# What don't kill you make you more strong



## HitOfTheSummer

La frase es de una canción. Lo menciono porque nunca había escuchado algo así en una conversación normal. Mi duda es ¿por qué no dice "what DOESN'T kill you, MAKES you STRONGER"? ¿Ambas opciones son correctas?


----------



## FromPA

That which does not kill us makes us stronger. 
*Friedrich Nietzsche *


----------



## horsewishr

HitOfTheSummer said:


> La frase es de una canción. Lo menciono porque nunca había escuchado algo así en una conversación normal. Mi duda es ¿por qué no dice "what DOESN'T kill you, MAKES you STRONGER"? ¿Ambas opciones son correctas?



No. The lyrics are not correct--in any way, shape, or fashion.  It should be "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger," as you wrote (without a comma, if you want to get technical).


----------



## k-in-sc

I have no idea why Metallica chose to say it like that. It sounds horrible.


----------



## zhaul-san

Poetic license is the only explanation, grammatically is totally incorrect.


----------



## aztlaniano

La conjugación de los verbos en inglés es complicada y supera a muchísmos nativos.
Para la tercera persona en plural y para la primera y segunda persona tanto en singular como en plural hay una forma - "do" - pero ¡para tercera persona en singular hay otra forma distinta! En este caso, los pedantes pretenden que todos usemos "does".
Evidentemente, es más fácil eliminar la excepción para la tercera persona en singular y emplear "do" (o "don't") para todo.
Pero para ser coherente, la letra tendría que ser así: What don't kill you make you stronger.


----------



## duvija

aztlaniano said:


> La conjugación de los verbos en inglés es complicada y supera a muchísmos nativos.
> Para la tercera persona en plural y para la primera y segunda persona tanto en singular como en plural hay una forma - "do" - pero ¡para tercera persona en singular hay otra forma distinta! En este caso, los pedantes pretenden que todos usemos "does".
> Evidentemente, es más fácil eliminar la excepción para la tercera persona en singular y emplear "do" (o "don't") para todo.
> Pero para ser coherente, la letra tendría que ser así: What don't kill you make you stronger.


 


¡Totalmente de acuerdo!
Por las dudas, son opiniones. La norma dice que hay que usar la 3a persona, nos guste o no. Es redundante, claramente redundante. Marcan el pronombre y el verbo. Pero así es.
El uso del 'don't' para la 3a persona cada vez se extiende más. Y en canciones, muchísimo más todavía. Y en African American English (AAVE), es lo normal.


----------



## k-in-sc

"Ain't" and "don't" are common in lyrics, unfortunately, for the sake of saving syllables. The parts about this I really don't understand are "make" and "more strong."


----------



## HitOfTheSummer

Thank you all for making me understand this a little more.
Gracias a todos por permitirme entender esto un poco más.

Perdón, no soy experta en el idioma.


----------



## aztlaniano

k-in-sc said:


> " The parts about this I really don't understand are "make" and "more strong."


"Make" porque hemos prescindido de una forma verbal distinta para la tercera persona en singular, "more strong" porque es otra simplificación de la gramática. Se dice "more powerful", sin mayor motivo que el hecho de que tiene tres sílabas - ¿para qué usar otra forma comparativa para "strong" (stronger) con la excusa de que tiene una sola sílaba? 
En español, con su envidiable eficacia, "más" sirve para "more", "most", ---er, y ---est. 
Pero el español quizá poder beneficiarse de una simplificación de la conjugación de los verbos. Yo querer que nosotros usar en español una sola forma verbal como hacer Metallica en inglés. Desde luego esta medida poder ayudar a los extranjeros que querer aprender español.


----------



## k-in-sc

HitOfTheSummer said:


> Thank you all for making *helping* me understand this a little more *better*.





aztlaniano said:


> Yo  querer que nosotros usar en español una sola forma verbal como hacer  Metallica en inglés.


Hahaha, I think that already exists. Isn't  it called "castellchino"?


----------



## FromPA

duvija said:


> ¡Totalmente de acuerdo!
> Por las dudas, son opiniones. La norma dice que hay que usar la 3a persona, nos guste o no. Es redundante, claramente redundante. Marcan el pronombre y el verbo. Pero así es.
> El uso del 'don't' para la 3a persona cada vez se extiende más. Y en canciones, muchísimo más todavía. *Y en African American English (AAVE), es lo normal*.


 
I don't think bad grammar is any more extended today than in the past. There is always an uneducated segment of the population that speaks a substandard English.  The part about this being the norm in African American English might be considered a bit insulting by some.


