Search results for 'tag:American English tag:Constructions' matching tags 'American English' and 'Constructions'

Re: Newcastle accent?

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:06:08 GMT

I wouldn't necessarily recommend someone learning English to learn a regional accent at all - not even south-eastern or estuary English (and that's not because I am from Newcastle, and biased (although I am from Newcastle!).

People from different UK regions use different accents and dialects, and while some are regional, others are social. The kind of Standard English (SE) which people talk about is an example of a social form; it's the language of formal situations, education, news, and so on. People can use this dialect, and a local one interchangeably, depending on their situation - it's called code-switching, and is a phenonmenon common to many languages. While that is a dialect, Standard English does not have an accent, although for many people it is associated with Received Pronunciation (RP; sometimes known as Queen's or BBC English). In fact, SE can be spoken in any accent, and RP is the natural accent of only a tiny proportion of people in the UK.

For a learner of English, the choice of accent depends on how they will use English - whether they will live in the UK, or an English speaking country, for how long, and so on... Personally, I have never been in favour of 'neutralising' learners' accents, as it is part of their identity - although it is necessary for speakers to be understood clearly by others. There are also social and identity issues concerned with the use of local accents which, for learners, could cause problems or misunderstandings. By that I mean, for example, not everyone from Newcastle speaks 'Geordie' - part of the use of accents and dialects is concerned with how people are located (in terms of the social construction of identities) in their local societies.

If any English accent (or perhaps pronunciation is better) is to be learned for international use, the most effective may be a Standard American English one, for that is the most widely used.

Anyhow, this thread seems old - but thanks for making me think about this topic!

Cheers mara, whehey the lads, gan the toon an all that!!!

Re: gotten

New2grammar — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:14:10 GMT

CJ, can I generalize your answer to all passive constructions like

He could have been trampled/killed/run over/shot/kicked.

He could have got trampled/killed/run over/shot/kicked.

He could have gotten trampled/killed/run over/shot/kicked.

No significant difference except that with gotten it's more likely to be American English.

Re: Kindly check my sentences

Grammar Geek — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:55:42 GMT

Yes. American English tends to use the singular for this type of construction, but if you are thinking of the the board members as acting inidivdually, then you can use have.

Re: as/so as

Teo — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:14:59 GMT

Usage Note: A traditional usage rule draws a distinction between comparisons using as . . . as and comparisons using so . . . as. The rule states the so . . . as construction is required in negative sentences (as in Shakespeare's "'tis not so deep as a well"), in questions (as in Is it so bad as she says?), and in certain if- clauses (as in If it is so bad as you say, you ought to leave). But this so . . . as construction is becoming increasingly rare in American English, and the use of as . . . as is now entirely acceptable in all contexts. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/as

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:54 GMT

They won't smoke ever since they saw a film on lung cancer.

What does "won't" mean here?

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:49 GMT

http://forums.eslcafe.com/student/viewtopic.php?t=22113&highlight=

Re: Please check my grammar

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:23:27 GMT

If this sentence originated in the U.S., then failure to make the number (that is, the singularity or plurality) of the pronoun (in this case "their") match the number of the noun (in this case ''seller") is the result of what is termed "political correctness." Because of this flawed concept, many poor writers now use this grammatical construction in their efforts to avoid refernce to gender, even though they know that the proper grammar is to use "his" or "her." Their thinking is that pointing out that the seller is male or female might have bad consequences of some sort. I have never understood why such ridiculous delicacy came to be standard practice, and I think such perversion of English is the result of muddy thinking promulgated by badly educated businesspeople. Your doubt is perfectly valid. -- An American English speaker from birth, and a proffreader by profession

Re: How - like - the way... aaaargh!

Spides — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:39:03 GMT

These are all acceptable ways of phrasing these sentences in colloquial American English. In more formal, careful English the use of "like" and "how" as subordinate conjunctions (Do it how I told you. Do it like I told you. And so forth) would not be as acceptable--meaning that the other sentences might be preferable in that context. But in everyday conversation, these constructions are interchangeable for most speakers.

Re: I'm going to marry him whatever they say!

Yankee — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:38:21 GMT

Milky wrote:
CalifJim wrote:
A native tells me that it does occur in such as the second example. The native must have misunderstood the question. Does it No., and if it does, why? And is it widespread? No.

"gonna" has to be followed by a verb. London isn't a verb!

I'm gonna London is totally impossible!

CJ

I don't think the native American English speaker misunderstood Molly's question: I do. Or else he/she wasn't being very precise with variations in pronunciation. Or maybe he/she isn't actually a native speaker of American English.

This is his answer to her above question:

<<What do you mean "only occurs"? If you use it, and it's understood by your interlocutor (um, that's the person to whom you are speaking), and you get a response from it, then it occurs, regardless of what your textbooks say.

The compilers of your textbook never went out into the real world, to a ticket clerk, and said "I'm gonna Boston, and I wanna ticket."

I tried it, and Norman-the-clerk smiled, and sold me a ticket to Boston. So he understood and accepted what I had said. Therefore, the construction occurs.>>

http://forums.lydbury.co.uk/grammar/viewtopic.php?t=5011&start=0

I'd say that "I'm going to Boston" might be pronounced like this: "I'm goin a Boston".
To me there is a world of difference between that and "I'm gonna Boston".
I agree with CJ.

Re: I'm going to marry him whatever they say!

milky — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:21:59 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
A native tells me that it does occur in such as the second example. The native must have misunderstood the question. Does it No., and if it does, why? And is it widespread? No.

"gonna" has to be followed by a verb. London isn't a verb!

I'm gonna London is totally impossible!

CJ

I don't think the native American English speaker misunderstood Molly's question:

This is his answer to her above question:

<<What do you mean "only occurs"? If you use it, and it's understood by your interlocutor (um, that's the person to whom you are speaking), and you get a response from it, then it occurs, regardless of what your textbooks say.

The compilers of your textbook never went out into the real world, to a ticket clerk, and said "I'm gonna Boston, and I wanna ticket."

I tried it, and Norman-the-clerk smiled, and sold me a ticket to Boston. So he understood and accepted what I had said. Therefore, the construction occurs.>>

http://forums.lydbury.co.uk/grammar/viewtopic.php?t=5011&start=0