Does the English sound native?

@oristarA,

Should be condolences.

"May he rest in peace" would be somewhat more natural.

"I offer my condolences" seems a bit more natural to me, but the entire passage doesn't jump up and sound non-native, at least in the US.

1 Reply

@roger,

Thank you Roger

0 Replies

@oristarA,

A boy was stabbed to death three days ago, " May the boy rest in peace, this is so sad" said a senior citizen (or "high school senior" if this is what is meant).

1 Reply

@oristarA,

It's very common to say or give your condolences when someone dies. Come to think about it, I don't think I've ever heard of a singular condolence, I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'm sure there are examples.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

A boy was stabbed to death three days ago; " May the boy rest in peace; this is so sad" said a senior citizen (or "high school senior" if this is what is meant).

That 's a double run-on sentence, Hawkeye.
Either use semi;colons,
or simply write it as the 3 sentences that thay really are.

Ideally: make 3 sentences of it:
A boy was stabbed to death three days ago.
"May the boy rest in peace. This is so sad" said a senior citizen.

If the citizen were a better grammarian,
he 'd have said: ". . . This is intensely sad."
The word "so" fails to compare the sadness to anything else.
This is a popular error of the type that JTT loves to perpetrate and to perpetuate,
in his belief that mistakes are just fine & dandy, as long as a sufficient number
of people commit that error; (e.g., drunken driving is OK, IF enuf people all DO it).

David

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

It's very common to say or give your condolences when someone dies. Come to think about it, I don't think I've ever heard of a singular condolence, I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'm sure there are examples.

Well, if a guy is sufficiently stingy,
then he might give only 1 condolence.

David

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Quote:

It's very common to say or give your condolences when someone dies

Only either directly to the person to whom condolences are being offered or to a person who is expected to personally relay the message. Otherwise the word "condolences" would not be used. I suspect that our China-man is correct that he has used the wrong words.

0 Replies

David is prone to invent his own idiosyncratic rules where none exist. "So" in this context is an intensifier, like "extremely" or "very" or "awfully". There's no comparative implied. Check your dictionary, David, it's in there. Obviously the senior speaker is extending condolences to the family and friends involved. That usage is perfectly proper too (tho it definitely should be plural, and have quotes around what was said).

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David is prone to invent his own idiosyncratic rules where none exist.
"So" in this context is an intensifier, like "extremely" or "very" or "awfully".

Yes. This is a corruption of the original logic, which asserted that something was "so".
It IS widely and erroneously used as u say.
( It did not matter how many people alleged that the Earth was flat. )

MontereyJack wrote:

There's no comparative implied. [That 's the problem. Its misused.]

U remain ignorant of the concept for the original choice of word.

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David is prone to invent his own idiosyncratic rules where none exist. "So" in this context is an intensifier, like "extremely" or "very" or "awfully". There's no comparative implied. Check your dictionary, David, it's in there. Obviously the senior speaker is extending condolences to the family and friends involved. That usage is perfectly proper too (tho it definitely should be plural, and have quotes around what was said).

Jack, I feel "all" can be removed from "All my condolence(s)." It sounds crappy and unnecessary. Do you agree with me?

0 Replies

You're wrong, David. Your "original use" is not "original"--it's only one of many different co-existent ways to use the word. You're inventing "facts" again.

1 Reply

No, I don't, Oristar. Either one is okay. "All my condolences" is probably more commonly used. You're somewhat more insistent on cutting out words than most native speakers are. Probably everybody uses more words than they strictly need to. It's all right to do so (see, David, no comparative there either, and it's perfectly all right, that was "so" as a referent.) Unless you made up the quote, as in writing a story, the speaker's exact words should be what we see on the page.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You're wrong, David. Your "original use" is not "original"--it's only one of many different
co-existent ways to use the word. You're inventing "facts" again.

U speak from ignorance.
I remember decades during which "so" meant in such a fashion, which was then designated,
e.g, "John is getting so heavy as to resemble Big Joe" later corrupted to "John is getting sooooo heavy"
as if "so" were an intensifier by itself, alone. Logically, it is NOT; in practical effect, it is twisted,
perverted and used as if it WERE, by sloppy thinkers like Monty Jack and surely JTT.

The logic of people's assertions shud be as accurate as their numerical calculations,
especially people who speak on medical matters, or in scientific research, as Oristar does.
Does she choose to be (silently) deemed to be a sloppy thinker????? Probably not.

In another century, when I was hiring professional staff and support staff
for my law firm, an applicant who spoke with precise logic articulated
in his or her syntax was more likely to get hired than a candidate
whose spoken or written expressions demonstrated sloppy thinking.
Thay did not know which criteria I was applying, in judging.
I saw some of them straining to make a good impression.
Some of them were more successful than others; I cud not hire everyone.
I NEVER corrected their grammar. I only listened and selected the winners.
When I was choosing from an applicant pool of several hundred
to fill 7 available jobs, I chose the very best of the best of the best.

