"McLauchlan, Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d1e2c829c5011e4a84daf8a184dd7cdac2b20...@bel1exch02.amer.sfnt.local...
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.... " ?
No. In this case the "on" is wrong to us Brits.
(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.
We Brits would say "he jumped onto the bridge" if he came from the boat (or
from a helicopter flying/hovering above the bridge). "Jumped on the bridge"
means he started and finished on the bridge. I think that's the same in both
languages.
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 keep calling you a Yank out of pure ignorance. I looked at your e-mail
address and just assumed ... I apologise.
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)
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
