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

Re: One of many problems faced by English learners is their own misconceptions.

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:27:00 GMT

Jackson6612

Avangi
either "learners of the English language," or "English language learners."
Why is article the essential here? There is only one English language. e.g. I'm learning Chinese language these days. Is there any need to specify Chinese language using the? The use of the is justified in sentences as in ''I'm learning the Southern American English dialect nowadays. The article is required in all of these. I honestly have no idea why. My guess is that "language" is the object of the verb "to learn," and would require an article if it were used without "English" as a modifier. To qualify for standing without the article, a "subject of study" must be one of a few very well-established courses. "I'm majoring in Romance Languages at university." Here, Romance Languages is the recognized name of a well-established course of study, as is Chinese. In the case of a dialect, the indefinite article would be used if there were more than one. Avangi
<<One - - is their own misconceptions.>> IMO there should be number agreement here. Possibly, "One - - - is dealing with their own misconceptions."
Yes, there should be number agreement between verb and object. If I followed your suggestion then the sentence would read: One of many problems faced by learners of the English language is that they are dealing with their own misconceptions. Is that what you suggested? That would be fine. I was considering "that they are" to be optional, as the gerund "dealing" may serve by itself as predicate nominative following the being verb "is." Avangi
This is about "learners." You refer back five times with "they." At some point you might remind the reader who "they" are. Eg, "these learners," "the students," something else of your choosing.
Is choosing'' used as a present participle in the above context? I'd say functionally it's a gerund, serving as object of the preposition "of." The other option, "choice," would of course be a noun.
Avangi
<<During the learning process, they should stop taking the machinery of their native tongue for granted.>> As the final sentence of the first paragraph, this seems enigmatic. It's very well phrased, but the meaning is less than obvious (to me.) I feel like I want an additional sentence by way of (=as means of, as a type of) explanation, or clarification. Optionally, you could make your "machinery" image a little easier to connect up.
How can I make the machinery image a little easier to connect up? How did I know you were going to ask me that danged question?? During the learning process they should remind themselves that the machinery of their native tongue was a long time in [the] building and fine-tuning, and they must be willing to devote an equal effort to the new language. (I'm not sure I have your intention right.)
Avangi
In the second paragraph, at first blush (=when first thought of or considered) the antecedent (=a word or phrase which a pronoun refers back to) of "They" would seem to be "English speakers."
Yes, you are right. I will be more careful about such constructions in future.
Avangi
Have you verified that "idiomaticness" is a word? Or is it a "nonce (=occurring, used, or made only once or for a special occasion) word"?
It is a proper word according to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

Congratulations on your hard work. - A.

Edit. "Why is the article "the" essential here?"

Re: One of many problems faced by English learners is their own misconceptions.

Jackson6612 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:13:32 GMT

Hi Avangi,

Avangi
either "learners of the English language," or "English language learners."

Why is article the essential here? There is only one English language. e.g. I'm learning Chinese language these days. Is there any need to specify Chinese language using the? The use of the is justified in sentences as in ''I'm learning the Southern American English dialect nowadays.

Avangi
<<One - - is their own misconceptions.>> IMO there should be number agreement here. Possibly, "One - - - is dealing with their own misconceptions."

Yes, there should be number agreement between verb and object. If I followed your suggestion then the sentence would read: One of many problems faced by learners of the English language is that they are dealing with their own misconceptions. Is that what you suggested?

Avangi
This is about "learners." You refer back five times with "they." At some point you might remind the reader who "they" are. Eg, "these learners," "the students," something else of your choosing.

Is choosing'' used as a present participle in the above context?

Avangi
<<During the learning process, they should stop taking the machinery of their native tongue for granted.>> As the final sentence of the first paragraph, this seems enigmatic. It's very well phrased, but the meaning is less than obvious (to me.) I feel like I want an additional sentence by way of (=as means of, as a type of) explanation, or clarification. Optionally, you could make your "machinery" image a little easier to connect up.

How can I make the machinery image a little easier to connect up?

Avangi
In the second paragraph, at first blush (=when first thought of or considered) the antecedent (=a word or phrase which a pronoun refers back to) of "They" would seem to be "English speakers."

Yes, you are right. I will be more careful about such constructions in future.

Avangi
Have you verified that "idiomaticness" is a word? Or is it a "nonce (=occurring, used, or made only once or for a special occasion) word"?

It is a proper word according to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

Re: Punctuation within quotes?

