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

Re: Using "would" to make questions

CalifJim — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:21:34 GMT

New2grammar
Can you really use 'would' as a substitute for may/might and still carry almost the same meaning?

Yes, but in a very limited way. As a general rule, no. The use of will or would that way is not often heard in modern American English, for example. may, might, and could are more often chosen to fill that role. My personal opinion is that the reason for learning it is to be able to understand it if you read it in older literature.

Re: Are ANY LONGER/NO LONGER=ANY MORE/NO MORE?.

Kooyeen — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:04:48 GMT

Hi,
I think "no more" is not used much, except in literature and maybe some dialects. I mean, I don't think there's a lot of people who say "I need it no more" instead of "I don't need it anymore".
Also, I think it's "anymore", one word and no spaces, at least in American English.

Re: When I have trouble...

Kooyeen — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:36:17 GMT

Hi Anon,
what Jim said makes a lot of sense, and we discussed it a little in another thread, I think.
The point was that teaching completely descriptively is impossible. The teacher would have to say: Mr X says this, Mr Y says that, and Mr Z says another thing. Now learn what they say and then decide what to do by yourself.
Every time a teacher gives advice or suggest something, they're being at least a little bit prescriptive.
So if you want a good teacher, you need a teacher who "prescribes" the most appropriate English for you.

Now, suppose I'm 17. The better you know English, the more it should sound like English spoken by native speakers (this should be true for every language). How can I be as similar to a native as possible? If am learning American English and I imagine I am a native speaker, I should imagine I am a 17-year-old American guy. If I found an American teenager to imitate, I would learn how to speak like my imaginary native clone.

So, why would a ESL student who is 17, listen to punk rock and don't care much about school and rules in society... why would he want to have a teacher who is 50, listen to classical music, and is a literature professor? Learning English from a punk like him is probably the best way to learn the best kind of English for him.

And as for females... sometimes girls talk a little differently. Vocabulary might be different, tipical topics in conversations are definitely different, and sometimes intonation might vary (example: uprising intonation).

Re: Is American English lazy English?

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:47:04 GMT

sorry to revive this discussion if it has already been past expiration, but i think not nearly enough has been discussed about this subject. I must warn anyone i usually have an indirect and evasive way of writing or speaking, so please forgive me if i lack coherence. Also my grammar is not very conventional, but in fact, i communicate strictly for effectiveness (if i had a choice, i'd rather be a philologist - a lover of words than a linguist - a scrutinizer of words). I am not an expert at language like i imagine many others in this board are, but i am a keen observor and i believe in what i am about to explain with enough conviction to give a go at it. I have noticed that Americans are indeed very lazy with their speech. I have been raised all my life in America, and as i am learning more and more literature, i am becoming more and more appalled at this laziness. Americans write their literature properly and effectively (at least to meet ends), but their speech is far shallower and the greatest tragedy is americans are unable to express deep feelings with the use of more sophisticated sentence structure and vocabulary (ill try to explain later). English has about 500,000 or so words in the dictionary, but Americans (at least here in California) unfairly neglect a huge portion of that library. In fact, its especially the most sophisticated and rich words (often latin) words that are unused. Sure, it is better to use the simpler words instead of the more complex in any given situation, but it is sad when the more intricate and sophisticated word is not used when appropriate and the speaker is unable to communicate effectively. Please, before my fellow Americans dismiss me, please understand that it is sad for me as someone Pakistani in nationality and an urdu (you must realize that urdu ultimately evolved from Sanskrit) speaker, to see how people of my nationality can convey emotion (especially love) with so much more affection because of proper use of language, wheras Americans are unable to compete in conveying emotion. How do they lack this? Americans, at least here in California, firstly, speak at a relatively sluggish speed and have difficulty forming coherent well structured sentences. WHen they do attempt to form a well structured sentence, their speech contains many breaks as the speaker tries his best to figure out the next word they will use in the sentence. During these breaks they will often say "um" or "ah". They will do this many many times when you speak to them. This is why they often prefer "small talk" and i know this is used in other languages, but its overuse has reduced it to banality in american speech. "Went to the store, checked it out, ran back, was like "dang", and then i never went back". THat previous sentence is how a person described a visit to the store to briefly check something (notice how much detail is emitted in this common speech). That previous sentence can be spoken with fast speech and is communicated effectively enough to describe the incredibly shallow details that the speaker cares (or rather, cares little) enough to express. However, if an American describes technical information in proper format they will stumble and experience many breaks and, again, take notice how slooowly they speak and how difficult it is for them to form proper sentences and how many times they say "um" or "ah" within sentences. And you wonder how we produce a President Bush! Actually, there are many people that speak like him. The problem with him - in spite of his many sentence breaks and difficulty in forming well-structed sentences - is that he speaks too much like ordinary Americans! And what need am i of evidence of ordinary Americans speaking in this manner - come here to California and speak to these otherwise normal, perfectly intelligent people! No, dont read what they write on the boards, or how they speak on televised speech, come and converse with everyday Americans.

