Jimmy Carter's funeral, the media, and grammar

Yes, I hope so, but I'm not confident. There is little excuse for
native speakers to get them wrong, but think of the poor people trying
to learn English as a foreign language, for whom getting it clear when
to write lie, lied, lay, laid, lying, laying must be a nightmare.

Post by Lenona
(But my biggest dream is for all the professional news media to hold a
contest for the fewest grammatical errors in a year - when it comes to
teleprompters, at the very least. No more "wannas" or "gonnas," for
starters!)

Again, I hope so, I'd love to see the back of wanna and gotta, but I
fear the worst.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Silvano

2025-01-08 19:54:04 UTC

Yes, I hope so, but I'm not confident. There is little excuse for native
speakers to get them wrong, but think of the poor people trying to learn
English as a foreign language, for whom getting it clear when to write
lie, lied, lay, laid, lying, laying must be a nightmare.

Thank you very much for your solidarity, but I guess that every new
language you learn has its own nightmares, even my own. Fortunately I
never had to learn it. :-) Your description looks rather easy, compared
with the distinction perfective/imperfective in Slavic languages,
unwritten vowels in Arabic and Hebrew, the honorific/normal forms in
Japanese/Korean/Jawanese and many more similar problems.

Again, I hope so, I'd love to see the back of wanna and gotta, but I
fear the worst.

I have good and bad news for you.
Good news: you'll never see these forms accepted in normal UK English.
Bad news: they'll be standard some time in the 22nd century and even in
the 21st century, just not now, in some parts of the English-speaking
world.

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-09 05:38:52 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Again, I hope so, I'd love to see the back of wanna and gotta, but I
fear the worst.

If you avoid "wanna" - can you then say "wannabe"?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Hibou

2025-01-09 06:35:08 UTC

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[...]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Again, I hope so, I'd love to see the back of wanna and gotta, but I
fear the worst.

If you avoid "wanna" - can you then say "wannabe"?

Aspiring. Wannabe actor -> aspiring actor etc..

Janet

2025-01-09 10:24:24 UTC

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[...]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Again, I hope so, I'd love to see the back of wanna and gotta, but I
fear the worst.

If you avoid "wanna" - can you then say "wannabe"?

Aspiring. Wannabe actor -> aspiring actor etc..

its gottabe wrong

Janet

Sam Plusnet

2025-01-09 18:46:50 UTC

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[...]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Again, I hope so, I'd love to see the back of wanna and gotta, but I
fear the worst.

If you avoid "wanna" - can you then say "wannabe"?

Aspiring. Wannabe actor -> aspiring actor etc..

If at first you don't succeed, respire respire and respire again.

--
Sam Plusnet

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2025-01-09 08:29:40 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Again, I hope so, I'd love to see the back of wanna and gotta, but I
fear the worst.

If you avoid "wanna" - can you then say "wannabe"?

Illogically, perhaps, that one doesn't bother me nearly as much as
"wanna". I have probably said it myself on occasion.

30 years ago there was a web browser called Wannabe, same functionality
as Lynx, but for Macs. It was incredibly fast, because it didn't waste
time processing images that one didn't want to see anyway. I liked it a
lot (and used it a lot), and was sorry that it disappeared. (I don't
think it survived the move to OS X.)

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-09 05:37:43 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes, I hope so, but I'm not confident. There is little excuse for
native speakers to get them wrong, but think of the poor people trying
to learn English as a foreign language, for whom getting it clear when
to write lie, lied, lay, laid, lying, laying must be a nightmare.

Maybe not. I grew up with a language that also has two verbs. I learned
the difference in Danish, so I have no problem in English. Many Danes
(most?) use only one verb (the "lie" verb), and they'll probably do the
same in English. In either case no problem - except if they meet
English-speaking people who'll wrinkle their nose [1].

Personally I dont see the use of "lie" as the only verb as a problem. In
Danish there are three examples of verb pairs that have merged into one,
and a pair that is confusing even for conscious language users.

The three verbs are: drown, burn and smoke.
The confusing verb is "hang".

English has only one verb for the three. Have they been pairs before?

[1] Is this expression used in English? In Danish it means that you
disapprove of something without making a big fuss.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Aidan Kehoe

2025-01-09 06:22:21 UTC

[...] Personally I dont see the use of "lie" as the only verb as a problem.
In Danish there are three examples of verb pairs that have merged into one,
and a pair that is confusing even for conscious language users.
The three verbs are: drown, burn and smoke.
The confusing verb is "hang".
English has only one verb for the three. Have they been pairs before?

No for drown, yes for burn, yes for smoke (though I learn today that “smeek” is
still around as a Scottish and Northern English dialect word.)

English doesn’t have separate verbs for “to hang” and “to hang” but there is a
separate (weak) past participle for judicial execution by hanging.

[1] Is this expression used in English? In Danish it means that you
disapprove of something without making a big fuss.

It’s understood. I don’t believe I’ve seen it in writing in several years.

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

Peter Moylan

2025-01-09 06:32:04 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes, I hope so, but I'm not confident. There is little excuse for
native speakers to get them wrong, but think of the poor people
trying to learn English as a foreign language, for whom getting it
clear when to write lie, lied, lay, laid, lying, laying must be a
nightmare.

Maybe not. I grew up with a language that also has two verbs. I
learned the difference in Danish, so I have no problem in English.
Many Danes (most?) use only one verb (the "lie" verb), and they'll
probably do the same in English. In either case no problem - except
if they meet English-speaking people who'll wrinkle their nose [1].
Personally I dont see the use of "lie" as the only verb as a problem.
In Danish there are three examples of verb pairs that have merged
into one, and a pair that is confusing even for conscious language
users.
The three verbs are: drown, burn and smoke. The confusing verb is
"hang".
English has only one verb for the three. Have they been pairs
before?

I thought that "burn" used to be two verbs in English, and etymonline
confirms it: "[...] from two originally distinct Old English verbs:
bærnan "to kindle" (transitive) and beornan "be on fire"
(intransitive)". I'm not sure about "smoke".

English still has separate verbs "drown" and "drench", but these days
nobody thinks of "drench" as the causative form of "drown". (Or of
"drink", for that matter.) The two verbs have drifted apart in meaning.

Another pair that still exists is "sit" (intransitive) and "set"
(transitive). People tend to confuse these in the same way that they
confuse lie/lay.

"Hang" is interesting because it has two past tenses and two past
participles, depending on the meaning.

"Hanged like a murderer"
"Hung like a horse"

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Hibou

2025-01-09 06:45:38 UTC

Maybe not. I grew up with a language that also has two verbs. I learned
the difference in Danish, so I have no problem in English. Many Danes
(most?) use only one verb (the "lie" verb), and they'll probably do the
same in English. In either case no problem - except if they meet
English-speaking people who'll wrinkle their nose [1].
Personally I dont see the use of "lie" as the only verb as a problem. In
Danish there are three examples of verb pairs that have merged into one,
and a pair that is confusing even for conscious language users.
The three verbs are: drown, burn and smoke.
The confusing verb is "hang".
English has only one verb for the three. Have they been pairs before?
[1] Is this expression used in English? In Danish it means that you
disapprove of something without making a big fuss.

