BS: English grammar question

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:25 AM

Isn't that a song?

"O I do like to see a good subjunctive"

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Haruo
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 02:31 AM

Since the standard English pronunciation of "of" has "v" for its consonant, rather as if it were Welsh, there is no reason I can think of why a mirror should help a kid understand the difference between "-'ve" and "of". It's not that they can't tell an F sound from a V sound. They can distinguish "very" from "ferry", can't they? So that's not it.

Don't forget the optatives, volitives and gerunds.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Jeanie
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 05:15 AM

Haruo, one of the things Penny is talking about here is people's inability to differentiate between the "f/v" sounds and the "th" sound, not between "f" and "v". The writing of "could of" in place of "could've" is a totally separate issue.

Penny says: "The children cannot hear differences such as those between f or v and th" - and I agree. Depending on the local accent that they have grown up with (and have hence filtered out certain differentiations between sounds), some people really do find it absolutely impossible to hear any difference between, for instance, the word "fought" and the word "thought". It's a case of the good old "faw ee faazend fevvers on a fwushes fwo" !!!

There are so many examples of this kind of thing. For instance, I've come across people who, because of the local accent they grew up with, cannot hear any difference between the short "i" sound and the long "ee" sound, with the result that the word "mill" and the word "meal" are both pronounced as "mill" - and try as you and they might, they just cannot hear the difference.

Somebody once confused me greatly by telling me about people who had been "stealing pillars from the hospital".


- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Haruo
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 08:08 PM

Thanks, Jeanie, but part of Penny's post seems to me still to have to do with a supposed inability to distinguish f from v: "The children cannot hear differences such as those between f or v and th. Or see them, if demonstrated and given a mirror. And cannot be got to understand that would've is would have not would of. I can understand and agree with the point about "fought" vs. "thought", but I can't see any reason why a child (or an untutored adult) ought to be able to tell from the sound in even the most refinedly royal English that the sound sequence we write as "[would]'ve", if uncontracted, would be "have" rather than "of". Indeed, if the uncontracted full form of the compound tense were not a feature of said speaker's dialect (or idiolect, in the case of a kid), it would probably make more sense for the speaker to guess "of". In my dialect, and in standard American English, an educated speaker asked to slow way down while saying "would've" is likely to move the sound between the d and the v from a minimal schwa "ə" in the direction of "ă" or even "ah" (as in "Avenue" or "Ave Maria") and may even insert a bit of an audible aspiration for the missing "h". But a speaker of a dialect where "would have gone" is never said but "would've gone" is, when asked to say "would've gone" extremely slowly, will most likely merely elongate the ə: — "woooooood uuuuhhhhvv".

Speaking of pedantry.

In my dialect (and this is a fairly widespread but not universal feature in the US) the three words underlined in the sentence "So taken was he with the young lady's attitude that he decided he wanted to marry merry Mary, when spoken at a normal conversational clip, are pure homophones.

In any event, as texting takes over from text, it will probably not matter by the time the children referred to are in the job market, whether they think the "correct" spelling is "have" or "of", it'll be as archaic a question as whether and why one ought to sing "Mine eyes have seen the glory" or "My eyes..."

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: BobKnight
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 08:40 PM

Scots inflected endings used to be "it," rather than "ed." So, look/lookit,bark/barkit, and so on. However, as someone said earlier in the thread, proximity to our larger Southern neighbour and the media, mean that most of these are now disappearing. Mostly due to the media I think, since we've had those same neighbours for a thousand years, and it's only in the last thirty years or so that the erosion has taken place.

Interestingly enough the Scots past form of tell, is telt rather than told, and I've heard people from the Newcastle area using that as well. Scots is probably closer to the Anglo Saxon/Old English forms than "English" English.