Is it perhaps that americans are complacent and therefore avoid use of eloquent language (except in linguist circles and in literature) because they simply "dont feel like it". No, because there are times that admist this decay of language, when Americans like any other individuals must also convey strong emotions through expression. Perfect example: courtship. It is such a pity to watch "Jerry Maguire" and see Tom Cruise in his speech during the climax of the film, in which he displays the pinnacle of human empathy in Hollywood film. It was in his desperate attempt to bring back his wife that he must express to her how greatly he loves her. I dont remmeber the details, but you've all seen that movie. He stumbles upon words trying to express the love he has for his wife- sure he is certainly not nearly as eloquent or enchanting as romeo, but it is a pity that he is reduced to merely saying this: "you complete me" and that was the pinnacle of American romance film and far more than enough to win back the heart of his wife. Sure maybe the whole romantic aspect of that scene was the fact that he was unable to express himself. But i am focusing merely on that whole problem of stumbling and being unable to express oneself with langauge to begin with (and it also bothers me why that is considered the peak of romance films set in post modern times - you would expect some other romance to exceed this standard, but they rarely do), which has poisoned and pervaded everyday American speech. Americans within their families and among loved ones or most sadly, in courtship, are unable to express emotion effectively and stumble in this aspect. They are unable to use express the weight of their emotions through the right sophisticated vocabulary or proper sentence structure becaues that very same weight translates into sentences of length and complexity too much to bear for the everyday American. And so they begin stumbling and speaking very slow when they are poised to express themselves deeply. In similitude, it really is like an impotent and invirile man trying to mount a lady of most luscious beauty - no matter how bravely he climbes he is unable to surmount the mountain of his affliction and deficiency and reach his most lovable desire. The similitude is a case of pity, but in contrast, the case for americans is not only a pity, but it is a shame. Sure, comparing to my own sanskrit derived language is an unfair standard (as we all know, indian film is infatuated with its own adeptness in expressing love) for communicating emotion, but surely a lot of the luster of English language has been lost in the United States by oversimplification in everyday speech. Or do you not understand? Go ahead, ask a common American to describe how they feel about someone they love - be it kin or spouse, etc - and see if they can explain with nearly as much eloquence as common speakers of other languages (i already know Americans do not even compare to urdu and hindi speakers, and i am far more advanced in english than urdu).

Re: Who's learning Indian English?

milky — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:55:35 GMT

<<We don't really regard Indian-English as being a proper dialect of English, merely English spoken with an Indian accent, and grammatically influenced by the persons native tongue.Standard and non-standard dialects>>

A standard dialect (also known as a standardized dialect or "standard language") is a dialect that is supported by institutions. Such institutional support may include government recognition or designation; presentation as being the "correct" form of a language in schools; published grammars, dictionaries, and textbooks that set forth a "correct" spoken and written form; and an extensive formal literature that employs that dialect (prose, poetry, nonfiction, etc.). There may be multiple standard dialects associated with a language. For example, Standard American English, Southern English, Standard British English, and Standard Indian English may all be said to be standard dialects of the English language.

A nonstandard dialect, like a standard dialect, has a complete vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, but is not the beneficiary of institutional support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect

Re: due to reasons

Goodman — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:28:58 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:

The original sentence reads: The reason he is fat is because is never exercises. (It was a typo. The word 'is' should have been 'he'.)

According to Incho, this usage of reason is because is common, but considered inelegant and non-standard.
Because is redundant in the sentence.
I would say:

The reason for his being fat is that he never exercises.
The reason why he is fat is that he never exercises.

I would like to repeat that Incho is correct in saying that the sentence The reason why he is fat is because he never exercises is inelegant and non-standard. I would add that the sentence is verbose, especially with the addition of 'why'.

Liat,

Whatever you choose to believe it's perfectly fine. I am just simply offering the forum what I know as American English. I am not saying what I know is perfectly correct for I am the Guru. That said, I've lived and breathed English for 20 years and I am pretty confident that I can distinguish incorrect sounding English from the correct variety. "The reason why" is perfect literal English.