I think I'd say "who'll frown at it."

I imagine this problem is common to all learners. I had a French
language partner for a while who mixed up 'to make' and 'to do', both of
them being 'faire' in French. But then our 'to know' maps to both
'connaître' and 'savoir'.

If foreign languages were easy, they'd be no fun - and useless for
preserving the neurons. Also, it's interesting to see the areas that are
detailed and nuanced in one language, but not another. Does Scots have
an unusually large number of words to describe dreichness? (I don't know
the answer.)

Peter Moylan

2025-01-09 09:54:43 UTC

Post by Hibou
I imagine this problem is common to all learners. I had a French
language partner for a while who mixed up 'to make' and 'to do', both
of them being 'faire' in French. But then our 'to know' maps to both
'connaître' and 'savoir'.

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-09 10:21:21 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too. We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

occam

2025-01-09 10:30:21 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Andreas Karrer

2025-01-09 15:39:10 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

It's odd only if you're used to make the distinction.

There are several germanic languages that use the same verb for teach
and learn: Dutch "leren", Swedish and Danish "läre/lære". High German
has two different, but related verbs, "lernen" (learn) and "lehren"
(teach). "Lehren" is the causative form, and "lernen" is some sort of
passive.

In my swiss-german dialect (Zürich), we use "lehren" for both, but
younger speakers tend to adapt the High German distinction.

So maybe the entirely unrelated verb "teach" in modern English is the
exception rather than the norm in germanic languages. Old English had
"lere" (teach), Scots apparently still has "lare" or "lair".

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Also in French. I believe you can still use "apprendre" for both teach
and learn, but nowadays the more educated "enseigner" is the norm for
"teach".

- Andi

Hibou

2025-01-09 17:36:21 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

It's odd only if you're used to make the distinction.
There are several germanic languages that use the same verb for teach
and learn: Dutch "leren", Swedish and Danish "läre/lære". High German
has two different, but related verbs, "lernen" (learn) and "lehren"
(teach). "Lehren" is the causative form, and "lernen" is some sort of
passive.
In my swiss-german dialect (Zürich), we use "lehren" for both, but
younger speakers tend to adapt the High German distinction.
So maybe the entirely unrelated verb "teach" in modern English is the
exception rather than the norm in germanic languages. Old English had
"lere" (teach), Scots apparently still has "lare" or "lair".

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Also in French. I believe you can still use "apprendre" for both teach
and learn, but nowadays the more educated "enseigner" is the norm for
"teach".

Sounds about right. Il lui a appris à nager. Elle enseigne l'anglais aux
cadres.

Snidely

2025-01-09 20:59:52 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

It's odd only if you're used to make the distinction.
There are several germanic languages that use the same verb for teach
and learn: Dutch "leren", Swedish and Danish "läre/lære".

Is there a transitive/intransitive distinction?

Post by Andreas Karrer
High German
has two different, but related verbs, "lernen" (learn) and "lehren"
(teach). "Lehren" is the causative form, and "lernen" is some sort of
passive.

English "learn" doesn't feel passive ... I am an agent actively
participating in an exchange of information, although I know there is
an image of young students having knowledge poured into them as they
sit like little mugs [1].

Post by Andreas Karrer
In my swiss-german dialect (Zürich), we use "lehren" for both, but
younger speakers tend to adapt the High German distinction.
So maybe the entirely unrelated verb "teach" in modern English is the
exception rather than the norm in germanic languages. Old English had
"lere" (teach), Scots apparently still has "lare" or "lair".

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Also in French. I believe you can still use "apprendre" for both teach
and learn, but nowadays the more educated "enseigner" is the norm for
"teach".
- Andi

[1] Two additional uses of "mug" [noun] left as exercises for the
reader.

[2] Balance.

/dps

--
potstickers, Japanese gyoza, Chinese dumplings, let's do it

guido wugi

2025-01-10 21:38:01 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

It's odd only if you're used to make the distinction.
There are several germanic languages that use the same verb for teach
and learn: Dutch "leren", Swedish and Danish "läre/lære". High German
has two different, but related verbs, "lernen" (learn) and "lehren"
(teach). "Lehren" is the causative form, and "lernen" is some sort of
passive.
In my swiss-german dialect (Zürich), we use "lehren" for both, but
younger speakers tend to adapt the High German distinction.
So maybe the entirely unrelated verb "teach" in modern English is the
exception rather than the norm in germanic languages. Old English had
"lere" (teach), Scots apparently still has "lare" or "lair".

There are others, eg. Dutch "lenen", to loan, lend, borrow.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Also in French. I believe you can still use "apprendre" for both teach
and learn, but nowadays the more educated "enseigner" is the norm for
"teach".

There are others, eg. F. "louer", to hire, rent (besides praise)

Sp. "poder": to be able, to be allowed, at times confusing. Like F.
"pouvoir".
"No poder": can't, shouldn't?, mustn't?
"No deber": mustn't, not obliged?...

NL "niet moeten": not allowed to.
VL "niet moeten": not obliged to.
Comp. F. "ne pas devoir"...

--
guido wugi

Peter Moylan

2025-01-10 22:38:31 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

It's odd only if you're used to make the distinction.
There are several germanic languages that use the same verb for teach
and learn: Dutch "leren", Swedish and Danish "läre/lære". High German
has two different, but related verbs, "lernen" (learn) and "lehren"
(teach). "Lehren" is the causative form, and "lernen" is some sort of
passive.
In my swiss-german dialect (Zürich), we use "lehren" for both, but
younger speakers tend to adapt the High German distinction.
So maybe the entirely unrelated verb "teach" in modern English is the
exception rather than the norm in germanic languages. Old English had
"lere" (teach), Scots apparently still has "lare" or "lair".

There are others, eg. Dutch "lenen", to loan, lend, borrow.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Also in French. I believe you can still use "apprendre" for both teach
and learn, but nowadays the more educated "enseigner" is the norm for
"teach".

There are others, eg. F. "louer", to hire, rent (besides praise)
Sp. "poder": to be able, to be allowed, at times confusing. Like F.
"pouvoir".
"No poder": can't, shouldn't?, mustn't?
"No deber": mustn't, not obliged?...
NL "niet moeten": not allowed to.
VL "niet moeten": not obliged to.
Comp. F. "ne pas devoir"...

French "falloir" (to be necessary) is another tricky verb. Usually "il
faut" means "you must" and "il ne faut pas" means "you must not", but I
think I've seen examples where "il ne faut pas" means "it is not
compulsory".

