There's an example of a difference in one of the thread titles on the Ship at the moment,
Was Mary really at risk for stoning?
In BrEnglish, that would be the wrong preposition. 'At risk' takes 'of' and not 'for'. It would be 'Was Mary really at risk of stoning?'
Actually, in my experience it would also be “at risk of stoning” in American English. I don’t think this is a Pond difference as much as an idiosyncratic usage.
Prepositions in any language are slippery things. Why "at" rather than "with"? Why do some languages differentiate a relations between objects differently than/to/from other languages? (See what I did there?) Why do some languages (Finnish, Gaelic, sometimes Latin) express possession prepositionally? At risk... of/for... I'd go with of, but for doesn't strike me as wrong. I think that it is a pond difference, though.
I think both are acceptable, and usually interchangeable. But I also think that there's a shade of difference in meaning that is sometimes important - if I say that X is at risk of child abuse, then X is the likely victim. If I say that X is at risk for child abuse, then X is the likely perpetrator.
I think both are acceptable, and usually interchangeable. But I also think that there's a shade of difference in meaning that is sometimes important - if I say that X is at risk of child abuse, then X is the likely victim. If I say that X is at risk for child abuse, then X is the likely perpetrator.
@Leorning Cnight If that difference exists, then they aren't interchangeable.
I do think, though, that in BrEnglish 'at risk of stoning' is the only normal construction that means a person is at risk of being stoned. Although one could use the construction @mousethief suggests, it would not be necessary to do so in order to make oneself clear.
I think both are acceptable, and usually interchangeable. But I also think that there's a shade of difference in meaning that is sometimes important - if I say that X is at risk of child abuse, then X is the likely victim. If I say that X is at risk for child abuse, then X is the likely perpetrator.
@Leorning Cnight If that difference exists, then they aren't interchangeable.
I say "usually interchangeable" because in most "at risk" constructions, there isn't a potential ambiguity about whether the person is the subject or object of the act.
Thinking about it a little more, I think "at risk for" is a construction that I associate with medical / epidemiological / similar risk management kinds of contexts.
do' and 'did' are regularly used in English as helping/auxiliary verbs just like 'have' and 'had' for various compound past tenses e.g. I have seen and I had seen etc. The various forms of 'have' no longer mean exactly the same as I 'have 'a brother,although there is a connection.
The verb 'do' in its various forms has come to be used for emphatic purposes
e.g. you might have thought otherwise but I do go there every week.
the auxiliary verb 'do' has to be used in questions and in most negative uses of a verb
e.g. do you go ? I do not go.
This use of 'do' as an auxiliary can cause difficulties for learners of English as English uses I 'went' but not I did not went '.do' or 'did' as a helping verb is followed by the infinitive.
The only verbs in English which can invert in the question form are (I think) are you ?, have you ? and the modal verbs will you? must you? / shall you ? may you ? can you? and even dare I ?
If you use 'do' as a main verb in a question or a negative you have to use the same verb also as an auxiliary e.g. do you do it often ? I did not ever do it.
(do as an auxiliary verb is still used in some dialect forms in German,certainly in Austria
e.g. tu' a bisserl rennen ! go and run a bit !)
I find myself thinking about mean. As in "I meant to do something" which cannot be "I meaned to do something," but I think meaned can be used in some places. I've got completely muddled now
I find myself thinking about mean. As in "I meant to do something" which cannot be "I meaned to do something," but I think meaned can be used in some places. I've got completely muddled now
I'm not convinced it can be used at all. The only example I've been able to find is as the past tense of a verb form of 'mean' meaning 'average', 'to make something the mean or average', a verb which I've never encountered and if it exists, shouldn't.
@mousethief and @Nick Tamen do you actually say and hear 'learned', dreamed', 'spelled', 'burned' etc with a 'd' in the US? Or is it more a belief that as the regular form of the past tense and participle end in '..ed' that's how they should be spelt irrespective of how people actually say them? That would be much as nobody spells half their plurals with a '..z' irrespective whether they pronounce them '..s' or ..z'? You're just expected to know which plurals are pronounced which way, and habit means none of us notice that we're pronouncing them the right way.
