Usage question

[Tish Davidson]

"Due to," even when it's used correctly, has been so tainted that it makes my hackles rise. (from the words to avoid thread.

Can you elucidate the correct usage? I've always had trouble with due to/because of.
Thanks

[trumancoyote]

I'm fairly sure that it's OK when used in as an adjective, or in an adjectival phrase, but it's no longer OK when used as a preposition.

That probably doesn't help, does it? :B

[LightShadow]

As quoted from "Woe is I" by Patricia T. O'Conner: When you want to be on your very best grammatical behavior, use due to only if you mean "caused by" or "resulting from": The damage was due to moths. In recent years, dictionaries have come to accept a looser usage meaning "because of" or "on account of" . . . but be warned that some find this grating, especially at the front of a sentence: "Due to the hole, Richie threw the suit away."

[maestrowork]

Pretty much it...

Now I have another one. When do you use "out" and "out of" or are they interchangable?

I look out of the window.

I look out the window.

[Medievalist]

(from the words to avoid thread.

Can you elucidate the correct usage? I've always had trouble with due to/because of.
Thanks

First, a warning; I have strong feelings of loathing towards the expression, and am aware that years of teaching freshman composition and undergrad lit classes, and working as a tech writer have driven me mad.

Second, a source that I usually respect regarding usage (though it's wrong about compose and comprise), The American Heritage Usage Guide (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0107.html):

Due to has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition like owing to, but some critics have insisted that due should be used only as an adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say The concert was canceled due to the rain but acceptable to say The cancellation of the concert was due to the rain, where due continues to function as an adjective modifying cancellation. This seems a fine point, however, and since due to is widely used and understood, there seems little reason to avoid using it as a preposition.

First, the grammar: due is an adjective and means "attributable"; due to is usually* described as an preposition. If the word attributable can be substituted for due in a sentence you have written, your sentence is grammatically correct. (But quite likely hideously ugly.)

If attributable does not sound right in the sentence, you should consider because of.

Now here's my take on it: remember, I'm not quite sane on this issue. In a group of about eighty student papers I once counted, more than half of them used "due to."

Due to is almost always either completely unnecessary, or a needlessly preposition-laden substitute for "because."

Due to was used exceedingly often in the 1980s for bad news in corporate/business writing, so much so that now, "due to" makes readers flinch in preparation for the bad news.


**I once heard Noam Chomsky argue that due to was still an adjective, that the preposition was adhesive and thus not important; me, I don't care because I loathe the phrase no matter what you call it.

Oh yeah, W. H. Fowler hates it too. So there.

[azbikergirl]

When do you use "out" and "out of" or are they interchangable?

I look out of the window.

I look out the window.

Out of the window feels incorrect to me. We jump out of a moving car. We take things out of a box. We look out the window, but we do not jump out the moving car.

[firehorse]

If you can possibly delete the "of," do so. AZbikergirl's example is a good one. Though I think UK usage may even accept "jumped out the car."

Ray, nice to see your whole face!

[reph]

The OED doesn't accept "Due to [noun], [main clause]" as good usage. That was clear in its entry for "due" as its online Word of the Day a while back.

[stace001]

Out of the window feels incorrect to me. We jump out of a moving car. We take things out of a box. We look out the window, but we do not jump out the moving car.

I agree. Good examples too Azbikergirl. As for 'Due to'...i go out of my way to NOT use it, for the exact reasons mentioned. It bugs the hell outta most people, and when you're trying to get published, the last thing you want is to piss people off.

[Jamesaritchie]

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I'm avoiding this thread.

[jules]

If you can possibly delete the "of," do so. AZbikergirl's example is a good one. Though I think UK usage may even accept "jumped out the car."

Ray, nice to see your whole face!

UK usage requires the 'of' in both cases. At least, that's the way that feels natural to me, as a UK user of the language...

[Trapped in amber]

UK usage requires the 'of' in both cases. At least, that's the way that feels natural to me, as a UK user of the language...

I second that. It sounds wrong to me in the same way 'math' instead of 'maths' does.

[azbikergirl]

In the US, we also tend to leave off the 'of' in going out the door. Maybe when 'out' is used instead of 'through' we omit the 'of'. ??

:idea:

[maestrowork]

UK usage requires the 'of' in both cases. At least, that's the way that feels natural to me, as a UK user of the language...

I guess that's why I am confused. I had a British education until I came to the US...

Another thing I have trouble with is: "suffer" and "suffer from."

She suffered a heart attack.

She suffered from cancer.

[Medievalist]

I guess that's why I am confused. I had a British education until I came to the US...

Another thing I have trouble with is: "suffer" and "suffer from."

She suffered a heart attack.

She suffered from cancer.


You need "from" or "with" because of the absence of the article.

[firehorse]

UK-ers, please chime in, but I think Ray is correct in being confused ;)

"She suffered a heart attack" - I think (but I've been wrong before... like three posts ago) this is UK usage. One meaning of "suffer" is "to undergo or sustain." In that case, "from" is not necessary.

When I first moved to Toronto, I couldn't get used to the lack of articles:
"He was taken to hospital early this morning."

