Search results for 'tag:Accents tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Accents' and 'Clauses'

Re: were late / would be late

Kooyeen — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:09:09 GMT

Oh my, I'm so surprised! I would never have thought you said it yourself! By the way, you said "If I'd have known", and not "If I'd known" (which can't mean "If I would have known", because you would be leaving out a syllable...).
Anyway, I'll tell you the truth: I've always thought it was non-standard, same register as "ain't". Low register, only common in certain dialects. I don't remember a single grammar book saying it was acceptable. In fact, I only remember people criticizing it. Here are a few comments like the ones I've always heard:

Also in the midwest, I often heard, "If I would have . . . ., I would have . . . . ." Drove me nutz! (Avangi)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/CondtitionalTense/zndwv/post.htm#482524

The construction, actually any construction with 'would' in a hypothetical if-clause, is considered non-standard. (Jim)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/HadHaveHad/chrcq/post.htm#201527

To me, it evokes comical people from remote mountain regions or from city slums who are uneducated and have some accent that most listeners dislike. But maybe research would reveal it to enjoy a wider demographic distribution. To my ear, it's about as obtrusively wrong and amusing as 'them' for 'those'. It's definitely not acceptable for standard written usage. On the other hand, it's not the most awful mistake one can make. (Native from San Diego)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#3

Would have for had - In spoken English, there is a growing tendency to use would have in place of the subjunctive had in contrary-to-fact clauses, such as If she would have (instead of if she had) only listened to me, this would never have happened. But this usage is still widely considered an error in writing. Only 14 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the previously cited sentence, and a similar amountâbut 16 percentâaccepts it in the sentence I wish you would have told me about this sooner. (A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English)
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

On the other hand, some people seem to use it all the time, regardless of region or cultural influences, and so it's a common feature of informal English to them. One example:

Hmmm...never thought of that construction as a mountain dialect but normal everyday American! I never knew it was incorrect! (Native from the Midwest)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#5

That's why I was so surprised, considering you are a writer and knowing you use "correct" English most of the time. This can only mean two things now... I have to choose between:
1) I start to use it as well, feeling ashamed of not knowing is was so common.
2) I don't start to use it, and I start to tease you because it's not like you to speak bad English.

LOL, just kidding. Seriously, I don't know what to say. I think I'll consider the fact that people are actually more tolerant of it than I thought, so it's not that bad. But do you also use it in your writing? You know, just because I don't like prescriptive grammar, doesn't mean I don't want to know about it. In fact, prescriptive grammar is part of descriptive grammar.
I'll appreciate any opinions on this. Thanks.

Re: Is the use of 'xor' acceptable in written English?

DouglasM6 — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:41:37 GMT

Ant_222 wrote:
Come on, Doug, don't be formal. XOR - eXclusive OR. It's not a conjunction, it's the name of logical operator! So, you may freely use it as such. So, you can say: We can use XOR to do simple block-based encryption by XORing blocks of initial text with some fixed block of the same length. The latter will be the key. Due to XOR's being symmetrical, we can decipher a thus made cryptogram by exactly the same operation, which is a profit from the programmer's point of view. P.S.: By the way, where are you from?

Point taken re XOR

I suppose that after a bit of introspection, the line between what is acceptable in technical contexts and what is part of standard English is somewhat fuzzy subjectively. Further, when confronted with a sentence, either written or spoken, very frequently images spring to mind, so that, for example, when I read the word âandâ, I visualise it not merely as a conjunction joining two sentences, but as a logical operator on the clauses either side.

Someone asks, âWould you like a cup of tea or coffee?â and Iâm thinking, âHere we go again â¦â

The names of Boolean operators AND, NOT, OR are, no doubt, derived from the conjunctions used in English (conveying to the logician something of the same meaning that would loom in the mind the non-technically inclined) and not vice verse. But why not, in the case of XOR? Originally words reserved for technocrats merge into common usage, and even change their part of speech:

eg From âGoogleâ, the company / search engine to âgoogleâ the verb, arguably part of the English language now.

And many words now accepted were coined by one traceable person, fired the imagination of the world and took over.

So, I concede defeat in respect of XOR. For the moment â check your 2020 dictionary!

Ant_222 wrote:
P.S.: By the way, where are you from?