@mousethief and @Nick Tamen do you actually say and hear 'learned', dreamed', 'spelled', 'burned' etc with a 'd' in the US?
Yes, we say and hear “learned,” “dreamed” and “spelled”—all with -d rather than -t sounds. We also say “burned” for the past tense of the verb “burn,” while “burnt” is often used for the adjective.
Incidentally, is 'kept' spelt 'keeped' in the US?
Ah, “kept” is spelled (see what I did there?) and pronounced “kept” in the US. That is another example of the (relatively few) instances, like “knelt,” where -t is used instead of -ed in the States.
I was thinking the same thing, that if I used or heard "burned" I would expect that to be the verb form, whereas for an adjective I would unquestionably go with "burnt".
Some of the other examples I'm not sure where I'd land. I think I'd tend towards "spelled" more than "spelt". And probably "dreamed" as well. In that case there's the whole vowel shift question too..
What's the difference between words ending with 't' and 'ed'?
Originally Answered: What's the difference between words ending with 't' and 'ed'? (eg. smelled and smelt, leaped and leapt)
The difference is simply one of spelling. The spelling with "t" is the older (original) spelling and is still used in British English. With the passage of time, however, the "t" changed to "-ed" to make the spelling similar to other regular verbs (such as "walked," "smiled," etc.) and the "-ed" form is now the standard spelling in American English (though both spellings are recognized and accepted).
This change in spelling follows a pattern. There is a tendency in English to turn irregular verbs into regular verbs. For example, the original past tense and past participle of "fit" is "fit" (no change in the form). However, more and more people these days are using "fitted" as the past tense and past participle. Another example is the irregular verb "beseech." The original past tense and past participle is "besought." Over time, however, this irregular form has dropped out and many people now use "beseeched" instead.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
Some of the other examples I'm not sure where I'd land. I think I'd tend towards "spelled" more than "spelt". And probably "dreamed" as well. In that case there's the whole vowel shift question too..
If I'd given a horse or machinery a bit of a rest, I say that I'd spelled it, and pronounce it like that rather that spelt.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I think the only place I'd expect to find "smelt" is the fish or the metallurgic process. I think it's use as the part participle of "smell" is very archaic.
But thinking again, maybe I just hear "smell" more in an American context, and that's trained my expectations.
I remember the little rhyme we had in school when somebody complained of a fart: "Whoever smelt it, dealt it." So we at least knew of that participle back in 1970s USA.
I think the only place I'd expect to find "smelt" is the fish or the metallurgic process. I think it's use as the part participle of "smell" is very archaic.
But thinking again, maybe I just hear "smell" more in an American context, and that's trained my expectations.
Definitely not, here, as in the children's aphorism,
"he who smelt it, dealt it".
It's occurred to me that one indicator of which version of the past tense and which pronunciation you regard as normal for some of these may be whether in the dialect you speak, vowel in the verb is a long one or a short one. That's not universal. I'd query if the vowel in 'smelt' and 'dealt' is anything other than short anywhere. 'Learnt' and 'burnt' both have the same vowel sound to me, which I'd class as long. But to me, the vowels in 'dreamt', 'knelt' and in both 'lent' and 'leant' are short.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
This seems more likely than a reverse trip across the Atlantic.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
This seems more likely than a reverse trip across the Atlantic.
Yes. Lots of things that are regarded as 'standard' British English are simply things that happened in the London area, and then spread. It's just a question of how far they spread.
Soon all of Britain, or at least England, will be speaking Estuary.
Not round 'ere it won't. Derbyshire accent int goin' nowhere. We 'ave nowt to do wi' that London.
It's killing rural accents in the South East though. Of a time, you'd hear three accents in Oxfordshire (by way of example) - a rural accent not totally unlike that heard farther West - a rhotic, "this be moi laaand!"; a clipped RP from the colleges and middle to upper class; and a London influenced Estuarine in the towns. Guess which one's dying fastest and which one's growing...