David

0 Replies

David, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now. "So" never functioned solely in the sense you're restricting it to. It had five hundred years of other uses before you came along with your petty idiosyncratic little straitjacket for it. Too bad you rejected so many applicants because of your personal linguistic peculiarities, unshared by the broad body of English speakers who define what the language is. You don't.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now. "So" never functioned solely in the sense you're restricting it to.
It had five hundred years of other uses before you came along with your petty idiosyncratic little straitjacket for it.

Your assertions r without truth, or merit.
I did not put English into a straightjacket.
I just observed the extant state of affairs.

MontereyJack wrote:

Too bad you rejected so many applicants
because of your personal linguistic peculiarities, unshared

OK. U take the sloppy thinkers.
Pay them whatever u want. Let them be sloppy on YOUR time, not mine.

MontereyJack wrote:

by the broad body of English speakers who define what the language is. You don't.

I don 't define it.
I just observe it and comment on it.
U have low standards; very low.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I do understand your "logic" on this point, David. However, even though it might seem "logical" to you, it is not "reasonable." In the final analysis, language has nothing to do with logic; it is strictly a matter of accepted useage. If we all understand what is meant by the expression, "This is sooo heavy," and, in fact, the expression is in common and widespread use, then no fault can be found in the expression.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I do understand your "logic" on this point, David. However, even though it might seem "logical" to you, it is not "reasonable." In the final analysis, language has nothing to do with logic; it is strictly a matter of accepted useage. If we all understand what is meant by the expression, "This is sooo heavy," and, in fact, the expression is in common and widespread use, then no fault can be found in the expression.

I understand the point that u r making, tho I dissent from it.

If there were a very popular belief that the value of pi is not 3.14159,
but rather it is 3.37, then no matter how many folks dearly hold that point of vu,
I will reject it and I 'll speak against mathematical inaccuracy.
I apply the same principle to understanding and using accurate logic.

I 've never been a big follower of fashion.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
I do understand your "logic" on this point, David. However, even though it might seem "logical" to you, it is not "reasonable." In the final analysis, language has nothing to do with logic; it is strictly a matter of accepted useage. If we all understand what is meant by the expression, "This is sooo heavy," and, in fact, the expression is in common and widespread use, then no fault can be found in the expression.
I understand the point that u r making, tho I dissent from it.

If there were a very popular belief that the value of pi is not 3.14159,
but rather it is 3.37, then no matter how many folks dearly hold that point of vu,
I will reject it and I 'll speak against mathematical inaccuracy.
I apply the same principle to understanding and using accurate logic.

I 've never been a big follower of fashion.

David

That's a poor analogy. Pi has to be 3.1415etc. because otherwise it is meaningless and will not work in any mathematical computation. Mathematics is extremely precise. Not so with language. The only way your analgoy would work is if saying, "This is soooo heavy" would become incomprehensible to users of the English language. However, that is not so. Every English speaker knows immediately what the expression means and can make it work quite easily in everyday conversation.

There is nothing wrong with someone saying, "That don't mean nothing," for the same reason -- everyone who hears him knows what he means by that less than felicitous expression.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I do understand your "logic" on this point, David. However, even though it might seem "logical" to you, it is not "reasonable." In the final analysis, language has nothing to do with logic; it is strictly a matter of accepted useage. If we all understand what is meant by the expression, "This is sooo heavy," and, in fact, the expression is in common and widespread use, then no fault can be found in the expression.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I understand the point that u r making, tho I dissent from it.

If there were a very popular belief that the value of pi is not 3.14159,
but rather it is 3.37, then no matter how many folks dearly hold that point of vu,
I will reject it and I 'll speak against mathematical inaccuracy.
I apply the same principle to understanding and using accurate logic.

I 've never been a big follower of fashion.

David

Lustig Andrei wrote:

That's a poor analogy. Pi has to be 3.1415etc. because otherwise it is meaningless
and will not work in any mathematical computation.

When I speak or write
(unless I 'm kidding around) I focus on doing so with logical precision,
the same as if I add a row of numbers.
If I fall into error, its not for lack of trying.
People shud not say things that r erroneous.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Mathematics is extremely precise. Not so with language.

THAT is the point: our efforts to correct it.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

The only way your analgoy would work is if saying, "This is soooo heavy"
would become incomprehensible to users of the English language.

I have heard CHALLENGES, from others than myself:
". . . so heavy" as WHAT ????

Lustig Andrei wrote:

However, that is not so. Every English speaker knows immediately
what the expression means and can make it work quite easily in everyday conversation.

A lot of people CORRECT mistakes uttered in their presence.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

There is nothing wrong with someone saying, "That don't mean nothing,"
for the same reason -- everyone who hears him knows what he means by that less than felicitous expression.

He thereby publically embarrasses himself, by revealing his ruffness, grossness of mind.
Sometimes, not always, he becomes the subject of jokes.

U imply, in error, that being correctly understood
is the only criterion. Its not. He can rightfully be held to account
for what he actually says, not for his private thoughts.

He can be held to committments based on what he SAID,
not for what he was THINKING. I try to be careful.

David

0 Replies

Does the English sound native?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know