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:06:53 GMT

These punctuation marks (the British call them inverted commas) come in two forms, double and single. The double quotation marks (opening â and closing â) are used to enclose the words of a direct quotation: She said, âIâll never see you again.â (They are never used in indirect quotation: She said sheâd never see him again.) They are also used to enclose words or phrases quoted from others or words that may be slang or that are in some other way being used peculiarly: The speaker tried to put a favorable âspinâ on his denial. The âpacification planâ was in fact simply a euphemism for a bloody conquest. But be sparing: most editors discourage the use of such quotation marks for effect rather than for a substantive reason, and overuse of these marks in any writing is affected.	1
Convention also calls for double quotation marks around the titles of short stories, short poems, short musical compositions, and the names of plays, chapters in books, and radio and television programs: Frostâs âThe Road Not Taken,â âEye Witness News.â (Titles of longer works usually require italics instead, and sometimes the decision is arbitrary or simply conventional: books of the Bible, for example, are almost always italicized rather than placed in quotation marks, and the same is true of the titles of Shakespeareâs plays.)	2
A key problem with quotation marks is which other marks of punctuation go inside the closing quotation mark(s) and which belong outside. In the United States, most stylebooks and most editors follow these rules: periods and commas belong inside, colons and semicolons outside. Other marksâquestion mark, dash, and exclamation point, for exampleâgo inside when they belong with the quoted material, outside when they belong to the main sentence. British editorial conventions differ.	3
When quoting a long passage of two or more paragraphs, the usual procedure in written American English is to use no quotation marks and instead to set off the entire passage of quoted matter by indenting it. If you decide to use quotation marks instead, however, the usual procedure is to begin each paragraph of the long quotation with quotation marks but to use a closing quotation mark only at the end of the final sentence in the quoted passage. In any event, use only one of these methods with any given quotation. See also POETRY.	4
British publishers frequently use single quotation marks (opening â and closing â) where Americans use double quotation marks. In American writing, however, single quotation marks are restricted mainly to enclosing a quotation within a quotation: The dealer said, âIâm sorry, I thought you said âI pass.ââ Note that a period goes inside both final quotation marks when the two quotations end together.

Re: i want to learn bristish accent...

Anonymous — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:12:47 GMT

I am very talented with accents, but I have had to accept the fact that I am getting older and the ability to imitate an accent is diminishing. I am a native speaker of standard mid-western American English (considered to be accent free in the US). I speak Spanish with several regional accents, due to spending summers as a child in Mexico with relatives, then I lived 12 years in Miami and developed quite a heavy Caribbean accent, and could pass as a Cuban.

I learned quite fluent German at age 20-23 when I was stationed in Germany with the US Army, but I have a slight accent because of what I mention in the next paragraph--rhythm and music.

I live in Israel now, and although I do not use American vowels and consonants in Hebrew, it is the rhythm or music as they say, which gives me away.

At the end of the day, you must admit that it is WHAT you say and that it should be kind and with a good heart. Someone could be the most talented foreign language learner in the world and could learn to speak those languages perfectly without foreign accent, but this person is a horrible and says nasty things! I think we would love and respect the foreign accent spoken by the kind, well-meaning person. It is not the accent, but the thought that counts. Remember that!

Re: Please correct the following paragraph: ...with your very clear approac

Jackson6612 — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:30:17 GMT

Nona The Brit wrote:
American English's point of view would be incorrect. A version of English can't have an opinion of its own; it's not an intelligent entity but just a language.

Nona, I got your point. Now there is another problem.

GG wrote:

''Barbara, who gives answers from the American English point of view...''

I would have written it as:

''Barbara, who gives answers from the point of view of American English...''

I know GG's version is correct. But to me only my version seems correct when I compare its translated meaning to my native language's structure.

Re: Please correct the following paragraph: ...with your very clear approac

nona the brit — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 11:52:45 GMT

American English's point of view would be incorrect. A version of English can't have an opinion of its own; it's not an intelligent entity but just a language.

Re: Please correct the following paragraph: ...with your very clear approac

Jackson6612 — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 05:50:07 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:
Jackson, I have to be honest. Asking a teacher for an autograph, with the intention of framing it for your room, sounds rather obsessive. I'm having a hard time thinking how to ask for that without sounding like a stalker.

Hi GG,

I have checked the meaning of stalker. I would like you to tell me the meaning of stalker in the context of the above sentence, please.

I see, in the signature you have written ''Barbara, who gives answers from the American English point of view...'' That's absolutely correct because you have written it. I would have written it as ''Barbara, who gives answers from the American English's point of view...'' Is my way also correct? If not, then what's the reason? Thanks a lot.