In Aberdeen there is a road called The Lang Stracht (The Long Straight) - almost German/Dutch sounding with the soft "ch" velar fricative sound. Oddly enough, it's in a suburb of Aberdeen called Mastrick, which is very similiar to "Mastricht" which is in Holland if I remember correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:39 PM

Haruo, I'm from southern Minnesota, transplanted to central Indiana forty-nine years ago. I don't know how one would pronounce "Mary, marry, and merry" differently from one another. I don't think I've ever heard a distinction made in my seventy-eight years.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Rowan
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 10:48 PM

the sound between the d and the v from a minimal schwa "ə" in the direction of "ă" or even "ah" (as in "Avenue" or "Ave Maria")
and
In my dialect (and this is a fairly widespread but not universal feature in the US) the three words underlined in the sentence "So taken was he with the young lady's attitude that he decided he wanted to marry merry Mary, when spoken at a normal conversational clip, are pure homophones.

Novel, to my ears and thus not pedantry (to me, anyway) Haruo.

My Oz ears distinguish "Avenue" (where the 'ave' is pronounced as in "have") from Ave Maria, which is pronounced as you have indicated in your neck of the woods. Similarly, my Oz ears hear 'marry' as in "have", 'merry' as in "bell" and 'Mary' as in "airy" and thus not as phonemes in the sense you described.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:22 AM

English-speaking Canadians often say 'Mary' as in 'airy;' that is the way they are taught. Here in Alberta, many say all three as Uncle Dave-Haruo do, and as I do (NM, TX, IL all places that have modified my speech).
Like Hawkerladdie, I think the TV has done much to eliminate regional speech.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Haruo
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:59 AM

Hawkerladdie, are (or were) your Scots past tenses formed in -it even when the verbal root ended in a voiced sound (or for that matter, do you have final voiced consonants in Scots at all? Of course you do, though maybe not final voiced stops). I ask because in terms of pronunciation, the English past tenses "looked" and "barked" end in "-t", not "-ed". (But the tense suffix usually written as "-ed", though pronounced "-t" in the just cited examples, is pronounced "-d" after verbs ending in vowels or consonants other than "d, t", such as "shampooed", "lagged" or "banned", and as "-ĭd" [the ĭ may be a schwa or a short e, depending on phonetic environment, idiolect, and rapidity of speech] after verbs ending in voiced stops or in "t", e.g. "banded" or "bunted". Bear in mind that when I say "verbs ending in such and such" I am referring to their final sound, not their final letter. English spelling being what it is, 'twere madness to base linguistic principles on orthographic prescriptions.

Rowan, I think I misled you into thinking in my dialect "Avenue" and "Ave Maria" have the same initial vowel. No, "Avenue" starts with pretty much the same vowel as "bad" (and "have"), but there are dialects I've heard of, mainly British but occasionally North American, where "have" has a vowel more like the Polynesian "mana" than like "manna [from heaven]"; more like "Ma. Pa." than like "Ma'am. Pam". Unfortunately, your efforts to clarify the initial vowels in "marry merry Mary" simply extends the problem to other examples. In my dialect, "airy" rhymes with "fairy", and "fairy" and "ferry" are as like as two phonological peas in a pod. When I hear you (i.e. someone who distinguishes these vowels) speak I register the difference as "their accent" but have no difficulty understanding it. You, on the other hand, might completely misunderstand an utterance in my dialect on account of the same difference. So "mutual intelligibility" of dialects (even among educated speakers of standard English dialects*) is not necessarily an equally wide street in both directions. I have the advantage in listening comprehension, but you have the advantage in avoidance of ambiguity.

Haruo

*using "standard English" in a broad sense that includes versions from Oxford and the BBC to Stanford and the ANU, and using "dialects" in the non-judgmental, scientific-linguistic sense in which all of us speak in dialects... (Remember the old adage, not true but truthful, "a language is a dialect with an army"...)

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Monique
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:36 AM

"A language is a dialect with an army" I like this one! We French say "A language is a dialect that succeeded" but Jaurès said "We call patois the language of the defeated" (patois is a pejorative word in French and locutors of regional languages -it's what they're called here- are usually affected when their language is called that)

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:06 AM

The fox walks on rocks and watches out for hawks and the auks watch the fox.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: maire-aine
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:57 PM

Greetings to all of you brilliant people!

This thread has more than answered my original question, and provided some interesting reading in the process.

Perhaps someone would care to weigh in on another point of curiosity: why do certain verbs that end in "ind" take "ound" in the past tense? Examples: find/found, grind/ground, bind/bound, wind/wound.

