PDA

View Full Version : English grammar



celia
09-08-2012, 17:45
Hi, I'm an English language teacher in Moscow, and I thought that since I have some free time, I would begin a thread where you can ask me questions you have about English grammar. You're welcome to post written work to be critiqued, and if you'd like me to look at posts you've written on this site (yes, a few contain errors! :nono:) just cut and paste them and I'll discuss them on this thread. Please don't post other people's writing, just your own....:thumbsup:

robertmf
09-08-2012, 18:12
... Please don't post other people's writing, just your own....:thumbsup:

You can also do vocabulary - beginning with the word "plagiarism" :D

celia
09-08-2012, 18:43
No, I just had this vision of people asking me to critique other people's posts on this site.

I have a lesson this evening, but after the lesson I may just give an impromptu lesson here regarding typical errors of Russian students...:book:

celia
09-08-2012, 18:57
I've borrowed a sentence from a recent post to give a short English lesson on:

"I'm exactly 2 months here in moscow today" - what's the problem?

celia
09-08-2012, 22:36
When we talk about a period in time, we use the past tense if the period is finished, or the present perfect tense if the period isn't finished or if it has just finished.

So: I lived in Africa from 2000 to 2002 (finished)

BUT "I have lived in Moscow for two months" (not finished - I am still in Moscow, so we use the present perfect tense (have + participle)


Or "I have been in Moscow for two months" (present perfect).

Both of these sentences are correct.

If the verb is one that describes an activity taking place over a period of time (such as living), and if the activity hasn't stopped, we can use the present perfect continuous: "I have been living in Moscow for two months."

Now the writer also added the word "exactly" - so the correct sentence is "I have lived in Moscow for exactly two months" or "I have been living in Moscow for exactly two months".

celia
09-08-2012, 22:57
My next question is about two recent posts:

"What do you think about online education?"

"I'm interested to meet new people."

What are the grammatical errors?

Jas
09-08-2012, 23:18
I got a big question. Can you help me wide hyphens and adjectives and nouns. I don't understand the rules one bit.

Like this. She called the red-haired servant.
They informed the newly-arrived guests.
She wore a rain-soaked cloak.

Also, what about side-glanced. Does it need a hyphen, or no?

One last question... I don't understand this rule.

The pair was late. (This is what my computer says)
But why not the pair were late (because it's two people).

Jas
09-08-2012, 23:21
My next question is about two recent posts:

"What do you think about online education?"

"I'm interested to meet new people."

What are the grammatical errors?

No, it can't be cos shud be capital o and shud be capital e also cos it's a subject like History, or Math.

Next, also can't be cos after the adjective can not come infinitive here and must be gerund.

This is how I understand it cos I had to do IELTS before I went to university cos I done IGSCE, not GCSE.

rubyrussia
09-08-2012, 23:26
Oh yippie!!! I'd love to know what's wrong with the first sentence! :-)

celia
10-08-2012, 00:38
Rubyrussia, the tone of your e-mail makes me a bit nervous. The only error in the first sentence was a small one (and very common even among native speakers): we think OF something when we have an opinion about it. So, "What do you think about online education?" should read "What do you think of online education?".

RichardB
10-08-2012, 00:52
Oh yippie!!! I'd love to know what's wrong with the first sentence! :-)

Dripping with sarcasm...


The second one is "I'm interested in meeting new people".

DavidB
10-08-2012, 05:57
Rubyrussia, the tone of your e-mail makes me a bit nervous. The only error in the first sentence was a small one (and very common even among native speakers): we think OF something when we have an opinion about it. So, "What do you think about online education?" should read "What do you think of online education?".

Are you sure about that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page6.shtml

celia
10-08-2012, 13:47
Positive - you can't ask someone "What do you think about capital punishment?". You have to use the preposition "of" when you're asking for someone's opinion.

DavidB
10-08-2012, 14:12
Positive - you can't ask someone "What do you think about capital punishment?". You have to use the preposition "of" when you're asking for someone's opinion.

I think you're wrong. Do you have a grammar reference or something else which backs up your view?

I am sure that in British English and its derivatives, there is nothing wrong with "thinking about," either in question form or another. The OED even indicates that the phrases "think of" and "think about" are interchangeable: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/think?region=uk&q=thinks

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/about?q=about

GalinaP
10-08-2012, 14:16
[QUOTE=DavidB;1038550]I think you're wrong. Do you have a grammar reference or something else which backs up your view?

Totally agree with you, David

celia
10-08-2012, 14:27
"She called the red-haired servant.
They informed the newly-arrived guests.
She wore a rain-soaked cloak."

We use hyphens when we use compound adjectives.

So, the first sentence, "She called the red-haired servant", could also be written as:

"She called the servant who had red hair", or "She called the servant with red hair".

In these sentences "red hair" is an adjective ("red") and a noun ("hair").

If you decide to combine the two to make an adjective, you use the hyphen to indicate that it's a compound adjective.

e.g. red-haired girl

She wore a rain-soaked cloak - means the same as "She wore a cloak that was soaked with rain".

They had a house that cost a million dollars.

They had a million-dollar house.

(Another common mistake - we don't say "a million-dollars house", but when we make the adjective, we remove the "s").

But I think this question requires a short description of participles, which I will do this evening.

As for "side-glanced", I'm not sure what that means, Jas.

celia
10-08-2012, 14:46
"I think you're wrong. Do you have a grammar reference or something else which backs up your view?"

The Oxford Dictionary link that you cited backs me up. Sometimes "think of" and "think about" are interchangeable, but not when you're asking for someone's opinion. Then you have to use "of".

I agree, it's a small point. :book: I just brought it up because even amongst native speakers prepositions are sometimes used incorrectly. I think I'll stick to more pressing grammar issues from now on! :agree:

I have to go to work now!

DavidB
10-08-2012, 15:10
The Oxford Dictionary link that you cited backs me up. Sometimes "think of" and "think about" are interchangeable, but not when you're asking for someone's opinion. Then you have to use "of".

I don't think it backs you up at all.


3 [no object] (think of) have a specified opinion of
So, you could ask "Do you think highly of online education?"
Using "about" would be wrong in the context of this question, because of the specified opinion ("highly").


2 [no object] direct one’s mind towards someone or something; use one’s mind actively to form connected ideas
This better fits the question, as the example given by the OED demonstrates: "he was thinking about Colin"


And from the page defining "about":

1 on the subject of; concerning:
I was thinking about you
a book about ancient Greece

robertmf
10-08-2012, 17:54
You can take questions about English pronounciation, too :bong: :)

:tgif:

yakspeare
10-08-2012, 18:00
meh I a english teacher and some of those questions a stoopid.

you need learn gooder english.

DavidB
10-08-2012, 19:03
Sometimes "think of" and "think about" are interchangeable, but not when you're asking for someone's opinion. Then you have to use "of".

After consulting with others, including an editor, I am extremely confident that no such rule exists. However, if you insist, I can contact the author of a series of English books to ask for clarification. I'm sure he will be able to provide a definitive answer.

Ian G
10-08-2012, 19:14
About this "think of" rather than "think about" for opinions- I am not sure there is any such rule. (In fact I am not sure there are any real rules, in a prescriptive sense in a language. All grammar can do is try and describe standard usage.)

Take this sentence:

When asked for his assessment of the French Revolution Zhou Enlai replied "It is too early to say".

Try rephrasing that with "thought of", and "thought about"- to me "thought of" just seems wrong here. ("What do you think of the French Revolution, Mr Zhou?") Surely "about" would be better?

celia
10-08-2012, 23:28
David, I'm quoting from your excerpt from the Oxford dictionary below.

When do we use "about"?

- When someone directs his or her "mind towards someone or something; use one’s mind actively to form connected ideas: he was thinking about Colin Jack thought for a moment [with object]: any writer who so rarely produces a book is not thinking deep thoughts"

When can you use either "of" or "about"?

- When you "(take into consideration when deciding on a possible action: you can live how you like, but there’s the children to think about".

We can also use both prepositions when we "consider the possibility or advantages of (a course of action): he was thinking of becoming a zoologist"

But in each of these examples the ACTION of thinking is involved.

When do we use "of"?

-When we "call to mind: lemon thyme is a natural pair with any chicken dish you can think of"

Another example: "Think of a number between 1 and 100".

And when we "have a specified opinion of: she did not think highly of modern art what would John think of her? I think of him as a friend"

In this case the poster was not giving an opinion, but rather asking for our opinion of online education. She was asking for our specified opinion.

If you take a look at Murphy's English Grammar in Use, p. 268, which half the population of Moscow seems to own a copy of, the same points are made.

If the poster had stated, "I'm thinking about taking an online course. What do you think of online education?", that would have been fine. However, she only asked for our opinion.

Lastly, there's always the possibility that you come from a place where prepositions are used differently. For example, in North America we say "on the weekend" whereas in England it's "at the weekend". But I assure you that it's standard in North America and England to ask people what they think "of" something when their opinion is requested.

celia
10-08-2012, 23:40
"There is no time like the present, so it was time to present the present."

One of my favourite stories in a great book, "Cider with Rosie" by Laurie Lee, is his description of his first day of school - he was told to sit in a chair "for the present" and later he cried because no one gave him a present.

Jas
11-08-2012, 00:49
Think of can mean like to suggest something. Think of a number between 1-5

But think about means a preconceived notion, not one ure just making up.


However,

"What do u think about going to the cinema?"
and
"What do u think of going to the cinema?"

while interchangable sort of, also follow the same rule maybe where the former is to ask about a preconceived possibility and the latter is to make something that is more like a suggestion.

This is what I think now.
Jas= IELTS 9.0

yakspeare
11-08-2012, 01:00
Why would a British citizen who grew up in the UK need IELTS? May be I don't understand your history.

DavidB
11-08-2012, 01:04
Ok, Celia,

1. you're trying to twist the definition by claiming that an opinion has been specified when it's clear that one hasn't. ("She was asking for our specified opinion.")

2. I've run the question by an editor (more than one, in fact), and both have indicated there is nothing wrong with it.

3. In the second link which I provided, you will find that the definition of "about" when used as a preposition is: "on the subject of; concerning"
So another way to phrase the question would be: "What are your thoughts on the subject of online education?"
equivalent to: "What are your thoughts concerning online education?"
equivalent to: "What are your thoughts about online education?"

4. An extract of the page which you refer to from Murphy's whatever it's called is below, for reference. It's hardly definitive and certainly does not cover all usage cases. In addition, the very next point contradicts the one which you've based your argument on.
22238


5. in relation to your last point:

Lastly, there's always the possibility that you come from a place where prepositions are used differently. For example, in North America we say "on the weekend" whereas in England it's "at the weekend". But I assure you that it's standard in North America and England to ask people what they think "of" something when their opinion is requested
Before you claim that something is grammatically incorrect, you should first ensure that is the case in whichever dialect the writer has chosen.
I can assure you that it's also standard to ask people what they think "about" something when their opinion is requested, and that each form has a slightly different meaning.


I will ask for clarification from the author of a series of grammar books, because, frankly, I think it's ridiculous for you to continuously make that argument without any factual basis.

My advice to any student of English: you should ignore Celia's incessant rambling and to feel free to ask someone what they think ABOUT (or "of") something. Both are perfectly acceptable.

Jas
11-08-2012, 01:13
Why would a British citizen who grew up in the UK need IELTS? May be I don't understand your history.

Cos like I told you, but u don't remember, I was educated in the Gulf at an international school and took IGCSE- not GCSE. So to get acceptance to university I had to do IELTS. No way wud university let me in without IELTS cos all me secondary education was in the Gulf.

DavidB
11-08-2012, 01:25
Cos like I told you, but u don't remember, I was educated in the Gulf at an international school and took IGCSE- not GCSE. So to get acceptance to university I had to do IELTS. No way wud university let me in without IELTS cos all me secondary education was in the Gulf.

Jas, that one I've put in bold is called the "possessive me" and it's driving lots of people up the wall. :D

Possessive me - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's common in Australia and New Zealand actually, but not in written form.

What do you think about that?

RichardB
11-08-2012, 01:35
Why would a British citizen who grew up in the UK need IELTS? May be I don't understand your history.

IELTS (http://www.ielts.org/)and IGCSE (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education)exams are the international equivalents of the basic GCSE exams that every 14 - 16 year old does at school in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

celia
11-08-2012, 01:53
David, in the Murphy excerpt you quoted above, the question is "What did you think of the film?" It 's the same type of question as "What do you think of online education?".

