What's the difference?

Hi El Cid

[Q] Whats the difference between 1)beneath their feet and 2)under their feet?

As an answer to this question I'll quote the description in the OED.
The prepositional use of beneath seems originally to have been introduced to express the general notion of ‘lower than,’ as distinguished from the specific sense of under. But in process of time beneath was so largely used for under, that below was laid hold of to express the more general idea. In ordinary spoken English, under and below now cover the whole field (below tending naturally to overlap the territory of under), leaving beneath more or less as a literary and slightly archaic equivalent of both (in some senses), but especially of under. The only senses in which beneath is preferred are 'unworthy of' (‘beneath contempt’), and figurative uses in the sense of overwhelmed by or subject to (e.g. ‘to fall beneath the assaults of temptation’).


[Q]IS it correct to say "what is it mean?" and if it is correct could you explain why? because i always use "what does it mean?"

You can't say "what is it mean?" "Could you explain why?" is fine.

paco

hello califjim
thanks for the reply! Actually i heard it somewhere in a mmovie i think and thats why i asked it.

What you heard was "What's it mean?" where "what does" is contracted to "what's" - a contraction only used in very informal situations.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Jim, it's very common in speech, but I'm not at all certain as to whether there is a contracted form of that is represented by .

This must be yet another example of speech driving language change.

JT: I'm not at all certain as to whether there is a contracted form of that is represented by .

MrP: Your comment intrigues me, JT. Whence 's, in your view?


My point, Mr P, if I get your drift, was that there is no standard English contracted form for . Yet we know that it exists in casual speech. Moreover, it is used quite often.

What's it do? What's it hold?

As I've mentioned, and this point is often reinforced in other language sources, the rules for formal/written differ from those that drive how we speak.

Really, nothing could be more apparent, yet people often fall into that same old trap of trying to suggest that speech must follow the rules of writing. Some even take this much further, suggesting that rules that aren't even rules for writing have to be followed.

Why do people do this when it doesn't exist? I suggest that it's simply a phonological reduction, a common happenstance in casual speech.