at or in

@contrex,

Uh (or as I;m told, the Aussies who speak a version of BrE would say, erm), we have a lot of immigrants whose native language is not English, but not 100,000,000 of them. USA population is abojut 315,000,000, not 215,000,000. Just put our side way up.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

And I'm not at all sure you can count Canadians as BrE speakers, since discounting a couple of regiional accents (which Yanks have too, and which don't sound BrE anyway) and French Canadians (who are not restricted to Quebec), they sound pretty much like Americans--we now all speak pretty much the same North American English all the way up to the Arctic Circle. Well, bove the Arctic Circle too, I knew an Aleut girl who sounded pretty corn-fed. Oh, yeah, we'd know they're Canadian when they write "neighbour" too, but not particularly by their speech.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

And Contrex did in fact put his finger on something that JTT seems to slight, that there are definite differences in some preposition choices between Brits and Yanks.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

And Contrex did in fact put his finger on something that JTT seems to slight, that there are definite differences in some preposition choices between Brits and Yanks.

I don't know where you'd get a silly idea like that, Jack, but then you've stumbled thru this thread with silly idea after silly idea.

1 Reply

@JTT,

read his posts, jtt; yours tend to be the silly ideas, not mine. this post in particular:

Quote:

"Better" in US English, perhaps, but British English speakers (half of all native speakers worldwide) are used to be being "at" school

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MJ started:

Quote:

And Contrex did in fact put his finger on something that JTT seems to slight, that there are definite differences in some preposition choices between Brits and Yanks.

jtt replied:

Quote:

I don't know where you'd get a silly idea like that, Jack, but then you've stumbled thru this thread with silly idea after silly idea.

MJ then wrote:

Quote:

read his posts, jtt; yours tend to be the silly ideas, not mine. this post in particular:

How does one parse this jumbled confusion?

MJ tells me to read Contrex's posts, why I can't imagine because he has stated that "Contrex did in fact put his finger on something that JTT seems to slight".

Then he changes gears [in obvious total confusion] and states that I wrote "this post in particular".

"Better" in US English, perhaps, but British English speakers (half of all native speakers worldwide) are used to be being "at" school

This is a post from Contrex, Post# 5,202,059 to be exact.

Now, MJ, where was it exactly that I slighted Contrex's position in the above quote.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You still haven't addressed this, MJ.

But you saw a particular reason to mislead on how language actually works. Why?

Why do you feel compelled to, dishonestly, continue to offer support for Roberta's position when it was an untenable one? Why didn't you just admit your error. Something Robert should also have done.

1 Reply

@JTT,

what is it you think I haven't addressed. Roberta was right. What makes you think she wasn't. What you have posted seems to says essentially what works is what works. Well, yes, but that's kind of vacuous. As I said, contrex brought up a point you seem to have slighted, and then I reposted Contrex'
s post (as I said, "this post in particular" or something to that effect. Sheesh.) Ah, I see, a hurried post on my part, with an afterthought tacked on in "edit" at the end at the end and an unclear referent. Contrex brought up a difference between BrE and AmerE which I don't see you as having addressed.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

what is it you think I haven't addressed. Roberta was right. What makes you think she wasn't.

Roberta was wrong. She did what she is famous for doing when it comes to language issues. She focuses too narrowly on what is a complex thing. She, a purported expert, then flees the scene, defending nothing and leaving falsehoods in her wake.

Quote:

What you have posted seems to says essentially what works is what works.

If that was too deep for you to grasp, MJ, you should have asked for clarification. She was wrong and you did the same silly thing by following her. You focused too narrowly.

Then, amazingly, you provided the needed information that proved you two were wrong. 108,000,000 hits for the US region only that illustrated that both 'in' and 'at' work.

Punkey provided a good example which also illustrated that you and Roberta failed to think this thing thru.

Quote:

As I said, contrex brought up a point you seem to have slighted, and then I reposted Contrex'
s post (as I said, "this post in particular" or something to that effect. Sheesh.)

How you can suggest such a thing stands as testament to how poorly you have understood this. Everything I said in this thread offered support for Contrex's position on the use of in and at.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Contrex brought up a difference between BrE and AmerE which I don't see you as having addressed.

What need would there be to address those things that I agree with?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Your critique, if it could be dignified with that name, says Roberta's choice is better where it works better. This is a classic of a "well, duh" statement.. As a general principle you could say of the entire universe something is better where it works better. You convey absolutely no new information by saying it. You will notice Roberta says "better". not "sole and only" Your red herrring google search proves her point, since "in" occurs something like 6 times more frequently than "at", which is a pretty good indicator of "better". Roberta was right, your dissing her was wrong.

