His English is proficient
Marius Hancu
1. "His English is proficient."
Is this use (i.e. about a skill, not about a person) validated by the
OED, or it can be said only as:
2. "He's proficient in/at English?"
--
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
Cheryl
I think it would be a bit more natural to say "He's proficient in
English". It doesn't seem quite right to attribute the skill to the
language rather than the speaker.
--
Cheryl
James Hogg
I agree, but it's not surprising that the adjective is transferred from
the speaker to the language. The reverse has happened with "fluent".
--
James
Cheryl
Yes. I think it's possible to say that "His English is proficient". My
preference for the other version is slight.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
> On 29 Jan, 11:39, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be a bit more natural to say "He's proficient in
>> English".
>
I don't think do. You can be proficient at other things, like sports,
but you are proficient in languages.
--
Cheryl
Lars Eighner
<a954dbdc-339e-4e2c...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Marius Hancu broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Hello:
> 1. "His English is proficient."
Any native speaker who knows what "proficient" means will understand this
sentence. Few will find it odd or remarkable. Many might utter it in an
appropriate situation.
> Is this use (i.e. about a skill, not about a person) validated by the
> OED, or it can be said only as:
Yes, I see your point here, now that you make it. However, this kind of
shift is very common in English. I am not sure I would have noticed it, and
many would have judged it correct or acceptable.
> 2. "He's proficient in/at English?"
I prefer "in," especially when the spoken language is considered.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 58
1401.8 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
How do you feel about "His English is poor" (or "good")?
I would understand "English" in that sort of construction to mean "his
English speaking or writing".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Cheryl
Those are fine to my ear. I'm not saying you can't say "His English is
proficient", just that I have a slight preference for "He is proficient
in English", possibly because to me 'proficient' refers more easily to
the speaker than the language.
--
Cheryl
Marius Hancu
> > 1. "His English is proficient."
>
> Any native speaker who knows what "proficient" means will understand this
> sentence. Few will find it odd or remarkable. Many might utter it in an
> appropriate situation.
Well, the stats at Google Books are:
27 on "English is proficient"
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22English+is+proficient%22&btnG=Search+Books
(which covers all of the "her/his/their/our/your English is
proficient")
1,101 on "proficient in English"
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22proficient+in+English%22&btnG=Search+Books
I have no doubts 1 would be understood, however I wouldn't use it, esp
as the dictionaries I have make all reference to persons, not to
skills, in their examples.
> > Is this use (i.e. about a skill, not about a person) validated by the
> > OED, or it can be said only as:
>
> Yes, I see your point here, now that you make it. However, this kind of
> shift is very common in English. I am not sure I would have noticed it, and
> many would have judged it correct or acceptable.
>
> > 2. "He's proficient in/at English?"
>
> I prefer "in," especially when the spoken language is considered.
Google Books shows both, with a 5 to 1 ratio in favor of "in."
My question about the OED showing it about skills and not persons
remains active:-)
Thank you all.
Marius Hancu