Search results for 'tag:Dialects tag:Prepositions' matching tags 'Dialects' and 'Prepositions'

Re: Is American English lazy English?

Marvin A. — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 06:41:22 GMT

Wow, what a lot of nonesense.

Is American English simply lazy English with disregard for the fundamentals of the language, or is it a valid simplification of an overly complex and irregular language?

Huh? What are you talking about?

I was hoping nobody would ask, but since you did, I much prefer the attitude of the British. They have enough respect for the language to use correct spelling

How is modern British spelling more "correct"? Who determines correct spelling anyway? The differences in spelling between the US and the UK are mostly due to there being multiple forms that were considered "correct" at the time: such as "color" and "colour".

(The British have) clear enunciation

Oh they do, do they? Are you referring to RP, which is spoken by about 4% of the population, or are you referring to Glaswegian?

(And the British have the) correct use of prepositions and general grammar (and Americans don't)

Huh?

It is not my intention to offend users of American English, users of the imperial system of measurement or anyone else who cares little for international standards.

By your logic, the imperial system should be the correct one. After all, it was invented in Britain. They simply "dumbed down" their system (as you like to say), and switched to the metric system.

I know literacy levels in most western countries are declining rapidly. Could this be a contributing factor?

What does literacy have to do with it?

they use American enunciation

There are several dialects of North American English.

(The "American enunciation", grammar, etc.) all these also have been standardized

Um, no. There is no standardized pronunciation in North American English.

British is regarded as classical English?

"Classical English"? Modern British dialects, particularily RP, have diverged more from the English that both RP and General American are derived from. The non-rhoticity is one thing.

When one considers that the countries on the following list and a multitude of other nations have deep historical if not current connections with Britain and British English, I think it is quite likely that the use of Bitish English is far more widespread and popular than one might think at first glance.

Canada

Um. Canada does not speak "British English".

Oh, by the way, British English is taught in Australian schools, and I think it would be fair to say that Australians take great pride in the preservation of 'proper' (the Queen's) English

Australians speak *Australian English* not British English. They are not "taught" British English. Their spelling system is closer to the British standard though. As for Australians speaking the Queen's English, nothing could be father from the truth, in fact most non-Australians think that most forms of Australian English sound very much like Cockney.

Interesting that Australians take much pride in using British English - that actually would support the thesis that it'll hardly happen that the British English will be replaced by the American English, what do you think?

Um. They don't use British English... But they're of course not going to adopt an American accent. That would be like thinking that people from Berlin would adopt a Swiss German accent.

As nationalities continually interact around the word, shouldn't there be ONE set standard for both measurement and English? Emagine if you gave a spelling test to students from different English speaking countries. Q. What would be the correct spelling for the word "COLOR/COLOUR" ? (for example) Who would pass the test and who would fail?

Um. Both were used in the past as acceptable variants.

As nationalities continually interact around the word, shouldn't there be ONE set standard for both measurement and English?

No. English is a pluricentric language.

American English now is mostly ebonics lol

Rubbish

In a nutshell American and British English are but two dialects of ENGLISH.

They are not two "dialects". There's really no such thing as "American English" or "British English". There are many dialects of English in North America, as well as many dialects in the Britain.

I don't think I would consider British English "Classic English". British English and American English were assumable one in the same 200 years ago.

Exactly. But remeber, even at that time there was not just one form of English. There were many dialects.

I started this thread in 2003, and I have to admit I now feel a little silly about it.
Thanks to the input in this thread (and others) I realise my stupidity at having been so outspoken.

Good.

U.S. has a very diverse population. The pressure, naturally, is to simplify English so everyone, including the non-native speakers, can understand each other.

Rubbish. How has it become simpler?

They should learn to write properly, that is, English, proper English

Write properly? What is this "correct spelling" anyway?

So you're quite likely to hear a rising 'Australian' intonation in plain statements, for example â which to some BrE ears makes every statement sound like a question.

That's also found in North American English. It's associated with California English and Valley girls for the most part. It has very little to do with Australian influence.

Re: preposition OF

Marvin A. — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:50:30 GMT

Certain dialects in the Upper Midwest with a German substratum will sometimes devoice final consonants, therefore 'of' would sound something like [ @f ] rather than [ @v ]

Re: a preposition question

paco2004 — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:10:32 GMT

Iãchoose "in your absence". In some dialects, "while" is said to be used as a preposition to mean "up to" (like "while Doomsday") but in standard English, (as far as I know), "while" is not used as a preposition.

paco

Re: The Original Ten

paco2004 — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:56:09 GMT

Historic Lughnasadh
Lughnasadh is a harvest celebration named for Lugh (Irish), Llew (Welsh), Lug (Britonic),or Lugus, the Celtic sun god. Lugh was one of the most popular of the Celtic gods. He gave his name to many towns around Europe including Lugdunum (Lyons) and perhaps even Londinium (London).

down
Etymology online
O.E. dun "hill," from Celtic word for "hill, citadel" (cf. O.Ir. dun "hill, hill fort," and second element in place names London, Verdun, etc.), from PIE base *dheue- "to close, finish, come full circle" (cf. O.E. dun "hill," M.Du. dune "sandy hill"). Meaning "elevated rolling grassland" is from 1297.

