Grammar Trivia and Pet Peeves

[lostinisaan]

Language is biological and always changing. In my life time which isn't really that long some rules have gone back and forth twice.

There was a theorist that said the problem is that the lowest common denominator is the one with the most influence on language. Since uneducated people reproduce 3-4 times that of educated people in a few generations intelligence will be bred out.

Language changes take some getting used to and no one is forcing anyone to change, you just have to be tolerant that others have. You will also be dated by your word choices. I had a colleague that would always say "That is a nice Frock". None of the Thai women in the office new what he was talking about. I suggested perhaps using terminology that they might know like shirt. "Frock is the proper term, so why should I change. I am trying to elevate their verbal skills"? I said I thought you were trying to give a compliment and left it at that.

Same with the use of poorly instead of sick. It just isn't utilized that often so if you ask "Do you feel poorly"? No one will really no what you are talking about and might assume that you are asking them if they are poor financially.

Language is more than just vocabulary and grammar it is also filled with cultural context. If you translate words directly they might not have the same understanding. In Thailand if someone comes up to you and says did you eat yet? They are just greeting you. For most westerners that question is usually followed with an invitation to lunch. Here not always.

I had a group of students study in the US for an exchange program. One night a kid hurt his leg but it was just a minor scrape. The leader of the group called the principal and said we need to go to the hospital ... injured his leg. The principal was frantic thinking the student broke his leg. Though they used proper English, the cultural context of word choices implied a greater sense of urgency. In Asia people go to the Hospital for everything. In the US it is usually just for emergencies or serious problems.

I think the overall thing is not to make blanket rules and statements to students. My wife once was in a class and was asked what she did last night. Her reply was "I took a bath." The NES teacher said, No, you took a shower. No one uses the word bath. My wife said " I didn't take a shower, I took a bath in the bathtub."

Or when a teacher says "No one talks like that!!!" Really should say that unless you are absolutely certain. I think stating " I don't use it that way, this is how I would say it..." Leaves room but also encourages students to follow your lead.

Language absolutes are quite futile as language and knowledge of language are always evolving.

The colleagues who would always say “That is a nice Frock” were maybe female and referring to a male body part.

That the Thai women in the office knew what body part they’re talking about, seems to be understandable.

Why so serious? What has life and your ‘body part” in common?

Short and not always functioning when you need it. Good weekend.

[lostinisaan]

Love the prelude, "Not American bashing? And then bash them You think I couldn't go to London and find ignorance, Sidney, Auckland? Who could be so easily fooled? A fool. The cameraman and reporter choose who to interview, if he has an agenda (imagine a young reporter with an agenda, rare eh?) he cam surly edit out those with the right answers.

And do they say where those people are from? They're f**kin hicks!

You got a low IQ mate.

Dude, not knowing who's got to live with a lower IQ now, but do you really think they paid some people to be actors?

You shouldn't sit on Sombreros, when you're trying to sell them, bro.

[masuk]

If it were to be standardized, the Americans would insist it was US English.

I teach Mattayom so at least they're able to understand there are different pronunciations and spellings.

My American co-workers hit the floor laughing when I pronounced decal as 'dekkal' as they have always said "deekal'

I've had Yank co-workers absolutely insist that I should be teaching American accents and spellings because "the world speaks murican English.

I point out that Thai people are far more likely to encounter Aussies and Brits than Americans.

While I agree with you, there is a need for students to understand different pronunciations and spellings. The 'world' which supposed to speak 'Merican is the country which has a 'world series' game, but no other country plays. There are far, far, more countries speaking International English than the other sort. An example of this sorry state of affairs can be seen in the Philippines, where they still use Lb for weight (which the USA insists on using Lbs) -- Lb is both plural and singular. I asked one shop assistant what was meant that a bottle contained 26 oz? He had no idea what an 'oz' was.

An 'auto' has four 'tires' and contains gasoline/benzine/petrol, and its speed is measured in 'miles' per hour. The fuel is measured in 'gallons' and again, it's 3.75 litres to a 'Merican gallon, whereas the gallon used in the old days in other countries was 4.5 litres, which used to be used before the world went Metric.

They cannot spell 'kilometre', and one 'Merican' wrote to me and said the metric system was British! In fact it is French in origin, adopted by the vast majority of Western and Eastern countries and was made law by the US Senate in 1875.

Welcome to the 21st century guys.

PS Sorry Duane, in Australia, we also call a decal a 'deekal'.

[duanebigsby]

If it were to be standardized, the Americans would insist it was US English.