For Brits and Canucks, my punctuation within the speech marks is American. I know you'd put the full stop outside the end quote in the second paragraph ;).

It's very confusing to be educated in one style and then live with a different one (Ray from UK to US, I from US to Canada).

[Jamesaritchie]

I guess that's why I am confused. I had a British education until I came to the US...

Another thing I have trouble with is: "suffer" and "suffer from."

She suffered a heart attack.

She suffered from cancer.

Just my ear, but "suffered" sounds like old usage to me. It's a word my grandparents used constantly, and my parents used some, but that I very seldom hear in this context today. What I hear probably 99% of the time is simply, "She had a heart attack."

[arrowqueen]

I wouldn't, fire. I'd put it in exactly the same place you did.

[Jamesaritchie]

UK-ers, please chime in, but I think Ray is correct in being confused ;)

"She suffered a heart attack" - I think (but I've been wrong before... like three posts ago) this is UK usage. One meaning of "suffer" is "to undergo or sustain." In that case, "from" is not necessary.

When I first moved to Toronto, I couldn't get used to the lack of articles:
"He was taken to hospital early this morning."

For Brits and Canucks, my punctuation within the speech marks is American. I know you'd put the full stop outside the end quote in the second paragraph ;).

It's very confusing to be educated in one style and then live with a different one (Ray from UK to US, I from US to Canada).

Lack of articles used to bug me to death, but I've grown used to it. I even like it. We'd say, "He was taken to jail/school/church early this morning," wouldn't we.

[Medievalist]

We could do something bizarre, and consult a dictionary. The American Heritage (http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/S0865600.html)

INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment. 2. To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death. See synonyms at bear1. 3. To appear at a disadvantage: “He suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary” (Albert C. Baugh).

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To undergo or sustain (something painful, injurious, or unpleasant): “Ordinary men have always had to suffer the history their leaders were making” (Herbert J. Muller). 2. To experience; undergo: suffer a change in staff. 3. To endure or bear; stand: would not suffer fools. 4. To permit; allow: “They were not suffered to aspire to so exalted a position as that of streetcar conductor” (Edmund S. Morgan).

USAGE NOTE: In general usage the preferred preposition after suffer is from, rather than with, in constructions such as He suffered from hypertension. Ninety-four percent of the Usage Panel found suffered with unacceptable in the preceding example. In medical usage suffer with is sometimes employed with reference to the pain or discomfort caused by a condition, while suffer from is used more broadly in reference to a condition, such as anemia, that is detrimental but not necessarily painful.

[pdr]

I always chuckle at the way you Americans will say: “He went out the door.” insisting that the 'of' I feel is grammatically necessary is unnecessary. Yet you will say: “He got off of...” which I also feel is most ungrammatical with that superfluous ‘of’.

American English is quite different from Standard English in form and usage not just in words. Try reading one of the Harry Potter books in its original English publisher’s version and then read the American publisher’s Americanised version. Apart from the obvious alteration of words like ‘sweets’ to ‘candy’ you will find a whole range of American expressions like ‘gotten’ which sound strange on Harry’s British lips.

[Jamesaritchie]

I always chuckle at the way you Americans will say: “He went out the door.” insisting that the 'of' I feel is grammatically necessary is unnecessary. Yet you will say: “He got off of...” which I also feel is most ungrammatical with that superfluous ‘of’.

American English is quite different from Standard English in form and usage not just in words. Try reading one of the Harry Potter books in its original English publisher’s version and then read the American publisher’s Americanised version. Apart from the obvious alteration of words like ‘sweets’ to ‘candy’ you will find a whole range of American expressions like ‘gotten’ which sound strange on Harry’s British lips.

Dang, I thought American English was Standard English, and the English the English use was non-standard.

[arrowqueen]

Nonsense, James. English, by definition, is the language of the mother country.

Yours is merely a quaint regional variation.

:tongue

[katee]

British English v's American English? Pah! How about us poor people in the Antipodes?

Australian English takes bits and pieces from both - I'm living in an apartment but I take out the garbage.

I am unable to tell when I'm using an Australianisms and when I'm using Standard English - except, of course, for the obvious ("g'day" comes to mind). I learnt recently that "I reckon" isn't Standard American, but is used often in the South.

Worryingly, unlike "g'day", I'm likely to use "I reckon". I can just picture it now: having written a book, it'll be laughed off agents' and publishers' desks for having (unintended) quaint regionalisms.

[firehorse]

American English is Standard American.

Americans often call UK English "Queen's English," though that seems to have gone out of favo(u)r. Lately I hear it referred to as "Standard English" or (by Americans) "Standard British."

I'm with Katee; being in a country that takes bits and pieces from each is difficult.

Writing Idol entries, I've noticed I pay particular attention to words that have different meanings around the world. For example, for an American/Canadian audience, I'd think nothing of mentioning corduroy pants. To Brits, that means corduroy underwear. Though 'trousers' is rarely used in the US, at least it conveys a consistent image amoung readers.

[pdr]

G'day, Katee, I reckon you're under thirty if you use the American 'apartment' and 'garbage'. Comes of watching too much American stuff on theTV or at the cinema when you were a sprog!

