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

Re: Am I right?

wholegrain — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:16:50 GMT

Haha, you are right, that means 90% of the people
who responded me were wrong. hahaha, sorry.
By the way, I found some sources in case someone is interested:

http://books.google.ca/books?id
=h1YXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206&dq=%22but+that+or+but+what

"What is now considered an improper use of but
(but that or but what) appears to have been more common in older
English; thus that after the following expressions where Late Modern
English has but or its variants only in dialects, or in archaic language:
There is no reason, as in: There is no reason but I shall go blind."
- from some book I don't have full access to.

etc...

http://books.google.ca/books?q
=%22but+that+or+but+what&btnG=Search+Books

Thanks again

Re: gone were/was

Kooyeen — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:15:39 GMT

New2grammar
can't believe what's on the Internet!

Do you want some more examples? I can give you a lot! You won't believe it! Yeah, the net is a mess.

As Jim said, in some languages hair is plural (mine too, and that's why I tend to make that mistake and use the plural). But on the other hand, optilang showed you how a certain "strange" expression can be normal in some dialects. Interesting, eh?

Re: Corpora: Native discovery

Kooyeen — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:47:04 GMT

I would say "Holy cow! This is really surprising! How come I never noticed?"
But of course a teacher should teach dialects he knows pretty well. So a teacher who teaches London English, would be surprised to find out there are some common expressions in use in London he never heard about.
But if the teacher from London is talking about the English used in Los Angeles, and he'd never been there... he could only "assume" some expressions are used (or not used).

Re: If I'm used only to Standard English, might I have trouble understanding dialects?

Tanit — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:48:26 GMT

Mr Wordy
Welsh people speak English with a distinctive lilting accent that is often described as "sing-song".

Hi,

I had never heard of that expression, and it's just perfect! I've known some people from South Wales (Swansea and Cardiff, especially) and they really seemed to sing while speaking, because of their usage of intonation. It took me some time to get used to it, but it was not difficult after all.
I also met some people from the Valleys, but never became accustomed to their accent - really hard for me.

Re: If I'm used only to Standard English, might I have trouble understanding dialects?

Mr Wordy — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:26:35 GMT

There are some differences in vocabulary and idiom across the British Isles, and you might encounter some regional words and expressions that you're not familiar with. But the core vocabulary and grammar are not hugely different, and you might find that a bigger problem is pronunciation. If you're only familiar with the sort of English spoken by middle class people from the south of England, and you go into a pub in a rough part of Glasgow, say, then you might not even realise that the people there are speaking English at all.

The native speakers I (as a native speaker myself) have most difficulty with are young urban working class people. In this case, vocabulary (lots of "yoof slang" I've never heard of) and pronunciation both cause problems. I might overhear, say, a group of youths chatting in a London suburb and only catch about 50% of it.

There's no need to try to speak regional dialects of British English yourself (unless you're particularly interested in doing so, of course). If you speak something approximating to "standard" British English then you should be able to make yourself understood anywhere in the British Isles.

Re: excited of /with

Anonymous — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:53:28 GMT

I think that there might be regional/dialect variations in usage here. According to the version of British English that I speak:

"excited about" is the usual expression.

"excited with" sounds somewhat unnatural.

"excited of" is wrong.

Another possibility is "excited by", but this has slightly different connotations, including a greater sense of immediacy/intimacy, and does not seem so appropriate when talking about a project.

Re: question from a native speaker

Philip — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:49:08 GMT

I received the following from a native speaker of German. He is Swiss.

I found the passage in the German original ("Im Westen nichts neues"): "VerrÃ¼ckt und drei macht sieben" ("Crazy and three is seven"). It means someting like "You are crazy" or "This is crazy". It is as far as I know an out-dated expressen (though it is normally "VerrÃ¼ckt und drei macht neune") from Berlin dialect. It certainly isn't an every day expression in contemporary German. If it is still actively used in Berlin, I don't know.

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:21 GMT

Hello Ant 222,

I wouldn't say that the answer on your question is so clearcut,that's all.What I'm saying is that grammar speed up the process of the acquisition of the language.And it is beyond doubt.One reason I often come across in discussion on this issue is that a native learner may never learn grammar and still you will never have his/her grasp of language,and you can learn grammar as much as you want.Such comparison is ridiculous.Put somebody in the situation to live the language,to make for living surrounded with that language,to ask for a glass of water,or a piece of bread,and I bet he'll learn the hardest chinese dialect in no time,along with the whole trillion symbols of alphabet if needed.But people like to make things complicated when they are not. I've read an interesting sentence in one post on the forum nearby:

"Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive."

Although I don't know the context of this sentence,I understand that children have a knack for languages and all other mankind doesn't.That is,children have one device for automatic learning and when they grow up that LAD gadget break down and they are not able to automatically learn anymore,and they have to fetch grammar if they want to learn a language.
Here goes a few trillions of smiling smilies.That would make learning of language very much similar to "Star Wars" or so.I would say that people enjoy making miracles out of everything.Let me be allowed to advise you not to fall for that kind of reasoning.I mean "Look at me,I'm a miracle,I speak english gorgeuously and I don't have to learn grammar",that kind of reasoning.

