war und ist gewesen
Dan Leifker
(a) Er war in Berlin
(b) Er ist in Berlin gewesen
I've been studying this question for some time now, and it appears that
(a) is more durative while (b) is more point-in-time (Zeitpunkt).
However, I've asked several German-speaking friends, and they can't
think up any examples where "war" and "ist gewesen" could not be
interchanged. (Our conversations were quite short, though, and hardly
conclusive.) Are "war" and "ist gewesen" really perfectly interchangeable?
danke
dleifker
Helmut Richter
> What is the difference between:
>
> (a) Er war in Berlin
> (b) Er ist in Berlin gewesen
>
> I've been studying this question for some time now, and it appears that (a) is
> more durative while (b) is more point-in-time (Zeitpunkt).
This is not so much a question of meaning but of language register.
In formal language, the perfect tense ("ist gewesen") means something that
has happened in the past or recently, and has an effect at present. "Er
ist gekommen" means not only that he has come but that he is now here
whereas "Er kam" means that he came at some time in the past and we are
not interested whether he stayed or left again. I can hardly imagine a
situation where "Er ist gewesen" makes sense using this meaning.
In colloquial language, perfect tense is often substituted for simple past
tense. So I would take the sentence "er ist in Berlin gewesen" as a
colloqial-language equivalent of "er war in Berlin".
The difference of perfect tense and simple past tense as explained above
is more or less the same as in English. There is, however, a big
difference in usage: If something started in the past and carries on to
the present, the past aspect is emphasised in English ("The machine has
been in operation for three days": the condition in the past has still an
effect at present) whereas the present aspect is emphasised in German
("Die Maschine ist seit drei Tagen in Betrieb": the present condition has
already existed for three days). Note the change of preposition (for three
days = drei Tage lang) versus (since three days = seit drei Tagen) which
is a logical consequence of these two different views.
--
Helmut Richter
Andy
<Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@lxhri01.lrz.lrz-muenchen.de>, Helmut
Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Dan Leifker wrote:
>
>> What is the difference between:
>>
>> (a) Er war in Berlin
>> (b) Er ist in Berlin gewesen
>>
>> I've been studying this question for some time now, and it appears
>>that (a) is
>> more durative while (b) is more point-in-time (Zeitpunkt).
>
>This is not so much a question of meaning but of language register.
>
>In formal language, the perfect tense ("ist gewesen") means something that
>has happened in the past or recently, and has an effect at present. "Er
>ist gekommen" means not only that he has come but that he is now here
Could it mean that "he came and did something which is presently
evident" without implying anything about where he currently is? For
example, "Fred must have been here since as we can see he wrote his name
on the wall".
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society; Chair, N E Lupus Group].
Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com> or <URL:http://www.northeastlupus.
org.uk> for the obvious; Andystuff on <URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
Helmut Richter
> Could it mean that "he came and did something which is presently evident"
> without implying anything about where he currently is? For example, "Fred must
> have been here since as we can see he wrote his name on the wall".
Fred muss hier gewesen sein -- wir sehen, dass er seinen Namen an die
Wand geschrieben hat.
Yes. Same tense, same construct.
Works also without the complication with the modal verb:
Fred ist hier gewesen ...
--
Helmut Richter
Dan Leifker
> The difference of perfect tense and simple past tense as explained above
> is more or less the same as in English. There is, however, a big
> difference in usage: If something started in the past and carries on to
> the present, the past aspect is emphasised in English ("The machine has
> been in operation for three days": the condition in the past has still an
> effect at present) whereas the present aspect is emphasised in German
> ("Die Maschine ist seit drei Tagen in Betrieb": the present condition has
> already existed for three days). Note the change of preposition (for three
> days = drei Tage lang) versus (since three days = seit drei Tagen) which
> is a logical consequence of these two different views.
Very helpful, thanks! The "seit drei Tagen" reminds me of something
that most students of German learn early:
(a) Die Maschine ist seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
(b) Die Maschine ist schon drei Tage in Betrieb
(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
Is there any difference between these, either in meaning or register?
dleifker
Joachim Pense
>
> (a) Die Maschine ist seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
> (b) Die Maschine ist schon drei Tage in Betrieb
> (c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>
> Is there any difference between these, either in meaning or register?
>
I don't see much of a difference.
The "schon" of course states that the fact that the machine has been running
for so long deserves special mention. (Like English "already", I suppose).
If we really want to separate between (b) and (c), we could say that (b)
focusses a tiny bit more on the continuity of the three-day-duration, while
the "seit" in (c) puts a bit more weight on the fact that it started three
days ago.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>>(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>
> The machine has already been running since three days.
>
I don't think you can say that in English.
Joachim
Andy
<sne...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>©Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:58:35 -0700, Dan Leifker <dlei...@leifker.com>, wrote:
>[ ... ]
>>Very helpful, thanks! The "seit drei Tagen" reminds me of something
>>that most students of German learn early:
>>
>>(a) Die Maschine ist seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>
>
>>(b) Die Maschine ist schon drei Tage in Betrieb
>
>
>>(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>
That's Germlish, not English IMHO. I'm struggling to find a difference
in meaning for (b) and (c). Perhaps
(b) Die Maschine ist schon drei Tage in Betrieb
translates as
"The machine has already been running for three days." - you expected it
to start today, but we got it going three days ago.
while
(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
translates as
"The machine has been running for three days already." - you expected it
to break down soon after starting, but it's run 3 days already and still
is.
Einde, can you help?
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com>
geo...@ankerstein.org
You are correct. It should be "for three days."
But getting back to the original question. Can you think
of any situation that you would use "Er ist in Berlin
gewesen."? I see the difference in English, but not in
German. And I do not believe that a German would say
or write the "ist gewesen" form.
GFH
Dan Leifker
> In colloquial language, perfect tense is often substituted for simple past
> tense. So I would take the sentence "er ist in Berlin gewesen" as a
> colloqial-language equivalent of "er war in Berlin".
I have been corrected by teachers when I tried to use the simple past.
For example:
(a) Hast du gut geschlafen?
(b) Schliefst du gut?
I have been told that nobody would ever say (b), at least not in the
spoken language. Can the simple past ever be used in questions in
ordinary conversations? I've heard it with sein, haben, and the modals
(e.g., "Waren Sie..." and "Hatte er..." and "Wolltest du..."), but
rarely with other verbs.
thanks again, I'm really grateful for everyone's comments in this
newsgroup. Am visiting Germany this fall and would like to minimize my
language blunders...
dleifker
Joachim Pense
> Helmut Richter wrote:
>
>> In colloquial language, perfect tense is often substituted for simple
>> past tense. So I would take the sentence "er ist in Berlin gewesen" as a
>> colloqial-language equivalent of "er war in Berlin".
>
> I have been corrected by teachers when I tried to use the simple past.
> For example:
>
> (a) Hast du gut geschlafen?
> (b) Schliefst du gut?
>
> I have been told that nobody would ever say (b), at least not in the
> spoken language.
that's the case. I think it would even be wrong in formal language.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
I think in the case of "sein" (where the simple past is still generally
used), there is still a trace of the old distinction Perfect = focus on
result, Past = focus on action. But that's not a sharp distinction.
Joachim
Christian Weisgerber
> >>(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
> >
> > The machine has already been running since three days.
>
> I don't think you can say that in English.
"The machine has already been running since three days ago."
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Andy
<na...@mips.inka.de> wrote
>Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>> >>(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>> >
>> > The machine has already been running since three days.
>>
>> I don't think you can say that in English.
>
>"The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>
Einde O'Callaghan
> In message <fv2i0r$12n9$1...@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>, Christian Weisgerber
> <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote
>> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> >>(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>>> >
>>> > The machine has already been running since three days.
>>>
>>> I don't think you can say that in English.
>>
>> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>>
> Sorry, not English :)
As andy says, that isn't English - but can often be heard even from
German-speaker whose English is almost perfect.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Anthony Wayne Brown
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>
>>>> (c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>>>
>>> The machine has already been running since three days.
>>
>> I don't think you can say that in English.
>
> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
These incorrect translations into English highlight one of the most
difficult aspects of the English language for Germans. In fact, I would
characterize this particular construction as one of Germans' most typical
mistakes, something teachers should concentrate on with young Germans
learning English in school since the mistake seems to be so widespread among
English-speaking German adults.
Anthony
Christian Weisgerber
> >"The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>
> Sorry, not English :)
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that then.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Christian:]
> > >"The machine has already been running since three days ago."
> > Sorry, not English :)
> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that then.
"since three days ago" is definitely wrong. Trust Andy, Einde, Wayne,
and me.
It's German-influenced ("seit") subliterate English. Considering your
otherwise excellent English, I was surprised to see your above sentence.
~~~ Reinhold (Rey) Aman ~~~
Christian Weisgerber
> >> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
> >>
> > Sorry, not English :)
>
> As andy says, that isn't English -
What's wrong with it?
The machine has been running for <span of time>.
The machine has been running since <point in time>.
This is pretty basic grammar.
