http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aSam%3fC&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Sam?C'en-USXMOD (Build: 3607.32596)http://www.englishforums.com/English/ReceivedPronunciationAtlantic-English/cvrlc/post.htm#189636Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:38:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:189636sam cLeicesterLad wrote: Interesting - the auto editor has blanked out Dick's surname, but not his first name! so we - on a language discussion board, no less - can discuss penises and arseholes (metaphorically, as in 'he's a dick!'), but not ditches or stone walls? or is it the juxtaposition it takes exception to? sam, winding down on fridayhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/BreEnge/cvvnr/post.htm#188343Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:39:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:188343sam cI know most people say whisky/whiskey apart from us down here saying 'Scotch on the rocks'! och no, heaven's forbid, whit wuid we want to be pollutin' oor uisge beatha with ice for, now! Would you agree with the rest of what I said though? It is quite a confusing issue overall... yes, i'll go with that, nona - it is pretty intricate. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/BreEnge/cvvnr/post.htm#188224Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:30:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:188224sam cNona The Brit wrote: A Scot (noun) is Scottish (adj) and they drink Scotch (whisky!). No ok, Scotch gets used as an adj sometimes but not really for people I think. I'm not Scottish though so I'm not 100% sure. i don't think you'll find many scots who drink 'scotch'. it's usually 'whisky', in my circles anyway, and it's usually spoken so there's no need to quibble over the whiskey/whisky distinction. 'scotch' meaning 'whisky' is a sure sign of a sassenach. it isn't really a word that crops up too often, outwith 'scotch mist' and a handful of other locutions that is. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MeOrI/2/cdpng/Post.htm#186763Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:41:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:186763sam cvery interesting, MrP, thanks. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/FillTheGap/cdqqg/post.htm#186728Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:07:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:186728sam cpossibles: 4 - of 6 - themselves 7 - number 9 - for 10 - yet/but 12 - and/upon 13 - little/scant/no 15 - longer? the trouble lies in guessing what the original writer meant. it's register salad too. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MeOrI/cdpng/post.htm#186477Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:38:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:186477sam csorry if my question wasn't clear. the advice was When used as the subject, use "I," whether you have another person as part of the subject or not. i wondered why? samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MeOrI/cdpng/post.htm#186433Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:37:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:186433sam cGrammar Geek wrote: When used as the subject, use "I," whether you have another person as part of the subject or not. why? samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ShouldPronounReallyUsedFormal-English/cdhln/post.htm#184116Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:27:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:184116sam ci do not know. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/NominalsLexicalSyntactic/cdrbp/post.htm#183814Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:45:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:183814sam csorry, but i don't think you'll find a neat notional definition. there are clues for distinguishing them though. their intonation, for one. in 'a prosecutor in boston' the stress is on 'prosecutor', the head. in 'prisoner of war' the primary stress is on 'war'. if you take 'prisoner of war' as a lexeme - as you say, roughly corresponding to headwords of dictionaries - is it syntactically opaque? can you insert other constructions into it like you can 'a prosecutor in boston': (1) There is a prosecutor called Sam in Boston. (2) *There is a prisoner called Sam of war. you can rephrase (1) to have a relative clause instead of the PP, but can you do the same with (2)? how about one -substitution? (3)...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseHelpMe/cdcpx/post.htm#183658Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:25:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:183658sam c(1) Switzerland lies between/*among France , Germany, Austria and Italy. 'among' is not possible. i would interpret 'among' here as meaning that switzerland is part of france, germany, austria and italy - a patent absurdity. when there are more than two things, 'between' indicates that each thing should be considered individually not as a whole, whereas the opposite holds for 'among'. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IntransitiveVerbs/cdvdw/post.htm#183647Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:10:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:183647sam ctritransitives being thrice as transitive, i bet? samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhenIsWAVowel/mwbn/post.htm#183108Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:24:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:183108sam cin addition to what others have said, the distinction between vowel and consonant is not clear cut. no dividing line. /w/ , the sound at the beginning of words like 'witch', 'wear' and 'walk', is both vowel- and consonant-like. when you look at how it's produced, pronunciation, it is similar to /u:/ , the vowel in 'moon', except the tongue's a bit lower and further back and the lips are slightly closer together. still, there's very little obstruction of air flow. when you look at how it patterns, its distribution, the places it occurs in words, it seems subject to the constraints of consonants. how often does the sound at the beginning of 'walk' occur before anything but a vowel? in linguistics speak, phonetically...