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

Re: Am I right?

CalifJim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:16:20 GMT

wholegrain
from what reference book you learned that "but" has no meaning in the given context

Personally, I learned it from observation, not from a reference book. I am a native speaker, and I have read quite a few books over the years, and so I don't need to consult a reference book to understand the meaning or usage of this formulation any more than I need a reference book to understand hundreds of others.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a reference book to recommend that might contain information about this construction. It would have to be something of a historical nature, because this pattern so rarely occurs in modern English that the most of the more recent books probably don't even discuss it.

Later edit:

Take a look at Curme's English Grammar of 1925. There you will find a little discussion of but, but that, and but what as less common and older substitutes for that in contexts such as those we have been discussing. Note that nearly a hundred years ago (1925) a grammarian was already saying that these substitutes for that were falling into disuse. Here is one of his examples:

"It could not be doubted that (or now less commonly but, but that, or but what) his life would be aimed at."

And another: "I do not doubt, or Who doubts that, or now less commonly but, or but that, or but what, he will win."

_____

It appears to me that some of the typical historical uses of but that are those which occur after the negation or interrogation of the verbs doubt or deny or wonder.

Note also that neither Curme, nor any others I know of, say that but means only or merely or except or anything else in these patterns. but that is treated as a single unit -- a compound conjunction. You certainly don't find patterns like the following in the literature: I don't doubt [only / merely] that he will win. If you did, it would support the claim that but means only or merely. But I think it will be hard to find examples like that.

Re: Standard spoken English

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:00:04 GMT

Something to chew on:

THE NOTION OF STANDARD SPOKEN GRAMMAR

The term âstandard grammarâ is most typically associated with written language,
and is usually considered to be characteristic of the recurrent usage of adult,
educated native speakers of a language. Standard grammar ideally reveals no
particular regional bias. Thus âStandard British Englishâ grammar consists of items
and forms that are found in the written usage of adult educated native speakers
from Wales, Scotland and England and those Northern Irish users who consider
themselves part of the British English speech community.

The typical sources of evidence for standard usage are literary texts, quality
journalism, academic and professional writing, etc. Standard grammar is given the
status of the official record of educated usage by being written down in grammar
books and taught in schools and universities.

Spoken transcripts often have frequent occurrences of items and structures
considered incorrect according to the norms of standard written English. However,
many such forms are frequently and routinely used by adult, educated native speakers.

Examples of such structures are split infinitives (e.g. We decided to immediately sell it),
double negation (e.g. He wonât be late I donât think, as compared to I donât think he will
be late), singular nouns after plural measurement expressions (e.g. Heâs about six foot
tall), the use of contracted forms such as gonna (going to), wanna (want to), and so on.

Standard spoken English grammar will therefore be different from standard
written English grammar in many respects if we consider âstandardâ to be a
description of the recurrent spoken usage of adult native speakers. What may be
considered ânon-standardâ in writing may well be âstandardâ in speech.
Speech and writing are not independent. Although some forms of spoken
grammar do not appear in writing (unless in written dialogues), there is
considerable overlap and there is an increasing range of forms appearing in
informal written texts which previously were only considered acceptable in
speech. In 120 the presence of typically spoken grammatical forms contexts as emails and internet chat-room exchanges is discussed.

From: The Cambridge Grammar of English (GCE)

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:58:49 GMT

Anonymous
In that respect, I would like to know when and how the auxiliary "do" appeared in English. What kind of people introduced it into the English language?
I would like to know who decided about the value of tenses of the Past. They do not correspond to the value of the tenses of the Past in latinoÃ¯d languages. Who can give me answers ?
In this debate, I do not think there is an evolution towards simplicity nor towards more complicated structures. The
communities of native speakers of a language constantly change the rules and the meaning of words (although the main core remains more or less stable for facility reasons.)
Ethnic languages are tools of inclusion and mainly exclusion (internal and external). That is why there are so many exceptions.
No ethnic language is that easy to learn. When I say "to learn" I mean to learn it to be on equal footing with a native speaker of the language. There will always be a difference, a discrimination.
From what I have experienced ( I am very interested by languages), there is no easy language. All has been done by training.
There is no natural language : everything has been constructed by Man.
I invite the readers to learn an interlanguage such as Esperanto, compare it with your mother tongue and with languages you have studied later. 90% to 95% of the time is spent to the learning of exceptions. That is why a language without exception such as Esperanto is ten to twenty times faster to learn than ethnic languages.
It is fascinating to see how a universal congress of Esperanto works and to compare it with an international congress in only one language. Many prejudices fall.
Maybe I am opening new interests in the debate..
George/Belgium

Do existed in Old English more than a thousand years ago as a regular verb and meant to cause. It is impossible to say who introduced it to English. It's use as an auxiliary in questions and negations was established in Shakespeare's day when it was correct to say both

I know not him
and
I do not know him.