> but can often be heard even from German-speaker whose English is
> almost perfect.
No, the typical error is "... since <span of time>", i.e., Arno's
*The machine has already been running since three days.
Stephen Hust
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>>>> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>>> Sorry, not English :)
>> As andy says, that isn't English -
> What's wrong with it?
In my opinion, it's acceptable if you leave out the "already."
As for the "since three days ago," here are a couple of quotes from
authors who I do not suspect of being influenced by German.
From a Faulkner sketch ("Chance"):
| "Listen, brother," this one began, "I ain't ate since three days
| ago. Can't you gimme the price of a cup of coffee?"
From John Gardner's "October Light" (winner of the National Book
Critics Circle Award for 1976):
| He held up another of his pictures, a sullen young man in
| uniform. "That's Joseph, my second. State Police up in Red
| Bluff. Hasn't been home since four years ago."
--
Steve
My e-mail address works as is.
TMS
"Christian Weisgerber" <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote in message
news:fv2i0r$12n9$1...@kemoauc.mips.inka.de...
> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>> >>(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>> >
>> > The machine has already been running since three days.
>>
>> I don't think you can say that in English.
>
> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
This is not idiomatic English.
"The machine has already been running for three days" rings a little more
true...or, perhaps: "The machine has been running for the past three days
already".
Tom
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
[Christian:]
> > >> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
[Andy:]
> > > Sorry, not English :)
> > As andy says, that isn't English -
> What's wrong with it?
>
> The machine has been running for <span of time>.
> The machine has been running since <point in time>.
>
> This is pretty basic grammar.
True, but some "points in time" are OK, while others -- like yours --
are wrong/impossible/subliterate.
Examples:
-- The machine has been running since LAST MONDAY. = OK
-- The machine has been running since EASTER. = OK
-- The machine has been running since DECEMBER. = OK
-- The machine has been running since 1995. = OK
-- The machine has been running since IT WAS REPAIRED. = OK
[point in time: the day/hour of repair]
-- The machine has been running since JOHN GREASED IT. = OK
[point in time: the time/day/moment John lubricated the machine]
BUT: The machine has been running since THREE DAYS AGO. = subliterate.
[...]
Joachim Pense
> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>> >>(c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>> >
>> > The machine has already been running since three days.
>>
>> I don't think you can say that in English.
>
> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>
In sci.lang hatte ich vor längerer Zeit diese Formulierung zur Diskussion
gestellt. Die Muttersprachler waren ganz und gar nicht glücklich damit.
Joachim
Andy
<na...@mips.inka.de> wrote
>Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >"The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>>
>> Sorry, not English :)
>
>Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that then.
>
speak and write. I'm too old to comment on "ultra-modern British
English", and lack the knowledge and background to comment on the
Englishes spoken and written in other countries.
Tim Ungewiss
Am 23.04.2008, 06:54 Uhr, schrieb Dan Leifker <dlei...@leifker.com>:
> What is the difference between:
>
> (a) Er war in Berlin
I feel(!) like this example implies that something correlates to
his visit. I would personally expect this to be heard as an
answer to a question like this: "Er war geschäftlich unterwegs,
wissen Sie, wo er genau war?"
> (b) Er ist in Berlin gewesen
Feels to me like a sentence that states he has visited Berlin at
least once. It somehow slightly focusses the person rather than
the event.
But that's just what I've felt about it when I first read it.
After thinking twice, it stills feels the same.
"Welche Städte hat er besucht?" - "Er ist in Berlin und Madrid
gewesen"
> Are "war" and "ist gewesen" really perfectly interchangeable?
I do not think so. But the difference is in the range of a nuance,
and it could - as others stated - as well just expresses the
temporal meaning of the thought.
> danke
> dleifker
Aber gerne doch :-)
tim from Deutschland
Christian Weisgerber
> > > >"The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>
> "since three days ago" is definitely wrong. Trust Andy, Einde, Wayne,
> and me.
>
> It's German-influenced ("seit") subliterate English. Considering your
> otherwise excellent English, I was surprised to see your above sentence.
I'm rather certain I'm not suffering interference from German in
this case. I may be overgeneralizing some pattern of English
grammar.
Christian Weisgerber
> > "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>
> This is not idiomatic English.
It was intended to illustrate a point of grammar.
> "The machine has already been running for three days" rings a little more
> true...or, perhaps: "The machine has been running for the past three days
> already".
Yes. Entirely beside the point.
The starting point was the contrast between these sentences:
(1) Die Maschine ist schon drei Tage in Betrieb
(2) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
It has been claimed that (1) refers to a period of time ("three days"),
(2) to a point in time ("three days ago"). Feel free to suggest ways
to express this distinction idiomatically in English.
Personally, I'm dubious that the claimed semantic difference actually
exists between the German sentences.
Christian Weisgerber
> > The machine has been running for <span of time>.
> > The machine has been running since <point in time>.
> >
> > This is pretty basic grammar.
>
> True, but some "points in time" are OK, while others -- like yours --
> are wrong/impossible/subliterate.
If by "subliterate" you mean it's actually grammatical for many
speakers in some register but frowned on by traditional usage
authorities, then I'm not particularly concerned.
> Examples:
>
> -- The machine has been running since LAST MONDAY. = OK
> -- The machine has been running since EASTER. = OK
> -- The machine has been running since DECEMBER. = OK
> -- The machine has been running since 1995. = OK
> -- The machine has been running since IT WAS REPAIRED. = OK
> [point in time: the day/hour of repair]
> -- The machine has been running since JOHN GREASED IT. = OK
> [point in time: the time/day/moment John lubricated the machine]
>
> BUT: The machine has been running since THREE DAYS AGO. = subliterate.
Can we somehow pinpoint what you feel is unacceptable about that?
For instance, this page "Troublesome time expressions"
http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/time.html
lists as example:
I've been sick since three days ago
Acceptable or not?
Do you object to "since <period of time> ago" in general? Or only
when used with a perfect tense clause? With the continuous aspect?
Christian Weisgerber
> >>>> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>
> In my opinion, it's acceptable if you leave out the "already."
Interesting. What about this:
The machine has already been running since Monday.
> As for the "since three days ago," here are a couple of quotes from
> authors who I do not suspect of being influenced by German.
If you google for the phrase, one of the top hits is this page
http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/time.html
which aims to explain time expressions to EFL learners.
Alas, you can't google for <present perfect continuous> "since"
<time span> "ago".
Joachim Pense
>
>> Examples:
>>
>> -- The machine has been running since LAST MONDAY. = OK
>> -- The machine has been running since EASTER. = OK
>> -- The machine has been running since DECEMBER. = OK
>> -- The machine has been running since 1995. = OK
>> -- The machine has been running since IT WAS REPAIRED. = OK
>> [point in time: the day/hour of repair]
>> -- The machine has been running since JOHN GREASED IT. = OK
>> [point in time: the time/day/moment John lubricated the machine]
>>
>> BUT: The machine has been running since THREE DAYS AGO. = subliterate.
>
> Can we somehow pinpoint what you feel is unacceptable about that?
>
Notice that it is unacceptable in German, too:
*Die Maschine war seit vor drei Tagen an.
It would have to be:
Die Maschine war seit einem Zeitpunkt vor drei Tagen an.
So let me speculate that "three days ago" cannot be put into the syntactical
place of a noun, other than "yesterday". It can only used to modify a verb.
This might be the difference that counts here.
Well, in German it's more difficult, because "gestern" cannot replace a noun
either. Still, "vor drei Tagen" feels "more strictly adverbial"
than "gestern", but I cannot put my fingers on it. I am terribly uneducated
in German grammar (only a mildly sensible native speaker).
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> Christian Weisgerber (in alt.usage.german):
>
>>
>>> Examples:
>>>
>>> -- The machine has been running since LAST MONDAY. = OK
>>> -- The machine has been running since EASTER. = OK
>>> -- The machine has been running since DECEMBER. = OK
>>> -- The machine has been running since 1995. = OK
>>> -- The machine has been running since IT WAS REPAIRED. = OK
>>> [point in time: the day/hour of repair]
>>> -- The machine has been running since JOHN GREASED IT. = OK
>>> [point in time: the time/day/moment John lubricated the machine]
>>>
>>> BUT: The machine has been running since THREE DAYS AGO. = subliterate.
>>
>> Can we somehow pinpoint what you feel is unacceptable about that?
>>
>
> Notice that it is unacceptable in German, too:
>
> *Die Maschine war seit vor drei Tagen an.
(better: *Die Maschine ist seit vor drei Tagen an.)
Oliver Cromm
> Alas, you can't google for <present perfect continuous> "since"
> <time span> "ago".
But you can google for "has been * since * ago" and similar patterns,
and find lots of examples (alongside other constructions).
At first glance, it seems that many of the examples similar to yours are
from Asia, and that matches from English-speaking sources normally are
"since (another action) (time) ago", which is undubitably correct:
"has been profitable since inception four years ago"
"has been eating very little since being transferred here two days ago"
There is possibly a contrary tendency in certain sciences:
| The modern reef-building coral has been around since 245 million years
| ago.
