For me one of them is how some words are spelled the same but pronounced differently but still mean almost the same thing.
Take for example the word live, one is pronounced with a long vowel and the other with a short vowel. Yet both means living. "He went to a live show" "He will live a good life"
The same applies to the word read. "He read the book last night" "He will read the book tonight"
The same applies to the word read.
Yeah, that's in the top 10 if not #1. It's plain stupid.
Ooh! So many options that it is virtually impossible to select just one. I'll have to go with punctuation: periods, commas, and semicolons in particular.
It is generally known that a period ends a sentence. If the entire sentence is enclosed in single or double quotes, the period belongs before the closing quote. However, if the last word or phrase in a sentence is enclosed in single or double quotes, I would put the period after the closing quote. My editor disagrees with me, and I respect and follow his judgement when it comes to punctuation.
I am familiar with some of the uses of commas, but it is not always clear to me when a comma is needed. For me, if sentence contains multiple ideas and might be confusing, I tend to add a comma for clarity. It might be a better idea to rewrite the sentence.
Semicolons are also a challenge. The rule says you can join two independent, related clauses with a semicolon. The confusion I have is, are the clauses related? The edits I receive seem to indicate that my editor doesn't see the same relationship between the clauses that I do. I typically accept his edits and make the clauses two standalone sentences. I also have a tendency to write long, run-on sentences, sometimes joining clauses with a semicolon, so it is a good idea to break the sentence up.
I would put the period after the closing quote.
It's my understanding that's the British way.
As to semicolons, in most cases make it two sentences. Semicolons are often abused (misused) on SOL.
Semicolons are most needed with lists that include commas.
Sounds good to me.
I'm not sure which I dislike more: an author who uses punctuation improperly or an author who uses no punctuation within a sentence.
No punctuation would probably be my choice if the lack of punctuation results in confusion regarding the author's intent.
No punctuation would probably be my choice if the lack of punctuation results in confusion regarding the author's intent.
How would that resolve the confusion?
AJ
No punctuation would probably be my choice if the lack of punctuation results in confusion regarding the author's intent.
How would that resolve the confusion?
AJ, your selected quote changes the meaning of what REP wrote.
My question is: did you this deliberately or didn't you read (and understand) his previous sentence?
I now quote both sentences so you and other readers don't
have to go up to check what REP actually meant:
I'm not sure which I dislike more: an author who uses punctuation improperly or an author who uses no punctuation within a sentence.
No punctuation would probably be my choice if the lack of punctuation results in confusion regarding the author's intent.
HM.
No punctuation would probably be my choice if the lack of punctuation results in confusion regarding the author's intent.
Not using a comma or putting it after the wrong word frustrates me big time.
colons
"β A colonoscopy is an examination of the inside of your large intestine, which includes your colon, rectum and anus.
Yes, the arbitrariness and relative freedom of choice of commas is little baffling. But I can hide my lack of knowledge behind it, playing by ear.
In my native language grammar commas are set with mathematical certainty; they are either required or wrong. Doesn't mean it's always clear where they should or shouldn't be. But the same sequence of words with commas in different places would be considered different sentences with likely at least slightly different meanings, and only variations for whom you are able to draw the structural scheme of the sentence are legal.
but it is not always clear to me when a comma is needed
One of the few things to stick with me from school, is that if you read a sentence aloud, and you need to take a breath, then a comma is needed.
Which, going by some of the replies in this thread, more people need to start reading their prose aloud!
For example (and no disrespect to LupusDei)
In my native language
Comma!
grammar commas are set with mathematical certainty
But
Comma!
the same sequence of words with commas in different places
Comma!
would be considered different sentences
Comma!
with likely at least slightly different meanings,
In my native language grammar commas are set with mathematical certainty; they are either required or wrong.
Regarding LupusDia's sentence, shown above, I agree that a comma is needed after 'language'. But, the lack of commas in the rest of the sentence looks good to me. So does the semicolon.
I've heard that rule of thumb about pausing for a breath before. It is often correct, but not always. Many people do not pause after an introductory clause, which should be followed by a comma. In a list containing lists, semicolons should be used to separate the sentence's lists and commas within those internal lists. I've seen authors who use commas instead of semicolons for that purpose, and it is difficult to determine to which list a list item belongs.