I teach Mattayom so at least they're able to understand there are different pronunciations and spellings.

My American co-workers hit the floor laughing when I pronounced decal as 'dekkal' as they have always said "deekal'

I've had Yank co-workers absolutely insist that I should be teaching American accents and spellings because "the world speaks murican English.

I point out that Thai people are far more likely to encounter Aussies and Brits than Americans.

While I agree with you, there is a need for students to understand different pronunciations and spellings. The 'world' which supposed to speak 'Merican is the country which has a 'world series' game, but no other country plays. There are far, far, more countries speaking International English than the other sort. An example of this sorry state of affairs can be seen in the Philippines, where they still use Lb for weight (which the USA insists on using Lbs) -- Lb is both plural and singular. I asked one shop assistant what was meant that a bottle contained 26 oz? He had no idea what an 'oz' was.

An 'auto' has four 'tires' and contains gasoline/benzine/petrol, and its speed is measured in 'miles' per hour. The fuel is measured in 'gallons' and again, it's 3.75 litres to a 'Merican gallon, whereas the gallon used in the old days in other countries was 4.5 litres, which used to be used before the world went Metric.

They cannot spell 'kilometre', and one 'Merican' wrote to me and said the metric system was British! In fact it is French in origin, adopted by the vast majority of Western and Eastern countries and was made law by the US Senate in 1875.

Welcome to the 21st century guys.

PS Sorry Duane, in Australia, we also call a decal a 'deekal'.

Of course there's a need for students to understand regional English. I always show them those differences.

There really isn't an International English developed, it's a concept only.

Canadian English is a mix of British and American. We tend to use American spellings when it comes to items commonly traded to the States, such as tire and aluminum, but British for centre and colour. I let my students know there is no right or wrong but that they can't mix it up like spelling colour with a "u" and harbor without. Perhaps us canucks are the only ones to say dekkal?

[jpinx]

".I say erbs. If fact if I had a student who said herbs I'd correct him."

I would never correct a student on any approved pronunciation, spelling, or grammar.

My daughter is often forced to say rubber instead of eraser. She is also criticized for saying Zee instead of Zed because as I quote "English was invented by the English and I don't accept American English". My five year old was quite upset and said "This is how we say it in my family."

Teach your daughter to correct the English. The English language is German in origin, just like the Queen.

The english language is german in origin. Nonsense. More like celtic..roman..germanic..scandanavian/danish..french..etc. It's a mongrel language developed over thousands of years.

Please take your head out of your . . . .

1. The history of the English language really started with the arrival of three Germanic tribes who invaded Britain during the 5th century AD. These tribes, the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes, crossed the North Sea from what today is Denmark and northern Germany.

2. • http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/english-language-history.html

Maybe it is worth remembering that Germany didn't exist until modern times -- nor did "German". The languages brought by immigrants to UK thousands of years ago were mostly celtic in origin, with a lot of nordic thrown in. The language brought by the Normans, was in fact a recycled version of viking nordic, since that is where the Normans came from originally. There would have been a lot of old French in there as well. When all those sailors were washed up and settled after the Armada, there were a lot of Catalan, Portuguese, Genoese, etc words absorbed. During the times of the Empire, there were numerous Indian continental languages' words brought in, also a smattering of Swahili and Zulu.

The USA got their English around 1700 and didn't change in the same way as UK English - hence the differences. The fact that the language is called "English" is the greatest misnomer of all -- there is no such language and never has been. Modern Germany has a "unified " version of German thanks to the 1930's regime of standardisation, England never got past producing a quasi-approved dictionary.

[lostinisaan]

The languages of Germanic peoples gave rise to the English language. The best known are the Angles, Saxons, Frisii, Jutes and possibly some people such as Franks, who traded, fought with and lived alongside the Latin-speaking peoples of the Roman Empire in the centuries-long process of the Germanic peoples' expansion into Western Europe during the Migration Period. Latin loan words such as wine, cup, and bishop entered the vocabulary of these Germanic peoples before their arrival in Britain and the subsequent formation of England.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language

So why are the English also called Anglo Saxons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_England

However, English and German are so called "word borrowing languages" and when you look at American English you should consider the influence of German Immigrants to the States.

Modern German words that are now mostly American English are a later form of influence like “ Kindergarten”, Poltergeist” ”Rucksack” and many, many more due to German Immigration of the U.S.

Many Irish, Scottish, but also English words have the same spelling and pronunciation as words in so called “high German”, without a local slang, or dialect.

But also the Thai language became a "word borrowing language" and Thais are using German words with a German pronunciation, without even knowing it.