----------



## k-in-sc

If it's ungrammatical (in standard English) and a black person says it, don't worry, it's just AAVE 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English
The thing is, Metallica is not noticeably black.


----------



## kalamazoo

Metallica can make their own rules.  I wouldn't advise an English learner to use Metallica as a model though.


----------



## duvija

FromPA said:


> There is always an uneducated segment of the population that speaks a substandard English. The part about this being the norm in African American English might be considered a bit insulting by some.


 
I'm not sure about 'insulting'. It would be nice if you read the wiki article sent by k-in-sc. 
The big mistake is to believe that AAVE is 'substandard'. Sorry to tell you, but it follows its own rigurous grammar, with nothing wrong about it. And yes,  'he don't kill' is the norm in AAVE. So? It's just the norm. Is it so hard to accept that a dialect may be different from the standard? 

(I know the people who wrote the wiki stuff. Some details are iffy).
Here is a piece of the article:

Linguists maintain that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with AAVE as a variety since, like all dialects, AAVE shows consistent internal logic and is used earnestly to express thoughts and ideas.[79] However, non-specialist attitudes towards AAVE can be negative, especially amongst African Americans, as it both deviates from the standard and its use is interpreted, at best, as a sign of ignorance or laziness.[80][81] Perhaps because of this attitude (as well as similar attitudes outside the African American community), most speakers of AAVE are bidialectal, being able to use Standard American English to varying degrees as well as AAVE. Such linguistic adaptation in different environments is called code-switching[82][83]–though Linnes (1998) argues that the situation is actually one of diglossia[84]–


----------



## k-in-sc

OK, granted AAVE has internal consistency and people can switch in and out of it, to whatever extent. But it's spoken by a relatively powerless group and the mainstream sees little need to accept it.


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> OK, granted AAVE has internal consistency and people can switch in and out of it, to whatever extent. But it's spoken by a relatively powerless group and the mainstream sees little need to accept it.


 

And that's why is so interesting that you find it now so often in popular music/songs, and not written by African Americans. Does it mean it's becoming mainstream? Maybe... No way to guess about the future.

Saludos.


----------



## k-in-sc

While it's understandable that some white pop/R&B artists might want to sound black, it seems inexplicable that Metallica would. Hence all the discussion. But I don't think pop lyrics have much effect on mainstream language. Did we all talk like a Bee Gees song in the '70s?


----------



## aztlaniano

k-in-sc said:


> Originally Posted by *HitOfTheSummer*
> Thank you all for making *helping* me understand this a little more *better*.


Siguiendo las normas de Metallica, debería ser: _... understand this *a little more good.*_
o
... helping me to reach a little *more strong* understanding of this.


----------



## JorgeHoracio

Curiously enough in the link about AAVE mentioned above I found no mention of "he don't" or other cases of third-person-without-the-s.

However I feel it's more normal than some previous posters think.  I may be misled by pop songs, of course.

But even Britishers like the Beatles have:

She's got a ticket to ride,
But she don't care.

(Probably wishing to imitate American lingo ¿?)

and we have in songs as old as this one (1928)

My baby don't care for shows, my baby don't care for clothes,
My baby just cares for me.
My baby don't care for furs and laces,
My baby don't care for high-toned places,
My baby don't care for rings or other expensive things,
She's sensible as can be.
My baby don't care who knows it,
My baby just cares for me.


I don't think songs such as these substitute "don't" in place of "doesn't" for merely metrical reasons.  So let's give popular (or substandard or whatever you want to call it) language its due.  

Naturally, it's sound to advise English learners to avoid using it (at least at first).


----------



## k-in-sc

(it's *its* due)
No, I think it is just for metrical reasons, because whatever their lyrics might say, these performers don't really talk like that. 
And neither English learners nor native speakers ever need to talk like that either.


----------



## JorgeHoracio

k-in-sc said:


> (it's *its* due)
> No, I think it is just for metrical reasons, because whatever their lyrics might say, these performers don't really talk like that.
> And neither English learners nor native speakers ever need to talk like that either.


thanks for the typo correction, kinsc.  

I find it soo hard to accept that the *don't* is in these songs just for metrical reasons!  Surely the authors don't usually talk like that ... but at least they must be imitating somebody.  And the common people who ultimately have made the songs popular ... do they feel it's a weird or a rather normal way of speaking?

I hope we get more feedback on this!


----------



## k-in-sc

I'm convinced it's for convenience. There are a lot of aspects of song lyrics that are different from normal language.