In my native language grammar commas are set with mathematical certainty; they are either required or wrong.
Regarding LupusDia's sentence, shown above, I agree that a comma is needed after 'language'. But, the lack of commas in the rest of the sentence looks good to me.
I'd put it after grammar. And I'd probably make the possessive more explicit eg 'In my language's grammar, ...'
AJ
I agree that he probably meant language's grammar.
But as written, 'language grammar' and 'grammar commas' do not make sense according to English language's grammar. A perfect example of why the comma is important to the writer's intent.
he probably meant language's grammar
I suspect he was using 'native language' as a compound adjective applying to grammar, but I changed it to something I would find easier to parse.
AJ
One of the few things to stick with me from school, is that if you read a sentence aloud, and you need to take a breath, then a comma is needed.
Rules of thumb aren't actually rules. One of my English Profs at university had a great poster of a kitten in a tree with the slogan: "Clauses not pauses!".
Commas are used to separate clauses and to delineate unnecessary information. They have nothing to do with breathing.
Commas are used to separate clauses and to delineate unnecessary information. They have nothing to do with breathing.
Grammar rules are subjective, and different style guides have different opinions. Heck, there isn't even agreement on comma-delimited lists! (i.e. 'Oxford commas')
Grammar rules are subjective
No, they aren't.
First, grammar and writing rules are two very different things. Second, neither is subjective, although they can have different forms.
Grammar refers to the actual structural rules of the language. Things like adjective order, verb placement, use of pronouns and plurals, how subject-object order changes tone, and so on. Importantly, while there can be different rules for different styles of speech, such as formal versus informal, within a given style there is no difference between spoken and written.
Punctuation, spelling, and other elements of language that apply only to written or only to spoken forms are called styles. Styles are not rules, they are conventions that are used for specific purposes. The accepted writing style today is different than it was 200 years ago, but grammar hasn't changed significantly in that time. Sentence structure and tone is different in academic writing than business writing, but the same rules of grammar apply.
Different writing styles will use commas differently, but these differences are not rules of grammar, just conventions of style.
No, they aren't.
First, grammar and writing rules are two very different things. Second, neither is subjective, although they can have different forms.
At best, grammar, spelling, and meaning are 'point in time' observations of an ever-shifting target.
Dictionaries, grammars, and style guides are descriptive, not prescriptive, and are always behind usage (though in the internet age less so then when they were only available in 'dead tree format.
The English language evolves and is not bound by those 'rules' no matter how insistent the purported enforcers of those purported rules are.
The English language evolves and is not bound by those 'rules' no matter how insistent the purported
Yes, certainly, I agree that language evolves over time, but that's not the same thing as saying that grammar is subjective. Opinions are subjective. Rules of grammar are social, communal, and cultural. If you follow your own subjective rules of grammar your speech/ writing would be confusing at best.
If you follow your own subjective rules of grammar your speech/ writing would be confusing at best.
Well, I do, and it seems to work for me.
Rules of grammar are social, communal, and cultural.
Things which are 'social' and 'communal' are often subjective. Your 'society' and 'community' may not be mine, and mine may have different 'rules'.
One of the truths about English is that it has no rule-setting body. It has multiple style-setting bodies, but there is no authority which can say 'this is the rule' aside from 'usage'. 'Usage,' however, can vary significantly over decades.
One can dance around this by saying that 'grammar' is reserved for a very small number of significant 'rules' and everything else is 'style,' but most people will differ with you.
For instance, your own definition includes 'Things like adjective order, verb placement, use of pronouns and plurals, how subject-object order changes tone, and so on.' I agree about adjective order. Verb placement is more complicated; English can be tolerant of some very unusual verb placements.
Use of pronouns, however, is clearly 'subjective'. For hundreds of years, 'they' was a perfectly appropriate gender-neutral pronoun. For a brief period in the 20th century, many 'grammar' authorities declared it to be inappropriate. More recently, it's returned to being considered appropriate, except for those who were influenced by the mid-20th-century grammar 'authorities.'
There are many other concerns. For instance, some people think split infinities are a violation of grammar rules, while some others think they're a violation of style rules, whereas many authorities on both fronts argue that, in fact, there is no rule against splitting infinitives at all, whether as grammar or style.