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfect/2/cbprm/Post.htm#182073Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:11:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:182073sam cMister Micawber wrote: I'd say, if I've ever seen one . not 'if ever i've seen one'?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HadRunVsHadRan/bwmw/post.htm#181736Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:21:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:181736sam cGuest wrote: My son, a grade 7 student in a French school, is struggling with English grammar. Unfortunately, on this one, his English speaking mother cannot decide which is correct. the short answer is, whatever the teacher says is correct. as you might surmise from the thread so far, that's gonna be 'run'. Guest wrote: He must decide which to use: "...she had run the whole way" or ".....she had ran the whole way". They both seem plausible to me. HELP!!!!!! the reason that (a) they both seem plausible to you and (b) your son's english-speaking mother can't decide between them is that they both are plausible. many englishes reduce the paradigm of so-called irregular verbs so that the p ast p articiple form...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaNecessity/cclww/post.htm#180289Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:20:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:180289sam cto comma or not, in my book, is chiefly a matter of intonation. see John Lawler on comma use sam, 'One man can't punctuate another man's manuscript any more than one person can make the gestures for another person's speech.' - Twainhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AnUndecipherablePassageBraveWorld-Huxley/cclmq/post.htm#180283Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:29:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:180283sam cJKBelieve wrote: Cold for all the summer beyond the panes, for all the tropical heat of the room itself, a harsh thin light glared through the windows, hungrily seeking some draped lay figure, some pallid shape of academic goose-flesh, but finding only the glass and nickel and bleakly shining porcelain of a laboratory disclaimer: i haven't read the book. 'for' here i think means 'in spite of', so despite the ostensible heat - the summer weather outside, the uncomfortable temperature stereotypical of laboratories - there is a chill in the air, there is not the warmth of humankind. the whole sentence sounds like a longwinded way of saying there was nobody about. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AntoniaSquat/ccknl/post.htm#180004Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:24:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:180004sam cin your sentence it means something like 'pointed outwards'. in other words your feet aren't pointing straight ahead but at a 45 deg angle and your knees follow suit. the bending is part of the squatting motion itself, not the preparation. sam, hoping this isn't part of toilet traininghttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MakeObjectToV/cckwz/post.htm#179955Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:179955sam cTeo wrote: And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. (Genesis 2:9, English Standard Version, 2001 ) Normally we use the structure "make + object + infinitive without to." Why use to here? i suppose one interpretation (i'm not saying it's the interpretation or even the one that sprung to my mind first) is that God seemed to bring about the initial growth of the trees, after which they continued sprouting themselves. 'make' + to -infinitive can have the meaning 'appear to begin': (1) He upped and made to leave. ( = 'he got up and appeared to begin to leave') the King James (2000) version features similar wording: 'And out of the ground...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CutHerHair/cckck/post.htm#179821Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:58:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:179821sam c(1) She cut her hair. if 'she' and 'her' both refer to Jane, then Jane cut her own hair, end of story. otherwise, Jane ('she') cut Mary's (her) hair. as a stand-alone sentence, it could equally mean either. (2) She cut herself her hair. on first reading i found this odd, but i think it's possible. if Jane wanted a lock of hair for herself, she might cut off some of her own. similarly, if i wanted to have my slice of cake, i might 'cut myself my slice (of cake)'. (3) She got her hair cut. her hair was cut, but who it was that cut it is either unknown or immaterial. sam, could do with a trim myselfhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MyFriendFriend/2/ccglk/Post.htm#179050Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:58:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:179050sam cKhoff wrote: Sam - I don't want to come down too hard on you; I see you're fairly new to the board. I just want to make clear to non-native speakers that what people do say is not necessarily what they should say. Please don't take offense! course not! i like to hear what people have to say, even if i don't agree. and what people should say is a contentious topic, one i'd rather avoid. perhaps i should (there's that wee word again) make it more obvious i'm recounting actual usage, and not prescribing. cheers for the heads up, khoff. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MyFriendFriend/ccglk/post.htm#179015Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:49:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:179015sam cIs it possible to use "me" instead of "I"? For example, "John and me went to town". it's common in my english, i use it every day. there is a prescriptive rule against it, on the shaky grounds that if you removed 'John and', all that is left is 'me', which would be ungrammatical Standard english: (1) *Me went to town. