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

dislike and dread

Tuongvan — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:33:19 GMT

Hi teachers,

Many grammar books say: "dislike/dread + v-ing" except "dread to think",but in my Mastering American English grammar book it says "dislike" and "dread" can be followed by either an infinitive or a gerund:

. I dread to think about that / I dread thinking about that.

. He dislikes to play bridge / He dislikes playing bridge .

Is there any change in meaning between:
" I dread to think about that " and "I dread thinking about that"
"He dislikes to play bridge" and "He dislikes playing bridge " ?

Thank you in advance

Re: plz help to correct this with PURE English

Jing — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:24:59 GMT

Both the 2 replies are very helpful for me. Thank you very much!

Mr. Wordy may be confused by the sentence "...which with share from our company...". I don't know if Feebs11 was also confused or not. The melamine paper factory is legally an independent joint venture. Fordeck Ltd shares the factory with other 2 companies. It provies melamine paper to the 3 main users. If the sentence makes readers confused. How shall I write to express clearly, please?
__

To Mr. Wordy. "capacity" - I want to say that we still supply the original main products, melamine MDF, particle board and Slatwall with stable volume (or output).
__

;-) Seems the standard Brithish English grammar which we studied in school is quite useful. But I usually confused by some free American English.

Re: IS "w" A VOWEL

Anonymous — Sun, 27 May 2007 06:19:47 GMT

Dear Cyndi:

You have actually asked two questions in your posting: (1) Is the letter w a vowel? and (2) For how long have schools been teaching that the letter w is a vowel?

Regarding (1), the answer is that w can be both a vowel and a consonant.

Regarding (2), at least since 1861 in the United States.

My proof is the following: I quote from an American English grammar textbook from the year 1861:

What I find particularly interesting about the following section I quote is that, at the very end of it, the author points out that the letters u and i as well can be either vowels or consonants.

"The vowels are a, e, i, o, u; also w and y, when not followed by a vowel sound in the same syllable [emphasis added].

"They can be sounded alone, and represent each several inarticulate elementary sounds. (Except w.)

"Ex. -- Fate, fare, fat, far, fall; me, met; fine, fin, fatigue; no, not, dove, prove, book; use, us, full; city, cry; brow, dew, boy.

"The consonants are all the letters except the vowels.

"They are so called because they can not be sounded alone; or rather, when they are uttered alone, the sound of a vowel is always heard with them.

"Ex.--B, c, d, f, m, k, are pronouned as if written be, se, de, ef, em, ka.

"W or y is a consant when a vowel sound follows it in the same syllable; as in water, young, year, Iowa, Buynan.

U and i are consonants when equivalent to the consants w and y; as in persuade, poniard.--X=ks, gz, or z; as in tax, exalt, Xerxes."

Re: Could anonimity be useful?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:45:34 GMT

Hi, everybody!

Maybe I should have started with "well," but I can ensure you that I'm the original poster, while this guy

Anonymous wrote:

Well, I have a half-finished game of noughts and crosses tattooed on my forehead. If you do too, then I guess...

is not (but I found his/her post amusing! )

First, I'd like to thank those who have really answered my question. The topic was not "Guess who I am" but to what extent anomimity in answering questions can be useful both to the questioner (will s/he tend to rely less on the answer?) and to the community (could it avoid useless quarrels?).

Pucca wrote:

And going back to the topic..an anonimous post would be helpful if you want to ask something but you don't want others to see who is asking so.

Let me disagree with you. If the community can se who is asking a certain question, the answer will probably be better tailored to specific needs and interests. For instance, if Kooyeen (by the way, sorry for misspelling your nick! ) posts a question about present perfect, he will probably receive more answers related to AmE than I would, because everybody knows that "he's learning American English"!

My point was exactly the opposite: while anonimity is NEVER useful in asking, it could be in answering.

Kooyeen wrote:
Ok, point no.1: my English is not good at all, I'm learning and I ask questions, but I also try to answer to other posts. I do it mainly because I think it helps me try to express myself. Plus, answering questions, I can share what I know, and in that way if I have learned something wrong, I can easily get corrected. And trying to answer questions I often end up asking, instead.

This is a very good point.

