Devolution toward Simpler

“She don’t love you no more.”

Common English Blunders, Contractions, Devolution toward Simpler, Foreign Languages, Pronouns, Self-negation

I heard this on a TV show.

Problems:
1. The verb doesn’t match the subject.
2. Double-negation nullifies the speaker’s intended message.

Explanation:
1. The pronoun “she” does not go with the verb “do”, even if the verb is in a contraction with “not”. The pronoun “she” requires “does” (or “doesn’t”), as in “She does …” (or “She doesn’t …”).
2. The “not” in the contraction combined later in the sentence with the “no” in “no more” leads to a sentence with a double-negative. Assuming that the speaker wanted to tell the listener that the third-party female (to which the pronoun “she” referred) no longer loved the listener, “no” should have been replaced with “any” in the sentence.

I believe that there are two forces that led to this double-trouble sentence.

The first force is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis: the single-syllable “don’t” is simpler to say than the double-syllable “doesn’t”.

The second force, I believe, is the influence on American English today of a relatively large population of native-Spanish speakers. If one uses a negative Spanish pronoun, adjective or adverb after a verb, the verb must be preceded by “no” (which means the same as “no” in English) or another negative pronoun or adjective.

For example, the pronoun “nada” in Spanish means nothing, and “encontró” means (he/she/it) found.

So to say “He found nothing.” in Spanish requires us to write “Él no encontró nada.” or more simply “No encontró nada.” — NOT “Encontró nada.” (or “Él encontró nada.”), which native-English speakers expect when first learning Spanish.

In other words, the above Spanish construction could be called a double-negative that is non-self-negating, and the construction is the correct way to write or say a such a negative in Spanish. In contrast and as far as I know, all double-negative constructions in English ARE self-negating.

As more native-Spanish speakers in the U.S. learn English, they will tend to use — mistakenly — (self-negating) double-negatives in English because (non-self-negating) double-negatives are a required part of their native language.

Solution:
“She doesn’t love you any more.”

“I’m not sure where she’s at.”

Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Prepositions

I heard this spoken by a police officer on the “COPS” television show.

Problem:
The “at” in this statement is unnecessary.

Explanation:
I blogged about “at” last month in my “Where are you at?” post. As I wrote then, “where” implies “at” because “where” is conceptually equivalent to “at” plus a location. Therefore, “at” is unnecessary.

Beyond failing to think a second time about what the word “where” means, I believe that there is another reason why someone would say “she’s at” instead of “she is”, especially at the end of a sentence. Try saying “she’s at” and “she is”; I believe that you’ll agree with me that “she’s at” is simpler to say than is “she is”.

The phrase “she’s at” rolls off the tongue quickly as SHE-ZAT. The phrase “she is” struggles off the tongue as SHE-IZZ. Also, one must hold the IZZ part longer than one must hold the ZAT part to be understood by the listener.

In other words, the tendency of some to prefer “she’s at” over “she is” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis.

Solution:
“I’m not sure where she is.”

“Translator” vs. “Interpreter”

Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Nouns

I often hear “translator” when people mean “interpreter”.

Problem:
The noun “interpreter” should be used when one specifically is referring to something spoken.

Explanation:
The primary definition of the noun “translator” is someone who translates written text from one language to another. The primary definition of the noun “interpreter” is someone who provides an oral interpretation between speakers who speak different languages.

In other words, “translator” is for written language, whereas “interpreter” is for spoken language.

Many will use “translator” when what they really mean is “interpreter”. I believe that this is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. The noun “translator” has three syllables; the noun “interpreter” has four syllables and is more difficult to say.

Solution:
Use “translator” when you’re talking about someone who converts written text from one language to another language. Use “intepreter” when you’re talking about someone who converts spoken text from one language to another language.