The last thing I want to do in this thread is argue a minute point with a native speaker. In fact I'm not going to bring up the issues of prepositions again because I don't really care if someone says "think about" instead of "think of". I just took an example at random from a thread, which I'm not going to do again either. Give me a break!

celia
11-08-2012, 02:01
And by the way, I would say "What are your thoughts on online education?" rather than "What are your thoughts about online education?" :11033:

DavidB
11-08-2012, 02:18
David, in the Murphy excerpt you quoted above, the question is "What did you think of the film?" It 's the same type of question as "What do you think of online education?".
I agree. But the except also states that the difference is sometimes small and you can use of or about, which has been my point throughout this thread. There is nothing wrong with the use of "about" in Potty's question. It has a slightly different (broader) meaning in that context, but it's grammatically correct.

If a mistake is that minute and borderline, I think you should refrain from declaring that it's grammatically incorrect. Maybe there is a rule which you've misinterpreted or extended further than its original purpose. Using "of" may be more consistent with a style of speech that you're familiar with, but that doesn't make the use of "about" grammatically incorrect.

The reason I argued my point strongly is that I don't think people should feel that they're making a mistake when you can't prove that they are.

rumple_stilskin
11-08-2012, 02:24
Jas, that one I've put in bold is called the "possessive me" and it's driving lots of people up the wall. :D

Possessive me - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessive_me)

It's common in Australia and New Zealand actually, but not in written form.

What do you think about that?

I have lived in Australia for 20 years and New Zealand for 15 years and I can't recall ever hearing "me" used as a "my". Not once, but that's just me.

Have you ever been to Australia or New Zealand?

p.s. Having said that, it's not impossible for the people living in the bush, small towns or remote areas to speak this way. I simply don't know about it.

DavidB
11-08-2012, 02:34
I have lived in Australia for 20 years and New Zealand for 15 years and I can't recall ever hearing "me" used as a "my". Not once, but that's just me.

Have you ever been to Australia or New Zealand?

p.s. Having said that, it's not impossible for the people living in the bush, small towns or remote areas to speak this way. I simply don't know about it.

Yes, and I heard it at least weekly.

http://books.google.ru/books?id=2foT6e766G0C&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=australian+english+possessive+me&source=bl&ots=QyM6QUdYw9&sig=1LYadnD5KVYWU5aLGc89HsO6VeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1IslUJH9CM65hAfF2oHgAw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=australian%20english%20possessive%20me&f=false

robertmf
11-08-2012, 02:41
I have lived in Australia for 20 years and New Zealand for 15 years and I can't recall ever hearing "me" used as a "my". Not once, but that's just me.


You ever go :drink: swimming :drink: :question:

Naked Fisherman was Rescued from Shark-infested Ocean in Australia - YouTube

carly
11-08-2012, 03:01
meh I a english teacher and some of those questions a stoopid.

you need learn gooder english.

Hello,

I enquired about a CELTA course near my house and was told to complete a pre-interview task and then attend a group interview where I will be expected to teach something (anything) for 5 minutes and make sure that everyone understands it by the end of the mini lesson.

Sounds like an assessment centre for a job :(

DavidB
11-08-2012, 03:08
I have lived in Australia for 20 years and New Zealand for 15 years and I can't recall ever hearing "me" used as a "my". Not once, but that's just me.

You'll most often hear it as: "me' mates"... eg. "I'm goin' to the pub with me' mates."

robertmf
11-08-2012, 03:50
You'll most often hear it as: "me' mates"... eg. "I'm goin' to the pub with me' mates."

Australian Toilet Paper Ad - YouTube

:devilish:

peppermintpaddy
11-08-2012, 10:33
Jas, that one I've put in bold is called the "possessive me" and it's driving lots of people up the wall.

It's common in Australia and New Zealand actually, but not in written form.



Its common in NW England also,especially Mcr and L'pool......Jas just writes as she speaks,not a big deal for me,but maybe annoying for some people.

bob-b-d
11-08-2012, 12:25
They can be interchanged with basically no difference. I think it's like this/that if the the object is close use about if its floating in the air in the distance then of eg: I'm thinking of you, I dream about you.... I know certain books say to use it one way or another but I'm not sure if they are backed up by grammar... This is what I thought or that is what I thought?? for me it may be this for someone else that and the same rule ( I think) applies with of/about:voodoo: English... Gotta love it!

celia
11-08-2012, 18:31
Question from a previous poster: "The pair was late. (This is what my computer says)
But why not the pair were late (because it's two people)."


PAIR:

Technically "pair" is singular and takes a singular verb.

So:

A pair of glasses was on the table.

A pair of jeans was on the bed.

A pair of scissors was on the table.

A pair of trousers is in the wardrobe.

A pair of shoes was on the floor.

A pair of socks was in the washing machine.

But what about: "A pair of dancers was waiting for the final score"?

This is correct, because "a pair" is singular and the verb has to match the subject of a sentence.

However, there are many singular words in English that we use in the plural when they indicate a group of people. Some of these are "team", "family", "firm", "committee", "staff", "the public" (and many other words like this). Each of these is singular and should take a singular verb when it is the subject of a sentence. But we often use either a singular or plural verb depending on the context.

So:

The pair of dancers are waiting for the final score.
The team are desperately trying to win the prize.
The family are going to live in Moscow.
The firm do their best to ensure their customers are satisfied.

My own view is that this is OK for informal spoken English but not for formal spoken English or for written English, but some may disagree.

So, the grammar correction feature of the computer is correct when it tells you that you should be writing "a pair IS", because technically all these words (pair, team, family and so on) are singular and if they are the subject of the sentence, the verb should also be singular.

Tony P
11-08-2012, 19:14
A pair of glasses was on the table.

A pair of jeans was on the bed.

A pair of scissors was on the table.

A pair of trousers is in the wardrobe.



Whilst agreeing my understanding to be as yours, the above examples add another twist.

The principal noun does not exist in the singular form.
There is no such things as 'glass' (as spectacles), 'trouser', 'jean' or 'scissor' as nouns in their own right but they do exist as adjectival nouns.

robertmf
11-08-2012, 20:41
So:

The pair of dancers are waiting for the final score.
The team are desperately trying to win the prize.
The family are going to live in Moscow.
The firm do their best to ensure their customers are satisfied.

My own view is that this is OK for informal spoken English but not for formal spoken English or for written English, but some may disagree.


The American dialect tends to treat collective plural nouns as singular; in the US your examples would all take singular verbs.

For example, The government is here to help you; instead of the English 'are'.

alouette
11-08-2012, 21:02
The American dialect tends to treat collective plural nouns as singular; in the US your examples would all take singular verbs.

For example, The government is here to help you; instead of the English 'are'.


What about some English-English extracts: 'The Government is today publishing its response to the report by the Independent Commission, 'The Government sets out plans to reform the structure of banking', 'The Government has insisted that the actual content of messages'?

celia
11-08-2012, 21:14
Tony, I don't think "sunglasses" is an adjectival noun, but rather a plural noun (always in the plural). So by themselves they would require a plural verb:

E.g. the sunglasses are on the table.

But "a pair of sunglasses" is singular:

The pair of sunglasses is on the table.

That is correct grammar but, as Jas said, her inclination is to write "the pair go to dinner", as if it's plural, if the pair consists of two people rather than a pair of sunglasses.

And Robert and Alouette, I don't think I expressed myself very clearly - in England and in North America, people say "The government is there to help you" (and this is correct grammar). Everyone uses those words in the singular: "The team is the best we've ever had", "The firm is the market leader", "The government is going to raise taxes" and so on. That is the way we're supposed to use them. But if we think of them as a group of people, we sometimes make the verb plural.

Take the example "staff". When I learned grammar in school we were told that it is singular, and it was only used in the singular. But now many people say things like "the staff are going out on strike", i.e. making it plural.

Anyway, I was just trying to explain to Jas why she had the inclination to write "The pair are late " instead of what the grammar function on her computer was telling her, "The pair is late".

Off to do my Russian homework!

And is American English really a dialect??

robertmf
11-08-2012, 21:18
What about some English-English extracts: 'The Government is today publishing its response to the report by the Independent Commission, 'The Government sets out plans to reform the structure of banking', 'The Government has insisted that the actual content of messages'?

Perhaps the corrupting influence of the Colonials on ye olde English :question:

For example, the HTML tag for color is <COLOR> not <COLOUR> :Loco:

celia
11-08-2012, 21:23
Tony, I think I just figured out what you were saying about adjectival nouns - trousers, scissors, etc. can't be used in the singular but they can if they're used as adjectives, like trouser cuffs, pyjama bottoms, jean fabric, and so on. Is that what you mean? I would have called those compound nouns, but we do seem to always use them in the singular.

robertmf
11-08-2012, 21:28
Tony, I don't think "sunglasses" is an adjectival noun, but rather a plural noun (always in the plural). So by themselves they would require a plural verb:

E.g. the sunglasses are on the table.

But "a pair of sunglasses" is singular:

The pair of sunglasses is on the table.

That is correct grammar but, as Jas said, her inclination is to write "the pair go to dinner", as if it's plural, if the pair consists of two people rather than a pair of sunglasses.

What about a pair of scissors :question:




And Robert, I don't think I expressed myself very clearly - in England also people say "The government is there to help you" (and this is correct grammar). Everyone uses those words in the singular: "The team is the best we've ever had", "The firm is the market leader", "The government is going to raise taxes" and so on. But if we think of them as a group of people, we sometimes make the verb plural.

And is American English really a dialect??

I suppose so. There are differences in spelling & pronounciation along the lines of Russian & Ukr. It seems "American English" can be considered a language unto itself, with the dialects being within American speakers.

PBS on American varieties (http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/)

:10641: I pass the Philadelphia dialect quiz (http://www.gotoquiz.com/how_philadelphia_are_you_1)

Jas
11-08-2012, 21:40
Somethings can only be plural nouns cos they conist of two parts.
Can u have trousers with only one leg, gloves with only one hand, or a shoe for only one shoe. Same is with glasses, one thing, but two indivisible parts.
It's like that.

It's both a plural noun and a compound noun.
Main thing is subject verb agreement, so, who wud ask, "Where is the trousers?"
See or no?

celia
12-08-2012, 16:55
OK, I hope David is taking his afternoon nap because I'm going back to one of the first points I raised:

"I am interested to meet new people."

Usually when someone says this, it's because that person is translating the sentence from his or her own language into English.

In English some verbs take a second verb in the infinitive form: "I decided to move" (infinitive is "to + verb").

Some verbs take a gerund (ing ending) in the second verb: "I avoid taking the Metro".

In the sentence "I am interested to meet you" the writer is assuming that we take an infinitive after "I am interested".

In fact, however, we use THE CORRECT PREPOSITION (in this case, "in") and the gerund form of the next verb.

So "I am interested to meet new people" should be:

"I am interested in meeting new people."

Some other verbs that take the preposition IN and a verb in the ING form (gerund);

Succeed - "I succeeded in delaying my departure".

Believe - "I believe in striking while the iron is hot".


And of course, you don't have to have a second verb after these verbs. You can use a noun after the preposition.

So you can say:

"I am interested in football".

"I am succeeding in my weight loss programme".

"I believe in God."


Last point: How do you know whether a verb takes the infinitive form, the ING form or a preposition?

There's no rule - you simply have to memorise it. :10293:

yakspeare
12-08-2012, 17:26
"Last point: How do you know whether a verb takes the infinitive form, the ING form or a preposition?"

That isn't quite true.

Use of the infinitive after:

After certain verbs (want, need, would like etc)
adjectives
and why you do something.

Use of ING:

As the subject of the sentence.
After some verbs-usually emotions(like love,hate,enjoy)
after prepositions.

robertmf
12-08-2012, 19:12
LOL Here's more than you want or need to know about ye olde gerunds & participles :Loco: Participles & gerunds (http://www.bartleby.com/116/210.html)

For English composition, the classic reference is Strunk & White (http://www.bartleby.com/141/)

celia
12-08-2012, 20:35
Yak, you said that you use the infinitive "after certain verbs", and the gerund "after certain verbs". Which verbs? You have to memorise them.

Some common verbs that take a verb in the infinitive form after them:

- decide - I decided to walk home.

- offer - I offered to make a cake.

- agree- I agreed to make a cake.

- promise - I promised to give you a lift.

- learn - I learnt to speak English a long time ago.

- forget - I forgot to buy some milk.

- deserve - I deserve to win a medal for my efforts.

- afford - I can't afford to take any more English lessons.

- hope - I hope to go to University next year.

and so on.

Some common verbs that take the gerund after them:

-enjoy - I enjoy playing basketball.

- mind - Would you mind closing the window?

- finish - I finished doing my homework.

- keep - I keep trying to call her, but she won't answer.

-suggest - I suggested walking to the store but he insisted on driving.

and so on.

But often students are surprised that some verbs (usually) can take either the infinitive or the gerund form after them.

- like - I like to swim or I like swimming. (BUT the verb "dislike" has to be followed by a verb in gerund form: I dislike swimming. And "would like" has to be followed by infinitive: I would like to have a piece of bread.)

