You must have liked it a lot
Franco
Is that sentence correct? And what does it means precisely?
thank you
Franco
arachedeux
news:nzpHb.15082$_P.6...@news4.tin.it...
> "you must have liked it a lot".
>
> Is that sentence correct?
No you should start a sentence with a capital letter. ;-}
cheers,
Mike Stevens
>
> Is that sentence correct? And what does it means precisely?
In my view it's perfectly correct idiomatic (but perhaps not formal
literary) UK English.
I'm a bit stuck to paraphrase it, because to me it's self explanatory.
Perhaps "I would assume you were extremely fond of it".
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site http://www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Raymond S. Wise
Make that "You must have liked it a lot."
>
> Is that sentence correct? And what does it means precisely?
Yes, it is correct. The speaker (or writer) would be responding to another
person who had related the story of something--the "it"--and who had seemed
to like the thing or event in question. Most of the time, the speaker would
be expecting the other person to agree that yes, he did like it.
For example:
John: When I first got a computer, I stayed up all night seeing what I could
do with it.
Mary: You must have liked it [i.e., the computer] a lot.
John: Of course!
Or:
John: On my vacation, my brother and I went fishing every day.
Mary: You must have liked it [i.e. going fishing with his brother] a lot.
John: Sure. I wish we could do it every year.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Franco
Mike Stevens ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>"Franco" <english...@tin.it> wrote in message
>news:nzpHb.15082$_P.6...@news4.tin.it...
>> "you must have liked it a lot".
>>
>> Is that sentence correct? And what does it means precisely?
>
>In my view it's perfectly correct idiomatic (but perhaps not formal
>literary) UK English.
What is another way of saying that?
bye
Franco
Einde O'Callaghan
lot" have a similar meaning.
Regards, Einde O'callaghan
Mark Brader
]>>>> "you must have liked it a lot".
>>>> Is that sentence correct?
Mike Stevens:
>>> In my view it's perfectly correct idiomatic (but perhaps not formal
>>> literary) UK English.
"Franco":
>> What is another way of saying that?
He means, people in the UK would say it in everyday speech and consider
it perfectly correct, but they might not use it in formal or literary
writing.
I think this is also true in North America.
>>>> And what does it means precisely?
(That should be "mean"; when you use an auxiliary verb like "does", you
don't inflect the main verb for number.)
Here the word "must" implies that a conclusion is being drawn. "There's
no traffic outside the stadium. There must not be a game this evening."
In this case the conclusion is that "you" liked it a lot.
Einde O'Callaghan:
> "You seem to have liked it a lot" or "It seems (that) you liked it a
> lot" have a similar meaning.
Indeed.
--
Mark Brader "[It] was the kind of town where they spell
Toronto trouble TRUBIL, and if you try to correct them,
m...@vex.net they kill you." -- Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Richard Maurer
"you must have liked it a lot".
Is that sentence correct? And what does it means precisely?
[end quote] >>
<< [Mark Brader]
Here the word "must" implies that a conclusion is being drawn. "There's
no traffic outside the stadium. There must not be a game this evening."
In this case the conclusion is that "you" liked it a lot.
[end quote] >>
The "must" might be confusing. It is not a command.
Approximately, it is a tentative yet emphatic form of
"you liked it a lot".
For "precisely", take Mark Brader's comment into account.
When used in dialog a confirmation often follows.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Bailey
>
> Is that sentence correct?
Yes.
> And what does it means precisely?
It means: I infer from what you have done or said since you saw the film
that you loved it.
Adrian
Dr Robin Bignall
Maybe any confusion comes from the word 'must', which implies compulsion.
The phrase is used so frequently both sides of the Atlantic that it has
become an idiom, in that separate translation of each word does not work.
Perhaps literally "You liked it so very much that you felt compelled to
like it, such that you have never stopped talking about it since you
saw/heard it" might do. The original is easier to say.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Einde O'Callaghan
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:18:07 +0100, Einde O'Callaghan
> <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Franco wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Stevens ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Franco" <english...@tin.it> wrote in message
>>>>news:nzpHb.15082$_P.6...@news4.tin.it...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"you must have liked it a lot".
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that sentence correct? And what does it means precisely?
>>>>
>>>>In my view it's perfectly correct idiomatic (but perhaps not formal
>>>>literary) UK English.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What is another way of saying that?
>>>
>>
>>"You seem to have liked it a lot" or "It seems (that) you liked it a
>>lot" have a similar meaning.
>>
>
> Maybe any confusion comes from the word 'must', which implies compulsion.
"Must" is also used when drawing conclusions., e.g. "I've just heard
John has had a serious accident. Jane must be very worried."
None of the English modals has one single unabmbiguous meaning, e.g.
"can" for both "be allowed to" and "be able to".
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Tony Mountifield
Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
> None of the English modals has one single unabmbiguous meaning, e.g.
> "can" for both "be allowed to" and "be able to".
I remember as a child being taught to use "may" for the former.
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
Einde O'Callaghan
> In article <bsntjj$duu8d$1...@ID-93601.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>
>>None of the English modals has one single unabmbiguous meaning, e.g.
>>"can" for both "be allowed to" and "be able to".
>
>
> I remember as a child being taught to use "may" for the former.
>
possibility. It is considered slightly more formal.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Enrico C
in <news:bsp8jf$es21t$1...@ID-93601.news.uni-berlin.de>
> "May" is used for this meaning too, just as it also expresses
> possibility. It is considered slightly more formal.
Anyway, when I used *can* as less formal *may*, some native speakers
corrected me
So, I mean, you never know. how to make everybody happy!
:-/
--
Enrico C ~ No native speaker
Enrico C
in <news:3ff08cd4$0$52882$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>
<snip>
> The use of "may", in my house at least, is to seek permission for
> something.
> "Can" is strictly to be used to determine if something is possible.
> Can that circus ride go backwards?
> May I have a go on that circus ride?
>
> {R}
Hi Richard,
Don't people use "can" both ways, nowadays?
So, I wonder, how does that usage sound to "learned ears"?
Colloquial? Working-class? Just wrong?
Einde O'Callaghan
formal and "can" is much more common. English speakers from other areas
might disagree, but I don't think it's a usage where I would correct
somebody.
There is one usage of "can" where "mayW is impossible, i.e. when making
a request, e.g. "Can you open the window, please?", although here
"could" is a bit more formal.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Raymond S. Wise
news:833e603rzx5b$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...
I consider it informal Standard American English--it would not be
remarkable, for example, to see a newspaper columnist use it. It's certainly
not "just wrong," nor is it a particularly working class usage. I'd expect
to see "may" used more often in formal writing.
See the entry for "can and may" in *The American Heritage Book of English
Usage* at
http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page10.html
That's American usage, though. For all I know, British usage may be
different.
David
<illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> "Enrico C" <enri...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:833e603rzx5b$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...
