The most common pronunciation of "would" in "I would like to"

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

More loud and pointless noise from the great, braying jackass . . . nothing unexpected there.

Mr. Setants knows that it is a lot easier
to fling ad hominem insolence (yelling "jackass")
than it is to clean up his errors. His response is that of a spoiled child.

I suspect that his ego is too delicate, weak n feeble
for him to ADMIT to his mistakes
which will be obvious to everyone else who examines his writing.

He appears to suffer from a sad paucity of self-respect,
undermining any strength of character or integrity to make the necessary corrections
or to admit that he has ever been in error.

Mr. S believes that:
If u can 't handle the message
u shoud hurl mud at the messenger.

This is not to impugn his intelligence,
but rather his response reveals his lack of candor or forthrightness
and demonstrates his cowardice, in fear of admitting any error on his part.

He shows little respect for the sound reasoning of grammar.

Well, its HIS problem, his shortfalls of character, no one else 's.

David

0 Replies

I will not allege that Mr. Setanta is stupid.

That 'd be an exaggeration (in my humble opinion, allowing for differing views on the matter), but
for him to CHALLENGE someone from an untenable position,
was a stupid thing to DO.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

but for him to CHALLENGE someone from an untenable position,
was a stupid thing to DO.

'stupid' as in challenging someone from the safety of Ignore, Sig?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

quoting OmSig,
"but when counselling an alien, its ideal
to avoid use of run-on sentences,
for better grammatical precision."

I would not use the word alien in that context for oristarA, though I understand you don't mean it as a slur, OmSig. Ori may not be a native speaker, but I don't think of Ori as alien to us at a2k, but as a now long-time a2ker. Alien is often used about people from foreign lands trying to sneak into a country, whether they speak english or not, or those who do arrive legally but are from elsewhere. It can also mean creatures from outer space. It's just a word I'm careful about.

There's a similar situation with italian, where the word for foreigner is either straniero or straniera, that also can mean extraterrestrial. I seem to remember also learning it meant stranger, though I can't find that in my present ital/eng dictionary and, not being italian, don't know enough colloquial nuances about their words to know that my memory is correct.

I know, we are all aliens to other countries than our own; I'm just talking about a shade of nuance.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

"but when counselling an alien, its ideal
to avoid use of run-on sentences,
for better grammatical precision."

You should also school Om in regard to his ignorance on the grammar issues, Osso.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

quoting OmSig,
"but when counselling an alien, its ideal
to avoid use of run-on sentences,
for better grammatical precision."

ossobuco wrote:

I would not use the word alien in that context for oristarA, though I understand you don't mean it as a slur,[??] OmSig.

Alien is her legal status,
unless I 'm under a mistaken impression.

Is she posting from Red China,
as a citizen thereof ?

Correct me if I 'm rong; for all I know,
she 's across the street.

ossobuco wrote:

Ori may not be a native speaker, but I don't think of Ori as alien to us at a2k, but as a now long-time a2ker.

I had in mind: alien to America and alien to the English Language, not alien to A2K,
the same as I am alien to the Chinese Languages.

ossobuco wrote:

Alien is often used about people from foreign lands trying to sneak into a country,

Note that I did not accuse her of being an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

ossobuco wrote:

whether they speak english or not, or those who do arrive legally but are from elsewhere.

EITHER, thay r American citizens OR thay r aliens.
If there r other categories, thay r beyond my knowledge.

ossobuco wrote:

It can also mean creatures from outer space.

Alien means STRANGER, or NOT from here.

ossobuco wrote:

It's just a word I'm careful about.

Good luck with that.

ossobuco wrote:

There's a similar situation with italian, where the word for foreigner
is either straniero or straniera, that also can mean extraterrestrial.
I seem to remember also learning it meant stranger, though I can't
find that in my present ital/eng dictionary and, not being italian,
don't know enough colloquial nuances about their words to know
that my memory is correct.

I know, we are all aliens to other countries than our own;
I'm just talking about a shade of nuance.

She is posting BECAUSE she is alien to the English Language.
The idea is to get advice from the natives, so far as I understand it.

David

1 Reply

@JTT,

I'm pretty laissez faire about other people's use of grammar. My own use of it interests me, related to what I ever learned about grammar, and how I play with words, but that's fairly personal. Once in a while I'll give my take on an esl question.

I railed at David years ago about his bolding letters, his colors, his own particular phonetic spelling, but he enjoys it. Fine with me. Sometimes I skip reading it for eye burn, but that's also personal.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I thought I covered all that, David.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I'm pretty laissez faire about other people's use of grammar. My own use of it interests me, related to what I ever learned about grammar, and how I play with words, but that's fairly personal. Once in a while I'll give my take on an esl question.