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThereIsAre/cchzm/post.htm#179014Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:47:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:179014sam c'is', every time. 'are' sounds odd, if not ungrammatical, to me. i would also write 'is'. Selvakumar wrote: While my friend strongly feels that it should be "is" in the following sentence, I feel, grammar demands that it ought to be "are" depends what you mean by 'grammar' - a term with various meanings. any comprehensive grammar (a book describing some linguistic grammar) worth its salt will have something to say on subj.-verb concord with existential 'there' (them's the search terms, btw). if yours doesn't, burn it. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfPronounMyself/ccgdd/post.htm#178675Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:21:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:178675sam cme, well, i disagree.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Because/cczqg/post.htm#178601Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:24:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:178601sam ci can't see me interpreting it that way. another interpretation: my reason for buying it was not that it was expensive (although it was), but some other reason.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AHotelAnHotel/3/vrb/Post.htm#178573Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:58:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:178573sam cAnonymous wrote: At no time is the h dropped. you cant've stayed in many otels if you've never eard h-dropping.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronunciationPronunciation/cbqbz/post.htm#177036Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:07:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:177036sam cthanks for the link, LanguagLover. it's not working for me just now, but i'll try again later.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ErrorsMistakesInLanguage/cbvnk/post.htm#176788Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:06:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176788sam cPhilip wrote: I think of the beautiful Elizabethan language in the prayer "we have erred and strayed like lost sheep": does this mean that the errant sinner has no chance because he is likely to repeat his sins, even worse that he doesn't know what his sins are? yes, i'll stake money on it, if you, Philip, can find me an elizabethan linguist specialising in error analysis. sam, to err is humanhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AndOr/2/cbqcl/Post.htm#176693Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:10:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176693sam c(1) She doesn't drink or smoke. (2) She doesn't drink and smoke. they mean different things. the first simply means that she does not smoke and she does not drink. the second means that she does not smoke while she is drinking, that is, it leaves open the possibility that she drinks and she smokes, but not both at the same time. perhaps she waits until she has finished drinking before lighting up.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AndOr/cbqcl/post.htm#176638Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:23:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176638sam c1- She doesn't drink or smoke. = she does not drink and she does not smoke 2- She doesn't drink and smoke. = she does not drink and smoke at the same time = she does not smoke when she is drinkinghttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MeaningOfXInXmas/cbjng/post.htm#176631Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:12:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176631sam ci once heard someone rebelling against consumerism, saying that 'xmas' takes Christ out of christmas. also http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=xmashttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PronunciationPronunciation/cbqbz/post.htmFri, 30 Dec 2005 18:30:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176601sam cwhat do you think of pronunciation where the 2nd syllable sounds like 'noun'?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowDoYouDo/cbpxv/post.htm#176554Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:39:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176554sam c'how do you do' is not, usually, a question (the concept of question coming from pragmatics), although its form is, as you spotted, interogative (initial wh-word + subj.-aux. inversion). also, rising intonation, while not always co-occuring with wh-questions, is absent. a reasonable response to this formal-ish greeting is the mirror 'how do you do'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IWantAScottishAccent/2/bhjqr/Post.htm#176528Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176528sam clisten to scottish radio stations. bbc radio scotland broadcasts online. that's no substitute for living there but.http://www.englishforums.com/English/OfWhom/cbpwp/post.htm#176516Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:12:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176516sam ci agree, its referent is the same as that of the NP 'the man in a black hat'.http://www.englishforums.com/English/OnDataPronunciation/kzkl/post.htm#176515Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:11:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176515sam cManohonor wrote: Is DATA pronounced /deita/ or /da: ta/? for what it's worth, i pronounce it the first way, although it's unremarkable to hear either pronunciation here (scotland), and members of my close family do pronounce it the second way. as to it being a minimal pair - one plural, the other singular - it's not in my english.