Discussion about English grammar

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:12 pm

Mod Note: This topic split from an unrelated thread so that Fo'andles, Jervis Tetch and anyone else who wishes to, can sort out this particular subject. [BB]

The english grammer*** is atrocious, in places junior schoolboy english***.

The 1st paragraph,
after 500 customers a day, a genuine company would have included "the opportunity to have" and it would have not been "in your location" but "at your location".

4th paragraph,
and you, it should be "and your business" and you don't need the words "off the purchase".

Last paragraph,
Whats a great day?
That last sentence, what can i say other than it just does not make sense.

I think this is a scam, she certainly is not a manager.

***Another Mod Note: Grammer is a town in Indiana, USA. [BB]

***And yet another Mod Note: back when I went to school, the word "English" was written with a capital e.[KD]

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:23 am

Hi Fo'andles---welcome aboard--

Here in the colonies we ourselves cannot agree on proper English. In most of the USA, people say they stand "in line"... [queue in the UK]..

But in NYC and most of the NE US it is said as "standing ON line"..In the days way before the verb 'online' evolved into what it is nowadays. But still rings true today.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:35 am

Thank you Jervis.

Came across quite a few tourists when i worked for the London Underground, working out their english at times and trying to get them to understand the directions you were giving them was hard work. Still trying to work out, after giving directions to certain Amercians what "Are you sure" means, sounds like an insult.

Heard about a very refined young ladies letter of complaint, where she avoided using the "F" word, its very funny.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:48 am

hello Fo'andles again--

I'm savvy enough to figure out many US regional expressions, jargon, dialects, etc. And I know a Canadian accent when I hear one too, not easy for many people, eh?

Having never been to the UK, I'm unfortunately not able to discern the subtle differences between say a Manchester resident and a Londonite, tho' I know there are nuances that are obvious.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:23 am

Jervis Tetch wrote:

Having never been to the UK, I'm unfortunately not able to discern the subtle differences between say a Manchester resident and a Londonite, tho' I know there are nuances that are obvious.

Sorry JT, but that's the funniest thing I've read on the forum today. No offence meant. Laughing

Local dialects are amazing. I can go twenty miles down the road and they speak differently. Where does one dialect stop and another one start and why? An interesting question.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:27 am

Shockingly, there are people out there, including lads, who live in countries where English isn't the lingua franca, who don't speak/write English fluently and who don't know the esoteric grammatical rules and spellings Rolling Eyes

Before we get too bent out of shape about the finer points of English grammar with people for whom English is not their mother tongue (or even if it is), let us pause and consider our own skills in languages other than English.

For example, how is your French, German, Russian, Spanish, various West African dialects and languages, Portuguese, Chinese, Dutch, Greek, Italian, etc.

Edit: Oh Lordy - "grammer" - Nuff said Laughing

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:43 am

/\

Sorry, but can't agree with you there Gnasher.

English is the only truly international language. The internet and airline communications are just two examples why this is so. And since intelligent communication is one of the few reasons that separate humans from other species, isn't command over the language that unifies global communication a very basic requirement?

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:52 am

It's true that by historical accident or design English is more or less the international language, but it's the height of arrogance to assume that everyone speaks or understands it. Those of us lucky enough to have been born and raised as English speakers have got it made. But spare a thought for the billions of people on this planet who weren't so 'blessed'.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:54 am

Excuse me, but what exactly are we bitching about? The grammatical correctness of the users on this forum or the English lads use? As long as the message gets across, who gives a damn? I am not a native English speaker, as a lot of other folks who post here. I do not think it is necessary to type fluent English without mistakes to be part of this community, or to bait. Rolling Eyes

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:56 am

Thank you, Merci, Gracias, Arrigato (sp?) Laughing

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:20 pm

Who's bitching about anything? This is just a debate, isn't it?

Gnasher, knowing or not knowing English is not the only factor that separates that different classes - the people who have (or haven't) got it made. Nor is it any sort of arrogance to assume that many would (and should) understand it. It is a basic international language and anybody wishing to communicate anything to anyone over geographical boundaries needs to know it. This is specifically why the Chinese and the Koreans have set goals on learning English (and French, German and Hindi too)

Persephone, it is not necessary to write/speak the King's English but it IS important to know the language well enough so that one may express oneself with sufficient lucidity to sustain a communication in reasonably unambiguous form.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:32 pm

Zorro wrote:

Gnasher, knowing or not knowing English is not the only factor that separates that different classes - the people who have (or haven't) got it made. .

