HUZZAH! Banned from Rentech.com!

[ZephyrZodiac]

I think any language learned mainly from conversation would leave the speaker at a disadvantage when trying to write, since most languages have synonyms and homonyms to confuse you.  A lot of people learning from conversation, watching TV etc., don't even always really know where one word ends and another begins!

[breyerii]

Generally it's true, yet English is very conservative in its written form. Comparatively Italian, while a grammar-heavy, difficult language, is easy to write for those who can speak it - and know how thigs are transliterated.

Pratical example: the English "e" can be an Italian "e" [bEtter] or vary, depending on, I guess, historical reasons [sEE]; our grammarians derermined, ad back as the Reinassance, that the written form has to follow the spoken form, so that an "e" is never ambiguous.

EDIT: there is an open "e" and a closed "e", phonetically, but the meaning is unchanged.

[ElviraGoth]

I think you'd find those people from other countries who learned English in school will probably understand the difference between there, their and they're as they will have been taught the underlying grammar and syntax. People who will have problems will be those who are mainly self-taught, and as such do not deserve to be criticised as they have at least tried....so many people today expect the host country to bend over backwards to accommodate them, but make no effort in return!

I think that the effort depends on the person.  If they really want to be a part of the country they have moved to, they make the effort to learn the language and customs.  If I moved to another country I would like to think I would make every effort to learn the language.  If I moved to France, for example, I would want to speak as much French as I could, even though it might be with an American accent.  In Britain, though the language is basically the same, I would hope I could remember to ask for the loo instead of the restroom, more to avoid confusion than anything!

And I have made the effort in this part of the country to "fit in"; however, keeping my Midwestern accent is mostly an effort to keep my roots.  I think if I started to pick up the accent I would be criticized (I can't believe I spelled that wrong before - I LOOKED IT UP!) as trying to be a "fake" or making fun of the people here.  I don't want to offend anyone, therefore I feel being true to my roots shows I respect the people who have lived here all their lives.  But there are just some expressions I can't pick up, mostly because they don't make sense to me.  I'm afraid that if I tried to use them, I would be laughed at because I used them incorrectly!

And rednecks?  I grew up on a farm in the middle of no-f'ing-where.  My brothers made the unfortunate mistake of trying to skin a skunk they had caught in a trap.  My mother grabbed a rifle to keep trespassers off our property.  I lived in the heart of Redneckville!  Doesn't mean I had to stay that way!  I was taught to always try to better yourself.  My parents are bigots because that was what they were taught.  I grew up in the 60's and decided that I wasn't going to be that way.  So I'm an EOI - Equal Opportunity Insulter!  I slam everyone!  lol!

[ZephyrZodiac]

Yes, I'd agree that any language which is written phonetically is easier to learn to write as there are basic rules to follow which, once learned, make things relatively simple.  Also, if you understand those rules, even if you don't understand a word of the language, you can read it aloud and make it sound as though you do understand what you are reading!  (At least to others who also don't know the language!)  The trouble with language teaching in the UK is that, in order to make learning a language accessible to every child, no matter how much they are already struggling with their own, we have stopped teaching the rules, and just teach convenient phrase, questions and answers, till it's more like training a  Pavlov's dog to salivate at the sound of a bell than it is like teaching any comprehension of the language!  One reason why I stopped teaching French and just taught basic subjects!

[breyerii]

Oh my!

Then you know. I once read a monograph on Beckett, and he said he switched to French because it's more precise, more, so to speak, geometrical than English. Indeed, English is very flexible, and many things are suitable to be expressed in simpler terms - I mean, whenever I get lost with English constructions I just tone it down, and get a less elegant, yet similar result.

Latin languages, instead, are structured so that often concepts have to be expressed in a single way, lest sense changes. Convenient phrases may get you through Paris, Madrid or Rome, but, if I understood you well, there's no chance you'll read a novel with them.

