Oh, my gosh. I must be older than dirt!! I still use bushel as a measurement, and have often wished to have a bushel basket like those we used so often *cough* years ago!
We also have a river river where I live! Caloosahatchee means Caloosa river. Most of us just call it the Caloosahatchee, but folks, especially visitors, will add 'river' to the end.
And, you have brought back wonderful memories of my great, great aunt who used the word 'swell' frequently. As in, "Oh, that's just swell!", said with a twinkle in her eyes!
It sounds brusque to me. Donna Leon is American, of course, recounting a conversation supposedly between Italian police officers. Presumably this is regular usage in the US rather than in Italy. Would any American shipmate care to comment?
It sounds like a usage I have heard in native speakers of Italian with imperfect English. I think I've heard it in native speakers of other romance languages, but I know I've heard it from Italians. It is not a use I have heard in native speakers of American English.
The English grammatical construction involving "do" (or past tense "did") is quite unusual and I can well believe that native speakers of a lot of other languages would omit it.
Indeed it's a little hard to understand why English-speakers decided that so many things require "doing", given that you have to wait for the other verb to find actually find out the relevant action. English requires "Do you want coffee?", but plenty of other languages manage to ask this question by turning "You want coffee." into "Want you coffee?".
After chewing over like and want, I realized that hereabouts, the commonest verb in this context is fancy. Thus, "fancy a coffee?", but I bet this is regional.
The River X construction isn't universal in British English: there are some Southern African rivers that are the X River: the Orange River and the Limpopo River, are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I think the Orinoco River would more often be that than not, as would the Amazon when one needs to distinguish it from women warriors who deliver cutprice books.
It sounds brusque to me. Donna Leon is American, of course, recounting a conversation supposedly between Italian police officers. Presumably this is regular usage in the US rather than in Italy. Would any American shipmate care to comment?
It sounds like a usage I have heard in native speakers of Italian with imperfect English. I think I've heard it in native speakers of other romance languages, but I know I've heard it from Italians. It is not a use I have heard in native speakers of American English.
The English grammatical construction involving "do" (or past tense "did") is quite unusual and I can well believe that native speakers of a lot of other languages would omit it.
Indeed it's a little hard to understand why English-speakers decided that so many things require "doing", given that you have to wait for the other verb to find actually find out the relevant action. English requires "Do you want coffee?", but plenty of other languages manage to ask this question by turning "You want coffee." into "Want you coffee?".
They may have got it from Brythonic. Gwneud - doing - is used extensively to form periphrastic verb tenses in Welsh - although not in the present tense in the modern language.
Gwnes i mynd - I went; lit. I did going.
It's theorised that Old English speakers whose communities previously spoke Brythonic brought these constructions and syntax habits into the language.
The River X construction isn't universal in British English: there are some Southern African rivers that are the X River: the Orange River and the Limpopo River, are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I think the Orinoco River would more often be that than not, as would the Amazon when one needs to distinguish it from women warriors who deliver cutprice books.
Yebbut. None of those rivers are in the British Isles. And I think I'd refer to both the Limpopo and the Orinoco by just their names. For me, that would also be so with the Amazon.
This is possibly a combination of Pond difference and generational difference, but it has been some time since people here spoke of natural features being "discovered" or "found" by Europeans. These natural features had been known to the inhabitants for thousands of years.
The reason may be that rivers here already had their names before anyone spoke English, whereas in the US and Australia, rivers were discovered and then named.
Everyone has assumed that the explorer - possibly Dr Livingstone - who first found it, pointed at it and asked a bearer, 'What's that?' .
I'm not here to police you. Part of the reason this thread exists is to point out differences in acceptable language by community and geography. Measures vary.
Perhaps another way of explaining: "Everyone has assumed that the explorer - possibly Dr Livingstone - who first found it, pointed at it and asked a bearer, 'What's that?' " might be that Dr Livingstone, when he first saw it, asked a bearer, 'What's that?' .
I realize that speaking of geographical features as being "discovered" by people of European descent is rightly a matter of some sensitivity, but I still tend to say things like "I discovered this lovely lake to picnic at".
I realize that speaking of geographical features as being "discovered" by people of European descent is rightly a matter of some sensitivity, but I still tend to say things like "I discovered this lovely lake to picnic at".
"... and I have named it Lyda Lake" would raise some eyebrows.
ISTM that the comments about discovering and finding were in the context of Europeans choosing names for natural features in colonized places.
I realize that speaking of geographical features as being "discovered" by people of European descent is rightly a matter of some sensitivity, but I still tend to say things like "I discovered this lovely lake to picnic at".
"... and I have named it Lyda Lake" would raise some eyebrows.
ISTM that the comments about discovering and finding were in the context of Europeans choosing names for natural features in colonized places.
Yes. There’s also, I think, a difference in saying, say, “he discovered x” and “he was the first European (or whatever) to discover x.” The former ignores those who were already living there, while the second doesn’t, at least not necessarily.
It sounds brusque to me. Donna Leon is American, of course, recounting a conversation supposedly between Italian police officers. Presumably this is regular usage in the US rather than in Italy. Would any American shipmate care to comment?
It sounds like a usage I have heard in native speakers of Italian with imperfect English. I think I've heard it in native speakers of other romance languages, but I know I've heard it from Italians. It is not a use I have heard in native speakers of American English.
The English grammatical construction involving "do" (or past tense "did") is quite unusual and I can well believe that native speakers of a lot of other languages would omit it.
Indeed it's a little hard to understand why English-speakers decided that so many things require "doing", given that you have to wait for the other verb to find actually find out the relevant action. English requires "Do you want coffee?", but plenty of other languages manage to ask this question by turning "You want coffee." into "Want you coffee?".
