1
   

english

 
 
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 05:14 am
How is correct:
I've send an email...
or
I've sent an email...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,681 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 05:42 am
I've sent an e-mail. (I believe that with e-mail, it requires the hyphen, as i've written it. I don't know that for a fact, however.)

English deals with its verbs in a rather simple manner. Children are taught this very early, or once were, whether this is still the case, i could not say--i began elementary school fifty years ago. We were then taught the present form of a verb, the past, and the past participle, thus:

to send: send, sent, sent.

to take: take, took, taken.

to speak: speak, spoke, spoken.

to hang (meaning to suspend an object): hang, hung, hung.

to hang (meaning to execute someone): hang, hanged, hanged.

Probably not much help to you, it is necessary to learn "the parts" of each verb.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 06:07 pm
No hyphen needed for email but it's a possibility.
0 Replies
 
syntinen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 09:43 am
Always put in the hyphen if it is likely that any French-speakers will read it, as otherwise it looks just like the French word for "enamel". (In fact after cataloguing a few dozen French books on decorative metalwork I now can't help reading "email" as the French word even though I'm not a French speaker.)
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 05:29 pm
syntinen wrote:
Always put in the hyphen if it is likely that any French-speakers will read it, as otherwise it looks just like the French word for "enamel". (In fact after cataloguing a few dozen French books on decorative metalwork I now can't help reading "email" as the French word even though I'm not a French speaker.)


Syntinen,

The notion that any language should be adjusted to meet the needs of another is really quite ludicrous. Context, quite obviously, allows us to see the difference.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 08:28 pm
Setanta wrote:

to hang (meaning to suspend an object): hang, hung, hung.

to hang (meaning to execute someone): hang, hanged, hanged.


While this is often the tale told, it is not an accurate description of how these words are actually used in English.

===========
M-W online:
usage For both transitive and intransitive senses 1b the past and past participle hung, as well as hanged, is standard. Hanged is most appropriate for official executions <he was to be hanged, cut down whilst still alive ... and his bowels torn out -- Louis Allen> but hung is also used <gave orders that she should be hung -- Peter Quennell>. Hung is more appropriate for less formal hangings <by morning I'll be hung in effigy -- Ronald Reagan>.
==============
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 08:39 pm
Jeeze, you're just as stuffed full of sh*t as an old christmas goose--to be hung in effigy is not to be executed, it is however, the suspension of an object. You're just desparate to make me to be wrong on any occasion which seems to you to offer.

What a putz.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 08:51 pm
Setanta wrote:
Jeeze, you're just as stuffed full of sh*t as an old christmas goose--to be hung in effigy is not to be executed, it is however, the suspension of an object. You're just desparate to make me to be wrong on any occasion which seems to you to offer.


Setanta,

It's hardly judicious to allow second language learners to be misled about English. I know that you're a big enough guy to just admit you've made a mistake.

Let me refer you to the pertinent section from M-W.


===========

M-W online:
usage For both transitive and intransitive senses 1b the past and past participle hung, as well as hanged, is standard.

===========
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 09:18 pm
Students in ESL want to get practical information on how the languaged is used, so that they may express themselves properly without appearing to be fools, and so that they can understand seeming contradictions in the language without seeming to be ignorant of it. That it is possible to find citations in which "hung" was used to mean executed is very much beside the point. ESL students don't want pedantic and obscure usage information--neither do they want information which will make them appear uneducated when they use the language.

The majority of educated speaker of English understand the distinction which i made to be correct, and providing such information to ESL students is a practical matter--without regard to your obsessional love of obscure pedantry.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 09:20 pm
By the way, you don't know a damned thing about me. It is tedious to so often read that you "know" this or that about me. About the only thing you might reasonable assert as a sound inference about me, is that i hold you in contempt.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 10:10 pm
Setanta wrote:
Students in ESL want to get practical information on how the languaged is used, so that they may express themselves properly without appearing to be fools, and so that they can understand seeming contradictions in the language without seeming to be ignorant of it.

That's a mighty big assumption to leap to given your level of experience, isn't it, Setanta? Further, it's pretty silly to make uneducated guesses about what any student needs. Why would you, a stickler for historical detail, think it appropriate to provide false info to anyone on any subject?


That it is possible to find citations in which "hung" was used to mean executed is very much beside the point. ESL students don't want pedantic and obscure usage information--neither do they want information which will make them appear uneducated when they use the language.

