DX=DJ
By who? For who?
<<As long as there are some native speakers who mangle a great language, they will argue that "descriptively" such errors must be "correct". They are of no help to people trying to learn good English.>>
I think people who try to learn good English just want to learn idiomatic English and learn how to sound natural in as many situations and contexts as possible. I am a learner and I can tell you that prescriptive grammar only helped me lose a lot of time, get confused, and get a distorted view of the language. Ever since I understood that descriptive grammar is the way to go, I've been enjoying English, along with its varieties and accents... Grammar books are no longer my friends. I prefer opinions from "normal", "average" native speakers. And that's why I really think forums like this are an excellent instrument for people in the ESL field.
I think people who try to learn good English just want to learn idiomatic English and learn how to sound natural in as many situations and contexts as possible. I am a learner and I can tell you that prescriptive grammar only helped me lose a lot of time, get confused, and get a distorted view of the language. Ever since I understood that descriptive grammar is the way to go, I've been enjoying English, along with its varieties and accents... Grammar books are no longer my friends. I prefer opinions from "normal", "average" native speakers. And that's why I really think forums like this are an excellent instrument for people in the ESL field.
Well, Johnny, the difficulty you have not noticed is that a native speaker can get away with errors that a learner could not. Travis would probably insist that "there's" followed by a plural noun was correct, simply because some sloppy native speakers use it. If a learner could not come fully come across as a native speaker owing to various factors (pronunciation, speed of delivery, mixing of registers, inappropriate mixing of styles of vocabulary etc), then copying such solecisim would stand out like a sore thumb. I have met many learners who have aimed, not at a vaguely neutral accent that could be described as International English, but at a very deep US-style accent, and have failed to pull it off, producing a very jarring result. I recently met a Chinese man who had lived for a few years in Australia, and I can tell you his accent was very strange - half way between "Chinglish" and unusual Ozzie vowels.
Your written English seems perfect, by the way, and it is quite possible that you are able to get all the things right to come across as a native speaker and so be able to carry off properly the colloquialisms, the grammatical mistakes that may be becoming more natural, and even a non-neutral pronunciation. Not having heard your English, I can't say. But, 99% of people who follow your approach will fall flat on their face for the reasons I have outlined. Of course, when I talk to learners I do not fail to mention that forms such as "it is I" are now seen as hypercorrect, and will certainly raise eyebrows nowadays. I would not just tell someone to use that form. The use of whom is also something that is also leaning heavily in the same direction. So I do not teach learners to use forms that would strike 95% of native speakers as odd, as that would be a cruelty of sorts. But standard languages exist for a reason, and one of the reasons is to provide learners with a register and grammatical forms appropriate to learners (see paragraph 1 above). However, the use of forms such as "to who" (instead of the hypercorrect "to whom" and the normal "who to") is not what you described as "normal, average, idiomatic English". It might occasionally be heard by native speakers. It would be regarded as wrong by most native speakers (Travis' view that ANYTHING said by any native speaker is by definition correct belongs to extreme Marxist theory). Quite simply, a learner who copied such usage thinking it "normal, average and idiomatic" would be shortchanging himself. Why does learning a language have to be a race to the bottom?
Your written English seems perfect, by the way, and it is quite possible that you are able to get all the things right to come across as a native speaker and so be able to carry off properly the colloquialisms, the grammatical mistakes that may be becoming more natural, and even a non-neutral pronunciation. Not having heard your English, I can't say. But, 99% of people who follow your approach will fall flat on their face for the reasons I have outlined. Of course, when I talk to learners I do not fail to mention that forms such as "it is I" are now seen as hypercorrect, and will certainly raise eyebrows nowadays. I would not just tell someone to use that form. The use of whom is also something that is also leaning heavily in the same direction. So I do not teach learners to use forms that would strike 95% of native speakers as odd, as that would be a cruelty of sorts. But standard languages exist for a reason, and one of the reasons is to provide learners with a register and grammatical forms appropriate to learners (see paragraph 1 above). However, the use of forms such as "to who" (instead of the hypercorrect "to whom" and the normal "who to") is not what you described as "normal, average, idiomatic English". It might occasionally be heard by native speakers. It would be regarded as wrong by most native speakers (Travis' view that ANYTHING said by any native speaker is by definition correct belongs to extreme Marxist theory). Quite simply, a learner who copied such usage thinking it "normal, average and idiomatic" would be shortchanging himself. Why does learning a language have to be a race to the bottom?
<< I don't understand what all the fuss regarding who and whom is about. The rule is simple and applies everywhere in the world. If you can replace the word (or answer the question) with "he or she" then it's "who", if "him or her" sound more correct then "whom" should be used. >>
Yes, the rule is simple to understand. But that doesn't change the fact that there are cases where "whom" sounds extremely unnatural in speech, whether or not you understand the rule.