They may have got it from Brythonic. Gwneud - doing - is used extensively to form periphrastic verb tenses in Welsh - although not in the present tense in the modern language.
Gwnes i mynd - I went; lit. I did going.
It's theorised that Old English speakers whose communities previously spoke Brythonic brought these constructions and syntax habits into the language.
@KarlLB@Orfeo I don't know where you first got that, but I first ran across this in Elmar Ternes's work on the structure of Celtic languages, and he posits Celtic languages forming a substratum grammar for English. (Ternes died just this past summer.) Heinrich Wagner argued for a similar relationship between Hamitic and Semitic languages on the one hand, and Celtic languages, on the other. so, 'by association', there may be faint echoes of Coptic and Berber in English(!). One of my Norse professors, while accepting the concept of substratum grammars, found Wagner a step too far.
The History of English Podcast, many many episodes ago...
the guy planned to do the whole history in 100 episodes. He was never going to make it with his level of repetition. Episodes 141 to 143 just covered the Great Vowel Shift.
The History of English Podcast, many many episodes ago...
the guy planned to do the whole history in 100 episodes. He was never going to make it with his level of repetition. Episodes 141 to 143 just covered the Great Vowel Shift.
That’s one of my favorite podcasts. And yes, his original plan was 25 episodes on Indo-European and Proto-Germanic languages, 25 episodes on Old English, 25 episodes on Middle English and 25 episodes on Modern English.
The History of English Podcast, many many episodes ago...
the guy planned to do the whole history in 100 episodes. He was never going to make it with his level of repetition. Episodes 141 to 143 just covered the Great Vowel Shift.
That’s one of my favorite podcasts. And yes, his original plan was 25 episodes on Indo-European and Proto-Germanic languages, 25 episodes on Old English, 25 episodes on Middle English and 25 episodes on Modern English.
It's often very interesting, though some episodes I just end up exasperated at how he will say the same thing 3 or 4 different times. But the good stuff is sufficiently frequent to keep me listening.
And as for the Great Vowel Shift episodes, well... I was constantly making mouth shapes and noises either at home or in the car, totally riveted. Probably hilarious if anyone had seen me. Then I posted some stuff on Facebook and at the end bet all my friends that they were now making funny noises. Given the number of friends that reacted with a laugh I think I was right.
The History of English Podcast, many many episodes ago...
the guy planned to do the whole history in 100 episodes. He was never going to make it with his level of repetition. Episodes 141 to 143 just covered the Great Vowel Shift.
That’s one of my favorite podcasts. And yes, his original plan was 25 episodes on Indo-European and Proto-Germanic languages, 25 episodes on Old English, 25 episodes on Middle English and 25 episodes on Modern English.
It's often very interesting, though some episodes I just end up exasperated at how he will say the same thing 3 or 4 different times. But the good stuff is sufficiently frequent to keep me listening.
I know what you mean about the repetition, but I always figure maybe that helps some listeners.
And as for the Great Vowel Shift episodes, well... I was constantly making mouth shapes and noises either at home or in the car, totally riveted. Probably hilarious if anyone had seen me.
You and me both. It also brought back lots of voice lessons and voice exercises.
My thanks, too! I enjoy linguistics but I'm often frustrated by trying to decipher pronunciation from just reading about it. I realize that pronunciation varies considerably but a recording at least gives me a jumping off point.
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.
Comments
We also have a river river where I live! Caloosahatchee means Caloosa river. Most of us just call it the Caloosahatchee, but folks, especially visitors, will add 'river' to the end.
And, you have brought back wonderful memories of my great, great aunt who used the word 'swell' frequently. As in, "Oh, that's just swell!", said with a twinkle in her eyes!
A peck is about half a bushel in dry measurement.
That would convince me. Either that or she listened to Prairie Home Companion.
The English grammatical construction involving "do" (or past tense "did") is quite unusual and I can well believe that native speakers of a lot of other languages would omit it.
Indeed it's a little hard to understand why English-speakers decided that so many things require "doing", given that you have to wait for the other verb to find actually find out the relevant action. English requires "Do you want coffee?", but plenty of other languages manage to ask this question by turning "You want coffee." into "Want you coffee?".
There's four pecks to the bushel.
They may have got it from Brythonic. Gwneud - doing - is used extensively to form periphrastic verb tenses in Welsh - although not in the present tense in the modern language.
Gwnes i mynd - I went; lit. I did going.
It's theorised that Old English speakers whose communities previously spoke Brythonic brought these constructions and syntax habits into the language.
True, I goofed.
I realize that speaking of geographical features as being "discovered" by people of European descent is rightly a matter of some sensitivity, but I still tend to say things like "I discovered this lovely lake to picnic at".
The old song (which will date me): I love you, A bushel and a peck, A bushel and a peck and a hug around the neck.
"... and I have named it Lyda Lake" would raise some eyebrows.
ISTM that the comments about discovering and finding were in the context of Europeans choosing names for natural features in colonized places.
Yes, I have heard that theory.
Where did you guys pick it up?
the guy planned to do the whole history in 100 episodes. He was never going to make it with his level of repetition. Episodes 141 to 143 just covered the Great Vowel Shift.
It's often very interesting, though some episodes I just end up exasperated at how he will say the same thing 3 or 4 different times. But the good stuff is sufficiently frequent to keep me listening.
And as for the Great Vowel Shift episodes, well... I was constantly making mouth shapes and noises either at home or in the car, totally riveted. Probably hilarious if anyone had seen me. Then I posted some stuff on Facebook and at the end bet all my friends that they were now making funny noises. Given the number of friends that reacted with a laugh I think I was right.
You and me both. It also brought back lots of voice lessons and voice exercises.
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.