English Language

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Always or on certain conditions?

---

Always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

I had an associate from Mexico that was was fairly competant in (American) English.
What used to drive him crazy was how many words there were that had more than one meaning.
...
)

---

Isn't that all languages though? How many meanings does Que have? And don't get me started on Mexican slang. I think it's just difficult to learn another language as an adult. You learn the main meaning first, but oftentimes there are many other uses and meanings for words, including and not including slang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Isn't that all languages though?

---

I don't know :confused: :)

Why do native speakers confuse they're with their? Why do they write or say would of? Doesn't it indicate they lack the basic understanding of the logic of their language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Accents vary much even in a small area.

---

The UK is extreme in this aspect. When I lived there it seemed to be a national passtime to try and locate your origin to within the nearest mile as soon as you opened your mouth. Needless to say I heard some pretty wild guesses, but at least they tried bless 'em... closest anyone got with me was "somewhere up north" (my dad's Irish and my mum's a Lancs lass :erm: :p ) :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj

Why do native speakers confuse they're with their? Why do they write or say would of? Doesn't it indicate they lack the basic understanding of the logic of their language?

---

have you ever found yourself driving somewhere and suddenly realised you were on autopilot?
I'd like to think a lot of the above typos on the forum are due to "autopilot typing" and not checking what was actually posted before the edit timeout.
...
On second thoughts, their (oops :p ) can't be any excuses for would of :eek:

I guess one of the main problems with English is it isn't really English. We've absorbed so many different bits of other languages over the centuries, there seems no logic to any of it. And I speak as an English language graduate...

Danny Baker did a good puzzle on his radio show a little while ago (before his current illness) when he mentioned that there are seven or eight different pronunciations of the ending -ough (which included the hiccough "hiccup" that was debunked on QI last week). It's a wonder anyone from abroad ever bothers learning English when presented with hurdles like that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj

Why do native speakers confuse they're with their? Why do they write or say would of? Doesn't it indicate they lack the basic understanding of the logic of their language?

---

My view is that, if one is a native speaker and does not suffer from some sort of comprehension problem, getting English right is not difficult. I managed it and I'm nothing special; therefore, I would tend to feel that pretty much everyone else ought to be able to. The sort of confusions you describe above, as well as the misuse of apostrophes, are unacceptable, yet increasingly they are tolerated. Some may say this is merely the evolution of language; I just call them mistakes. Evolution ought not to occur through mistakes.

By the way, it would be entirely wrong to think that the errors I've mentioned are modern-day problems being perpetuated by the ill-educated youth of today. In researching historical documents from the last 80 or so years, many written by diplomats, military commanders and suchlike — i.e. well-educated men — it is clear that there has always been much confusion over the use of apostrophes, at least. This doesn't make it any more defensible, in my opinion. As I said, getting it right is not hard.

As for the issue of pronunciation, I am convinced that the way certain place names are pronounced is purely in order for locals to identify people from outside the area. Happisburgh in Norfolk is a great example. How is anyone not from the locality supposed to know that it's pronounced 'Hays-borough'?

One last point, for now at least — a favourite mistake of mine is when you hear someone complaining about poor 'pronounciation'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj

Why do native speakers confuse they're with their? Why do they write or say would of? Doesn't it indicate they lack the basic understanding of the logic of their language?

---

People confusing you're with your is something that grinds my gears.

Very strange that insurance companies demanding increased premiums after fitting winter tyres. When it should be the opposite. That and the transport ministers comments show how much ignorance there is about what they are and what they are for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Very strange that insurance companies demanding increased premiums after fitting winter tyres. When it should be the opposite. That and the transport ministers comments show how much ignorance there is about what they are and what they are for.

---

Wrong thread? :p

and the winner of today's donkey of the forums is... :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

have you ever found yourself driving somewhere and suddenly realised you were on autopilot?
I'd like to think a lot of the above typos on the forum are due to "autopilot typing" and not checking what was actually posted before the edit timeout.
...
On second thoughts, their (oops :p ) can't be any excuses for would of :eek:

---

Oi! mi pequito Donquito!
I think particualarly you and Eki will like this character from a long time ago on the American program "Saturday Night Live" back when it was good.
I do because already back then I was losing hearing---not surprising working in heavy industry, welding etc and then doing 20 or more hours a week on racing motorcycles, and then always being in second or third language situation IN NOISY situation, so mishearing things was frequent for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella
Premise

Emily Litella was an elderly woman with a hearing problem who made regular appearances on SNL's Weekend Update op-ed segment in the late 1970s. Attired in a frumpy dress and sweater, Litella was introduced with professional dignity by the news anchors, who could sometimes be seen cringing slightly in anticipation of the verbal faux pas they knew would follow.

Gilda Radner (as Litella) peered through her reading glasses and, in the character's trademark high-pitched, warbly voice, read a prepared statement in opposition to an editorial that the TV station had supposedly broadcast. This sketch was, in part, a spoof of the Fairness Doctrine, which at the time required broadcasters in the United States to present opposing viewpoints on public issues. Litella became increasingly agitated as her statement progressed. Midway in her commentary, it became apparent that she had misheard and/or misunderstood the subject of the editorial to which she was responding. A typical example:
“ What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a "deaf" penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is! ”

The news anchor interrupted Litella to point out her error, along the lines, "That's death, Ms. Litella, not deaf ... death." Litella would wrinkle her nose, say something like, "Oh, that's very different...." then meekly turn to the camera and say, "Never mind." When Litella played against news anchor Chevy Chase (whom she always called "Cheddar Cheese"), he was somewhat sympathetic to her. But when Jane Curtin took over the anchor role, she would scold Litella on the air, to which Litella would reply, "I'm sorry. It won't happen again....Bitch!" (This has been interpreted--or mis-interpreted--as meaning that though both were Not Ready For Prime Time actresses, Curtin and Radner actually hated each other in real life.)

Other misheard topics to which Litella responded were "saving Soviet jewelry [really Jewry]", "endangered feces [species]", "violins [violence] on television", "busting [busing] schoolchildren", "presidential erections [elections]", "flea [free] elections (and then "flea erections") in China", "pouring money into canker [cancer] research", the "Eagle [Equal] Rights Amendment", "conserving our natural racehorses [natural resources]", "youth in Asia [euthanasia], "sax [sex] on television, "firing [hiring] the handicapped", and "making Puerto Rico a steak [state]". About the last of these topics, she complained, "Next thing you know, they'll want a baked potato with sour cream!"

The message on Litella's answering machine was, "Hello, this is Emily Litella. I'm not home right now, but I will call you back as soon as possible. Just leave your name, number and what time you called after you hear the sound of the Jeep."

There are, of course, video clips on the net...

"What's all this I hear about violins in school?"

english was a peasant language after the norman invasion in 1066.
Not spoken by "educated" people except as necessary to deal with the populace. As a result, there was no formal education system to keep it from being mangled over the years

Seems to have had its origins from northern germany. Henry the 8th, decided Englan decided it needed its own language after his break with the Catholics, hence it became official, even in its mangled form and degenerated grammer structure.

although before that, in the 1300's there were some publications in the english language, but for the three hundred years after 1066 english was almsot an entirely spoken and not written langauge.

Obama is currently on TV answering questions about tax cuts. He mentioned that "a typical family" will pay about $1000 less taxes in 2011. Or did he say "atypical family"? I'm not sure.

The English language doesn't have an authority that regulates its use like other languages do such as they have in Spanish,French,German, Croatian and I'm sure loads of others too. So "correct" usage depends on where you're from and no standard exists.