It is very common that the usage of tenses varies from language to language, especially if the languages are not closely related. No reasons can usually be given for this. You might just as well ask why the usage of tenses in the Romance languages differs from that in English. Linguistic changes are often shrouded in the past and there is no knowing why they occurred.

All words and grammatical structures people are not used to sound wrong and/or odd and therefore people usually object to changes that are about to happen in their lifetime and think the language is deteriorating. This is true about all languages, not just English. People tend to think a language is at its most beautiful right now and any change will just make it worse.

English grammar has become so simple over the centuries that I cannot envisage it becoming any simpler without the risk of English becoming even more inexact than it is now. However, not all changes have made the language simpler in structure. In Old English there was just one relative pronoun and it had only one form. That made communication with relative clauses very awkward and it wasn't a great surprise that who, whom, whose, what and which began to be used as relatives to facilitate communication.

CB

Re: can't;can

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:17:16 GMT

Hi,

according the British rules it isn't correct to use can't, there is only cannot.

This is not accurate. Most Britons use the contracted form "can't" in rapid and informal speech. The British pronunciation differs somewhat between different British accents, the RP norm is /kÉË nt/.

there is no double negation in English grammar.

I would agree that double negation in English is non-standard in all its native-speaker varieties, but it would be wrong to claim that it does not exist in English grammar as it is certainly used by a number of native and non-native speakers.

Re: can't;can

Fandorin — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:02:21 GMT

Christanford wrote:
When watching American dramas, I have trouble distinguishing between "can't" and "can".
How are they different in terms of pronunciation?
I sometimes can guess from the context, but when people say something like " I can't not go", I will be very confused and have to look at the subtitle.

Thanks so answering

Hi. So, according the British rules it isn't correct to use can't, there is only cannot. And pronunciation of it is "cAn", i guess you understand me. it is incomprehensible phrase which is in bold. there is no double negation in English grammar. The pronunciation is concerning - listen to conversations more attentive, I suppose there is no way to understand. And there is no need to catch every word when you're watching the film, try to understand sense in generally. It's my own opinion. Good luck

Re: Logic and negative sentences

Teleostomi — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:14:07 GMT

Hi, I enjoyed reading this thread, and learned a lot of new things about English grammar.

I'm now OK with partial negation, but are there any rules regarding what Kooyeen raised as a side discussion item?

Negation of "A, B, and C" ---> Should we take <not...A, B or C> or <not...A, B and C>

In other words, is there any difference between (1) and (2)?

(1) I don't like beef, pork and lamb.
(2) I don't like beef, pork or lamb.

Re: English Grammar help: all..were not / not all ... were?

CalifJim — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:20:42 GMT

The logic of negation with a universally quantified subject comes up quite often on the forums.
In short, [all, both, every, etc.] is/are not ... is ambiguous and should be rephrased.

See Post:261587.
See Post:360377.
See Post:121380.
See Post:48732.

CJ

Re: Change English As You Wish

Cool Breeze — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:20:32 GMT

Thank you to all those who have posted their suggestions to my little imagination game. Some have taken it very seriously thinking they would have to relearn English after the 'changes'. This was meant to be just a game, not for those wo take everything seriously, and of course in this game everybody automatically speaks and writes the new English fluently without having to learn anything.

In the colonial days several European languages got exported as taking peoples' lands from them was considered a virtue and something to be proud of. This resulted in some languages being more dominant than others. Spanish and French were the most important languages till the end of the 19th century when the USA rose to be No. 1 in world politics and commerce. The foundation for English as the lingua franca had been laid.

The world should be thankful. There is no such thing as an easy language; every language is difficult if the learner aims at perfection. However, there are grammatically and structurally far more complicated languages than English, and we should consider ourselves lucky it's only the spelling that drives us nuts about English, not inflections.

Here are the changes I would make to English:

A. Spelling: Grammar Geek, Alienvoord and Englishuser would all make changes to the spelling, and indeed so would I. I think Englishuser puts it nicely: "I'd certainly change the spelling of words with an 'irregular' spelling, that is, words whose pronunciation can't be determined basing on how they're spelt." I would also accept more than one spelling for a word in many cases.

There isn't enough space and I don't have enough time and patience to cover all the tens of thousands of words this entails, but here are some examples of new spellings:

OLD                                 NEW
fight                                  fite
perceive                           perceive, percieve
tough                                 tuf
though                              tho
knight                                 nite
caste                                 cast
pace                                 pace, pase
write                                 rite

B. Grammar: English grammar is so uncomplicated due to 500 years of simplifying foreign influence (200 years of Vikings and 300 years of Normans) that English grammar really couldn't be made much simpler even if it were an artificial language. However, as a foreigner I'll continue the foreign influence and enforce the following changes.