> > {R} | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english in
> > <news:3ff08cd4$0$52882$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The use of "may", in my house at least, is to seek permission for
> > > something.
> >
> > > "Can" is strictly to be used to determine if something is
> > > possible.
> >
> >
> > > Can that circus ride go backwards? May I have a go on that circus
> > > ride?
> > >
> > > {R}
> >
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > Don't people use "can" both ways, nowadays?
> >
> > So, I wonder, how does that usage sound to "learned ears"?
> > Colloquial? Working-class? Just wrong?
> >
> > -- Enrico C ~ No native speaker
> I consider it informal Standard American English--it would not be
> remarkable, for example, to see a newspaper columnist use it. It's
> certainly not "just wrong," nor is it a particularly working class
> usage. I'd expect to see "may" used more often in formal writing.
Whereas in English English (i.e. the English language of England), the
domicile of {R} excepted, "may" is entirely outmoded and "can" rules
supreme. Just one more step on the road to the pidgeon English to be
used in the uppermost floor of the tower of Babel.
> See the entry for "can and may" in *The American Heritage Book of
> English Usage* at http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page10.html
> That's American usage, though. For all I know, British usage may be
> different.
And English English different from that!
(Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English language",
which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in England".)
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/
Welcome: Step Into The Light...
arachedeux
Just wrong. Although if English isn't your mother tongue it would be bad
manners to point it out.
cheers,
Aaron J. Dinkin
> The use of "may", in my house at least, is to seek permission for
> something.
>
> "Can" is strictly to be used to determine if something is possible.
So "may" is never used as in "It may be the case that what you say it true"?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Richard Maurer
(Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English language",
which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in England".)
(Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English language",
With you so far...
which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in England".)
Not that far, if meant to be exhaustive. It is also shorthand
for the dominant language used in the USA, Canada, Australia, ...
Also shorthand for our mainstream language instead of technical jargon.
Also shorthand for our mainstream language instead of legal jargon.
Also shorthand for our mainstream language instead of bureaucratese.
However, if I were in England, I would agree that it is accurate
as far as it goes (if not also talking about English in other places).
So we only need a small modification
(Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English language",
which in turn is shorthand in England
for "the language used in England".)
Though I doubt that there was any doubt about that.
Raymond S. Wise
news:4c68b1a...@dacha.freeuk.com...
Not where I come from (the state of Illinois, USA). When I had "English
class" in school, British English was rarely the subject of the class and
English English was a term I have read only in recent years. The following
is from *The Oxford Companion to the English Language* by Tom McArthur, (C)
1992, from a post I previously wrote for alt.usage.english :
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ufoodpccscef2a%40corp.supernews.com&output=gplain
or
[begin quote from Usenet post]
British English short form _BrE_
[...]
_Precision of reference._ [...] The English sociolinguist Peter Trudgill has
observed: 'My own preferred label for varieties of English from England is
"English English", by analogy with "American English", "Australian English"
etc.... Note that, whatever label is used, we have been careful in this book
to distinguish between the terms "English English" and "British English".
The latter is often used in literature, particularly, it seems, by Americans
and writers on English as a foreign language, where it is really the former
that is intended' (Introduction, _Language in the British Isles,_ 1984).
Kinds of British English.
It is not, however, surprising that the term _English English_ is not widely
used. To the English it seems as tautologous or as silly and inelegant as
'German German' and 'French French', whether or not there may be grounds for
using those names, as for example to distinguish German in Germany from
Austrian German and French in France from Quebec French. However, to many
Scots, Irish, and Welsh people, and to others with comparable perspectives,
some such term is essential to allow an explicit and productive contrast
among the British varieties of English. Equally, however, the term _Scottish
English_ can seem odd to English and Scots alike, because of the ethnic
sense of the word 'English': _Scottish English_ seems a contradiction in
terms. Similarly, the term _Irish English_ may seem bizarre, both because of
centuries-old connotations of illogic and whimsy acquired by the word
_Irish_ and because of the hostility of many in Ireland towards anything
that links them too closely with England.
[end quote from Usenet post]
Voicer
"Aaron J. Dinkin" <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:bsqpls$5dne$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
North American usage, apparently influenced by the speech style on the
Seinfeld TV show, is now almost entirely "can" rather than "may."
Also : "get" has replaced "have."
At McDonald's, it's now: "Can I get a burger with fries?"
This does not mean the customer is questioning whether he is capable of
finding his own food.
It sounds awful but why fight it?
Enrico C
in <news:dMaIb.102130$8Y4.6...@read2.cgocable.net>
> At McDonald's, it's now: "Can I get a burger with fries?"
snip
> It sounds awful but why fight it?
To reduce cholesterol? ;)
--
Enrico C
Do Something Amazing Today
Save a Life, Give Blood
David
<rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> << [David] (Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English
> language", which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in
> England".) [end quote] >>
> (Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English
> language",
> With you so far...
> which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in England".)
> Not that far, if meant to be exhaustive. It is also shorthand for
> the dominant language used in the USA, Canada, Australia, ... Also
> shorthand for our mainstream language instead of technical jargon.
> Also shorthand for our mainstream language instead of legal jargon.
> Also shorthand for our mainstream language instead of bureaucratese.
Ah, yes. Of course folks in all those other places also use the
language of England, i.e. the English language, even though they are
not natives of England, i.e. not English natives.
Has it not struck you that the word English is an adjective pertaining
to England?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/colour/0x-0.htm
In Leaden coffin black, In Imaged shroud of white,
Doth Saturn sleep His Sabbath in the Watery Cave of Night.
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
>
> (Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English language",
> which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in England".)
>
I would define it as the "the language that originated in England". For
better or worse the vast majority of native English speakers do not come
from England and even in england the majority of people don't speak
English with the so-called Received Pronunciation.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Alan Edgey
<snip>
> Whereas in English English (i.e. the English language of England), the
> domicile of {R} excepted, "may" is entirely outmoded and "can" rules
> supreme. Just one more step on the road to the pidgeon English to be
> used in the uppermost floor of the tower of Babel.
I didn't know pidgeons could speak. Thanks for your contribution to
the development of 'pidgin' English for the uppermost floor of the
tower of Babel.
This is, by the way, a long term project which has been going on as
long as humans can speak.
<snip>
> (Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English language",
> which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in England".)
Surely when 'English' is used to refer to the Language it includes any
variety anywhere?
Alan
Raymond S. Wise
> In article <01c3ce81$8033fe60$28ca480c@default>, Richard Maurer
> <rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > << [David] (Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English
> > language", which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in
> > England".) [end quote] >>
>
>
>
> > (Don't forget that "English" is shorthand for "the English
> > language",
>
> > With you so far...
>
> > which in turn is shorthand for "the language used in England".)
>
> > Not that far, if meant to be exhaustive. It is also shorthand for
> > the dominant language used in the USA, Canada, Australia, ... Also
> > shorthand for our mainstream language instead of technical jargon.