Maryanne

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:59 PM

As to -ind words with the past as -ound, my nonacademic answer is that it's been that way since Anglo-Saxon, which was heavily into inflections, that is, meaning changes flagged by internal vowel changes. cf. goose/geese, foot/feet.

I see you said "certain verbs that end in '-ind'", and thereby hangs a comment. One of the verbs you cited was "wind", past tense "wound". That's true for one of the verbs "wind", but the other word "wind", meaning to blow wind through, as "I will wind my horn to signal for help," is pronounced with a short i, like the disturbance of air, and makes its past tense with "-ed": "He winded his horn for reenforcements."   

Do these make sense? No, but languages--especially English, the polyglot language that it is--are not required to make sense. They just are.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:21 PM

(Sorry again - that was me again).

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Haruo
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:33 PM

That's okay, if I do say so, meself.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Haruo
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:43 PM

Again, maire-aine and Uncle DaveO, the spelling-vs-pronunciation-(dis)similarity issue comes up with "-ind". For me a more basic question, and one that might cast light on maire-aine's question, would be "why are there all these common verbs in English that are spelt (something to do with wheat?) "-ind" but pronounced as if spelled (stepped in to provide a brief respite?) "-ined", AND why do so many of them have "strong" past tenses in "-ound" (pronounced to rhyme with "downed", not to rhyme with "crooned", at least ootside Scotland)?? There are exceptions to the irregularity, for example the verb "to mind": no English-speaker, I think, would consider "She always mound her mother" a well-formed utterance. Or at least there's that one; right off the top of my head I can't think of another. Wait, yes! Blind! Fanny Crosby was blinded in infancy, not blound.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: peregrina
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:55 PM

-ind to -ound is part of the same vowel alternation (called ablaut) of the Old English strong verbs--just like got to gotten and so on--the same phenomenon as the question that started this thread.

Earlier I posted a link to what I thought was a reasonably accessible explanation--here it is again:

old english vowel alternation in strong verbs

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: maire-aine
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 05:10 PM

Thank you. Peregrina, I did read the earlier post, but I wasn't sure if it covered my second example.

Regards,
Maryanne

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:38 PM

How has this reappeared when last entry seems to have been in Feb? Till this one - but you will see my point.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:43 PM

"How has this reappeared when last entry seems to have been in Feb?"

It was most likely refreshed by a spam post which was deleted by a clone.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: bubblyrat
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:49 AM

I think we should continue with this thread,now that it has re-appeared.
Things that people say which drive me to distraction ;
   " Jim lit a fire"    ? No, Jim LIGHTED a fire ! The fire WAS LIT by Jim.
"A U-Boat sunk the Lusitania " . No, The Lusitania WAS SUNK by a U-Boat.! A U-Boat SANK the Lusitania !
"Last night,my father rung me on the 'phone". No, last night my father RANG me on the 'phone ! I WAS RUNG by my father !
    " I clumb the mountain" ( Movie, "The Way West"----did they REALLY talk like that ?)
            " This railing is too low; we must higher it " ! ! What happened to "RAISE", I wonder ??
"It's doable,if you times it by two "
       What is that all about ?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: bubblyrat
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:56 AM

Getting back to the original point of the thread---

Life would be so much more simple ( not simpler ! ) if we were to adopt Chinese grammar . Example ;

      "Today, I go shopping."

Past tense ? Easy ! " Yesterday, I go shopping ."

Future tense ? Yes !! " Tomorrow, I go shopping " !!!

But their "Alphabet" does seem to be somewhat harder to deal with !

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:01 AM

"It's doable,if you times it by two "

That's a spelling mistake or typographical error.

It's double if you times it by two.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:42 AM

"Jim lit a fire? No, Jim LIGHTED a fire ! The fire WAS LIT by Jim."

Depends where you come from. I'd normally use lit as the past tense, and Oxford, Chambers and Collins all give both forms as alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:07 AM

Verb conjugation of the infinitive 'To Light'.


Just in case anyone's interested.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: s&r
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:32 AM

Wot! no imperfect.....

