Matt Needles wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
<snip>
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.
a) "On top of" is not really a counter example to "get off of".
b) Is "go figure" really grammatically correct US English? It's a direct
literal translation from German/Yiddish so I'd guess it's OK in New York ...
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.
"Dove" is really not correct in the UK; Dived might be OK in the US, I
can't say. I can say that any competent English teacher in the UK would
mark "dove" down.
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.
But they are the same between US and UK English (I think). "Throve" and
"drived" are wrong in both languages.
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.
Yes. Most English people would be completely baffled by the US usage. I
was amazed when I discovered it years ago - I worked for a large US
company here in Europe and, among other things, ran courses for
Europeans so I learnt a lot of these things.
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.
Technically you may be right; in practice you are wrong. The double l is
universal in the UK and the single l is simply 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.
Not a counter example.
The fish was being cooked when the power failed.
Not a counter example. If I say "the fish was being cooked when ..." I
mean something completely different from, and nearly opposite to, "the
fish was cooked when the power failed". In the latter, the fish was
ready when the power failed; in the former it was not.
Please enjoy an appetizer while your order is being prepared.
Wrong in the UK - should be "...while your order is 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.
Your statement may be true but it does not reflect reality. "visit with"
is more commonly seen than the "correct" "visit".
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.
The "wrong" way appears in many US newspapers including The New York
Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. I wouldn't like to call
them "sloppy" ;-)
<snip>
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.
Most of my dealings have been with the East coast. Seems to prove that
even within the US the English language has different grammars and that
a one-size-fits-all approach won't work
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.
Motion seconded! I love the differences and I love finding new ones. The
"momentarily" thing is one of my favourites. Most of the people I have
discussed this sort of this thing have derived a lot of pleasure from
it, including many people who don't speak English as their first
language and who are generally amazed the US and UK English are so
different. Churchill said it: two nations divided by a common language ;-)
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
