|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear anaxiforminges,
What an excellent reference:
"Marlow expresses, "You should have heard [Kurtz] say, 'My ivory.' Oh, yes, I heard him. 'My Intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my --' everything belonged to him"
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sheikh N Bake

Joined: 26 Apr 2007 Posts: 1307 Location: Dis ting of ours
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, although I am a TEFLer with the usual linguistics-backed MA, my BA was in journalism and I like to follow the AP stylebook. Some TEFLers with theoretical linguistics backgrounds think as long as enough people mangle a word or grammar point, it's perfectly acceptable if it shows up in a speaking or writing assessment.
Standard American English is often referred to as Network Standard, after the usually polished news anchors. On NBC (or CBS, whatever) today they were reporting the story of some convicted murderer and his fianc�e who wants to visit him. With the graphics along with spoken reporting, they kept referring to fianc�e and fiance separately, since the woman also referred to her fiance. Thus in journalism circles we (I say "we" because I am a regular columnist somewhere out there) like to hold on to certain norms because they help with clarity. So personally I disapprove of interchangeable spellings of the word and I would note my reasons on a paper to be graded.
I noticed American pronunciation of fianc�e stresses the final syllable while the British tend to stress the second syllable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trapezius

Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 1670 Location: Land of Culture of Death & Destruction
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adorabilly wrote: |
| What I was taught was that fiance was for both men and women (us yanks drop those silly extra vowels, consonants). |
Do you have any source for that? I looked it up on a couple of online dictionaries and they said nothing of that sort (but they do give usage notes if you look up color, honor, etc). Even Yahoo Answers and Wiki Answers said nothing of the sort, and instead said there are two spellings. And all four of those websites are 'Murrcan. So, what gives?
| Sheikh N Bake wrote: |
| [...] like to hold on to certain norms because they help with clarity. So personally I disapprove of interchangeable spellings of the word and I would note my reasons on a paper to be graded. |
I fully agree. I can see changing the spelling of a word if it only has one meaning (color/colour, honor/honour, etc), but to use one word for two different meanings when there are originally two words, is just ridiculous. Only if they apparently didn't teach that 'fiance' could mean both in the US, this thread would have been all of 5 posts long and to the point!
I prefer American spellings most of the time, but 'fiance' for both meanings is just crazy. (And I am not seeing any evidence that that indeed is the case in the US) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
adorabilly
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 430 Location: Ras Al Khaimah
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trapezius.
I never said it was gramatically correct.
my source would be Mrs. Martinez, my 4th grade teacher. Fiance was both male and female in her classroom. As such, I have used it that way.
I have no recollection of seeing it fiancee anywhere (but again, I could and very probably am wrong about the spelling.)
I answered the question based on my understanding of the word, and my history of japanese fiance's/spouses/wives in my experiences. I have met 1 japanese husband of a native ESL speaking female, whereas I have met DOZENS of japanese wives and fiance(e)s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trapezius

Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 1670 Location: Land of Culture of Death & Destruction
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, Mrs. Martinez doesn't count. If that particular usage can't be found in any dictionary, then it is not correct. As simple as that.
You definitely implied it was correct, as you said that was the American usage. But as I said, there is no official evidence that that is the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
veiledsentiments