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:41 AM

There's always one . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:10 PM

Here's one that used to confuse me, but I think I've got it sorted out now:

"He is taller than me." vs. "He is taller than I."

The second is traditionally correct, but I think that would come as news to most people in the US—or make them scoff outright.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:38 PM

How about the distinction between "shall" and "will"?

I'm not 100% sure I understand the traditional usage myself. Suffice it to say that The King's English, by Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler, devotes about 10 pages to the subject (133 to 154).

"Shall" has almost disappeared from American usage except in questions:

"Shall I get you some coffee?" = "Do you want me to get you some coffee?"

We would almost never hear or say "I shall get you some coffee."

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:07 PM


"Shall I get you some coffee?" = "Do you want me to get you some coffee?"

We would almost never hear or say "I shall get you some coffee."

Speak for yourself, Jim.

My wife: "Would you get me some coffee?" or maybe, "Would you turn off the radio?"

And my reply is reflexively, "I shall." Or sometimes, "I'll do that," if I'm in a very informal mood.

I don't find the difference between "shall" and "will", "should" and "would" at all daunting in concept, in either the first person or second/third person, and I don't find the correct usage at all hifalutin'. Nor do "can" and "may" hold any terrors, nor do "capital" and "capitol", nor "principle" and "principal".

But then I'm a court reporting professional, and English usage techniques are drummed into my psyche--meat and potatoes, bread and butter, so to speak.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Rowan
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:02 PM

"It's doable,if you times it by two "

That's a spelling mistake or typographical error.

It's double if you times it by two.

Esteemed Guest, I forget whether this came up much earlier in this thread (earlier than I'm prepared to search) or I saw it in a different thread recently but what you describe as a typo might not be. Someone with the same irritation as mine, complained that kids these days often describe the multiplication table as "the times table" and, instead of saying "multiply by two" say "times it by two".

The act (in this case) of doubling is "doable", another term I regard as lacking felicity. But I'm old fashioned about many things.

And in reading back I came across Haruo's gentle commentary on one of my posts; would that such gentleness was universal. As it is I share a corridor with a bunch of academic linguists who might (but haven't to me, yet) be similarly explanatory.

Cheers, Rowan. And have a Happy Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:14 PM

He is taller than I (am). The am is understood.
He is taller than me is more common in the U. S. of A.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:48 PM

>>kids these days often describe the multiplication table as "the times table"<<

A quick Google search shows teachers (not just kids) using it in 1875.

"Kids these days"....

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: s&r
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:12 PM

What about 'He is taller than he'

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:09 PM

'"Than" is a grammatical particle serving as both conjunction and preposition in the English language. It introduces a comparison, and as such is associated with comparatives, and with words such as more, less, and fewer. Typically, it seeks to measure the force of an adjective or similar description between two predicates.'

Whether one uses 'I' or 'me' in that construction will depend on your decision regarding the above. One is able to solve the problem by completing the sentence. He is taller than I am. Else, use He is taller than me.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Rowan
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:21 PM

>>kids these days often describe the multiplication table as "the times table"<<

A quick Google search shows teachers (not just kids) using it in 1875.

"Kids these days"....

I'm sure you're right, Lighter. The target of the expression of dismay was not the name of the table but referring to multiplication (in the various verbal declensions) as "timesing" (if you'll pardon the pun) even by teachers who probably knew no better.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 08:58 PM

I have fond memories of my grandfather teaching me the times table.

He also ran for a time a trading post, for which articles were ordered from wholesalers by dozens and gross.
When without my handy-dandy calculator, I still tend to count by fours- four, eight, dozen, sixteen, 20, dozen2, 28, 32, dozen3,.... gross (144).

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 09:50 PM

You got me, Rowan. In my youth (as documented in the film "10,000 BC") we never talked about "timesing."

...Kids these days!!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 11:29 PM

I'm sorry folks. After almost a year of running this thread, it has come to light that George Bush IS in fact to blame for all of this. Now break it up and go home......Move along there Johnnie......Nothin' to see here..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Ringer
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 10:17 AM

S&r's contribution, Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:19 PM, of all those "had"s only makes sense if punctuated correctly.