- hate - I hate to fly or I hate flying.

-love - I love to read or I love reading.

:10293:

yakspeare
12-08-2012, 20:48
the list is small and reasonably clear to most students.

I would like<<<followed by infinitive. Different construction to I like.

hate,like,love etc-generally the gerund form is used.

try and remember have different meanings between infinitive and gerund form.

Saying there are no rules, is like saying there are no rules in Russian! lol.

How many verb endings are there in Russian when you are not using the infinitive form? Lots. But there are rules behind this, even if they are complicated ones. Russian has an abundance of exceptions-does not make the rules any less true.

rubyrussia
12-08-2012, 21:46
Celia,

I thought I'd chip in since I originally asked what was wrong with the first sentence. Most of what I write won't be very detailed, I'm actually thinking about expounding on a few of these and hopefully publishing a few of these ideas on my website or maybe in an ESL journal.

I've taught English for a good while. Here's some advice that I have:

Don't correct people's English unless they ask for it.
I wouldn't ever preemptively correct people even on a forum. The people whose sentences you've borrowed didn't ask to be corrected or participate. Even though you may have good intentions, it comes off as being narcissistic. If you want to correct English for fun, let's start with Youtube. :-)

Don't over correct students. Know what to correct and when to correct. Green teachers love to swoop in and stop students from speaking to correct their mistakes. Apart from being extremely frustrating and annoying, it actually isn't very productive. Choose what target language you want the student to master based on mistakes they make. If you have a tendency to do this, jot down mistakes and then go back later and chose which ones to correct.

You aren't teaching people to become native speakers.

Your students will never speak exactly like you so don't teach them so! I try to be selective when using the word “wrong,” but your contrast of “think about” being inappropriate in the context of “giving an opinion” is just... well... wrong. It's used in every major dialect of English. You can check any dictionary. I used Longman.


what do you think of/about somebody/something? (=used to ask someone for their opinion)
What do you think of your new school?

DavidB has proven that mastering English is indeed complicated. Think highly of someone is correct while think highly about someone isn't normally used or heard.

You aren't a definitive resource on the language.

Believe it or not, early on in teaching I accidentally corrected things that weren't even wrong. Later I learned that British people spoke so. One of these "mistakes" that drove me up the wall was nouns being used in the plural like... government are, family are, the band are, etc. It sounded like nails on a chalkboard! Is it wrong or bad? Of course not. This language point has already been mentioned earlier but believe it or not, we Americans also do the same thing but just less (e.g. the police are). Speaking of narcissism, Americans also say, “The United States of America is the best country in the world!” :) Shouldn't we say are? I mean states are plural. :)

BTW, I think British people typically say my family / government / team are when they are thinking about the people in the sentences and they use is when they think of the word as more of a concept. I'd like to hear someone who's British weigh in on this so I can see if I'm “wrong!” Yay!

Avoid strong flavors of prescriptivism and descriptivism.

You can always share your opinion but let your students decide. Examples of perscriptivism:

(Context) Rubyrussia in English class back home in the USA
Ruby: Can I go to the bathroom?
Teacher: Not until you ask correctly, Ruby. Of course you can!!! The correct word is may!


Ruby: Is Russia still communist? I better go google it.
Teacher: Ruby! Google is not a verb! We already have a verb in English called search, stupid!

Well, in modern English can is used very frequently for permission so is it wrong if everyone uses it? A strong prescriptivist says yes! Some topics might be worth exploring with students. I've come across a few textbooks that say things like, “If I was the president (or you), I'd...” are incorrect and I wholeheartedly disagree.

By the way, I once had a student correct me after class while I was speaking Russian. I said, “Ya paydu kupit' kartoshkoo and my student told me the correct word should be kartofel'. Can anyone explain that one to me? :-)

Shut up and let your students speak.
Almost every teacher I know speaks way too much in class. Get a stopwatch and count how much time you talk in class vs your students. Seriously, you might be shocked. In groups, most students get about 10 minutes of time per person. Could you learn a language by speaking it for twenty minutes a week?

Avoid assimilating students mistakes (if humanly possible) and spend some time back home every year.

Believe it or not, some of the teachers that have been in Russia since the collapse of the USSR start to say some bizzare things.
I know one woman from the USA who speaks with a blend of British and American pronunciation / intonation and also says things like “trainings.”
Another great thing I hear all the time, “I was playing video games all throughout high school.”
In fact, native speakers assimilating students mistakes is an interesting topic too!

Know who (whom :)) to work with and and how to promote yourself.

My guess is that your original post was to promote yourself as a competent native speaker but more specifically teacher. I don't think most of the people on this forum make a big enough salary to study with native teachers one on one. English lessons with native speakers are expensive. You might leave an advertisement for yourself in the online directory, but I don't think most of the people on this forum want lessons. People that come to this website in search of a teacher probably won't even access the forum let alone see this topic. They are happy with written practice or finding where native English speakers hang out in Moscow. English lessons in Moscow are more of a luxury service. Search accordingly!

Good luck!

Tony P
12-08-2012, 22:10
Good post RubyRussia.

I have never taught, am no teacher and never studied English beyond 'O' level (that gives an indication of my age!).

I just use the language I was brought up with and know.

A few years ago I met my RUS partner and since many of her friends, who mostly speak English to a good or excellent standard.
From that moment on I have been bombarded with questions such as on this thread above and another below. That has for the first time in my life made me think about and analyse my own natural language. Not just think, but to be able to explain why I use the format I do. To me it is mainly correct, standard 'home counties', subject to very few variations, partly more social than local.

'Bring' and 'Take' is easy to explain but hard for them to grasp all nuances.

What I continually struggle with myself (not me-self!!) are the adjectives 'High' and 'Tall' - especially as I would accept and use either equally to qualify some nouns, but not others which, to me, only one applies.

EG. a building or tree can be either, a person not.:confused1:

Jas
12-08-2012, 22:22
I think rubyrussia gives some good advice for teachers. But Celia set up a thread to help people who specifically wanted to be assisted with certain issues. What use is that advice to Celia, like she done something rong and made some mistakes in how she is telling us how stuff works?
Like me, I asked her about adjectives and nouns and she gave a very nice answer that made sense to me.
I hope Celia will continue to help people cos it's good what she was doing.
Everyone was happy with what Celia was doing and she is great for giving her free time.

rubyrussia
12-08-2012, 22:25
Yeah, come and go seem to be mixed up often too. In fact, with as much time as English teachers spend on grammar, I think teachers should do a 180 and focus more on vocabulary and speaking.

Growing up, I never even thought about or knew what tenses were! Some days I wish I could go back.

me-self! I love that!

English is an interesting language. Most of my students are surprised when I tell them it was originally used by poor, lower class people and had many changes made to it so that it resembled a "better, purer" language like Latin.

I'll tell you what's difficult for me in Russian... Soversheniy and Nesoversheniy vid!!!

rubyrussia
12-08-2012, 22:27
I think rubyrussia gives some good advice for teachers. But Celia set up a thread to help people who specifically wanted to be assisted with certain issues. What use is that advice to Celia, like she done something rong and made some mistakes in how she is telling us how stuff works?
Like me, I asked her about adjectives and nouns and she gave a very nice answer that made sense to me.
I hope Celia will continue to help people cos it's good what she was doing.
Everyone was happy with what Celia was doing and she is great for giving her free time.

Hey Jas! I didn't see anyone originally ask to be corrected. However, perhaps I am guilty of the very thing I've just preached against: offering advice / correction when it isn't asked for. :-)

Jas
12-08-2012, 22:27
I dunno, if a teacher has no rapport, no one will want.
Like Celia, she has good rapport and stuff, this is why everyone wud want to be in her class.

yakspeare
12-08-2012, 22:29
well when we discuss how tall someone is we use the word height too.

In my opinion, I see height as altitude, distance from the ground. I see how tall something is as measuring it from its lowest point to highest.

If you stand on a tall mountain you are X amount of metres high, but you are not any taller.

Of course in geometry we don't use tall.

Of course sometimes the words are used interchangeably in speech.

Jas
12-08-2012, 22:44
No Yakes, it's not like this. It can't be.
Tall is for people.
High-is for inanimate.

yakspeare
12-08-2012, 22:51
No Yakes, it's not like this. It can't be.
Tall is for people.
High-is for inanimate.

um no.

Tall tree, tall mountain etc

Jas
12-08-2012, 23:03
No one will say a tall mountain, it's high mountain.

But tree and even grass are exceptions cos maybe they're regarded as living things as such. Also it can come with story, like tall story, which means a false story.

But this can't come- tall wall, tall door, tall house, tall mountain etc.

yakspeare
12-08-2012, 23:20
"Tall mountains reach into the colder layers of the atmosphere. They are consequently subject to glaciation, and erosion through frost action. Such processes produce the peak shape. Some mountains have glacial lakes, created by melting glaciers; for example, there are an estimated 3,000 glacial lakes in Bhutan. Mountains can be eroded and weathered, altering their characteristics over time.
Tall mountains have different climatic conditions at the top than at the base, and will thus have altitudinal zonation of ecosystems."

Superman leaps tall buildings with a single bound...

Jas
12-08-2012, 23:25
Maybe someone from the UK cud clarify, Yakes.
I don't want to say ure wrong cos yes, u cud say like this, "Manhattan is dominated by tall buildings Americans call sky-scrapers."

But these are just a few exceptions.
English is all about strict rules and stuff. I know English like all English people, but the rules I learned for IELTS and I really mastered the rules and memorized them also. So I am very clear u can say.

yakspeare
12-08-2012, 23:33
Not sure how being from the UK makes a difference. Besides, I was educated there too.

How tall is the Eiffel tower or what is the Eiffel tower's height...it is the measurement of the object itself in the vertical plane.

DavidB
12-08-2012, 23:38
English is all about strict rules and stuff.

Me don't think so. :D

Compared to others, eg. Italian, English is very irregular.

celia
12-08-2012, 23:43
Ruby, do you think I had any idea of the fuss a preposition would cause? (However, I hope that people in future will think twice when they're using "think about" to ask someone's opinion of something. :floating:)

Ah well, good fun...good fun. :emote_popcorn:

On the subject of "tall" and "high", there is a rule: when we measure something, we say "tall" for people (someone is 2 metres tall) but "high" for other things such as trees (a tree is 7 metres high) and mountains. (This is in contrast to the German language, where I believe everything is "high", including people.)

But in terms of describing things, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. I think we do tend to say that buildings are tall and that mountains are high, but I don't think there's a rule as such.

Tony, I'm like you in that I find it enjoyable to discover similarities and differences between Russian and English grammar and vocabulary - I'm starting to realise, for instance, that there are a lot of words in Russian that are similar to the English word, far more than I ever would have predicted. And my most reflective student often points out similarities between English and Russian grammar (for example, that Russians also use "Will you be ..ing" to be polite - I can only take his word for it!)

yakspeare
12-08-2012, 23:47
Ruby, do you think I had any idea of the fuss a preposition would cause? (However, I hope that people in future will think twice when they're using "think about" to ask someone's opinion of something. :floating:)

Ah well, good fun...good fun. :emote_popcorn:

On the subject of "tall" and "high", there is a rule: when we measure something, we say "tall" for people (someone is 2 metres tall) but "high" for other things such as trees (a tree is 7 metres high) and mountains. (This is in contrast to the German language, where I believe everything is "high", including people.)

Tony, I'm like you in that I find it enjoyable to discover similarities and differences between Russian and English grammar and vocabulary - I'm starting to realise, for instance, that there are a lot of words in Russian that are similar to the English word, far more than I ever would have predicted. And my most reflective student often points out similarities between English and Russian grammar (for example, that Russians also use "Will you be ..ing" to be polite - I can only take his word for it!)

But in terms of describing things, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. I think we do tend to say that buildings are tall and that mountains are high, but I don't think there's a rule as such.

tall is perfectly acceptable as an adjective for things.

Jas
13-08-2012, 00:04
On the subject of "tall" and "high", there is a rule: when we measure something, we say "tall" for people (someone is 2 metres tall) but "high" for other things such as trees (a tree is 7 metres high) and mountains. (This is in contrast to the German language, where I believe everything is "high", including people.)

But in terms of describing things, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. I think we do tend to say that buildings are tall and that mountains are high, but I don't think there's a rule as such.