> > Also shorthand for our mainstream language instead of legal jargon.
> > Also shorthand for our mainstream language instead of bureaucratese.
>
> Ah, yes. Of course folks in all those other places also use the
> language of England, i.e. the English language, even though they are
> not natives of England, i.e. not English natives.
>
> Has it not struck you that the word English is an adjective pertaining
> to England?
If you're going to argue from etymology, then no, "English" does not pertain
to England. It comes from Old English "Englisc," meaning "pertaining to the
Angles, a Low German tribe," as _The Century Dictionary_ (
www.century-dictionary.com ) puts it. The name "England" came later: It's a
Middle English term.
Enrico C
in <news:vv2lrlt...@corp.supernews.com>
> If you're going to argue from etymology, then no, "English" does not pertain
> to England. It comes from Old English "Englisc," meaning "pertaining to the
> Angles, a Low German tribe," as _The Century Dictionary_ (
> www.century-dictionary.com ) puts it. The name "England" came later: It's a
> Middle English term.
All right... but, what has it got to do with "May / Can" ? :)
Einde O'Callaghan
> Raymond S. Wise | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english
> in <news:vv2lrlt...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>>If you're going to argue from etymology, then no, "English" does not pertain
>>to England. It comes from Old English "Englisc," meaning "pertaining to the
>>Angles, a Low German tribe," as _The Century Dictionary_ (
>>www.century-dictionary.com ) puts it. The name "England" came later: It's a
>>Middle English term.
>
>
> All right... but, what has it got to do with "May / Can" ? :)
>
discussing modern art or pottery making or Donald Duck's Greatest Hits
at this stage in the thread. ;-)
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Mike Lyle
[...][...]
>
> It is not, however, surprising that the term _English English_ is not widely
> used. To the English it seems as tautologous or as silly and inelegant as
> 'German German' and 'French French', whether or not there may be grounds for
> using those names, as for example to distinguish German in Germany from
> Austrian German and French in France from Quebec French. However, to many
> Scots, Irish, and Welsh people, and to others with comparable perspectives,
> some such term is essential to allow an explicit and productive contrast
> among the British varieties of English. Equally, however, the term _Scottish
> English_ can seem odd to English and Scots alike, because of the ethnic
> sense of the word 'English': _Scottish English_ seems a contradiction in
> terms. Similarly, the term _Irish English_ may seem bizarre, both because of
> centuries-old connotations of illogic and whimsy acquired by the word
> _Irish_ and because of the hostility of many in Ireland towards anything
> that links them too closely with England.
>
> [end quote from Usenet post]
It's clear enough where your older post was "coming from", and I come
from much the same spot myself; but I must say I find it a little
speculative, or perhaps slightly exaggerated. Clearly the expression
"English English" sounds tautologous; but I've never met anybody who
didn't understand its usefulness, nor anybody who didn't readily
accept expressions such as "Welsh English" (though "Hiberno-English"
is quite often used rather than "Irish English", I think more for
North-South clarity than from any hostility to England). I don't think
anybody could regard the formula as a contradiction in terms.
In my experience a problem arises only when it's suggested that Scots
is a dialect of English. Scots seems to be a dialect only in the sense
in which English is a dialect; but even with that proviso sensitivity
exists because some people perceive the word "dialect" to mean
something like "sub-standard version". Scots is, of course, not the
same thing as Scottish English; but not many in England seem to know.
I often use "European English" to embrace the Irish and British
standard written and formal spoken versions, which are largely
indistinguishable, and to exclude ANZ etc non-American forms, though
they in turn are nearly indistinguishable from European usage.
Mike.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Also : "get" has replaced "have."
>
> At McDonald's, it's now: "Can I get a burger with fries?"
> This does not mean the customer is questioning whether he is capable of
> finding his own food.
No, it means the customer is inquiring whether it's possible ("can") for
him to purchase ("get") the food he wants. "Get" doesn't mean 'find'; it
means 'come into possession of'. I'm not sure what your problem with the
example sentence is.
(Actually, he's not inquiring whether it's possible; he knows that it is.
He's making a polite request, in the form of such an inquiry.)
Mike Stevens
> In article <vv1blph...@corp.supernews.com>, Raymond S. Wise
> <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
>> "Enrico C" <enri...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:833e603rzx5b$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...
>>> {R} | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english in
>>> <news:3ff08cd4$0$52882$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>
>>>> something.
>>>
>>>> "Can" is strictly to be used to determine if something is
>>>> possible.
>>> Don't people use "can" both ways, nowadays?
>>>
>>> So, I wonder, how does that usage sound to "learned ears"?
>>> Colloquial? Working-class? Just wrong?
I'd say it sounds careless.
>> I consider it informal Standard American English--it would not be
>> remarkable, for example, to see a newspaper columnist use it. It's
>> certainly not "just wrong," nor is it a particularly working class
>> usage. I'd expect to see "may" used more often in formal writing.
>
> Whereas in English English (i.e. the English language of England), the
> domicile of {R} excepted, "may" is entirely outmoded and "can" rules
> supreme. Just one more step on the road to the pidgeon English to be
> used in the uppermost floor of the tower of Babel.
I think that overstates the case. What you say is probably true for UK
demotic speech, but for educated speech and writing the distinction
between "can" and "may" is still alive, if in rather poor health.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
Mike Stevens
> Also : "get" has replaced "have."
>
> At McDonald's, it's now: "Can I get a burger with fries?"
> This does not mean the customer is questioning whether he is capable
> of finding his own food.
>
> It sounds awful but why fight it?
I wonder if that's actually a new use or rather a throw-back to an
earlier usage. In UK English the verb "get" can quite properly be used
to mean "be given" as in "For Christmas I got a lot of presents.", which
is, I estimate, at least as well-used as "For Christmas I had a lot of
presents.".
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"I'm not an old fart, and I'm not an old bore,
Or a grumpy old b*gg*r like Evelyn Waugh"
(Christopher Matthew)
David
> <snip>
> > Whereas in English English (i.e. the English language of England),
> > the domicile of {R} excepted, "may" is entirely outmoded and "can"
> > rules supreme. Just one more step on the road to the pidgeon
> > English to be used in the uppermost floor of the tower of Babel.
> I didn't know pidgeons could speak. Thanks for your contribution to
> the development of 'pidgin' English for the uppermost floor of the
> tower of Babel.
"Pidgeon", also "pigeon" or "pidgin", is thought to be a Chinese
corruption of the word "business", as any good English dictionary
should tell you.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/0-buddha.htm
A Yorkshire Buddha did appear...
David
<illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> "David" <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:4c68d98...@dacha.freeuk.com...
> >
> > pertaining to England?
