PROESL
Key Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Member Type
- English Teacher
Let's let sleeping dogs lie.
In a democracy? In the free world?
;-)
I almost forgot my flag.
:usa :usa
Last edited:
Let's let sleeping dogs lie.
In a democracy? In the free world?
;-)
I almost forgot my flag.
:usa :usa
1. She said she wanted to reschedule the appointment. ( she wants to reschedule)
2. She said she had wanted to reschedule the appointment. (but then changed her mind - but then decided to keep the appointment at the same time)
It's clear that an ELL could be easily inclined to think that the second sentence of the second pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct" if the same learner believes that the second sentence of the first pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct". Clearly, the meanings of both sentences in the second pair are not the same. This means that one must recognize when the use of the past perfect is, in fact, truly necessitated.
I thought I replied. I thought I had replied.
Both are equally correct.
We do have subpar English standards called Singlish in Singapore and a similar Manglish in Malaysia. Some of the syntaxes we use in sentences are actually wrong in standard English (the one that's taught in grammar books), but their meanings can be easily understood or implicit within a given context.
Does that mean that these are grammatically correct too? After all, they are localized colloquial forms of English. Isn't there a colloquial English among natives too? By the way, the first language and language of instruction of Singapore is English.
Numbers 1 and 2 could have the same meaning, Proesl. Reported speech is merely a form change to denote reported speech. It doesn't necessarily address the fact situation.
====================
Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.
What you're suggesting is that CdE, AmE, AuE, NzE all have some subpar standards when measured against BrE, it being the "original. That is, of course, simply not true.
There's this notion that exists that colloquial is ungrammatical and incorrect and SWE/SFE is grammatical and correct. It's pure hogwash. Speech doesn't need any artificial standards set for it. It's been tried. They're called prescriptions.
There are different registers within the language and none of them follow exactly the same rules.
Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.
What you're suggesting is that CdE, AmE, AuE, NzE all have some subpar standards when measured against BrE, it being the "original. That is, of course, simply not true.
I thought we had finished.
I thought we had finished.
Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.
It's quite simply my appreciation and understanding of my language which I have been speaking, reading and studying for more than 50 years (and teaching for somewhat less).
I agree with Lycen on this point. What is "Manglish", and why would you say it's a dialect?
I'm well aware of what reported speech does.
;-)
For any group on the planet, exposed to new conditions, or in this case, a group of people exposed to a new language, the likelihood that these people are going to keep perfectly to the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and all other features found in a mother tongue [English] is zero to nil.
Those features that develop are as legitimate as the features that develop in a pidgin or a creole. They aren't Standard English, I made no such claim, but they are highly communicative structures/collocations that work for that new group.
That's all I was saying, Pro.
That's a clear and acceptable viewpoint, as well as one to be respected. However, I don't view these "new Englishes" as dialects. A dialect within the broad and general range of a standardized language does not develop from errors made by learners of that language.
Errors made by English speakers learning other languages do not give rise to dialects such as "Engchese", "Francglish" or Engluguese". Therefore, Chinese speakers learning English should not give rise to "Chinglish". I think the notion of this is rather comical, quite frankly. :-D
If that's the case, Proesl, and given the quality of your postings, I must assume that is the case, it then puzzles me why would you state,
"[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/104682-supposed-5.html
That has nothing to do with this. Bye bye now. :-D It's only worth so much. No great problems will solved or battles won here, and it's not necessary either. Bye bye now.
One word, American!
If these languages were the language of the world, they sure would be. I believe you're making the same false assumption you said Kon was making. The facts clearly show that this is what's happening and whether we deign to bestow the word "dialect" on these real language changes, the simple fact remains, it's happening, it's language, it's communicative. These changes don't become part of English, though some have, "Confuscius say, ...", they belong to the people who use them in their home area.
We're not talking about a collection of funny translations, we're talking about language devices that persist for very good reasons, mentioned above.
Just as Non-standard English is not to be judged by the norms of Standard English, these language changes need not be, can not be judged by the norms of English.
That really doesn't seem like you, Proesl. You made, in this thread, what clearly seems to be a statement that contradicts what you said [you've said ??] in another thread. I gave a link so that you could address it where it should be addressed.