I'm antipodean also when I can get home and we language profs claim that we speak an Australian or New Zealand version of Standard English with regional variations. Our regional dialects, New Zild and Strine, of course are infamous for their creation of 'unusual' words and their mangling of good grammatical English!

American English and Standard English are very different, not just for using 'different than' (my pet hate!) or missing off the 'of' either. I've been having fun in Japan teaching company middle managers to speak Standard English because they are going to live and work in India for two years. They are amazed that the American English they are taught in school is not the only form of English. I have to spend a great deal of time teaching them the Standard English form of polite requests they must use, for example: 'I would like...' 'Please may I have...' instead of the American 'I want...' they are taught to use by their American teachers.

You be proud of your Aussie English and don't worry about publishers and editors. You have good publishers in Oz and you can sell your fiction overseas. I sell most of my fiction abroad and editors often comment that its antipodean touches made them buy it.

Re 'trousers' that's standard usage in parts of Canada, SA, OZ, NZ, Eire, India, many African countries and wherever there was a British presence in the bad old Colonial days. Pants means knickers!

In fact, (and I can't resist this as all the American langauge teachers here in Japan get so huffy when I tell them and I love to stir!) American English is a minority English as the majority of the English speaking world uses their own version of Standard English. So perhaps we should insist that our books and films are left in our version of English and not Americanised when sold in America!

[Vomaxx]

You "love to stir", huh? Sometimes I do, too:

American English will eventually be the "standard" English of the world simply because of the preeminent position of the USA in world affairs and the overwhelming influence of American media. This may be a good thing, a bad thing, or an indifferent thing, but I believe that's the way it will be. It seems to me silly to cling to these remnants of British English, which will eventually be reduced to a local dialect. Australian and NZ English, being spoken by only a few people, are obviously of no significance outside their own countries.


Certainly the world does not need to be taught silly spellings like armour and humour--even Fowler, in 1920, said it was time to drop these pointless "u"s--and the idea that there is something better in saying "different to" rather than "different from" seems absurd to me. Has "gaol" not generally given way to "jail"? Good thing, too.

I would be fascinated to learn why you think that forms such as "I would like" or "Please may I have" (or "May I please have") are not American. If teachers in Japan are telling students that Americans always say "I want," they are bad teachers, teaching rudeness. "Please" is not a word restricted to "Standard English".

American English = Standard English, in time. Depend upon it.

[Medievalist]

American English will eventually be the "standard" English of the world simply because of the preeminent position of the USA in world affairs and the overwhelming influence of American media.

I disagree--simply because of the numbers of people learning English in China. They're learning British English and the publishing and software industries in China use British punctuation and spelling.

Certainly the world does not need to be taught silly spellings like armour and humour ... .

I rather like those spellings since it preserves the Anglo-Norman heritage of the words, but I'm in a minority.

[Jamesaritchie]

American English is Standard American.

Americans often call UK English "Queen's English," though that seems to have gone out of favo(u)r. Lately I hear it referred to as "Standard English" or (by Americans) "Standard British."

I'm with Katee; being in a country that takes bits and pieces from each is difficult.

Writing Idol entries, I've noticed I pay particular attention to words that have different meanings around the world. For example, for an American/Canadian audience, I'd think nothing of mentioning corduroy pants. To Brits, that means corduroy underwear. Though 'trousers' is rarely used in the US, at least it conveys a consistent image amoung readers.

When you look into the hstory of English, England is just as guilty as America of taking bits and pieces from other countries, and of corrupting what they took. But they stopped and stagnated while we Americans continue the practice.

[Jamesaritchie]

I disagree--simply because of the numbers of people learning English in China. They're learning British English and the publishing and software industries in China use British punctuation and spelling.



I rather like those spellings since it preserves the Anglo-Norman heritage of the words, but I'm in a minority.

I suspect American English will be the standard. I know what people in China learn, but I also know how rapidly they apply Americanisms to the basic rules. The Chinses seem to learn very fast, and their speech and writing soon takes on the flavor of the country they're doing business with.

The real question, I think isn't whether or not the Chinese will be using British or American English twenty years from now, but whether or not Britain and America will be forced to learn Chinese.

[Medievalist]

When you look into the hstory of English, England is just as guilty as America of taking bits and pieces from other countries, and of corrupting what they took. But they stopped and stagnated while we Americans continue the practice.


That's not, exactly, accurate. Technically, much of the "quaint" character of American English, to a native Brit's ear, is because we've preserved older, archaic, seventeenth and eighteenth century forms, especially dialect variants from Scotland and Ireland (and no, they don't speak "Elizabethan English" in Appalachia). But our casual use of "get" as a helping verb is an archaic northern feature we've preserved, and there are a number of others.

'Strine dialects have preserved some similarly archaic features, as have certain Canadian dialects.

[Jamesaritchie]

Nonsense, James. English, by definition, is the language of the mother country.

Yours is merely a quaint regional variation.

:tongue

Ah, the mother country. That explains it. I constantly hear people refer to "Those mothers over there in England." Now I know what they mean.

[Medievalist]

The real question, I think isn't whether or not the Chinese will be using British or American English twenty years from now, but whether or not Britain and America will be forced to learn Chinese.