What a small world it is, we're living in.....

Edited June 28, 2015 by lostinisaan

[IMA_FARANG]

Is this a British/American spelling thing or I am wrong?

When I cross into Thailand from another country I cross a border not a boarder.

I often see it on this forums as a "boarder" run.

To me a boarder is a person who lives in a boarding house hence a boarder.

The boundary between Thailand and another country to me is a border, not a boarder.

I understand the labor (American spelling) and labour (Brit spelling) thing but is there a border and boarder thing also?

[lostinisaan]

Is this a British/American spelling thing or I am wrong?

When I cross into Thailand from another country I cross a border not a boarder.

I often see it on this forums as a "boarder" run.

To me a boarder is a person who lives in a boarding house hence a boarder.

The boundary between Thailand and another country to me is a border, not a boarder.

I understand the labor (American spelling) and labour (Brit spelling) thing but is there a border and boarder thing also?

A boarder is a pupil who lives at school during the term. It's just the misspelled version of border.

Got nothing to do with the difference between labour and labor.

[northernphil]

A young student was going to recite Jack'nJill. The teacher said " There should be a gap between Jack and and and and and Jill. There ,again , my 50 Satang worth.

[MartinL]

Maybe it is worth remembering that Germany didn't exist until modern times -- nor did "German". The languages brought by immigrants to UK thousands of years ago were mostly celtic in origin, with a lot of nordic thrown in. The language brought by the Normans, was in fact a recycled version of viking nordic, since that is where the Normans came from originally. There would have been a lot of old French in there as well. When all those sailors were washed up and settled after the Armada, there were a lot of Catalan, Portuguese, Genoese, etc words absorbed. During the times of the Empire, there were numerous Indian continental languages' words brought in, also a smattering of Swahili and Zulu.

The USA got their English around 1700 and didn't change in the same way as UK English - hence the differences. The fact that the language is called "English" is the greatest misnomer of all -- there is no such language and never has been. Modern Germany has a "unified " version of German thanks to the 1930's regime of standardisation, England never got past producing a quasi-approved dictionary.

Why are you talking about German - by which I suppose you mean the present-day German language - and Germany? Neither has anything to do with the ancestry of the English language except in as much as present-day German (language) and English have a common ancestor in the GermanIC language group of the dim & distant past. Current English & German are cousins, not parent & child.

That Germanic language group gave rise to the languages of current Germany, Netherlands, Nordic/Scandinavian countries, part of Belgium and the English & Scots spoken in Britain. The Celtic languages were certainly established in pre-Roman Britain - and also in much of nearby mainland Europe - but went into decline with the later invasion of Germanic tribes from Europe and have made very little contribution to modern English. Gaulish was a Celtic language spoken in pre-Roman France but it's now extinct & was supplanted by the ancestor of modern French.

Next big influence was Norman French which introduced French words into Britain, since it was the language of the conquering/ruling classes. Maybe they brought some Nordic words too but, since there was already a well-established Nordic influence in Britain when the Normans invaded, they wouldn't have been 'new' so wouldn't have changed anything. There was a 'battle' between the common man's Old English & the rulers' French which eventually resulted in Middle English - basically Old English amalgamated with Norman French.

Scots & English developed from the same roots and were, for a long time, very much alike. However, English in (particularly southern) England underwent what is known as a 'vowel shift' which Scots didn't and which largely explains why Scots & English have such different sounds today.

Following the Spanish Armada of the 1580s, most survivors made landfall in western Ireland where many ships were wrecked with (probably) great loss of life. Strange that a few survivors of the Armada in western Ireland should have such an influence on the English language.

Like all empires, the British one absorbed words from its colonies, just as the USA has done over the past 200+ years.

The English language is called 'English' because it developed in what is now England, using a number of influences. No need for a government-enforced standardisation in order that a language should exist. Maybe having a language that isn't constrained by any government standardisation gives that language strength & adaptability.

Show me language that has absolutely no outside influences - maybe Basque is one. French is called French because France is where it developed from earlier Latin, probably influenced by the Gaulish mentioned earlier. Same with Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc. - if there weren't local influences, all those languages would be the same today.

http://www.danshort.com/ie/timeline.htm - shows languages contributing to modern English and that the major influence is the Germanic languages of northwestern Europe.

http://www.danshort.com/ie/iecentum.htm - shows ancestry of modern European languages. NB no Celtic-English link.

[jpinx]

...........clipped for convenience.......