The reason why she devoiced him was because he has a drink problem. - This to me is perfectly main-stream English. I have no idea why it's considered " inelegant and non-standard" from that part of the world. Check this out:

The Reason Why

Bush's motives have more to do with empire and profit than with liberating Iraq.
www.thenation.com/doc/20030421/mcgovern - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon.com: The Reason Why: The Story of the Fatal Charge of the ...

Amazon.com: The Reason Why: The Story of the Fatal Charge of the Light Brigade: Books: Cecil Woodham-Smith by Cecil Woodham-Smith.
www.amazon.com/Reason-Why-Story-Charge-Brigade/dp/0140012788 - 130k - Cached - Similar pages

The Reason Why... A Rachael Yamagata Fansite

a fansite dedicated to the singer Rachael Yamagata.
www.thereasonwhy.org/ - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

The Reason Why - Robert A Laidlaw

An excellent gospel booklet explaining the reason why you cannot afford to be without Christ.
www.biblebelievers.com/the-reason-why.html - 89k - Cached - Similar pages

Reason

Political journal advocating the gamut of libertarian causes.
www.reason.com/ - 144k - Cached - Similar pages

Reason: Why Poor Countries Are Poor: The clues lie on a bumpy road ...

Even if, for some reason, that didnât happen, the World Bank, ... The only reason the schoolâs books still existed was that theyâd never been near the new ...
www.reason.com/0603/fe.th.why.shtml - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

The Reason Why Website

The Reason Why are a duo that play acoustic melodic pop. A live CD of a recent gig can be downloaded for free from their website as mp3s.
www.thereasonwhy.com/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

Wells, Douglass,Penn, and Barnett/The Reason Why the Colored ...

The Reason Why the Colored American Is Not in the World's Columbian Exposition. The Afro-American's Contribution to Columbian Literature ...
www.press.uillinois.edu/f99/rydell.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

The Reason Why

Does this help you?

Re: ? ...inclined to that that... ?

Nef — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:09:29 GMT

Marius Hancu wrote:
BTW,
that that
is quite frequent in the literature:

The Longest Journey by Forster, EM
"Inside that there's a paragraph written about something Stewart's written about before, and there it says he's read too much Hegel, and it seems
now that that's been the trouble all along."

Love Among the Chickens by Wodehouse, Pelham Grenville
What did it matter after that that the ass in charge of the Waterloo
bookstall had never heard of "The Manoeuvres of Arthur," and that my
publishers, whenever I slunk in to ask how it was selling, looked at
me with a sort of grave, paternal pity and said that it had not really
"begun to move?"

Turn of the Screw by James, Henry
"Certainly you shall go back to school," I said, "if it be that that troubles you. But not to the old place--we must find another, a better. How could I know it did trouble you, this question, when you never told me so, never spoke of it at all?"

That is interesting, Marius.

But I think these are the approximate original publication dates:

Love Among the Chickens â 1920

The Longest Journey â 1924

The Turn of the Screw - 1898

---------------------------

Personal opinion:

From a historical perspective, these publication dates are in very recent times. But consider that "computer" was in few, if any, dictionaries 40 years ago! English evolves (I'm not saying that it always "progresses"), and not just because of technology. And I'm not sure that anyone ever spoke for long periods of time in quite the way that Henry James wrote.

I just asked someone if the sentence "I hope that that is true" caused her any problems in interpreting it. She said no. She thought the sentence was just fine and easy to understand.

Then I showed her the original sentence in this post. She got confused. Maybe the confusion is due to a combination of a fairly long sentence, a somewhat unfamiliar situation, and that that. It would be interesting to hear what some other people think.

In another thread, I mentioned that I liked to read Jane Austen, but that I wouldn't necessarily want to talk like one of her characters. I want people to be able to understand me, and I am not able to talk to Austen's (or Wodehouse's, or Forster's, or James') contemporaries. I need to talk to mine.

http://www.englishforums.com/English/StyleComparison/drdhh/Post.htm

-------------------------------

(Edited to add that the person I asked reads almost constantly and is a native speaker of North
American English.)

Re: Written English and Spoken English

Nef — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:14:14 GMT

Patricklui wrote:

Hello I am new to here. My mother tongue is Cantonese and I like to polish my English.