I wonder too; one of the things I find interesting about Joss Whedon's Firefly SF series, and forthcoming film Serenity, is the role the Chinese language plays.

[pdr]

But they (the English) stopped and stagnated while we Americans continue the practice.
Really Mr. Ritchie? Don't you think that's just a tad blinkered? And not quite accurate.

As for Vomaxx's
Australian and NZ English, being spoken by only a few people, are obviously of no significance outside their own countries.

Tut! Your arrogance is showing. Don't you you enjoy the differences in the various forms of English? Why insist that American English is the best form of English? I'm not claiming that for Standard English. I'm just asking why American English must be forced on those of us who have and use our own forms of English.

And no, I didn't say: '"I would like" or "Please may I have" (or "May I please have") are not American.' In the areas of Japan where I am working or have worked the English is taught by young Americans fresh from what you call College. Most of 'em don't have TEFLA qualifications or any teaching qualifications at all. They are mainly new graduates without business or work experience. The courses they teach are American or American based. They all teach 'I want' even in the English for Tourists classes because this is in the course books. These kids are too inexperienced to understand the need for teaching adults polite requests and responses.

I wouldn't worry about having to learn Chinese. The people I will be working with next year in China assure me that the Chinese intention is to have English made an official Chinese language. Nice thought!!!

[Vomaxx]

Tut! Your arrogance is showing. Don't you you enjoy the differences in the various forms of English? Why insist that American English is the best form of English?

young Americans fresh from what you call College.

I do enjoy the differences. I'm a great fan of Monty Python. I did not say that Am. English is the "best form". I said that, good, bad, or indifferent, it is going to be the prevailing form.

For arrogance, I refer you to the second quote given above. Yours. I will not comment on it as I don't want to move this thread into the Take It Outside forum.

---------

I don't think that Chinese will ever be a world language, because it's far too difficult to learn and its lack of an alphabet makes it extremely cumbersome. It's nice to look at but hardly suitable to the 21st and future centuries. It is much more likely that English will, indeed, become the 2nd language of the Chinese as they move into the world market.

[arrowqueen]

Lol, James. A neat riposte!

However, while admiring the pragmatism Americans show in their spelling (Chucking out all those 'u's with gay abandon, for example), I find the truncation ugly.

I like our own little quirks and quiddities. I prefer 'cheque' to 'check; 'programme' to 'program' and 'dialogue' to 'dialog.' As Medievalist has pointed out, some of these are a legacy from the Norman French and I enjoy the history of language.

As for American English taking over the world, when that day comes, I shall be on the battlements, with cauldrons of boiling vowels to pour on the barbarians' heads.

[LightShadow]

Lol, James. A neat riposte!

However, while admiring the pragmatism Americans show in their spelling (Chucking out all those 'u's with gay abandon, for example), I find the truncation ugly.

I like our own little quirks and quiddities. I prefer 'cheque' to 'check; 'programme' to 'program' and 'dialogue' to 'dialog.' As Medievalist has pointed out, some of these are a legacy from the Norman French and I enjoy the history of language.

As for American English taking over the world, when that day comes, I shall be on the battlements, with cauldrons of boiling vowels to pour on the barbarians' heads.Most of American English is from original English before the brits added silly rules during the Victorian age due to their lavish fondness for Latin, a language full of silly rules like the taboo of dividing an infinitive.

[pdr]

Woa! Back up there. I'm sorry you've taken something I've said as rude. Could you explain what the problem is with me trying to put into American English for an American website what we would call 'tertiary education'?

'...young Americans fresh from what you call College.'

There was no intention of rudeness, nor any arrogance felt or implied. I was simply making an effort to make sure I was communicating clearly.

Any insult was accidental. We antipodean colonials speak plainly and call a spade a bloody shovel so if I was going to be rude you would have been
in no doubt. I am sorry my efforts to use American English has led to this misunderstanding. I'll stick to my vernacular in future!

[Diviner]

I don't think that Chinese will ever be a world language, because it's far too difficult to learn and its lack of an alphabet makes it extremely cumbersome. It's nice to look at but hardly suitable to the 21st and future centuries. It is much more likely that English will, indeed, become the 2nd language of the Chinese as they move into the world market.

Although I am far from fluent in either, wouldn't it be outstanding if Spanish or Italian, which sound pretty much like they are spelled, replaced English? The absurdities of English spelling by far outweigh the eccentricities of English usage. You would think we could make the dominant world language one that can be learned phonetically, but it seems too much to hope for.

[Jamesaritchie]

But they (the English) stopped and stagnated while we Americans continue the practice.
Really Mr. Ritchie? Don't you think that's just a tad blinkered? And not quite accurate.



Well, I might, except I don't have a clue what "tad blinkered" means. Sounds like some guy with an eye problem, to me.

But if you mean what I think you mean, I think it is pretty accurate. British English does still change, of course, but not, in my experience, at nearly the rate American English does. The good old mother country did, once upon a time, take the majority oif it's words from many other countries, and corrupted them mercilessly in the process. And they do fight change a great deal more than America does.

[Jamesaritchie]

Although I am far from fluent in either, wouldn't it be outstanding if Spanish or Italian, which sound pretty much like they are spelled, replaced English? .

