• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Problems with the English Language

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
"Thus is Green Park, exit here for..."
You cannot exit a train. You can alight from a train, you can make an exit from a train but you cannot exit a train.

The rest of the sentence is relevant here. You can exit a station.

"Mind the gap whilst alighting the train" Again, you can alight from a train but you cannot alight the train.

Not mentioning the train at all would do.

"Ensure that you have all your personal belongings...". If they're your belonging they're personal to you, why say personal belongings?

It's the 'all' part that I find odd - most of my belongings are safely stored at home.

Yer know wha' I'm saying innit.(sniff).

INNIT has been accepted in Scrabble tournaments since the beginning of this year (along with GRRL and GRRRL). Sad, isn't it?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Giugiaro

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2011
Messages
1,129
Location
Valongo - Portugal
I've noticed lately that people are writing as instead of has.


That would be me. I am often questioning myself what of those two are supposed to be used. I know that "has" is a possessive verb of the 3rd singular person and "as" is a comparative word, but sometimes I don't know which of them I should use. For example: "He should have gone there ... promised."; What should I use? The possessive or the comparative one?

Other thing that it's simple to understand, but yet it leads to error, is the "a/an" article. It is known that "a" is used for a consonant starting word, like in "a pen", while "an" is used for a vowel starting word, like in "an apple". This works also for "h" starting words, like in "a holiday", although the "h" is a mute letter (or is it not?).

Since the Portuguese use "a" has the article for words (unlike the Spanish, Italian and French "la") they tend to use "a" in English, regardless of the next word starting with consonant or vowel.
 

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
It is known that "a" is used for a consonant starting word, like in "a pen", while "an" is used for a vowel starting word, like in "an apple". This works also for "h" starting words, like in "a holiday", although the "h" is a mute letter (or is it not?).

That's not quite the case. The indefinite article is 'a' when followed by a consonant sound, and 'an' when followed by a vowel sound: a utopia, an honour. And sometimes the 'n' moves to or from the noun -'an ewt' became 'a newt', while 'a norange' became 'an orange'.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
INNIT has been accepted in Scrabble tournaments since the beginning of this year (along with GRRL and GRRRL). Sad, isn't it?

The latter two meaning...?

Other thing that it's simple to understand, but yet it leads to error, is the "a/an" article. It is known that "a" is used for a consonant starting word, like in "a pen", while "an" is used for a vowel starting word, like in "an apple". This works also for "h" starting words, like in "a holiday", although the "h" is a mute letter (or is it not?).

As Seacook has explained this is generally correct but far from always. Note that words starting with "H" are usually pronounced with the "H" present. Only a limited number, most (if not all) of which derive from French, do not.
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,395
Location
Glasgow
Can we add the incorrect "different to" (instead of "different from") to our hit list?

And while we're at it, a distressing number of people seem unable to use "less" and "fewer" correctly. If it's continuous, use less. If it is discrete, use fewer.

Less sand, fewer bags of sand. Fewer (not less) people.

"Less than" is also correct with a number.
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
Whilst I find myself annoyed with certain so-called incorrect uses of grammar, fundamentally I don't think it's right to call it “incorrect” in a natural language – grammar is descriptive not prescriptive. In Esperanto one could describe something as being incorrect, but that is a language constructed based on a grammar rather than one with evolved - and evolving - grammar.

Anyway, the discussion seems to be veering away from the original topic a little – and whilst it’s tempting to discuss pet hates, nobody likes grammar nazi’s...
Latvian has NO article for words ! (i.e. no a/an/the)

Nor do the nordic languages, though they do designate the definite article with a suffix (e.g. bíl car or a car - bílinn the car). I'm sure many languages are similar.

Can we add the incorrect "different to" (instead of "different from") to our hit list?

Both sound fine to me; "different" doesn't imply directionality so it sounds right going in either direction to me. When people say "different than" on the other hand, that's when the red mist comes down...
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,395
Location
Glasgow
Both sound fine to me; "different" doesn't imply directionality so it sounds right going in either direction to me. When people say "different than" on the other hand, that's when the red mist comes down...

But it does imply directionality! Fero, fere, tuli, latum is the Latin root - to bear way. The "di(s)" prefix adds the sense of "apart" so the words being contrasted "bear away apart from each other" in meaning. Hence "differ from." "To" would imply a convergence which is not appropriate here.
 

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
But it does imply directionality! Fero, fere, tuli, latum is the Latin root - to bear way. The "di(s)" prefix adds the sense of "apart" so the words being contrasted "bear away apart from each other" in meaning. Hence "differ from." "To" would imply a convergence which is not appropriate here.

