What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Setanta wrote:

My point, which you either ignore, or failed to grasp, is that those who are now learning English as a second language are eager to learn from Americans. I saw this in Korea and Japan, and it can be seen among the Chinese, as well. Additionally, many people who are not native speakers of English are exposed to English through English-language entertainment media, which are far and away a majority from American sources.

The point which you seem to have missed, [two of them actually], is that it makes no difference what the source is, the structure of the language is the same. The people in the entertainment media are no different than any other.

You know that Australian, British and Canadian actors are included in those movies and they don't even have to add subtitles.

The second point is that people are interested in learning English from any native speaker. What you 'saw' in Korea and Japan can hardly be counted as a "study".

0 Replies

They add subtitles for some Scots, for English audiences.

Shocked

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

The second point is that people are interested in learning English from any native speaker. What you 'saw' in Korea and Japan can hardly be counted as a "study".

I got your point, and i did not deny it. The point i was making was that increasingly, the source for exposure to and the learning of English is American. I did not claim to reference a study.

Are you now claiming that you are referencing a study? Or are you just up to your old trick of doing a google search and counting the number of results?

Tell me all about statistics again, JTT--i could use a good laugh.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

They add subtitles for some Scots, for English audiences.

That is interesting. I have noticed quite a few times in recent years that the American news media, and sometimes on the Beeb, subtitles are provided for speakers of English whose speech might be alleged to be difficult of comprehension for other English-speakers. Most recently, i saw it on a Beeb newscast, although it's been a few weeks and i don't recall the context.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

JTT wrote:
The second point is that people are interested in learning English from any native speaker. What you 'saw' in Korea and Japan can hardly be counted as a "study".

I got your point, and i did not deny it. The point i was making was that increasingly, the source for exposure to and the learning of English is American. I did not claim to reference a study.

Are you now claiming that you are referencing a study? Or are you just up to your old trick of doing a google search and counting the number of results?

Tell me all about statistics again, JTT--i could use a good laugh.

Set please. You make a illogical reference and then proceed to run with it. That really doesn't behoove you.

Did I, anywhere, suggest a study? I merely pointed out that your anecdotes hardly constitute evidence.

And yet you go on. Now it's "increasingly" that people are seeking out AmE. More anecdotal evidence?

0 Replies

Don't address me as "Set." As it is not my name, and is only a form i tolerate from those whom i consider my friends, i resent your use of it.

You have provided no more evidence than have i, so get off your high horse. It ill behooves you. (That's a pun--you may need to look that up, as it entails having a sense of humour.)

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

They add subtitles for some Scots, for English audiences.

Thank God! I found some dialects completely incomprehensible when I was there, yet others were perfectly understandable.

0 Replies

There are dialects in the United States which are almost incomprehensible to those from other parts of the nation.

Mame, you appear very opportunely. Do people in BC say "know-wen" and "grow-wen?" Do they pronounce "about" and other words with the "ou" dipthong differently than Americans commonly do?

Thanks in advance. I remain, sincerely, your never humble servant.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Don't address me as "Set." As it is not my name, and is only a form i tolerate from those whom i consider my friends, i resent your use of it.

You have provided no more evidence than have i, so get off your high horse. It ill behooves you. (That's a pun--you may need to look that up, as it entails having a sense of humour.)

I never set out to to set up any evidence, Set. I merely pointed out that you shouldn't be trying to pass off things as having some sort of factual basis, based simply on your casual observations.

Surely, the historian can grasp so simple a fact.

0 Replies

Surely even someone so abysmally ignorant of statistics and other simple forms of evidence can see that at no time did i claim that i was providing conclusive evidence of what i alleged. Why don't you stop clogging the thread with your egotistical assumption of the mantle of linguistic expertise, a contention for which you have never provided a shred of evidence.

0 Replies

As you apparently haven't the good breeding or the good manners to accede to my request, let me put this more strongly. Don't address me as "Set," pea wit.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

As you apparently haven't the good breeding or the good manners to accede to my request, let me put this more strongly. Don't address me as "Set," pea wit.

Manners is not something that you should lecture anyone on, Set.

It's interesting that, excuse my frankness, as your arguments grow dumber, so do your tangents grow more inane.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Manners is not something that you should lecture anyone on, Set.

Am I hearing a lecture on manners in this line? No, impossible. JTT would never break his own rules.

0 Replies

One could allege that all the arguments here are "dumb," in that no one is speaking. Using speech in an abstract sense, however, one could argue that no argument presented here were dumb, because it could not otherwise be presented--to be mute would preclude presenting an argument.

All of the exchanges which occurred before JTT showed up to trample on the discussion in his typical "know-it-all" fashion when the topic is English were statements of personal opinion, based upon anecdotal observations. I find it amusing and significant that JTT saw fit to take only me to task for presenting such arguments, while that was the only type of argument being presented--including by him.

0 Replies

I was kind of hoping you two would not fall out again....

Sad

0 Replies

Sorry to have disappointed you, McT . . . but i would note that the phrasing of your remark suggests that there was at any time a hope of cordiality between myself and that member. Nothing could be further from hope.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

One could allege that all the arguments here are "dumb," in that no one is speaking. Using speech in an abstract sense, however, one could argue that no argument presented here were dumb, because it could not otherwise be presented--to be mute would preclude presenting an argument.

As I mentioned, inane tangents.

All of the exchanges which occurred before JTT showed up to trample on the discussion in his typical "know-it-all" fashion when the topic is English were statements of personal opinion, based upon anecdotal observations. I find it amusing and significant that JTT saw fit to take only me to task for presenting such arguments, while that was the only type of argument being presented--including by him.

This is a good bit of hypocrisy, Set. Compare my initial replies to you to your replies to Bathsheba? Note that I replied to Bathsheba concerning 'her' errant opinions.

I know that you have a great deal of difficulty remembering what you said across threads but is your memory so short that you can't think back a few pages?

0 Replies

To tell someone that their opinions are errant does not constitute having impeached someone for presenting anecdotal evidence, nor is it anything more than asserting that you speak from authority with regard to what is in error and what is not. You assailed me for offering opinion rather than a
"study." All i have seen you offer is your own opinion, and the implication that you speak from an authority which no other here possesses.

You are a great, puling hypocrite.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Sorry to have disappointed you, McT . . . but i would note that the phrasing of your remark suggests that there was at any time a hope of cordiality between myself and that member. Nothing could be further from hope.

I don't hold grudges, McTag and I often enjoy Set's ornery ways. I truly hope he will, soon, regain his mirth

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

To tell someone that their opinions are errant does not constitute having impeached someone for presenting anecdotal evidence, nor is it anything more than asserting that you speak from authority with regard to what is in error and what is not. You assailed me for offering opinion rather than a
"study." All i have seen you offer is your own opinion, and the implication that you speak from an authority which no other here possesses.

You are a great, puling hypocrite.

You never stay around long enough to find out, Set. Your arguments on any language issue drop precipitously with each word you write, 'til we're left with this, again.

That has always astonished me, how someone can be so stridently opposed to "errors in history", but yet that same person is content to fully, and enthusiastically, support falsehoods in other areas of study.

You constantly assail others for perceived errors in history and then proceed to lay out the "truth".

If that is not hypocrisy, then you're a monkey's uncle. Smile

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know