Joined: 20 Feb 2003 Posts: 17644 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trapezius wrote: |
Sorry, Mrs. Martinez doesn't count. If that particular usage can't be found in any dictionary, then it is not correct. As simple as that.
You definitely implied it was correct, as you said that was the American usage. But as I said, there is no official evidence that that is the case. |
Sorry Trap... you are wrong on this one. The dictionary can say pretty much what it wants, but I can tell you... as an American with an MA in Linguistics that what wins is what the average person says or writes. (English teachers have to be excluded because we are the exceptions) I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of Americans - even those with university educations - use the one spelling and one pronunciation given on the website that I gave on the previous page.
I can even tell you how the change happened. Americans tend to Americanize any of the French borrowings. You notice that we don't have any accent marks on our keyboards. Thus, the first thing that happened was that the two words started to sound the same (again check out the link I gave before - click on the little flags). By the time I had reached adulthood in the 1960's the words sounded the same... and the spelling has followed. You will still see the word fiancee, but probably not in Adorabilly's normal reading materials.
Language changes and develops in spite of grammar books and dictionaries. I'd estimate that 20% or less of Americans know that there are two words...
VS
(we have also completely dropped the word "shall" - it is now a word only heard from the mouths of English teachers over the age of about 40-50... the dictionary won't tell you that either) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnkg
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 Posts: 127
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| veiledsentiments wrote: |
(we have also completely dropped the word "shall" - it is now a word only heard from the mouths of English teachers over the age of about 40-50... the dictionary won't tell you that either) |
No, "we" haven't completely dropped the word "shall". You're completely wrong there veiled sentiments. Just because it is being used less does not mean it has been "completely dropped".
The word "shall" will never disappear from our language. Our literature and poetry history will make sure of that. Also songs like the key protest anthem "We Shall Overcome" will keep the word alive.
Yes, the word "shall" is used more in British English, but it is still a part of American English. I still hear it on chat shows and see it on documents.
Here's something from The American Heritage Book of English Usage (Ch. 1 sec. 56 - 1996)
The reality. The English and some sticklers about usage are probably the only people who follow these rules, and then not with perfect consistency. In America, people who try to adhere to them run the risk of sounding pretentious or haughty. Americans normally use will to express most of the senses reserved for shall in British usage. Americans use shall chiefly in first person invitations and questions that request an opinion or agreement, such as Shall we go?, and in certain fixed expressions, such as We shall overcome. In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation, such as Applicants shall provide a proof of residence, though must or should works just as well here. In speech you can get the distinctions in meaning delineated in the traditional rules by putting stress on the auxiliary verb, as in I will leave tomorrow (�I intend to leave�). You can also choose another auxiliary verb, such as must or have to, that is less open to misinterpretation, or you can make your meaning clear by adding an adverb such as certainly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sheikh N Bake

Joined: 26 Apr 2007 Posts: 1307 Location: Dis ting of ours
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
We certainly use "shall" in questions in the US. Shall I bring you some coffee?
My keyboard has an accent key; that's why I use "fianc�e" in the manner still used in the AP stylebook.
Just because half the population misspells "definitely" to read "definately" is absolutely no reason to accept it, any more than I accept interchangeable fiances. Why? Because add in 15 more misspellings along with some popular but nonstandard grammar usages and the student paper or email or whatever you are reading becomes HARD TO READ--and that is unacceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
veiledsentiments

Joined: 20 Feb 2003 Posts: 17644 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah yes... all the English teachers jump to defend ourselves.
johnkg... We are not talking about British English so never fear... we will happily let you keep it. We have been talking about the facts of AmEng usage, something we overseas TEFL teachers have even less effect on than American teachers in their English classes. Kids use what they hear... not what our boring texts claim is "correct."
I would never say, nor have I heard (except from English teachers) "shall I get you a cup of coffee?" (it has become "should I get you...?" or more commonly "want a cuppa...") That reminds me of when my linguistics professors in the 1980s brought up the discussion - from the linguistics textbook mind you - (note that this is over 20 years ago) that 'shall' was rapidly disappearing. I agreed with him and we discussed the replacement usages. One of the grammar mavens immediately jumped in to say that this was crazy because it hadn't... and her example was "Shall we dance?" Two or three of us laughed and broke into a chorus from "The King and I" which was likely the last time that question was used. Having loved to dance all my life and considering that this was just after the disco phase where one was out dancing a few nights a week, I pointed out that in my whole life, that movie (and others) was the only time I had ever heard any man say it and I had never heard a live male say "Shall we dance?" At the time, many of us were experiencing the joys of teaching from the Betty Azar Grammar series, which stated the same information... that 'shall' was gone and it was excluded from the text and examples. It was only mentioned in a footnote. These books were written over 25 years ago - this is not new information in linguistics. One constant is language change and we can't stop it.
As to accent keys, computers may now have an accent key although I have no idea where it is. I just looked at my new Acer, and it doesn't have one that I see. I was a qualified typing teacher way back when and there was none up until computer keyboards.
We English teachers can huff and puff from the sidelines and decry the death of grammar, but we really have no control. I have this nightmare that by the time today's high school kids reach 40+, the word 'you' will have disappeared and people will be only talking and writing in - u no - textspeak... WTF... LOL... But, one consolation is that I will be dead by then or at best drooling in my wheelchair at the home...
VS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnkg
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 Posts: 127
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| veiledsentiments wrote: |
| johnkg... We are not talking about British English so never fear... we will happily let you keep it. We have been talking about the facts of AmEng usage, VS |
Read my post again more carefully veiled sentiments. You'll notice I was talking about "shall" being used in American English.
The word "shall" has not been "completely dropped" from our (American English) language. Go on... admit you made a mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmm, shall we say "virtually dropped" instead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
veiledsentiments