OED
Forms: 1 dÃºn, 2â4 dun, 4â5 doun(e, 4â7 downe, 4â down. [OE. dÃºn fem., hill = ODu. dÃºna (MDu. dÃºne, Du. duin, whence mod.LG. dÃ¼ne sandhill, F. dune). Supposed to be of Celtic origin: cf. OIr. dÃºn hill, hill-fort, Welsh din, and place-names in -dunum.
Since dÃºna must have been in use at an early date in the West Germanic dialects of Batavia and Lower Saxony, it is doubtful whether the word was brought by the Saxons from the continent, or adopted, after their settlement here, from the Britons; the former alternative is favoured by the exact correspondence in form and gender of the OE. and ODu. words, and by the fact that in local nomenclature OE. dÃºn seems to have been confined to the Saxon area. It is, however, in English only that the word has given rise to an adverb and a preposition]

paco

Re: Possessive before a gerund.

paco2004 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:48:15 GMT

OED

The gerund still retains one feature of the verbal noun, namely, that of admitting of a preceding possessive case or possessive pronoun, as in "after John's behaving so strangely", "upon my readily granting it". In the literary language this construction is regularly retained with a pronoun, and very generally with a single personal substantive; but, with names of things, and phraseological or involved denominations, the sign of the possessive began to be dropped already by 1600. "By each at once her choppy finger laying upon her skinny lips" [Shakespeare ]. No other treatment is now possible in such constructions as "in default of one or other being accepted", "on the general and his staff appearing", "in the event of your expectations not being at once realized", "in consequence of much snow having fallen".

And, in current spoken English, the 's is commonly omitted with all nouns. "I insist upon Miss Sharp appearing" [Thackeray: Vanity Fair xi. 348], where "Miss Sharp's'" would now sound pedantic or archaic. Even a pronoun standing before the gerund is put in the objective, in dialect speech, and, when the pronoun is emphatic, this is common in ordinary colloquial English. "Papa did not care about them learning" [Thackeray ]. "But who ever heard of them eating an owl?" []. "That is no excuse for him beating you"[Reade (1863)]. So "What is the use of me speaking?".

In such constructions the objective noun or pronoun seems to stand in simple apposition to the gerund, the two forming a kind of combined object of the preposition, reminding us of the Greek infinitive with an accusative after a preposition as in "Âµet? t? pa?ad????a? t?? ???????" (=after John being delivered up). But in Eng. there has probably been analogical influence from the construction of the present participles. Cf., for instance, "John was digging potatoes" -> "Who saw John digging potatoes?", and "Who ever heard of John (= John's) digging potatoes?".

Re: Peripheral adjectives

MrPedantic — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:06:55 GMT

I may have spoken too hastily...

In the Little/Small thread in the Vocab section, khoff perceptively says that '['it is little', etc] sounds like a childish vocabulary selection'.

I think this is true. In the instances where I've heard adults use 'little' in this way, there has usually been an element of humour or deliberate twee-ness. Take 'I'm only little', for instance:

{In the English Forums complaints department:}
A: Here's the letter of complaint about MrP. You'll find his file on the top shelf.
B: On the top shelf? How can I reach up there? I'm only little!

{In the English Forums 'Prepositions and Adverbs' department:}
A: What a very small office you have here. How do you manage?
B: Oh well, I'm only little...

The humour (such as it is) seems to reside in the self-deprecation (appropriately, Merriam-Webster gives 'belittle' as a synonym of 'deprecate'). Perhaps the 'childish vocabulary selection' adds to this.

Curiously, I wouldn't expect a male to say 'I'm only little!'. Cf. 'more-ish', 'ah, bless!', 'poo': all slightly surprising from males. (Against which, there are plenty of 'chaps' phrases', of course.)

So perhaps 'to be + little' should have a Warning! flag, rather than an outright and utter ban.

MrP
PS: Above only applies to BrE, as usual...It may be different in other dialects!

Re: During/while

MrPedantic — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:08:30 GMT

Hello Hanuman

In the examples on that page, I would have said that 'while' was acting as a conjunction. But others may differ.

(I only know 'while = preposition' in some local English dialect or historic uses, to mean 'until'. But that isn't ordinary current English.)