----------



## duvija

Honestly, I think it's more convenient to use 'he don't'. As someone (who? the thread is broken) said here, why double mark a 3rd person (did I say that?). 
I don't believe languages change only for simplicity, or we would all be using pidgins, but some changes are reasonable.
(For me, the final 's' in the Spanish 'quisistes, hicistes, dijistes' shows a great sophistication in the understanding of the paradigm. In English, I go with 'he don't' (it don't matter what ... there ain't no cure for love -  Leonard Cohen)


----------



## Istriano

*''What don't  kill you make you more strong''

It sounds like International English spoken by non-native speakers. ****
This is unfortunately the most common form of English these days. 
*


----------



## kalamazoo

As someone said to me once "The international language is bad English." In fact sometimes I wonder if the English spoken by native speakers will be considered deviant and native speakers will all have to take classes in "international English."  But I somehow don't think Metallica was trying to advance the cause of linguistic rationality or international English.


----------



## k-in-sc

kalamazoo said:


> "The international language is bad English."


 Truer words were never spoken! Can I steal that for my signature?


----------



## duvija

I like it too, but would be more inclined to call it  'not standard English', so as not to use 'bad', with the moral implications it may have.


----------



## k-in-sc

Well, bad is how it sounds to us


----------



## romuloVG

HitOfTheSummer said:


> La frase es de una canción. Lo menciono porque nunca había escuchado algo así en una conversación normal. Mi duda es ¿por qué no dice "what DOESN'T kill you, MAKES you STRONGER"? ¿Ambas opciones son correctas?



Simplemente son variantes dialectales que no forman parte de la norma escrita estándar de prestigio. Al mismo tiempo, puede llegar a fosilizarse al ser una frase específica. En algunas variantes del inglés, es forma correcta.


----------



## kalamazoo

I don't think saying that someone speaks English/French/Spanish "badly" has moral implications, any more than saying he speaks it "poorly" has financial implications.  "Non-standard" to me would imply some kind of regional dialect or something similar, but "bad" implies things like grammatical errors, limited vocabulary and poor word choices that are specific to that individual.   I think someone could be a native speaker of some form of "non-standard" English, but not a native speaker of "bad English."


----------



## k-in-sc

Well put, kalamazoo.


----------



## JorgeHoracio

kalamazoo said:


> I don't think saying that someone speaks English/French/Spanish "badly" has moral implications, any more than saying he speaks it "poorly" has financial implications. "Non-standard" to me would imply some kind of regional dialect or something similar, but "bad" implies things like grammatical errors, limited vocabulary and poor word choices that are specific to that individual. I think someone could be a native speaker of some form of "non-standard" English, but not a native speaker of "bad English."


 
And you think that "he don't" is 'bad' English (as k-in-sc has implied) or 'non-standard' English (as Romulo VG suggests).

I suspect it's a variant form (used in some particular registers, like slang) in standard English.


----------



## k-in-sc

Why would you think that? There's nothing standard about it. It's just wrong. Now everybody is going to come out of the woodwork with reasons why they think it's not, but it is. It's incorrect. Anybody who says it is speaking non-standard English. And that's why it sounds bad.


----------



## Petrucci

I had never thought of that sentence as grammatically incorrect until I read it correctly written in a Facebook status. I know it should be written with third person conjugations, but it sounded so normal in the song. I also think it's just about metrics.

Remember "She's got a ticket to ride" by The Beatles. It says: *"She's got a ticket to ride, but she DON'T care"*. Anyway, as a metal fan, I have no troubles with MetallicA writing the way they want, as long as I can remember the proper ways in formal situations (and as they make good music, of course).


----------



## k-in-sc

Song lyrics substitute incorrect forms for the sake of meter. "Don't": 1 syllable; "doesn't": 2 syllables. "Ain't": 1 syllable; "isn't": 2 syllables. That doesn't mean those forms are at all acceptable in conversation.


----------



## Cenzontle

1. Popular music in the U.S. has a fascinating, complex history, which I won't try to summarize here. Suffice it to say that much of it has roots in the blues, which was originally an African-American artform, if you will. But there has been so much deriving and cross-fertilization over the last 100 years, that I would say a lyric today that shares traits with AAVE is not necessarily "trying to sound black", but rather is merely following what is now a tradition of popular music. 
2. Also complex is the proposition of examining varieties of non-standard American English and disentangling which features are primarily AAVE from those used by the general population. We urge learners of English to speak with standard grammar, but we have to recognize that millions of Americans ("black", "white", etc.) use forms like "she don't care" in their everyday speech. (In fact, I received an informal communication from a sociolinguist who estimated that speakers who habitually say "she don't" could be a majority in the U.S.) These latter speakers are consumers of popular music: they buy recordings. A "she-don't" speaker doesn't want to feel that he/she is being sung to by an English teacher or a grammarian.