1. I will get rid of the third person singular s and has. Henceforth we will say: He speak English. He have a car. He have asked it twice. The s is a totally needless relic and Swedish, another Germanic language, needs no verb endings for any person even though it is more complicated than English in other respects.

2. There will be no irregular verbs from now on with the exception of to be and the defective or modal auxiliaries, which will remain unchanged. Examples of new English:

OLD                                 NEW
He saw us.                        He seed us.
He has written a letter.    He have rited a letter.
Who wrote it?                   Who/Hu rited it?
I haven't hit him.               I haven't hitted him.
I ran too fast.                    I runned too fast.

3. I'll return English to its pre-Shakespearean state with regard to questions and negations. Henceforth, English will be like the other Germanic languages and questions will be asked without the totally unnecessary do auxiliary:

OLD                                  NEW
Do you speak English? Speak you English?
I didn't see him.                  I seed not him.
Did you do it?                   Doed you it?

4. All past participles can be used attributively before nouns: a rited report, a catched fish, two asked questions, a surrendered country.

5. There will be no irregular plurals for nouns:

OLD                                     NEW
two men                               two mans
many children                      many childs
these phenomena              these phenomenons
two geese                           two gooses

6. Any uncountable noun can be used as a countable if the need arises:

OLD                                    NEW
two pieces of advice         two advices
two news items                  two newses

7. I'll leave the articles, pronouns, numerals, adjectives and adverbs as they are. There are countless idioms where the articles are used contrary to reason and logic, but non-natives' incorrect usage seldom gives rise to misunderstandings. Besides, who am I to deprive English of all its fascination?
Those who don't like sentences like He runned too fast have my permission to say He runned too fastly if they prefer that.

8. Since there are so few inflections, the word order will just have to remain as it it with a few exceptions. For the sake of clarity, some minor changes will take effect: You Only Live Twice has to be renamed (and rerecorded) You Live Only Twice. (Fortunately Nancy Sinatra is still alive, she can rerecord it next week!)

9. Some changes in clause equivalents would make English more exact, but I am reluctant to make them. I'll let English remain somewhat inexact. It is plain impossible to make it exact in every respect without more inflections, and more inflections would make learning English a more laborious task for non-natives.

Consider these examples:

Having said that, he left the room. (After he had said that, he left the room.)
"Having said that, he did win Wimbledon two years ago." (A tennis commentator has said something slightly negative about a player, then decides to mention a positive thing about him. The sentence does not usually mean: After he had said that, he won Wimbledon two years ago. But of course it could mean that, too.)

English abounds in ambiguity and native speakers disagree on what common verbs such as the defective auxiliaries mean in some contexts. I'll let all that be as it is, I know when to give up.

Vocabulary: I'll add some short words that can be used to indicate surprise, disbelief etc. in spoken English in sentences like: He goed there? You like not it! Haven't you seed it? I won't write the words here, though, I just think English could and should have more finesse and be more expressive and colorful.

I won't delete a single word from the vocabulary, on the contrary, I'll add a way of forming a word denoting a person from a town or a village. English already has many such words but on the whole they are rather impractical: a Liverpudlian, a Memphian. Some are easier: a Londoner, a New Yorker. But what do you call a person who lives in Timbuktu?

From now on, the ending will always be er: a Liverpooler, a Memphiser, an Uppsalaer, a Hong Konger, a Tokyoer, a Timbuktuer. This will add hundreds of thousands of words to English. I'll also let you call a Swede a Swedener and a Thai a Thailander if you wish.

I have simplified the grammar a little and that should help non-native learners in particular. I have left the basic structure of the language untouched except for the disappearance of do in questions and negations. But even this is actually a minor thing since it just returns English to the early 16th century.

I have increased the vocabulary a great deal. Every three-year-old Finn knows what to call a person from Timbuktu once he is told there is such a place. English-speaking kids should be able to do the same.

Cheers
CB

Partial Negation

Vsting — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:01:38 GMT

I understand in English when we say "Both windows are not open.", we mean: "Not both of the windows are open. Probably one is open, the other is closed. " Am I right?

If so, how about: "Everybody doesn't like the book." Does that also mean: "Not everybody likes the book. Some do and some don't."?

Is there a grammatical term called partial negation existing in English grammar?

Re: Sentences starrting with 'but'

suzi — Fri, 28 May 2004 17:46:07 GMT

I have been told, though have never actually read it myself, that the bulk of the prescriptive "rules" we follow today - were penned by Bishop Lowth, in his massively influential : Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762),

hence you will find Shakespeare writing things which you think are "ungrammatical" especially "odd" comparatives and mulitple negations, cos the grammar was written after the plays!

I agree with what you both say about "standards" - it is a very interesting debate!