Harold Fuchs [mailto:[email protected]] ventured:
> <snip> > > >Are there actual grammar differences of note between > >Brit English and Yank English? > > >Spellings, to be sure. Word choices, certainly. Phrasing. > >But grammar? > > "We Brits say "Joe said on Wednesday that he would break the > record"; you > Yanks say "Joe said Wednesday that he would break the > record". The "on" is > necessary to a Brit. Hmm. Last Wednesday, Joe said... But you say "On last Wednesday, Joe said.... " ? (Yes, I know you don't... just keeping the parallel if it's applied as a rule.) I suppose that's grammar. > You Yanks say "He jumped off of the bridge". We Brits think that's > completely wrong - the "of" shouldn't be there. To be fair, > some Yanks think > it's wrong too but you see it in "respectable" newspapers, > journals etc. and > you hear notionally well educated Yanks saying it. A notionally well > eductaed Brit wouldn't say it and you wouldn't see it in a "proper" > newspaper. But if his tall boat maneuvered next to the low bridge for a moment and he hopped from rigging to bridge, would you say he jumped on the bridge? Or onto? If "on", then how would you refer to what he's doing as he stands on the bridge, then leaps upward to slap the highest point he could reach on the superstructure? (He's a playful or fidgety sort, apparently...) I'd say "onto" for a leap that transferred him from one structure to another, and "on" for a leap that started on the bridge and ended there as well. But then I've heard and read "jumped off of" and "jumped off" (no of) so many times that I'm not sure what I'd write if I wasn't thinking about this topic. Or should that be "... if I weren't thinking about..."? > In UK English the word momentarily means *for* a short time; > in US English > it means *in* a short time. So to us Brits "The light will go on > momentarily" means the light will flash; to you Yanks it > means it will come > on soon with no implication that it will go off again. (Is > that grammar?) Pausing momentarily, I observe that it's the _meaning_ attached to a word. Does grammar subsume definition? Perhaps we Canadians (why do you keep calling me a Yank?) attach a different meaning to the word grammar, when we imagine that it's how words (as parts of speach) are fit together in sentences. Do you see grammar as including the meanings of words, in addition to their function/operation with a sentence? I can see where a grammar checker might have a problem there. But my notion was that a "style checker" would need to be something larger than a grammar checker. Or even a grammar checker and dictionary. It would need to account for - yes - style and phrasing in addition to meanings of words and the mechanics of how they are assembled into sentences. And if it can be accomplished, I think it would be a very handy add-on to OOo or any other writing/editing tool. Hmm. Or perhaps that's a tail-wagging-the-dog notion. Perhaps we need a full-blown AI semanticist and linguist to which OOo would be a plug-in. :-) Kevin (not a Yank today, but not a colonial either) <bumpf-start> The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
