After Donald Trump is the president elect, I see no posts.
Did he head for Canada at 2AM?
Mikek

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:29:34 -0600, amdx wrote:

After Donald Trump is the president elect, I see no posts.
Did he head for Canada at 2AM?

===

It's my opinion that Canada would probably not take him.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:12:41 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:29:34 -0600, amdx wrote:

After Donald Trump is the president elect, I see no posts.
Did he head for Canada at 2AM?

===

It's my opinion that Canada would probably not take him.

He might could find a basement in Nova Scotia someplace. There's someone there that seems to be in
love with him.

Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:12:41 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:29:34 -0600, amdx wrote:

After Donald Trump is the president elect, I see no posts.
Did he head for Canada at 2AM?

===

It's my opinion that Canada would probably not take him.

He might could find a basement in Nova Scotia someplace. There's someone
there that seems to be in
love with him.


With his legal woes over the years, he may be not eligible. A DUI is a
felony up there, which prevents you from visiting. A couple BK's may rule.

The John flushes...
- show quoted text -
"He might could find a basement in Nova Scotia someplace. There's someone there that seems to be in
love with him."


Say what..."He might could"??
There's the reason your education system is failing urban schools......hiring old re-tread soldiers as teachers.

Poquito Loco Wrote in message:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:12:41 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:29:34 -0600, amdx wrote:

After Donald Trump is the president elect, I see no posts.
Did he head for Canada at 2AM?

===

It's my opinion that Canada would probably not take him.

He might could find a basement in Nova Scotia someplace. There's someone there that seems to be in
love with him.


I don't think Krause would go for a basement suite with a dirt floor.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:16:35 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

The John flushes...
- show quoted text -
"He might could find a basement in Nova Scotia someplace. There's someone there that seems to be in
love with him."


Say what..."He might could"??
There's the reason your education system is failing urban schools......hiring old re-tread soldiers as teachers.

If that was beyond your understanding, go put your head back in the toilet.

Here, maybe you'll learn something:

34
down vote
accepted


This is a construction that is restricted to certain dialects of US English. In Standard English, it
is not grammatical. (This construction is also often stigmatized, which means you would want to be
especially careful before using it — you could be judged!)

However, this construction is used systematically in certain dialects of American English. To
describe it clearly, I want to define a few linguistic terms I will use to sort out a crucial
three-way distinction:

grammatical: A usage is systematic and acceptable within a certain dialect, standard or not.
(Often, "grammatical" is used outside of linguistics as shorthand for "used in Standard English".
Note that the linguistic definition is broader than the layman's definition!)
speech error: In contrast to grammatical statements, speech errors are random and unpredictable.
standard: This usage is grammatical in a standard form of English.

People who use this "might could" construction are not making a speech error — within this dialect,
it is grammatical. Informally, this is used throughout the southern US, but has not spread to any
other region I am aware of. Interestingly, it so happens that the same construction is standard in
German.

A description of how this works:

What is going on in "might could" constructions is a process called "modal stacking", where multiple
modal verbs (e.g. "could", "should", "might", "would", etc.) can be stacked on top of each other.
Each added modal verb contributes towards the overall meaning of the sentence. In Standard English,
to convey the same meaning, we have to use another construction:

I might could do that. -- I might be able to do that.

We are doing effectively the same thing in standard English in terms of semantics, it's just that we
have to change things around to get around a syntactic restriction.

These constructions are not redundant by definition (they are only redundant if you stack them
redundantly!). Neither "I might do that" nor "I could do that" would have the same meaning as "I
might could do that".

Other constructions include:

I might should do that. (= "Maybe I should do that")

I used to could do that. (= "I used to be able to do that")

To sum up:

Modal stacking is not sloppy, meaningless, or redundant; linguistically, it is a systematic process
(which I think is really cool!). It is just non-standard in English — something one would avoid
using outside of this particular dialect group, especially because (like many features of Southern
English) it carries a certain stigma outside of where it is used. But within that group, it is a
productive and useful construction.

You're quite a trip, Johnny.
You whine about people of colour creating their own lingo but claim it's okay if a bunch of Southern crackers do the same.
It's the Queen's English Johnny, not for you or your ilk to *******ize.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:41:31 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:16:35 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

The John flushes...
- show quoted text -
"He might could find a basement in Nova Scotia someplace. There's someone there that seems to be in
love with him."


Say what..."He might could"??
There's the reason your education system is failing urban schools......hiring old re-tread soldiers as teachers.

If that was beyond your understanding, go put your head back in the toilet.

Here, maybe you'll learn something:

34
down vote
accepted


This is a construction that is restricted to certain dialects of US English. In Standard English, it
is not grammatical. (This construction is also often stigmatized, which means you would want to be
especially careful before using it — you could be judged!)

However, this construction is used systematically in certain dialects of American English. To
describe it clearly, I want to define a few linguistic terms I will use to sort out a crucial
three-way distinction:

grammatical: A usage is systematic and acceptable within a certain dialect, standard or not.
(Often, "grammatical" is used outside of linguistics as shorthand for "used in Standard English".
Note that the linguistic definition is broader than the layman's definition!)
speech error: In contrast to grammatical statements, speech errors are random and unpredictable.
standard: This usage is grammatical in a standard form of English.

People who use this "might could" construction are not making a speech error — within this dialect,
it is grammatical. Informally, this is used throughout the southern US, but has not spread to any
other region I am aware of. Interestingly, it so happens that the same construction is standard in
German.

A description of how this works:

What is going on in "might could" constructions is a process called "modal stacking", where multiple
modal verbs (e.g. "could", "should", "might", "would", etc.) can be stacked on top of each other.
Each added modal verb contributes towards the overall meaning of the sentence. In Standard English,
to convey the same meaning, we have to use another construction:

I might could do that. -- I might be able to do that.

We are doing effectively the same thing in standard English in terms of semantics, it's just that we
have to change things around to get around a syntactic restriction.

These constructions are not redundant by definition (they are only redundant if you stack them
redundantly!). Neither "I might do that" nor "I could do that" would have the same meaning as "I
might could do that".

Other constructions include:

I might should do that. (= "Maybe I should do that")

I used to could do that. (= "I used to be able to do that")

To sum up:

Modal stacking is not sloppy, meaningless, or redundant; linguistically, it is a systematic process
(which I think is really cool!). It is just non-standard in English — something one would avoid
using outside of this particular dialect group, especially because (like many features of Southern
English) it carries a certain stigma outside of where it is used. But within that group, it is a
productive and useful construction.

===

So are you fixin to do mo modal stacking an creative dialectin in da
future?

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:59:32 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

You're quite a trip, Johnny.
You whine about people of colour creating their own lingo but claim it's okay if a bunch of Southern crackers do the same.
It's the Queen's English Johnny, not for you or your ilk to *******ize.

Show me a whine about 'people of colour creating their own lingo'. You're getting as bad as Krause
with your lies.

And, we don't got no friggin' queen to emulate!

Now go put that head of yours back in the toilet.