Linguistic differences [modified]
-
I was going to tell you how to spot the correct verion, but it was too much effort, so I will let you suffer too.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Jeee thanks ;P Next time you complain about me using to and too wrong I'll point you back here :)
-
Jeee thanks ;P Next time you complain about me using to and too wrong I'll point you back here :)
Why? I am correct in that last post.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
As we all know, all posting on CP is (should be) conducted in English, yet a lot of the users (the majority?) are people having English as their second language (at best). That includes yours truly. It goes without saying that people (no matter how good they are at English) will make mistakes, spelling errors and/or grammatic errors of minor or major importance. Or it could be an unfortunate choice of words due to "false friends" (words that sound/look alike but mean completely different things in different languages). Heck, it's not only non-native English speakers that make mistakes - I'm sure full-bread Englishmen do too :) So as a person interested in linguistics, I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion on this: What linguistic mistakes (in English) do you find most irritating/funny/interesting? Here's your chance to give us non-English people some pointers to how we can improve our language... Doesn't necessarily have to be connected to CP and programming... I have a few pet peeves of my own that I will share with you if you're interested... :) /Johnny J.
modified on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:46 AM
Johnny J. wrote:
What linguistic mistakes (in English) do you find most irritating/funny/interesting?
Foreigners speaking Eng;lish just make linguistic and common usage errors. Nothing terribly ammusing. The most annoying is English speakers trying tobe clever. Americans often make this mistake, but English peope too come out with some real howlers. LIke the saying 'for all intense purposes'. It isnt. Its 'intents and purposes'.
Johnny J. wrote:
how we can improve our language
Reading current books. LIke Harry POtter, or other books written in bang up to date, non slang, non trendy, English. And dont worry if you for example use Swedish constructions in English. English has its roots partly in Scandanavia so if you do use some words or use words in a non typical way it could well be that years ago that is how those words were used, or those words existed. Take for example 'woning'. Its a Dutch word for 'home', yet Chaucer used it. SO if a Dutch speaker was to use that word would he be more right than an English speaker who didnt know what the hell he meant? (Dutch and English are also related through old saxon and so on)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I am somewhat annoyed by a couple few several of common mistakes. Scrub that... Amongst the many common mistakes that annoy me, are such diverse items as... a) Indian, (and really, it is usually Indian), members who, when posting in the Q&A section, use the minuscule 'i' rather than the majuscule 'I' for the personal pronoun. b) 'There' instead of 'Their' c) 'Your' instead of 'You're' (Sadly, I am sometimes guilty of this one, to my shame). d) The misplacement and interchangable use of 'to' and 'too'. But these are niggles. Typos are ok, we all do them, it is 'thinkos' that are oft frowned upon. But sometimes I laugh at incorrect idiom or inaccurate metaphor or similies. However there are a couple of things that Grind my Shit to a Fine Paste. "Different to" and "Gotten". It is Different From, and Gotten is such an ugly Americanism it should be ripped untimely from a dictionary and shot!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
Gotten is such an ugly Americanism it should be ripped untimely from a dictionary and shot
Except for 'ill gotten gains'? In fact 'gotten' is just an old form of English maintained only in that phrase and in the US (like 'fall' for 'autumn', which Shakespere used). As for 'different from' vs 'different to'. Can you tell me why and where such a distinction arose and if it is valid? (Given that different comes form French, one could mandate is use in the French way, which is neither of the above).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
digital man wrote:
don't you have anything more important to worry about?
Split infinitives? The Apostrophe Catastrophe? Conjunctions after commas? Lots of other things to worry about.
digital man wrote:
"Gotten" is not an Americanism as has been pointed out to you before.
In common parlance it is used almost exclusively by Americans. Although I accept it was previously used here in the UK, we managed to give it up as a bad job, to the betterment of our language. However, I still insist it is an Americanism as that is its adoptive home.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
Split infinitives?
Now here is one that was invented, I believe, by a teacher somewhere back in time that despite being totally unjustified has passed into the annals of idiocy. 'To deftly apply the paint' is not bad English. It is common English. And god knows English is about as common as you can get. 'To apply deftly the paint' just reads like crap. Dont be an English pedant, it is the least deserving of languages to get uptight about. Really.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Why? I am correct in that last post.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Crap hadn't even noticed it, I guess the coffee hadn't kicked in yet :)
-
Johnny J. wrote:
What linguistic mistakes (in English) do you find most irritating/funny/interesting?
Foreigners speaking Eng;lish just make linguistic and common usage errors. Nothing terribly ammusing. The most annoying is English speakers trying tobe clever. Americans often make this mistake, but English peope too come out with some real howlers. LIke the saying 'for all intense purposes'. It isnt. Its 'intents and purposes'.