MrP

Re: Prescriptive Grammar - Centuries of Error

just the truth — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:27:54 GMT

mountainhiker: If it were that simple, then all native English speakers would be highly proficient in speaking, reading, and writing. Unfortunately, they ain't.

Moreover, listening is trivial. Monkey's can listen to English all day, but I am not sure you want to have a long conversation with a monkey.

Corresponding with an English speaking person by talking and writing will get the synapses firing. But in order to communicate, you have to know some ground rules.

All native speakers are highly proficient in the grammar they use for their dialect, MH. You're confusing grammatical structure, which all ENLs know exceedingly well, with knowledge of vocabulary and the ability to give speeches and the ability to write, etc.

Two VERY different categories. Of course writing, reading and spelling must be taught for the very simple reason that these are NOT parts of natural language. There are millions who are illiterate, but we don't find people who are "illanguageate". Writing was consciously invented and as such, it is an 'artificial' part of language. Compare this to the spoken language which wasn't invented.

Little children, so easily baffled by so much, learn language without any formal instruction. They become highly proficient at all the structures of language. They daily deploy uses that confound language scientists in their complexity. How is this possible?

Listening is NOT trivial. It is THE most important aspect in learning language.

======================

So many here are missing the large issue. Of course we need rules; of course there ARE rules. MH, like so many others, dances around the crucial point. There are BAD rules. These are the rules that are NOT rules. They were mere concoctions.

>>>>>>>>>>

S Pinker - The Language Instinct

Obviously, you need to build in some kind of rules, but what kind? Prescriptive rules? Imagine trying to build a talking machine by designing it to obey rules like "Don't split infinitives" or "Never begin a sentence with [because]." It would just sit there. In fact, we already have machines that don't split infinitives; they're called screwdrivers, bathtubs, cappuccino- makers, and so on.

Prescriptive rules are useless without the much more fundamental rules that create the sentences to begin with. These rules are never mentioned in style manuals or school grammars because the authors correctly assume that anyone capable of reading the manuals must already have the rules. No one, not even a valley girl, has to be told not to say [Apples the eat boy] or [Who did you meet John and?] or the vast, vast majority of the trillions of mathematically possible combinations of words.

So when a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to arrange words into ordinary sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential little decorations. The very fact that they have to be drilled shows that they are alien to the natural workings of the language system.

One can choose to obsess over prescriptive rules, but they have no more to do with human language than the criteria for judging cats at a cat show have to do with mammalian biology.

Where did these "rules" come from? Read on.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Steven Pinker - The Language Instinct

The scandal of the language mavens began in the 18th Century. The London dialect had become an important world language, and scholars began to criticize it as they would any institution, in part to question the authority of the aristocracy. Latin was considered the language of enlightenment and learning and it was offered as an ideal of precision and logic to which English should aspire.

The period also saw unprecedented social mobility, and anyone who wanted to distinguish himself as cultivated had to master the best version of English. These trends created a demand for handbooks and style manuals, which were soon shaped by market forces: the manuals tried to outdo one another by including greater numbers of increasingly fastidious rules that no refined person could afford to ignore.

Most of the hobgoblins of contemporary prescriptive grammar (don't split infinitives, don't end a sentence with a preposition) can be traced back to these 18th Century fads.

Re: There is a lot of people/ there are a lot of people

Guest — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:51:20 GMT

Yet, how can you say that "There are a lot of people" is correct? The noun phrase (a lot - singular) and the verb (are - plural) are at odds with each other. One does not use a singular article ("a") if it is meant to be plural, correct? The fact that "people" is plural is entirely immaterial as it is the object of the preposition (of) and not the object of the verb (are).

There's a lot of people. - verb and object agree
There are lots of people. - verb and object agree
There's lots of people. - verb and object do not agree (yet still often heard in certain dialects)
There are a lot of people. - verb and object do not agree (yet some claim it to be correct regardless)

It just goes to show how truly defunct the english language is. That's why I love it.

Re: FOR/DURING

just the truth — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:56:06 GMT

Possibly, though I'm not at all certain, this use of "about" is really old fashioned English. ..., ..., ..., ... Hold the phone! I may be wrong about the old-fashioned part. I googled and got,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus/153/gramch26.html

It should also be noted that the use of prepositions varies somewhat among the different dialects of English. For instance, as illustrated in the following example, there are some differences between British and North American English in the use of prepositions.
e.g. British Usage: There is a fence about the garden.
American Usage: There is a fence around the garden.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not suggesting that I stand behind this site. I offer it only as a 2nd viewpoint. I only got 10 hits in total for "about the garden and some were of a different meaning.

But, I have heard,

He's about the house somewhere.