That's just what I told them Celia. The problem is cos they never done IELTS. If they done IELTS they wud know all the rules and stuff and it wud be totally clear. I gave the exact same examples even u gave, see above... but if they don't know the overall rules, of course, it's hard to explain to people.

rubyrussia
13-08-2012, 00:04
(However, I hope that people in future will think twice when they're using "think about" to ask someone's opinion of something. :floating:)


Why??? You have multiple dictionaries, resources, and people that are all telling you that you're mistaken. I guess I should have added one more point to my list:

Teachers aren't perfect and also make mistakes.
Sooner or later, you'll say / write something down in class only to be corrected by a student. Being human is all about making mistakes. Being able to admit being wrong or that you aren't some English God is logical, natural, and obvious. People incapable of admitting mistakes look a bit silly (мягко сказано). We always tell students not to be afraid to make mistakes because if they are, they won't be able to learn. We teachers should probably take the advice that we give. :wazzup:

celia
13-08-2012, 00:24
Ruby, I'm not just an English teacher but actually a literate person (with 10 years of University and 16 years of practising law), so my English was perfect before I became an English teacher. I've been teaching for over 6 years, and so far no student has ever corrected me.

I'd go through the whole thing again but I don't think you've even read the foregoing discussion.

Onward and upward to the next topic..

yakspeare
13-08-2012, 00:25
That's just what I told them Celia. The problem is cos they never done IELTS. If they done IELTS they wud know all the rules and stuff and it wud be totally clear. I gave the exact same examples even u gave, see above... but if they don't know the overall rules, of course, it's hard to explain to people.

Jas,without picking on the errors in your above post, I am an English teacher who teaches IELTS. It is one of my primary areas. IELTS( Which is a joint venture between IELTS Australia and Cambridge university) demonstates,primarily, one's ability to succeed at a university level course in English. It is not a true test of fluency nor use of vocabulary.

robertmf
13-08-2012, 00:29
Jas,without picking on the errors in your above post, I am an English teacher who teaches IELTS. It is one of my primary areas. IELTS( Which is a joint venture between IELTS Australia and Cambridge university) demonstates,primarily, one's ability to succeed at a university level course in English. It is not a true test of fluency nor use of vocabulary.

Antipodean IELTS exceptions (http://alldownunder.com/australian-slang/index.html) :Loco:


:10641:

Jas
13-08-2012, 00:31
Er, I done IELTS exactly to get entrance to university and I got 9.0 which is what? Er, expert user is what me certificate says. If ure not fluent, which IELTS tests, how can u get 9.0? So IELTS is a really excellent course and I am totally glad I done it cos it proved to UCAS exactly what I was saying- that I'm a native speaker of English- no iffs or buts.
Anyhow, I enjoyed it also.

All what Celia is saying... it's in "Cambridge Grammar for IELTS," book. If people read that at least, it will explain the rules like on when we can use tall and high etc. I think Celia knows IELTS 100% cos she gives text book definitions anyone who done IELTS can get in a flash. Yes, some people might be native speakers and fluent, but some parts of IELTS would be too hard for them and no way could they do the IELTS exercises from 7.0 upwards in many cases.

yakspeare
13-08-2012, 00:35
Er, I done IELTS exactly to get entrance to university and I got 9.0 which is what? Er, expert user is what me certificate says. If ure not fluent, which IELTS tests, how can u get 9.0? So IELTS is a really excellent course and I am totally glad I done it cos it proved to UCAS exactly what I was saying- that I'm a native speaker of English- no iffs or buts.
Anyhow, I enjoyed it also.

IELTS tests ones ability to critically think, deduce meaning of words from context(doesn't mean you know them and use them), how to read for gist, how to scan for keywords and so on.

It certainly doesn't make you a native speaker of English.

DavidB
13-08-2012, 00:40
Ruby, I'm not just an English teacher but actually a literate person (with 10 years of University and 16 years of practising law), so my English was perfect before I became an English teacher. I've been teaching for over 6 years, and so far no student has ever corrected me.

I'd go through the whole thing again but I don't think you've even read the foregoing discussion.

Onward and upward to the next topic..

And yet, you still can't provide any kind of reference which backs up your opinion. :rolleyes:

Jas
13-08-2012, 00:40
Yakes, if u can do a book like "Cambridge IELTS 8," then u are really reaching mastery level.
For me, I am a native speaker with or withour IELTS. What I am saying is that IELTS clarified certain stuff in a way that turned out to be lucky for me in the long run.
I wud say cos of IELTS, and speaking as a native speaker, I got a much better grasp of the rules than other native speakers.
So?
So when Celia explains stuff I get it. Other native speakers who didn't do IELTS have issues and get confused and stuff.
It's like that.

celia
13-08-2012, 00:47
David, the Oxford English dictionary backs up my position. Murphys backs up my position. You haven't bothered to grasp the point, and I'm not interested in discussing it further. I suggest that you go back to your career as international man of mystery and stop bothering me on this thread. Ruby can write up her list of do's and dont's (which anyone taking the CELTA course has had drummed into them) and I will go back to discussing English grammar. Got it?

I'm off to bed.

yakspeare
13-08-2012, 00:48
Yakes, if u can do a book like "Cambridge IELTS 8," then u are really reaching mastery level.
For me, I am a native speaker with or withour IELTS. What I am saying is that IELTS clarified certain stuff in a way that turned out to be lucky for me in the long run.
I wud say cos of IELTS, and speaking as a native speaker, I got a much better grasp of the rules than other native speakers.
So?
So when Celia explains stuff I get it. Other native speakers who didn't do IELTS have issues and get confused and stuff.
It's like that.

Well except for the fact she is wrong and has been wrong routinely. Then claims her English is perfect. I wouldn't even make that claim about myself, yet I am pretty sure my "native speaker of English" vocabulary of over 40,000 words is a lot broader than yours and Celia's, for that matter.

DavidB
13-08-2012, 00:49
By the way, Celia, here's another page which you can refer your students to: http://www.ihbristol.com/useful-english-expressions/example/asking-somebodys-opinion/6

:D

yakspeare
13-08-2012, 00:52
Yakes, if u can do a book like "Cambridge IELTS 8," then u are really reaching mastery level.
For me, I am a native speaker with or withour IELTS. What I am saying is that IELTS clarified certain stuff in a way that turned out to be lucky for me in the long run.
I wud say cos of IELTS, and speaking as a native speaker, I got a much better grasp of the rules than other native speakers.
So?
So when Celia explains stuff I get it. Other native speakers who didn't do IELTS have issues and get confused and stuff.
It's like that.

I have had students who have achieved IELTS 8+ who were English teachers here in Russia, and I would never hire them as teachers of English if I was in charge of a language school.

DavidB
13-08-2012, 00:52
David, the Oxford English dictionary backs up my position. Murphys backs up my position. You haven't bothered to grasp the point, and I'm not interested in discussing it further.

They don't back up your position at all. I've already answered to your attempts to twist the facts in both of those cases.

I think RubyRussia hit the nail right on the head - it's all about you not wanting to admit that you made a mistake.

DavidB
13-08-2012, 00:57
do's and dont's

Do I see two grammatical mistakes, or are my eyes playing tricks on me?

rubyrussia
13-08-2012, 09:19
Ruby, I'm not just an English teacher but actually a literate person (with 10 years of University and 16 years of practising law), so my English was perfect before I became an English teacher.

Perfect? I didn't know we had the Queen of England :uk: on our forums. Although in certain areas of my life (not all!) I strive for perfection, I would never ever claim to be perfect, speak “perfect” English, or be a “perfect” teacher. I love it how humble a lot the Russians are who speak English. They tell me, I speak English “не плохо” and I am usually blown away by how well they do. A good number of friends I have back home tell people they are fluent in _____________ when they can hold a conversation in a foreign tongue. :) By the way, why did you capitalize university?

Oh and calling my do and don't points Celta-ish doesn't bother me. I studied linguistics at college and did take the celta course as well. Because I don't think I do things perfectly and I want to be the best teacher possible, I learned a few things in my course and I think it helped make me a better teacher. There were plenty of things I think are unrealistic or just a bad idea too about Celta but I think that best fits under a different thread. Nevertheless, I am happy to be a student.

celia
13-08-2012, 10:25
I'm embarrassed because I've seen these skirmishes on the site in the past and this is the first time I've allowed myself to be dragged into one of them. So I won't be participating for a few days - feel free to carry on without me...

rubyrussia
13-08-2012, 11:01
I love talking about teaching which doesn't happen very often on this forum. I was delighted when I saw your post and enthused when I saw the so-called "think about" mistake. I was hoping it could be a teaching moment for everyone...

"Skirmishes” only happen when pride, obstinance, or just plain ol' ego are at play.

MickeyTong
13-08-2012, 11:48
This thread needs our esteemed forum member Bels to provide definitive answers. But (oops! shouldn't start a sentence with that....) until he can spare time from his busy and lucrative teaching career here's YouTube:

Stephen Fry VS. Grammar nazis - YouTube

That Mitchell and Webb Look Series 4 - Episode 1 (Grammar Nazi) - YouTube

Grammar Nazis - YouTube

Downfall of Grammar - YouTube

Jas
13-08-2012, 12:41
Celia was doing something good. Whenever this kind of stuff happens with a teacher- it's always the innocent people like me who suffer the most. It's not fair. Now people who was interested in getting grammar questions dealt with can't get help. I hope ure happy u all spoiled it for us.
Celia, if u want, u can open a new thread and we can begin again cos I got certain questions wrote down to ask and others will have same.
If u give students a choice..... everyone will want to be in Celia's cl**** so can we just be left alone to do our grammar stuff?

yakspeare
13-08-2012, 12:53
Celia was doing something good. Whenever this kind of stuff happens with a teacher- it's always the innocent people like me who suffer the most. It's not fair. Now people who was interested in getting grammar questions dealt with can't get help. I hope ure happy u all spoiled it for us.
Celia, if u want, u can open a new thread and we can begin again cos I got certain questions wrote down to ask and others will have same.
If u give students a choice..... everyone will want to be in Celia's cl**** so can we just be left alone to do our grammar stuff?

The above paragraph does not demonstrate IELTS 9 level at all. We don't mind people opening a thread to help others-but someone claiming that native speakers have it wrong and that she speaks perfect English-is going to get what they deserve for such egoism and arrogance.

Celia does not have the necessary skills to teach 'us' English, despite her 'wealth' of experience. Humility goes a long way. I have been an English teacher for five years, and of course a native speaker for thirty seven. I would not dare to make the claims she has made.

Jas
13-08-2012, 13:05
Er, I think her students got no complaints thanks. And people she was helping also had no complaints. I will pm her and ask her to open a new grammar thread. This happened when I was doing IELTS also. We had a teacher and her name was Tracey. When the school cut her pay she told everyone in our class she must leave and we was all just shocked. What did we do? We all wrote a letter of complaint telling like this, "Tracey is the only person who can work ok with us. If we don't have the teacher we all respect and need, then forget it, we're telling our parents and we're leaving this school."
We got another teacher and just refused even to open our books.
Two days later we got Tracey back.
So if people are happy..... I think they shud just be left alone.

DavidB
13-08-2012, 13:19
If u give students a choice..... everyone will want to be in Celia's cl**** so can we just be left alone to do our grammar stuff?

If I were a student, I would want to be taught by Yakspeare or RubyRussia.

To me, Celia comes across as being quite arrogant. I've worked with people like that in the past and found that, despite their high level of knowledge, they're usually not very good at achieving practical outcomes.

rubyrussia
13-08-2012, 13:53
Mickey! Great post. Always appreciate it when you decide to comment. Great videos.

I completely agree with you DavidB. You can be arrogant when you're Putin. :-)

DavidB
13-08-2012, 13:59
That Stephen Fry video sums up the situation perfectly. :D

celeina
13-08-2012, 14:36
" ure me honored guest and ure very welcome to post all what u want. "

Hi Teacher.,
Seen above line in another Thread.
Is it murder of English Language or some Invention Test?I

OzPara
13-08-2012, 15:29
The wonderful thing about the English language is that you can stretch the "rules", have some fun, but still be understood (without going to extremes).

As I walked among the tall trees I couldn’t help but wonder how high the mountains were that managed to peek over the treetops. And as I wondered, I wandered through tall grasses and thought about my travels and the travails that I had overcome. I realised that, like the bird flying high above the trees, I could see so much more from on high than when I was sitting in a rut with my head in my hands. The hands of the watch that had been given to me by a rabbit moved ever so slowly as I turned to see a tall man running toward me. He looked odd (I thought he was, perhaps, a little high). But as he approached I could see that he was talking to himself, saying that he couldn’t be late for a very important date. “What nonsense!” I thought as he approached. Stopping the tall man, I asked what could be so worrisome, to which he replied “It is so difficult to find clothes to fit one of my height. There is a sale that happens only once every year. Today is the day that the teddy bears have their picnic day sale. And I have it on good authority from high up that this could be the best one yet! But I’m running very late, so please excuse me”. And off he hurried, head held high and striding through the tall grass as only a tall man can. What a tall story I thought to myself. And just then, I fell down a hole. Down and down I fell, deeper than the tallest mountain is high. Deeper than the deepest mine. Past glittering gems and frozen rivers. Past secret doors and open chasms. Until, finally, I landed with a thump. I didn’t know what to think of my predicament – it was so dark I could hardly see my hand as I thought about the tall trees, cobalt sky and faraway mountains with birds flying high about the peaks. I thought about the tall man and wondered if he made it to the picnic sale and I thought of how disappointed he would be if he too had fallen down a hole such as this and couldn’t buy new clothes.