Kooyeen wrote:
Point no.3: as I already said in some thread, I always and only rely on native speakers. I don't even trust proficient members or advanced learners. Only natives. This doesn't mean I don't want their opinions or that I think their English is not good. I just think that in every thread, in order to be considered "resolved", there have to be some native's replies. This comes from the way I see grammar, that in my opinion should only be "descriptive".

I completely agree. I've studied English grammar extensively, and although I still make too many mistakes, I'm not concerned about them. Whenever I have a doubt on grammar and vocabulary, I always search by myself.

What I really, really lack is the feeling for what would be the natural way to express a complex idea, and this is whay I prefer receiving answers from natives. I don't want to resemble one of those dusty, ancient grammar books you can find in a library!

Pucca wrote:
I have another suggestion about that person! I clicked on "not readed", and saw a name which was pretty similar, I started to read his posts and..Bingo! I thnk it's him! He posted a paragraph and Philip didn't find any mistakes..so, in conclusion, that Anon wasn't you either MrP!

Sorry, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree!

Do you know this book?

chiara — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:17:56 GMT

Hello, I hope I'm writing in the right place.

I would like to ask if somebody know this book "Fundamentals of English Grammar" by Betty Schrampfer Azar.

I found it at home, I bought it fifteen or even more years ago. It seems allright, but I was wandering if it' s more likely based on American English.

I'm preparing for CAE. I went and checked my level and I was suggested to try, but I wasn't checked on my writing for exemple and I'm not so skilled, so I think I better revise grammar from the beginning.

'hope you can answer to me,

thanks a lot,

Chiara

Re: Superlative for Two

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:11:29 GMT

Kooyeen wrote:
Hi,
here's your "authority": http://www.bartleby.com/68/43/5843.html
It's taken from "The Columbia Guide to Standard American English". Basically, superlatives for two objects are ok as long as you don't use them in formal or kinda formal contexts. Kinda

Thanks. Seems like it's more an American phenomenon than anything else. Apparently, I checked and

From Wikipedia (not so sure how reliable this one is):

Some prescriptive grammars hold that, when comparing only two entities, use of the superlative is ungrammatical: if the group were to contain only Adam and Bess, Adam would be older, while Bess would be younger and it would be ungrammatical to say that Adam was the oldest. The superlative degree used in reference to sets of two or less are found, however, in writing and speech. In an offer for auction to the "highest bidder" in which only one bid were received, for example, no rule of English grammar would negate the sale.[1]

From ABOUT.COM:

430. The superlative degree of the adjective (or adverb) is used regularly in comparing more than two things, but is also frequently used in comparing only two things.

Which do you love best to behold, the lamb or the lion? âThackeray.

Which of these methods has the best effect? Both of them are the same to the sense, and differ only in form. âDr Blair.

Rip was one of those ... who eat white bread or brown, whichever can be got easiest. âIrving.

It is hard to say whether the man of wisdom or the man of folly contributed most to the amusement of the party. âScott.

There was an interval of three years between Mary and Anne. The eldest, Mary, was like the Stuartsâthe younger was a fair English child. âMrs. Oliphant.

Of the two great parties which at this hour almost share the nation between them, I should say that one has the best cause, and the other contains the best men. âEmerson.

In all disputes between States, though the strongest is nearly always mainly in the wrong, the weaker is often so in a minor degree. âRuskin.

She thought him and Olivia extremely of a size, and would bid both to stand up to see which was the tallest. âGoldsmith.

These two properties seem essential to wit, more particularly the last of them. âAddison.

"Ha, ha, ha!" roared Goodman Brown when the wind laughed at him. "Let us see which will laugh loudest." âHawthorne.

Re: how to pronounce numbers

Eng_teach_in_germany — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:04:39 GMT

ok.. I would just like to clarify something - I do in fact make my students aware that zero is commonly pronounced as the letter 'O'. I teach to German people, most of whom are already aware of this due to years of English courses in school, etc..

In German, the word for 'zero' is 'Null' and it's always used for phone numbers. SO, 'Null'='zero'. That is the unamiguous, technically correct and exact translation. I teach the students that it is more correct to say 'zero' because it is literally not the letter 'O', no matter how post-modern you wish to be. I don't make a fuss over it, I'm fully aware that many/most people use 'Oh', and I don't care if my students use 'Oh'. I even use it sometimes myself. It's just not a big deal. As I stated in a previous post, I just tell the students 'the full story'. They are never confused about it afterwards and very little time is required to be spent on it. Similarly, I've spent enough time on it here as well. The End.