<earthguide.ucsd.edu/watertemp/life2/b.html>
| [...] Bill Ruddiman, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at
| the University of Virginia, concludes that human-caused emissions of
| carbon dioxide (CO2) since 8,000 years ago, and methane (CH4) since
| 5,000 years ago have combined to prevent a significant natural
| cooling of Earth’s climate.
<http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2003/climate-dec-9-2003.html>
| The bedrock surface has been exposed since 575±57 thousand years ago.
<academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec17/lec17.htm>
| On the present evidence, the character of climate variability has been
| unchanged since I million years ago.
<www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/Speed.htm>
The reason may be that "xx years ago" is *the* usual way to state a
point in the past in these sciences.
--
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
from; furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just
wait for next year's model.
Andrew Tanenbaum, _Computer Networks_ (1981), p. 168.
Oliver Cromm
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
["since three days ago" grammatical?]
>> True, but some "points in time" are OK, while others -- like yours --
>> are wrong/impossible/subliterate.
>
> If by "subliterate" you mean it's actually grammatical for many
> speakers in some register but frowned on by traditional usage
> authorities, then I'm not particularly concerned.
My Sprachgefühl says it's unidiomatic (which means grammatical, but
convention is against it's use). But reading others' comments, maybe
there's even a semantic problem with it.
--
'Ah yes, we got that keyboard from Small Gods when they threw out their
organ. Unfortunately for complex theological reasons they would only
give us the white keys, so we can only program in C'.
Colin Fine in sci.lang
Andy
<na...@mips.inka.de> wrote
[]
>For instance, this page "Troublesome time expressions"
>http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/time.html
>lists as example:
>
> I've been sick since three days ago
>
>Acceptable or not?
Not.
The page says just above this example
"Therefore, it's possible to have both in the same phrase
(Although this may seem strange to some native speakers).... "
Quite so - I am a native speaker and it seems strange to me! It may be
"correct according to the book" but it sounds wrong; and the more often
I say it the more wrong it sounds. I would say "I've been sick for three
days", and would imply that it's the three days ending now, ie I am
still sick. And I'd say "I was sick for three days", and imply that all
three were in the (recent or distant) past and I have recovered. The
page continues:
"... The 'since' would indicate that we're talking about a
period of time previous to the present time, and the 'ago' would
indicate the specific time when that period begins".
Incidentally, I can't think of any way that this "since - ago"
construction could cover a situation where the period both began and
ended some time ago - eg, I became sick 14 days ago for 4 days but am
now well.
[Also, the "Therefore" on the web page implies a logical connection
between what precedes and what follows it, and I don't see one.]
>Do you object to "since <period of time> ago" in general? Or only
>when used with a perfect tense clause? With the continuous aspect?
>
I've been muttering "I've been sick since three days ago" [no], "I was
sick since three days ago" [no], "I had been sick since three days ago"
[no], "I was sick a long time ago" [yes], "I've been sick since last
Tuesday ago" [no], etc. My conclusion is that the problem (or is it my
problem) is the combination of "since" & "a *specific period* of time" &
"ago".
Stephen Hust
> [...] Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote
I had to think about Christian's original sentence and repeat it a
dozen times before I decided that it could pass if he left out the
"already," but something like the following example doesn't seem so
strange to me (also a native speaker):
"I've been sick."
"Since when?"
"Since a couple of days ago."
I found something similar in a book by a popular British writer:
| With exasperation he said, "Since when? Since Christmas?" Doone
| said stolidly, "Since ten days ago."
|
(Dick Francis, "Longshot".)
This, from a periodical "conducted by" Charles Dickens, doesn't sound
all that odd, either, if it sounds odd at all:
| "My uncle and I are quite in accord upon the subject," returned
| Evy, firmly: "circumstances have occurred since you last saw
| us----"
|
| "What, since two days ago?"
|
("AT HER MERCY", Chapter XXVIII, in "All the Year Round", February 7,
1874.)
How about this dialog by British writer Jeanette Winterson, OBE and
Whitbread Prize winner? The novel it's taken from is "The Passion,"
which won the John Llewellyn Rhys Prize for 1987:
| 'You've grown a moustache since two days ago.'
|
| 'I come from a hairy family.'
(This sounds stranger to me than the Francis dialog.)
This sentence of Thomas Carlyle's also sounds strange, but is it
because of the "since ... ago", or because of the present tense?:
| We have the sternest frost since three days ago, after weather
| of a brightness and mildness equal to Italy.
|
(Thomas Carlyle, letter to Alexander Carlyle, dated 10th January
1838.)
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>
>>>> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>>>>
>>> Sorry, not English :)
>> As andy says, that isn't English -
>
> What's wrong with it?
>
> The machine has been running for <span of time>.
> The machine has been running since <point in time>.
>
> This is pretty basic grammar.
>
"since" and "ago". It may follow the "rule" - which is only a rough
guideline - but it isn't idiomatic.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
dialect.
The standard version of the first is "I haven't eaten for 3 days" and
that of the second is "He hasn't been been home for the last 4 years."
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
technical subjects in English-speaking countries never receive any
instruction in writing and often adopt methods of expression that cause
any proofreader to cringe, even if they are quite idiomatic and fluent
in conversation.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Stephen Hust
> Stephen Hust <shNO...@a1.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "The machine has already been running since three days
>>>>>> ago."
>> In my opinion, it's acceptable if you leave out the "already."
> Interesting. What about this:
>
> The machine has already been running since Monday.
Don't like it there, either.
> If you google for the phrase, one of the top hits is this page
> http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/time.html
> which aims to explain time expressions to EFL learners.
>
> Alas, you can't google for <present perfect continuous> "since"
> <time span> "ago".
Here's an excerpt from an article entitled "Temporal counting from
anchor points: Semantic and pragmatic issues" in "Meaning Through
Language Contrast," Volume 1, edited by K.M. Jaszczolt and Ken
Turner (University of Cambridge/University of Brighton), John
Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003, p.53. I suspect that the
author, Telmo Móia, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal, is not a
native speaker. Example (23) a. is one I had already found myself.
I mentioned it in another article in this thread:
| As for the combination /since/ X-TIME /ago/, its oddity seems,
| at a closer look, more a matter of use than of strict
| grammaticality. In fact, the BNC contains several records of
| this combination:
|
| (23) a. "With exasperation, he said, 'Since when? Since
| Christmas?' Doone said stolidly, '/Since ten days ago.'" (ADY
| 679)
|
| b. "Nothing in the metal's fundamentals has changed /since
| a month ago/, when the price languished at a seven-year
| low of $126 an ounce." (CR7 2794)
|
| [More examples.]
Perhaps you can take a look at this page here (I don't know if the
link will work in Europe):
or
Einde O'Callaghan
flux - I teach English as a foreign language and regular instruct
poeople in the use of constructions that my English teacher 40 odd years
ago would have marked as an error. There is no Duden or other
authritative grammar that prescribes what is correct and what is not -
only the development of general usage. Structures that were common in
earlier periods are no longer acceptable - e.g the purposive "for to do
sth." which can be found in many canonical writers is no longer
acceptable although "in order to do sth." is still acceptable and the
bare purposive "to do sth." is the most common form today.
Using a writer from a previous century - even the early to mid 20th
century - as a guide to acceptable modern usage can be very misleading -
just as standard British pronunciation has shifted draqmatically since
the 1930s and 1940s as can be seen by watching any film from that period.
I also get the impression that despite the efforts of teh Duden
Redaktion a similar change is taking place in German - but at a much
slower rate because there is an authoritative prescriptive work defining
acceptable grammar.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
[Christian:]
> > > The machine has been running for <span of time>.
> > > The machine has been running since <point in time>.
> > >
> > > This is pretty basic grammar.
> > True, but some "points in time" are OK, while others -- like yours
> > -- are wrong/impossible/subliterate.
> If by "subliterate" you mean it's actually grammatical for many
> speakers in some register
No, it's not, according to my Sprachgefühl.
> but frowned on by traditional usage authorities,
> then I'm not particularly concerned.
I use "subliterate" to mean that a word or phrase is not acceptable in
standard English, whether formal or colloquial. "Subliterate" is
between "literate" and "illiterate." One understands what the speaker
is trying to say, but it *sounds* wrong, ungrammatical, unidiomatic, foreign.
When three educated native speakers of English -- Andy (British), Einde
(Irish), and Wayne (American) -- consider something wrong, you'll just
have to accept their native Sprachgefühl telling them that it is wrong,
regardless of what some grammar books claim or occasional authors write.
While these three native speakers of English grew up learning their
language, they never learned the grammar book's rule you gave:
"has been running FOR <span of time>."
"has been running SINCE <point in time>."
and yet they *know* and *feel* that "since THREE DAYS AGO" is wrong,
even if they can't offer a grammar rule to back up their claim.