There is certainly a very broad cultural set of guidelines which constitute 'grammar,' but what that is is either necessarily very minimalist, concerning only the very basics, or instead subjective, because once one gets outside the basics, one finds there's room to differ on any number of points without compromising readability.
Use of pronouns, however, is clearly 'subjective'. For hundreds of years, 'they' was a perfectly appropriate gender-neutral pronoun. For a brief period in the 20th century, many 'grammar' authorities declared it to be inappropriate. More recently, it's returned to being considered appropriate, except for those who were influenced by the mid-20th-century grammar 'authorities.'
My understanding is that "they" as a singular pronoun was historically only ever acceptable for cases where gender was unknown because the identity of the individual referred to was unknown.
It depends on what you mean by identity. If you mean a non-specific person, that's likely true (though not definite). However, if you mean that we know nothing of their identity, that's not true.
One of the first known references for 'they' as a singular pronoun is from 1375, and it's a case where the people involved were all men. There are numerous other instances where 'they' was used as a single pronoun for people of known genders. For instances, both Chaucer and Shakespeare used 'they' in cases where the (non-specific) person was male.
Of course, part of the problem is that the primary alternative for singular 'they' is 'he', which strongly implies a gender.
I failed to mention that there was also an 1700's and an 1800's backlash against singular 'they'. Interestingly, those stem from a female grammarian proclaiming 'he' as the preferred singular gender-neutral pronoun. She appears to have been influenced by prior defenses of male as the preferred gender if unknown.
There was also a contemporaneous backlash against 'you' as singular, along very similar lines ('thou' or 'thee' being the singular).
It depends on what you mean by identity. If you mean a non-specific person, that's likely true
Yes, I mean a non-specific person.
I agree about adjective order.
I think it's weak, and readily overridden by the need for emphasis.
AJ
Actually, I think we're talking about different things, which probably means I was mistaken when using the phrase 'adjective order'.
In terms of 'big green car' vs 'green big car', the second grates, but I wouldn't necessarily say it was incorrect.
However, 'car green' or 'car green big' are 'incorrect' (in my opinion, anyway). Adjectives need to come before nouns; that's what I was referring to. One can argue that, even then, grammar is 'subjective', but the vast majority of English speakers will have a great deal of trouble if you flip the order of adjectives and nouns, and it's reasonable to treat that as a 'rule'.
Adjectives need to come before nouns; that's what I was referring to.
Thanks for the clarification - that's something I agree with.
I can imagine a police interviewer asking a witness, "But did you see a green big car or a brown big car?" (Perhaps green and brown in capitals to reinforce the emphasis).
AJ
(I know, I'm late to the party.)
I can imagine a police interviewer asking a witness, "But did you see a green big car or a brown big car?" (Perhaps green and brown in capitals to reinforce the emphasis).
Even there, it seems less awkward if you say "Yes, you saw a big car. But, what color was the big car? Was it a big green car? A big brown car? Or was the big car some other color?"
-ZM
In terms of 'big green car' vs 'green big car', the second grates, but I wouldn't necessarily say it was incorrect.
The reason it grates is precisely because you have internalized the accepted usage, that is the grammar. Adjectives out of order do not render the sentence meaningless, but they are annoying. Just as you can understand the meaning of "I is going to bank later," but you also know that the grammar is incorrect.
The is actually one of the big arguments explaining why English has become a de facto standard across much of the world. Unlike many languages, badly spoken English is still understandable.
And for reference, the standard adjective order in English is: quantity or number, quality or opinion, size, age, shape, colour, proper adjective (eg. nationality material), purpose or qualifier.
I have seventeen (1) beautiful (2) large (3) antique (4) triangular (5) golden (6) Italian (7) sports (8) pennants.
And for reference, the standard adjective order in English is: quantity or number, quality or opinion, size, age, shape, colour, proper adjective (eg. nationality material), purpose or qualifier.
I have seventeen (1) beautiful (2) large (3) antique (4) triangular (5) golden (6) Italian (7) sports (8) pennants.
Thanks, I was about to go Google it. My native language doesn't have any preferred adjective order I'm aware about, so I would just order them inversely of specificity and in the default importance structure where last and first are more emphasized than the rest. Then, the list of adjectives would be comma delimited, or it would be adjective or an adjective of an adjective.
How English deal with compound adjectives? Defise-jointed?