It's known that English has two different versions : spoken and written. I have been learning English since I was a child and my written English is not too bad because this is what I have to master in order to pass most exams. However, when it comes to speaking in English I often don't know what to say and struggle for words. Though I am in a city where many Englishes live and work in, I hardly make any native friends, what means, I lack an language environment. My problem is:

How can I learn more about the spoken version of English - the way that natives speak? Can you suggest some free online material focusing on spoken English?

Looking forward to your reply.

Hello Patricklui,

I work in an ESL program, and I know that your situation is very common. Some students speak better than they write or read. Some read, and often write, better than they speak. Some are more or less at the same level in everything, but these seem to be rare.

I'd suggest listening to English on the radio and watching some English television, if possible. (Be careful which programs you choose. For one thing, given your location, it may make more sense for you to listen to British English than to listen to North American English. For another thing, some shows aren't much like real conversation.)

Also, when you can, listen to people speaking English around you (possibly on a bus or while you are having something to drink or reading a newspaper someplace.) Do you think these speakers sound like you sound? Do they abbreviate things you might not abbreviate? (example: Want to go? or even Wanta go? versus Do you want to go?) Do they use different inflection (raising and lowering the pitch of their voices) than you usually do? Would you understand a lot of what they said if they slowed down?

**My strongest suggestion is to take a class in conversational English, if you can. Look for a class that focuses on practical communication.** An intensive conversational class (one that meets frequently and for fairly long amounts of time) would be good, if you could manage it. Again, try to find a class that focuses on conversation (not on writing, not on reading, not on reciting long passages, not on learning about literature, not on a combination of these things). Talking, listening, understanding, using, asking questions, learning more.

Another possibility (perhaps hard to find and not cheap) would be a class that focuses on pronunciation. (This is more specific than a class that focuses on conversation.) Still more specific would be working with a speech coach or therapist who focuses on accent reduction. You might not need either of these two. Try other things first.

Spend some more time on this forum, particularly in the areas where you think you need help. I think Www.eslcafe.com is another good forum. See what other people are doing to improve their speech.

If possible, ask a few proficient English-speaking acquaintances for feedback and suggestions.

Practice saying common phrases the way you have heard proficient English speakers say those phrases.

Good luck!

Re: Urgent! Native and Expert evaluation required! Please help

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:34:28 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:
Here are some examples from English literature:

I recognize that some people at some times in the past have used so that in what was considered to be an acceptable fashion. Your citations seem to be from earlier generations.

I recognize that some people, yourself included, accept this construction. I have only my experience to draw from. To me, an American English speaker, this construction is sufficiently incorrect that, although I would not challenge a native speaker and tell him that he is not correct, I certainly would tell a non-native speaker that I do not consider such usage to be a good habit to get into.

This is, of course, my opinion, but it does seem to match the opinion of the person who wrote the question.

Re: Is American English lazy English?

Anonymous — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:12:17 GMT

Hello Mike in Japan-

Arguments claiming American English to be a âdumbed downâ or âlazyâ version of British English are based on the erroneous premise that American English is a perversion of British English. Any real linguist will tell you that modern British and modern American English BOTH evolved from a common source, the pronunciation of which was quite different from either modern variant. Your argument seems to claim that British English is somehow standardized and has not changed over the years when in reality that today it is just as different from the pre-colonial English as American.

In fact, most scholars point to a phenomenon known as âretentionâ in which the colonies actually retain the linguistic styles of the period of colonization while the original homeland, because of international influences, changes rapidly. There are many examples of grammatical structures and vocabulary that are very common in the US that are considered archaic and old-fashion in the UK. For example Americans use the past-perfect form of âto getâ, which is âgottenâ, a conjugation that has not been used in England in almost two centuries.

You must also remember that English is very different from other languages in that it is used by several extremely influential countries. In contrast, although the former French colonies do produce notable literature, almost all cultural expressions in the French language come from Franceâwhich is why French can claim to have one standard. In the same way, Japanese can claim one standard because Japan is the only real source of Japanese literature and culture. But because both the USA and the UK produce vast amounts of literature and film, thus generating substantial cultural accomplishments in both linguistic variants, it would be impossible to dub one or the other as incorrect.

Another thing to remember is that English, while it does have its variants, is much more uniform than other international languages like Arabic or Spanish, which can differ greatly from region to region and even have entirely different verb conjugations.

In conclusion, I would argue that you must take into account that English has official status in 6 very influential countries, each of which can claim a substantial body of literature, and therefore cannot be compared to Japanese which is only spoken in 1 country and thus can claim one standard.

Carl