy. Should be "It Doesn't Come Easy."
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 6, 2012 0:54:34 GMT -5
"Christ! You know it ain't easy" Ballad of J & Y
About 80% of Come Together's lyrics could be considered bad grammar.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 6, 2012 1:07:09 GMT -5
. . . who's to say what is truly "correct" grammar? You're right. The issue really isn't "correctness," it's "standardness." I do think that the correct use of language is context oriented, but standard usage must be strictly enforced. Without agreeing that knowing the difference between "Who ate, John?" and "Who ate John" is important, or that "I ain't gonna take no mo' from doz foos" would not get a Presidential candidate very far, we would all find ourselves linguistically confused in even the easiest conversational or informational settings.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 6, 2012 6:08:03 GMT -5
It's no use, I have to say it. I hate the US redundant "of" in, for instance, "It's not that big of a deal" instead of "It's not that big a deal."
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Jan 6, 2012 8:56:33 GMT -5
By the same token, if we're talking the Queen's English, really it should be, 'Everybody's got something to hide except my monkey and I'. No way! "Except" in this title is a preposition, which must always be followed by a noun -- and an object-noun, if there is a distinction. The choice is between "me" and "I", and the object-noun is "me". So, John's grammar was correct. Methinks you're right! Long day accompanied by brain failure.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 6, 2012 21:28:11 GMT -5
. . . who's to say what is truly "correct" grammar? You're right. The issue really isn't "correctness," it's "standardness." I do think that the correct use of language is context oriented, but standard usage must be strictly enforced. Without agreeing that knowing the difference between "Who ate, John?" and "Who ate John" is important, or that "I ain't gonna take no mo' from doz foos" would not get a Presidential candidate very far, we would all find ourselves linguistically confused in even the easiest conversational or informational settings. (Who ate John?) I know the answer to that one.....Besides Cynthia, and Yoko, quite a few girls!!! (And maybe Brian???) Seriously, though, you make a good point. How often though do you run across someone who speaks english, yet you have absolutely no idea what they said? Remember the song "Louie, Louie"? Talk about bad grammar, any ideas as to what the hell they are saying in that song???
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 6, 2012 22:00:35 GMT -5
I will go with "have gotten" or "has gotten," but not with "have got" or "has got." Many years ago, the past-participle of "got" in the UK was commonly spoken as "gotten". After the 18th century, that began to change and it was shortened into today's common UK past-participle of "got". (i.e., "I had got 3 bills in the post before they realized I'd paid the fee.") In America, in the 17th and 18th century, the wealth of new immigrants from Britain brought over their lingering "gotten" past-participle, and indeed MOST Americans (and I'd say a slight majority of Canadians) today still speak using the "gotten" past participle. (i.e., "I had gotten 3 bills in the mail before they realized I'd paid the fee.")
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 6, 2012 22:10:11 GMT -5
The issue really isn't "correctness," it's "standardness." I do think that the correct use of language is context oriented, but standard usage must be strictly enforced. Most people agree with you -- the problem is, there is actually no such thing as standard English. Most obviously, the different nations -- and within those nations, diverse regions -- that speak English have unique patterns of pronunciation, and sometimes unique patterns of grammar and even spelling (such as the UK/US differences). It doesn't end there. I've worked as an editor, for example, and when editing one actually needs a final resource with which to make decisions. For example, in the United States, MANY (but certainly not all) major publications defer to the Chicago Manual of Style -- but the Chicago Manual of Style itself is unsure about a lot of things, and merely gives suggestions. On the other hand, plenty of other American publications DON'T use the Chicago Manual of Style, and use other sources that disagree with it. Then, obviously, in Britain, there are other standard sources to settle difficult grammatical issues. Aside from all of that, there is the obvious fact that any attempt at language standardization is a political act that inevitably oppresses the weaker, smaller groups. In theory, access to the standard language through public education should give people fair access to it, but in reality it doesn't work that way. Someone else made the comment about something that "few (or no) English majors would accept." As someone with a graduate degree in English, I've often experienced the situation where someone finds out what my major was, and then hits you with something like, "Oh! I'd better watch my language around you!" People assume English majors are fussy about this. In reality, the majority of people who study English, or linguistics, at the academic level are the absolute last people on earth who would belittle any speech community's usage / pronunciation of a given language.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 7, 2012 4:20:02 GMT -5
English is a pretty exciting language actually. It's certainly robust enough to put up with all the irregularities which are thrown at it - and aI do mean ALL of them.
As someone who was taught English in standard mid-20th century English state education, I abhor the gross corruptions of correct form (not least of which is txtspk): as someone who, hopefully, isn't yet fossilised, I thrill at the mass of evidence that English is, as it always has been, a vital, living, thriving, constantly developning working tool for communication.