I railed at David years ago about his bolding letters, his colors, his own particular phonetic spelling, but he enjoys it.
Fine with me. Sometimes I skip reading it for eye burn, but that's also personal.

Have u noticed how much I have reduced that, Osso ??
Do u like it better now ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Yes, I did notice, and thank you. I do like it better.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I thought I covered all that, David.

OK, that 's fine with me, Osso.

David

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I'm pretty laissez faire about other people's use of grammar.

Me too, Osso, but I was suggesting that you school Om on his ignorance with respect to grammar, not his use of grammar.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The Delusion #2 is obviously a run-on sentence. As for "a speaker and their..." thing, the usage is around online, rooted in feminism, which is acceptable.

It is a paradigm shift. The perfection of which has yet to be accomplished. Meanwhile we have to tolerate the phenomenon of the para-dimes (we can shift freely between).

Amen.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Nah, he's my elder, I think, and gets to have his own take on things, though I'll pipe up when something catches my eye.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

As for "a speaker and their..." thing, the usage is around online, rooted in feminism, which is acceptable.

It has little to nothing to do with feminism, Ori. It was simply another silly prescription invented by some wag back in the 17th century. Singular 'their' had existed in English for centuries before this dumb idea ever saw the light of day.

That 'their' can't combine with 'anyone' as Om has suggested can be easily refuted. All you have to do is look at the pronoun 'you' which serves as both a singular and plural.

Or look at 'I' in,

I'm right about that, aren't I?

Singular 'I' with the plural verb 'are'.

========================

Everyone brought their backpacks.

The language mavens, like Sig, tell us that you have to use 'his', as in,

Everyone brought his backpack.

to maintain agreement with the singular 'everyone'.

'everyone', singular, really?

?? Everyone brought his backpack. He all had bought new ones and he was eager to try them out. ??

Doesn't seem to make any sense when we continue with a real context.

Everyone brought their backpacks. They all had bought new ones and they were eager to try them out.

The notion that 'any/every/no/some + one equals a singular is fatuous in the extreme. It's only by convention that we use a singular verb with these pronouns but they are notionally plural and indefinite.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
As for "a speaker and their..." thing, the usage is around online, rooted in feminism, which is acceptable.

It has little to nothing to do with feminism, Ori. It was simply another silly prescription invented by some wag back in the 17th century. Singular 'their' had existed in English for centuries before this dumb idea ever saw the light of day.

That 'their' can't combine with 'anyone' as Om has suggested can be easily refuted. All you have to do is look at the pronoun 'you' which serves as both a singular and plural.

Or look at 'I' in,

I'm right about that, aren't I?

Singular 'I' with the plural verb 'are'.

========================

Everyone brought their backpacks.

The language mavens, like Sig, tell us that you have to use 'his', as in,

Everyone brought his backpack.

to maintain agreement with the singular 'everyone'.

'everyone', singular, really?

?? Everyone brought his backpack. He all had bought new ones and he was eager to try them out. ??

Doesn't seem to make any sense when we continue with a real context.

Everyone brought their backpacks. They all had bought new ones and they were eager to try them out.

The notion that 'any/every/no/some + one equals a singular is fatuous in the extreme. It's only by convention that we use a singular verb with these pronouns but they are notionally plural and indefinite.

What a strong argument!

Sig's is apparently wrong here.

3 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

The Delusion #2 is obviously a run-on sentence.

It IS a run-on sentence, (whether I am a jackass, or NOT, Mr. Setanta).

oristarA wrote:

As for "a speaker and their..." thing, the usage is around online, rooted in feminism, which is acceptable.

That was its origin.
I remember when that happened, around 1959.
However, being around online does not legitimize the error of logic, as to number.
In a medical context (whereof u ofen write),
if my surgeon made that error, I 'd become ill-at-ease,
wondering how many OTHER errors he silently harbors in his mind.

oristarA wrote:

It is a paradigm shift. The perfection of which has yet to be accomplished.
Meanwhile we have to tolerate the phenomenon of the para-dimes (we can shift freely between).

Amen.

Yes; we can compare it to the transition
from the English measurement to the metric form thereof.

David

0 Replies

@oristarA,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
As for "a speaker and their..." thing, the usage is around online, rooted in feminism, which is acceptable.

It has little to nothing to do with feminism, Ori. It was simply another silly prescription invented by some wag back in the 17th century. Singular 'their' had existed in English for centuries before this dumb idea ever saw the light of day.

That 'their' can't combine with 'anyone' as Om has suggested can be easily refuted. All you have to do is look at the pronoun 'you' which serves as both a singular and plural.

Or look at 'I' in,

I'm right about that, aren't I?

Singular 'I' with the plural verb 'are'.

========================

Everyone brought their backpacks.