Show me language that has absolutely no outside influences - maybe Basque is one. French is called French because France is where it developed from earlier Latin, probably influenced by the Gaulish mentioned earlier. Same with Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc. - if there weren't local influences, all those languages would be the same today.

http://www.danshort.com/ie/timeline.htm - shows languages contributing to modern English and that the major influence is the Germanic languages of northwestern Europe.

http://www.danshort.com/ie/iecentum.htm - shows ancestry of modern European languages. NB no Celtic-English link.

Nice response Indeed Basque is an oddity, some say it is related to the lost language of Atlantis

When I was young we had many different versions of Irish still in use, sometimes so different that a Donegal man could not converse with a Wexford man. It was the same in England - a Geordie was (and probably still is) barely understandable to a Cornishman. Nowadays everything is dumbed down to the lowest common understanding -- language included. A shame in my opinion, but that's the way of the world.

Whilst the references you give are interesting, every language historian brings his/her own baggage to the picnic. There's little mention of the Sarmatians and their considerable influence, not only on language. The actual languages imported with the influx of people is as tricky to determine as the actual tribes that did the invading. Certainly the Romans had huge influence, but it must be remembered that latin was only the language of the true romans. The vast majority of the legions were manned by mercenaries from other parts of that sprawling empire. Many Greeks apparently, and Romanies, Bulgarians, etc from the east, plus goodness know how many from other parts such as modern Libya, Tunisia, etc. Truly the UK became a wonderful melting pot of cultures, which is largely why it has been so successful. Diversification, adaptability and acceptance of differences makes a country strong, unlike the "pure" nationalists -- as any dog breeder will confirm, purity tends towards weakness.

I do take issue with the point you make about the celtic languages not having much influence, considering that the whole of England as well as the rest of UK spoke the language before the Romans arrived, and it was only driven to the western fringes, but never died out.

A lovely topic -- thanks for responding.

[ableguy]

If this is all you have to ask , go back to sleep.

[MartinL]

... When I was young we had many different versions of Irish still in use, sometimes so different that a Donegal man could not converse with a Wexford man ...

At the extreme risk of upsetting 'ableguy', I'll respond to this comment.

I've always been interested in languages - not so much in the speaking of them, because I'm a terrible conversationalist, but in their similarities/differences/development.

I don't know how true your statement about the Donegal/Wexford men above is but it reminds me of a couple of friends I had, one an Irish speaker from the Gweedore Gaeltacht and the other a Manxman who was learning his island's language - his Manx skills were reasonable (he said) but he was by no means fluent in it.

With some effort on their part, these two were able to hold a conversation in two different but similar Gaelic languages. It was a real pleasure to listen to them even though it meant almost nothing to me. Any misunderstandings & clarifications were cleared-up in English and then the talk continued .

I was quite pleased that the endangered Irish & Manx languages had a future with people like these.

Edited July 3, 2015 by MartinL

[jpinx]

... When I was young we had many different versions of Irish still in use, sometimes so different that a Donegal man could not converse with a Wexford man ...

At the extreme risk of upsetting 'ableguy', I'll respond to this comment.

I've always been interested in languages - not so much in the speaking of them, because I'm a terrible conversationalist, but in their similarities/differences/development.

I don't know how true your statement about the Donegal/Wexford men above is but it reminds me of a couple of friends I had, one an Irish speaker from the Gweedore Gaeltacht and the other a Manxman who was learning his island's language - his Manx skills were reasonable (he said) but he was by no means fluent in it.

With some effort on their part, these two were able to hold a conversation in two different but similar Gaelic languages. It was a real pleasure to listen to them even though it meant almost nothing to me. Any misunderstandings & clarifications were cleared-up in English and then the talk continued .

I was quite pleased that the endangered Irish & Manx languages had a future with people like these.

The Ireland I grew up in had many people who did not speak English at all. The dialects of Irish were considerably different, and it took a bit of effort -- as with your example -- for a conversation to be properly understood sometimes -- depending on the level of education of the participants.

With reference to English in modern times, an example is how the English spoken by those who are under-educated in southern states of USA is usually unintelligible to me.

Edited July 3, 2015 by jpinx

[duanebigsby]

Is this a British/American spelling thing or I am wrong?

When I cross into Thailand from another country I cross a border not a boarder.

I often see it on this forums as a "boarder" run.

To me a boarder is a person who lives in a boarding house hence a boarder.

The boundary between Thailand and another country to me is a border, not a boarder.

I understand the labor (American spelling) and labour (Brit spelling) thing but is there a border and boarder thing also?

You are right. Not a British/American thing. Boarder in reference to countries is just misspelled.