|
|
gloi
Very Clean
Posts: 222
|
Post by gloi on Jan 7, 2012 7:13:39 GMT -5
Round here in Lancashire 'gotton' isn't used much but 'getten' instead of 'got' is common, (as in "What 'as tha' getten theer?') though not approved of in polite company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2012 7:24:09 GMT -5
Fortunately songwriting and grammar are mutually exclusive thus affording songwriters the chance to be as creative as they need be.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 7, 2012 11:33:03 GMT -5
(Who ate John?) I know the answer to that one.....Besides Cynthia, and Yoko, quite a few girls!!! (And maybe Brian???) Oooh, a low blow. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 7, 2012 12:17:33 GMT -5
(Who ate John?) I know the answer to that one.....Besides Cynthia, and Yoko, quite a few girls!!! (And maybe Brian???) Oooh, a low blow. ;D ;D ;D That too (Is that bad grammar??)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 7, 2012 12:37:13 GMT -5
English is a pretty exciting language actually. It's certainly robust enough to put up with all the irregularities which are thrown at it . . . . . . there is actually no such thing as standard English . . . You both are absolutely correct. There was a fantastic documentary called The History of English. They started the doc with the Angles, a Germanic people, as the basis for the English language (obviously, they could have gone way way way back). It showed how from the beginning, English was very open to change. As they conquered or were conquered, words changed the language. It was interesting that the Norman Conquest did not impose Norman French on the Angles. William the Conqueror let the Angles keep their language as the language of business and culture, unlike other conquerors would have, but the infusion of Norman French into the English language was a game changer. English, to this day, is still bringing in new words, as people from other countries emigrate to the United States and England. As for "standard" English, yes, that is a slippery thing. It's more of a concept, rather than an absolute. It's kinda like rules in a game or laws. We like to think they are standard, but don't they often get interpreted or spun a certain way? In basketball, for example, we recognize a basketball game wherever we are on the planet, but there are international, NBA, and NCAA rules. There is a "standard" English, but it really isn't as standard as the term would imply. Aside from rules of grammar, "pronunciation" and "accents" were addressed. This documentary, however, did assert that for centuries, English pronunciation from England, because of it's empire, was the "standard." This pronunciation became the American New England accent, which became the standard of how American English should sound (think of that clipped accent by Katherine Hepburn and early radio announcers). As Americans moved west, the standard of how American English should sound changed. Again, think of the news readers in the 50s, 60s and 70s. All pretty much with Midwestern accents (think Johnny Carson, Dick Cavett, Tom Brokaw). As the United States became an "empire" throughout the 20th Century, American English pronunciation became somewhat of a standard, thanks to movies, radio, television, and rock and roll, yes, rock. And, as we moved towards the end of the century, it was California English that became the standard of American English. When I was younger, when I met people from other countries, I could tell that they learned English from a person from England, for their accents were a combination of their country's accent and the British accent. Today, I'm finding more and more foreign English speakers who sound American to my ears. Also, remember, people used to ask the Beatles, "Why do you speak British, but sing American?" (I grant the above is an over simplification of a 12 hour documentary, and I have left out a lot of details and exceptions and have made it sound like the changes in English are linear, rather than swirling.) Where English goes from here, who knows? It is quite possible that in as little as 100 years, English speakers will be as misunderstanding of our English as we are of Olde English. Fo shizzle.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 7, 2012 12:40:38 GMT -5
Oooh, a low blow. ;D ;D ;D That too (Is that bad grammar??) Put in the comma after "that," and you'll be okay.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 7, 2012 14:25:59 GMT -5
They started the doc with the Angles, a Germanic people, as the basis for the English language That's right. 'Angles' = Anglais = English English, to this day, is still bringing in new words, as people from other countries emigrate to the United States and England. You might mention Canada, the world's #1 destination of choice for immigrants. (or Australia) This pronunciation became the American New England accent, which became the standard of how American English should sound (think of that clipped accent by Katherine Hepburn and early radio announcers). As Americans moved west, the standard of how American English should sound changed. Good points, and I know you're over-simplifying, but we have to be careful when we say things like 'The New England accent' or 'British accents' -- obviously there is nothing so simple. The West country type of accents are the ones that were most dominant in America in the 18th century, but they didn't sound like they do today. The reason New England accents were dominant is because New England was the United States for 100 years (more or less)! Accents have changed so much that nobody in England in 1750 spoke like people do today. And virtually nobody on earth speaks "The Queen's English" anymore (except maybe the Queen), or wants to. Today, I'm finding more and more foreign English speakers who sound American to my ears. I would think, globally, general American ways of speaking/spelling are more "popular" than British, but British varieties maintain their prominence in Europe and some former colonial places. It is quite possible that in as little as 100 years, English speakers will be as misunderstanding of our English as we are of Olde English. Fo shizzle. It's strange that there are far more people in the world who study English and speak it as a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th language than there are people who speak it as a first language...
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jan 7, 2012 14:31:26 GMT -5
English is a pretty exciting language actually. It's certainly robust enough to put up with all the irregularities which are thrown at it . . . Also, remember, people used to ask the Beatles, "Why do you speak British, but sing American?" Yes! And supposedly, John answered, "It sells better." (However, I have not seen or heard that quote in any book or website in years! Which makes me wonber: did it actually happen, or was it an urban legend?) (Oops - sorry for the digression! )
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 7, 2012 16:12:17 GMT -5
I think John was just joking when he said that (however, he did apparently exaggerate his Scouse accent in order to appeal to Americans, who liked it). The real 'Scouser' in The Beatles, of course, was George...
Anyway, it's very common here in North America to hear people say things like: "That British band doesn't sing with a British accent, but when they talk, they have one!" My older sister used to say this about Duran Duran in the 80s. I wonder if this is, in part, because American pronunciation tends to round out vowels more than British accents do, and when singing, one has no choice but to round out vowels to scan properly.
|
|