The first four citations for 'different' in the OED show two with 'to', one with 'from' and one with 'unto'. 'Different from' does not appear to have been the sole idiom at any point in the last 500 years.

The OED does indicate that 'different from' is the prevailing form these days and that many consider 'different to' to be incorrect, but the fact remains that the latter has always been in use. Moreover, we say 'dissimilar to' without any problem. ('Dissimilar from' appears over a century later, later than the rather odd 'dissimilar with'.)
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,395
Location
Glasgow
Thanks for your research here. I'm taking a break from fitting a sink and joining in with the discussion to the annoyance of those who want to be able to wash their hands.
The first four citations for 'different' in the OED show two with 'to', one with 'from' and one with 'unto'. 'Different from' does not appear to have been the sole idiom at any point in the last 500 years.

The OED does indicate that 'different from' is the prevailing form these days and that many consider 'different to' to be incorrect, but the fact remains that the latter has always been in use.
Fair enough, but being in use does not make it correct per se or indeed preferable.

Moreover, we say 'dissimilar to' without any problem. ('Dissimilar from' appears over a century later, later than the rather odd 'dissimilar with'.)
I would suggest that is a different construction, equal to 'not similar to'.
The word 'different' stands on its own and is not merely a negation of a positive expression.

However, as you have argued to case for this so well, I will permit you to use both 'different to' and 'dissimilar to' as you see fit and I will not now become irritated, at least by your use thereof. :D
 

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
Thanks for your research here. I'm taking a break from fitting a sink and joining in with the discussion to the annoyance of those who want to be able to wash their hands.

Fair enough, but being in use does not make it correct per se or indeed preferable.

How the language is used is the way to find out what is correct. We may not like it, but trying to say how the language ought to be used is futile.

However, as you have argued to case for this so well, I will permit you to use both 'different to' and 'dissimilar to' as you see fit and I will not now become irritated, at least by your use thereof. :D

Further research on 'different' reveals that The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition, 1996) and The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (1st edition, 2004) endorse 'from', 'to' and 'than' depending on the rest of the sentence and do not indicate any hard and fast rule.

TCGtEU has some examples of sentences where you are invited to consider which of 'from', 'to' or 'than' you would use in place of '...'.

Bob's approach was different...Jo's.
Bob had a different approach...Jo.
Bob's approach was different...what we expected.
Bob had a different approach...what was expected.
Bob's approach was different...we expected.
Bob had a different approach...we expected.

It varies from day to day but my own use would most commonly be 'from', 'to', 'from', 'from', 'than' and 'than'.


I drew the line at digging out the other twenty or so books I have on English usage.

I dislike (but can do little about) terms like 'from whence', 'centred around' and 'meteoric rise' (meteors don't rise, they fall).
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
But it does imply directionality! Fero, fere, tuli, latum is the Latin root - to bear way. The "di(s)" prefix adds the sense of "apart" so the words being contrasted "bear away apart from each other" in meaning. Hence "differ from." "To" would imply a convergence which is not appropriate here.

Exactly - my point was that to me (and I'm sure most people) understand the same meaning using "to", so in practice there's no reason why one is better than the other. "Different" is an English word, not a Latin term.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
...Moreover, we say 'dissimilar to' without any problem. ('Dissimilar from' appears over a century later, later than the rather odd 'dissimilar with'.)
This is because the roots of the prefixes re different. The "Di.." in "Different" is (as has been said) a prefix implying separation; the "Dis.." in "Dissimilar" is simply a negative prefix.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
..... "Different" is an English word, not a Latin term.
Absolutely, and language is a living, evolving entity. However, just as in French a native speaker knows instinctively that a table is feminine, so some of us know instinctively that objects differ "from" each other. It is of secondary importance that the etymology shows us to be correct:lol:
 

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
Absolutely, and language is a living, evolving entity. However, just as in French a native speaker knows instinctively that a table is feminine, so some of us know instinctively that objects differ "from" each other. It is of secondary importance that the etymology shows us to be correct:lol:

But others instinctively use "to" or "than". Such terms are arbitrary and rarely cause a problem in understanding. An extreme example might be if one were to indicate responsibility for an action - you can say,
It's up to you to do this,
or
It's down to you to do this.
They do not have opposing meanings even though 'up' and 'down' do.
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,395
Location
Glasgow
How the language is used is the way to find out what is correct. We may not like it, but trying to say how the language ought to be used is futile.

I seen what you done there. Whom am I to argue? (All of that in everyday use). :D
 
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
696
Can we add the incorrect "different to" (instead of "different from") to our hit list?

Always remember, similar to, different from.