Joined: 20 Feb 2003 Posts: 17644 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johnkg wrote: |
| veiledsentiments wrote: |
| johnkg... We are not talking about British English so never fear... we will happily let you keep it. We have been talking about the facts of AmEng usage, VS |
Read my post again more carefully veiled sentiments. You'll notice I was talking about "shall" being used in American English.
The word "shall" has not been "completely dropped" from our (American English) language. Go on... admit you made a mistake. |
There is no reason for me to admit to anything but the facts that I have already presented. You are free to agree or not... I will go along with the 25 year old linguistics text and good old Betty Azar.
Similar to the fiance thing... as I said... there are probably still about 20% of Americans who may occasionally utter it... the vast majority of them probably being English majors and over the age of 40-50 I will use it once in awhile, but it was forced on me by Miss Potter and the rest of my teachers in the 50s and 60s.
It always amuses me how a topic like this riles up the grammar purists.
VS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnkg
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 Posts: 127
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| veiledsentiments wrote: |
| johnkg wrote: |
Read my post again more carefully veiled sentiments. You'll notice I was talking about "shall" being used in American English.
The word "shall" has not been "completely dropped" from our (American English) language. Go on... admit you made a mistake. |
There is no reason for me to admit to anything but the facts that I have already presented. You are free to agree or not... I will go along with the 25 year old linguistics text and good old Betty Azar.
It always amuses me how a topic like this riles up the grammar purists.
VS |
Fact: The word "shall" has not been "completely dropped" from use in America.
Admit it or not, you are wrong. "Shall" is being used, therefore has not been dropped.
Google it. You'll find it really has not been completely dropped.
I am neither riled (not sure why you assumed this), nor am I a grammar purist - your ramble really seems to put you into the "riled grammar purist" category. It always amuses me how you write the most on these topics and then call others whatever else you want to call them. The pot calling the kettle black! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
veiledsentiments

Joined: 20 Feb 2003 Posts: 17644 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yawn...
VS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnkg
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 Posts: 127
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| veiledsentiments wrote: |
| Yawn...VS |
Oh dear. Typical. A little humility wouldn't go amiss when you know you're wrong.
Anyway, let's put this to bed, shall we?
THE ARGUMENT AS STATED BY VEILED SENTIMENTS:
The word "shall" has been "completely dropped" in American English.
The arguments for (the "facts" as presented in two posts above by veiled sentiments):
1. The Betty Azar Grammar series only mentions 'shall' in a footnote. "These books were written over 25 years ago."*
2. veiled sentiments herself "would never say "shall I get you a cup of coffee?"
3. veiled sentiments herself has never heard "shall I get you a cup of coffee?" (except from English teachers).
4. veiled sentiments herself has never "heard a live male say "Shall we dance?"
The argument against (the facts as found in thousands of web pages every day):
Beyond reasonable doubt, the word "shall" is alive and kicking in American English today. It has most definitely NOT been "completely dropped". Find below the results of a very simple search on CNN.com. Type the word "shall" in the CNN search box. You'll find hundreds of articles containing the word "shall". Replicate this with every US news agency, national newspaper, local newspaper, blog, or anything with a search field, and you'll find the word "shall" pops up (tens of / hundreds of) thousands of times a day.
I rest my case. The word "shall" has not been "completely dropped"... Unless veiled sentiments has more bizarre sources on which to base her very peculiar linguistic assertions...
Five of thousands...
Why I didn't want a girl
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/04/30/o.why.didnt.want.girl/index.html
Pelosi to Republican voters: 'Take back your party'
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/pelosi.gop/index.html
Report: Bush-era officials authorized detainee abuse
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/detainees.report/index.html
Analysis: Don't expect deal with Mexico on assault weapons ban
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.weapons/index.html
Blog: Latest dispatches from the Masters
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/04/07/snell.blog.golf/index.html
* As a footnote of my own, the Betty Azar series was never that good. It certainly is not a comprehensive nor authoritative grammar. It was OK-ish 25 years ago for beginning ESL teachers. To suggest it as being in any way an indicator of current American English use and usage is simply silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|