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

J. J. Lodder

2025-01-11 10:27:49 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

It's odd only if you're used to make the distinction.
There are several germanic languages that use the same verb for teach
and learn: Dutch "leren", Swedish and Danish "läre/lære". High German
has two different, but related verbs, "lernen" (learn) and "lehren"
(teach). "Lehren" is the causative form, and "lernen" is some sort of
passive.
In my swiss-german dialect (Zürich), we use "lehren" for both, but
younger speakers tend to adapt the High German distinction.
So maybe the entirely unrelated verb "teach" in modern English is the
exception rather than the norm in germanic languages. Old English had
"lere" (teach), Scots apparently still has "lare" or "lair".

There are others, eg. Dutch "lenen", to loan, lend, borrow.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Also in French. I believe you can still use "apprendre" for both teach
and learn, but nowadays the more educated "enseigner" is the norm for
"teach".

There are others, eg. F. "louer", to hire, rent (besides praise)
Sp. "poder": to be able, to be allowed, at times confusing. Like F.
"pouvoir".
"No poder": can't, shouldn't?, mustn't?
"No deber": mustn't, not obliged?...
NL "niet moeten": not allowed to.
VL "niet moeten": not obliged to.
Comp. F. "ne pas devoir"...

In many circumstances falloir is better translated
with 'to need' than with 'must'.
In these cases 'il ne faut pas' is often best rendered
with (one/you...) need(s) not.
So no problem, no contradictions.

You might have remembered from your brush with Dutch
than Dutch 'moeten' must be sometimes tranlated must,
somtimes with should. (Compare German mussen/sollen)
Dutch 'moeten' can also be rendered with 'need'
in some cases.

Jan

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2025-01-11 07:28:44 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Danish has one verb too.

So, there is no distinction between what teachers do and what students
do. They both learn? How odd.

It's odd only if you're used to make the distinction.
There are several germanic languages that use the same verb for teach
and learn: Dutch "leren", Swedish and Danish "läre/lære". High German
has two different, but related verbs, "lernen" (learn) and "lehren"
(teach). "Lehren" is the causative form, and "lernen" is some sort of
passive.
In my swiss-german dialect (Zürich), we use "lehren" for both, but
younger speakers tend to adapt the High German distinction.
So maybe the entirely unrelated verb "teach" in modern English is the
exception rather than the norm in germanic languages. Old English had
"lere" (teach), Scots apparently still has "lare" or "lair".

There are others, eg. Dutch "lenen", to loan, lend, borrow.

"loan" is a good example, because itcan be used instead of either
"lend" or""borrow", which can't be used instead of one another.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
We can use another one (not rare), but it
sounds pompous. It's used in formal texts.

Also in French. I believe you can still use "apprendre" for both teach
and learn, but nowadays the more educated "enseigner" is the norm for
"teach".

There are others, eg. F. "louer", to hire, rent (besides praise)
Sp. "poder": to be able, to be allowed, at times confusing. Like F. "pouvoir".
"No poder": can't, shouldn't?, mustn't?
"No deber": mustn't, not obliged?...
NL "niet moeten": not allowed to.
VL "niet moeten": not obliged to.
Comp. F. "ne pas devoir"...

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Hibou

2025-01-11 08:27:26 UTC

Post by guido wugi
There are others, eg. F. "louer", to hire, rent (besides praise)

Yes, one can rent God (on peut louer Dieu).

occam

2025-01-09 10:28:07 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

One is giving, the other receiving. Is that the case in Irish too?
(You're a student of Duolingo Irish, IIRC).

I remember hearing an Irish colleague once say: "I'll learn 'ya." when
she clearly meant "I'll teach you".

Sam Plusnet

2025-01-09 18:53:22 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

One is giving, the other receiving. Is that the case in Irish too?
(You're a student of Duolingo Irish, IIRC).
I remember hearing an Irish colleague once say: "I'll learn 'ya." when
she clearly meant "I'll teach you".

A parallel might be to see no distinction between shooting, and being shot.

--
Sam Plusnet

Silvano

2025-01-09 19:57:51 UTC

Post by Sam Plusnet
A parallel might be to see no distinction between shooting, and being shot.

I guess your heirs will notice the difference when you're shot dead. :-(

Janet

2025-01-10 12:54:17 UTC

Post by Sam Plusnet
A parallel might be to see no distinction between shooting, and being shot.

I guess your heirs will notice the difference when you're shot dead. :-(

If Sam's heirs get shot dead, they won't notice anything
at all.

Janet

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-10 07:12:57 UTC

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by occam
I remember hearing an Irish colleague once say: "I'll learn 'ya." when
she clearly meant "I'll teach you".

A parallel might be to see no distinction between shooting, and being shot.

I have a hard time imagining a person who doesn't know the difference.

Apart from that: It's the same verb in both cases. It's not the verb
that makes the difference. It's a question of an active or passive form.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Snidely

2025-01-09 21:02:08 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

One is giving, the other receiving. Is that the case in Irish too?
(You're a student of Duolingo Irish, IIRC).
I remember hearing an Irish colleague once say: "I'll learn 'ya." when
she clearly meant "I'll teach you".

In AmE, that would be "I'll larn ya" ... and I expect to find it Mark
Twain's ouvre, but I'm sure I've heard it from contemporary
five-year-olds.

/dps

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-10 07:20:35 UTC

Post by Snidely
In AmE, that would be "I'll larn ya" ... and I expect to find it Mark
Twain's ouvre, but I'm sure I've heard it from contemporary
five-year-olds.

An Ngram with "that will learn you,that'll learn you" finds hits from
1840.

There are three peaks with almost the same height:
"that will learn you" in 1810
"that'll learn you" in 1935 and in 2020

The values have seven zeros.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Peter Moylan

2025-01-09 22:49:25 UTC

Post by Hibou
I imagine this problem is common to all learners. I had a French
language partner for a while who mixed up 'to make' and 'to do',
both of them being 'faire' in French. But then our 'to know' maps
to both 'connaître' and 'savoir'.

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the
English verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to
express the same concept?

One is giving, the other receiving. Is that the case in Irish too?
(You're a student of Duolingo Irish, IIRC).
I remember hearing an Irish colleague once say: "I'll learn 'ya."
when she clearly meant "I'll teach you".

Duolingo hasn't yet learned me enough to answer that question. However,
my Irish/English dictionary has quite distinct words for teach and
learn. Also for the people who do it: a pupil is dalta, and a teacher is
muinteoir. (There are some missing flyspecks there. For some reason my
keyboard is refusing to produce accented characters.)

Interesting discovery: in myE, the past tense of intransitive "learn" is
"learnt", but the past tense of transitive "learn" is "learned". I
didn't realise that until I was in the process of writing the above
paragraph.

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-10 07:23:15 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
Interesting discovery: in myE, the past tense of intransitive "learn" is
"learnt", but the past tense of transitive "learn" is "learned". I
didn't realise that until I was in the process of writing the above
paragraph.

I learnt that "learned" has two syllables and is an adjective as in "a
learned person" (= knowledgeable).

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Peter Moylan

2025-01-10 09:54:21 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
Interesting discovery: in myE, the past tense of intransitive
"learn" is "learnt", but the past tense of transitive "learn" is
"learned". I didn't realise that until I was in the process of
writing the above paragraph.