My italics. When did class come into it? All I am saying is that if we assume that English is now the international language then those of us lucky enough to speak it from the cradle have an advantage over those who have to learn it later in life as a second language in order to make their way in the world.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:40 pm

Quote:

...lucky enough to have been born and raised as English speakers have got it made (one class). But spare a thought for the billions of people...(another class)

I assumed

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:44 pm

Errrrr no - like I say it's an accident of birth that you happen to be raised speaking English. "Class" implies some kind of social, historic or economic advantage which isn't the same thing at all?

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:54 pm

Where I come from, those-who-know-English and those-who-don't are two different "social" classes. Hence my assumption.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:59 pm

Now that's stupid.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:00 pm

Why?

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:04 pm

Defining different "classes" of people in itself is stupid, and I assume this classification does also include some "vertical" element of hierarchy (other than "classification" in the sociological sense.

Basing such a classification on a completely arbitrary aspect of education (something which very few children on the planet have control about) is in my eyes snobby and in itself not very intelligent for a society.

EDIT: I speak a couple of languages, which would never even remotely make me believe in people who don't as belonging to a different "class" than others who are better at repairing cars, teaching children or riding a bicicle.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:12 pm

Very right Don but sadly that is how society still sees these distinctions.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:15 pm

It is how YOU see this. I am part of society and I do not feel this way in the least. Quite frankly, the above posts tell me more about the workings of YOUR mind than the way of the world.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:15 pm

@Zorro: And what is society but an arbitrary congregation of people who chose to adhere to its rules? So far you seemed to imply there was nothing wrong with such distinctions between a "leading class" and the others. Oh, you speak English. Guess it's ok then.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:18 pm

Does it HAVE to become a personal attack?

Edited to add
Don <-- I have not said anything that would imply that it is "OK" to have class distinctions based on knowing or not knowing English. What I said was that English is the only true international language and it is important that everybody (or as many people as possible) know enough of the language to comminicate effectively across the seven seas. The "class" aspect came in because Gnasher mentioned those who know English and those who do not.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:34 pm

There is no personal attack in this thread as far as I can see.

You expressed an opinion and since you didn't evaluate it you apparently made it your own. More so you expressed a strongly biased personal opinion on an implicitly ambiguous subject: cultural and personal heirarchies both between societies and within society. That's asking for people to express different opinions - from their personal point of view because you didn't detach yourself from your opinions.

I cannot say anything about you personally (let alone attack you) because I simply don't know you beyond what you post here. In this very case you seem to describe a society I wouldn't want to be part of and which obviously sounds not too inviting for other people as well.

But let's go ahead with the discussion.

I don't care about what languages speak at all or to what level they are formally educated. But for a native English speaker it is as much a display of education and maturity as it is a sign of respect towards fellow posters (not necessarily native speakers) to use correct English. I don't ask you to learn my language, fair enough, but you could try to not make it artificially difficult for me because you can't be arsed. That's a more question of style and manners than one of education or "class".

EDIT to reflect Zorro's edit: Gnasher might have brought in the class aspect but you introduced cultural hegemony into the discussion and said everyone should adhere to English as the new standard. This is going far beyond a simple question of language as a means of communication - language doesn't exist outside of societies and (forceful!) cultural hegemonies.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:46 pm

Don wrote:

You expressed an opinion and since you didn't evaluate it you apparently made it your own.

Absolutely. I expressed MY opinion about the need for knowing a particular language.

Don wrote:

More so you expressed a strongly biased personal opinion on an implicitly ambiguous subject: cultural and personal heirarchies both between societies and within society.

Cultural and personal heirarchies - what exactly are you referring to by this?

Don wrote:

... you seem to describe a society I wouldn't want to be part of and which obviously sounds not too inviting for other people as well.

Do you mean to say that society has NO distinction whatsoever?

Don wrote:

I don't care about what languages speak at all or to what level they are formally educated. But for a native English speaker it is as much a display of education and maturity as it is a sign of respect towards fellow posters (not necessarily native speakers) to use correct English. I don't ask you to learn my language, fair enough, but you could try to not make it artificially difficult for me because you can't be arsed. That's a more question of style and manners than one of education or "class".

Of course it is. But that is not my point at all. My point is and was the importance of the English language, irrespective of whether one is a native speaker or not.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:09 pm

Wow! I go to the pub for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose.

Bring back Latin that's what I say. Any civilisation (without a 'z' Very Happy

) that invented the word cunningulus can't be all bad. Not to mention the 'F' word. Laughing

Discussion about English grammar	View next topic View previous topic