[Essay] E-mail to an old friend

[Marco Moreira]

Hi everybody! I'd like if a teacher can take a look on my text. There's an e-mail response to an old friend who was Steve's girlfriend one time (it's a fictional situation). If there's any mistake, I will be glad to know! Thank's in advance.

Dear Lori

It was great to hear from you after such a long time! Today, I was thinking about the times that we spent together and checking my e-mail. There was nothing interesting, just adversement. I was just about to close my e-mail, whne I received yours. What a good susprise! You asked me waht I've been doing. Well, I've got a new job as a computer engineering at Microsoft. The office where I work is set on main street, and the most convenient was to get there is go by foot, because my house is not too far from there and the traffic is terrible. Do you remember my girlfriend Mary? I broke up with her. You was right, she doesn't deserve me. I think it's never too late to restart. It would be lovely to see you some time. We could meet for lunch. Any chance that you are free next Saturday?

your friend
Steve

 

[cereal_chick]

I'd like it if you could look at your errors and improve upon them.

Dear Lori

It was great to hear from you after such a long time! Today, I was thinking about the times that we spent together [strike]and[/strike] It would sound a little more natural to say while checking my e-mail. There was nothing interesting, just [strike]adversement[/strike] You would say either "advertisments/adverts/ads" or "advertising". I would go for ads as this is an informal e-mail . I was just about to close my e-mail, when I received yours Saying "yours" would only be natural if "my e-mail" above referred to a specific e-mail and not your e-mail service, which is what I first interpreted it as. To avoid confusion, say "I received an e-mail from you". What a good surprise! You asked me what I've been doing. Well, I've got a new job [strike]as a computer engineering[/strike] In computer engineering OR as a computer engineer at Microsoft. The office where I work is [strike]set on[/strike] You wouldn't say "set on", but next to the main street, and [the most convenient was to get there is go by foot,] You haven't mentioned what the most convenient thing was and you are referring in the past to a method of travel to a job you have now. I'd say, "the most convenient way to get there is by foot" because my house is not too far from there and the traffic is terrible. Do you remember my girlfriend Mary? I broke up with her. You [strike]was[/strike] WERE! right, she doesn't deserve me. I think it's never too late to restart. It would be lovely to see you some time. We could meet for lunch. Any chance that In an informal e-mail such as this, you would omit the "that" you are free next Saturday?

Your friend
Steve

[Not a teacher]

 

[Marco Moreira]

Thanks a lot.

 

[birdeen's call]

You [strike]was[/strike] WERE! right,

Right!

Please note that the following was written in the 18th century. It does not apply to today's English. I'm just posting it as a curiosity. It's from Noah Webster's Dissertations on the English Language.


"In books, you is commonly used with the plural of the verb be, you were; in conversation, it is generally followed by the singular you was. Notwithstanding the criticism of grammarians, the antiquity and universality of this practice must give it the sanction of propriety: for what but practice forms a language? This practice is not merely vulgar; it is general among men of erudition who do not affect to be fettered by the rules of grammarians, and some late writers have indulged it in their publications."

 

[Marco Moreira]

Right!

Please note that the following was written in the 18th century. It does not apply to today's English. I'm just posting it as a curiosity. It's from Noah Webster's Dissertations on the English Language.


"In books, you is commonly used with the plural of the verb be, you were; in conversation, it is generally followed by the singular you was. Notwithstanding the criticism of grammarians, the antiquity and universality of this practice must give it the sanction of propriety: for what but practice forms a language? This practice is not merely vulgar; it is general among men of erudition who do not affect to be fettered by the rules of grammarians, and some late writers have indulged it in their publications."

Thank's for the information. You right, in grammar books we usually see "you were", but we can say "you" ti refer to a single person. I think in some situations, it would be "you was" instead "you were".

 

[Barb_D]

Thank's for the information. You right, in grammar books we usually see "you were", but we can say "you" ti refer to a single person. I think in some situations, it would be "you was" instead "you were".

No, that's incorrect.

While "you" can refer to one person or many, it will never take "was" or any of the third-person singular forms of the verbs. It's only "you are" or "you were" or "you have" etc.

 

[Rover_KE]

No, that's incorrect.

While "you" can refer to one person or many, it will never take "was" or any of the third-person singular forms of the verbs. It's only "you are" or "you were" or "you have" etc.

I agree entirely with Barb.

Having said that, don't be surprised to hear many native speakers – even well-educated ones – saying 'you was', 'we was' and 'they was'.

It doesn't make it right.

Rover

 

[Marco Moreira]

No, that's incorrect.

While "you" can refer to one person or many, it will never take "was" or any of the third-person singular forms of the verbs. It's only "you are" or "you were" or "you have" etc.

What I meant is that make sense when people use "you was", because we can use the word "you" to refer to one person. I know that we shoudn't use "you was" because it's a grammar mistake. Anyway, thanks, any help is welcome!

I agree entirely with Barb.

Having said that, don't be surprised to hear many native speakers – even well-educated ones – saying 'you was', 'we was' and 'they was'.

It doesn't make it right.

Rover

I agree with both. It's good to discuss about this details. I didn't figure out that native speakers say "you was" instead "you were". Actually, on the original post, I wrote "you was" because I didn't pay attention on that, but I knew about this grammar rule. Sometimes I forgot it and said on the wrong way. But if even native speakers talk like that, I feel more conforted making this mistake. =D

 

[CarloSsS]

Having said that, don't be surprised to hear many native speakers – even well-educated ones – saying 'you was', 'we was' and 'they was'.

Really? Even the well-educated ones? I always though that this is extremely informal or even slang and is used by people from the lower classes of society.

 

[Marco Moreira]

I'd like it if you could look at your errors and improve upon them.




[Not a teacher]

An additional correction: We can't use "go by foot". The correct is "go on foot".




NOT A TEACHER