[ElviraGoth]

The trouble with language teaching in the UK is that, in order to make learning a language accessible to every child, no matter how much they are already struggling with their own, we have stopped teaching the rules, and just teach convenient phrase, questions and answers, till it's more like training a  Pavlov's dog to salivate at the sound of a bell than it is like teaching any comprehension of the language!

It's the same here in the states.  When I was little, my sister, who is 2 years older than I am, was in the last class at our school to be taught phonetics.  Her class was allowed to keep the phonetics books, and I remember at 4 years old (before there was preschool) she and I would play "school" and she taught me phonetics.  It gave me a head start on my classmates, most of whom couldn't even read yet.

I think my kids had some phonetics in the lower grades at school, as it seems I remember it was decided to bring it back.  But I also remember that they had to learn anywhere from 25 to 100 spelling words a week in second grade.  Not the meanings, just the words.  And if they spelled a word wrong on the test, there was no retesting, they just went on to the next week learning the next batch of words to spell.  At 7 years old, they were spelling words I learned in Junior High (13 years old)!  But we also had to learn the meaning of the words back then.

[ZephyrZodiac]

I think my kids had some phonetics in the lower grades at school, as it seems I remember it was decided to bring it back.  But I also remember that they had to learn anywhere from 25 to 100 spelling words a week in second grade.  Not the meanings, just the words.  And if they spelled a word wrong on the test, there was no retesting, they just went on to the next week learning the next batch of words to spell.  At 7 years old, they were spelling words I learned in Junior High (13 years old)!  But we also had to learn the meaning of the words back then.

Somewhere between the two there's a middle ground which would work!  Someone just has to find it!

[ElviraGoth]

I guess finding the correct way to educate the youth in any country is as much a learning process as a teaching one!

[ZephyrZodiac]

I think it's more a matter of profit!  There's no profit in schools using last year's text books!

[breyerii]

I guess finding the correct way to educate the youth in any country is as much a learning process as a teaching one!

I recall me and my buddy in England...

He came to me and explained a most formal way to ask for things, "Do you think you could please..."

Then he want into a bookstore (Waterstones) and put it in use. He told me, the clerk almost panicked faced with such a thing and retrieved the book he wanted in a frenzy of activity.

I guess it's some kind of rare phrasing, the sort of things you get with proper school training. My friend has always learned English in school.

[ElviraGoth]

He came to me and explained a most formal way to ask for things, "Do you think you could please..."

That's funny, because I was brought up to politely ask for things in a similar manner!

I think it's more a matter of profit! There's no profit in schools using last year's text books!

That probably has more truth to it than we'd all like to think, ZZ.  Unfortunately, the "no child left behind" thing has caused some teachers in this area to give their students the answers to the SAT tests so they get more federal funds from having more students in the high test score range.  A shame that those few would rather take the easy road than teach the skills those kids would have benefited from more than the false test score.

[breyerii]

Then he WAS right!

But our English teachers - in Eastbourme, if you want to know - also told us things like, the verb "may" is becoming old fashioned. [But, I'm sticking to it. I have the "there's no two things" mentality.]

[ZephyrZodiac]

Since the difference in sense between "may" and "can" is quite distinct, the teacher concerned seems to need educating!  I always remember when I was teaching, if a child put up their hand and asked  "Please Miss, can I go to the toilet"  I would reply, "Oh, yes, I should think so!"  Then when they got up to leave the room,  I'd ask, "And just where do you think you're going?"

I won't finish the conversation, as I'm sure you can all work out the ending!

[breyerii]

Zephyr,

I'll keep it in mind forever. And ready for any teacher I should meet! 

[ElviraGoth]

I seem to remember a similar circumstance in school when I was young...a good example of the difference between "can" and "may"!

[ZephyrZodiac]

So we need both words, right?  If the word "may" is becoming obsolete, I'd suggest it was due to laziness and bad teaching!  There are occasions when the distinction could be important , especially when attempting to translate into a foreign language which still distinguishes between the two.

[breyerii]

Very, very true.

And now, as another buffoon said before I was born:

Good night, sweet ladies... good night sweet ladies... good night sweet ladies...