Comments
I do think, though, that in BrEnglish 'at risk of stoning' is the only normal construction that means a person is at risk of being stoned. Although one could use the construction @mousethief suggests, it would not be necessary to do so in order to make oneself clear.
I say "usually interchangeable" because in most "at risk" constructions, there isn't a potential ambiguity about whether the person is the subject or object of the act.
Thinking about it a little more, I think "at risk for" is a construction that I associate with medical / epidemiological / similar risk management kinds of contexts.
The verb 'do' in its various forms has come to be used for emphatic purposes
e.g. you might have thought otherwise but I do go there every week.
the auxiliary verb 'do' has to be used in questions and in most negative uses of a verb
e.g. do you go ? I do not go.
This use of 'do' as an auxiliary can cause difficulties for learners of English as English uses I 'went' but not I did not went '.do' or 'did' as a helping verb is followed by the infinitive.
The only verbs in English which can invert in the question form are (I think) are you ?, have you ? and the modal verbs will you? must you? / shall you ? may you ? can you? and even dare I ?
If you use 'do' as a main verb in a question or a negative you have to use the same verb also as an auxiliary e.g. do you do it often ? I did not ever do it.
(do as an auxiliary verb is still used in some dialect forms in German,certainly in Austria
e.g. tu' a bisserl rennen ! go and run a bit !)
As in "did you forget"?
Although admittedly only as an auxiliary.
Agree with you about 'learnt' and learned' - that's the usage hear
Like 'leant' and 'leaned', maybe.
"Burnt" and "burned", though, thoroughly agree.
Knelt, perhaps? Though I do hear kneeled.
Incidentally, is 'kept' spelt 'keeped' in the US?
Ah, “kept” is spelled (see what I did there?) and pronounced “kept” in the US. That is another example of the (relatively few) instances, like “knelt,” where -t is used instead of -ed in the States.
Some of the other examples I'm not sure where I'd land. I think I'd tend towards "spelled" more than "spelt". And probably "dreamed" as well. In that case there's the whole vowel shift question too..
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
For example, this person disagrees that "leapt" is any older than "leaped". https://www.englishforums.com/English/LeapedOrLeapt/kkbb/post.htm
If I'd given a horse or machinery a bit of a rest, I say that I'd spelled it, and pronounce it like that rather that spelt.
(Keeled over is one of the maritime fossils in English)
Surely to keel over is to faint/pass out etc?
It is certainly true that using "got" as a participle is an innovation, and the American "gotten" is the original.
But thinking again, maybe I just hear "smell" more in an American context, and that's trained my expectations.
It's occurred to me that one indicator of which version of the past tense and which pronunciation you regard as normal for some of these may be whether in the dialect you speak, vowel in the verb is a long one or a short one. That's not universal. I'd query if the vowel in 'smelt' and 'dealt' is anything other than short anywhere. 'Learnt' and 'burnt' both have the same vowel sound to me, which I'd class as long. But to me, the vowels in 'dreamt', 'knelt' and in both 'lent' and 'leant' are short.
How about the keel row?
The chorus asks that the keel will row well.
Thanks for that snippet. I'd assumed that somehow it was connected with a ship's keel.
That appears to be true.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
Psalm 98, verse 2
With his own right hand, and with his holy arm: hath he gotten himself the victory.
The same wording, except the first "with", isin Tyndale.
This seems more likely than a reverse trip across the Atlantic.
Yes. Lots of things that are regarded as 'standard' British English are simply things that happened in the London area, and then spread. It's just a question of how far they spread.
Not round 'ere it won't. Derbyshire accent int goin' nowhere. We 'ave nowt to do wi' that London.
It's killing rural accents in the South East though. Of a time, you'd hear three accents in Oxfordshire (by way of example) - a rural accent not totally unlike that heard farther West - a rhotic, "this be moi laaand!"; a clipped RP from the colleges and middle to upper class; and a London influenced Estuarine in the towns. Guess which one's dying fastest and which one's growing...
Nothing wrong with it in and of itself. It's its pushing out of other accents and dialects that's more of a problem.