Ye Olde Pub (The English Pub)

[Allighiero]

Correct English does indeed sound really weird - but that just shows how many people can't speak English properly. Which is really sad, because it means that most native English speakers fail at their own language.

 

Thing is though, that proper English has so many rules and words that are useless and just difficult to use. For example who and whom, it's not really a major difference, but it's hard to understand at first, and when the language is full of things like that it's just natural that things get simplified as the language evoles. Some may say that the English language is killed by this, but it's not hard to understand why people want to do it.

[henrik_s]

Also I was wondering if it is so that my English teacher in school is worse than me in English. Because in my last English tentamen, he claimed that this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

"One of the texts that I thought were difficult, was the one with ... "

 

He claims that it should be:

"One of the texts that I thought was difficult, was the one with ... "

I believe you can use either for countable nouns.

Endret 14. april 2009 av henrik_s

[Ljóseind]

"While" and "whilst" actually mean the exact same thing. You might hear whilst used in British English occasionally, but it is rarely used in American English.

 

Who is a subject pronoun, whereas whom is an object pronoun. It's a little difficult to understand at first, but you will get the hang of it!

http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html

 

As for the grammatically correct sentence, your teacher is right.

 

"of the textS" is a prepositional phrase, thus it is kind of ignored...

I'm not the best at explaining this, so I'll use another example.

 

None of the chairs is clean - correct

None of the chairs are clean - incorrect.

 

Think about it this way:

Take away "of the chairs" and it becomes "none (not one) are"...which makes no sense, so "is" is proper.

 

Correct English does indeed sound really weird - but that just shows how many people can't speak English properly. Which is really sad, because it means that most native English speakers fail at their own language.

¨

Thank you very much for this stunning peace of explanation.

[Bear^]

For people who want to learn English grammar (such as myself) I can recommand www.wiktionary.org as a source for it. I've used it in my search for knowledge. Nothing like a little self learning

 

I've tried to understand the different use of Were and was and I don't compleatly understand its usage area, could someone please try to explaine it a little closer? I can't explain what it is a I don't understand because I can't put words to it ...

[WD-]

Also I was wondering if it is so that my English teacher in school is worse than me in English. Because in my last English tentamen, he claimed that this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

"One of the texts that I thought were difficult, was the one with ... "

 

He claims that it should be:

"One of the texts that I thought was difficult, was the one with ... "

 

And I am absolutely sure that what he claims is absolutely wrong!

Someone confirm that my sentence was correct, please.

 

Thank you very much.

 

I would say the two mean different things. The first one would refer to one of several difficult texts, while the other would refer to a difficult text among other (perhaps not so difficult) texts.

 

As for:

None of the chairs is clean - correct

None of the chairs are clean - incorrect.

 

The first one is most definitely wrong. Whether to use 'is' or 'are' depends on the the rest of the sentence. So you could have:

None of the chair is clean. (That is, no single part or area of the chair is clean.)

None of the chairs are clean.

which are both correct.

 

Both of these situations show the problem with thinking too grammatically. You can't always reason your way to the correct answer, you just have to know it from experience. Just one of the quirks of natural languages, I suppose.

Endret 16. april 2009 av WD

[Slimda]

I've tried to understand the different use of Were and was and I don't compleatly understand its usage area, could someone please try to explaine it a little closer? I can't explain what it is a I don't understand because I can't put words to it ...

I was...

you(single) was...

he/she/it was...

we were...

you(group) were...

they were...

 

Better?

[WD-]

I was...

you(single) was...

he/she/it was...

we were...

you(group) were...

they were...

 

Better?

The pronoun "you" always takes the plural form in subject/verb agreement. So it's "you were" regardless of whether it's singular or plural.

 

Also have to mention the conditional, where it's always "were" (at least in formal speech):

 

If he were here, this wouldn't have happened.

If I were a millionaire, I'd buy a house.

Endret 16. april 2009 av WD

[Bear^]

To clear up a little about what I'm having trouble with, here's the rules for was:

 

was

 

First-person singular simple past tense indicative of be.