----------



## aztlaniano

Petrucci said:


> Remember "She's got a ticket to ride" by The Beatles. It says: *"She's got a ticket to ride, but she DON'T care"*..


Demuestra que no se trata de un fenómeno solo estadounidense ni solo de este siglo, ya que es de británicos en 1965.


----------



## Mackinder

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is incorrect? But why?


----------



## ParagonOfVirtue

Ginazec said:


> "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is incorrect? But why?


Al contrario, es "What don't kill you make you more strong" lo que es incorrecto.


----------



## Mackinder

ParagonOfVirtue said:


> Al contrario, es "What don't kill you make you more strong" lo que es incorrecto.



Oh. Thank you!


----------



## duvija

Y dale con lo 'incorrecto'. El uso que se denomina 'incorrecto' a veces tiene más que ver con las emociones que con la corrección gramatical (aunque ésta existe, gracias a rompecocos lingüistas como yo, que tuvieron que aprender 'reglas').


----------



## Mackinder

duvija said:


> Y dale con lo 'incorrecto'. El uso que se denomina 'incorrecto' a veces tiene más que ver con las emociones que con la corrección gramatical (aunque ésta existe, gracias a rompecocos lingüistas como yo, que tuvieron que aprender 'reglas').



What do you mean "has to do with emotions"?


----------



## duvija

Ginazec said:


> What do you mean "has to do with emotions"?



It means that the 'incorrect form' could explain feelings that the correct cannot. (Just in case, it's what Ilan Stavans says about Spanglish). Colloquial phrasing is important.


----------



## ParagonOfVirtue

duvija said:


> It means that the 'incorrect form' could explain feelings that the correct cannot. (Just in case, it's what Ilan Stavans says about Spanglish). Colloquial phrasing is important.


Si quieres decir que se dice y se entiende, pues si, se entiende; igual que entenderías si alguien que está aprendiendo Español te dice: _"¿Me dar hora?"_
Normalmente, si se entiende, la gente no piensa más en eso, pero estas deberían ser excepciones. Las reglas están por una razón.


----------



## duvija

ParagonOfVirtue said:


> Si quieres decir que se dice y se entiende, pues si, se entiende; igual que entenderías si alguien que está aprendiendo Español te dice: _"¿Me dar hora?"_
> Normalmente, si se entiende, la gente no piensa más en eso, pero estas deberían ser excepciones. Las reglas están por una razón.



Lo que quiero decir va más allá de entender o no. Las palabras vienen con carga emocional, y hay veces que 'el error gramatical' se usa para trasmitir emociones que 'las reglas' no incluyen. Pensemos en la sociolingüística. Y las reglas están porque alguien analiza un idioma y las deduce. No vienen a priori.


----------



## FreeToyInside

I think the incorrect negative form "he don't..." is much more commonly accepted as everyday speech than the positive "he do.."  I agree with some previous posters that "he do" sounds very AAVE, but "he don't" doesn't have that AAVE ring at all to me, as where I grew up near Chicago many people speak like that, regardless of race.  

In terms of the lyrics "what don't kill me make me more strong," it sounds almost like a joke because it's such bad grammar.  "It make me more strong" sounds to me like how cavemen in a movie would speak!


----------



## ParagonOfVirtue

duvija said:


> Lo que quiero decir va más allá de entender o no. Las palabras vienen con carga emocional, y hay veces que 'el error gramatical' se usa para trasmitir emociones que 'las reglas' no incluyen. Pensemos en la sociolingüística. Y las reglas están porque alguien analiza un idioma y las deduce. No vienen a priori.


Tal vez... no implica que _"Can I haz cheezburger?"_ o el título del hilo no estén "fuera del estándar" si se quiere.


----------



## Cenzontle

aztlaniano said:


> Demuestra que no se trata de un fenómeno solo estadounidense ni solo de este siglo, ya que es de británicos en 1965.


I could be mistaken, but I got the impression that the Beatles entered the rock music business singing in the American "she don't care" dialect,
and only after becoming established as superstars were they free to venture into singing with a British accent.


----------



## aztlaniano

ParagonOfVirtue said:


> Al contrario, es "What don't kill you make you more strong" lo que es incorrecto.


Sí. Lo correcto es "What do*es*n't (tercera persona singular) kill you makes you strong*er* (forma comparativa de un adjetivo de una sola sílaba).


----------