Johnny J. wrote:
how we can improve our language
Reading current books. LIke Harry POtter, or other books written in bang up to date, non slang, non trendy, English. And dont worry if you for example use Swedish constructions in English. English has its roots partly in Scandanavia so if you do use some words or use words in a non typical way it could well be that years ago that is how those words were used, or those words existed. Take for example 'woning'. Its a Dutch word for 'home', yet Chaucer used it. SO if a Dutch speaker was to use that word would he be more right than an English speaker who didnt know what the hell he meant? (Dutch and English are also related through old saxon and so on)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Johnny J. wrote: What linguistic mistakes (in English) do you find most irritating/funny/interesting? Foreigners speaking Eng**;**lish just make linguistic and common usage errors. Nothing terribly ammusing. The most annoying is English speakers trying tobe clever. Americans often make this mistake, but English peope too come out with some real howlers. LIke the saying 'for all intense purposes'. It isnt. Its 'intents and purposes'. Johnny J. wrote: how we can improve our language Reading current books. LIke Harry POtter, or other books written in bang up to date, non slang, non trendy, English. And dont worry if you for example use Swedish constructions in English. English has its roots partly in Scandanavia so if you do use some words or use words in a non typical way it could well be that years ago that is how those words were used, or those words existed. Take for example 'woning'. Its a Dutch word for 'home', yet Chaucer used it. SO if a Dutch speaker was to use that word would he be more right than an English speaker who didnt know what the hell he meant? (Dutch and English are also related through old saxon and so on) Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
And they are just the glaringly obvious ones. There is grammar and punctuation errors that I let you get away with, as well as a few syntactic faux pas.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Split infinitives?
Now here is one that was invented, I believe, by a teacher somewhere back in time that despite being totally unjustified has passed into the annals of idiocy. 'To deftly apply the paint' is not bad English. It is common English. And god knows English is about as common as you can get. 'To apply deftly the paint' just reads like crap. Dont be an English pedant, it is the least deserving of languages to get uptight about. Really.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
To apply the paint deftly.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Johnny J. wrote:
What linguistic mistakes (in English) do you find most irritating/funny/interesting?
Foreigners speaking Eng;lish just make linguistic and common usage errors. Nothing terribly ammusing. The most annoying is English speakers trying tobe clever. Americans often make this mistake, but English peope too come out with some real howlers. LIke the saying 'for all intense purposes'. It isnt. Its 'intents and purposes'.
Johnny J. wrote:
how we can improve our language
Reading current books. LIke Harry POtter, or other books written in bang up to date, non slang, non trendy, English. And dont worry if you for example use Swedish constructions in English. English has its roots partly in Scandanavia so if you do use some words or use words in a non typical way it could well be that years ago that is how those words were used, or those words existed. Take for example 'woning'. Its a Dutch word for 'home', yet Chaucer used it. SO if a Dutch speaker was to use that word would he be more right than an English speaker who didnt know what the hell he meant? (Dutch and English are also related through old saxon and so on)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Foreigners speaking Eng;lish just make linguistic and common usage errors. Nothing terribly ammusing.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Let me give you a related example: As you might have seen from my profile, I'm actually Danish, but living in Sweden. In Danish, the word for "string" is "snor". In Swedish, the word "snor" means "snot". So you can imagine that it becomes quite funny when a Dane asks a Swede for a piece of string (not knowing this). We can just hope he doesn't actually get what he's asking for... ;P
-
fat_boy wrote:
Foreigners speaking Eng;lish just make linguistic and common usage errors. Nothing terribly ammusing.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Let me give you a related example: As you might have seen from my profile, I'm actually Danish, but living in Sweden. In Danish, the word for "string" is "snor". In Swedish, the word "snor" means "snot". So you can imagine that it becomes quite funny when a Dane asks a Swede for a piece of string (not knowing this). We can just hope he doesn't actually get what he's asking for... ;P
-
fat_boy wrote:
Johnny J. wrote: What linguistic mistakes (in English) do you find most irritating/funny/interesting? Foreigners speaking Eng**;**lish just make linguistic and common usage errors. Nothing terribly ammusing. The most annoying is English speakers trying tobe clever. Americans often make this mistake, but English peope too come out with some real howlers. LIke the saying 'for all intense purposes'. It isnt. Its 'intents and purposes'. Johnny J. wrote: how we can improve our language Reading current books. LIke Harry POtter, or other books written in bang up to date, non slang, non trendy, English. And dont worry if you for example use Swedish constructions in English. English has its roots partly in Scandanavia so if you do use some words or use words in a non typical way it could well be that years ago that is how those words were used, or those words existed. Take for example 'woning'. Its a Dutch word for 'home', yet Chaucer used it. SO if a Dutch speaker was to use that word would he be more right than an English speaker who didnt know what the hell he meant? (Dutch and English are also related through old saxon and so on) Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
And they are just the glaringly obvious ones. There is grammar and punctuation errors that I let you get away with, as well as a few syntactic faux pas.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Yawn.