Good grief, no! I have nothing personal against either Spanish or Italian, I studied Spanish in school, but both are vastly inferior to English in pretty much every way.

The "absurdities" of spelling in English are there laregly because it is such a rich language, the richest in the world by far, and especially for writing. One of te drawbacks in taking words from every other language we encounter, and of making up new words on a regular basis, is that spelling is not going to be phonetic, may not even make sense, in many instances. I think the tradeoff is more than worth it.

Those who really want to learn how to spell American English well need to go about it the same way the rest of us do.

1. Read everything you can.
2. Practice spelling the more difficult words.
3. Use their spellcheck program.
4. Swear like a sailor and grab a dictionary when the first three don't work.

[reph]

You would think we could make the dominant world language one that can be learned phonetically, but it seems too much to hope for.
That was pretty much the idea behind Esperanto, which looks more like Spanish and Italian than like English.

[jules]

Well, I might, except I don't have a clue what "tad blinkered" means. Sounds like some guy with an eye problem, to me.

tad = a little bit
blinkered = wearing blinkers (i.e. a device to prevent horses from being distracted by anything happening anywhere other than directly ahead of them by narrowing their field of view substantially)


But if you mean what I think you mean, I think it is pretty accurate. British English does still change, of course, but not, in my experience, at nearly the rate American English does. The good old mother country did, once upon a time, take the majority oif it's words from many other countries, and corrupted them mercilessly in the process. And they do fight change a great deal more than America does.

In recent years I've actually seen more Americans arguing against change than I have British. British education has (for better or worse) become quite progressive, and our rate of adoption of new words (at least of those accepted into the OED) is, I believe, higher now than at any time in the last few centuries.

[Euan H.]

American English will eventually be the "standard" English of the world

That's not apparently what the publishers of World Englishes* think.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0883-2919&site=1

English is actually fragmenting, rather than unifying. Most second language speakers of English don't use the language to speak to native speakers; they speak it with other non-native speakers. Hence, the idea of American English becoming standard is just silly.

Certainly the world does not need to be taught silly spellings like armour and humour

All English spelling is silly. Full stop.

[Anatole Ghio]

Pretty much it...

Now I have another one. When do you use "out" and "out of" or are they interchangable?

I look out of the window.

I look out the window.

To me, to look out of the window implies being partially out of the window, while looking out the window means glancing through the window.

Perhaps the grammer is more or less the same in both cases, but it seems to connote different meanings to me.

[arrowqueen]

Ah, those wacky Latin-loving Victorians. I should have known.

Sorry, Light. Nice theory, but it's as convincing as Dick van Dyke's 'Cockney' accent in 'Mary Poppins'.

As far as I'm aware, the only effect the Victorians had on English was their introduction of new words (like 'bungalow', ''pyjamas' etc) from the Empire - oh, and let's not forget the Reverend Bowdler, who tried to cut all the naughty bits out of Shakespeare, thus giving us the word 'bowdlerise'.

[arrowqueen]

Sorry. I forgot Dr Spooner who gave us 'spoonerisms.'

[Aconite]

Most of American English is from original English before the brits added silly rules during the Victorian age due to their lavish fondness for Latin, a language full of silly rules like the taboo of dividing an infinitive.

Except that a Latin infinitive is one word, and can't be divided. Strictly speaking, an English infinitive is one word, too, and can't be divided.

[pdr]

Thank you, Jules, for explaining 'a tad blinkered' for me. Sorry to confuse you JR, but I did think 'tad' was used in American English.

[arrowqueen]

Not to mention that the Latin influence goes back to 55 AD when the buggers invaded.

Hence Julius Caesar's famous catch-phrase: 'Veni, vidi, visa.' (I came. I saw. I shopped.)

[Medievalist]

Thank you, Jules, for explaining 'a tad blinkered' for me. Sorry to confuse you JR, but I did think 'tad' was used in American English.

It is, and was. "He's a tad under the weather."

"How much do you want?"

"Just a tad."

In his early twentieth century Lingusitic Atlas of the U.S. Hans Kurath used "tad" as one of his marker words, that is, a word used to help locate and identify a speaker's dialect.

[reph]

Strictly speaking, an English infinitive is one word, too, and can't be divided.
Were the teachers wrong, then, when they told us an infinitive is "to + ______"?

[Jamesaritchie]

tad = a little bit
blinkered = wearing blinkers (i.e. a device to prevent horses from being distracted by anything happening anywhere other than directly ahead of them by narrowing their field of view substantially)



In recent years I've actually seen more Americans arguing against change than I have British. British education has (for better or worse) become quite progressive, and our rate of adoption of new words (at least of those accepted into the OED) is, I believe, higher now than at any time in the last few centuries.

We do, or did, use the word "tad," though I believe it's considered dated now. Not one you hear often. "Blinkered" is an unusual word for me. I assume "blinkers" are the same thing we usually call "blinders" here. Sometimes also called "winkers," though "blinders" is the standard.

You know, as for changes in the langauge, I suspect it's much as it has always been. The upper crust argues against changes in both countries, while the common people go ahead and make them regardless. Common usage dictates change, while experts in the langauge tend to follow along kicking and screaming against changes.