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SuccessfullyEscaped/cbvxc/post.htm#176236Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:11:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:176236sam cMatress wrote: I think you didn't understand! I've intendend to share something that I learned with an excellent English teacher By the way - a Ph.D teacher. i'm impressed. any advance on a phd? samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AppositionDefiniteIndefinite-Articles/cbwnk/post.htm#174562Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:49:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:174562sam cHow2die wrote: About your second remark. True, Spencer is not the only contributor to the magazine, but so is Soury: he is not the only student in the world. No difference here either. in the first example, only two people are under discussion, not the whole world. out of those two, Soury is the only student, the student. if a third student had died, giving us two altogether, Soury would be 'one of the (two) students'. sam, agreeing that article use is not simple.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SuccessfullyEscaped/cbvxc/post.htm#174159Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:17:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:174159sam cMatress wrote: successfully escaped is a typical redundant phrase. Do you know someone who unsuccessfully escaped ? Just say escaped . That's enough. you seem to cast redundancy in a negative light. why do you think this is so? sam, wondering what forum this really ishttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ErrorsMistakesInLanguage/cbvnk/post.htm#174146Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:49:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:174146sam cMy2sense wrote: There is a distinction between error and mistake in linguistics. Simply said: A mistake i.e. a slip of the tongue can be self-corrected and an error cannot. An error is systematic i.e. likely to occur repeatedly and not recognized (known) by the learner. put another way, if you subscribe to the competence-performance dichotomy, an error pertains to a person's linguistic competence , a mistake to their linguistic performance . not that all linguists consistently observe the distinction or that it's always useful, but just that it's there, with some time under its belt, should you feel it would prove useful in explaining something. search term: 'error analysis'. sam, wishing all a very merry christmashttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Little/cbznj/post.htm#173669Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:42:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:173669sam cit's a character's name. i knew the story as 'chicken licken' when i was growing up. (swapping those words around would produce a quite different effect!) i can't remember having read it, it was past by word of mouth. sam, looking forward to turkey lurkeyhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LookingSpecificTermRegarding-SentencesWithoutSubjects/bjchr/post.htm#172732Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:16:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:172732sam cTimKowal wrote: Lazy English? Poor grammar? i suppose by 'lazy english' you're calling the speaker lazy. but can you please elaborate on 'poor grammar'? is 'works for me' ungrammatical to you?http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheFirst/3/crlcr/Post.htm#172591Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:48:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:172591sam cDanyoo wrote: Being a native speaker does not automatically qualify him or her as a grammar guru. right. the confusion is, as crystal puts it, between 'knowing grammar' and 'knowing about grammar'. if you've read and understood this thread, you know grammar. native speakers know grammar, grammar in the sense of, if not inborn then at least ingrained rules governing language use. they might not feel comfortable or capable of expressing their knowledge, which is why you hear natives claiming ignorance of grammar, but they have it none the less. this is something they learn early on. on the other hand, those who can put their knowledge of grammar into words are said to more or less know about grammar....http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedMust/cbrpz/post.htm#172447Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:33:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:172447sam cPaco2004 wrote: Dialigue B - Is it required that I finish my work by noon? - No, it is required that you do not finish your work by noon. To me the dialogue B sounds weird. yes, it would sound off to me too in certain contexts, as would the other examples, though all of them are conceivable. here it's out of context - at least it lacks all the extra-linguistic signs participants in the wild would have - so we're free to fill in the holes ourselves. the trouble is imagining a situation it fits in. e.g. the two participants hold conflicting ideas of what the work is. the questioner is an employee, under the mistaken impression they're working to a noon deadline; the respondent, in the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedMust/cbrpz/post.htm#172223Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:17:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:172223sam cin 1 and 3 both 'need to ' and 'must' sound fine to me. in 2 and 4, 'needn't' and 'mustn't' both sound fine to me, but have different meanings. the scope of negation with 'must' is different to the scope of negation with 'need'. compare, you needn't X = 'it is not required that you X' you mustn't X = 'it is required that you do not X'. samhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/NotYourTypicalIVsMe/cbrnj/post.htm#172208Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:24:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:172208sam cdepends. correctness here is a sociopolitical concept, and your question is answerable only by appealing to prescriptive authorities. so it depends whose book you pick up. i would say neither of you are incorrect, if that helps. sam, 'it is i, the clerk!'