I learnt that "learned" has two syllables and is an adjective as in
"a learned person" (= knowledgeable).

That's one possibility, and to avoid confusion we sometimes put an
accent mark on the second 'e' for that meaning (learnèd). There is,
however, a single-syllable "learned" that is used in some regions as the
past tense and past participle.

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Aidan Kehoe

2025-01-10 07:53:10 UTC

Post by Hibou
I imagine this problem is common to all learners. I had a French
language partner for a while who mixed up 'to make' and 'to do',
both of them being 'faire' in French. But then our 'to know' maps
to both 'connaître' and 'savoir'.

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the
English verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to
express the same concept?

One is giving, the other receiving. Is that the case in Irish too?
(You're a student of Duolingo Irish, IIRC).
I remember hearing an Irish colleague once say: "I'll learn 'ya."
when she clearly meant "I'll teach you".

“Dalta” without any further diacritics, “múinteoir” like so.

As someone else commented, Mark Twain has his characters use “to learn” in this
sense, there’s nothing specifically Irish about it. OED2 gives citations in the
meaning “to teach” from 1377-1974, calls it ‘rare’ but no mention of dialectal.
It probably should be marked as informal at least.

I suppose you don’t have a concurrent de-Great-Vowel-Shifting of “learned” as
happens here sometimes.

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

Hibou

2025-01-10 10:05:49 UTC

Post by Aidan Kehoe
As someone else commented, Mark Twain has his characters use “to learn” in this
sense, there’s nothing specifically Irish about it.

I watched 'The Lavender Hill Mob' again recently, in which a character
says, "We're learnin' him" in what I assume is a London accent, if not
actually Cockney (played by Alfie Bass, born in Bethnal Green).

Post by Aidan Kehoe
OED2 gives citations in the
meaning “to teach” from 1377-1974, calls it ‘rare’ but no mention of dialectal.
It probably should be marked as informal at least.

My ancient Collins marks it as 'Not standard'.

Hibou

2025-01-10 10:10:42 UTC

Post by Aidan Kehoe
As someone else commented, Mark Twain has his characters use “to learn” in this
sense, there’s nothing specifically Irish about it.

I watched 'The Lavender Hill Mob' again recently, in which a character
says, "We're learnin' him" in what I assume is a London accent, if not
actually Cockney ([character] played by Alfie Bass, born in Bethnal Green).

Though here it's more about script than accent.

Post by Aidan Kehoe
OED2 gives citations in the
meaning “to teach” from 1377-1974, calls it ‘rare’ but no mention of dialectal.
It probably should be marked as informal at least.

My ancient Collins marks it as 'Not standard'.

Steve Hayes

2025-01-10 03:54:13 UTC

Post by occam
One is giving, the other receiving. Is that the case in Irish too?
(You're a student of Duolingo Irish, IIRC).
I remember hearing an Irish colleague once say: "I'll learn 'ya." when
she clearly meant "I'll teach you".

I recall an American girl, from Texas I think, trying to get out of a
car when drunk, saying "I can walk, I can walk, my mother learned me
to walk when I was one year old."

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2025-01-09 11:08:31 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Could you borrow me some money? Or would it be better if I lend it from you?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Hibou

2025-01-09 11:34:39 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

But then 'hôte' can mean both host and guest.... "To give is to receive."

Janet

2025-01-09 12:26:11 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

But then 'hôte' can mean both host and guest.... "To give is to receive."

Are you gifted? Or only gifted at Christmas and
birthdays?

Janet

Hibou

2025-01-09 13:00:24 UTC

Hibou...

Post by Hibou
But then 'hôte' can mean both host and guest.... "To give is to receive."

Are you gifted? Or only gifted at Christmas and
birthdays?

I don't say 'to gift' at all. I see no need for it, since we have 'to
give'. 'To gift' seems to have come back to us recently from an inky grave:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=he+gifted+it%3Aeng_gb%2Che+gifted+it%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>

Snidely

2025-01-09 21:04:45 UTC

Hibou...

Post by Hibou
But then 'hôte' can mean both host and guest.... "To give is to receive."

Are you gifted? Or only gifted at Christmas and
birthdays?

I don't say 'to gift' at all. I see no need for it, since we have 'to give'.
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=he+gifted+it%3Aeng_gb%2Che+gifted+it%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>

But "gifted" is a very common adjective, especially among the artsy.
And "to regift" has become solidly established Over Here.

/dps

--
Why would I want to be alone with my thoughts?
Have you heard some of the shit that comes out of my mouth?
-- the World Wide Web

Mark Brader

2025-01-09 22:46:38 UTC

Post by Hibou
I don't say 'to gift' at all. I see no need for it, since we have 'to
give'.

Not the same meaning. To gift means to give *as a gift*. I don't use
it myself, but again, that's just a personal choice.

(Compare: "When I buy something, that means I give someone some money
and in exchange they give me the thing." "Gift" would not work here.)

--
Mark Brader "I love talking about nothing.
Toronto It's the only thing I know anything about."
***@vex.net --Lord Goring (Oscar Wilde: An Ideal Husband)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Hibou

2025-01-10 06:47:19 UTC

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Hibou
I don't say 'to gift' at all. I see no need for it, since we have 'to
give'.

Not the same meaning. To gift means to give *as a gift*. I don't use
it myself, but again, that's just a personal choice.
(Compare: "When I buy something, that means I give someone some money
and in exchange they give me the thing." "Gift" would not work here.)

Yes, I agree. I'd already trodden that path. I think context makes it
clear when what's given is a gift, that's why we can do without 'to
gift', and how we mostly did so during the 20th Century.

'Gifted' for 'talented', fine.

occam

2025-01-10 08:46:17 UTC

Hibou...

Post by Hibou
But then 'hôte' can mean both host and guest.... "To give is to receive."

Are you gifted? Or only gifted at Christmas and
birthdays?

I don't say 'to gift' at all. I see no need for it, since we have 'to
give'.

I beg to disagree. There is a significant difference between 'to gift'
and 'to give'. I give you change (in exchange for your dollar bill),
not gift it. I give you my opinion, I don't gift it to you.

give - 'to let you have'
gift - 'I give it to you in a certain spirit (of generosity, kindness,
gratitude). The intent behind the simple act of giving transforms
'giving' into 'gifting'.

Post by Hibou
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=he+gifted+it%3Aeng_gb%2Che+gifted+it%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>

Hibou

2025-01-10 08:53:46 UTC

Are you gifted? Or only gifted at Christmas and
birthdays?

I don't say 'to gift' at all. I see no need for it, since we have 'to
give'.

I beg to disagree. There is a significant difference between 'to gift'
and 'to give'. I give you change (in exchange for your dollar bill),
not gift it. I give you my opinion, I don't gift it to you.
give - 'to let you have'
gift - 'I give it to you in a certain spirit (of generosity, kindness,
gratitude). The intent behind the simple act of giving transforms
'giving' into 'gifting'.