[Medievalist]

Were the teachers wrong, then, when they told us an infinitive is "to + ______"?

No; the infinitive in modern English is two words, to plus the verb in first singular present. The "to" is still functioning as a preposition.

Don't get me started on the so-called "split infinitive"; sometimes it works just fine, better, in fact, than the alternative, and it's been used in English from Old English right through Modern English.

[Jamesaritchie]

That's not apparently what the publishers of World Englishes* think.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0883-2919&site=1

English is actually fragmenting, rather than unifying. Most second language speakers of English don't use the language to speak to native speakers; they speak it with other non-native speakers. Hence, the idea of American English becoming standard is just silly.



All English spelling is silly. Full stop.

I don't know what the publishers of World Englishes believe, but if they don't think American English is becoming the standard, they stand pretty much alone. Fragmentation is the strength, not the weakness, of English, particularly American English, and I think I could make an argument for fragmented English being American English. "Fragmented" English is often called this because it veers away from British English and become closer to American English.

English in any form is unlikely to ever replace native languages, though I could be totally wrong about this, but from my experience, no matter what form of English people learn as a second language, it becomes Americanized in very short order. This is largely due to the influence of American TV and movies, but also due to the fact that America is still the leader in international business, travel, and tourism.

And fragmentation seems to be slowing down, and possibly converging on a basic, worldwide usage, thanks largely to the internet. Almost 90% of those on the internet speak english, 80% of stored electronic text is in English, two thirds of the worlds scientists speak English, and Egnlish is now the oficial language of both international business and international diplomacy. Written English changes slower than spoken English, of course, but it srtikes me that spoken English in the U.K. is now much closer to spoken English in America than it was twenty years ago.

INternet language is much closer to spoken English than to written English, and it's reached teh point where I can seldom tell where a poster is from simply by reading the posts. Both U.K. and Austrailian posters are often indistinguishable from American posters now. This wasn't true ten years ago.

What this may mean, of course, is the the new international standard for English is going to be whatever the internet says it is.

[Aconite]

Were the teachers wrong, then, when they told us an infinitive is "to + ______"?

Not exactly. Both yes and no.

The clearest explanation I know of is Patricia O'Conner's (from Woe Is I): "[An infinitive] can usually be recognized by the word to in front of it... But the to isn't actually part of the infinitive and isn't always necessary: Blackbeard helped him escape. As a preposition, a word that positions other words, the to lets us know an infinitive is coming."

Btw, when I said that the infinitive in English couldn't be split, I meant could not, being one word; not should not, which is a silly pseudorule.

[trumancoyote]

I don't think that Chinese will ever be a world language, because it's far too difficult to learn and its lack of an alphabet makes it extremely cumbersome. It's nice to look at but hardly suitable to the 21st and future centuries. It is much more likely that English will, indeed, become the 2nd language of the Chinese as they move into the world market.

That's a frighteningly Anglocentric opinion there, if I've ever heard one. For one, Chinese isn't any more difficult to learn than English, and just because you aren't all that adept at it doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't.

There's nothing cumbersome about Chinese. In fact, they have a rather fascinating etymology that clues its readers into the meanings of its words better than any root, suffix or prefix might ever do in English.

And most important: it's one of the more economical languages in the world. With no a, an, or the; with no past tense; with no conjugation of words, and often times, the the fact that most words are composed of one or two characters -- I'd say it's worlds more suited to the hustle and bustle of 21st century capitalism.

[maestrowork]

I agree with TC. Not that I don't think Chinese is difficult -- it is, at least the written form -- but it's no more difficult than English or French or German or Spanish. When I was 3 years old, I was already capable of communicating with simple Chinese (both written and spoken).

Like TC said, there are no articles, no prepositions, no tenses, and common characters are very easy to learn and master. The grammar is extremely simple: subject + verb + object. That's all. And you can say A LOT using just a few words -- that's why Chinese poetry is so beautiful because of the richness of meanings with so few words.

I know enough English-speaking folks who learn how to speak and write (at least entry-level) Chinese within a year or so.

Like any languages, to master Chinese, including the nuances, could be challenging, and it does help to learn it as a child. But again, it's no different than, say, learning English. English is very difficult (with all those exceptions) for an adult, for example.

[mommie4a]

I entered college in 1980 as a Chinese major with a business minor. I wasn't allowed to go to Beijing because it wasn't "open" yet and was only offered a year abroad at Taiwan Normal. I turned that down and changed majors.

As someone who was fluent in French, nearly so in Spanish and later in Hebrew, I have to say that, with English as my first language, I saw Mandarin difficult to learn only because of its intricacies, not because there's anything inherently difficulty about it. To me, learning foreign language is mainly about rote memorization. If you don't like that kind of learning, it will be hard for you - no matter what the subject is.

As Ray points out, the structure is incredibly simple. Simplified written Chinese is also pretty easy to pick up once you've mastered the long versions and root characters. The toughest part in learning the language, for me, was the first several months getting used to the stroke patterns and writing in the boxes for hours. I also had a mental block with my lab teacher because she was this petite blonde with very little authenticity to her speech, even though she'd lived in Taiwan for a while.