> > Examples:
> >
> > -- The machine has been running since LAST MONDAY. = OK
> > -- The machine has been running since EASTER. = OK
> > -- The machine has been running since DECEMBER. = OK
> > -- The machine has been running since 1995. = OK
> > -- The machine has been running since IT WAS REPAIRED. = OK
> > [point in time: the day/hour of repair]
> > -- The machine has been running since JOHN GREASED IT. = OK
> > [point in time: the time/day/moment John lubricated the
> > machine]
> >
> > BUT: The machine has been running since THREE DAYS AGO. = subliterate.
> Can we somehow pinpoint what you feel is unacceptable about that?
It's that little buzzer in a native or near-native speaker's brain that
goes off: "Something is wrong with this sentence, but I can't pinpoint
the reason/cause."
In my case, "since ... ago" is the main culprit, because there's
*something* missing. Compare:
(1) The machine has been running since three days ago. = wrong
(2) The machine has been running since WE GOT IT three days ago. = OK
(3) The machine has been running since IT WAS FIXED three days ago. = OK
Perhaps someone else can extract the grammatical rule why (2) and (3)
are correct but (1) is wrong.
> For instance, this page "Troublesome time expressions"
> http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/time.html
> lists as example:
>
> I've been sick since three days ago
>
> Acceptable or not?
Not to me. "I've been sick for three days."
> Do you object to "since <period of time> ago" in general?
Yes, unless there's *something* added, as in (2) and (3) above.
> Or only when used with a perfect tense clause? With the continuous
> aspect?
It's wrong in any tense and aspect, unless that certain *something*
(je-ne-sais-quoi) is added.
I'll have to leave further discussion up to native speakers of English,
and especially to the two teachers, Einde and Wayne.
~~~ Reinhold (Rey) Aman ~~~
No time Toulouse
Helmut Richter
> While these three native speakers of English grew up learning their
> language, they never learned the grammar book's rule you gave:
>
> "has been running FOR <span of time>."
> "has been running SINCE <point in time>."
>
> and yet they *know* and *feel* that "since THREE DAYS AGO" is wrong,
> even if they can't offer a grammar rule to back up their claim.
I was the first to introduce here the combination of "since" with "has
been" -- not as an example of good English but as the literal meaning of
the German construct "seit drei Tagen". I try to summarise my point in the
light of this discussion (first and foremost for clarifying it for
myself):
- A duration is expressed as "for <duration>" in English and as
"<Zeitdauer> [lang]" with optional "lang" in German. The <Zeitdauer> is
then in the accusative case.
- The period from a point in time in the past until now is expressed as
"since <point in time>" in English and as "seit <Zeitpunkt>" in German.
If the point in time is specified as a time difference to now, i.e. as
a duration, one can combine "seit" with a duration in German, yielding
"seit <Zeitdauer>" where the <Zeitdauer> is in the dative case. The
direct English equivalent "*since duration" is not possible,
specifying the point in time using "ago" yielding "*since <duration>
ago" is unidiomatic in most contexts.
- Something that has started in the past and carries on until now is
reported in perfect tense in English and in present tense in German.
Its beginning can be stated as a point in time or as a time difference
to now by any means conformant to the two preceding paragraphs:
English "for <duration>" or "since <point in time>"; German
"<Zeitdauer> [lang]" or "seit <Zeitpunkt>" or "seit <Zeitdauer>".
--
Helmut Richter
Oliver Cromm
> [In English ...] There is no Duden or other
> authritative grammar that prescribes what is correct and what is not -
> only the development of general usage.
>
> [...]
>
> I also get the impression that despite the efforts of teh Duden
> Redaktion a similar change is taking place in German - but at a much
> slower rate because there is an authoritative prescriptive work defining
> acceptable grammar.
I just wanted to add here that Duden, in my view, has only had
authoritative status as regards spelling, much less for grammar, meaning
or other areas. And even in spelling, it has been weakened.
That's my view as an amateur of language and later as linguist. The view
of professional writers or proof-readers may differ. I find the Duden
Grammatik (in the older editions that I used to consult) very tedious,
and old-fashioned.
--
Q: What do computer engineers use for birth control?
A: Their personalities.
Anthony Wayne Brown
Helmut Richter wrote:
> I was the first to introduce here the combination of "since" with "has
> been" -- not as an example of good English but as the literal meaning of
> the German construct "seit drei Tagen".
It's a good point, in my opinion, that can be analyzed from both ends, from
the standpoint of German and English, mainly to aim for clarity on behalf of
people who are learning German, the topic here.
English-speaking students of German are known to ask for help in formulating
such questions as, "I have been in Berlin for three days," and learns, "Ich
bin in Berlin seit drei Tagen." There arises some confusion when the learner
realizes that the continuous tense of English leaves Germans cold as in
sentences like, "I have been drinking orange juice for three days" (Ich
trinke Orangensaft seit drei Tagen).
It may be interesting for the learner to see that this construction going
the other way causes Germans no end of trouble in English: **I am drinking
orange juice since three days.** **I have been drinking orange juice since
three days.** And finally, **I have been drinking orange juice since three
days ago.** "Aha," says the German, "sticking on 'ago' at the end of my
sentence really makes it sound right."
"Since three days ago" can be used idiomatically in English, but the usage
is a lot trickier than some Germans seem to think.
Anthony
Anthony Wayne Brown
> | As for the combination /since/ X-TIME /ago/, its oddity seems,
> | at a closer look, more a matter of use than of strict
> | grammaticality. In fact, the BNC contains several records of
> | this combination:
> |
> | (23) a. "With exasperation, he said, 'Since when? Since
> | Christmas?' Doone said stolidly, '/Since ten days ago.'" (ADY
> | 679)
> |
> | b. "Nothing in the metal's fundamentals has changed /since
> | a month ago/, when the price languished at a seven-year
> | low of $126 an ounce." (CR7 2794)
That is definitely acceptable idiomatic usage. In the first example, the
scene is set by the questioner: Since when? The reply follows the pattern of
the question. In the second example, the sentence sounds great with the
clause introduced by "when." "His teeth have been brown for three days."
"His teeth have been brown since three days ago, when he started chewing
tobacco."
It would be a nightmare to have to practice that kind of structure with
German schoolchildren learning English!
Anthony.
Anthony Wayne Brown
>
> I just wanted to add here that Duden, in my view, has only had
> authoritative status as regards spelling, much less for grammar, meaning
> or other areas. And even in spelling, it has been weakened.
Duden certainly has points that prompt disagreement, but Duden is still
considered an authoritative reference work in Germany, regardless of an
individual's attitude towards it; therefore, in my opinion, that needs to be
pointed out to people who are learning German and may someday in the course
of their studies need a reliable German source for German usage.
Anthony
Stephen Hust
> Using a writer from a previous century - even the early to mid
> 20th century - as a guide to acceptable modern usage can be very
> misleading - just as standard British pronunciation has shifted
> draqmatically since the 1930s and 1940s as can be seen by
> watching any film from that period.
If you use a writer with the authority of age, somebody whose works
are recognized as a classics, the language may be too old-
fashioned. "Shakespeare! That's archaic."
But if you use a modern writer, he doesn't have the authority of
age. "Yeah, well, Joe Schmoe may have said that, but Joe Schmoe's
no Shakespeare."
Anyway, here are some more modern examples with "since ... ago" by
authors less renowned than Shakespeare. Some of them are even less
renowned than Joe Schmoe. A couple of them might even be self
published. Perhaps I should add that I wouldn't normally use "since
... ago" this way myself, and I wouldn't recommend teaching it to
people learning English, but these excerpts show that some native
speakers literate enough to have a book published do use it.
| *since (1)* : As a time word /since/ is used to refer to the
| _point_ at which a period of time began ("since six o'clock,"
| "since 1999"). /For/ is used to refer to the /amount/ of time
| that has passed ("for two years," "for centuries"). ("He has
| been with us for three weeks" /or/ "He has been with us since
| three weeks ago.")
|
(Doug Babington and Don LePan, "The Broadview Pocket Guide to
Writing: 2/e", Broadview Press (Canada), 2005.)
| "No," Dennis says, as if to a child. "None of us has seen them
| since two days ago, since the luncheon. [...]"
|
(Julia Glass, "Three Junes" (this book won the 2002 National Book
Award for Fiction)).
| How long have you been up here? said Suttree.
|
| Since two days ago.
|
(Cormac McCarthy, "Suttree," Random House, 1979. McCarthy has won
several literary prizes.)
| Right now he was overwhelmed with a sudden, flesh-crawling fear
| he hadn't felt since a few years ago in Ashton, when it seemed
| all the evil in the world was about to crash down on him.
|
( Frank E. Peretti, "Piercing the Darkness," Crossway, 1989, 2003.)
| His eyes narrowed. "I don't care which one of you gives it to
| me, if that's what you mean. I've been dealing with Eli for
| financial matters since ..." He paused. "Since a few days ago.
| [...]"
|
(Ellen Crosby, "The Merlot Murders: A Wine Country Mystery," Pocket
Books, 2006.)