Well, I refer you to my posting at 06.47 GMT today. I don't think we
need a separate word for an idea that is clear from context.

<Wink> "Words must not be multiplied unnecessarily"? </Wink>

occam

2025-01-10 12:05:50 UTC

Are you gifted? Or only gifted at Christmas and
birthdays?

I don't say 'to gift' at all. I see no need for it, since we have 'to
give'.

I beg to disagree. There is a significant difference between 'to gift'
and 'to give'. I give you change (in exchange for your dollar bill),
not gift it. I give you my opinion, I don't gift it to you.
give - 'to let you have'
gift - 'I give it to you in a certain spirit (of generosity, kindness,
gratitude). The intent behind the simple act of giving transforms
'giving' into 'gifting'.

Well, I refer you to my posting at 06.47 GMT today. I don't think we
need a separate word for an idea that is clear from context.
<Wink> "Words must not be multiplied unnecessarily"? </Wink>

<smile> Separating "to lend" from "to borrow" is hardly unnecessary. If
you disagree, let's do business together.

Aidan Kehoe

2025-01-09 14:31:08 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

?!? Like French does, with enseigner and apprendre?

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

Peter Moylan

2025-01-09 22:41:23 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

?!? Like French does, with enseigner and apprendre?

Enseigner has a bit of a pedantic feel to it. Appropriately, I suppose.

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Anders D. Nygaard

2025-01-09 23:23:27 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Not to mention "loan" and "borrow". Both are "låne" in Danish, and
I still occasionally forget that they are distinct concepts in English.

It works the other way round too, of course.

In Danish you "spiller" an instrument, children kan "lege", whereas
several (more adult) games also use "spille". All "play" in English.

/Anders, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-10 07:26:40 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Not to mention "loan" and "borrow". Both are "låne" in Danish, and
I still occasionally forget that they are distinct concepts in English.

Lend me your ear and I'll sing you a song

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2025-01-10 08:02:14 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Not to mention "loan" and "borrow". Both are "låne" in Danish, and
I still occasionally forget that they are distinct concepts in English.

"rent" also. "I shall rent a car when I go to Munich"; "Budget will
rent me a car when I go to Munich". Both OK; opposite meanings.

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
It works the other way round too, of course.
In Danish you "spiller" an instrument, children kan "lege", whereas
several (more adult) games also use "spille". All "play" in English.
/Anders, Denmark

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

jerryfriedman

2025-01-10 21:59:08 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Not to mention "loan" and "borrow". Both are "låne" in Danish, and
I still occasionally forget that they are distinct concepts in English.

..

Another one in English is "marry"--what the couple do,
and what the officiant does.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

Ross Clark

2025-01-11 10:51:31 UTC

Post by jerryfriedman
..

Post by Peter Moylan
Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Not to mention "loan" and "borrow". Both are "låne" in Danish, and
I still occasionally forget that they are distinct concepts in English.

..
Another one in English is "marry"--what the couple do,
and what the officiant does.
--
Jerry Friedman
--

Some languages have quite different verbs for "marry" (get married
(to)), depending on whether the subject is male or female.

Steve Hayes

2025-01-10 03:50:05 UTC

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

Zulu does it with suffixes:

funda -- read/learn

add the causative suffix -isa

fundisa - cause to read/learn, ie teach

Add the personal prefix um-

umfundi -- reader, learner, scholar (SAfE drops prefix for fundi -
scholar, expert; BrE boffin, AmE guru)

umfundisi -- teacher, lecturer (also church minister).

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Peter Moylan

2025-01-10 05:00:32 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes

Several francophones of my acquaintance had trouble with the English
verbs "teach" and "learn". Why two different words to express the same
concept?

funda -- read/learn
add the causative suffix -isa
fundisa - cause to read/learn, ie teach
Add the personal prefix um-
umfundi -- reader, learner, scholar (SAfE drops prefix for fundi -
scholar, expert; BrE boffin, AmE guru)
umfundisi -- teacher, lecturer (also church minister).

Ah, well, that's where English went wrong. All of English's causative
verbs, as far as I know, used umlaut rather than a suffix. And a mere
vowel change can become distorted over the centuries.

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Snidely

2025-01-09 20:50:13 UTC

Wednesday, Hibou murmurred ...
[...]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
In either case no problem - except if they meet
English-speaking people who'll wrinkle their nose [1].

[...]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[1] Is this expression used in English? In Danish it means that you
disapprove of something without making a big fuss.

I think I'd say "who'll frown at it."

While I think Hibou's suggest fits the context, wrinkling the nose is
still something I'd use, in analogy with reacting to an off smell, or
maybe to an off taste.

/dps

--
Hurray or Huzzah?

Phil

2025-01-10 13:43:06 UTC

Maybe not. I grew up with a language that also has two verbs. I learned
the difference in Danish, so I have no problem in English. Many Danes
(most?) use only one verb (the "lie" verb), and they'll probably do the
same in English. In either case no problem - except if they meet
English-speaking people who'll wrinkle their nose [1].
Personally I dont see the use of "lie" as the only verb as a problem. In
Danish there are three examples of verb pairs that have merged into one,
and a pair that is confusing even for conscious language users.
The three verbs are: drown, burn and smoke.
The confusing verb is "hang".
English has only one verb for the three. Have they been pairs before?
[1] Is this expression used in English? In Danish it means that you
disapprove of something without making a big fuss.

Perhaps "raise an eyebrow". (And definitely not "rise an eyebrow").

--
Phil B

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-10 19:09:37 UTC

Post by Phil

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
same in English. In either case no problem - except if they meet
English-speaking people who'll wrinkle their nose [1].
Personally I dont see the use of "lie" as the only verb as a problem. In
Danish there are three examples of verb pairs that have merged into one,
and a pair that is confusing even for conscious language users.
The three verbs are: drown, burn and smoke.
The confusing verb is "hang".
English has only one verb for the three. Have they been pairs before?
[1] Is this expression used in English? In Danish it means that you
disapprove of something without making a big fuss.

Perhaps "raise an eyebrow". (And definitely not "rise an eyebrow").

In Danish we lift the eyebrows. Are English-speaking people experts in
separating the two eyebrows?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Snidely

2025-01-10 19:30:12 UTC

Post by Phil

Perhaps "raise an eyebrow". (And definitely not "rise an eyebrow").

In Danish we lift the eyebrows. Are English-speaking people experts in
separating the two eyebrows?

The classic "quizzical look" is one eyebrow raised. I can raise my
left eyebrow, but I just recently became aware that I can't easily do
it with my right eyebrow.

/dps "there are a couple of emojis with one eyebrow raised"

--
Hurray or Huzzah?

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-10 19:46:02 UTC

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
In Danish we lift the eyebrows. Are English-speaking people experts in
separating the two eyebrows?

The classic "quizzical look" is one eyebrow raised. I can raise my
left eyebrow, but I just recently became aware that I can't easily do
it with my right eyebrow.