I knew it as:

The teacher thought that although Smith, where Jones had had "had had" had had "had," "had had " had it. Mine has 10 consecutive "had"s - how does s&r punctuate his 11?

Smith, where Jones had had "had had" had had "had;" "had had" had the examiner's approval - 10 again, same as mine. Any other offers?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Ringer
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 10:29 AM

Answering my own question,

Smith, where Jones had had "had had" had had "had;" "had had" had had the examiner's approval

has 11 consecutive "had"s.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 03:14 PM

Dave O: 'I don't find the difference between "shall" and "will" ... at all daunting in concept.'

I wonder: if you tried reading the relevant pages in "The King's English" would you still feel that way? I believe the issue is more complicated and subtle than you think.

I read it long ago, and here's what I think I have retained:

In the first person, "I/We will" indicates personal choice (or an act of will, if you will) while "I/We shall" indicates that the matter is beyond my/our control.

"I will bring you a cup of tea" is correct (I choose to do it; I am willing to do it).

"I shall be 63 on my next birthday" is correct (I can't help it; it will happen whether I like it or not).

"I think we shall have rain today; therefore, I will bring my umbrella."
(I have no control over the rain; bringing an umbrella is my choice.)

In the second or third person, things get turned around.

"Thou shalt not steal" is correct. God is speaking the second person. It is God's will that we humans should not steal.

"You shall finish your homework before bedtime!" (I insist.)

"...but you will keep dawdling!" (You are defying me; we are having a battle of wills.)

"Should" and "would" are the subjunctives of "shall" and "will".

"If I should die before I wake" is correct. (I don't want to die, but in case it happens anyway....)

In the above usage "should" does not imply "ought to"—but that's how we Americans usually use "should" today:

"I shouldn't have another cookie" = "I ought to forego it"

Mind you, I don't claim to always follow these rules myself—most of the time I don't even try—but I find it interesting to know about them.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:48 PM

Jim, where Henry had had 'had had' had had 'had'. 'Had had' had had the teacher's approval.

The original had eleven 'hads' in it, FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:33 PM

"One is able to solve the problem by completing the sentence. He is taller than I am. Else, use He is taller than me. " Guest/ 8:09

That doesn't work, surely? One could say: He is taller than I (am), but not say: He is taller than me (am) or (is).

Colloquially, like most of us, I suppose, I say: Did you hear me knocking on your door? That was me!

Formally I say, Did you hear me knocking on your door? That was I!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:32 AM

I came to conclusion decades ago that instead of trying to force English into a straightjacket based on Latin grammar, we should accept "taller than me", with "me" being an emphatic pronoun analogous to the French "moi".

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:41 AM

Jim said:


Dave O: 'I don't find the difference between "shall" and "will" ... at all daunting in concept.'

I wonder: if you tried reading the relevant pages in "The King's English" would you still feel that way? I believe the issue is more complicated and subtle than you think.

The rules or principles you then set out are exactly what I have understood for fifty years, and (mostly) applied. As I say, I don't find them at all daunting in concept.

Later in your post, you say:
"I shouldn't have another cookie" = "I ought to forego it"

Not on the subject of will/shall/would/should, but your next-to-last word touches on a pet peeve of mine. That word should (ought to) be "forgo". This is not a mere spelling issue, but a wrong word issue.
"Forego" is to go ahead of, to proceed before. "Forgo" is to do without, to give up.   That initial element, "for", is the same one we see in forbid, forget, forbear, forswear, and so on. It's a negation of the verb in the last part of the word, whereas "fore" deals with the verb's time or position.

(pedant mode off)

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Rowan
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:03 PM

Dave, you seem like a well informed bloke so you might be able to help me out. If I were to refer to you post by using the word "apropos" , I've always used the construction "A propos your post...." by virtue of the French origin but usually omitting the accent over the "a". But I find I'm in a diminishing minority, outnumbered by those who insert "of" immediately after it. Why do think that might be?

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:49 PM

I've sometimes used Re, but I, too, ain't sure that that is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Monique
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM

In French it's "à propos de... something", meaning "about something". Unless it'd be just "à propos" meaning "at the right moment"

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Rowan
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:52 PM

'Catters have come up trumps again!

Cheers, Rowan