| Josh had been very, very nervous, although he had gotten better
| since a few days ago.
|
(Sam Sheridan, "A Fighter's Heart: One Man's Journey Through the
World of Fighting," Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007.)
| "Are you all right, Sara?"
|
| "Never better. I'm a free spirit since a few days ago. [...]"
|
(Fern Michaels, "Sara's Song," Zebra Books, 1998.)
| /What's wrong with me?/ he asked himself. But it wasn't what was
| wrong that concerned him. It was what was right, which seemed to
| be everything since a few days ago, when he'd met Renata.
|
(Kim Louise, "Love and Happiness," Arabesque Books, 2005.)
| I spoke recently with a senior level accountant who had
| interviewed with three prospective employers. "Most of the
| interviewers acted as if they were doing me a favor by even
| talking with me," he told me. "Things sure have changed since a
| few years ago."
|
(Brian Graham, "Get Hired Fast!: Tap the Hidden Job Market in 15
Days," 2005.)
| The radio played only a pop station: "Tie a Yellow Ribbon."
|
| "I like this song," Kitty said.
|
| "Haven't seen your dad since a few days ago," Tom said.
|
| "Nope," Robin said. [...]
|
(Judy Doenges, "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World," University
of Michigan Press, 2006.)
| "Come on in, Dad," I yelled, hoping he would, "the water's
| fine." My father was afraid of the ocean. He had always been
| afraid but more so since a few years ago when he was attacked by
| a Portuguese man-of-war.
|
(Mary Morris, "Souvenirs," in "The Lifeguard," Picador, Copyright
1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997.)
| "How long have you known?" demanded Willem.
|
| "Since a few days ago. When I learned that Marr had stolen the
| animal from a man in Rome, I knew you were either that man or
| his agent. [...]"
|
(Joe Gores, "Cons, Scams & Grifts," Mysterious Press, 2001.)
| It made a strange sensation surge through her realizing that she
| was now in the position to do the hiring, instead of being the
| one being hired. But many things had changed since a few days
| ago. Many, many things.
|
(Cassie Edwards, "Rapture's Rendezvous," Zebra Books, 1982.)
| Once again, she stared speechless, then echoed, "Your half
| brother? Since when?"
|
| "Since a few years ago."
|
(Beverly Jenkins, "The Edge of Midnight," HarperTorch, 2004.)
| Jim grew angry as he replied. 'I wish I did, Miss ... er, Liz.
| Truth is that he's done a bunk. I haven't seen hide or hair of
| him since a couple of days ago and when I phoned his father, he
| said that young Danny's gone away for a few days. [...]'
|
(Anna Charles, "Ripples On The Water," Burkeshire Press, 2006.)
| 'Certain things have been coming back to me, very slowly mind,
| over the last week or so and especially more so since a couple
| of days ago. [...]'
|
(Stephen Walton, "Interference," 2003, 2007.)
| "You heard from Chris lately?"
|
| "Not since a couple of days ago. [...]"
|
(Stephie Fryar, "InDependence - A Contemporary Romance," 2005.)
| He'd been with her family for eight days now, but they had not
| been alone since four days ago when she talked with him on the
| porch.
|
(Rosanne Bittner, "Into the Wilderness: The Long Hunters," Tor,
2002.)
| " [...] You realize this is a fire-free zone?"
|
| I hadn't. "Since when?" I asked.
|
| "Since three days ago."
|
(Howard R. Simpson, "Someone Else's War," Brassey's, Inc., 1995.)
| "You seen Asa?" Krage's voice tautened.
|
| "Not since three days ago. Why?"
|
(Glen Cook, "Shadows Linger," Tor, 1984.)
| Thunder rumbled off the sea and up the little valley, signalling
| the second storm since three days ago, when they had planted the
| hillside.
|
(Linda Needham, "The Pleasure of Her Kiss," Avon, 2003.)
| "Mackerel!" Linc shook his head. "I don't believe this! How long
| have you been here? ... Where'd you come here from?"
|
| "Since two days ago. Grab yourself some tea or something and sit
| down. [...]"
|
(James Patrick Hogan, "Outward Bound: A Jupiter Novel," Tor, 1999.)
| I'm reminded of seeing her lift Freddy's sleeve to show me the
| watch she bought him, on the beach at Shanklin, and so much has
| changed since then, since four weeks ago, but for Avis it's as
| though nothing has.
|
(Jill Dawson, "Fred & Edie: A Novel," Mariner Books, 2002 (2000).)
Einde O'Callaghan
> Stephen Hust wrote:
>
>> | As for the combination /since/ X-TIME /ago/, its oddity seems,
>> | at a closer look, more a matter of use than of strict
>> | grammaticality. In fact, the BNC contains several records of
>> | this combination:
>> |
>> | (23) a. "With exasperation, he said, 'Since when? Since
>> | Christmas?' Doone said stolidly, '/Since ten days ago.'" (ADY
>> | 679)
>> |
>> | b. "Nothing in the metal's fundamentals has changed /since
>> | a month ago/, when the price languished at a seven-year
>> | low of $126 an ounce." (CR7 2794)
>
> That is definitely acceptable idiomatic usage. In the first example, the
> scene is set by the questioner: Since when? The reply follows the pattern of
> the question. In the second example, the sentence sounds great with the
> clause introduced by "when." "His teeth have been brown for three days."
> "His teeth have been brown since three days ago, when he started chewing
> tobacco."
>
he started chewing tobacco three days ago."
> It would be a nightmare to have to practice that kind of structure with
> German schoolchildren learning English!
>
We've got enough problems teaching them (or their older brothers,
sisters and parents) the appropriate use of "for" and "since", never
mind the difficulties of getting them to use the present perfect properly.
Gru�, Einde
Einde O'Callaghan
> * Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>
>> [In English ...] There is no Duden or other
>> authritative grammar that prescribes what is correct and what is not -
>> only the development of general usage.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I also get the impression that despite the efforts of teh Duden
>> Redaktion a similar change is taking place in German - but at a much
>> slower rate because there is an authoritative prescriptive work defining
>> acceptable grammar.
>
> I just wanted to add here that Duden, in my view, has only had
> authoritative status as regards spelling, much less for grammar, meaning
> or other areas. And even in spelling, it has been weakened.
>
is acceptable and what is not. So for example "gr��er als" is
acceptable, whereas "gr��er wie" and "gr��er als wie" are unacceptable
even though both these forms are to be found in Goethe and other classic
German writers.
Gru�, Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>
>> Using a writer from a previous century - even the early to mid
>> 20th century - as a guide to acceptable modern usage can be very
>> misleading - just as standard British pronunciation has shifted
>> draqmatically since the 1930s and 1940s as can be seen by
>> watching any film from that period.
>
> If you use a writer with the authority of age, somebody whose works
> are recognized as a classics, the language may be too old-
> fashioned. "Shakespeare! That's archaic."
>
- his use of prepositions is often different, he still uses "thou",
"thee", "thine" on occasions, he oftend doesn't use the auxiliary
"do/does" in negatives and questions, his third person singular present
tense verbs often end in "-th" etc.
This reflects the usage of late 16th and early 17th century England.
> But if you use a modern writer, he doesn't have the authority of
> age. "Yeah, well, Joe Schmoe may have said that, but Joe Schmoe's
> no Shakespeare."
>
> Anyway, here are some more modern examples with "since ... ago" by
> authors less renowned than Shakespeare. Some of them are even less
> renowned than Joe Schmoe. A couple of them might even be self
> published. Perhaps I should add that I wouldn't normally use "since
> .... ago" this way myself, and I wouldn't recommend teaching it to
> people learning English, but these excerpts show that some native
> speakers literate enough to have a book published do use it.
>
Most of the examples you give reflect spoken usage, most often by
speakers of non-standard English. You'll also find expressions like "I
ain't never done nothin' like that no more" in major writers of English
(this example is from "Of Mice and Men" by Nobel Prize winner John
Steinbeck), but nobody would claim that this reflects standard usage.
I've also pointed out that English grammar is in constant flux, the
examples you give may reflect a shift occurring in the grammar but it
still has not achieved widespread acceptance and may never do so.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Helmut Richter
> - Something that has started in the past and carries on until now is
> reported in perfect tense in English and in present tense in German.
> Its beginning can be stated as a point in time or as a time difference
> to now by any means conformant to the two preceding paragraphs:
> English "for <duration>" or "since <point in time>"; German
> "<Zeitdauer> [lang]" or "seit <Zeitpunkt>" or "seit <Zeitdauer>".
I should have added that in this case (for some time until now) the German
construct "<Zeitdauer> [lang]" is only idiomatic if equipped with an
adverb stating that it is the time span until now:
Ich bin schon drei Tage in Berlin.
or
Ich bin jetzt drei Tage in Berlin.
means "I have been in Berlin for three days" whereas
Ich bin drei Tage in Berlin.
means "I am currently staying in Berlin for three days (total sojourn time)"
or "I will be in Berlin for three days" -- the latter because present
tense can (and usually will always) replace future tense in German.
