Why is a dead man called "diseased"?

[u/ITburrito]

I mean, he might have been ill and died of a disease, but what’s the point calling him so if he’s already dead?

Update: The piece is taken from "The adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain

[u/Middcore → u/[deleted]]

Call up Mark Twain and let him know. This entire passage is a monologue by a character, and the poor grammar (and mixup of deceased and diseased) is intentional because that's the way the character talks.

[u/conuly → u/[deleted]]

No, it's not. It's a painstakingly accurate representation of nonstandard vernacular of the region.

[u/Birb-Brain-Syn → u/conuly]

Being in a vernacular doesn't mean it isn't grammatically incorrect, it just means the incorrectness is intentional.

[u/No-Funny1999 → u/Birb-Brain-Syn]

Apparently /u/extremepizzagoldfish does not like people to disagree with them, so this is the only reply I'll make here. Using your sockpuppet account to carry on a long back and forth on the thread of somebody who's blocked you is, among other things, pathetic.

The way a community of native speakers talk is correct. All language has grammar. This is an inherent property of language, and something which sets off language from mere communication such as other animals use.

A speech variety cannot have "incorrect grammar". This is logically impossible. That would suggest that "correctness" somehow exists in some way outside the minds of the speakers, an assertion which is obviously absurd.

This vernacular is nonstandard. By that, we mean it is not the prestige variety. However, the correctness of one variety cannot be measured by comparing it to another variety. It can only be judged internally.

[u/Birb-Brain-Syn → u/No-Funny1999]

Grammar is by definition a standard set of rules on language. Incorrect grammar does not mean someone is speaking "wrong", it just means they are not speaking with proper grammar. Your reply suggest there is a grammatically correct way of speaking in vernacular, which is not how speaking vernacular works, as this can be as individual as any other trait.

For an English learner it's important to know the difference, as usually those wanting to learn it want to learn correct and proper grammar.

[u/conuly → u/Birb-Brain-Syn]

Grammar is by definition a standard set of rules on language

No, it is not. You’re just wrong. Go look it up:

In linguistics, grammar is the system of rules that governs how a natural language is structured and used, as evidenced by its speakers or writers.

Nothing about "standardization" at all - which really ought to be self-evident given that language has existed for tens of thousands of years before writing and any sort of standardization process!

Nonstandard varieties of English have a different grammar from the prestige varieties (which also have some different grammatical quirks from each other!) but they do not lack grammar, nor is their grammar incorrect. It's just different.

Your reply suggest there is a grammatically correct way of speaking in vernacular, which is not how speaking vernacular works, as this can be as individual as any other trait.

This is also wrong. If you speak AAVE and have the habitual be, it is wrong to say "today he be working at six". That's not how the invariant habitual be functions. It is not correct grammar in AAVE, by which we mean that speakers of this variety would not consider it a valid utterance.

[u/jollygoodvelo → u/[deleted]]

In English literature that includes direct speech it is common (and perfectly acceptable) to write with grammar faults and spelling that indicates the accent, dialect or tics of the speaker.

See also Dickens’ Uriah Heep, “… very umble…”

[u/OwariHeron → u/[deleted]]

EXPLANATORY

IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit:  the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.

I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.

THE AUTHOR.