Jas
13-08-2012, 20:48
OzPara,

The rules on high and tall didn't change since yesterday.
I feel there is a lot of ambiguity about the rules among u guys and u put more weight on the exceptions than the rules.
If u give me, or Celia a rule, we cud quote examples in a flash.

Ok, I will give u guys a question. Let's see if u know.

What is the rule of past subjunctive and the verb to be?

DavidB
13-08-2012, 21:06
What is the rule of past subjunctive and the verb to be?

That would be an exception, not a rule, as the past subjunctive form of (to be) doesn't follow the pattern which other verbs follow.

Jas
13-08-2012, 21:10
Ok, then cud u give me an example of the Past Subjunctive and the verb to be maybe?

Jas
13-08-2012, 21:19
See what I mean. People haven't memorized the rules and it leads to confusion and stuff.

DavidB
13-08-2012, 21:30
Ok, then cud u give me an example of the Past Subjunctive and the verb to be maybe?

There is only one form: ... I/you/he/she/it/we/they were ...



See what I mean. People haven't memorized the rules and it leads to confusion and stuff.

Jas, I don't think there is a stronger example of someone not knowing their grammar rules than the one which you provided:

That's just what I told them Celia. The problem is cos they never done IELTS. If they done IELTS they wud know all the rules and stuff and it wud be totally clear. I gave the exact same examples even u gave, see above... but if they don't know the overall rules, of course, it's hard to explain to people.
The last time I heard wronger English was when I was in the Northern Territory, and the wrongers were swigging methylated spirits at the time.

yakspeare
13-08-2012, 21:30
OzPara,

The rules on high and tall didn't change since yesterday.
I feel there is a lot of ambiguity about the rules among u guys and u put more weight on the exceptions than the rules.
If u give me, or Celia a rule, we cud quote examples in a flash.

Ok, I will give u guys a question. Let's see if u know.

What is the rule of past subjunctive and the verb to be?

Your "rules" on high and tall are not correct.

Russian is a language of literature. Writing(and therefore grammar) is king. If you want a language for the abstract, to express emotion and thought in writing-choose Russian. It is the true language of poetry and prose. Russian has a central authority that determines what is Russian and what is not and what rules must be followed.

English is a Germanic language with a French grammar base and latin and norse mixed in. It is a language in specifics, clear and concise meaning-hence its numerous tenses that Russian lacks and broader vocabulary. It is a spoken language primarily, as the common tongue of the peasant population while ruled over by Norman French kings. Up to the 15th Century it had cases and words like would and knee sounded as they were spelt, not wood and nee. It used to have 10000 irregular verbs, now just a few hundred. It is designed for simplistic by speech. The true grammar rules disappeared 500 years ago.

Now, students of English learn rules at beginner, elementary and pre-intermediate levels. By intermediate level those same rules are shown to be flexible and mere guidelines. Advanced wordsmiths can outright break them.

There is no central authority and not even the major dictionaries agree on the meaning and usage of words.

The dictionaries record what is spoken and this becomes English. It comes down to common use.

Children today in Australia and the UK do not learn grammar rules at all. Russian students pride themselves on how much English grammar they know and measure themselves thus-because this is how you measure Russian fluency. In English fluency is the ability to speak, not grammar knowledge.

Jas
13-08-2012, 21:34
I think we shud proceed to the grammar quiz thread i just opened.
I will set some grammar questions and off we go.
If I get stuff wrong, at least I will be a bit wiser.
Ure the experts... so let's role.

yakspeare
13-08-2012, 21:35
"The problem is cos they never done IELTS. If they done IELTS they wud know all the rules and stuff and it wud be totally clear."

The problem is that they have never done IELTS. If they had done IELTS, they would have known all the rules and stuff, and it would be totally clear to them.

Jas
13-08-2012, 21:41
The grammar quiz page is opened.
Let the Games Begin.:fireworks:

rubyrussia
13-08-2012, 22:57
I have a request. Could you please stop using the word stuff (if you do, please at least give it some sort of meaning) and write the words wud and cos as they are normally spelled? Are you texting from a phone?

sis
13-08-2012, 23:16
Your "rules" on high and tall are not correct.

Russian is a language of literature. Writing(and therefore grammar) is king...

Yak, I have to hand it to you, you are an expert at making interesting posts in even the most god damn boring topics such as grammar... I would not have bothered reading this post were it not for the fact that you wrote something here, you never disappoint...

In regards to Jas, I think she has a point with this 'stuff' she is saying.. sometimes native speakers don't know anything about grammar (myself for instance), and sometimes grammar does help explain how to talk, even if there are no definative explanations.... it is a littlelike physics, newtons laws are actually not correct, but they help school children understand...

Jas has been investing alot of her time in creating topics, and stimulating debate, so maybe go a little easy on her, and forgive her me's and her caus'es...

robertmf
13-08-2012, 23:35
.... it is a littlelike physics, newtons laws are actually not correct, but they help school children understand...
...

...er.. what's the matter with Newton's Laws :question:

yakspeare
14-08-2012, 00:10
Yak, I have to hand it to you, you are an expert at making interesting posts in even the most god damn boring topics such as grammar... I would not have bothered reading this post were it not for the fact that you wrote something here, you never disappoint...

In regards to Jas, I think she has a point with this 'stuff' she is saying.. sometimes native speakers don't know anything about grammar (myself for instance), and sometimes grammar does help explain how to talk, even if there are no definative explanations.... it is a littlelike physics, newtons laws are actually not correct, but they help school children understand...

Jas has been investing alot of her time in creating topics, and stimulating debate, so maybe go a little easy on her, and forgive her me's and her caus'es...

Yeah I am aware of many native speakers who use poor grammar. I have never commented on her unusual use of the word "me" etc.

I don't go around correcting people's grammar on an online forum, but when someone tries to speak with some authority(whether it is their claim of perfect English as in Celia or IELTS 9 in the case of Jas)-then their posts are going to come under scrutiny.

We all make mistakes and there are some 2 million words in English, and we are here typing furiously away at speed. If someone is put up on a pedestal, they better be prepared for people to bring them down-it is, afterall, expat.ru lol.

Jas
14-08-2012, 12:19
Jas has been investing alot of her time in creating topics, and stimulating debate, so maybe go a little easy on her, and forgive her me's and her caus'es...

Thanks sis. They don't seem to appreciate it though. Before I came to the site, all they used to ever talk about was how to get a TRP.

celia
15-08-2012, 00:42
OK, I'm back, and tomorrow I will continue with my grammar posts (for my own amusement if for no other reason - those who aren't interested, please ignore).

Today, however, I would like to address the claim of "arrogance" when someone asserts that he or she (me in this case) has perfect grammar. I don't think it's a coincidence that those making the accusation of arrogance come from Australia (or New Zealand) and the United States, where it just isn't polite to claim you are above normal in any way. (In Canada we are also in the habit of knocking down, with the contemptuous claim of arrogance, those who assert themselves as superior in any way.)

My experience is that in England, where social classes still exist, there are fewer claims of arrogance, because people have aspirations to climb up the social ladder.

Some of you snort at the idea that an English teacher can have perfect grammar. I think if you asked people on the street, most people would ask why someone without perfect grammar would be teaching English. I've been teaching English for over 6 years. If I didn't have perfect grammar by now I'd be very, very embarrassed. (Of course it's possible to have perfect grammar but not to know why something is correct or incorrect, and teachers have to learn this too.)

I haven't asked them, but I think if I asked most of the teachers I've ever worked with (who are not beginner teachers), they would say that their grammar is perfect. It's not a very high standard!

Teaching English is much more than teaching grammar. Grammar is just one aspect. It's simply a starting point.

I studied Philosophy for four years in university. It's ridiculous to think that I (or anyone else in the programme) ever made a grammar mistake. During that time we wrote several (maybe even a hundred or more) essays on philosophers from the pre-Socratic philosophers to Kant, Hegel, Marx and so on. It was a given that we had to explain our ideas in proper sentences. Grammar was the least of our worries. We wrote and rewrote until we were satisfied that what we were saying was clear.

In my three years at law school I was once again in a class with many bright and talented people, more bright and talented than I was. No one there spoke or wrote anything but perfect English. It was a given.

Then I practised law for sixteen years. In all that time I can't recall one letter, brief or other legal document with a grammatical error. Once in a while lawyers looked up the spelling of a word if they weren't sure.

The business of law is words and even though many legal documents are transcribed from dictation, they are proofread carefully because lawyers think they have a duty to represent their clients better than they can represent themselves, and that requires persuasive and analytical writing.

Only when I went to business school in 2004-2005 did I encounter, to my amazement, students (native English speakers and foreign students) who couldn't write a proper sentence, and who seemed incapable of expressing a coherent thought on paper. Not all of them had this problem, and of course they had many other strengths, but their spelling, grammar, cohesion and vocabulary left a lot to be desired.

When I was working in England, I encountered many people who didn't have a good education and yet who were eloquent (which I am not) and wrote proper English. Perhaps not everyone there is getting a good education but some are. My ex-boyfriend, who is a project manager, wrote and spoke beautifully.

Why am I writing this? I want to dismiss the idea that writing (and speaking) in perfect English is some kind of dazzling achievement. It's simply the first step. There are many, many people out there who take it for granted that anyone with a proper education should be able to do this and much, much more.

And if our Russian students are well educated, which most of them seem to be, they also may expect their English teachers to have (at the least) perfect grammar, because (not without a greal deal of effort I'm sure) their Russian grammar is perfect and they want their English to be grammatically correct. It isn't a wild and crazy idea.

celia
15-08-2012, 00:47
One more thing. I have no intention of being a veteran of the 2012 forum wars, and (although I'm sure he's brilliant) don't plan to be under the care of Mickey Tong. So please, if you don't have anything nice to say, please don't say anything. :9451:


:bedtime:

Jas
15-08-2012, 00:55
Hurray! Huraah! Celia is back. All these people Celia, they don't no nothing about nothing. Thanks to god ure back to help us with real stuff. :fireworks:

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 01:01
Celia, your arrogance knows no bounds.

I was educated in both the UK and Australia. To err is human. I have been teaching English as long as you have. My father was a teacher, my brother and sister are teachers.

To say that someone from the "colonies" knows less English, is nonsense.

They taught grammar in schools in Australia, long after the UK abandoned it.

As a non native speaker, you couldn't come close to my knowledge of the language, nor have the diversity I have in vocabulary.

I doubt very much you could even match me in Legal English, let alone Aviation English, Hospitality English, Business English, IELTS and TOEFL preparation, Medical English and so forth.

I know all about the classes in the UK. I speak with an accent from Hampshire. I actually modify my English to teach, as using whilst, amongst, whom etc aren't useful for students, in general.

Despite this, I would never make the claims of perfection that you have made. They are simply laughable. A teacher must be teachable, as I have said before. All teachers are in a state of learning, and if they are not, then they are poor at doing their jobs.

RichardB
15-08-2012, 01:04
OK, I'm back, and tomorrow I will continue with my grammar posts (for my own amusement if for no other reason - those who aren't interested, please ignore).


Today, however, I would like to address the claim of "arrogance" when someone asserts that he or she (me in this case) has perfect grammar. I don't think it's a coincidence that those making the accusation of arrogance come from Australia (or New Zealand) and the United States, where it just isn't polite to claim you are above normal in any way. (In Canada we are also in the habit of knocking down, with the contemptuous claim of arrogance, those who assert themselves as superior in any way.)

Ouch!



My experience is that in England, where social classes still exist, there are fewer claims of arrogance, because people have aspirations to climb up the social ladder.Interesting observation and possibly true.



Some of you snort at the idea that an English teacher can have perfect grammar. I think if you asked people on the street, most people would ask why someone without perfect grammar would be teaching English. Our other resident grammar "expert" should read this line.



I've been teaching English for over 6 years. If I didn't have perfect grammar by now I'd be very, very embarrassed. (Of course it's possible to have perfect grammar but not to know why something is correct or incorrect, and teachers have to learn this too.)

I haven't asked them, but I think if I asked most of the teachers I've ever worked with (who are not beginner teachers), they would say that their grammar is perfect. It's not a very high standard!

Teaching English is much more than teaching grammar. Grammar is just one aspect. It's simply a starting point.

I studied Philosophy for four years in university. It's ridiculous to think that I (or anyone else in the programme) ever made a grammar mistake. During that time we wrote several (maybe even a hundred or more) essays on philosophers from the pre-Socratic philosophers to Kant, Hegel, Marx and so on. It was a given that we had to explain our ideas in proper sentences. Grammar was the least of our worries. We wrote and rewrote until we were satisfied that what we were saying was clear.