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
> English-speaking students of German are known to ask for help in formulating
> such questions as, "I have been in Berlin for three days," and learns, "Ich
> bin in Berlin seit drei Tagen." There arises some confusion when the learner
> realizes that the continuous tense of English leaves Germans cold as in
> sentences like, "I have been drinking orange juice for three days" (Ich
> trinke Orangensaft seit drei Tagen).
But please put the time before the place or the object unless you have a
very good reason to rearrange the sentence:
Ich bin seit drei Tagen in Berlin.
Ich trinke seit drei Tagen Orangensaft.
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
> Duden certainly has points that prompt disagreement, but Duden is still
> considered an authoritative reference work in Germany, regardless of an
> individual's attitude towards it; therefore, in my opinion, that needs to be
> pointed out to people who are learning German and may someday in the course
> of their studies need a reliable German source for German usage.
I like the online German grammar (in German and English) at http://www.canoo.net/.
It is fairly concise and at the same time quite complete, of course not
covering all conceivable detail.
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
> Nobody considers Shakespeare as authoritative on modern English grammar - his
> use of prepositions is often different, he still uses "thou", "thee", "thine"
> on occasions, he oftend doesn't use the auxiliary "do/does" in negatives and
> questions, his third person singular present tense verbs often end in "-th"
> etc.
But it is so much easier for Germans! "Seest thou all this?" as a
translation of "Siehst du all dies?" is straightforward whereas now we
have to learn awkward constructs like "Do you see all this?".
--
Helmut Richter
Einde O'Callaghan
Englishwoman) ...
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Helmut Richter
> ŠTue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:24 +0200, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de>, wrote:
> > Ich trinke seit drei Tagen Orangensaft.
>
> Für mein Ohr hört sich besser an :
> 'Seit dreiTagen trinke ich Orangensaft'.
Es gibt eine kanonische Reihenfolge der Satzglieder, die als kleine
Umstellung zulässt, irgendein Satzglied vor das finite Verb zu ziehen, und
die anderen in der kanonischen Reihenfolge zu lassen:
Ich trinke seit drei Tagen Orangensaft.
Seit drei Tagen trinke ich Orangensaft.
Orangensaft trinke ich seit drei Tagen.
sowie die Form mit "es", die beim Subjekt "ich" nicht möglich ist:
Es trinkt Peter seit drei Tagen Orangensaft.
Alle anderen Umstellungen sind ein stärkerer Eingriff, die nur
in speziellen Kontexten richtig sind.
--
Helmut Richter
Oliver Cromm
> Oliver Cromm wrote:
>>
>> I just wanted to add here that Duden, in my view, has only had
>> authoritative status as regards spelling, much less for grammar, meaning
>> or other areas. And even in spelling, it has been weakened.
>>
> Nevertheless, Duden has had a major influence on the definition of what
> is acceptable and what is not. So for example "größer als" is
> acceptable, whereas "größer wie" and "größer als wie" are unacceptable
> even though both these forms are to be found in Goethe and other classic
> German writers.
Do you have sources that show this (or similar examples) being an
influence of Duden?
It sure looks like the 20th century brought more uniformity in not only
spelling, but grammar of literary German. I wonder if there are studies
looking into the reasons.
--
WinErr 008: Erroneous error. Nothing is wrong.
Oliver Cromm
There may be a misunderstanding here. Several publications by Duden are
of high quality and are considered highly authoritative works on German
language matters - as are, I think, the OED, Merriam-Webster, the
Chicago Manual of Style etc. in their respective countries. I'm just not
so sure that Duden's status is still on a separate, higher level than
that of the English language reference works, as it used to be and as
Einde painted it. I think the gap is at least closing, and Duden is no
more an ersatz /Académie allemand/.
And as a practical reference for foreigners, I would recommend Duden
Grammatik to very few of them. As for a learner's grammar, I happen to
know and like Helbig-Buscha, but I'm sure there are other good ones.
If looking for lots of detailed usage information, the best I have seen
was dtv-Wahrig (1978), which resembles Collins Cobuild. I just see there
was a new edition 1997, I should try to have a look at it.
But then, someone who does work with foreigners or uses these reference
works daily might be able to give more valuable comments than I, who has
other priorities and left them behind when moving overseas.
--
Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.
Oliver Cromm
> ŠTue, 29 Apr 2008 16:38:20 +0200, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de>, wrote:
>
> I didn't pay enough attention in school while grammar was being taught
> and I do appreciate what I read here.
>
> I think the reason one half misunderstands the other is that we make
> nuances in our mind. An example is my interpretation (absolutely
> subjective) of the tree sentences that are factually say the same.
>
>> Ich trinke seit drei Tagen Orangensaft.
>
> Emphasis on that he started to drink regularly.
This is the most neutral statement to me. It's not clear from this alone
that he is drinking regularly. It might also be that three days ago, he
had OJ for the first time, or liked it the first time, or that drinking
OJ was his main preoccupation for the last three days, and others.
>> Seit drei Tagen trinke ich Orangensaft.
>
> Statement of facts, narrative.
For me: Emphasis on that it's only recently that he is drinking OJ.
That an adverbial often appears in the middle of a simple sentence is a
major difference between German and English: "Ich war gestern im Kino."
>> Orangensaft trinke ich seit drei Tagen.
>
> Emphasis on that it is OJ which is being drunk for three days.
I agree.
Einde O'Callaghan
> * Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>
>> Oliver Cromm wrote:
>>> I just wanted to add here that Duden, in my view, has only had
>>> authoritative status as regards spelling, much less for grammar, meaning
>>> or other areas. And even in spelling, it has been weakened.
>>>
>> Nevertheless, Duden has had a major influence on the definition of what
>> is acceptable and what is not. So for example "größer als" is
>> acceptable, whereas "größer wie" and "größer als wie" are unacceptable
>> even though both these forms are to be found in Goethe and other classic
>> German writers.
>
> Do you have sources that show this (or similar examples) being an
> influence of Duden?
>
he was actually a "Germanist" it was probably based on something he had
read during his studies - among other things he had studied German at
post-graduate level in Germany. Unfortunately, he has been dead for amny
a year, so I can't ask him.
> It sure looks like the 20th century brought more uniformity in not only
> spelling, but grammar of literary German. I wonder if there are studies
> looking into the reasons.
>
If they exist I would be very interested in reading them.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Christian Weisgerber
> I also get the impression that despite the efforts of teh Duden
> Redaktion a similar change is taking place in German - but at a much
> slower rate because there is an authoritative prescriptive work defining
> acceptable grammar.
Which work would that be? The Duden Grammar is a descriptive work.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Christian Weisgerber
> > I've been sick since three days ago
> >
> >Acceptable or not?
>
> Not.
>
> Quite so - I am a native speaker and it seems strange to me! It may be
> "correct according to the book" but it sounds wrong;
Which one is it, strange or wrong?
You guys are conflating idiomaticity[1] and grammaticality.
> My conclusion is that the problem (or is it my problem) is the
> combination of "since" & "a *specific period* of time" & "ago".
Well, Stephen has already gone through the trouble of digging up
respectable quotations. Otherwise I would have pointed you to a
simple Google search for "since three days ago", which very much
suggests that this kind of expression is grammatical--at least for
some speakers.
Anyway, I'll try to remember the controversy surrounding this.
[1] My handy MWCD doesn't list "idiomaticity", but offers
"idiomaticness". I'm a bit dubious about the latter's
idiomaticity...
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>
>> I also get the impression that despite the efforts of teh Duden
>> Redaktion a similar change is taking place in German - but at a much
>> slower rate because there is an authoritative prescriptive work defining
>> acceptable grammar.
>
> Which work would that be? The Duden Grammar is a descriptive work.
>
"größer wie" and "größer als wie", which occur in everyday German speech
and were also used by authoratiative classic authors regarded as
substandard? - This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical point.
One of the reference works I used while leaqrning German, not the Duden
Grammar, but another book published by Duden quite clearly described the
two forms I've mentioned as being incorrect, yert I hear them regularly
being used by educated German speakers here in Saxony, people who are
definitely not speaking the Saxon dialect, which I also now recognise.
Descriptive grammars describe the grammar that (educated) people
actually use (although the exact definition of this term is usually a
bit vague) - usually with a slight delay. They may make reference to
acceptability in certain contexts, but won't make rulings on correctness
or incorrectness of native usage.
Einde O'Callaghan
Diedrich Ehlerding
>> Which work would that be? The Duden Grammar is a descriptive work.
>>
> If it's purely descriptive and not prescriptive, why are the forms
> "größer wie" and "größer als wie", which occur in everyday German
> speech and were also used by authoratiative classic authors regarded
> as substandard? - This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical point.
They are regarded as substandard by a large number of natibe speakers -
you might also say "a vast majority". "größer wie" may be regionally
acceptable, but nothing more. "no9n-prescriptive grammar", does not
imply "every possoble regiolect or sociolect" is acceptable German;
evenb a decriptive grammar does not describe all possible deviations,
and does not equally estimate all possible variants.
