!?@?!poor@!#$ English
oh, no. When I posted about the construction probably may not be (which I ran into in The Wall Street Journal) I somehow misrepresented my concerns.
Let me clarify.
I didn't call this construction bad or poor English. I would never, ever do that. I am by training a linguist, and linguists take language as it exists. Spoken language (specifically excluding written language here) is a living, growing, mutating thing that can't be nailed down. It will change, no matter how many grammar books may be written or laws passed. You can codify written language, but spoken language? Nope. Cannot be done.
So I ran into a construction which surprised me, because I had never seen it before. That doesn't make the construction bad English.
There are hundreds and hundreds of varieties of English over space, and each of them is distinct from the next in a lot of different ways. To priviledge one variant above another is a social call, and has nothing to do with the viability of the language construction itself. Let me point out, if you're really interested in this topic, that the standard college text on issues of language standards, ideology and discrimination was written -- well, by me, back in the days when I was still a full time academic. You can probably find a library copy, if you're really keen to know more.
English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States
Routledge
ISBN: 0415114772
In summary: If it turns out that probably may not be is a new spoken language construction that's popping up (which seems to be the case), then so be it. My first reaction was surprise, not disapproval. Now I'm just curious about its genesis and the way it functions.