I can't raise only one eyebrow. My little brother can do it easily. I've
forgotten if he can do both. May it's bound in the genes like movements
with the tongue.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Tony Cooper

2025-01-10 20:19:16 UTC

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:46:02 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
In Danish we lift the eyebrows. Are English-speaking people experts in
separating the two eyebrows?

The classic "quizzical look" is one eyebrow raised. I can raise my
left eyebrow, but I just recently became aware that I can't easily do
it with my right eyebrow.

I can't raise only one eyebrow. My little brother can do it easily. I've
forgotten if he can do both. May it's bound in the genes like movements
with the tongue.

I can't raise a single eyebrow, but I can flare my nostrils
repeatedly. It make my youngest grandson laugh.

Peter Moylan

2025-01-10 22:45:46 UTC

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
In Danish we lift the eyebrows. Are English-speaking people
experts in separating the two eyebrows?

The classic "quizzical look" is one eyebrow raised. I can raise
my left eyebrow, but I just recently became aware that I can't
easily do it with my right eyebrow.

I can't raise only one eyebrow. My little brother can do it easily.
I've forgotten if he can do both. May it's bound in the genes like
movements with the tongue.

These things can be learnt, I believe. I used to be able to move an ear,
but I've lost the skill through lack of practice. I can, like Tony,
flare my nostrils, although not very far.

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Phil

2025-01-10 23:11:03 UTC

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
In Danish we lift the eyebrows. Are English-speaking people
experts in separating the two eyebrows?

The classic "quizzical look" is one eyebrow raised. I can raise
my left eyebrow, but I just recently became aware that I can't
easily do it with my right eyebrow.

I can't raise only one eyebrow. My little brother can do it easily.
I've forgotten if he can do both. May it's bound in the genes like
movements with the tongue.

These things can be learnt, I believe. I used to be able to move an ear,
but I've lost the skill through lack of practice. I can, like Tony,
flare my nostrils, although not very far.

Yes, I recall someone making some effort (successfully) to learn to
raise one eyebrow in imitation of Mister Spock.

Spock's 'Vulcan salute' is another gesture that (for me at least) took a
few minutes to learn.

--
Phil B

Peter Moylan

2025-01-10 22:48:40 UTC

Post by Phil
Perhaps "raise an eyebrow". (And definitely not "rise an eyebrow").

Thanks for reminding me of a causative verb I'd overlooked. English used
to have more pairs like this (rise/raise, sit/set, lie/lay, etc.), but
we're down to a very small number. Those distinctions will probably be
gone by the end of the century.

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

jerryfriedman

2025-01-11 01:23:05 UTC

Post by Phil
Perhaps "raise an eyebrow". (And definitely not "rise an eyebrow").

In addition to drink/drench, where we seem to be
able to do without a causative, there's fall/fell,
which is also disappearing, at least in American
English. Many people who cut down trees for a
living refer to falling a tree.

"Lie it down on a flat surface, and gently press
the pages down along the spine."

From "Do the Book Bound Planners Lay Flat?"

https://www.balancebound.co/blog/book-bound-lay-flat-day-planner

--
Jerry Friedman

--

Peter Moylan

2025-01-11 02:23:34 UTC

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Phil
Perhaps "raise an eyebrow". (And definitely not "rise an eyebrow").

In addition to drink/drench, where we seem to be
able to do without a causative, there's fall/fell,
which is also disappearing, at least in American
English. Many people who cut down trees for a
living refer to falling a tree.
"Lie it down on a flat surface, and gently press
the pages down along the spine."
From "Do the Book Bound Planners Lay Flat?"
https://www.balancebound.co/blog/book-bound-lay-flat-day-planner

I think farmers still talk of drenching horses. The meaning has changed,
though.. Where it used to mean giving horses water, it how seems to mean
giving them medications.

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

occam

2025-01-08 23:43:03 UTC

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?

Juz ' askin'.

Snidely

2025-01-09 00:16:11 UTC

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

-d

--
We’ve learned way more than we wanted to know about the early history
of American professional basketball, like that you could have once
watched a game between teams named the Indianapolis Kautskys and the
Akron Firestone Non-Skids. -- fivethirtyeight.com

Snidely

2025-01-09 00:31:50 UTC

Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

At least until Trump's funeral.

-d

--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2025-01-09 08:34:41 UTC

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

At least until Trump's funeral.

Do you think Elon Musk will remain President when his side-kick goes to
meet his maker?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Sam Plusnet

2025-01-09 18:56:34 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

At least until Trump's funeral.

Do you think Elon Musk will remain President when his side-kick goes to
meet his maker?

Their Constitution says no, but who expects a detail like that to matter?

--
Sam Plusnet

Peter Moylan

2025-01-09 22:53:48 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you think Elon Musk will remain President when his side-kick goes to
meet his maker?

Satan?

--
Peter Moylan ***@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

occam

2025-01-09 09:19:52 UTC

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

Just out of interest, have you taken offence on behalf of Carter (not my
target) or on behalf of the current cunt, who is your President-elect?

Post by Snidely
At least until Trump's funeral.

I look forward to that.

Snidely

2025-01-09 21:08:17 UTC

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

Just out of interest, have you taken offence on behalf of Carter (not my
target) or on behalf of the current cunt, who is your President-elect?

I certainly am not trying to defend the President-elect. But your shot
was spraying widely and in context in very bad taste.

Post by Snidely
At least until Trump's funeral.

I look forward to that.

I expect you do.

/dps

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2025-01-09 13:53:16 UTC

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

At least until Trump's funeral.

Jean-Marie Le Pen has just died. There a was a bit of a scandal over
the large number of demonstrators who danced at La Nation and drank
champagne at the news. I wasn't exactly scandalized, but I thought it
was in poor taste to rejoice at the death of a 96-year man who long ago
lost any authority he once had. It might have been different if he had
died 25 years ago, but even then I wouldn't have danced in public in
celebration.

As for President Musk's assistant, he's such a poor excuse for a human
being that I might make an exception. If he lives to be 96, despite all
the lack of exercise and hamberders and tomato ketchup that he lives
on, I won't be around any longer to care.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

occam

2025-01-09 16:17:32 UTC

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

At least until Trump's funeral.

You know that large swathes of the British public did the same when
Thatcher died? They were mainly in northern towns where the closure of
the coal mines had severely affected whole communities.

It might have been different if he had
died 25 years ago, but even then I wouldn't have danced in public in
celebration.

No, perhaps dancing is a Gallic thing. The Brits organised street
parties. This was 23 years after she ceased being PM. And she was also
suffering from dementia towards the end.

"Crowds shout 'Maggie Maggie Maggie, dead dead dead' during impromptu
events"

<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-party-brixton-glasgow>

On a personal note:

Given your .sig ["Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for
37 years; mainly in England until 1987.] can I suggest that a polite
little jig in your living room would be appropriate?