Sickly-green car, if it's quality of color not sickly car that's green?
Yes, hyphens are used for compound adjectives, although some modern styles drop them and let readers figure it out. A good example is in ages:
18-year-old boy vs an 18-year old
The hyphen between year and old in included in the first since the noun is boy, but excluded in the second because boy has been dropped and old becomes the noun. However, because written grammar isn't always taught in detail these days, many casual writers will get confused between the two forms and just drop the hyphens altogether.
Also worth mentioning that English uses comma delineation when the adjectives are separate but not when they are connected, so in some cases lack of commas replaces hyphen.
Example:
old brown-leather wallet and old, brown leather wallet
mean the same thing, but
old, brown, leather wallet
means something different, although it is hard to imagine a situation where a leather wallet would be brown but the leather itself woudn't be.
18-year-old boy vs an 18-year old
The hyphen between year and old in included in the first since the noun is boy, but excluded in the second because boy has been dropped and old becomes the noun.
Actually, "old" is not the noun. "Eighteen-year-old" is the noun, as in, "An eighteen-year-old can drink alcohol in some states whereas some states require the person to be twenty-one."
Technically "old" is a pronoun here, with a noun like person being dropped for brevity; eg. "An eighteen-year-old person can drink in this establishment." However, my point here was that many writers would simply put "An eighteen year old may drink in this establishment." While incorrect in most written styles, it is common enough that it isn't noticeably wrong.
Technically "old" is a pronoun here
Crikey, I hope you're wearing a badge listing your pronouns.
AJ
Grammar rules are subjective
They're mainly attempts to codify historic practices, originally with more than a passing nod to the formality of Latin.
At least the controversies keep 'writing experts' in a job ;-)
AJ
At least the controversies keep 'writing experts' in a job ;-)
And that's a good thing?
And that's a good thing?
Would you like to be served burger and fries by a 'writing expert'?
AJ
Would you like to be served burger and fries by a 'writing expert'?
I thought that was the only job they could get.
Would you like to be served burger and fries by a 'writing expert'?
Would you want your obituary written my someone who serves burgers and fries?
Would you want your obituary to be written my someone who serves burgers and fries?
Someone who serves burgers and fries for a living would admit they didn't know what they were doing, whereas a 'writing expert' would pretend they did know what they were doing.
I'd prefer the honest obituary ;-)
AJ
Would you want your obituary written my someone who serves burgers and fries?
I would want my obituary written by a family member regardless of what they do for a living.
I would want my obituary written by a family member regardless of what they do for a living.
OK, your resume.
OK, your resume.
No, under no circumstances would I pay a professional writer to write my resume.
I would want my obituary written by a family member regardless of what they do for a living
You could always write it yourself.
AJ
I would want my obituary written by a family member regardless of what they do for a living.
Wouldn't that depend on if your family even liked you? Granted you would be dead so why would you care. I guess you can put it in your will if they want your money if they are gonig to lie about you make them good lies.
At least the controversies keep 'writing experts' in a job ;-)
Isn't that the reason our great institutions of learning built Ivory Towers. Just to keep those writing experts busy contemplating their own navels and not interfering with the rest of us
Grammar rules are subjective
Oddly enough, I've just been looking at on-line dictionary usages for a word I want to use as an adverb.
It's pretty incontrovertible that it can be used as a noun - 100% agreement.
But when it gets to using it as an adjective or an adverb, they're all over the place. What eg Merriam Webster considers an example of adverb usage looks to me extremely like an adjective, and other dictionaries list it as an adjective, listing exactly the same phrase as an instance.
How on earth can the basic building blocks of grammar; nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, be so subjective?
ETA - I've just checked the usage on SOL. More occurrences than I expected, a majority as a noun but plenty as an adjective. However, in my sample population, I didn't find it being used as what I would consider to be an adverb.
AJ
How on earth can the basic building blocks of grammar;
Because they aren't prescriptions from some authority on high, they are descriptive of common usage. Common usage can change over time, not just for words, but even for the basic elements of grammar.
And the dictionaries and text books are always playing catch up.
How on earth can the basic building blocks of grammar; nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, be so subjective?
They can't. But that doesn't mean that everyone giving definitions/usages are correct.
An adjective modifies a noun.
An adverb modifies a verb or an adjective or another adverb.
I don't see how that can be subjective.