In my three years at law school I was once again in a class with many bright and talented people, more bright and talented than I was. No one there spoke or wrote anything but perfect English. It was a given.

Then I practised law for sixteen years. In all that time I can't recall one letter, brief or other legal document with a grammatical error. Once in a while lawyers looked up the spelling of a word if they weren't sure.

The business of law is words and even though many legal documents are transcribed from dictation, they are proofread carefully because lawyers think they have a duty to represent their clients better than they can represent themselves, and that requires persuasive and analytical writing.

Only when I went to business school in 2004-2005 did I encounter, to my amazement, students (native English speakers and foreign students) who couldn't write a proper sentence, and who seemed incapable of expressing a coherent thought on paper. Not all of them had this problem, and of course they had many other strengths, but their spelling, grammar, cohesion and vocabulary left a lot to be desired.

When I was working in England, I encountered many people who didn't have a good education and yet who were eloquent (which I am not) and wrote proper English. Perhaps not everyone there is getting a good education but some are. My ex-boyfriend, who is a project manager, wrote and spoke beautifully.

Why am I writing this? I want to dismiss the idea that writing (and speaking) in perfect English is some kind of dazzling achievement. It's simply the first step. There are many, many people out there who take it for granted that anyone with a proper education should be able to do this and much, much more.

And if our Russian students are well educated, which most of them seem to be, they also may expect their English teachers to have (at the least) perfect grammar, because (not without a great deal of effort I'm sure) their Russian grammar is perfect and they want their English to be grammatically correct. It isn't a wild and crazy idea.Quite agree :)

One general question to anyone reading this (and apologies for being off topic here): What is more desirable - A British English teacher or American English teacher?

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 01:04
they don't no nothing about nothing.

Really Jas? Oh dear...

I am glad you agree we know something.

RichardB
15-08-2012, 01:09
Really Jas? Oh dear...

I am glad you agree we know something.

I suspect that may be lost on her.

:) :) :)

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 01:10
OK, I'm back, and tomorrow I will continue with my grammar posts (for my own amusement if for no other reason - those who aren't interested, please ignore).

Today, however, I would like to address the claim of "arrogance" when someone asserts that he or she (me in this case) has perfect grammar. I don't think it's a coincidence that those making the accusation of arrogance come from Australia (or New Zealand) and the United States, where it just isn't polite to claim you are above normal in any way. (In Canada we are also in the habit of knocking down, with the contemptuous claim of arrogance, those who assert themselves as superior in any way.)

My experience is that in England, where social classes still exist, there are fewer claims of arrogance, because people have aspirations to climb up the social ladder.

Some of you snort at the idea that an English teacher can have perfect grammar. I think if you asked people on the street, most people would ask why someone without perfect grammar would be teaching English. I've been teaching English for over 6 years. If I didn't have perfect grammar by now I'd be very, very embarrassed. (Of course it's possible to have perfect grammar but not to know why something is correct or incorrect, and teachers have to learn this too.)

I haven't asked them, but I think if I asked most of the teachers I've ever worked with (who are not beginner teachers), they would say that their grammar is perfect. It's not a very high standard!

Teaching English is much more than teaching grammar. Grammar is just one aspect. It's simply a starting point.

I studied Philosophy for four years in university. It's ridiculous to think that I (or anyone else in the programme) ever made a grammar mistake. During that time we wrote several (maybe even a hundred or more) essays on philosophers from the pre-Socratic philosophers to Kant, Hegel, Marx and so on. It was a given that we had to explain our ideas in proper sentences. Grammar was the least of our worries. We wrote and rewrote until we were satisfied that what we were saying was clear.

In my three years at law school I was once again in a class with many bright and talented people, more bright and talented than I was. No one there spoke or wrote anything but perfect English. It was a given.

Then I practised law for sixteen years. In all that time I can't recall one letter, brief or other legal document with a grammatical error. Once in a while lawyers looked up the spelling of a word if they weren't sure.

The business of law is words and even though many legal documents are transcribed from dictation, they are proofread carefully because lawyers think they have a duty to represent their clients better than they can represent themselves, and that requires persuasive and analytical writing.

Only when I went to business school in 2004-2005 did I encounter, to my amazement, students (native English speakers and foreign students) who couldn't write a proper sentence, and who seemed incapable of expressing a coherent thought on paper. Not all of them had this problem, and of course they had many other strengths, but their spelling, grammar, cohesion and vocabulary left a lot to be desired.

When I was working in England, I encountered many people who didn't have a good education and yet who were eloquent (which I am not) and wrote proper English. Perhaps not everyone there is getting a good education but some are. My ex-boyfriend, who is a project manager, wrote and spoke beautifully.

Why am I writing this? I want to dismiss the idea that writing (and speaking) in perfect English is some kind of dazzling achievement. It's simply the first step. There are many, many people out there who take it for granted that anyone with a proper education should be able to do this and much, much more.

And if our Russian students are well educated, which most of them seem to be, they also may expect their English teachers to have (at the least) perfect grammar, because (not without a greal deal of effort I'm sure) their Russian grammar is perfect and they want their English to be grammatically correct. It isn't a wild and crazy idea.

The power of the 'word', attention to detail and using the correct words to influence and accurately inform is very understated and often poorly exercised. Sadly today, many readers cannot read between the lines or comprehend, so the power of specially chosen words is often lost!

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 01:13
[QUOTE What is more desirable - A British English teacher or American English teacher?[/QUOTE]

Either would do perfectly well. I've had brilliant teachers of both nationalities, but my best one is British.

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 01:16
One general question to anyone reading this (and apologies for being off topic here): What is more desirable - A British English teacher or American English teacher?

I suppose it depends on what you want to do with them and how much they earn! ;)

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 01:20
I suppose it depends on what you want to do with them and how much they earn! ;)

Oh, come off it, just when I got tears of classroom nostalgy in my eyes...:voodoo:

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 01:25
[QUOTE What is more desirable - A British English teacher or American English teacher?

Funnily, though, I can remember having a hard time convincing an American teacher in the correctness of the British pronunciation of 'aunt', and another time, convincing a British teacher that you can say 'all of a sudden'.

DavidB
15-08-2012, 01:26
Very good, Celia. I'll add perfection to my list of goals. As a mere mortal, I'm sure I'll pick up a few "do's and dont's" from your posts.

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 01:34
Very good, Celia. I'll add perfection to my list of goals. As a mere mortal, I'm sure I'll pick up a few "do's and dont's" from your posts.

don'ts! :p

DavidB
15-08-2012, 01:43
don'ts! :p

Sorry, you are mistaken. I quoted Celia, who is perfect:


do's and dont's

Teach
15-08-2012, 01:52
.

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 01:52
All girls are purrfect! ;)

celia
15-08-2012, 02:13
Yak's post:


"To say that someone from the "colonies" knows less English, is nonsense."


I didn't say that someone from the colonies knows less English. I said that someone from the colonies is more likely to apply the term "arrogance" when someone claims to do something well.



"As a non native speaker, you couldn't come close to my knowledge of the language, nor have the diversity I have in vocabulary."


Are you talking about me? I am a native speaker.


"I doubt very much you could even match me in Legal English, let alone Aviation English, Hospitality English, Business English, IELTS and TOEFL preparation, Medical English and so forth."

You say that my arrogance knows no bounds, and then you make a statement like this (knowing nothing about me, except for the fact that I went to law school for 3 years and practised law for 16 years). I would never compare myself to you without knowing anything about you.



"A teacher must be teachable, as I have said before. All teachers are in a state of learning, and if they are not, then they are poor at doing their jobs."

I learn something every day from teaching, but it's not grammar. Grammar is just one basic aspect of English teaching!


Yak, I'm becoming more and more disturbed by your claim that you are a veteran of the 2011 forum wars. I'm really not interested in fighting with you. Since my thread and my claims are so ludicrous, why don't you just ignore them?

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 10:51
Yak's post:


"To say that someone from the "colonies" knows less English, is nonsense."


I didn't say that someone from the colonies knows less English. I said that someone from the colonies is more likely to apply the term "arrogance" when someone claims to do something well.



"As a non native speaker, you couldn't come close to my knowledge of the language, nor have the diversity I have in vocabulary."


Are you talking about me? I am a native speaker.


"I doubt very much you could even match me in Legal English, let alone Aviation English, Hospitality English, Business English, IELTS and TOEFL preparation, Medical English and so forth."

You say that my arrogance knows no bounds, and then you make a statement like this (knowing nothing about me, except for the fact that I went to law school for 3 years and practised law for 16 years). I would never compare myself to you without knowing anything about you.



"A teacher must be teachable, as I have said before. All teachers are in a state of learning, and if they are not, then they are poor at doing their jobs."

I learn something every day from teaching, but it's not grammar. Grammar is just one basic aspect of English teaching!


Yak, I'm becoming more and more disturbed by your claim that you are a veteran of the 2011 forum wars. I'm really not interested in fighting with you. Since my thread and my claims are so ludicrous, why don't you just ignore them?

Really? A native speaker? Your language doesn't suggest that. Why make the statement that you had to write in English as a lawyer? That is a redundant statement if you are a native speaker. Where were you born?

There is nothing wrong with taking pride in one's language ability and use of grammar. To claim you always use perfect grammar, though, is quite silly. You have made mistakes in these threads, showing such claims are false.

Indeed, if you used perfect grammar always, you would find your circle of friends rather small. Elitist and snobby would be the charge against you. Our everyday speech breaks grammar conventions. We omit words, use conjunctions at the start of sentences when we ought not to. We finish sentences with prepositions etc. So unless you speak as if you are in Victorian England, then you do not always use perfect grammar.

As for my "Veteran of the 2011 forum wars" it is my SIGNATURE. It is a joke. Your fascination with it is rather strange. It seems you are unable to take any form of criticism.

Jas
15-08-2012, 12:01
Yak, give it a rest with constantly insulting Celia and trying to pick fights and stuff.
Celia is going to help people with grammar. I got some questions. Others have also. We're happy with what she's doing so please please please give it a rest, take the little bunch of boys wuth u that u brought, and go away so we can do our grammar stuff in peace.

MickeyTong
15-08-2012, 12:18
....(although I'm sure he's brilliant) don't plan to be under the care of Mickey Tong.

Without being arrogant, I must admit that my brilliance does outshine the few dark blemishes on my character. :ok:

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 12:31
Yak, give it a rest with constantly insulting Celia and trying to pick fights and stuff.
Celia is going to help people with grammar. I got some questions. Others have also. We're happy with what she's doing so please please please give it a rest, take the little bunch of boys wuth u that u brought, and go away so we can do our grammar stuff in peace.

I am not trying to pick fights. Celia came on here stating she had perfect grammar and then went around telling native speakers that their grammar is incorrect, whilst making a host of mistakes herself.

Since Celia invariably gets some basic things wrong, then I wouldn't be turning to her as the fountain of all grammatical knowledge. Why would you, the great Jas of IELTS 9 and supposed native speaker-have questions for her anyway?

After your psychotic ramblings yesterday about Inola, I think my patience with you has worn thin. I have tried to be understanding(when I can even understand your English), but I think it is best to put you on ignore. Lest my recovery stalls and I find myself again in Mickey's rubber room, which isn't as kinky as it sounds.

Ian G
15-08-2012, 12:34
A lot of the debate on this thread is pointless. Because some of us are using spoken English and some of us are using written English. That's because Internet forums are, like email, a hybrid form of communication. Some people see them as a form of speaking, and write as they speak, while others see them as a form of writing. For some posters it is a spontaneous form of communication, and SMS-style shorthand is fine. Others adhere to the rules of written English and, if necessary, edit their posts for spelling and grammar. Reading through any Internet forum this is perfectly clear. Clearly Jas, for example, posts as she talks, while Celia , or Rusmeister for example, post as they write. (For all I know the latter poster may also talk like that in real life.) Yakspeare seems to me one of the most articulate people on the forum in that his posts read like speech but are grammatically correct, which is actually a pretty rare combination.

Speaking- not public speaking but conversation- is very ungrammatical. Or, in other words, the formal rules of written language do not apply. Other rules apply, of course- they are actually as complex and sophisticated as the rules of grammar, if not more so, but they depend on intonation, stress, rhythm, etc.

In general- people do not correct each other's mistakes in conversation. It's not appropriate, unless the mistakes obstruct communication, which is rarely the case. People overlook errors, and focus on the meaning. But when people are reading a text the situation is quite different. Errors, bad grammar, misuse of words etc are distracting. It's quite legitimate to complain about typos in a newspaper article, formal letter, or book. An infomal letter- well, that's closer to spoken language, innit?