In regards to the related topic - whether or not there is actually such a thing as 'correct' English, my response is simply that in practice, 'on the ground' so to speak, an 'anything goes' approach is inappropriate. In a philosophy class it might be fine to discuss how everything's relative and so on, but in real world ESL teaching it's advisable to 'stick to the rules' of English grammar as much as possible. Of course language changes over time. Of course there's no perfect, absolute, master version of English set in stone forever. There are very cohesive standards and rules however(which change gradually over time) which make it possible for us to communicate clearly with each other, and to pass on the knowledge of our language to non-native speakers.

Take for example this (now online) book written 90 years ago, entitled 'How to Speak and Write Correctly':
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm" target="_blank" title="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm">http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm</a>
While the author's writing style may seem slightly antiquated, it's still fine and 99% of his description of English grammar still applies today, nearly 100 years later. The other 1% consists of the sort of changes and developents that are often discussed on this forum.

The problem of what is correct or not of course often comes up in TESL when British and American English use different words or spelling. At the end of the day you have to teach either one or the other, or teach both. Usually it depends on which one the client/student is most likely to need.

Re: Reported Speech Strikes Back - Episode I - Advanced Help Needed

Grammar Geek — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 04:09:03 GMT

3/ What's the difference between :

I would like to see it VS I should like to see it.

In American English, you do not use "I should" to mean "I would like to," which translates roughly into "Please, may I see it." I'm sure you can construct a situation in which you'd say "I should like to see it" - but you'd have to work hard to do it. Perhaps our British friends can tell us whether "I should like" is still used to mean "Please can I..."

4/ According to Thomson & Martinet's Practical English Grammar the following sentece would have a different meaning if we change the tense from simple past to past perfect in reported speech :

I'm quoting form T&M :

He said, 'I loved her' must become "He said he had loved her" as otherwise there would be a change of meaning. But - He said, 'Ann arrived on Monday' could be reported "He said Ann arrived (<had> is optional here) on Monday"

This is presented in the point 309 "Past tenses sometimes remain unchanged"

a) I don't understand why there would be a change of meaning in the first sentence. Why do I HAVE to use past perfect? And why in the second one it's optional? Because of the ambiguity of saying simply "He said that he loved her." That could mean current or past, as we've discussed. In his direct speech, he said his love for her was in the past - so if you want to avoid the ambiguity, you use the past perfect. Clearly in the past. On the other hand, Ann's arrival is definitely in the past, so the "had arrived" doesn't add any clarity or other information that the simply past doesn't provide all on its own.

b) When past tenses remain past tenses without changing into past perfect? T&M gives examples but no explanmation :/ See above - is my explanation clear enough?

c) And, again, could we say "He said he loves her" instead of "He said he loved her" ? Why? Why not? If you report his speech as "he loves her" you are putting his love for her in the present, and he told you it was in the past. It's not exactly equivalent, but I said to you "I just got home late," my arrival home is in the past. You wouldn't say "Barb says she's getting home late." That puts it back in the present. You'd say "Barb says that she got home late."

d) Does "He said he loved her" imply that he, possibly, doesn't love her anymore? Yes, as we've stated many times now, it's ambiguous. It could imply that he doesn't love her anymore or it could mean that he still does. You need context. Using M&T's guide, to avoid the ambiguity, you should say "he said that he HAD loved her" for past love and "he said that he loves her" for current love.

By the way - I'm female.

[{()}]

Blue Lantern — Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:53 GMT

In the subject rectangle bar above, I have written some things that I have sometimes seen used--in American English or in British English--as a reference to a book title, author, and circa or copyright date. If using proper English grammar, how should braces, brackets, and parentheses be used when enclosing one with the other?

meadow, field and preposition

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:12:51 GMT

Hello,

IÂ´ve learned IÂ´ve to say: I sit on the chair/on the floor/on the grass (English Grammar in Use), but what about:

I sit on a meadow?

I sit in a field???

or: There grow beautiful flowers on/in a meadow.???

Therer grow potatoes in/on the field.???

Is there any difference between British and American English in this case?

And what about the singular and plural concerning field.

I have this sentence: My mother was/worked in the fields. Could I also use singular here?