> If you're going to argue from etymology, then no, "English" does not
> pertain to England. It comes from Old English "Englisc," meaning
> "pertaining to the Angles, a Low German tribe," as _The Century
> Dictionary_ ( www.century-dictionary.com ) puts it. The name
> "England" came later: It's a Middle English term.
So what's that you're writing in? It's certainly not the language of
the Angles; it is (a variant of) the language of the English (people)
who are a mixture of Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, French, and
just about every people who have ever wandered from their homelands,
and who are called English not because of their tongue but because of
their geographic and/or political status.
Who was arguing from etymology?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/06-0.htm
I have this extremely large growth on my lower chest
John Lawler
>Einde O'Callaghan writes:
>> "May" is used for this meaning too, just as it also expresses
>> possibility. It is considered slightly more formal.
>Anyway, when I used *can* as less formal *may*, some native speakers
>corrected me.
Pay no attention; this is one of the foibles of English.
"May" and "can" are both 'possible' modals, contrasting with 'necessary'
modals like "must", "should", and "will". One of the reasons why there have
to be more than one 'possible' modal in a language (which hasn't yet been
mentioned in this thread, and which is why I comment at this late date) is
to provide a distinction between the two ways negation can combine with
possibility.
'Not' and 'possible' are both logical operators with a scope (like
quantifiers) and thus either can include the other in its scope.
So 'possible (not (x))' is quite different from 'not (possible (x))',
as their respective paraphrases show:
1) It's possible that he's not home.
2) It's not possible that he's home.
With modal auxiliaries, the plot thickens, because in English
they have to be followed by negation, by strict syntactic rules.
3) *He doesn't may/can be home.
The solution, in the typical style of the Unconscious Generations, is to use
two auxiliaries, one with inside scope when negated, and the other with
outside scope.
4) He may not be home. = (1)
5) He can't be home. = (2)
That keeps them both around, and gives people a choice to make between them
in the affirmative, where there is no such logical distinction between them.
Naturally, people make such choices based on their own concepts, which arise
and change without notice and don't agree much with one another. That
doesn't matter; their utility in the negative keeps them distinct there,
while their usage in the affirmative, like all great art, lies in the eye
(or, in this case, ear) of the beholder.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." 'Language'
Mike Lyle
> Voicer <Voi...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> > Also : "get" has replaced "have."
> >
> > At McDonald's, it's now: "Can I get a burger with fries?"
> > This does not mean the customer is questioning whether he is capable
> > of finding his own food.
> >
> > It sounds awful but why fight it?
>
> I wonder if that's actually a new use or rather a throw-back to an
> earlier usage. In UK English the verb "get" can quite properly be used
> to mean "be given" as in "For Christmas I got a lot of presents.", which
> is, I estimate, at least as well-used as "For Christmas I had a lot of
> presents.".
I assumed when I first heard it that it was a discreet way of
suggesting that the asker was quite prepared to fetch it or pay for it
himself, when "Can I have a cup of coffee?" might be taken as a
presumptuous request. Then, because new phrases catch on, especially
from the lips of notables, it spread out of control to situations
where it had no special significance.
We have no hesitation in understanding, e.g., "Can we get a coffee?"
as "Shall we go and have some coffee?"; or "Where can I get a drink?"
as "Where's the pub/bar?"
Mike.
Raymond S. Wise
You certainly appeared to be, with your comment "Has it not struck you that
the word English is an adjective pertaining to England?" Either the meaning
of "English" when speaking about the language pertains to the language
itself, with the history of the word being irrelevant--this is how linguists
would ordinarily see it, in order to avoid the etymological fallacy--or the
meaning of "English" when speaking about the language pertains to the
meaning of the etymon of the word, which meaning is not derived from
"England."
Richard Maurer
The use of "may", in my house at least, is to seek permission for
something.
"Can" is strictly to be used to determine if something is possible.
Can that circus ride go backwards?
May I have a go on that circus ride?
[end quote] >>
But this is not as simple as it looks,
especially if a third party is involved. Consider
"Can you pick up a carton of milk on your way home from work?"
where one adult makes a request of another. Also
"Can I go on this ride Daddy?"
where besides the permission of the parent, there are also
the rules of the establishment to consider. It may be that
they will not let the child go on the ride until he is 3 foot tall,
even though the child is perfectly capable.
In a poolside eatery
"Can I get a margarita?"
asks whether the system allows it; there is not a question of
the waiter giving you permission.
Tony Mountifield
Mike Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
> Voicer <Voi...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> > Also : "get" has replaced "have."
> >
> > At McDonald's, it's now: "Can I get a burger with fries?"
> > This does not mean the customer is questioning whether he is capable
> > of finding his own food.
> >
> > It sounds awful but why fight it?
>
> I wonder if that's actually a new use or rather a throw-back to an
> earlier usage. In UK English the verb "get" can quite properly be used
> to mean "be given" as in "For Christmas I got a lot of presents.", which
> is, I estimate, at least as well-used as "For Christmas I had a lot of
> presents.".
An interesting US-ism the other way round with regard to "get":
In the UK, I might ask someone "Have you got a car?", and they might
reply "Yes, I have." However, I have asked an identically constructed
question of an American and they replied "Yes, I do." Do???
Then I realised they had heard the question as "Do you have a car?"
and replied to that perceived question.
Cheers,
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
Tony Mountifield
I wondered if the * was put in anticipating the insertion of a
footnote which was then forgotten, explaining that may and can
can't really be used as infinitives.
I have always wondered why modal verbs in English do not have
infinitive forms on the same stem. German has "können", "müssen",
"dürfen", etc., but English cannot say "to can", "to must", "to may".
David
> >
> > Who was arguing from etymology?
> You certainly appeared to be, with your comment "Has it not struck
> you that the word English is an adjective pertaining to England?"
> Either the meaning of "English" when speaking about the language
> pertains to the language itself, with the history of the word being
> irrelevant--this is how linguists would ordinarily see it, in order
> to avoid the etymological fallacy--or the meaning of "English" when
> speaking about the language pertains to the meaning of the etymon of
> the word, which meaning is not derived from "England."
So, you postulate that "English" does not mean the same as "English"?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/30ocd-0.htm
4 Oatcake (Haverbread) Recipes Using Dough
Mike Lyle
Of course it does. "English" just isn't a short form of "the language
used in England" -- and, as somebody pointed out, it didn't start with
that meaning; though clearly it *did* mean that for a few hundred
years. "Latin" hasn't meant "the language spoken in Latium" for some
time, either; further examples would be pointless.
As early as about 1850 Grimm (of Law and fairy-tale fame) predicted
that English would become "international property".
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I have always wondered why modal verbs in English do not have
> infinitive forms on the same stem. German has "können", "müssen",
> "dürfen", etc., but English cannot say "to can", "to must", "to may".
Ain't spoke to many cowboys lately, then, pardner? Not present, I
agree, but "Useta could" clearly contains an infinitive. As
conversational spice I sometimes inject "I didn't use to couldn't".