Overall, I think it's a gorgeous and lush language. I still plan on getting to China one day and re-starting my education of the language. My dictionary from college sits in my bedroom next to all my other reading materials. And I still use a few characters in my notes when I'm writing or taking notes during interviews.

Meng Zhen Zhen was my name.

[trumancoyote]

Mine is Xiao Ou.

Jill, I had no idea that you studied Chinese. You're a fascinating woman.

[mommie4a]

Mine is Xiao Ou.

Jill, I had no idea that you studied Chinese. You're a fascinating woman.

What's Xiao Ou mean? Mine means Little Treasure - it was given to me by the professor and intended to mimic my name - Jill Miller

[maestrowork]

Wo xiang geng ni shuo zang hua, Jill.


(translation: I feel like talking dirty to you in Chinese....)

[maestrowork]

Xiao means little... I have no idea what ou means out of context (perhaps that's one thing difficult about Chinese. Without the context it's sometimes difficult to know what a word means...)

[mommie4a]

Wo xiang geng ni shuo zang hua, Jill.


(translation: I feel like talking dirty to you in Chinese....)

Wo bu wai shuo zhong guo hua akshav

That's I don't speak Chinese now - now is in Hebrew

[mommie4a]

Wo xiang geng ni shuo zang hua, Jill.


(translation: I feel like talking dirty to you in Chinese....)

And I bet it would melt me, Ray, in any language - wait - are we in the wrong thread for that??

[trumancoyote]

It means Little Europe.

My teacher had a Hell of a time naming me because I'm a hardcore procrastinator and never took the time to decide from the many characters she offered for my name -- Zach Overline. The only one I decided on was the first tone Ou, mimicking the beginning sound of my last name; it was an easy choice, because in its third tone, it means to puke. So first tone it was.

For a while, she just called me Ou Xiansheng... then, after time, began calling me the more cutesy Xiao Ou.

[maestrowork]

WRONG thread! ;)

[mommie4a]

For a while, she just called me Ou Xiansheng... then, after time, began calling me the more cutesy Xiao Ou.

And cute you are! Darn - I keep forgetting what thread I'm in. Sorry Tish.

[maestrowork]

It means Little Europe.

My teacher had a Hell of a time naming me because I'm a hardcore procrastinator and never took the time to decide from the many characters she offered for my name -- Zach Overline. The only one I decided on was the first tone Ou, mimicking the beginning sound of my last name; it was any easy choice, because in its third tone, it means to puke. So first tone it was.

For a while, she just called me Ou Xiansheng... then, after time, began calling me the more cutesy Xiao Ou.

I see... Ou -- the character of Europe -- would be a good surname for you: Overline.

[trumancoyote]

Wo xiang geng ni shuo zang hua, Jill.


(translation: I feel like talking dirty to you in Chinese....)

Ray bu yao hai gen wo yikuair tantan zanghua ne?

Qu ni de.

[trumancoyote]

Yeah, yeah. Sorry for the wrong thread bizness.

[mommie4a]

I was meeting with Rabbi from my synagogue when I had to prepare that thing called a D'var Torah last month and he saw me taking notes and he was trying to read them and saw my use of the character "ren" all over the place - I use it for people, person etc. He just stared at me with this smile at the fact that I do that with a few characters - umm, it was almost creepy!

[maestrowork]

Zach, chao ni la!

[trumancoyote]

Chinese and Japanese are perfectly suited to note-taking.

And I want to know Hebrew.

[maestrowork]

Chinese and Japanese are perfectly suited to note-taking.

And I want to know Hebrew.

You mean he blew...

oops, wrong thread again. Sorry.

[trumancoyote]

Oh, I'm well versed in the art of He Blew.

... Ok! Ok! I won't post anymore in this thread unless it's relevant.

[mommie4a]

:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: You mean he blew...

oops, wrong thread again. Sorry.

[maestrowork]

I think the mod needs to delete a few posts... :D

[trumancoyote]

Bah. Off-topicry is the nature of messageboards.

[arrowqueen]

Wo ye shuo Zhongguohua. ( hen bu hao!)

Maybe whoever said Chinese was taking over was right after all!

[trumancoyote]

Zhen de ma?!

Ni shi cong nar xue de ya?

(This is hard w/out characters. I hate Pinyin.)

[maestrowork]

I hate pinyin as well.

[mommie4a]

Yeah, in English, X is x-ray. How did pinyin come up with X being "shw"?

[trumancoyote]

Seriously. And don't even get me started on Pinyin r's.

[maestrowork]

X and Sh are subtly different in Chinese. X... there's no "h" sound. I find the following difficult in pinyin:

s vs. x

j vs. zh vs. z

ch vs. c

[maestrowork]

Seriously. And don't even get me started on Pinyin r's.

As they always say, "roll your tongue around the Rs."

:ROFL:

[trumancoyote]

Yeah. Goddamn those Taiwanese for taking the retroflex out of sh, zh, and ch.

[mommie4a]

Seriously. And don't even get me started on Pinyin r's.