Dalek Dave wrote:
There is grammar and punctuation errors
That should be 'There are grammar and punctuation errors' by the way. Not to mention pluralising the French phrase 'faux pas'. You need to make it 'do nots' instead of 'do not' since you use 'few'.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Yawn.
Dalek Dave wrote:
There is grammar and punctuation errors
That should be 'There are grammar and punctuation errors' by the way. Not to mention pluralising the French phrase 'faux pas'. You need to make it 'do nots' instead of 'do not' since you use 'few'.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Gotten is such an ugly Americanism it should be ripped untimely from a dictionary and shot
Except for 'ill gotten gains'? In fact 'gotten' is just an old form of English maintained only in that phrase and in the US (like 'fall' for 'autumn', which Shakespere used). As for 'different from' vs 'different to'. Can you tell me why and where such a distinction arose and if it is valid? (Given that different comes form French, one could mandate is use in the French way, which is neither of the above).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Similar to; different from. If you allow "different to" then you should also allow "similar from" which just sounds stupid.
-
Yawn.
Dalek Dave wrote:
There is grammar and punctuation errors
That should be 'There are grammar and punctuation errors' by the way. Not to mention pluralising the French phrase 'faux pas'. You need to make it 'do nots' instead of 'do not' since you use 'few'.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Well Done! :) Hoist with my own petard!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Johnny J. wrote:
Also when British people constanctly call you "luv"
It is British Geographical Idiom In London/South East they will call you "Dahlin'" (Darling with appropriate accent). In the Midlands it tends to be "Me Dooks" (My Ducks). In the North it could be "Luv" or "Choock" (Love or Chuck (as in chicken)). This is perfectly acceptable here, and is not taken as offensive except by the anal pretentious types (not you, I mean the APT's who are British). I agree with the WE thing, unless conditional. That is if the OP states that it is a Company or a Team then the WE is ok, but otherwise only the Queen should talk about the Majestic Plural (see here[^])
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Johnny J. wrote:
Also when British people constanctly call you "luv"
It is British Geographical Idiom In London/South East they will call you "Dahlin'" (Darling with appropriate accent). In the Midlands it tends to be "Me Dooks" (My Ducks). In the North it could be "Luv" or "Choock" (Love or Chuck (as in chicken)). This is perfectly acceptable here, and is not taken as offensive except by the anal pretentious types (not you, I mean the APT's who are British). I agree with the WE thing, unless conditional. That is if the OP states that it is a Company or a Team then the WE is ok, but otherwise only the Queen should talk about the Majestic Plural (see here[^])
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
We've got some of those here too... And some of them are just as silly... "Hun" (Honey) "Bra" (Mispronunciation of "Bro", short for "Brother") "Buddy" "Pal" (Common in parts of New York City) "My friend" There are plenty more, but after a while, they all kind of blend together.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
To apply the paint deftly.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Exactly, almost any word order works, including putting it between the to and the verb. Believe me, the split infinitive rule has no basis in language. It is an assumption, an affectation, adopted by the masses because someone once took offence to it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Well Done! :) Hoist with my own petard!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
We've got some of those here too... And some of them are just as silly... "Hun" (Honey) "Bra" (Mispronunciation of "Bro", short for "Brother") "Buddy" "Pal" (Common in parts of New York City) "My friend" There are plenty more, but after a while, they all kind of blend together.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)When you call your wife a hun, it is telling her she is a Germanic barbarian. Actually, now that I am picturing that as drawn by Frank Frazetta ...[^] ...[^] ...[^] :-O Sorry, lost my train of thought Bra was never something I said to a Brother. Back in the day, a buddy was someone who went uptown and got 2 BJs, and came back and gave you one. Pal is right up there with buddy. 'My friend' means grab your wallet, and keep your back to the wall, or get ready for a fight!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
As we all know, all posting on CP is (should be) conducted in English, yet a lot of the users (the majority?) are people having English as their second language (at best). That includes yours truly. It goes without saying that people (no matter how good they are at English) will make mistakes, spelling errors and/or grammatic errors of minor or major importance. Or it could be an unfortunate choice of words due to "false friends" (words that sound/look alike but mean completely different things in different languages). Heck, it's not only non-native English speakers that make mistakes - I'm sure full-bread Englishmen do too :) So as a person interested in linguistics, I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion on this: What linguistic mistakes (in English) do you find most irritating/funny/interesting? Here's your chance to give us non-English people some pointers to how we can improve our language... Doesn't necessarily have to be connected to CP and programming... I have a few pet peeves of my own that I will share with you if you're interested... :) /Johnny J.
modified on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:46 AM
I don't mind spelling errors that much (unless the text becomes unreadable), but things that annoy me: a) Bad phrasing b) URGENT Pleazzzzee and text speech c) People calling me 'friend' (or the like) when they never even saw me. (or have any personal relationship with my person)
V.