I do wonder why you use google occurrences here to prove a point when you to tried to prove that one should use ""can" , not "may" by showing that "can" was used far more frequently than :may: though :may: also occurred with frequency. The exact opposite of what you're trying here. Consistency, JTT, consistency. I might add that Friday I heard a "may" used in the context you've disputed, in the wild, so to speak, with a speaker who has never been party to this discussion, in off-the-shoulder talking about what people in the room had to do that evening, and not one of them so much as blinked at the usage, and certainly didn't stop her and say, "Tina, you really should use 'can' instead of 'may'."

And if we're going to talk about veering off topic, you wanna discuss your propensity for talking about your concept of US war crimes whenever anyone mentions the US in any context. You're not a one-trick pony. You're a two-trick pony.

Punkey parsed the sentences in his own way. I wouldn't have chosen the words in parentheses he used to parse them, but they're A valid paraphrase, tho not the only one. An example of the inherent ambiguity of language.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

I might add that Friday I heard a "may" used in the context you've disputed, in the wild, so to speak, with a speaker who has never been party to this discussion, in off-the-shoulder talking about what people in the room had to do that evening, and not one of them so much as blinked at the usage, and certainly didn't stop her and say, "Tina, you really should use 'can' instead of 'may'."

Let's clear this nonsense up first. It's become clear as these discussions have proceeded that you simply are one confused little puppy, MJ. You, like, Frank A, and numerous other A2Kers, who have been subjected to a lifetime of grammatical gibberish, have limited knowledge of how the English language works.

I have never, ever, said don't use 'may' for permission. I've never intimated that it's not to be used "in the wild". It's most definitely a part of English. I use it myself ... quite often I suspect.

The ONLY part that I described concerning can and may was the absolutely idiotic assertion put forward by prescriptivists to justify their notions on how may and can are used in English.

That idiotic assertion is that 'can' means 'ability'. They completely ignore the other meanings of 'can'.

This ludicrous notion is the only proof that has ever been offered to substantiate their claim. This, in complete defiance of reality. One only has to look in a dictionary to see that 'can' has many meanings; one of the most common ones is for permission.

I don't know how you can suggest that I stated 'may' shouldn't/must not be used when I was the one that provided the corpus studies illustrating how the two modals are really used.

Let me do it again, with the hope that it will bring you [and others] up to speed.

"Despite a well known prescription favoring may rather than can for expressing permission, may is especially rare in the sense of permission."

Intrinsic - permission
may - About 60 uses/million words
can - About 850 uses/million words

Note that there was never any complaint from the prescriptivists voiced about 'could'. And yet it is used much more often than may for permission.

Intrinsic - permission
could - About 210 uses/million words

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Your critique, if it could be dignified with that name, says Roberta's choice is better where it works better. This is a classic of a "well, duh" statement..

If it's such a classic "well duh" statement, how is it that you so badly misunderstood, MJ?

Quote:

As a general principle you could say of the entire universe something is better where it works better. You convey absolutely no new information by saying it.

That would be a good general principle that even a child could grasp. Even a child would know how to extend it into use. A child could think of numerous examples where a fork would be better than a spoon and vice versa for another situation. In fact, children do this everyday. Give them a box of crayons and invariably they pick out the ones appropriate to the situation.

Why is this causing you so much consternation?

Quote:

You will notice Roberta says "better". not "sole and only"

Insufficient advice is often as bad as bad advice.

Quote:

Your red herring google search proves her point, since "in" occurs something like 6 times more frequently than "at", which is a pretty good indicator of "better".

I really wish that you had thought this thru before you posted it, MJ. You've missed one of the fundamental principles not only of language, but of life.

Frequency of use [limited to language] doesn't in any fashion equate to "better". If we look at 'may/can', you've blown your argument all to hell, that is, IF you actually did believe the ludicrous notion you wrote above, which I've put in bold.

I know you don't. You're too bright for that. You've just let your heart get in the way of your brain.

Quote:

Roberta was right, your dissing her was wrong.

I didn't diss Roberta. I described the factual situation.

She is an extremely bright lady. Roberta is not a English/grammar expert. She is actually in a field [editing/publishing] that has more people who [consciously] believe more spurious notions about language than those of any other field.

Quote:

Punkey parsed the sentences in her own way. I wouldn't have chosen the words in parentheses she used to parse them, but they're A valid paraphrase, tho not the only one. An example of the inherent ambiguity of language.

I'm almost certain that Punkey is female.

You keep hoisting yourself with your own petard, MJ.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Cats is weird, and you just never know.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know