- Kef
Yes, the rule is simple to understand. But that doesn't change the fact that there are cases where "whom" sounds extremely unnatural in speech, whether or not you understand the rule.
- Kef
<< He hasn't said anything offensive yet >>
Calling me "Furry Kev", and calling both me and Travis "dumber-downers", is a dead giveaway. Give him the banhammer.
Calling me "Furry Kev", and calling both me and Travis "dumber-downers", is a dead giveaway. Give him the banhammer.
Oh, and so's the Marxism thing in the new post. There is *no way* that this isn't the same guy.
By the way, DJ, it is obvious to me that you are a poor judge of what is normal in US English, and therefore I doubt you have the authority to judge what is "correct" in it.
- Kef
By the way, DJ, it is obvious to me that you are a poor judge of what is normal in US English, and therefore I doubt you have the authority to judge what is "correct" in it.
- Kef
Ehh, I normally don't use "whom" when speaking, but when it's right after words like "by", "for", and "to", using "who" instead of "whom" sounds strange and wrong.
This guy DJ/DX etc...why is he so obsessed with "native-speaker-, [uh...]-ability"???
I keep seeing reference to this over an over (it's a pattern.).
DJ/DX, are you a native speaker yourself?
I ask because you come off very harsh against people who try to "come off" as such, and I'm just curious why.
I keep seeing reference to this over an over (it's a pattern.).
DJ/DX, are you a native speaker yourself?
I ask because you come off very harsh against people who try to "come off" as such, and I'm just curious why.
<<Travis' view that ANYTHING said by any native speaker is by definition correct belongs to extreme Marxist theory<<
I'd like DK to elaborate on this Marxist connection. I'm interested.
I'd like DK to elaborate on this Marxist connection. I'm interested.
Of course, I am a native speaker of English - proper English, I might add. Why do I find myself repeating myself? In my post I made clear that learners who ape non-neutral innovations often produce a very jarring effect, as it is clear they are learners, and they are aping features that only sound natural with native speakers. Read my last message three times before commenting again.
Okay...here goes:
<<Of course, I am a native speaker of English - proper English, I might add.>>
--Why "of course"? "I might add" sounds like you might be British?
<< Why do I find myself repeating myself? In my post I made clear that learners who ape non-neutral innovations often produce a very jarring effect,>>
--What is "ape"? For a speaker of "proper" English, to come back with this is rather odd don't you think? [Pendulum swing. Compensation.]
<< as it is clear they are learners, >>
--What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with being a learner--of anything. Your attitude towards this should be reserved for those who DON'T want to learn.
<<and they are aping features that only sound natural with native speakers.>>
--This kinda sounds like, well, um...you.
<<Read my last message three times before commenting again. >>
--You may not realize this [benefit of the doubt] but this is very rude. Don't tell me what to do. And, if that book report of yours above were interesting enough I might have.
<<Of course, I am a native speaker of English - proper English, I might add.>>
--Why "of course"? "I might add" sounds like you might be British?
<< Why do I find myself repeating myself? In my post I made clear that learners who ape non-neutral innovations often produce a very jarring effect,>>
--What is "ape"? For a speaker of "proper" English, to come back with this is rather odd don't you think? [Pendulum swing. Compensation.]
<< as it is clear they are learners, >>
--What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with being a learner--of anything. Your attitude towards this should be reserved for those who DON'T want to learn.
<<and they are aping features that only sound natural with native speakers.>>
--This kinda sounds like, well, um...you.
<<Read my last message three times before commenting again. >>
--You may not realize this [benefit of the doubt] but this is very rude. Don't tell me what to do. And, if that book report of yours above were interesting enough I might have.
Ok, DJ's profile:
Location: Britain
Ethnicity: Half Enlgish/Half Indian (Asian)
Special notes: Hates being half Indian. Has pulled himself up in life against tremendous adversity, to his credit, but has not found acceptance in his culture despite making serious efforts to fit in. Now treats others like he himself has been treated--that is, lashes out against all who try to pretend they're native English speakers.
Location: Britain
Ethnicity: Half Enlgish/Half Indian (Asian)
Special notes: Hates being half Indian. Has pulled himself up in life against tremendous adversity, to his credit, but has not found acceptance in his culture despite making serious efforts to fit in. Now treats others like he himself has been treated--that is, lashes out against all who try to pretend they're native English speakers.
English learners are a bad influence for the English language, they spoil it.
I'd say he's half Chinese (mainland).
Still waiting for The Marxist Connection.
Still waiting for The Marxist Connection.