Oddly enough, I've just been looking at on-line dictionary usages for a word I want to use as an adverb.
Wow...
Yes, this "can I use this word in this way" and the whole "is that even a word?" thing is yet another great candidate for an answer to the topical question.
Because, that's not something I would normally ever even contemplate on, I would just make up a word and run with it, and expect to be understood. The only question I could contemplate would be, how exactly I should go about doing it. But apparent lack of previous usage wouldn't bother me at all.
Well, in my native language we don't just use words in a different role, we derive the missing word for that role. If the word is derived and employed properly, the very grammar would supply the default meaning even if the neologism isn't ever been used before.
Sure, if the implied meaning differ from the grammatical (with does happen much too often), that would complicate things. But if used with purpose, the meaning should emerge from context even without need for explicit glossary to be provided. And no word is ever used in the exact same meaning by different people and in different contexts, so that is expected and one should be on constant lookout. (And that's why documents often contain extensive glossaries of seemingly trivial and common terms.)
Yes, this "can I use this word in this way" and the whole "is that even a word?" thing is yet another great candidate for an answer to the topical question.
Agreed! At it's core, a 'word' is a collection of sounds/characters that transmit an idea. If the sounds you utter or the letters you use do that, then it's word (leaving apart sighs, grunts, etc, though an argument could be made for some of those).
And no word is ever used in the exact same meaning by different people and in different contexts, so that is expected and one should be on constant lookout. (And that's why documents often contain extensive glossaries of seemingly trivial and common terms.)
Worse (if that's the right term) is when the meaning of a word flips to the opposite. Cf. "I literally died" meaning 'figuratively'. To me, 'literally' literally means 'literally', not 'figuratively'. To others, it means the exact opposite.
Oddly enough, I've just been looking at on-line dictionary
The problem I have using a dictionary to see how a word is spelled is you have to know at least the first 3 letters.
The problem I have using a dictionary to see how a word is spelled is you have to know at least the first 3 letters.
I get your point but, in my case, the word was eight letters and I knew all of them.
AJ
The problem I have using a dictionary to see how a word is spelled is you have to know at least the first 3 letters.
You need to know their order as well, otherwise do you look up tea, eat or ate?
You need to know their order as well, otherwise do you look up tea, eat or ate?
Or ETA? (estimated time of arrival)
HM.
ystokes stated looking for a word, not an abbreviation.
ETA as an abbreviation;
Estação de Tratamento de Γgua (Portuguese: Water Treatment Plant)
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Basque Homeland and Liberty; terrorist group in Spain)
European Tropospheric-Scatter Army (communications system)
I'd spell it Ξ·, it comes between zeta ΞΆ and theta ΞΈ
How did you get those funny looking letters?
How did you get those funny looking letters?
Character map - click on the required characters (maybe select a font with Greek first) - copy into clipboard - paste into reply. The better way, that doesn't work for what I'm doing (remote desktop into this computer which is running an Ubuntu 16.04 clone, so 6 years out-of-date) is to press-hold ctrl+shift, type u then the unicode value, then release ctrl-shift - but I don't know if that works for MSWin variants, whereas they all have character map (back to at least 3.11) - look in 'Accessories'. Be warned though - MS like to use their own encodings (code pages) so it's easy to finish up with other people seeing incorrect characters, code rectangles, or the invalid character symbol οΏ½ when their computer is not set up the same as yours.
How did you get those funny looking letters?
On my Mac, I would switch to the Greek keyboard and click the correct character on the keyboard viewer. Some Greek characters can be generated from the English keyboard with special keystrokes, e.g.
Ξ© (Option+z)
Β΅ (Option+m)
β (Option+j)
β (Option+w)
And so on.
Since we're being technical here, ETA is an acronym, not an abbreviation.
An abbreviation is when at least some letters are not connected in the original word, such as: Mr. for Mister or St. for saint.
An acronym is made up of the first letter or letters of each component word. In the 1957 a linguist whose name I can't recall also suggest initialism to distinguish acronyms which we say as words (eg, scuba) from those where we say the letters individually (FBI), but the distinction never really caught on. Most linguists these days consider it a null concept and just use acronym interchangeably for both types.
The word initialism actually goes back to 1868, but referred to a specific way of abbreviating the name of the author of a written work. The concept of initialism was also knows as an "alphabetic abbreviation" at one point. That term also didn't catch on.