Diedrich
--
pgp-Key (RSA) 1024/09B8C0BD
fingerprint = 2C 49 FF B2 C4 66 2D 93 6F A1 FF 10 16 59 96 F3
HTML-Mail wird ungelesen entsorgt.
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan meinte:
>
>>> Which work would that be? The Duden Grammar is a descriptive work.
>>>
>> If it's purely descriptive and not prescriptive, why are the forms
>> "größer wie" and "größer als wie", which occur in everyday German
>> speech and were also used by authoratiative classic authors regarded
>> as substandard? - This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical point.
>
>
> They are regarded as substandard by a large number of natibe speakers -
> you might also say "a vast majority". "größer wie" may be regionally
> acceptable, but nothing more. "no9n-prescriptive grammar", does not
> imply "every possoble regiolect or sociolect" is acceptable German;
> evenb a decriptive grammar does not describe all possible deviations,
> and does not equally estimate all possible variants.
>
was acceptable to the classic German writers of the 19th century now
regarded as being substandard? I know all about how prescriptive grammar
worked in English - certain grammarians decreed that, say, the split
infinitive was substandard, although it has existed in educated English
speech since the Middle Ages, and this is still believed by many people
to this day, despite the fact that modern descriptive grammarians find
it quite acceptable.
It would seem to me that similarly the fact that "größer wie" is now
regarded as substandard despite it's appearance in the German classics
is more a question of it being defined as substandard by prescriptive
grammarians for several generations than anything else.
Griuß, Einde O'Callaghan
P.S. I pick on this structure as it particularly struck me when reading
Goethe, because, of course, I'd been taught that it was bad grammar.
Helmut Richter
> I'm well aware of that - my question is more: Why is a structure that
> was acceptable to the classic German writers of the 19th century now
> regarded as being substandard? I know all about how prescriptive grammar
> worked in English - certain grammarians decreed that, say, the split
> infinitive was substandard, although it has existed in educated English
> speech since the Middle Ages, and this is still believed by many people
> to this day, despite the fact that modern descriptive grammarians find
> it quite acceptable.
I'd regard prescription vs. description as a matter of fashion. From a
strictly rational point of view, neither is cogent without the other: It
is neither reasonable to make prescriptions against what people --
including educated people -- actually use, nor is it reasonable to declare
everything "correct" for the sole reason that someone has been observed
using it -- intended as normal, or as a deliberate deviation from the
standard, or as a pun, or by unintentional mistake.
Today, descriptivism is the current fashion. This was not the case until,
say, 20 or 30 years ago. For at least about a century, people wanted to
know what is right and what is wrong, and consulted the Duden for the
purpose, thus giving it a prescriptive purpose. I am sure, many people
think so still today, but are only informed by the Duden what is in use,
and not what is right or wrong. Tempora mutantur ...
When naming Duden, we should make a difference between volume 1
(Rechtschreibung = spelling with morphological remarks) and the other
volumes (grammar, etymology, style, and others). Volume 1 was regarded
authoritative, and spelling is an area where prescription is generally
accepted -- at least up to the spelling reform in the 1990ies. The other
volumes of Duden had never a comparable dissemination, nor a comparable
reputation and status.
> P.S. I pick on this structure as it particularly struck me when reading
> Goethe, because, of course, I'd been taught that it was bad grammar.
What does the *current* edition of Duden's grammar say on the topic?
I do not possess one.
--
Helmut Richter
Diedrich Ehlerding
> I'm well aware of that - my question is more: Why is a structure that
> was acceptable to the classic German writers of the 19th century now
> regarded as being substandard?
Language changes. Or would you regard "thou hast" or "thou comst" as
standard English, just because you can find it in Shakespeare's dramas?
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan meinte:
>
>> I'm well aware of that - my question is more: Why is a structure that
>> was acceptable to the classic German writers of the 19th century now
>> regarded as being substandard?
>
> Language changes. Or would you regard "thou hast" or "thou comst" as
> standard English, just because you can find it in Shakespeare's dramas?
>
move from prescriptivism has allowed more latitude. When I was at school
I was thaought that "It's me" was incorrect, that I shoudl say "It is
I", which was most unnatural to me - and to most modern speakers of
English. Similarly I was aught that "He's taller than me" was incorrect
and that I should say "He's taller than I," although I've never heard
anybody say such a thing naturally.
As a teacher of English as a foreign language, I now teach people to say
"It's me" and "He's taller than me", because this is now acceptable
since the retreat from prescriptivism.
Similarly with split infinitives (e.g. "to boldly go" as the
introduction to Star Trek - Raumschiff Enterprise in German - goes) and
the other bugbears of the remaining prescriptivists (many of whom can be
found in the newsgroups alt.usage.english and alt.english.usage).
I haven't noticed a similar latitude in German, which sugests that the
influence of prescriptivism is stronger than it is in English today.
This is quite distinct from the controversial question of teh wholesale
importation of English words into German (Denglisch), which I also find
remarkable, poarticularly when the German terms mean something quite
different from the English word or are even non-existent (e.g. Dressman
or Talkmaster, not to mention Handy).
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> writes:
>> As a teacher of English as a foreign language, I now teach people to say
>> "It's me" and "He's taller than me", because this is now acceptable
>> since the retreat from prescriptivism.
>
>
> »She loves chocolate more than I.«
> »She loves chocolate more than me.«
>
That's true, but I wouldn't express the sentiment of the fist in that
way. I'd say: "She loves chocolate more than I do." I also feel that
this is more idiomatic.
Indeed to avoid ambiguity I'd also express the latter differently: "She
loves chocolate more than she loves me."
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
> ŠSun, 04 May 2008 16:35:16 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de>, wrote:
>
<snip>
>>>
>> I don't think this is the same. If anything, at least in English, the
>> move from prescriptivism has allowed more latitude. When I was at school
>> I was thaought that "It's me" was incorrect, that I shoudl say "It is
>> I", which was most unnatural to me - and to most modern speakers of
>> English. Similarly I was aught that "He's taller than me" was incorrect
>> and that I should say "He's taller than I," although I've never heard
>> anybody say such a thing naturally.
>
>
Are you a native speaker of English?
>> As a teacher of English as a foreign language, I now teach people to say
>> "It's me" and "He's taller than me", because this is now acceptable
>> since the retreat from prescriptivism.
>
> That is very regrettable.
>
I teach English as it is spoken by speakers of standard English and
described in the standard books on English usage, not some mythical form
developed by prescriptive grammarians in previous centuries.
Einde O'Callaghan
Lawrence Brown
Larry Brown
"Stefan Ram" <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:me-20080...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de...
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> writes:
>>English. Similarly I was aught that "He's taller than me" was incorrect
>>and that I should say "He's taller than I," although I've never heard
>>anybody say such a thing naturally.
>
> There seems to be a tradition to use »me« or »I«
> when »I« or »me« would be correct.
>
> »Old pirates, yes, they rob I;
> Sold I to the merchant ships,
> Minutes after they took I
> From the bottomless pit.«
>
> Redemption Song
>
> When a German language person labels a picture of himself,
> he might use »Ich«, while an English language person would use
> »me« (below a certain age, »meeee!!!!«).
>
> Possibly, »I« as a single letter and vowel is just deemed too
> short or ambigous (»It's I.«, »Its eye.«) for some uses.
>
>>Similarly with split infinitives (e.g. "to boldly go" as the
>>introduction to Star Trek - Raumschiff Enterprise in German -
>>goes) and the other bugbears of the remaining prescriptivists
>>(many of whom can be found in the newsgroups alt.usage.english
>>and alt.english.usage).
>
> »Grammar Girl's Top 10 Language Myths:
>
> [...]
>
> 2. You shouldn't split infinitives. Wrong! Nearly all
> grammarians want to boldly tell you it's OK to split
> infinitives. An infinitive is a two-word form of a verb.
> An example is "to tell." In a split infinitive, another
> word separates the two parts of the verb. "To boldly tell"
> is a split infinitive because boldly separates to from
> tell. (See episode 9 for more details.)«
>
> http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/top-ten-grammar-myths.aspx
>
Lawrence Brown
progressive. Even German teachers of English (present company excepted)
don't get it right and native speakers don't get it wrong. There could be
some variation in local usage though.
Larry Brown
"Anthony Wayne Brown" <awayn...@hotmail.de> wrote in message
news:C43AD14B.C19%awayn...@hotmail.de...
> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
>> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>>>>> (c) Die Maschine ist schon seit drei Tagen in Betrieb
>>>>
>>>> The machine has already been running since three days.
>>>
>>> I don't think you can say that in English.
>>
>> "The machine has already been running since three days ago."
>
> These incorrect translations into English highlight one of the most
> difficult aspects of the English language for Germans. In fact, I would
> characterize this particular construction as one of Germans' most typical
> mistakes, something teachers should concentrate on with young Germans
> learning English in school since the mistake seems to be so widespread
> among
> English-speaking German adults.