As to the learning of a second language,I believe that circumstances in which the learner lives make a difference.First of all,the need to use the language daily,how much you read,how much you listen the language,which depends on his/her place of living,job, his/her affinities i.e personality,lifestyle etc.So,your learning situation and my learning situation are two different situations.More or less different.An immigrant who lives in the USA and is exposed to the english language daily,will need less grammar stuff to learn,and I need more to know about it.It is simple as that.And although,the learning of a language is pretty specific,still it doesn't mean that you don't need grammar at all.I mean you may not need a spade to dig a hole,you can dig it with your fingers,but you'll certainly find a spade helpful.If you know what I mean.Grammar gives the basis i.e the logic for learning.What grammar does is the analysis of the mechanics of a language(i.e cutting into pieces)and then put it together in the way which will make it easier to you to learn.By the way,I remember it from high school that analysis and synthesis are scientific methods in acquiring (any) knowledge.If you give proofs that it is just a useless entertainment for idle men then you'll make a scientific breakthrough,and not only in the field of language.Here goes one smiling smiley.

I think that if an ESL learner avoided confusion caused by different terminology for the same concepts (which is a major problem)and occasionaly manage to find some help when he is baffled(as it is possible from this forum for example) he'll find grammar helpful,and will not shy of it.And there is no reason for that since in essence it is not difficult,so you can read it even if you don't see its real value,and don't worry about your health,it will not put some special strain on your brain.Only when you read it and understand it you will know whether it is worth reading.
I think that Quirk gave neatly arranged structure for a correct acquisition of a language i.e its vocabulary. One can learn the bulk of the english language with the help of his grammar,of course paralelly with learning the vocabulary.Let's say 90% of it,and if somebody want to split hairs he may freely turn linguist,or if he want to learn some expression of Texas shepherds which he didn't understand and it gave him a headache,or solve logical puzzles in your leisure time,he can post a question on some forum.Or something.

Best regards

Velimir

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:00 GMT

Hello Ant 222,

I wouldn't say that the answer on your question is so clearcut,that's all.What I'm saying is that by using grammar you speed up the process of the acquisition of the language.And it is beyond doubt.One reason I often come across in discussion on this issue is that a native learner may never learn grammar and still you will never have his/her grasp of language.Such comparison is ridiculous.Put somebody in the situation to live the language,to make for his/her living surrounded with that language,to ask for a glass of water,or a piece of bread,and I bet he'll learn the hardest chinese dialect in no time,along with the whole trillion symbols of alphabet if needed.But people like to make things complicated when they are not. I've read an interesting sentence in one post on the forum nearby:

"Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive."

Although I don't know the context of this sentence,I understand that children have a knack for languages and all other mankind doesn't.That is,children have one device for automatic learning and when they grow up that LAD gadget break down and they are not able to automatically learn anymore,and they have to fetch grammar if they want to learn a language.
Here goes a few trillions of smiling smilies.That would make learning of language very much similar to "Star Wars" or so.I would say that people enjoy making miracles out of everything.Let me be allowed to advise you not to fall for that kind of reasoning.I mean "Look at me,I'm a miracle,I speak english gorgeuously and I don't have to learn grammar",that kind of reasoning.

As to the learning of a second language,I believe that circumstances in which the learner lives make a difference.First of all,the need to use the language daily,how much you read,how much you listen the language,which depends on his/her place of living,job, his/her affinities i.e personality,lifestyle etc.So,your learning situation and my learning situation are two different situations.More or less different.An immigrant who lives in the USA and is exposed to the english language daily,will need less grammar stuff to learn,and I need more to know about it.It is simple as that.And although,the learning of a language is pretty specific,still it doesn't mean that you don't need grammar at all(as an ESL learner)since it gives the basis i.e the logic for learning.What grammar do is analysis of the mechanics of a language(i.e cutting into pieces)and then put it together in the way which will make it easier to you to learn.By the way,I remember it from high school that analysis and synthesis are scientific methods in acquiring (any) knowledge.If you give proofs that it is just a useless entertainment for idle men then you'll make a scientific breakthrough,and not only in the field of language.Here goes one smiling smiley.

I think that if an ESL learner avoided confusion caused by different terminology for the same concepts (which is a major problem)and occasionaly manage to find some help when he is baffled(as it is possible from this forum for example) he'll find grammar helpful,and will not shy of it.And there is no reason for that since in essence it is not difficult,so you can read it even you don't see its real value,and don't worry about your health,it will not put some special strain on your brain.Only when you read it and understand it you will know whether it is worth reading.
I think that Quirk gave neatly arranged structure for a correct acquisition of a language i.e its vocabulary. One can learn the bulk of the english language with the help of his grammar along with learning the vocabulary.Let's say 90% of it,and if somebody want to split hairs he may freely turn linguist,or if he want to learn some expression of Texas shepherds which he didn't understand and it gave him a headache,or solve logical puzzles in your leisure time,he can post a question on some forum.Or something.

Best regards

Velimir

Re: Fell running and chuff

Clive — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:02:00 GMT

Hi,

What is fell running? Generally speaking, a 'fell' is a steep hill. ie Running on steep hills.

What is the meaning of ' I'm chuffed to bits' ? 'Very pleased, thrilled'.

It's a dialect expression in parts of Britain. 'To bits' is a slang intensifier. eg I'm thrilled to bits' - 'I'm very thrilled'.

Best wishes, Clive