Born and educated in Zimbabwe, 10 years in New Zealand, 2.5 years in Austalia, where I now reside. My accent has been labelled British, Dutch and South African, never Australasian, and described as âclippedâ. I have no idea how one puts all that together.

Re: two dependent clauses in the same sentence

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:03:54 GMT

Hi Clive,

I see, thanks for your kind support.

Actually, I want to learn more about the standard original English. In my country, we always use English in our own way,we call it Chinglish.Mostly we are not so concrete and accurate in our expressions.

For instance, when we are talking about something in English, we often use simple common words and sometimes describe simple things in rough and long words.That is the problem I have.

Also I want to improve my Listening English, sometimes I found it was very hard to follow with English speakers in different accents.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Sunny

Re: How can I learn to talk with a British accent?

nona the brit — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:14:54 GMT

I've heard that JK Rowling has got a clause in the contract that only allows British actors to be used in these films. I certainly can't remember any non-Brits appearing so far.

Re: what kind of comparative structure is it?

Marius Hancu — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:33:11 GMT

--------
as

Function:pronoun

1 a : THAT, WHO, WHICH -- used to introduce an adjectival clause and having same or such as antecedent <their children should grow up in the same intellectual culture as they have enjoyed -- G.B.Jeffery> <tears such as angels weep burst forth -- John Milton> b now dialect: THAT, WHO, WHICH -- used to introduce an adjectival clause and having a noun or pronoun as antecedent <a lot of things happened ... as never ought to -- Richard Llewellyn> <was going to tell the gospel to them as had ears -- R.P.Warren>

2 : a fact that : THAT <he is a foreigner, as is evident from his accent> <I have used thee, filth as thou art, with humane care -- Shakespeare>

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
--------

Incho:
I think you should read less grammar and more novels/fiction. Seriously.
Perhaps you're already doing that.
Just my 2 cents.

Re: sentence problem

Goodman — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:50:15 GMT

Hi Nomad04,

My pleasure to help.

Thatâs is a very good question and the answer is âbeingâ carries a condition of now, and âat this minuteâ. It adds a little more accent to spice up the sentence, so to speak. Thatâs all. But you can take âbeingâ out of the sentence and still retains the meaning of the sentence.

In this context, both # 1 and # 2 expressed the same meaning.

In # 1, âused as an adjective in a passive formâ is an adverbial phrase. Whereas # 2 âwhich is used as an adjective in a passive formâ is clause.

Mind you, there are times, a clause may not work well and thus can not substitute for a adverbial phrase in a given context. Thatâs the reason adverbial phrase is used. Consider the following examples:

A- Where is Mary, did her flight arrive?

B- Mary is held at the immigration counter being questioned because of her expired passport.

If I were to follow along your line of thinking using âwhoâ to connect the sentence and replace âbeing questionedâ with a âwhoâ clause, it will sound something like this:

Mary is held at the immigration counter who is questioned because of her expired passport. It just does not sound right, or does it?

The key is "context" that determines what words and verb form to use.

Re: It didn't have to mean that.

davkett — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:18:21 GMT

Taka,

This may prove to be another one of those long threads for which your posts are celebrated. Let me be the first to stick my foot in my mouth.

'That didn't have to mean that' would be a second-rate possibility, with the obvious problem of the same word referring to two different antecedents: 1) Rachel's decision 'to be a scientist', and 2) 'giving up writing'.

'That didn't have to mean it' is clearly odd to my ears, though the explanation for why does not come easily for me, having no other credentials than those of a 'native speaker'.

If one were speaking this phrase, the least one would have to do is accent the pronunciation of the word 'it'. Still, 'that' -as in 'that/this'- always seems to point to the farther (latter) position. So, in the context of the target sentence, the latter position is the second clause. 'It' is neutral in this pointing aspect.

Re: albeit

paco2004 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:27:01 GMT

OED explains 'albeit' like this.

albeit, conj.

[prop. a phrase 'all be it (that)'; in full, 'all though it be that'. This is only a particular instance of 'all' with a verb in subjunctive (see all adv. 10), in which the conjunctive phrase becomes a quasi-word. The nom. pron. it was also often dropped, whence the shorter 'all be', 'albe'. Before the synthesis was complete, 'all be it had', in past tense, 'all were it'.]