>
> Anthony
>
Andy
<sne...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>©Sun, 04 May 2008 16:35:16 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
><einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de>, wrote:
[
>
>>As a teacher of English as a foreign language, I now teach people to say
>>"It's me" and "He's taller than me", because this is now acceptable
>>since the retreat from prescriptivism.
>
>
"Horses for courses"!
I suspect that Einde teaches English to mainly-native-german-speakers
who want to use it to communicate with native English speakers. The
latter will speak somewhere between academic-perfect and
street-corner-patois, and Einde will have to use his knowledge to equip
his students with a version of English best suited to their particular
needs.
In my own case, I was taught German for business purposes - a typical
requirement being "make travel & accommodation arrangements, make an
appointment with a prospective customer, visit him and sell him our
product". Hence we learnt "Sie" not "du", for example.
It would have been quite different had my requirement been my most
recent task, which is to understand an 800-page treatise written in 1914
by an Austrian in a register so complex and multilayered that PhD-level
native-German-speakers find it almost unreadable!
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com>
Christian Weisgerber
> >Ive always wondered if it's the French influence? C'est moi.
>
> It might also refer to certain (eclipsed) sentences: For
> example, someone might ask »Who is it that I hear?« and the
> reply would be »It's me you are hearing.« (not: »It's I you
> are hearing.«) - abreviated: »It's me.« (not: »It's I.«).
Why would adding a relative clause change this one iota? The
traditional prescriptivist would still insist on subject case:
It is I (whom) you are hearing.
A priori, it isn't clear whether pronouns in this sort of copula
construction should be in subject or object case. Just because
German or Latin use the nominative here, doesn't mean English has
to. In Russian you have things like "on byl uchitelem" (he was a
teacher), with "uchitel'" (teacher) in instrumental case.
Of course, actual English usage is pretty clear. You don't need
to follow Aristotle's reasoning why women have fewer teeth than
men, you can just check.
Why are we discussing English usage here again? :-)
Andy
<na...@mips.inka.de> wrote
[
> In Russian you have things like "on byl uchitelem" (he was a
>teacher), with "uchitel'" (teacher) in instrumental case.
>
Einde O'Callaghan
> "Lawrence Brown" <til.eule...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Ive always wondered if it's the French influence? C'est moi.
>
>
> It might also refer to certain (eclipsed) sentences: For
> example, someone might ask »Who is it that I hear?« and the
> reply would be »It's me you are hearing.« (not: »It's I you
> are hearing.«) - abreviated: »It's me.« (not: »It's I.«).
>
doesn't fit your model. "I" is in a different clause than "you are
hearing" with an occluded relative pronoun connecting the two clauses.
So sorry, that doesn't work. The influence of French isn't to be
excluded, as English vocabulary and certain other grammatical structures
are more closely related to French grammar than to that of any Germanic
language.
Einde O'Callaghan
Robert Watson & Mary-Ann Parisi
"Andy" <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FUyVlaNJ...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk...
> In message <fvn7mp$1iit$1...@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>, Christian Weisgerber
> <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote
> [
>> In Russian you have things like "on byl uchitelem" (he was a
>>teacher), with "uchitel'" (teacher) in instrumental case.
>>
> Ah, a music teacher...
Thanks for the laugh. That's the funniest thing I've heard or seen all day.
Einde O'Callaghan
> ŠMon, 05 May 2008 06:58:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de>, wrote:
>> Arno Martens wrote:
>>> ŠSun, 04 May 2008 16:35:16 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de>, wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> I don't think this is the same. If anything, at least in English, the
>>>> move from prescriptivism has allowed more latitude. When I was at school
>>>> I was thaought that "It's me" was incorrect, that I shoudl say "It is
>>>> I", which was most unnatural to me - and to most modern speakers of
>>>> English. Similarly I was aught that "He's taller than me" was incorrect
>>>> and that I should say "He's taller than I," although I've never heard
>>>> anybody say such a thing naturally.
>>> I do.
>>>
>> Are you a native speaker of English?
>
> modern speakers of English.".
>
I refuse to make judgements on the native language of people based on
their names. I know several people, children of German emigrants to
English-speaking countries, whose native language is English even if
they have typically German forenames such as Wolfgang, Jürgen,
Heiderose, Sybille etc.
But perhaps I should have made clearer that I was speaking of "most
modern native speakers of English".
I can speak German quite fluently, but I wouldn't dare to say that my
opinions on German usage are as authoritative as those of native
speakers, even if I might occasionally make remarks about usage that I
have observed.
Einde O'Callaghan
Ekkehard Dengler
> ©Sun, 04 May 2008 16:35:16 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
> <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de>, wrote:
>> I don't think this is the same. If anything, at least in English, the
>> move from prescriptivism has allowed more latitude. When I was at
>> school I was thaought that "It's me" was incorrect, that I shoudl
>> say "It is I", which was most unnatural to me - and to most modern
>> speakers of English. Similarly I was aught that "He's taller than
>> me" was incorrect and that I should say "He's taller than I,"
>> although I've never heard anybody say such a thing naturally.
>
> I do.
You're effectively saying that unnatural English comes to you naturally,
since "taller than I" sounds about as idiomatic as "since three days ago".
It may be what some grammarians recommend, but unfortunately it's also
stilted to the point where it gives you away as a non-native speaker. A bit
like "Und dann hätte ich gern noch 200 Gramm von jenem Käse".
>> As a teacher of English as a foreign language, I now teach people to
>> say "It's me" and "He's taller than me", because this is now
>> acceptable since the retreat from prescriptivism.
>
> That is very regrettable.
I really don't think Einde's students would prefer to be taught 19th-century
English.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Oliver Cromm
> Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> writes:
>>> As a teacher of English as a foreign language, I now teach people to say
>>> "It's me" and "He's taller than me", because this is now acceptable
>>> since the retreat from prescriptivism.
>>
>> However, the following sentences convey different meanings.
>>
>> »She loves chocolate more than I.«
>> »She loves chocolate more than me.«
>>
>
> That's true, but I wouldn't express the sentiment of the fist in that
> way. I'd say: "She loves chocolate more than I do." I also feel that
> this is more idiomatic.
Right. The way ellipses are done in this type of construction is a
characteristic difference between English and German.
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use the 'Net
and he won't bother you for weeks.
Ekkehard Dengler
> "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> writes:
>> stilted to the point where it gives you away as a non-native
>> speaker. A bit like "Und dann hätte ich gern noch 200 Gramm von
>> jenem Käse".
>
> some of them really use a kind of textbook-style language
> sometimes. For example, when speaking to a class about
> computer programming, I use words like »fürderhin«,
> »vollendet« or »jenen« whenever I deem them to be appropriate.
>
> I overheard a cell phone conversation recently, where a young
> male german speaker said »Sie hat praktisch das vollendet,
> was ich initiiert habe.«
Unusually eloquent, perhaps, but otherwise unremarkable, unlike my "jenem
Käse" example. Of course formal speech isn't necessarily unnatural. The
point here is that native speakers tend to talk and write in a reasonably
consistent (and appropriate) register.
On the other hand, I feel that the importance of actually being a native
speaker is often overestimated. The fact that someone is a native speaker
doesn't mean that everything they say is idiomatic or even grammatical. In
fact, native speakers produce wildly unidiomatic sentences on a daily basis
(one of the strangest things I've ever heard from a native speaker of German
was "Lauter solche Worte hat die fei geredet"), but, unlike most
second-language learners, they don't usually worry about the odd mistake.
What applies to speakers and writers also applies to listeners and readers:
it is incredible what you can get away with if people think of you as a
native speaker. A German primary school teacher I know routinely says things
like "Ich muss noch Auto holen" without anyone ever correcting her. If it
wasn't for her perfectly authentic pronunciation, she would probably be
taken for a native speaker of some Slavonic language -- and have her
attention drawn to the omission of the definite article.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Andy
<ED...@t-online.de> wrote
[]
>A German primary school teacher I know routinely says things
>like "Ich muss noch Auto holen" without anyone ever correcting her. If it
>wasn't for her perfectly authentic pronunciation, she would probably be
>taken for a native speaker of some Slavonic language -- and have her
>attention drawn to the omission of the definite article.
>
Ekkehard Dengler
> "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> writes:
>> was "Lauter solche Worte hat die fei geredet"), but, unlike most
>
>
> http://www.bibel-online.net/buch/09.1-samuel/18.html
Das würde auch den nächsten Satz "Dünkt euch das ein Geringes, Alder?"
erklären.
Grüße,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
> In message <fvqtg2$99q$02$1...@news.t-online.com>, Ekkehard Dengler
> <ED...@t-online.de> wrote
> []
>> A German primary school teacher I know routinely says things
>> like "Ich muss noch Auto holen" without anyone ever correcting her.
>> If it wasn't for her perfectly authentic pronunciation, she would
>> probably be taken for a native speaker of some Slavonic language --
>> and have her attention drawn to the omission of the definite article.
>>
> One of my teachers advised, if in doubt mumble :)
Brillnt.
Regards,
Ekkehard