What is the time/What's the time

[Silverobama]

If I want to ask a friend of mine who's in the UK the time there, are the following versions both good?

a) What is the time in your part of the world?
b) What's the time in your part of the world?

 

[emsr2d2]

Both are grammatically correct. It would be more natural to use the contracted "What's" if you're talking to a friend. There's no need for more formal constructions when chatting with a friend. I'd probably shorten it even more to "What's the time there?" or "What time is it there?"

 

[Silverobama]

Both are grammatically correct.

Please allow me to ask another question. Are they both natural in English? One situation was like I was talking to a friend in Finland and there were some other people in the chat group. I wanted to be more specific.

 

[emsr2d2]

Please allow me to ask another question. Unnecessary.

Are they both natural in English?

They're not unnatural but I wouldn't say "in your part of the world" unless I didn't actually know where they were. It's more natural to say "there" in that context.

One situation was like I'm talking about a situation in which I was talking to a friend in Finland in a chat group and but there were some other people there too. in the chat group.

I think that's what you mean.

I wanted to be more specific.

More specific about what? If you're talking about the location, you'd say "What time is it in Finland?"

 

[jutfrank]

I completely disagree with emsr2d2 over what you mean by asking whether it's 'natural'. In the sense of the word 'natural, that most of us usually use here on the forum, yes, your sentence b) is very natural.

They're not unnatural but I wouldn't say "in your part of the world" unless I didn't actually know where they were. It's more natural to say "there" in that context.

I think that's what you mean.

I think what members nearly always mean by the word 'natural' is whether it's something that could be uttered by a native speaker. In other words, if an utterance doesn't immediately make you think 'Oh, he's a non-native speaker', then it's considered natural language. I think it's really important that we're all in line with this. Whether something is a natural thing to say in a particular situation is very different indeed.

(Note: I told Silverobama recently to stop using the word 'idiomatic' and to use the word 'natural' instead. What he always wants to know is whether his sentences sound like good English that could be uttered by a native speaker rather than someone whose first language is obviously Chinese.)

 

[emsr2d2]

That's why I said they weren't unnatural. I considered the specific context the OP gave - talking to a friend. In that context, I would find "in your part of the world" less natural/likely (more formal) than "there".

 

[jutfrank]

I would find "in your part of the world" less natural/likely (more formal) than "there".

I'm saying that it's not a matter of it being less natural. It's just a different expression, equally natural.

 

[Tarheel]

I have asked almost exactly the same question. All I said was, "What time is it there?" Less typing that way.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm saying that it's not a matter of it being less natural. It's just a different expression, equally natural.

Then we have different definitions of natural (for the purposes of the forum). I always think of it in terms of simply what would the average everyday person be most likely to say in any particular situation. To me, that's the most natural. I would refer to something that would come out of my mouth without thinking about it as "That's what would come naturally to me".

If I walked into my local shop and said "Good day, my good man. Would you perchance hold in stock any slices of potato that have been fried in oil and placed in a conveniently sized foil-lined bag?", would you consider that equally natural to what I'd actually say, which is "Morning, mate. Got any crisps?"? Based on your quote above, you'd find them equally natural, just different ways of saying the same thing. For me, the first is certainly unlikely and, in this day and age, unnatural.

 

[jutfrank]

Then we have different definitions of natural (for the purposes of the forum).

Yes! This has been the case for years. It can be very confusing sometimes, and can lead to conflicting answers.

Then we have different definitions of natural (for the purposes of the forum). I always think of it in terms of simply what would the average everyday person be most likely to say in any particular situation. To me, that's the most natural. I would refer to something that would come out of my mouth without thinking about it as "That's what would come naturally to me".

I strongly suggest that when we use the word 'natural', we mean something like 'not identifiable as having come from a non-native speaker'. That's what members really mean to ask.

Learners don't generally want to know how or what you would say personally. They don't necessarily want to sound like an upper-middle class English barrister, or a coarse-mouthed Glaswegian grocer, or an African-American teenaged gang member. Do learners really want to know what would be natural specifically to you, ems? With the sum of all of your particular upbringing, your personality, your dialect, your speech patterns?

If I walked into my local shop and said "Good day, my good man. Would you perchance hold in stock any slices of potato that have been fried in oil and placed in a conveniently sized foil-lined bag?", would you consider that equally natural

Yes, that's equally natural! That's exactly what I'm saying.

to what I'd actually say, which is "Morning, mate. Got any crisps?"?