Mike.
Raymond S. Wise
Yes, indeed. I am of English ancestry and I speak the English language. But
the first "English" means something very different from the second
"English."
A word's meaning is determined by its usage, not by its etymology. In
another thread in alt.usage.english , we have been discussing the words
"specie" and "species." Looked at from the point of view of etymology, these
represent the same word. Looked at from the point of view of meaning, they
are two different words. So it is with "English," although there is no
difference in form.
*The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,* 4th ed. at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/61/E0146100.html
shows an additional sense of "English" in which there sometimes is a
different form. "English" with the following meaning in sports is sometimes
written uncapitalized:
"English [...] 5. also english a. The spin given to a propelled ball by
striking it on one side or releasing it with a sharp twist. b. Bodily
movement in an effort to influence the movement of a propelled object; body
English."
But even when left uncapitalized, the difference in meaning remains.
Mike Stevens
> "English" just isn't a short form of "the language
> used in England" -- and, as somebody pointed out, it didn't start with
> that meaning; though clearly it *did* mean that for a few hundred
> years.
Just so. The word English for the language predates the name England for
the place. King Alfred writes of the English language,although he was
King of Wessex, one of several kingdoms which later (with a lot of
Viking involvement) coalesced to form England. In fact it's probably
true to say that the first King of England was the Norseman Cnut.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class.
Tony Mountifield
Hehe... interesting construct - a "past-tense infinitive"!
Dr Robin Bignall
>{R} | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english
>in <news:3ff08cd4$0$52882$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>
>
><snip>
>
>> The use of "may", in my house at least, is to seek permission for
>> something.
>
>> "Can" is strictly to be used to determine if something is possible.
>
>
>> Can that circus ride go backwards?
>> May I have a go on that circus ride?
>>
>> {R}
>
>Don't people use "can" both ways, nowadays?
>
They do, but Richard is right, strictly speaking.
Playful grandparents might indulge in the following:
Child: Can I turn the TV on?
GP: Probably, if your fingers still work and you know which button to
press.
C: May I turn the TV on.
GP: Of course.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Alan Edgey
> In article <2d2028d5.03123...@posting.google.com>,
> Alan Edgey <Alan...@aol.com> wrote:
> > David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Whereas in English English (i.e. the English language of England),
> > > the domicile of {R} excepted, "may" is entirely outmoded and "can"
> > > rules supreme. Just one more step on the road to the pidgeon
> > > English to be used in the uppermost floor of the tower of Babel.
>
> > I didn't know pidgeons could speak. Thanks for your contribution to
> > the development of 'pidgin' English for the uppermost floor of the
> > tower of Babel.
>
> "Pidgeon", also "pigeon" or "pidgin", is thought to be a Chinese
> corruption of the word "business", as any good English dictionary
> should tell you.
Fair enough;-)
I still can't figure how varying use of can and may is leading to
pidginisation though. Language changes over time. You are simply
witnessing this in progress.
Once upon a time pedants used to find lots of what we now consider
correct barbarisms.
In the end it is the users of language who decide what is acceptable
and not language mavens - no matter how loud they might bleat - or
should that be may bleat?
Alan
David
Raymond S. Wise <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
[Snip]
> But even when left uncapitalized, the difference in meaning remains.
Ah, yes! When I think about "American", I can see what you mean.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/8sco-0.htm
Scorpio (October 24th - November 22nd)
Vrischika - the Scorpion
Ptah
David
I was merely musing that useful difference of meaning is becoming
subsumed in this age of mass communication and universal semi-literacy.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm
When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight,
it took the midwife no more than a single look
to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary.
David
> > "English" just isn't a short form of "the language used in
> > England" -- and, as somebody pointed out, it didn't start with that
> > meaning; though clearly it *did* mean that for a few hundred years.
> Just so. The word English for the language predates the name England
> for the place. King Alfred writes of the English language,although
> he was King of Wessex, one of several kingdoms which later (with a
> lot of Viking involvement) coalesced to form England. In fact it's
> probably true to say that the first King of England was the Norseman
> Cnut.
"English" (or its original form) might predate "England" but a thousand
years later, the Angles were forgotten by all but a few dozen
historians and "English" was certainly widely seen as the adjective
describing things of England, one of which was its tongue. I still say
that by the middle of the last millennium, the "English" of "the
English tongue" had for most precisely the same meaning as the
"English" of "the English parliament" or "the English garden". And were
it not for the fact that English colonialism (there we have it again!)
exported its tongue to other lands, "English" would be seen in the same
light as other languages named for their geographical or political base.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/
Gay Noses (and other queer appendages)
Raymond S. Wise
> In article <vv5pv88...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Raymond S. Wise <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > But even when left uncapitalized, the difference in meaning remains.
>
> Ah, yes! When I think about "American", I can see what you mean.
An excellent example: "The prehistoric Americans" means something entirely
different from "the Americans" as the term is ordinarily used today. And for
still another meaning, consider that George Washington was born an American,
but not in the same sense that I was born an American.
The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to "Native
American." However, the increase in the use of the second term has made the
first term problematic, especially in speech.
Skitt
> Mike Stevens wrote:
>> Voicer wrote:
>>> Also : "get" has replaced "have."
>>>
>>> At McDonald's, it's now: "Can I get a burger with fries?"
>>> This does not mean the customer is questioning whether he is capable
>>> of finding his own food.
>>>
>>> It sounds awful but why fight it?
>>
>> I wonder if that's actually a new use or rather a throw-back to an
>> earlier usage. In UK English the verb "get" can quite properly be
>> used to mean "be given" as in "For Christmas I got a lot of
>> presents.", which is, I estimate, at least as well-used as "For
>> Christmas I had a lot of presents.".
>
> An interesting US-ism the other way round with regard to "get":
>
> In the UK, I might ask someone "Have you got a car?", and they might
> reply "Yes, I have." However, I have asked an identically constructed
> question of an American and they replied "Yes, I do." Do???
> Then I realised they had heard the question as "Do you have a car?"
> and replied to that perceived question.
You've got it!
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Phil C.
wrote:
I recall the British authoress who was asked by an American
interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
one a year."
--
Phil C.
John Lawler
>John Lawler <jla...@umich.edu> writes:
>> 3) *He doesn't may/can be home.
>I wondered if the * was put in anticipating the insertion of a
>footnote which was then forgotten, explaining that may and can
>can't really be used as infinitives.
The * is to mark the sentence as ungrammatical.
>I have always wondered why modal verbs in English do not have
>infinitive forms on the same stem. German has "können", "müssen",
>"dürfen", etc., but English cannot say "to can", "to must", "to may".
Right. English modal auxiliaries, however, unlike German ones,
are defective verbs and don't have any inflected forms, which includes
infinitives (the infinitive inflection is -0 -- 'zero'), and therefore
must always be the first auxiliary in any verb phrase they occur in.