So- the question is- what is appropriate on an Internet forum like this one? Should we be correcting each others' language, or not?

Expat.ru has certain rules. These rules do not cover the issue of whether posters should use spoken or written language. It therefore doesn't matter either way- we are free to choose.

So - I'd suggest that in common courtesy it is not a good idea to correct someone's language on an Internet forum unless the person (i) asks to be corrected, or (ii) is setting themselves up as some kind of linguistic authority (eg by making ex cathedra pronouncements on a grammar-related thread) , or (iii) if the mistakes are causing confusion and are a barrier to communication.

Others, of course, may disagree.

Jas
15-08-2012, 12:34
What part of give it a rest, don't u actually understand, Yak?

Jas
15-08-2012, 12:39
I'm on Yak's ignore button. But that's all I ever wanted! Add to that deadbeats like Tolki Razi and we're on to something..... I actually don't post on their threads, they come to mine- constantly, and it's highly annoying.

RichardB
15-08-2012, 12:40
Expat.ru has certain rules. These rules do not cover the issue of whether posters should use spoken or written language. It therefore doesn't matter either way- we are free to choose.

I point you to rule 27:

27. Please use proper English when posting. It is NOT ok to post using internet speak/slang and/or abbreviated words. Such posts will be either edited or deleted. Exceptions to this are standard acronyms such as LOL, ROFL, etc.., which are more "shortcuts" than slang. Example --> "LOLZ...!!! dat wuz funny!!", or using "u" instead of "you"... a bit of common sense here goes a long way.

Ian G
15-08-2012, 12:46
I point you to rule 27:

27. Please use proper English when posting. It is NOT ok to post using internet speak/slang and/or abbreviated words. Such posts will be either edited or deleted. Exceptions to this are standard acronyms such as LOL, ROFL, etc.., which are more "shortcuts" than slang. Example --> "LOLZ...!!! dat wuz funny!!", or using "u" instead of "you"... a bit of common sense here goes a long way.


I'm not talking about Internet speak or Internet slang. Proper English comes in two varieties: spoken and written. If you see her abbreviated spelling as "shortcuts" then Jas's posts for example are consistent with the grammar of "proper" spoken English.

Rule 27 is also badly expressed, in that it purports to give examples without making it clear whether these are examples of what is not ok, or examples of the exceptions.

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 12:53
I'm on Yak's ignore button. But that's all I ever wanted! Add to that deadbeats like Tolki Razi and we're on to something..... I actually don't post on their threads, they come to mine- constantly, and it's highly annoying.


Surprised you are not rebranding me Tolko Nazi! :p

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 13:09
LOL all she ever wanted. That's why I got PMs from her too..

As we say in oz- that girl has a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock.

Inola
15-08-2012, 13:11
LOL all she ever wanted. That's why I got PMs from her too..


You shouldn't have written you were her "fellow lesbian"... Told ya! :D

DavidB
15-08-2012, 13:11
I think Ian's point is relevant with some small adjustments. It's ok to use the spoken word, as is often used in novels where a conversation has been transcribed. Uncommon slang and blatant grammatical errors, on the other hand, are unacceptable.

Jas takes it too far, in my opinion. There are many examples where she continuously makes errors which are not correct in any native speakers' dialect. For example;
-"me" in place of "my"
- Incorrect conjugations, such as "we was" and "they done"
-"ure" as an abbreviation for both "your" and "you're." I believe the correct SMS abbreviations are "ure" and "yr." However, I would discourage SMS language in this day of iPhones and other touchscreen devices. It's a relic of the past.

Jas
15-08-2012, 13:12
I point you to rule 27:

27. Please use proper English when posting. It is NOT ok to post using internet speak/slang and/or abbreviated words. Such posts will be either edited or deleted. Exceptions to this are standard acronyms such as LOL, ROFL, etc.., which are more "shortcuts" than slang. Example --> "LOLZ...!!! dat wuz funny!!", or using "u" instead of "you"... a bit of common sense here goes a long way.

Please don't be a troll, Richard. U need to either stop posting the same drivel about my writing style, or just ignore me.
You have already been banned for harassing me.
And now ure back at it again.
Stuck on the import reject list, let me give u some more of the same: Welcome to ignore.

Jas
15-08-2012, 13:19
You shouldn't have written you were her "fellow lesbian"... Told ya! :D

Knew it wudn't be long.......
Tehhe

Jas
15-08-2012, 13:22
LOL all she ever wanted. That's why I got PMs from her too..

As we say in oz- that girl has a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock.

Er, that's when I thought u was a writer and not some downclass teacher. U blew that quick enough.

Some teachers like Celia are ok and stuff however- but they know all what's their jobs and are serious and stuff. Anyhow.....

Inola
15-08-2012, 13:24
Knew it wudn't be long.......
Tehhe

Can I get back to the privileged circle of those you ignore too, please? :D

Jas
15-08-2012, 13:30
Sure, just go away and stop sniffing around me constantly.

Inola
15-08-2012, 13:38
Sure, just go away and stop sniffing around me constantly.

:D

You get the treatment you deserve.

And it's a public forum - I can post in any thread I want (this one was not even started by you)...

Jas
15-08-2012, 13:42
:D

You get the treatment you deserve.

And it's a public forum - I can post in any thread I want (this one was not even started by you)...

You really got no business coming near me, actually. But I suppose uve got all ure excuses covered. Why don't u just leave me alone? You know I'm just sitting here with a diet coke laughing at u, surely? Ure not supposed to be near me at all that much already got decided.
Just..... walk away.

Inola
15-08-2012, 13:46
You really got no business coming near me, actually. But I suppose uve got all ure excuses covered. Why don't u just leave me alone? You know I'm just sitting here with a diet coke laughing at u, surely? Ure not supposed to be near me at all that much already got decided.
Just..... walk away.

Drinking and laughing at the same time is not safe - don't choke on your coke :D

Jas
15-08-2012, 13:51
Drinking and laughing at the same time is not safe - don't choke on your coke :D

Sometimes u can't help it though cos the people u meet are so hilariously funny.

orlando771
15-08-2012, 14:10
true,true,true

MickeyTong
15-08-2012, 14:20
http://i47.tinypic.com/1zdy7o6.jpg

celia
15-08-2012, 14:29
I've read the last two pages of the thread and I've come to the conclusion that this isn't going to work. If your intention was to make me leave the forum, it's worked.

MickeyTong
15-08-2012, 14:31
I've read the last two pages of the thread and I've come to the conclusion that this isn't going to work. If your intention was to make me leave the forum, it's worked.

Celia - my post above was not directed at you.

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 14:33
I've read the last two pages of the thread and I've come to the conclusion that this isn't going to work. If your intention was to make me leave the forum, it's worked.

Why leave? :eek:

Just place the annoying one (putting it politely) on your Ignore List for a few days until they calm down :)

MickeyTong
15-08-2012, 14:45
You shouldn't have written you were her "fellow lesbian"... Told ya! :D

Eddie Izzard - "I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body."

Eddie Izzard Transvestite - YouTube

rubyrussia
15-08-2012, 20:30
http://news.a42.ru/uploads/images/parsed/news/2010/09/204788/preview_204788.jpg


Jas has been investing alot of her time in creating topics, and stimulating debate, so maybe go a little easy on her, and forgive her me's and her caus'es...

“Invest” and “stimulate” are words that I wouldn't use. If what you're looking for is entertainment, Jas could follow BabyGirl's example instead of trying to stir up a ruckus and get people fighting (i.e. accusing people to be gay when they're not). Speaking of which, I've been in Russia for a good while now and personally, I can't think of anything more offensive. This is not the kind of culture where you should joke around concerning “stuff” like that.



OK, I'm back

:-) We missed you. There are parts in your post below which I think have some real substance! And... stuff that I'm going to contest a bit. I hope it doesn't offend you.


Today, however, I would like to address the claim of "arrogance" when someone asserts that he or she (me in this case) has perfect grammar.

Since you seem to be very prescriptive, shouldn't it be “I in this case?” Even though virtually no one speaks like that when one answers the phone, in theory, one should say, “It is I” and not “yeah, it's me.” In fact, a true perscriptivist must argue that Russians do a good job of speaking correctly while most native speakers, say 99%, technically get it wrong. For example, my Russian students love to say:
Sue is taller than I, I too, etc.


I don't think it's a coincidence that those making the accusation of arrogance come from Australia (or New Zealand) and the United States, where it just isn't polite to claim you are above normal in any way.

Yes, I agree and find it rather annoying that we have a tradition in the USA of politicians and others trying to convince the masses that they are an “average joe?” Or is it “joe the plumber”? Would you really want an average person to be the leader of a country? I agree with you on this point. Terribly stupid. I wish it weren't so.

On the other hand, I must say Celia, in Canada (is that where you're from???) or anywhere else in the west, where do politicians get up on podiums and talk about how they were raised in Buckingham Palace and are elitist and better than everyone else? I don't see that as being a New Zealand, Australia, and USA issue (NZAUSA???? LOL)(all countries of which we curiously come from). By the way, the stereotype of the ugly American I've seen before, first hand. Surprisingly, the last three people I have met from Canada (and all whom I liked by the way) seemed very quick to point out that Canada is just as great as America (or better) except we don't have ____________________________ and we aren't _________________. They just might join us in becoming the ugly Americans of the future.


Some of you snort at the idea that an English teacher can have perfect grammar. I think if you asked people on the street, most people would ask why someone without perfect grammar would be teaching English. I've been teaching English for over 6 years. If I didn't have perfect grammar by now I'd be very, very embarrassed. (Of course it's possible to have perfect grammar but not to know why something is correct or incorrect, and teachers have to learn this too.)

I haven't asked them, but I think if I asked most of the teachers I've ever worked with (who are not beginner teachers), they would say that their grammar is perfect. It's not a very high standard!

Since when is being arrogant a virtue? What else can you say that's perfect concerning yourself or some ability you have? Are you a perfect wife? Do you have perfect genetics? Is your complexion perfect? How about your apartment? I've met some insanely talented and intelligent people before and strangely enough none of them use the word perfect.

Also, when you're “the baddest on the block” you don't need to tell everyone that you are. It's like Vera Brezhniva going to Viykhino in hope of people crowding around her like Jesus so that it confirms in her brain that she really is special / amazing / famous / whatever.


Teaching English is much more than teaching grammar. Grammar is just one aspect. It's simply a starting point.

Yeah, you criticized my do's and dont's list, Therefore, I'll assume that you disagree... what do you disagree with and what do you think teaching is all about? I originally commented on this thread because 90% of the native speakers I know make terrible teachers. There are lots of reasons for this, I can go into that if there is interest.

Anyway, I can tell you that any teacher that would waste class time correcting correct English and thinks CELTA, on a whole, is stupid is probably a poor teacher. I've worked with and am currently teaching some of the most prestigious individuals in Russia. Why? Actually, I won't tell you. It's a secret. But the key component is that I go the extra mile to give a lesson that others can't. I don't need to say that my lessons are great, fun, or better. My students do it for me.

Oh and one more thing. Most of the people that I met that had nothing good to say about CELTA were usually over 40 and thought that they already did things perfectly. Why is that (rhetorical question)?


I studied Philosophy for four years in university. It's ridiculous to think that I (or anyone else in the programme) ever made a grammar mistake.

If you missed the beginning of my post, you should re-read it. I found a mistake... Well, in theory, this is a mistake but I personally wouldn't call it such. One of the core concepts of linguistics is that languages change due to mistakes, influence from other languages, and “man made” control.

But whatever you may think, just look at English! English was a poor man's language that had a lot of inferiorities and inconsistencies compared to Latin (or at least that's what was believed). The "perfect English" you claim to speak yourself isn't even a perfect language! So what you really claim is to speak an imperfect, perfect English. Did that make any sense? :)


[QUOTE What is more desirable - A British English teacher or American English teacher?

The market says British teachers... as they are paid more. I know some Cornish, Welsh, etc call themselves British (but only in class) and tone down some of their regionalisms and accents in order to rake in some extra dough. :)

I would argue however that this is a market demand. I don't believe that any standard English variant is better than another. They're just different. I can say however, I feel bad for the Aussies. They are practically ignored in the ESL world including the textbooks even though linguists include Australians in the standard English definition.



Indeed, if you used perfect grammar always, you would find your circle of friends rather small. Elitist and snobby would be the charge against you. Our everyday speech breaks grammar conventions. We omit words, use conjunctions at the start of sentences when we ought not to. We finish sentences with prepositions etc.

Totally agree with you bro!



A lot of the debate on this thread is pointless.

If you really believe this, it must also include most of what you've written below too...


Because some of us are using spoken English and some of us are using written English. That's because Internet forums are, like email, a hybrid form of communication. Some people see them as a form of speaking, and write as they speak, while others see them as a form of writing. For some posters it is a spontaneous form of communication, and SMS-style shorthand is fine...