Since we're being technical here, ETA is an acronym, not an abbreviation.
If we're being technical, ETA is an initialism. To be an acronym it would have to be pronounceable as a word rather than saying the letters.
Since we're being technical here, ETA is an acronym, not an abbreviation.
You might take a minute to check the actual dictionary definition of abbreviation.
You might take a minute to check the actual dictionary definition of abbreviation.
To wit, see: Abbreviations vs. Acronyms vs. Initialisms
All acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations. π
Apparent inability to construct diminutive of arbitrary words in a systematic way.
ETA: example:
Consider translation of a sentence like (Latvian):
"PolitiΔ·Δ«Ε‘i teic runiΕas sekotΔjiΕu pΕ«lΔ«Ε‘iem."
-> Diminutive(politicians) declaim diminutive(speeches) to diminutive(crowds) of diminutive(followers).
The result must be ironically patronizing, but seemingly cute.
I have the same pet peeve as REP concerning punctuation inside quotes. Punctuation inside a quote that is part of the outside sentence is just wrong. Who ever decided that is the way for American English must have had a bad case of dyslexia when he designed that. Breaking a sentence with a comma just before the closing quote is plain stupid because it suggests that the break (pause) is part of the quote and not part of the outside sentence. You get used to it but it remains looking strange that the quote itself is not closed properly.
Who ever decided that is the way for American English must have had a bad case of dyslexia when he designed that.
Agreed, and despite being in the former colonies, I generally use the British style because the US style just looks wrong.
Periods and commas inside quotes is due to the use of fixed-with fonts by printers. With double quotation marks there was too much apace between the quotation mark and the periodto look good.
British used single quotation marks and the problem was not as bad.
Periods and commas inside quotes is due to the use of fixed-with fonts by printers. With double quotation marks there was too much apace between the quotation mark and the periodto look good.
British used single quotation marks and the problem was not as bad.
Choosing good looks over textual correctness makes that design decision even more stupid.
Which is similar to the 'rule' about having two spaces after a period, which was only a 'rule' for a relatively brief period and also was related to fixed-width fonts.
Now that we are seldom troubled by fixed-width fonts, style will likely shift, but it will take a while to see where it goes.
Which is similar to the 'rule' about having two spaces after a period, which was only a 'rule' for a relatively brief period and also was related to fixed-width fonts.
For those of us with poor eyesight, even with variable width fonts, the double space after a period can be helpful.
Most style guides now consider it incorrect.
I think the point here is 'presentation' vs 'content'. I actually find two spaces often worse (because it creates strange whitespace 'rivers' in text), but that's a personal choice.
Just as with font and point size, this is something that can (and should) be handled as a display function rather than a textual function. I'm all for allowing changes to improve personal readability.
Of course, one can argue that double spaces can be elided as a display function as well, but in general I'd go with providing the text in the simplest reasonable format and letting typesetting happen as part of output.
Most style guides now consider it incorrect.
My comment had nothing to do with the style guides and what they consider correct. For those of us with poor eyesight, distinguishing between "A. A" and "A A" can be difficult with some proportional fonts.
I agree. I'm just arguing that the solution is on the typesetting end, not the textual end. There are plenty of ways that a good typesetter (including software) can emphasize periods, add spacing, etc.
Not that everything has a good typesetter, but shifting the work of typesetting onto the author isn't the right idea, in my opinion.
Well a bit in the past when I took typing class, not putting two spaces between sentences resulted in a mark down and the teacher rebuke. Besides I think it looks better. The teacher was a looker!
Well a bit in the past when I took typing class, not putting two spaces between sentences resulted in a mark down and the teacher rebuke.
The guys creating the HTML standard obviously didn't like the "two-space-rule". HTML ignores two or more consecutive spaces and displays just one.
HM.
the 'rule' about having two spaces after a period
It depends on the woman having the period how much space she needs after it.
What part of the English language drives you nuts?
As a Scot, the 'English' part... π€‘ π
As a Scot, the 'English' part... π€‘ π
As a American I do to. It should be American language. We spell our words different. It is color not colour.
As a American I do to. It should be American language. We spell our words different. It is color not colour.