That this is a recent development is shown by the German cognates
and by the fact that many dialects of English allow multiple modal
constructions ('might could, might should', etc.) and other idioms
involving infinitives, like 'useta could'.
David
<illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> "David" <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:4c698a4...@dacha.freeuk.com...
> > In article <vv5pv88...@corp.supernews.com>, Raymond S. Wise
> > <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > > But even when left uncapitalized, the difference in meaning
> > > remains.
> >
> > Ah, yes! When I think about "American", I can see what you mean.
> An excellent example: "The prehistoric Americans" means something
> entirely different from "the Americans" as the term is ordinarily
> used today. And for still another meaning, consider that George
> Washington was born an American, but not in the same sense that I was
> born an American.
> The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to
> "Native American." However, the increase in the use of the second
> term has made the first term problematic, especially in speech.
I was thinking rather of the purely adjectival use of the word. Seeing
the adjective thus used as a noun shorthand leads to all sorts of
problems for it takes on a life of its own far in excess of the
original intention. Take those north if the border, for example, who
accept gladly the 16th century shortening of "Scottish" when used as
the name of their vile national drink but are up in arms when it is
used as the common adjective. Curiously, they cleave to the 14th
century short form in preference to the full word.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/tdm/
The Toro-danyo Mandala: Its History and Significance
Jeffrey Zahn
news:2d2028d5.03123...@posting.google.com,
Alan...@aol.com (Alan Edgey) wrote:
> Once upon a time pedants used to find lots of what we now
> consider correct barbarisms.
As opposed to incorrect barbarisms, I suppose.
--
Jeffrey "Pendantry" Zahn
David
Jeffrey Zahn <jza...@earthlink.net.SPAMMENOT> wrote:
> In article
> news:2d2028d5.03123...@posting.google.com,
> Alan...@aol.com (Alan Edgey) wrote:
> > Once upon a time pedants used to find lots of what we now
> > consider correct barbarisms.
> As opposed to incorrect barbarisms, I suppose.
Like "Something for the weekend, sir?"
Sorry, couldn't resist it. HNY!
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/colour/3c-0.htm
Cyan Magic
Left Eye of Sin
Left Foot in the Depth of the Earth
Mike Lyle
This is one of my favourite AUE perennials. Maybe you've missed the
previous romps, Tony, so you might like to google the archive. I must
say Phil's anecdote is the best take on it so far, though.
Mike.
Maria Conlon
>
> I recall the British authoress who was asked by an American
> interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
> one a year."
What would the American interviewer have had to ask in order to get an
answer that revealed how many children the woman ... uh, was the mother
of?
--
Maria Conlon
Please send any email to the Hot Mail address.
Robert Bannister
The whole point being that (a) children have to be forced to do this,
(b) only children find themselves in the position of having to say "May
I" - in any other situation, one would paraphrase with some nonsense
like "Wouldn't it be better if we..."
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Duncanson
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Phil C. wrote:
>>
>> I recall the British authoress who was asked by an American
>> interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
>> one a year."
>
>What would the American interviewer have had to ask in order to get an
>answer that revealed how many children the woman ... uh, was the mother
>of?
"Do you have any children?" would work perfectly well with any British woman
who was not looking for a chance to play with words.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e)
Truly Donovan
How does a question that is most correctly answered with a "yes" or
"no" yield the number of children so encompassed?
--
Truly Donovan
Lexy Connor mysteries: Chandler's Daughter, Winslow's Wife
http://www.trulydonovan.com
tr...@trulydonovan.com
Mike Stevens
> David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:<4c6911f...@dacha.freeuk.com>...
>> In article <2d2028d5.03123...@posting.google.com>,
>> Alan Edgey <Alan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Whereas in English English (i.e. the English language of England),
>>>> the domicile of {R} excepted, "may" is entirely outmoded and "can"
>>>> rules supreme. Just one more step on the road to the pidgeon
>>>> English to be used in the uppermost floor of the tower of Babel.
>>
>>> I didn't know pidgeons could speak. Thanks for your contribution to
>>> the development of 'pidgin' English for the uppermost floor of the
>>> tower of Babel.
>>
>> "Pidgeon", also "pigeon" or "pidgin", is thought to be a Chinese
>> corruption of the word "business", as any good English dictionary
>> should tell you.
>
> Fair enough;-)
>
> I still can't figure how varying use of can and may is leading to
> pidginisation though. Language changes over time. You are simply
> witnessing this in progress.
> Once upon a time pedants used to find lots of what we now consider
> correct barbarisms.
That's certainly true,but is no reason to prevent some of us from
regretting those bits of linguistic change which reduce the subtlety and
range of the language.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
Mike Stevens
> "English" (or its original form) might predate "England" but a
> thousand years later, the Angles were forgotten by all but a few dozen
That's simply not true. The Angles were certainly part of the common
currency of popular English history rather than known only to a small
academic elite. The story of "non Anglii sed Angeli" was a common-place
of popular mythology - at least in the Church of England.
> And
> were it not for the fact that English colonialism (there we have it
> again!) exported its tongue to other lands, "English" would be seen
> in the same light as other languages named for their geographical or
> political base.
And colonialism didn't have analogous results for any other language?
Really!
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"I'm not an old fart, and I'm not an old bore,
Or a grumpy old b*gg*r like Evelyn Waugh"
(Christopher Matthew)
Mike Stevens
> The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to
> "Native American." However, the increase in the use of the second
> term has made the first term problematic, especially in speech.
I think some of us right-pondians need a bit of explanation of that
distinction.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Mike Stevens
But "Have you got any children?" would be more idiomatic. Even though
(I say, getting my retaliation in first) a pedant could possibly gloss
this as "Have you begotten any children?", which would of course be a
nonsense question to a woman.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"Million-to-one chances come up nine times out of ten." (Terry
Pratchett)
Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
| Raymond S. Wise <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
|
| > The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to
| > "Native American." However, the increase in the use of the second
| > term has made the first term problematic, especially in speech.
|
| I think some of us right-pondians need a bit of explanation of that
| distinction.
I sometimes think that American is as difficult as Mandarin :-(
Dave F
david56
> Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:10:56 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
> > <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Phil C. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I recall the British authoress who was asked by an American
> >>> interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
> >>> one a year."
> >>
> >> What would the American interviewer have had to ask in order to get
> >> an answer that revealed how many children the woman ... uh, was the
> >> mother of?
> >
> > "Do you have any children?" would work perfectly well with any
> > British woman who was not looking for a chance to play with words.
>
> But "Have you got any children?" would be more idiomatic. Even though
> (I say, getting my retaliation in first) a pedant could possibly gloss
> this as "Have you begotten any children?", which would of course be a
> nonsense question to a woman.
From The Last Goon Show of All (about 1974, I think), and from
memory:
- Do you still have the same secretary?