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!

Re: which accent?

Marvin A. — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:52:06 GMT

To tell you the truth, I've never heard any foreigner (unless they learned English when they were very young, or had lived in an English speaking country for at least a decade, and had extensive, and personalized accent coaching) ever be able to pull off either an American or British accent. "British English" and "American English" consist of 3 parts--accent, spelling, and lexicon.

As for accent: when people learn an American accent, they learn what is known as "General American"--an accent based on a generalized Midwestern accent, spoken in the 1950's Narrowly definied, this accent is only spoken by very old speakers (80 year olds) in the Midwestern and Western portions of the US, and in a couple of 90 year olds in Canada. Broadly defined, it is spoken by everyone in the Midlands US, the North Central US (North Dakota and surrounding areas), the Western US, and Western and Central Canada (BC to ON). It is also spoken by many newscasters. If they learn "Received Pronunciation" then they learn sort of the upper-class sounding accent in England, that is considered overly posh to some. Both RP and GA are very much alike, except in the overall place of articulation. As a speaker of North American English, it would be *very* difficult for me to pull of a convincing RP accent. I would need long and intensive accent coaching. Even actors are notorious for doing very lousy RP accents.

There is however something called a Mid-Atlantic accent, which is very easy to do. It sounds exactly like a British RP accent to Americans, and exactly like an American accent to British people. It uses the American vowels and consonants which correspond to British ones, but uses the American place of articulation. If you aren't a native speaker of English, unless you honestly *do* sound like a native speaker, most people won't be able to even tell if you are speaking "American English" or "British English". It just depends on how your own non-native accent compares to an American or British accent. For example, almost every Japanese speaker I've met learned American English, but they sounded like they were speaking "British English". The reason was simply that they could not make the vowel sound that exists in the word "hat", nor could they make even a reasonable approximation of the North American English retroflex final "r". Thus, even though they learned "American English", they sounded just as British as they sounded American. So, they could have just as easily learned RP, and they would have ended up with the same accent. So, unless you really do have a native sounding accent with no interference from your native accent, it is not going to make a bit of difference whether you learn American or British English--and if you are so good at imitating accents (unlikly), you should be able to do them both--certainly better than I, as a North American, can fake an RP accent.

The next aspect is spelling. There's American spelling, British spelling, Canadian spelling, and Australian spelling, and New Zealand spelling. First of all we have to keep in mind that spelling has nothing to do with pronunciation, and the fact that a word spelt in one form of English is pronounced differently in another has nothing to do with spelling. The spellings of words are simply national unofficial norms and customs. There are two categories--high frequency, and low frequency words. You can often read several pages of text and not have a clue as to where it was written based on the spelling. The high frequency words are the most important. The low frequency words are written much less frequently, and thus people hardly notice if there are differences in the spelling, and most people in all of the English speaking countries don't care too terribly much. For example, the word [ mIdiv@l ]. I have a hard time remembering how to spell this word. In American spelling, I believe it's spelled midieval or something like that, and in British spelling, mediaeval. I doubt anyone would really care how you spell it this word, in fact many Americans spell it the British way, because the American version looks ugly. So, as for these types of low-frequency words, it really doesn't matter how you spell them. The high frequency words on the other hand, spelling is much more important.

You have to remember, though that everyone will understand these words just fine whether you use the American, British, Australian, or whatever spelling, it's just that some that have not been exposed to the other form, will consider the other form incorrect--American schoolteachers are a good example of this, and they will usually mark your paper if you use, say a British spelling, to let you know that it's spelled differently in America. Most of them don't really care, actually, they just want to help you. I'd say it's probably the British who are the most uptight about spelling, because they tend not to like Americanisms. Canadian English technically has no "official" spelling. Both American and British spellings are accepted, but even so, there is a general trend in how many people spell words, and thus we can say that there is a distinct spelling. so, anyway the only words that you need to worry about are the high-frequency words (as for the low frequency words, just spell them the British way--Americans really won't care--and if they do, tough.)

If on the other hand, you really want to be consistent and spell everything the American way, just get Microsoft's en-US spell checker. Unlike the Canadian or British one, there is no controversy regarding Microsoft's en-US spell checker, and thus it could be said to be the final authority on American spelling (I'm serious. No American would argue with it.) So, the only important words with varients, are those of the or/our class; the er/re class, and the -ize/-ise class. These are the only ones that will get anyone worked up over.