Sam Plusnet

2025-01-09 19:01:38 UTC

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

At least until Trump's funeral.

You know that large swathes of the British public did the same when
Thatcher died? They were mainly in northern towns where the closure of
the coal mines had severely affected whole communities.

Churchill was not exactly popular in many mining communities.
Thatcher sent in the Police. Churchill sent in the troops.

--
Sam Plusnet

Snidely

2025-01-09 22:41:29 UTC

On Thursday or thereabouts, Sam Plusnet asked ...

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Snidely
Snidely suggested that ...

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

Fuck off.

At least until Trump's funeral.

You know that large swathes of the British public did the same when
Thatcher died? They were mainly in northern towns where the closure of
the coal mines had severely affected whole communities.

Churchill was not exactly popular in many mining communities.
Thatcher sent in the Police. Churchill sent in the troops.

Trump already did that in his first term. IIRC, the federal ATF forces
were sent to Portland, Oregon to break demontrations of the Black Lives
Matter sort, because Trump got impatient with Portland's police force.

Currently, he's blaming LA's fires on Govenor Newsome (not a Trump
supporter); he tried that a few years ago when most western states were
battling huge wildfires. Of course, global warming doesn't have
anything to do with it, and his Energy Secretary nomination is right to
encourage more drilling for oil.

/dps

--
Hurray or Huzzah?

occam

2025-01-09 16:20:30 UTC

You know that large swathes of the British public did the same when
Thatcher died? They were mainly in northern towns where the closure of
the coal mines had severely affected whole communities.

It might have been different if he had
died 25 years ago, but even then I wouldn't have danced in public in
celebration.

No, perhaps dancing is a Gallic thing. The Brits organised street
parties. This was 23 years after she ceased being PM. And she was also
suffering from dementia towards the end.

"Crowds shout 'Maggie Maggie Maggie, dead dead dead' during impromptu
events" (The Guardian)

<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-party-brixton-glasgow>

On a personal note:

Given your .sig ["Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for
37 years; mainly in England until 1987.] can I suggest that a polite
little jig in your living room would be appropriate?

HVS

2025-01-09 18:35:12 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Jean-Marie Le Pen has just died. There a was a bit of a scandal
over the large number of demonstrators who danced at La Nation
and drank champagne at the news. I wasn't exactly scandalized,
but I thought it was in poor taste to rejoice at the death of a
96-year man who long ago lost any authority he once had.

You know that large swathes of the British public did the same
when Thatcher died? They were mainly in northern towns where the
closure of the coal mines had severely affected whole communities.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It might have been different if he had
died 25 years ago, but even then I wouldn't have danced in public
in celebration.

"My there mother always said that you should only speak good of the
dead. He's dead? Good."

Anders D. Nygaard

2025-01-09 23:26:28 UTC

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?

"Politicians lie in cast iron sinks"

/Anders, Denmark

Mike Spencer

2025-01-10 07:06:36 UTC

Are you sure those last two statements are not referring to US
politicians who always lie, no matter what state they're in?
Juz ' askin'.

https://robrogers.com/2025/01/07/lyung-in-state/

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

lar3ryca

2025-01-09 04:12:25 UTC

Post by Lenona
Has anyone noticed that, for a change, the media are NOT misusing the
word "lay"?
That is, every time I turned on the TV or radio, at least, they were all
saying "will lie in state" or "lies in state."
There is hope yet!
(But my biggest dream is for all the professional news media to hold a
contest for the fewest grammatical errors in a year - when it comes to
teleprompters, at the very least. No more "wannas" or "gonnas," for
starters!)

Not to mention, no more 'a little more colder' and 'a little more less
partly covered'.

--
Been there. Done that. This IS the T-shirt

Bertietaylor

2025-01-09 17:51:12 UTC

Post by Lenona
Has anyone noticed that, for a change, the media are NOT misusing the
word "lay"?

So long as they do not mention lucky minstrels.

Post by Lenona
That is, every time I turned on the TV or radio, at least, they were all
saying "will lie in state" or "lies in state."
There is hope yet!

Present is not past.

HVS

2025-01-09 18:30:08 UTC

Post by Lenona
Has anyone noticed that, for a change, the media are NOT misusing
the word "lay"?
That is, every time I turned on the TV or radio, at least, they
were all saying "will lie in state" or "lies in state."
There is hope yet!
(But my biggest dream is for all the professional news media to
hold a contest for the fewest grammatical errors in a year - when
it comes to teleprompters, at the very least. No more "wannas" or
"gonnas," for starters!)

Honest question: is the use of "wanna" and "gonna" a grammatical
issue?

It strikes me as more a matter of vocabulary rather than grammar, but
maybe I'm misunderstanding where the dividing lines are.

What does annoy me is when people proudly proclaim themselves as
grammar pedants when objecting to someone who confuses "it's" and
"its".

Errors of orthography, spelling, and punctuation aren't grammatical
issues.

Silvano

2025-01-09 20:11:08 UTC

Post by HVS
It strikes me as more a matter of vocabulary rather than grammar, but
maybe I'm misunderstanding where the dividing lines are.
What does annoy me is when people proudly proclaim themselves as
grammar pedants when objecting to someone who confuses "it's" and
"its".
Errors of orthography, spelling, and punctuation aren't grammatical
issues.

Personal opinion from a foreigner. Confusing "it's" and "its" is indeed
a grammatical issue, because the verb is missing if you write "its". And
I'm not sure everyone would understand a sentence with a missing verb.

It would be just an error of orthography if I wrote "ortography", which
is quite natural when your mother tongue has "ortografia" like mine.
You'd all (All of you'd? just asking which is better) guess I meant
"orthography", I think.

I won't elaborate on spelling and punctuation mistakes. Good night!

Ross Clark

2025-01-10 03:10:41 UTC

But if you "confuse" them when you speak, i.e. pronounce them the same
(which everybody does), it doesn't seem to be a grammatical issue; in
fact not an issue at all.

English has developed a peculiar orthographic convention for
distinguishing these two homophones. If you get it wrong, it's a
spelling mistake, just as it would be if you mixed up "piece" and "peace".

Post by Silvano
It would be just an error of orthography if I wrote "ortography", which
is quite natural when your mother tongue has "ortografia" like mine.
You'd all (All of you'd? just asking which is better) guess I meant
"orthography", I think.
I won't elaborate on spelling and punctuation mistakes. Good night!

Aidan Kehoe

2025-01-10 07:41:14 UTC

Post by Ross Clark

But if you "confuse" them when you speak, i.e. pronounce them the same
(which everybody does), it doesn't seem to be a grammatical issue; in fact
not an issue at all.
English has developed a peculiar orthographic convention for distinguishing
these two homophones. If you get it wrong, it's a spelling mistake, just as
it would be if you mixed up "piece" and "peace".

There’s no reason it can’t be both, and “it’s” and “its” are different parts of
speech, while “piece” and “peace” are not.