- Yes, I still have her. Nobody's noticed.
--
David
=====
Tony Mountifield
Maria Conlon <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Phil C. wrote:
> >
> > I recall the British authoress who was asked by an American
> > interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
> > one a year."
>
> What would the American interviewer have had to ask in order to get an
> answer that revealed how many children the woman ... uh, was the mother
> of?
"Have you got (any) children?"
Tony Mountifield
Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Phil C. <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<3o86vvkj5s9qjvs01...@4ax.com>...
> > interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
> > one a year."
>
> This is one of my favourite AUE perennials. Maybe you've missed the
> previous romps, Tony, so you might like to google the archive. I must
> say Phil's anecdote is the best take on it so far, though.
Thanks, I haven't read AUE for quite a while; I'm reading this in UCLE.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:19:40 +0000, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:10:56 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
>><mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What would the American interviewer have had to ask in order to get an
>>>answer that revealed how many children the woman ... uh, was the mother
>>>of?
>>
>>"Do you have any children?" would work perfectly well with any British woman
>>who was not looking for a chance to play with words.
>
>How does a question that is most correctly answered with a "yes" or
>"no" yield the number of children so encompassed?
It seems I did not respond to the precise question asked by Maria Conlon.
I was making the point that the question asked by the American interviewer
was perfectly satisfactory in BrE.
Offhand, I can't think of a simple question [1] that would yield the number
of children, if any, without being potentially intrusive.
If a woman who has children is asked "Do you have any children?" she might
respond with the number and other details. If she simply replies "Yes", the
questioner has to judge by her tone of voice as to whether it is appropriate
to seek further information.
[1] In a conversational context.
Phil C.
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:36:35 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:19:40 +0000, Peter Duncanson
>><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:10:56 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
>>><mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What would the American interviewer have had to ask in order to get an
>>>>answer that revealed how many children the woman ... uh, was the mother
>>>>of?
>>>
>>>"Do you have any children?" would work perfectly well with any British woman
>>>who was not looking for a chance to play with words.
>>
>>How does a question that is most correctly answered with a "yes" or
>>"no" yield the number of children so encompassed?
>
>It seems I did not respond to the precise question asked by Maria Conlon.
>
>I was making the point that the question asked by the American interviewer
>was perfectly satisfactory in BrE.
>
>Offhand, I can't think of a simple question [1] that would yield the number
>of children, if any, without being potentially intrusive.
I suppose it could be argued that to ask the question at all might be
considered intrusive in British culture. The degree to which we avoid
personal questions certainly surprises my European friends.
--
Phil C.
Molly Mockford
<bt0nin$24lm7$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>Raymond S. Wise <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
>
>> The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to
>> "Native American." However, the increase in the use of the second
>> term has made the first term problematic, especially in speech.
>
>I think some of us right-pondians need a bit of explanation of that
>distinction.
I would assume that native Americans were born in the USA
(asyermightsay), whereas Native Americans had ancestors born in the
American continent all the way back to pre-history.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Mike Lyle
> >
> >"Do you have any children?" would work perfectly well with any British woman
> >who was not looking for a chance to play with words.
>
> How does a question that is most correctly answered with a "yes" or
> "no" yield the number of children so encompassed?
Peter's right, of course. But as we've mentioned before, British usage
preserves the present-simple habitual force of "Do you have...?" and
"I don't have..." as well as recognizing, and sometimes using, the
"American" use in which these present-simple questions and negatives
equate to the British "Have you got...?" and "I haven't got...".
I can't see that it would be *incorrect* to answer such questions with
something other than "Yes" or "No".
Mike.
Molly Mockford
<p5emx2y5u92f$.d...@news.lillathedog.net>:
>Anyway, when I used *can* as less formal *may*, some native speakers
>corrected me
It tends to be assumed that non-native speakers want to learn correct
English, rather than the sloppy version which many of us native speakers
tend to employ. If you know what's the right usage, you then have the
choice whether or not actually to use it.
>So, I mean, you never know. how to make everybody happy!
>:-/
Happy New Year?
Dena Jo
> Offhand, I can't think of a simple question [1] that would yield
> the number of children, if any, without being potentially
> intrusive.
I wouldn't have thought "How many children do you have?" intrusive, but
then you Brits are probably more polite and less casual than us Yanks.
--
Dena Jo
Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email.
Mike Stevens
news:fItpcDUwxB9$Ew...@molly.mockford...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Mike Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote in
> <bt0nin$24lm7$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>
> >Raymond S. Wise <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to
> >> "Native American." However, the increase in the use of the second
> >> term has made the first term problematic, especially in speech.
> >
> >I think some of us right-pondians need a bit of explanation of that
> >distinction.
>
> I would assume that native Americans were born in the USA
> (asyermightsay), whereas Native Americans had ancestors born in the
> American continent all the way back to pre-history.
I see. One of the them is a case of the "America"="USA" problem and the
other refers to the continent. I do wish that bit of linguistic
confusion could be cleared up.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Don't you just hate rhetorical questions?
R F
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Dena Jo wrote:
> On 01 Jan 2004, Peter Duncanson posted thus:
>
> > Offhand, I can't think of a simple question [1] that would yield
> > the number of children, if any, without being potentially
> > intrusive.
>
> I wouldn't have thought "How many children do you have?" intrusive, but
> then you Brits are probably more polite and less casual than us Yanks.
It's 'cause they live on an island.
R F
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Mike Stevens wrote:
> Raymond S. Wise <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
>
> > The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to
> > "Native American." However, the increase in the use of the second
> > term has made the first term problematic, especially in speech.
>
> I think some of us right-pondians need a bit of explanation of that
> distinction.
The term "Native American" is an increasingly-used politically correct
term for "American Indian". (I think also the increase in the number of
East Indian persons in the US has aided the growth of "Native American".)
A "native American", at one time at least, would have been understood to
mean a "native-born American" -- someone born in "America" (roughly, the
US regarded in poetic, romantic, non-political terms).
Peter Duncanson
<TPUBGTH.delete...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 01 Jan 2004, Peter Duncanson posted thus:
>
>> Offhand, I can't think of a simple question [1] that would yield
>> the number of children, if any, without being potentially
>> intrusive.
>
>I wouldn't have thought "How many children do you have?" intrusive, but
It would depend on the circumstances.
>then you Brits are probably more polite and less casual than us Yanks.
A wide and wild generalization. :-)
We have some very impolite and some very causal Brits, and some who are both
very impolite and very casual. Of course if you want a competition we could
put your worst and our worst together on a small island somewhere with live
TV streaming to the world. This could give us a reality TV show - "Slobs and
Yobs" or some such title.
I googled to check that "Slobs and Yobs" was not in use and found this on
the results page:
"... Ironically, the Americans I know are very aristocratic. We have become
a nation of slobs and yobs, thugs and slugs. I am loyal to an England that
has gone. ..."