1. Even though it be (that); admitting (that).
[c1460 Fortescue] Albeit that the frenche kyng's revenuz be..miche gretter. [1603 Knolles] Albeit that a great number of them were slain, yet fell they out againe. [1862 C. Stretton] From that day to this we have never metâalbeit that he has had my best wishes.

2. That omitted: Even though it be that; even though, although, though.
[c1385 Chaucer] I may well leese a worde on yow, or letter, albeit I shal be never the better. [c1420 Chron. Vilod]. He had gret fere, albut thaw hit ner no nede. [1532 Tindale Wks]. All bee it he coulde not saye naye. [1611 Shakes] A worthy Fellow, Albeit he comes on angry purpose now. [1805 Southey] I shall live to see the day, albeit the number of my years well nigh be full. [1878 Lever] Their voices, too, albeit the accent was provincial, were soft and musical.

3. In contr. clause: Even though, even if, although.
[1795 Southey] And I am well content to dwell in peace, albeit inglorious. [1847 Thackeray] When a certain (albeit uncertain) morrow is in view. [1853 Kane] The sun, albeit from a lowly altitude, shone out in full brightness.

paco

Re: Eats, Shoots & Leaves Question

MrPedantic — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:55:29 GMT

My understanding is the same as yours, MH. Coordinate clauses when fully expressed should be separated by a comma:

'She earned high marks, and she was a good student.'

When the coordinate clauses are not fully expressed and share a subject, no comma is necessary:

'She earned high marks and was a good student.'

In the original sentence, however, where a subordinate clause intervenes, this very rule creates the ambiguity:

'The driver managed to escape from the vehicle/ before it sank and swam to the river-bank.'

In other words, the lack of a comma before 'and swam' treacherously signals that 'swam' and 'sank' share a subject; at which point the sentence 'flips'.

This seems likely to happen wherever the verb of a coordinate clause can agree in number with the subject, and in tense with the verb, of a preceding subordinate clause. In such cases, the 'no comma' rule is outranked by the 'avoid ambiguity at all costs' rule. In this example, for instance, there isn't a problem:

'The passengers manage to escape from the vehicle before it sinks and swim to the river-bank.'

That said, it does seem a little breathless. So I would in any case insert a comma after the subordinate clause, since in speech we would naturally change pitch and pause at that point (acute accent denotes change in pitch):

'The passengers manage to escape from the vehicle before it sÃnks,Â¦ and swim to the river-bank.'

Cf:

'She earned high mÃ¡rks,Â¦ and she was a good student.'

As opposed to:

'She earned high marks and was a good student' - no significant change in pitch at 'marks' or pause afterwards.

Interesting one.

MrP

Re: To Pedanticus

MrPedantic — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:23:30 GMT

It was a curious business. It made things very awkward for foreign businessmen who, when faced with a few stumbling words of French or German from their British counterparts, were put in the difficult position of deciding how to guide the conversation gently back to a language that was comprehensible to both parties. I'm not quite sure what started the vogue, or why it just as suddenly ended. The odd fact remains: for a brief few years, you could see several people with pursed lips learning foreign languages, in the average British railway carriage. Now you see none.

But the English relationship with the French language is in itself quite curious, and probably requires a thread of its own. For instance, even a phrase as common in English as 'raison d'Ãªtre' should never be pronounced with an 'authentic' accent, except in burlesque. It must be pronounced as badly as possible. Whereas with Spanish or Italian words and phrases, an attempt at an authentic pronunciation is acceptable; except in the case of foodstuffs. With foodstuffs, it would be regarded as pretentious: thus 'taggly-a-telly', for instance. (And in England you can buy one 'panini'.)

But back to the matter in hand:

1. I would myself use 'searched' and 'stopped'; but it is very difficult to explain. Even native speakers are sometimes uncomfortable with the past tense in this situation, and 'mis-correct' it to the present. It seems to be required by the 'past tense' in the 'if' clause of the 'second conditional', and has the same function of expressing the unreal, rather than the truly 'past'.

2a. Here perhaps 'included caveats' would be better.
2b. Either 'issue', if the caveats are forcefully put; or perhaps again simply 'some of the caveats he includes elsewhere'.

3. I'm not sure 'book' works here; maybe 'work of philosophy', 'philosophic treatise', 'philosophic text'.

'Curing by argument' is unusual; the 'curing' seems to demand an object.

Atootaleur,
MrP