[ElviraGoth]

I have to agree with you.  Unfortunately, I hear more people using "can I..." than "may I.." as the years go by.  It may be that those who didn't want to learn the correct usage 40 years ago have continued to use "can" to the point that their children have grown up with it, passed it along to their children, etc.

Can you imagine using "it can be" instead in that last sentence?  Wouldn't make sense, would it?

[ZephyrZodiac]

No, it wouldn't!  And how about "May you swim?" instead of "Can you swim?"  I mean, the first implies that one is asking if something is permitted, the second is simply asking about someone's ability!  Two totally different concepts!

I was akways told at school, in the similar confusion between shall and will, to remember these two sentences:

"I shall drown and nobody will save me!" 

"I will drown and nobody shall save me!"

[ElviraGoth]

I have to admit I have always been confused by those two, myself.  And "shall" is not used much here.  So..which one is correct?
 

[ZephyrZodiac]

Both are correct, just have different meanings.

The first is a prediction - I am going to drown, and there is nobody to save me!

The second is and intention - I am going to drown, and I will not let anyone save me!

[ElviraGoth]

Well, I looked up "shall" in my dictionary, this edition is from 1998.

It says, "Its function is to indicate, now chiefly in formal discourse."  Past tense is "should".  One of the definitions is "Inevitability", one is "Command".

So the first one is: it is inevitable (beyond my control) that I am going to drown, and no one is willing to save me.
The second one: I am going to drown, and it is my command that no one save me.

Does that sound like I understood what you just said?

Edit: And I also must say good night.  Will check back tomorrow!

[Sandilou]

Since the difference in sense between "may" and "can" is quite distinct, the teacher concerned seems to need educating! I always remember when I was teaching, if a child put up their hand and asked "Please Miss, can I go to the toilet" I would reply, "Oh, yes, I should think so!" Then when they got up to leave the room, I'd ask, "And just where do you think you're going?"

I won't finish the conversation, as I'm sure you can all work out the ending!

ZZ I thought that it was just me showing my age!  I've been obsessed with teaching 'Mother May I?' as in 'Please may I?' to kiddies asking 'Can I...?'

Please don't let me get started on the 'I need' generation that's emerged this millenium:  You will find that children cannot distinguish between 'I need' and 'Please may I have?'.  They mean totally different things to me, but not to them.  With me, their need continues until the brain kicks in and a polite request rather than a blunt statement is made.  

I actually asked a class of mine to try out 'Please may I?' on their relatives for homework, and quite a few of them came back the next day and said that they'd earned rewards for being polite.  Only goes to show how language and expectations change over time.

[J. M. Pescado]

Heh, well, in my line of work, things get even shorter. To express a need, one simply indicates the lack of the needed object: For example, "NO BULLETS!". This can be further abbreviated to simply "BULLETS!" if it is apparent that you don't have any.

[baratron]

Actually, we say, "next Tuesday week" here in the UK, so it wouldn't sound odd to us!

Do "we"? I've never heard that before in my life! "Next Tuesday" - the next time a Tuesday occurs. "Tuesday week" - the second Tuesday that is to occur. "Next Tuesday week" - wtf? The next time a second Tuesday occurs?! On a related note, a strange thing in English is the word "bimonthly". It means both twice a month and every 2 months. If you're thinking about having a bimonthly meeting, do make sure the rest of your committee has agreed on what this means, as one meaning is 4 times more frequent than the other .

Things that bother me immensely when spelled incorrectly: "Their", "They're" and "There"; "To", "Too" and "Two"; "Its" and "It's". I was taught the difference between these constructions at the age of 6 or 7 in primary school, and then had this reinforced throughout my learning of English. Clearly I am old . The only one I can make an exception for is possessive its, because apostrophes are used to show possession in the rest of English (the genitive case), so it's rather strange that possessive its doesn't have one. I remember it because there's a usenet newsgroup called alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe - I used to post there, back when I did usenet.