You illustrate clearly that you don't know the meaning of pedantic, Setanta. Without rancor, you are the pedant here trying to pass off something of which you have little knowledge.

First, usage information is precisely what ESLs need. How else are they to know how English works? By following the memorized rules of folks who have spent no time actually studying language. No thinking person would suggest this.

You illustrate your ignorance on this issue by making the unwarranted assumption that people who use the irregular form for this meaning are "uneducated". This is often the refuge of someone who fears the truth or someone who lacks the ability to actually research a topic.

There are a large number of educated lawyers and judges who use 'hung' for the very simple reason that in English "[M]any irregular verbs have regular variants. In these cases, there are usually marked preferences for one alternative or another, influenced by several major factors."


Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English wrote:


The majority of educated speaker of English understand the distinction which i made to be correct, and providing such information to ESL students is a practical matter--without regard to your obsessional love of obscure pedantry.

You seem to be very good at making bold statements that have nothing in the way of proof to back them up, Set. I hope you don't take this same cavalier attitude towards your study of history.

Many educated speakers think they know a great deal about language and they're surprised, nay, shocked to find out they don't. This is just one more example of a long standing bit of pedantry.

Some speakers, in some dialects, follow this pattern that you've described. That doesn't make it the rule for all of English. The google results below give us a clear indication that this "rule" and I use the term lightly, is not an accurate portrayal of language.

If I were the pedant you suggest, I would have long ago remarked that "[T]he majority of educated speaker [sic] of English" unfailingly use <I> rather than <i> for the personal pronoun.

Why not cut those speakers who use 'hung' a little slack, especially considering that you are out to lunch on this particular issue.





Google.ca results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 310 for "hanged by the neck".

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,010 for "hung by the neck".


Google.com results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,100 for "hanged by the neck".

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,250 for "hung by the neck".


Google.co.uk results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 811 for "hanged by the neck".

Results 1 - 10 of about 379 for "hung by the neck".
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 10:13 pm
Setanta wrote:
By the way, you don't know a damned thing about me. It is tedious to so often read that you "know" this or that about me. About the only thing you might reasonable assert as a sound inference about me, is that i hold you in contempt.


Evidently I was wrong. You're not big enough to admit your mistakes. Excuse me for my error in judgment.
0 Replies
 
Goldmund
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2005 05:38 am
My dear sirs,

It is a most interesting discussion.

A native French speaker may correct me if I am wrong. I believe however that «enamel» in French is «émail». That is to say, it takes an acute accent.

Kindest regards, Smile

Goldmund
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2005 05:43 am
Goldmund, in French-speaking Canada, they do seem to have a problem, as they attempt to get people to use couriel rather than "email," but apparently with no success. I've read something similar about France, but don't recall the difference. You're right about the accent--although that may someday cease to matter, if diacritical marks cease to be in use.

(Now, i'm just being petty--i resent the disappearance of the circonflex. I also steadfastly resent being tutoyé by someone who is a stranger to me.)
0 Replies
 
Goldmund
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2005 06:00 am
Dear Setanta,

I have also heard «mèl» and «message électronique» for «e-mail». I do not know if they are current.

I am not a native speaker of French. I have used «tu» to strangers on websites. It did not occur to me that I might give offence. I have seen it on French websites. I had thought it was perhaps «netiquette». I am sorry to be wrong.

Kind regards, Smile

Goldmund
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Sep, 2005 04:49 pm
Setanta wrote:
Goldmund, in French-speaking Canada, they do seem to have a problem, as they attempt to get people to use couriel rather than "email," but apparently with no success. I've read something similar about France, but don't recall the difference.


In this, there is no problem whatsoever for language, Set. This is no different than the hundreds of silly prescriptions that have been made for English.

Quote:
... all the tirades of all the grammarians since the Renaissance sound like the prattlings of landscape gardeners who hope by frantic efforts to keep Alaska from bumping into Asia.

The Decline of Grammar: Geoffrey Nunberg

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/decline/



This is no less so for French or Walpiri or Spanish or Oykangand. The people who use a language are the ones who make that language.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Sep, 2005 04:53 pm
Here's another excellent article for the prescriptively inclined.

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/gatekeeping/
0 Replies
 
Boephe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2005 07:39 am
Quote:
to speak: speak, spoke, spoken.


there is also spake Very Happy
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2005 12:32 pm
"Spake" is gramatically usable but archaic.
0 Replies
 
Milfmaster9
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2005 05:37 pm
i gotta verb for you...
to sh*t, shat, ****, shat
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » english
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 04:26:55