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

Ross Clark

2025-01-10 20:27:02 UTC

Post by Ross Clark

But if you "confuse" them when you speak, i.e. pronounce them the same
(which everybody does), it doesn't seem to be a grammatical issue; in fact
not an issue at all.
English has developed a peculiar orthographic convention for distinguishing
these two homophones. If you get it wrong, it's a spelling mistake, just as
it would be if you mixed up "piece" and "peace".

There’s no reason it can’t be both, and “it’s” and “its” are different parts of
speech, while “piece” and “peace” are not.

But it is no more a grammatical error if you mix up (the spelling of)
"read" and "reed", or "lie" and "lye". Nor is it an indication that you
don't know the difference between the two words.

Aidan Kehoe

2025-01-10 21:03:27 UTC

[...] There’s no reason it can’t be both, and “it’s” and “its” are
different parts of speech, while “piece” and “peace” are not.

But it is no more a grammatical error if you mix up (the spelling of) "read"
and "reed", or "lie" and "lye".

German »das« and »dass« are homophones and different parts of speech. In order
to spell a sentence using them correctly you need a command of the distinction
between them, which is an aspect of German grammar. »Ich wette, das der Mann da
...« is both a grammatical mistake and a spelling mistake.

I can’t see any difference with the example in English. Why would it be out of
the ordinary to assert that you need a command of the grammar of the language
to spell it correctly? Gender agreement and the preceding direct object in
French is another easy example of this.

I’ll grant that the command may need to be more formalised than that necessary
for speaking.

Nor is it an indication that you don't know the difference between the two
words.

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

Ross Clark

2025-01-11 10:45:39 UTC

[...] There’s no reason it can’t be both, and “it’s” and “its” are
different parts of speech, while “piece” and “peace” are not.

But it is no more a grammatical error if you mix up (the spelling of) "read"
and "reed", or "lie" and "lye".

German »das« and »dass« are homophones and different parts of speech. In order
to spell a sentence using them correctly you need a command of the distinction
between them, which is an aspect of German grammar. »Ich wette, das der Mann da
...« is both a grammatical mistake and a spelling mistake.
I can’t see any difference with the example in English. Why would it be out of
the ordinary to assert that you need a command of the grammar of the language
to spell it correctly? Gender agreement and the preceding direct object in
French is another easy example of this.

The mistake, in the "its/it's" case, just as much as in the "reed/read"
and "lie/lye" cases, is to assume that a person who has not mastered the
spelling difference does not know the difference between the two words.
But their spoken English will probably follow the same rules as yours.
You would not (I hope) accuse them of producing sentences without a verb
because you can't hear the apostrophe!

Post by Aidan Kehoe
I’ll grant that the command may need to be more formalised than that necessary
for speaking.

Nor is it an indication that you don't know the difference between the two
words.

lar3ryca

2025-01-11 04:52:04 UTC

Post by Ross Clark

But if you "confuse" them when you speak, i.e. pronounce them the same
(which everybody does), it doesn't seem to be a grammatical issue; in fact
not an issue at all.
English has developed a peculiar orthographic convention for distinguishing
these two homophones. If you get it wrong, it's a spelling mistake, just as
it would be if you mixed up "piece" and "peace".

There’s no reason it can’t be both, and “it’s” and “its” are different parts of
speech, while “piece” and “peace” are not.

One of my favourite T-shirt sayings...

THATS
[SIC]

--
I am Dyslexia of Borg, you will be ass laminated.

Aidan Kehoe

2025-01-11 07:44:44 UTC

[...] One of my favourite T-shirt sayings...
THATS
[SIC]

Hah, love it!

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

Bertel Lund Hansen

2025-01-10 07:33:34 UTC

Post by HVS
What does annoy me is when people proudly proclaim themselves as
grammar pedants when objecting to someone who confuses "it's" and
"its".
Errors of orthography, spelling, and punctuation aren't grammatical
issues.

The verb is not missing in the mind of the writer. Doesn't that make a
difference?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Mark Brader

2025-01-09 22:42:58 UTC

Post by HVS
Honest question: is the use of "wanna" and "gonna" a grammatical
issue?

No, they're just contractions. I prefer to write "want to" and
"going to", but that's just a personal choice.

--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Unfortunately, real life is usually
***@vex.net | not a movie." --Al Kriman

Steve Hayes

2025-01-10 04:05:02 UTC

Post by HVS

Post by Lenona
Has anyone noticed that, for a change, the media are NOT misusing
the word "lay"?
That is, every time I turned on the TV or radio, at least, they
were all saying "will lie in state" or "lies in state."
There is hope yet!
(But my biggest dream is for all the professional news media to
hold a contest for the fewest grammatical errors in a year - when
it comes to teleprompters, at the very least. No more "wannas" or
"gonnas," for starters!)

Honest question: is the use of "wanna" and "gonna" a grammatical
issue?
It strikes me as more a matter of vocabulary rather than grammar, but
maybe I'm misunderstanding where the dividing lines are.
What does annoy me is when people proudly proclaim themselves as
grammar pedants when objecting to someone who confuses "it's" and
"its".

Using "wanna" instead of "want to" is of the same order as using
"it's" instead of "it is".

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Rich Ulrich

2025-01-10 06:00:38 UTC

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:05:02 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HVS

Post by Lenona
Has anyone noticed that, for a change, the media are NOT misusing
the word "lay"?
That is, every time I turned on the TV or radio, at least, they
were all saying "will lie in state" or "lies in state."
There is hope yet!
(But my biggest dream is for all the professional news media to
hold a contest for the fewest grammatical errors in a year - when
it comes to teleprompters, at the very least. No more "wannas" or
"gonnas," for starters!)

Honest question: is the use of "wanna" and "gonna" a grammatical
issue?
It strikes me as more a matter of vocabulary rather than grammar, but
maybe I'm misunderstanding where the dividing lines are.
What does annoy me is when people proudly proclaim themselves as
grammar pedants when objecting to someone who confuses "it's" and
"its".

Using "wanna" instead of "want to" is of the same order as using
"it's" instead of "it is".

Well, they both are "errors" you can point to in written matter.
Outside of that, they differ.

In writing, 'wanna' is a choice of register or pure ignorance,
the other is ignorance of writing the possessive of the pronoun
(or carelessness).

As Mark says, 'wanna' is a contraction. I think I avoided it
for some years, even in speech, but I know it is in my speech
and won't be surprised if I write it some day.

--
Rich Ulrich

Steve Hayes

2025-01-10 13:17:36 UTC

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 01:00:38 -0500, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 06:05:02 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
Using "wanna" instead of "want to" is of the same order as using
"it's" instead of "it is".

Writing "it's" instead of "it is" is also a choice of register, and
has nothing to do with the possessive. I don't think it's ignorance.

Post by Rich Ulrich
As Mark says, 'wanna' is a contraction. I think I avoided it
for some years, even in speech, but I know it is in my speech
and won't be surprised if I write it some day.

And "it's" is also a contraction.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Ken Blake

2025-01-10 19:29:34 UTC