In the sense of the word I'm using, that's also equally natural, but also just as bad as model language as the previous example. The difference between these is register, not naturalness.

Based on your quote above, you'd find them equally natural, just different ways of saying the same thing.

Yes.

For me, the first is certainly unlikely and, in this day and age, unnatural.

It's not 'unnatural'. It's just of a certain formal, old-fashioned register. It's perfectly natural to those who would speak like that.

I always think of it in terms of simply what would the average everyday person be most likely to say in any particular situation.

What do you think we should or could do about this difference in our uses of the word? I think it's quite important.

 

[emsr2d2]

To avoid confusion, I'll simply stop replying to any threads about naturalness. I'm not going to change my entire way of thinking about this. If I thought the question was about whether something is what a native speaker might say (rather than a non-native speaker), then I'd expect that to be the question ("Is the following something you might hear from a native speaker?")

I'm not trying to get learners to speak exactly like me but I always aim to give them the most likely way to say something based on my experience. If I told a learner that my "certain, formal, old-fashioned register" version of the crisp conversation was natural, and they then went into a shop and used it, I would probably then have to apologise to them for the stick they'd get for speaking like that. Saying "It's perfectly natural to those who speak like that" would make sense if anyone here still spoke like that.

 

[5jj]

I'll simply stop replying to any threads about naturalness

I won't. And I shall continue to tell learners that sentences like your example are unnatural.

 

[jutfrank]

If I told a learner that my "certain, formal, old-fashioned register" version of the crisp conversation was natural, and they then went into a shop and used it, I would probably then have to apologise to them for the stick they'd get for speaking like that.

What we should be telling them is that if they speak like that, they're going to sound formal and old-fashioned, and that that's probably not what they want to sound like.

You don't have to stop answering anything, emsr2d2. I'm just keen to make sure that when a learner asks whether something is 'natural', that we all understand what the learner is really asking. At the moment, different members are interpreting the question in different ways.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm just keen to make sure that when a learner asks whether something is 'natural', that we all understand what the learner is really asking. At the moment, different members are interpreting the question in different ways.

We can't know what the learner is "really asking" unless they tell us. Unless we're going to start asking everyone who says "Is my sentence natural?" to give us their specific definition of "natural", we're not going to find out.
I specifically teach "use of English", with grammar thrown in when and where necessary. I have always used "natural" to mean something you are likely to hear from standard, everyday native speakers of English in the 21st century. As far as my "Good day, my good man ..." sentence goes, I would continue to say that it's not the most natural way to say it in 2024. I would explain that it would have been natural 200 years ago but things change!

 

[5jj]

We can't know what the learner is "really asking" unless they tell us. Unless we're going to start asking everyone who says "Is my sentence natural?" to give us their specific definition of "natural", we're not going to find out.
I specifically teach "use of English", with grammar thrown in when and where necessary. I have always used "natural" to mean something you are likely to hear from standard, everyday native speakers of English in the 21st century. As far as my "Good day, my good man ..." sentence goes, I would continue to say that it's not the most natural way to say it in 2024. I would explain that it would have been natural 200 years ago but things change!

I agree entirely. I feel that to say It's perfectly natural to those who would speak like that of your seintence is unhelpful and misleading. No sane native speaker of North American, British, Australian or New Zealand would speak like that.

 

[jutfrank]

So how would you account for dialect? I mean, would you say dialectal forms of expression are unnatural, since they're not standard everyday forms? People speak in very different ways. I've always considered that any particular dialectal form to be 'natural to' a particular speech group but 'unnatural to' another.

I have always used "natural" to mean something you are likely to hear from standard, everyday native speakers of English in the 21st century.

Okay, so that's what I would otherwise call 'standard' because you're talking about a certain style. The "Good day, my good man" person speaks in a register that's just as non-standard as, say, that of someone brought up in the projects of downtown Johannesburg, but both styles are equally natural in the sense that it's real language coming from real native speakers, even if they're distant in space or time from us. The way I'd put it is that the notion of 'standard' English is one which attempts to cover the greatest possible range of natural speech patterns—in other words, an English of a style that cannot identify (class/race/geography, etc.) its speaker in any way.

Anyway, I thought you were also using the word 'natural' in the sense of 'being an appropriate thing to say', which is again very different. Is that not also the case? If not, I misunderstood.