Only if you are an extreme descriptivist.


So- the question is- what is appropriate on an Internet forum like this one? Should we be correcting each others' language, or not?

Probably not. Which is what my original point was...


I think Ian's point is relevant with some small adjustments. It's ok to use the spoken word, as is often used in novels where a conversation has been transcribed. Uncommon slang and blatant grammatical errors, on the other hand, are unacceptable.

Jas takes it too far, in my opinion. There are many examples where she continuously makes errors which are not correct in any native speakers' dialect. For example;
-"me" in place of "my"
- Incorrect conjugations, such as "we was" and "they done"
-"ure" as an abbreviation for both "your" and "you're." I believe the correct SMS abbreviations are "ure" and "yr." However, I would discourage SMS language in this day of iPhones and other touchscreen devices. It's a relic of the past.

Exactly. DavidB is this forum's MVP. "Text speak" was a solution to a problem of trying to communicate on a terribly small “keyboard” as quickly as possible. If someone on this forum only had 3 fingers, I would cut them some slack.

As you can tell I am not a descriptivist or a prescriptivist.


Please don't be a troll, Richard. U need to either stop posting the same drivel about my writing style, or just ignore me.
You have already been banned for harassing me.
And now ure back at it again.
Stuck on the import reject list, let me give u some more of the same: Welcome to ignore.

Jas, I have a question for you. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. My question? What is a native speaker? Could you define why you believe you are a native speaker of English? I'd like to ask Celia to weigh in too (in the context of Jas's native-speaker-ness :))) ).

rubyrussia
15-08-2012, 20:55
I've read the last two pages of the thread and I've come to the conclusion that this isn't going to work. If your intention was to make me leave the forum, it's worked.

Sad to see you go... Maybe you should just register a new nickname and not tell us it's you. I like having differing opinions on the forum... even if they are wrong.

RichardB
15-08-2012, 21:20
Please don't be a troll, Richard. U need to either stop posting the same drivel about my writing style, or just ignore me.
You have already been banned for harassing me.
And now ure back at it again.
Stuck on the import reject list, let me give u some more of the same: Welcome to ignore.

If you had taken the time to read the original context of my posting you will discover that I WASN'T EVEN TALKING TO YOU.

PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE COMMENTING...

:groan:

Inola
15-08-2012, 21:32
If you had taken the time to read the original context of my posting you will discover that I WASN'T EVEN TALKING TO YOU.

PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE COMMENTING...

:groan:

You still didn't get it? According to her, we all live not in the Sun-centered, but Jas-centered universe... :D

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 21:40
"I studied Philosophy for four years in university. It's ridiculous to think that I (or anyone else in the programme) ever made a grammar mistake."

Here, in British English, it would be more common and correct to say "at university"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/at_1?q=at

rubyrussia
15-08-2012, 21:49
Thanks, Yak. I didn't know that. Americans always say "at college" which tends to confuse everyone else on the rest of the planet... and for good reason too! Maybe we should change? Nah! We're Americans! YAY! :applause:

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 21:53
OK Grammar experts, when should I use 'among' and 'amongst'?

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 21:56
OK Grammar experts, when should I use 'among' and 'amongst'?

Register? (Informal/Formal)?

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 21:57
Register what?

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 21:59
Sorry, I think you use among when speaking informally, and amongst is a feature of formal speech.

Inola
15-08-2012, 22:00
Thanks, Yak. I didn't know that. We're Americans!

How strange.. I always thought "at university" was the only option. Studied that in an ordinary Russian school with a non-native speaker English teacher...

So in Canada and US it's more common to say "in university", right? I'm getting confused..

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 22:01
So, depending on the audience, I can say:

I was among friends last night

and

I was amongst friends last night.

Are both correct? :book:

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 22:03
Yes, if your second sentence is a part of a presentation or a public speech in a formally organised event.

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 22:05
How odd? Are there any other examples of this?

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 22:07
As everyone can very well see, I am privileged to find myself amongst exceptionally appreciative audience. (for instance)

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 22:08
OK Grammar experts, when should I use 'among' and 'amongst'?

Amongst and whilst etc are just the older forms. I tend to use them but their use is disappearing.

http://suite101.com/article/when-to-use-among-or-amongst-a122032
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/among-vs-amongst/

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 22:09
Actually, I meant are there any other examples of similar words being used for different audiences?

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 22:10
Amongst and whilst etc are just the older forms. I tend to use them but their use is disappearing.

http://suite101.com/article/when-to-use-among-or-amongst-a122032
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/among-vs-amongst/

I was going to ask about 'Whilst' and 'While'

Interesting that both those links contradict one another! ;)

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 22:14
Actually, I meant are there any other examples of similar words being used for different audiences?

While, whilst. Amid, amidst. There are more but you start to delve into old English. If you are writing historical fiction you would use it and in some formal occasions. Nowadays it is quite aristocratic in use. I lived in Hampshire and it was fairly common there.

TolkoRaz
15-08-2012, 22:15
Hampshire, New England? ;)

yakspeare
15-08-2012, 22:17
Hampshire, New England? ;)

Nay, I say unto thee, the olde one.

GalinaP
15-08-2012, 22:18
Oh, lots and lots of them.

look into - investigate

Who....to? - To whom....?

person - individual

plus - in addition

wino - substance abuser

sis
15-08-2012, 23:19
“Invest” and “stimulate” are words that I wouldn't use. If what you're looking for is entertainment, Jas could follow BabyGirl's example instead of trying to stir up a ruckus and get people fighting (i.e. accusing people to be gay when they're not). Speaking of which, I've been in Russia for a good while now and personally, I can't think of anything more offensive. This is not the kind of culture where you should joke around concerning “stuff” like that.



well your going to have to stay a little longer I think, I can assure you this this sort of "stuff" is more than common.. in Russia when people are not blaming the Jews for all the problems in the world, they are blaming the 'piders'

I once had a conversation with a taxi driver, he was telling me that all the woes in Russia have been caused by piderusi...Basically I learnt that Lenin was a gay, Stalin was a gay, Yeltsin was a gay and Putin is a Gay, and this is the reason that he was driving around in a Zhiguli...

You may be right however when you say that they don't joke around. This guy was very serious. I don't think he was joking in the slightest. And I can assure you that I did not dare to suggest that he paint his taxi pink. Call somebody a gay in Russia, and you better get your fists up. Gays have a bad name here - not surprising when you consider all the problems they have created.

Sometimes I think that most of the expats here live a very sanitized version of Russia. The less Russian language people understand the more they like Russia...

Inola
15-08-2012, 23:55
“Invest” and “stimulate” are words that I wouldn't use. If what you're looking for is entertainment, Jas could follow BabyGirl's example instead of trying to stir up a ruckus and get people fighting (i.e. accusing people to be gay when they're not). Speaking of which, I've been in Russia for a good while now and personally, I can't think of anything more offensive. This is not the kind of culture where you should joke around concerning “stuff” like that.


Maybe I haven't lived in Russia long enough, but I'd say this is mostly true about Russian men - calling them "pedik" is a capital offense indeed..

I didn't find being called lesbian in the least offensive.. Just because it's not true. If it were true I would have admitted it, though would have get offended by the assumption I could have fallen for Jas...

Also, I have homosexual friends, both men and women, great people.. I don't think their greatness is defined by their sexual preferences though...

rubyrussia
15-08-2012, 23:55
well your going to have to stay a little longer I think, I can assure you this this sort of "stuff" is more than common.. in Russia when people are not blaming the Jews for all the problems in the world, they are blaming the 'piders'

I once had a conversation with a taxi driver, he was telling me that all the woes in Russia have been caused by piderusi...Basically I learnt that Lenin was a gay, Stalin was a gay, Yeltsin was a gay and Putin is a Gay, and this is the reason that he was driving around in a Zhiguli...

You may be right however when you say that they don't joke around. This guy was very serious. I don't think he was joking in the slightest. And I can assure you that I did not dare to suggest that he paint his taxi pink. Call somebody a gay in Russia, and you better get your fists up. Gays have a bad name here - not surprising when you consider all the problems they have created.

Sometimes I think that most of the expats here live a very sanitized version of Russia. The less Russian language people understand the more they like Russia...

My Russian is good enough to carry on a conversation on an issue like this. I think the last sentence you wrote is silly. If you'd prefer to hear political correctness, you should take a trip to America. You'd love it there. :-)


accuse people of* excuse my grammar mistake!!!!9

mds45
17-08-2012, 15:12
I've read the last two pages of the thread and I've come to the conclusion that this isn't going to work. If your intention was to make me leave the forum, it's worked.

I really don't understand people announcing they are leaving the site, if for some reason you've forgotten that the internet is populated by nice and not so nice people just walk away, if can't handle it anymore go! but go quietly.

robertmf
17-08-2012, 16:33
Hampshire, New England? ;)

In New England, you can have New Hampshire or Hampshire College, but I don't believe there is just a "Hampshire" place name.

:elf:

celia
19-08-2012, 17:42
I meant that I was abandoning my thread!

celia
19-08-2012, 17:45
"Albeit" should be used only when writing and not in speech.

robertmf
19-08-2012, 18:31
I really don't understand people announcing they are leaving the site, if for some reason you've forgotten that the internet is populated by nice and not so nice people just walk away, if can't handle it anymore go! but go quietly.

Perhaps the announcing is the same motive as a failed suicide has - wanting to "be saved" :question:

Albeit there is the character building axiom, "if at first you don't succeed, try try again".

:rasta:

rubyrussia
19-08-2012, 18:31
I meant that I was abandoning my thread!

:-) or not! Welcome back! соскучилась?

Jas
19-08-2012, 19:17
"Albeit" should be used only when writing and not in speech.

See, I think ure the best teacher Celia cos ure always trying to help people.
Everyone wants this kind of lovely and good teacher.

yakspeare
19-08-2012, 21:37
"Albeit" should be used only when writing and not in speech.

er um...Can you point to a reference to that? Certainly, I haven't heard it-but then I am not perfect.

I tell people that I've now done one decent thing in my life. Albeit inadvertently.
Larry David

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- Albert Einstein

Testing of self is a regular part of our own lives, so it seems natural to make it a part of the lives of my characters, as well, albeit on a much different level.
- Terry Brooks

Life is an ordeal, albeit an exciting one, but I wouldn't trade it for the good old days of poverty and obscurity.
- Jim Carrey

These would appear to be spoken quotes, albeit I could be wrong.

rubyrussia
19-08-2012, 21:52
"Albeit" should be used only when writing and not in speech.

Here we go again... Celia, why should it only be used in writing and not in speech? Says who? Can I see a source on that?

I'm sure you have some pretty confused students. After you, they probably think no one speaks English correctly... No one ever again will tell them "think about" (when expressing an opinion) or albeit (when used in speech) is bad English. :eek:

rubyrussia
19-08-2012, 21:53
er um...Can you point to a reference to that? Certainly, I haven't heard it-but then I am not perfect.

I tell people that I've now done one decent thing in my life. Albeit inadvertently.
Larry David

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- Albert Einstein

Testing of self is a regular part of our own lives, so it seems natural to make it a part of the lives of my characters, as well, albeit on a much different level.
- Terry Brooks

Life is an ordeal, albeit an exciting one, but I wouldn't trade it for the good old days of poverty and obscurity.
- Jim Carrey

These would appear to be spoken quotes, albeit I could be wrong.

Yak, try again. All the people you quoted were blundering idiots. :11030:

mds45
20-08-2012, 12:29
Language is amazing because it is mobile, none of us would understand much of a person speaking from the 1500's , our language has evolved and does evolve, the laws Celia refers to can hamper that process or defend it where it needs depending on the situation, in this instance I belive the law is not helping and therefore IMHO is a bad one

Ian G
20-08-2012, 12:36
"Albeit" should be used only when writing and not in speech.

I definitely agree that textual markers like 'hereunder', 'above', 'below', 'attached', 'aforementioned', 'herein', 'hereby', etc should only be used in writing! But albeit sounds fine in speech to me. A very useful contrast word.

celia
20-08-2012, 14:37
I should have quit while I was ahead. Good bye!

Ian G
20-08-2012, 14:43
Celia- I apologize to you if my above post seems over pedantic (which, frankly, it is). I certainly didn't mean it as an attack of any kind and would feel guilty if it, and other similar posts, had the effect of scaring you away from the forum. I think there's just something about the nature of grammar that brings out the nit-picking side to me and I appreciate that can be rather irritating.

rubyrussia
20-08-2012, 17:33
I should have quit while I was ahead. Good bye!

Celia, when were you “ahead“ and what do you mean by that anyway? You never responded to anthing I had to say...

Stick to arguing ideas and you‘ll find that you won‘t get so upset.