Hebrew has a similar problem. Also no J in hebrew. I used to force the kids I taught to say my name even though the teachers kept trying to get me to let them say my Hebrew name (which, of course, has no J in it).

[trumancoyote]

As they always say, "roll your tongue around the Rs."

:ROFL:

I'll roll my tongue around your R, mister.

I mean, um o_O;;

[maestrowork]

WRONG thread, again.

Boy, they keep hijacking this thread!

[Jamesaritchie]

That's a frighteningly Anglocentric opinion there, if I've ever heard one. For one, Chinese isn't any more difficult to learn than English, and just because you aren't all that adept at it doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't.

There's nothing cumbersome about Chinese. In fact, they have a rather fascinating etymology that clues its readers into the meanings of its words better than any root, suffix or prefix might ever do in English.

And most important: it's one of the more economical languages in the world. With no a, an, or the; with no past tense; with no conjugation of words, and often times, the the fact that most words are composed of one or two characters -- I'd say it's worlds more suited to the hustle and bustle of 21st century capitalism.

Well, the Chinese say Chinese, particlularly Mandarin, is harder to learn than English, at least if you mean learning to the point of fluency in reading, writing, and speaking.

But Chinese is highly unlikely to become a world language, and there's nothing Anglocentric about this opinion. It's one held by most of the world, including the Chinese. China hopes to have the majority of their population fluent in English within twenty years. I don't know any country that holds this goal for Chinese.

[trumancoyote]

Well, the Chinese say Chinese, particlularly Mandarin, is harder to learn than English, at least if you mean learning to the point of fluency in reading, writing, and speaking.

But Chinese is highly unlikely to become a world language, and there's nothing Anglocentric about this opinion. It's one held by most of the world, including the Chinese. China hopes to have the majority of their population fluent in English within twenty years. I don't know any country that holds this goal for Chinese.

Of course someone's going to say that about their own language. And for the record: the Chinese say it? They all do? I'm not arguing that some wouldn't: that's a very Chinese thing to think. But be careful in using such a sweeping phrase.

I didn't say that Chinese was going to be the global language. It won't. I'm saying it should be, though -- more so than English, anyhow.

It makes me sick that most of Asia has so large an erection over English (the language) and Western Culture. It's stripping them of their culture, their timelessly respected homogeny, and a language that is so entirely singular that people in the West assume that it's impossible to learn.

I love my language, but I say **** its influence.

[reph]

As they always say, "roll your tongue around the Rs."
Wrong board.

[maestrowork]

I don't know about Chinese becoming a global language (at least not in the next 20 years -- no, I don't think), but I do think there's a trend for more and more westerners to learn Chinese, so they can do business with China and Taiwan. Even though many Chinese do learn or aspire to learn English, over 90% of the Chinese population still only speak Chinese. China is set to become one of the biggest economic power in the world in the next 50 years, and world corporations are not stupid. They're hiring more and more bilingual professionals. I can't predict the future, but I can't say for sure that Chinese won't become a world language over the next century, as they become more and more dominant in world politics and economy. Just look at the US -- Spanish is fast becoming an alternative language. And in many areas, Spanish is now the official language, not English.

[Euan H.]

if they don't think American English is becoming the standard, they stand pretty much alone.

Well, not really. There's a growing consensus in Applied Linguistics and EFL journals [1] that regional and local varieties of English are just as important as British and American English [2].

1 - At least, that's the way it appears to me (Master's degree in Applied Linguistics and doctoral degree candidate)

2 - Inasmuch as there is such a thing as "Standard American English" or "British English". Just listen to the speech of a Liverpudlian, a cockney, a Mancunian, and a drunken Glaswegian--and then tell me what "British English" is.

English in any form is unlikely to ever replace native languages, though I could be totally wrong about this, but from my experience, no matter what form of English people learn as a second language, it becomes Americanized in very short order.

This may well appear to be true from the perspective of someone living in the U.S., but it doesn't really apply outside the area where the U.S.'s influence is very strong.

Most of my students, to be honest, can't tell the difference between US and British English, and even if they can, they can't give a rat's *** about what those differences are. I've heard male students in my university use insults from both British and American slang--and often right next to each other.

Most of the Thai people I've met whose English is fluent (and that number is vanishingly small), speak a kind of neutral English, in which the Thai accent and conversational characteristics far outweigh any US/UK differences.

Also, in the department where I work, we have teachers from the UK (all over), the US, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, and all of them (including me) speak a fairly neutral dialect--I think you'd find it hard to tell where people came from by just listening to them.

This is largely due to the influence of American TV and movies, but also due to the fact that America is still the leader in international business, travel, and tourism.

Not in South East Asia it's not. East Asia and Europe have much stronger imapcts here than America.

Again, I think this is a matter of perspective. When I was living in the UK, I was convinced that the UK was vastly more important than it is--now I've been living outside the country for a long time, I've gained a different, possibly more valid, perspective.

As for Chinese becoming a world language--I don't think so, but it's already a language in demand in South East Asia. In the Bangkok Post and the Nation (the two national English-language newspapers in Thailand), job advertisements stating that applicants must have proficiency in Chinese are bceoming more and more common. When I arrived here, they were asking for Japanese speakers--now, it seems, the Chinese have more clout.