And while we're at it, a distressing number of people seem unable to use "less" and "fewer" correctly. If it's continuous, use less. If it is discrete, use fewer.

Less sand, fewer bags of sand. Fewer (not less) people.

"Less than" is also correct with a number.

...................................
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The rest of the sentence is relevant here. You can exit a station.

No, sorry you can't. Although the word exit is both a noun and a verb, it's incorrect grammar to use exit as a verb in this case. An exit is something that is passed through, it's not the act of doing so.


Not mentioning the train at all would do.



It's the 'all' part that I find odd - most of my belongings are safely stored at home.



INNIT has been accepted in Scrabble tournaments since the beginning of this year (along with GRRL and GRRRL). Sad, isn't it?

..........................
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm beginning to enjoy this. here's a couple more.

When did "I've made a mistake" become, "my bad" and "something being described as an, "epic fail"? No, it's an epic failure.

Oh, and "Hello Fred how are you"?
"I'm good thanks".
Fred has just been asked about his health, not if he's well behaved!
 
Last edited:

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
Although the word exit is both a noun and a verb, it's incorrect grammar to use exit as a verb in this case. An exit is something that is passed through, it's not the act of doing so.

The verb exit is both transitive and intransitive. In the former case, it requires leaving something; for example "exit the motorway at junction 7". In the latter, it does not.

As a noun, exit is not exclusively something that is passed through - it just means leaving (its original use was as a stage direction). In Bridge, you can talk of exit cards (or cards of exit) used to lose the lead rather than concede an advantage to the opposition. One can 'take one's exit' even in the middle of field when passing through anything would be impossible.
 
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
696
The verb exit is both transitive and intransitive. In the former case, it requires leaving something; for example "exit the motorway at junction 7". In the latter, it does not.

As a noun, exit is not exclusively something that is passed through - it just means leaving (its original use was as a stage direction). In Bridge, you can talk of exit cards (or cards of exit) used to lose the lead rather than concede an advantage to the opposition. One can 'take one's exit' even in the middle of field when passing through anything would be impossible.

I don't exit a motorway - I leave a motorway. Nor do I source things, I obtain them. I don't have a take on things, I have an opinion and on my birthday I'm hoping for a mention on the radio, not a shout-out. I've no wish to trial things but I'm willing to give them a trial. Oh it just goes on and on, will this madness never end?:roll:
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I noun
you noun
he, she or it nouns

. . . . .

have you nouned yet?
noun it!

We'll be speaking like that in a decade or so at this rate; maybe even writing like that, but as writing continues to be transformed and developed by technology, perhaps it will progress in a different direction - a direction that is influenced by those who design and produce the technology rather than by those who use our languages.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
I noun
you noun
he, she or it nouns

. . . . .

have you nouned yet?
noun it!

We'll be speaking like that in a decade or so at this rate; maybe even writing like that, but as writing continues to be transformed and developed by technology, perhaps it will progress in a different direction - a direction that is influenced by those who design and produce the technology rather than by those who use our languages.

When did you decision that?
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Glasgow
My view is that the history of the language is very interesting and does indeed show that English has undergone continual changes from its origins to the present day. If it hadn't, you would be using some rather archaic terminology and syntax! Prior to standardisation, different regions of Britain would disagree on spelling and definitions...

I see no reason why the trend of evolution won't continue. It's a human trait to resist change anyway and to believe that current norms are set in stone. They aren't and they never have been. If enough people of any generation use a word or construction, it's a candidate for official recognition.

English has always been quite flexible in adapting to new vocabulary and constructions and I suppose that's part of its appeal as a worldwide language. The lack of an prescriptive body like the "Académie française" is a major factor here, as organisations monitoring English tend to be descriptive of usage rather than prescriptive.
 
Last edited:

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
The lack of an prescriptive body like the "Académie française" is a major factor here, as organisations monitoring English tend to be descriptive of usage rather than prescriptive.
Which can be contrasted further with other languages, very many of which have been subject to official reforms, e.g. Greek, Dutch, German, Spanish, Japanese, Russian, Norwegian, Cambodian and Vietnamese. In some of these cases the reform has been within living memory, leaving traces of support and resistance in every-day culture.
 

NIMBUS

Member
Joined
13 May 2011
Messages
176
I see no reason why the trend of evolution won't continue. It's a human trait to resist change anyway and to believe that current norms are set in stone. They aren't and they never have been. If enough people of any generation use a word or construction, it's a candidate for official recognition.

I agree 100%. Sadly, however, any change in the language always tends to be driven by the lowest common denominator's ignorance. Which is why, I suspect, that in the long term phrases like "would of", "should of", "could of" (instead of would've, could've, should've) will become standard English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top