ugh....users of the english language, read this.

me is filled with coffee.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

-(e)s: the third-person, singular, present-tense ending for most verbs; also the plural ending for most nouns.
-'s: the possessive ending for most nouns.

Gets: third-person, singular, present-tense form of the verb "to get".
Get's: not a word.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Americans I know enjoy saying "would of", as in "I would of done it". If this is not a new level of stupidity then maybe I need to read more.

While we're at it, would anyone like to join in and rant on the prolific (litote!) use of the quotative like?

 

the fucked up thing is...the english language is by far the easiest language in which to express oneself properly....
and it is the native speakers that massacre the language.
UGH!!!!!

 

excellent observation.
"would have" would be the proper usage.

 

I had heard about some group exhibiting a change in the paradigm for 'thou' similar to that of 'ye'. I can't recall whether or not I knew of the dropping of 'art' in favor of 'are'.

Yes, I believe that was what I meant. I got some things mixed up while writing the post so quickly, I guess.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do. To me, it just makes the person seem so uneducated when they use 'of' in place of 'have'. Although I do understand what you mean.

 

i speak: Flemish-Dutch (dont start, spuriousmonkey...*raises fist*), spanish, english (obviously), biblical hebrew, arabic, french, and russian (badly..still learning...i could survive, but not discuss art, in moscow).
i took a course in mandarin chinese when i was in high school, but i retained VERY little of the material...i was too busy smoking pot, mostly.

of all these languages, the only one i wouldnt feel comfortable saying i am fluent with is russian.....i still find english to be the easiest to master...

now, some folks would say that this fact makes english "inferior", but i see it in the opposite light....it has less "bells and whistles" attached to simple statements, therefore making it a more efficient use of breath.

maybe this is just because it is my native language, but most europeans i meet tend to agree with me that english is an extremely simple language, in the scheme of things.

 

i generally think of it as more a result of the "super-value-meal" packaging of our public schools.

i could go on and on about this....i must stop myself. it is 4 in the morning, and i need sleep.

goodnight, my doozer terrorizing friend.

 

duz anywun wont to discuss ebonix?

and, no, i do not want to talk about who the primary speakers of it are.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really? Not Hebrew? That's what I would've guessed, judging from what you've told me.

It would make sense that they think so. English is pretty analytical, relying on word order to show the relationships among words, relative to most European languages I'm aware of, which are more synthetic.

 

I don't know a whole lot about AAVE. I should probably read about it.

 

Miss use of "to and "too" along with "your" and "you're" pisses me off.....especially when some smart people I know do it.

 

The problem with that is that, after a glottal stop (the D), no voiceless glottal fricative is going to be audible (even if it is indeed present). It would slow down speech too much. Since the two sounds come out of the same part of the throat, the H in "have" will be heard as the opening of the glottis after the D in "would."

So it isn't really that people are dumb, and they "say it wrong," it's just that it's difficult to enunciate it correctly when talking at full speed.

 

We do if it's the end of a sentence, or before any other reasonable pause.

Hey, I remember that show! I used to love it, but then I saw every episode at least three times, and it got so old. By the way, what is the "proper" way to say it, if we're all saying it wrong?

 

I've seen verb charts for the Scandinavian languages, and seen how simple their verbs appear to be: Person is not distinguished at all like it still is in the present tense in English. If that's any indication, these languages are fairly simple.

Chinese is indeed the epitome of analytic languages. An added benefit is a fairly simple sound repertoire and an almost completely straight-forward Romanized spelling.

It's a shame though that it's a member of a language family entirely unrelated to the Indo-European family. Tones are such a strange concept for English speakers. Chinese grammar doesn't share all the fundamental IE grammatical structures we're used to handling in the other mainstream languages, which happen to be predominately IE. Sino-Tibetan languages share little wordstock if any at all with IE languages, meaning we must learn words which bear no resemblance at all with English words — not so with languages even as distantly related as Russian, where at least some words are recognizeable. Furthermore, the writing system is extremely intricate, and it doesn't help any that there's no other writing system like it that we know of.

Concerning one comment of yours, I think it's worth mentioning that a native speaker told me personal pronouns and some nouns for people can be made plural by adding 们 (men). Also, I've come to discover that, at least in the past, 他 was not the only character that said tā 'he/she/it'. There used to be a character specifically for 'he', another for 'she', and yet another for 'it'. Except for these exceptions, that's entirely correct: no tense, number, gender, or person (unless you wanna be a stickler for details and point out the pronouns).

I agree, but I believe he was talking about writing.

Judging by what Fraggle said, and also judging by the spelling of the word, I think the D should be aspirated. We're saying it wrong because there exists no aspirated D in the English language's repertoire of phonemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspiration_(phonetics)

 

Oh, good point!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The word "say" threw me off.

There does, to a limited extent, in certain phonemic combinations. And in that case, nobody could possibly say it correctly, becuase the D is a voiced stop consonant, and can't really be aspirated. Right?