LINGUIST List 12.1904

Wed Jul 25 2001

Qs: Recording Voice Files, Double "be" Construction

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

Directory

FRALICKS, TRISH, rerecording files
Joseph Hilferty, Query: Double "BE" construction

Message 1: rerecording files

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:12:01 -0500
From: FRALICKS, TRISH <TFRALICKS

THCS.ORG>
Subject: rerecording files




Dear Colleagues,

I am trying to re-record analogue voice files to digital files and transfer
them via the Internet. Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks, 
Trish

Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Query: Double "BE" construction

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:51:25 +0200
From: Joseph Hilferty <hilferty

fil.ub.es>
Subject: Query: Double "BE" construction


Dear LINGUIST Listers,

I am currently working on the double-BE construction, i.e.,
structures that have a redundant copula such as in the following
example:

 - The thing is, is that we need more money.

This construction was discussed some ten years ago here on the
LINGUIST list:

http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/3/3-10.html
http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/3/3-18.html
http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/3/3-29.html
http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/3/3-44.html
http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/3/3-56.html

but, unfortunately, there are certain points that remain less than
clear.

I therefore would be very grateful if any "native double-BE speakers"
could give me their grammaticality/acceptability judgments on the data
in the questionnaire below.

Please, respond to:

hilfertyfil.ub.es
	
I'll certainly be willing to share the results with anyone who is
interested.

Thank-you,

Joe Hilferty
	
	
	*******************************************************************
	
	 Questionnaire for Native Double-BE Speakers
	
	Please mark the following sentences as:
	
	 - GOOD (= not odd at all)
	
	 - ? (=slightly odd)
	
	 - ?? (= odd)
	
	 - ?* (= tending towards ungrammatical or unacceptable)
	
	 - * (= ungrammatical or unacceptable)
	
	Feel free to make any comments that you think are relevant.
	
	
	(1) a. The fact of the matter is, was that he didn't tell the truth.
	
	 b. What amazed me is, was that she didn't like our friends.
	
	 c. What happened is, was that he lost all his money gambling.
	
	
	(2) a. The fact of the matter was, is that he didn't tell the truth.
	
	 b. What amazed me was, is that she didn't like our friends.
	
	 c. What happened was, is that he lost all his money gambling.
	
	
	(3) a. The fact of the matter is, is that he didn't tell the truth.
	
	 b. The fact of the matter was, was that he didn't tell the truth.
	
	
	(4) a. What amazed me is, is that she didn't like our friends.
	
	 b. What amazed me was, was that she didn't like our friends.
	
	
	(5) a. What happened is, is that he lost all his money gambling.
	
	 b. What happened was, was that he lost all his money gambling.
	
	
	Thank-you for your cooperation.

Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue