A few weeks later (and available on the web, I think), on Feb. 14, they ran a nice piece about language and local identity, called "The Spoken Truth" in their "Thinkpiece" slot.Big h.t. to Erica Benson.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
"Come with" update, Eau Claire edition
The free weekly in Eau Claire, Wisconsin is called Volume One. Back in January, somebody had the brilliant (and I do mean brilliant) idea of making their reader poll about regional English.
A few weeks later (and available on the web, I think), on Feb. 14, they ran a nice piece about language and local identity, called "The Spoken Truth" in their "Thinkpiece" slot.
Big h.t. to Erica Benson.
A few weeks later (and available on the web, I think), on Feb. 14, they ran a nice piece about language and local identity, called "The Spoken Truth" in their "Thinkpiece" slot.Big h.t. to Erica Benson.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I wish they'd used a more specific example; 'come with' is fairly widespread, as with-stranding goes. What gets me funny looks here in New York is when I say "bring with," take with," and "have with" (I'm a Chicagoan). I've never pinned down the distribution of with-stranding, geographically or sociolinguistically, but I can attest that in Chicago it's completely unmarked and universal, much like 'on line' in New York.
There's fodder for a half-decent pun involving 'notwithstranding,' but I should get back to work.
Yeah, it is widespread regionally -- and presumably spreading -- and there's a range of how broad the pattern is. Around here, bring, take, have, go, etc. all seem to work, but for example I find a split between speakers of 'come with' in whether they accept this: You're talking on the phone to somebody who's just driven somewhere. Can you say this: "Are the kids with?" A number of Wisconsinites find that fine.
Post a Comment