If I were you, simply consider your audience. If you're writing for a British audience use -our (colour, honour) and -re (centre), and if you're writing primarily for an American audience use -or (color, honor) and -re (center). Truthfully, it's mainly the British people that get emotional about these words, because they don't like to see Americanisms all the time, and Americans usually don't care, they just either haven't seen the British form before and think it's just a misspelling. On those two examples, the current trend in Canadian English is to follow the British spelling (colour, centre). When it comes to a few words in American English, the British spelling is regarded as classier, and thus the following words are often spelled like in British English in the US especially for places: Theatre, Centre, Harbour, and Glamour. Note, it's pretty much only these 4 words especially "Theatre". You'll find about the same number as "Theatres" in the US as you'll find "Theaters". You may find a city "Centre", although it's less common than "Theatre", and many businesses use the word Harbour. "Glamour" is far more glamorous than "Glamor"--in fact I don't think I've seen the word "glamor" very often.

When it comes to -ize/-ise words, I believe -ize is considered correct for all varieties of English. -ise however is quickly gaining ground in the UK, and -ize is sometimes even mistakenly assumed to be an Americanism. Most newspapers and magazines now use -ise, for example. The Oxford English Dictionary still lists the -ize form first. I believe that -ise is more common in Australia and New Zealand. -ize is the only acceptable form in the US and Canada (although -ise is sometimes [rarely] used in Canada--usually by people originally from somewhere else.)

So, anyway, if I were you I'd learn both spelling varients just so you know them--the high frequency words are not at all hard to learn. Just consider your audience when you're writing, and be consistent (I'm not, but I just like to be different, for my own personal entertainment. [Of course I'd never hand in paper to a teacher, or for anything important using an odd concoction of American and British spellings--as people would just think I was a bad speller.]) Do as I say, not as I do )

The third thing to learn is the vocabulary differences. You can also just describe what you are talking about, or try to use alternate words. If I were you, I would simply avoid any deliberate Americanisms, or Canadianisms, or Briticisms, or whatever, or learn all of them.

So, in conclusion, it doesn't matter too terribly much which variety of English you want to learn. I myself, would suggest that you learn both, and what the differences are between them, and as long as you don't overwhelm yourself with the differences (they're fairly small ultimately), if you learn both, you can adapt to the person you are talking to and be more easily understood. If you want to learn a particular one, learn either one, it makes absolutely no difference, because no one will take you for a Englishman or an American, nor will you sound like one or the other to native English speakers. You'll still sound like you're speaking German-English or Italian-English or whatever you are. Until people say you sound like a native speaker, you needn't worry. Besides, if you really want to become very proficient in English, you'll have to live in an English speaking country for a while, and you'll pick up the local accent anyway, which more likely than not will not be Upper RP or conservative General American.

As for speaking in a mix of British and American accents, to tell you the truth, I doubt many native speakers would notice... They'll just be thrilled that you're doing the best you can to try to communicate with them, and as long as they can understand you--and General American and RP are the most easily understood forms of English for native speakers to understand.

(edited to insert paragraphs to make reading easier)

Re: Any Mistake with Adjective Caluse?

Jonny5 — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:12:02 GMT

Kalehpook1 wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I am wondering that if there is any mistakes with the following sentence:
Dissatisfied with the service at the restraunt, the meal really was not enjoyable.
One of my friends thinks that there is something wrong with adjective caluse in this sentence. Is that right?
Thanks a lot,

The sentence as written reads as though the emphasis is on the word REALLY.
'the meal REALLY was not enjoyable'

As a self-professed speaker of colloquial American English, rather than 'really was not',
I would be more comfortable saying 'was not really'.
I could see the phrase, 'the meal really was terrible', (emphasis on WAS)
but when speaking I would prefer 'the meal was really terrible' (emphasis on REALLY)

Additionally the sentence has no implicit subject, and thus seems a little 'clunky',
Who is dissatisfied with the service?
I doubt you are saying the meal, is dissatisfied with the service.
You might need a pronoun here. Perhaps it should read 'our meal',
'Randolf's meal', or 'the customers meal, instead just of 'the meal'.

It could also benefit from an adjective explaining what
was wrong with the service. Was it slow? Was it rude?

In context of a paragraph explaining those points, I would find the sentence
acceptable, as it is, if used in modern composition. If however you are writing
in an "older" style (ala Emily Dickinson) then I'd say all hats are out the window...

Lastly, my spellchecker thinks you've mis-spelled restaurant
but as I said, I'm an American, so what do I know?

jonny5