The language mavens, like Sig, tell us that you have to use 'his', as in,

Everyone brought his backpack.

to maintain agreement with the singular 'everyone'.

'everyone', singular, really?

?? Everyone brought his backpack. He all had bought new ones and he was eager to try them out. ??

Doesn't seem to make any sense when we continue with a real context.

Everyone brought their backpacks. They all had bought new ones and they were eager to try them out.

The notion that 'any/every/no/some + one equals a singular is fatuous in the extreme. It's only by convention that we use a singular verb with these pronouns but they are notionally plural and indefinite.

oristarA wrote:

What a strong argument!

Sig's is apparently wrong here.

No; logic requires me to deny that, oristarA.
I suggest that u think of it this way:
imagine an object upon a page; e.g., a gold coin.

No matter what verbal sleight-of-hand a trickster employs,
the number of that coin remains ONE; it does not change into a mulitplicity.
It cannot and it does not change into another number of coins, nor "backpacks".

OristarA, u shoud know that maybe about 2 years ago,
this individual "JTT" and I had quite lengthy discussions of the logic of grammar.
I put him on Ignore, after he explicitly rejected reason.

I understood that decision to be the product of a disordered mind,
to the extent of a mental illness beyond which I was not prepared
to cope. So far as I see it: discussion can only proceed
with an agreement to apply the principles of logic to it.

I am not saying that JTT is a bad person,
but I cannot debate with mindlessness.

For our purposes now, since his allegations have already been quoted,
I will make an exception and I will address them below, effecting corrections.

David

0 Replies

@oristarA,

One could and would but shouldnt this close to the wedding.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

As for "a speaker and their..." thing, the usage is around online, rooted in feminism, which is acceptable.

JTT wrote:

It has little to nothing to do with feminism, Ori.

We know that, as u have correctly pointed out,
this deviation from grammar occurred at the instance of feminists.
Indeed, I remember an actual writing explaining, seeking to justify
this aberration of logic (of counting) on feminist grounds, at the behest of the feminists,
JTT's denials to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, I will admit the possibility that for any length of time,
careless Englishmen might have made any number of confusions
in their writings, possibly including that one.

JTT wrote:

It was simply another silly prescription invented by some wag back in the 17th century.
Singular 'their' had existed in English for centuries before this dumb idea ever saw the light of day.

I don 't believe that it is wise to accept this allegation
on the basis of JTT's authority, but I admit that careless Englishmen
might well have made all numbers of chaotic errors in some of their writings.
Such confusions do not render legitimate JTT's assertions.
Logic still rules what makes sense, even if JTT disapproves.

JTT wrote:

That 'their' [plural possessive. David] can't combine with 'anyone' as Om has suggested can be easily refuted.
All you have to do is look at the pronoun 'you' which serves as both a singular and plural.

That is JTT's naked assertion,
with no supporting evidence.
The conclusion that he urges
concerning plural possessives is a non-sequitur.

JTT wrote:

Or look at 'I' in,

I'm right about that, aren't I?

That is simply BAD grammar; it shoud be "am I not ?"

JTT wrote:

Singular 'I' with the plural verb 'are'.

========================

Everyone brought their backpacks.

The language mavens, like Sig, tell us that you have to use 'his', as in,

Everyone brought his backpack.

YES; that 's right.
Some people choose to add "or her" to "his".

JTT wrote:

to maintain agreement with the singular 'everyone'.

'everyone', singular, really?

YES: REALLY.

JTT wrote:

Everyone brought his backpack.
He all had bought new ones and he was eager to try them out. ??

That is ungrammatical and its very awkward. Its unclear what JTT has in mind.
Perhaps JTT means that "every person brought his new one. . ."

OR

"All the people brought their new ones . . . . "

JTT wrote:

Doesn't seem to make any sense when we continue with a real context.

That only results from the confusion with which JTT invested his sentence.

JTT wrote:

Everyone brought their backpacks.

It shoud be: Everyone brought his backpack

OR

all the people brought their packpacks.
The concept is really very simple.

JTT wrote:

They all had bought new ones and they were eager to try them out.[/i]

That is grammatically correct.

JTT wrote:

The notion that 'any/every/no/some + one equals a singular is fatuous in the extreme.

That assertion is false
and it merely demonstrates JTT's mental limitations,
which have no effect upon the logic of the situation.

JTT wrote:

It's only by convention that we use a singular verb with these pronouns but they are notionally plural and indefinite.

JTT's allegations have no logical merit.
Simple arithmetic and simple counting remain stable, regardless of JTT's preferences.

IF I have failed to take any legitimate principle of reasoning
into consideration, I hope that someone will tell me what it is.

David

1 Reply

The most common pronunciation of "would" in "I would like to"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know