You see the same kinds of things with French in France vs French Canadians or between Spanish from Spain vs Spanish speaking countries in the Americas such as Mexico.
Makes you wonder how far they have diverge before they will be "officially" considered separate languages.
As George Bernard Shaw said, "The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."
Though, through, rough, etc. And the word "run": I can run all day; my refrigerator runs all night; he hit a home run so he ran home; my nose runs a lot; I have the runs; I feel run down; she's run amok (what the hell is an amok, by the way?); there was a run on the bank; I'm going to run for office; her stockings have a run; the salmon are running right now (and they don't even have feet); my car runs on gas; my red shirt ran and turned my whites to pink; the rumors ran rife (I don't dare ask what a rife is); I ran a red light. I don't believe I've even cracked the surface of that word. Thank god I was born here. ESL has to be sheer torture. (If sheer means "transparent" does that mean I can see through the torture?)
ESL has to be sheer torture. (If sheer means "transparent" does that mean I can see through the torture?)
That's another new meaning for an old word. Sheer used to mean smooth, without bumps or protrusions. A "sheer hulk", formerly common in ports and shipyards, was an old hull with one or two masts but no yards or other rigging, used as a portable crane. The masts were sheer or without stuff on them like you would see on a functional sailing ship. A sheer fabric used to be smooth, not embroidered, and so made a good liner for your heavy embroidered draperies or tapestries. I guess they could be seen through so you couldn't use them without the actual drapes, and now 'sheer' means thin or transparent or flimsy.
-ZM
While not quite on topic, 'lay' is a word that I have difficulty choosing the correct form.
There and their use to give me trouble, then a friend provided a clue to resolve the difference
There and their use to give me trouble, then a friend provided a clue to resolve the difference
Their is alive, there is dead.
'lay' is a word that I have difficulty
Yeah, this is another in the top-10. I can't believe English has "lay" as the past tense of "lie," yet has "lay" as a present tense word. And then there's "laid" which most people use instead of "lay" (as the past tense of "lie").
Oh, and there's two kinds of "lie."
Contronym. A contronym is a word having two different meanings that at diametrically opposed.
An example is the word samction.
If you sanction an action, it means that you have approved it. But if you sanction someone for an action. It means that you are penalizing them for taking that action.
As a non-native English speaker, I will say everything. But for me it's mostly just the spelling and grammar. There's no coherence to it. At all. However I'm willing to concede that maybe it's because my mother tongue is drastically different from English, or any European langauges.
I have trouble differentiating American and British spellings. Also, which country does the Mr. and which does the Mr without the .?
Punctuation is definitely a problem for me as well. This is the woe of writing in my second language hahaha.
One thing that confuses me is how our sentence structure seems backwards in placement to most other languages. They all sound like Yoda.
They all sound like Yoda.
Yoda they all sound like.
FTFY
https://lingojam.com/EnglishtoYoda
English drives me nuts. And technically, it's not a language but a dialect.
You've heard it told that there are many 'borrowed' words in English? Bullshit. To quote James Nicoll
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
not a language but a dialect
"Language is a dialect which an army." Don't know who's attributable to that quote, but it's popular around here.
Really, it's an administrative not linguistic dichotomy.
There's dialects that are further apart than all Slavic languages, and right now we have a major war based on a claim that one of them shouldn't exist.
Chauffer
How do you spell chauffeur (driver)?
The word chauffeur is not easy to spell in the world, many spell it shoffer, shofer, shoufer, or shoffar, others go for chaufur or chauffar. The word shoffer and chauffeur are the same when it comes to pronunciation although the correct spellings are chauffeur.
Although chauffeurs drive automobiles, not nuts, spelling the word is insane or makes me insane.
I am not sure how we could drive a nut. Or a can of nuts. Looking on line finds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_rYOB8_eK0. Does not appear to involve male sexual equipment.
although the correct spellings are chauffeur.
The correct spellings of 'chauffeur' are 'chauffeur'.
The correct spellings of 'is' are 'is' ;-)
PS don't forget chauffeuse, the feminine form, used in 10 SOL stories.
AJ
PS don't forget chauffeuse, the feminine form, used in 10 SOL stories.
goddamit, I had no intention of learning anything useful today. Today is a fuck-off recovery day where nothing of import was sposta happen. You, sir, have ruined this for me my including actual education in my reading.
-ZM