Third-person singular simple past tense indicative of be.

 

And the rules for "Were":

 

Second-person singular simple past tense indicative of be.

John, you were the only person to see him.

First-person plural simple past tense indicative of be.

We were about to leave.

Second-person plural simple past tense indicative of be.

Mary and John, you were right.

Third-person plural simple past tense indicative of be.

They were a fine group.

Simple imperfect subjunctive in all persons of be.

I wish it were Sunday.

I wish I were with you.

 

Is it that simple that the use of were and was is determined by if it's singular or plural you're refering to? Or are there rules to bend the rules for the rules?

 

There are always rules that break your view into something else of the grammar, always. Not easy to establish things until you see the connection

[Slimda]

The pronoun "you" always takes the plural form in subject/verb agreement. So it's "you were" regardless of whether it's singular or plural.

 

True, forgot about that.

 

Also have to mention the conditional, where it's always "were" (at least in formal speech):

 

If he were here, this wouldn't have happened.

If I were a millionaire, I'd buy a house.

 

 

Our Living Language : Although many irregular verbs in English once had different singular and plural forms in the past tense, only one still does today—be, which uses the form was with singular subjects and the form were with plural subjects, as well as with singular you. The relative simplicity in the forms of most verbs reflects the long-standing tendency of English speakers to make irregular verbs more regular by reducing the number of forms used with different persons, numbers, and tenses. Since past be is so irregular, speakers of different vernacular dialects have regularized it in several ways.

In the United States, most vernacular speakers regularize past be by using was with all subjects, whether singular or plural. This pattern is most common in Southern-based dialects, particularly African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Some speakers use were with both singular and plural subjects; thus, one may hear she were alongside we were. However, this usage has been much less widespread than the use of was with plural subjects and appears to be fading. ·

In some scattered regions in the South, particularly in coastal areas of North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, vernacular speakers may regularize past be as was in positive contexts and regularize it as weren't in negative contexts, as in He was a good man, weren't he? or They sure was nice people, weren't they? At first glance, the was/weren't pattern appears to come from England, where it is fairly commonplace. However, in-depth study of the was/weren't pattern in coastal North Carolina indicates that it may have developed independently, for it is found to a greater extent in the speech of younger speakers than in that of older coastal residents. · Other forms of negative past be include warn't, common in American folk speech in the 18th and 19th centuries, and wont, as in It wont me or They wont home. Wont, which often sounds just like the contraction won't, historically has been concentrated in New England and is also found in scattered areas of the South.

 

Endret 17. april 2009 av Slimda

[tendilenz]

How do I pronounce "cache"? Same as "cash"?

[Slimda]

Basically.

[tendilenz]

Basically.

So you are basically saying there is a difference. What is the difference then?

[Slimda]

cache - [kash]

cash - [kash]

 

Basically, it's the same pronunciation.

[tendilenz]

Identical, I would say. Thanks for the links.

[moonx]

What kind of things are we supposed to discuss here? only English grammar?

[-MK-]

We're supposed to have an english discussion about whatever seems interesting

[AlanPartridge]

I suggest we move on to something completely different, unless anyeone has some pressing grammar-related issues.

 

How about television comedy? I like a lot of British stuff myself, as well as American and Norwegian, to some extent.

 

Have any of you watched a series called Peep Show? I find it hilarious and innovative.

[moonx]

Never heard of it!

Hmm.. I usually watch desperat housewives, lost, CSI, prison break, The O.C, one three hill.

 

Dose any of you live overseas or in an English speaking country?

[Allighiero]

AlanPartridge: Peep Show is awesome! If you haven't already you should check out The Mighty Boosh, The Inbetweeners and The Phoenix Club.

 

moonx: I live in an English speaking country..

[-MK-]

I live in an English speaking country..

And what english speaking country might that be, mister?

 

Btw thanks for the recommendation of Peep Show. I checked it out on IMDB and the show had 9,5 out of 10 possible stars. Seems like a show worth taking a look at