Harold Fuchs wrote:
Robert Derman wrote:
Rod Engelsman wrote:
<snip>
If I had to guess I would think that close to half of all OOo users
are using one of the English language versions of OOo. Spellings
differ from one English speaking country to another, but I am not
aware of any significant variations in the basic grammer.
Your own spelling is incorrect--------------------->grammar.
The use of "off of" as in "I am getting off of the train" seems to be
correct in US English (judging by its frequent appearance in apparently
literate journals) but is considered completely illiterate in UK English.
Technically, it is incorrect. However, "on top of" is correct, go figure.
UK: He dived into the pool; US: He dove into the pool. Is that grammar
or spelling?
This is trivial, since both are correct, but it is a grammar problem. A
similar problem exists with the noun "fish", where the plural forms
"fishes" and "fish" are both correct. In both cases there is a
preferred form, usually dictated by the context. But, think about
"thrived, throve" and "drived, drove." The first form in the first case,
and the second in the second are the correct ones. The rules are not
consistent.
Momentarily: In UK English this means "for a short time" as in "the
light came on momentarily" = "the light flashed". In US English it means
"in a short time" as in "the train will arrive momentarily" = "it will
come soon". Is that grammar or semantics?
Do British generally understand the second sentence in the way you say?
I think the first one would be understood by most Americans in the way
you say.
Past tenses: UK: "travelled, cancelled etc." (double l), US: "traveled,
canceled etc" (single l). Grammar or spelling?
Spelling rule violation, really. In an unstressed syllable ending with
a single consonant, the ending consonant is not usually doubled. The
consonant should be doubled if the syllable is stressed, cf. "level,
leveled", "shovel, shoveled" and "rebel (v.), rebelled." Following
this rule would indicate that the UK spelling is incorrect.
Telling the time:
UK: 2:45 is "a quarter to three", or 3:15 would be "a quarter past
three". US: "a quarter of three" for 2:45, or "a quarter after three"
for 3:15. I don't know how Americans feel about the British version but
the US version really grates on us Brits.
Both forms are commonly used and understood in America. I am not sure
which is preferred, but both are widely used.
Apparently "please wait while the list is being populated" is OK in the
US whereas it's garbage in UK English where it would be "please wait
while the list is populated". To see the US version run "Add/Remove
software" from within the Windows Control Panel.
I don't honestly see why this is "garbage." The construct "<helping
verb> <form of "to be"> <past participle>" is proper.
Examples:
You have been chosen to represent Sun at OOoCon.
The fish was being cooked when the power failed.
Please enjoy an appetizer while your order is being prepared.
Care must be exercised when making generalizations. (example and truth)
In the US, you do not just "visit" your aunt, you "visit with" your
aunt.
Not true. What you say in continuation is true for the US, also.
In the UK if you use that expression, you should also mention what
place you are visiting [together] with your aunt. Similarly, "meet with"
is just a sign of a shoddy education in the UK. You can "have a meeting
with" someone but not "meet with" that person.
In the UK it's "she has red hair hasn't she?". In Indian (no, I don't
mean Native American) English it's "she has red hair isn't it?". I've
also seen, mainly in the US, "she has red hair, doesn't she?". The
Indian and US versions are just plain wrong in UK English.
The Indian (and West Indian) usage here is a shortened form of the
translation of the correct way to say this in many Romance languages,
like French and Spanish, for example. Maybe that's where it came from?
In the UK it's "On Monday she said ..." or "She said on Monday ...". In
the US it's "Monday she said ..." or "She said Monday" both of which are
wrong in the UK. Similarly, "he will come on Monday (UK) versus "he will
come Monday" (US, wrong in the UK).
Wrong in the US, too, but sloppy speakers say it that way all the time.
The first way is correct here, as well.
US: "are you coming with?"; UK: no "with" unless it's "are you coming
with me/us/...?"
Same as previous. The "with" requires an object.
I haven't even touched Singaporean English or Australian English and I'm
sure there are other versions too with different grammars, not just
spellings.
No, sorry. One grammar doesn't fit all.
Most of the examples you give are examples of proper English, not
respecting /any/ region or country. For example, what you say about
expressions of time is not true. I was educated in the northwestern
USA, and use the expressions you claim to be valid for the UK. They are
valid here, too, as in most places where proper English is taught and
spoken. I am originally from the state of Montana in the USA, and my
wife is a Jamaican, raised in the Brixton area of London. The "isn't
it" phrase you mention is frequently used by the West Indian culture in
the way you point out. I know it's incorrect, but it's a culture thing
for them. I cannot change it when it is used that way in informal
speech, but such usage should be eliminated from formal speech. My wife
and I occasionally misunderstand each other, but I assure you, it is
never because I am using improper grammar for either of our countries. I
find, rather, that the vast majority of Americans are very sloppy with
their grammar, and so are many British. I read and hear atrocities on
both sides (of the pond ;)). I was taught proper grammar, and I paid
attention in my language classes in primary school. I also have studied
formally and informally several other languages, including German,
Spanish, and Japanese. To properly learn any language, one must learn
the rules of its grammar. However, most people graduating from American
high schools could not name the basic parts of speech if their lives
depended on it, much less use them properly.
Let's face it, the English language is in a rapid state of
deterioration, aided greatly by the GUIs on our computers and by a
laissez-faire attitude in the marketplace, in whichproper speech should
be practiced and mistakes should be pointed out graciously, not ignored
to avoid "offending" someone. (Gag me!!) The errors are more offensive
than having them pointed out! I am appalled at the way radio and
television personalities, on talk shows, news and commentary broadcasts,
and other programs in which one should be able to expect a high level
of language proficiency, one constantly hears speakers use the
combination of "So-and-So and I" as an objective phrase, when it is
supposed to be nominative (subjective).
When a foreigner comes to my country and makes mistakes in trying to
communicate with me in English, he is usually grateful to have his
errors corrected in a kind manner. I know that I would be if the
situation were reversed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