(Frustratingly the associated link is broken.)
hsinatra
wonderfully obstructs the understanding."
Hank
"Mike Stevens" <mike...@which.net> wrote in message
news:bt0mpm$24jqk$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de...
hsinatra
Mexico, he advised me not to say that I was an "American." The Mexicans,
Central Americans, and South Americans also consider themselves as
"Americans." To keep down the confusion we answered that we were Norte
Americanos de Esatdos Unidos. I guess it depends on the audience.
Hank
"Mike Stevens" <mike...@which.net> wrote in message
news:bt1k5t$2ch4s$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de...
Robert Bannister
You're surely not serious. True, if the woman was aware she was being
spoken to by an American, she would make some effort to understand this
to non-American ears, odd form of the question, but you must know
perfectly well that "Have you (got)" is the preferred and less ambiguous
form. "Do you" questions usually refer to habitual actions.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On 01 Jan 2004, Peter Duncanson posted thus:
>
>
>>Offhand, I can't think of a simple question [1] that would yield
>>the number of children, if any, without being potentially
>>intrusive.
>
>
> I wouldn't have thought "How many children do you have?" intrusive, but
> then you Brits are probably more polite and less casual than us Yanks.
>
Depends on the age and whether the person's marital status is known. My
answer to that question would have to be "None that I know of."
--
Rob Bannister
Matti Lamprhey
No -- Peter is quite right. "Do you have any children?" is the standard
British version, with "Have you got any children?" positioned one
subregister below it.
Matti
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
I did not express an opinion as to whether "do you have" is the preferred
form. I simply said that it would 'work' in the question "Do you have any
children?" In that particular context the possibility of ambiguity is surely
minimal, even zero.
This is not a point on which I feel strongly. I have no intention of heading
out into the streets with clipboard to conduct an unscientific survey.
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>In article <3fa4d950.03123...@posting.google.com>,
>Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Phil C. <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<3o86vvkj5s9qjvs01...@4ax.com>...
>> > I recall the British authoress who was asked by an American
>> > interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
>> > one a year."
>>
>> This is one of my favourite AUE perennials. Maybe you've missed the
>> previous romps, Tony, so you might like to google the archive. I must
>> say Phil's anecdote is the best take on it so far, though.
>
>Thanks, I haven't read AUE for quite a while; I'm reading this in UCLE.
>
We're all one big, happy family, Tony, in the English newsgroups.
[Drat! Broke a New Year Resolution already. I resolved to be more serious
in AUE.]
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Dr Robin Bignall
<TPUBGTH.delete...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 01 Jan 2004, Peter Duncanson posted thus:
>
>> Offhand, I can't think of a simple question [1] that would yield
>> the number of children, if any, without being potentially
>> intrusive.
>
>I wouldn't have thought "How many children do you have?" intrusive, but
>then you Brits are probably more polite and less casual than us Yanks.
We probably are, Deej, but some of us work on it over several decades until
we get to the point of being able to ask "How many children do you have,
Deej?" without embarrassment, and with only the hint of a grin.
Richard Maurer
The term "native American" does not have an identical meaning to "Native
American." However, the increase in the use of the second term has made the
first term problematic, especially in speech.
<< [Mike Stevens]
I think some of us right-pondians need a bit of explanation of that
distinction.
[end quote] >>
<< [R F]
The term "Native American" is an increasingly-used politically correct
term for "American Indian". (I think also the increase in the number of
East Indian persons in the US has aided the growth of "Native American".)
A "native American", at one time at least, would have been understood to
mean a "native-born American" -- someone born in "America" (roughly, the
US regarded in poetic, romantic, non-political terms).
[end quote] >>
There was also recently a distinction made along the same lines between
"native American" and "American native". I don't like it, but will mention
it for the benefit of those right-pondians who might be caught unaware.
I prefer the term "hundredth generation American", but it will probably
not catch on. The "Native Americans" around here that I hear use
the term "Indians" to refer to themselves.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Stevens
"Richard Maurer" <rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:01c3d0ce$4c955000$9fc4480c@default...
I have a good friend who is a Native American with whom I was once
discussing the preferred description (I was still using "Amerind", which
dates me!). She said she preferred simply to call herself a "native"
until I pointed out that we were having the conversation in London (UK),
where she certainly *wasn't* a native.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Alan...@aol.com "Alan Edgey" writes:
> I didn't know pidgeons could speak.
That with the first name "Walter" could :-)
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
illinoi...@mninter.net "Raymond S. Wise" writes:
> "English [...] 5. also english a. The spin given to a propelled ball by
> striking it on one side or releasing it with a sharp twist. b. Bodily
> movement in an effort to influence the movement of a propelled object; body
> English."
Assuming this relates to billiards (and by extension to snooker and
pool), the word used in BrEnglish is "side" (or, in extreme instances,
"screw").
John Hall
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>On 1 Jan 2004 15:53:40 GMT, Dena Jo
><TPUBGTH.delete...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>I wouldn't have thought "How many children do you have?" intrusive, but
>
>It would depend on the circumstances.
>
>>then you Brits are probably more polite and less casual than us Yanks.
>
>A wide and wild generalization. :-)
Yes. My own experience is that Americans (at any rate outside of New
York City) tend to be more polite than the British.
--
John Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat
The subjects of the King,
And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton:
Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers"
John A. Green
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Phil C. wrote:
>>
>> I recall the British authoress who was asked by an American
>> interviewer "Do you have any children?" and replied "Never more than
>> one a year."
>
>What would the American interviewer have had to ask in order to get an
>answer that revealed how many children the woman ... uh, was the mother
>of?
Possibly "Have you any children?" might persuade her to reply, "I have
n childer."
John
**Replies to <u04...@lineone.net> have a 1Kb maximum filter.
Please ask for alternate address if you wish directly to reply,
include a + in the subject line.**
--
John A Green
Leigh, Lancashire & Aberdeen
mUs1Ka
> In article <2d2028d5.03123...@posting.google.com>
> Alan...@aol.com "Alan Edgey" writes:
>
>> I didn't know pidgeons could speak.
>
> That with the first name "Walter" could :-)
And Steven Seagull.
m.
Dena Jo
> Yes. My own experience is that Americans (at any rate outside of New
> York City) tend to be more polite than the British.
That's interesting. After spending a year in England, when I returned
home to Los Angeles, I thought everyone was rude to me. When I
complained to someone about it, they responded, "But Dena, they were
rude before you left!"
It took me a while to readjust.
R F
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, John Hall wrote:
> Yes. My own experience is that Americans (at any rate outside of New
> York City) tend to be more polite than the British.
My experience has been that New York City Natives and Foreign-Born
Immigrants are more polite than most Americans, who are (at least
superficially) less polite than the non-hooligan British. The most
impolite Americans are in the Upper Midwest. Not Chicago, as you might
think, but Central Wisconsin.