|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| When you hear 'tea' do you usually think of: |
| eating |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| drinking |
|
56% |
[ 14 ] |
| most times I think of eating |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
| most times I think of drinking |
|
16% |
[ 4 ] |
| 50% either way |
|
20% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 25 |
|
| Author |
Message |
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Indeed. A small dry Sherry if I'm not teaching. A large Gordon's and Tonic if I am. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I prefer Sapphire. MMMmmm pine needles.
And I'm surprised no one's pointed out the obvious... I don't eat or drink, I smoke. It is 4/20.
I've had some lovely green tea related desserts. I'd eat the hell out of a large amount of them.
English breakfast through? Only with a Full English Breakfast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I imagine that you eat breakfast/lunch/dinner. |
Do you mean to ask whether "to eat" is the correct verb for each of these? Yes, in the United States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Breakfast/lunch/dinner is universal, but "tea = evening meal" is legitimate in some countries. Personally, in English, I strive for what is universal, and that usually is North American English. I really enjoy UK English swear words like bollocks, wanker, tosser and shite - none of which applicable to me, needless to say - but often British English acts as a retardant on the universal. "Tea" is inoffensive though. "-ise" spellings (and colour) are as reprehensible as they are indefensible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Breakfast/lunch/dinner is universal, but "tea = evening meal" is legitimate in some countries. Personally, in English, I strive for what is universal, and that usually is North American English. I really enjoy UK English swear words like bollocks, wanker, tosser and shite - none of which applicable to me, needless to say - but often British English acts as a retardant on the universal. "Tea" is inoffensive though. "-ise" spellings (and colour) are as reprehensible as they are indefensible. |
I would never teach ESL students Breakfast/dinner/tea. And unless they were really advanced, and it came up, I would never bother about it. Breakfast/lunch/dinner are fine in formal or standard English. But I love that English (like other languages) has many dialects. I enjoyed talking with an American friend today, and I loved listening to his accent and the different ways he says things, and we both had a laugh mimicking how the other said "Star Wars."
I don't want English spelling to be Hale-ised (Hale-ized to you) and be made uniform. Rather than choose one over the other, perhaps both ise and ize should be recognised as legitimate in both countries, and or and our should be too. Then we can merrily adhere to our preferences - after all, we already have words that are acceptable in more than one form (i.e. publicly and publically or learned and learnt). I like the u in colour - it reminds me of the word's French origins, and prefer my centre to reflect it's French origin: centre (pronounced sontr). One of the arguments given for dropping the u is that it better represents the word's pronunciation. Bollocks! Color doesn't represnt the word colo(u)r phonetically any better than color does. In fact, it should be written culler if matching up the spelling to the sound of it is what you are after. I find colour far more cullerfull with the u, myself. And what about the word honour - why don't we write it onnur? That's a better reflection of its pronunciation, after all.
Trying to standardise the spelling would open up a huge can of worms, anyway. Cough and through do not rhyme. Should they be spelt coff and throo? And then, which pronunciation do we model the spelling on? Would we have to go for the nation with the most native speakers of English? Would that be America - or perhaps India even? And would Aussies Kiwis Limeys Scots Irish and South Africans accept their whole spelling system being reworked to model American pronunciation. It's not likely.
It all sounds like a good idea, messing with the spelling to make it more logical and uniform - but where might it lead?
Here is a terrifying glimpse of what Hale and his ilk might do to our language:
| Quote: |
As part of the negotiations, the British Government
conceded that English spelling had some room for
improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan
that would become known as "Euro-English".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c".
Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with
joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k".
This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have
one less letter. There will be growing publik
enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome
"ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words
like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling
kan be expekted to reach the stage where! more
komplikated changes are possible.
Governments will enkourage the removal of double
letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate
speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent
"e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go
away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from
vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil
hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.
Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil
find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united
urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German
like zey vunted in ze forst plas. |
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I imagine that you eat breakfast/lunch/dinner. |
Do you mean to ask whether "to eat" is the correct verb for each of these? Yes, in the United States. |
No, Cheeky. You know what I mean.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I don't want English spelling to be Hale-ised (Hale-ized to you) and be made uniform. Rather than choose one over the other, perhaps both ise and ize should be recognised as legitimate in both countries, and or and our should be too. Then we can merrily adhere to our preferences - after all, we already have words that are acceptable in more than one form (i.e. publicly and publically or learned and learnt). |
Apparently, you belong in Canada. As an undergrad, the only guidelines we were given on the matter was to choose either Brit or Yankee style spelling and stick with it through an essay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I don't want English spelling to be Hale-ised (Hale-ized to you) and be made uniform. Rather than choose one over the other, perhaps both ise and ize should be recognised as legitimate in both countries, and or and our should be too. Then we can merrily adhere to our preferences - after all, we already have words that are acceptable in more than one form (i.e. publicly and publically or learned and learnt). |
Apparently, you belong in Canada. As an undergrad, the only guidelines we were given on the matter was to choose either Brit or Yankee style spelling and stick with it through an essay. |
That's what foreign students are told here at university. However, my suggestion would mean that one could pick and choose from each spelling system and use them freely in the same essay (as long as one was consistent with regard to which particular spellings they chose). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Breakfast/lunch/dinner is universal, but "tea = evening meal" is legitimate in some countries. Personally, in English, I strive for what is universal, and that usually is North American English. I really enjoy UK English swear words like bollocks, wanker, tosser and shite - none of which applicable to me, needless to say - but often British English acts as a retardant on the universal. "Tea" is inoffensive though. "-ise" spellings (and colour) are as reprehensible as they are indefensible. |
I would never teach ESL students Breakfast/dinner/tea. And unless they were really advanced, and it came up, I would never bother about it. Breakfast/lunch/dinner are fine in formal or standard English. But I love that English (like other languages) has many dialects. I enjoyed talking with an American friend today, and I loved listening to his accent and the different ways he says things, and we both had a laugh mimicking how the other said "Star Wars."
I don't want English spelling to be Hale-ised (Hale-ized to you) and be made uniform. Rather than choose one over the other, perhaps both ise and ize should be recognised as legitimate in both countries, and or and our should be too. Then we can merrily adhere to our preferences - after all, we already have words that are acceptable in more than one form (i.e. publicly and publically or learned and learnt). I like the u in colour - it reminds me of the word's French origins, and prefer my centre to reflect it's French origin: centre (pronounced sontr). One of the arguments given for dropping the u is that it better represents the word's pronunciation. Bollocks! Color doesn't represnt the word colo(u)r phonetically any better than color does. In fact, it should be written culler if matching up the spelling to the sound of it is what you are after. I find colour far more cullerfull with the u, myself. And what about the word honour - why don't we write it onnur? That's a better reflection of its pronunciation, after all.
Trying to standardise the spelling would open up a huge can of worms, anyway. Cough and through do not rhyme. Should they be spelt coff and throo? And then, which pronunciation do we model the spelling on? Would we have to go for the nation with the most native speakers of English? Would that be America - or perhaps India even? And would Aussies Kiwis Limeys Scots Irish and South Africans accept their whole spelling system being reworked to model American pronunciation. It's not likely.
It all sounds like a good idea, messing with the spelling to make it more logical and uniform - but where might it lead?
Here is a terrifying glimpse of what Hale and his ilk might do to our language:
| Quote: |
As part of the negotiations, the British Government
conceded that English spelling had some room for
improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan
that would become known as "Euro-English".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c".
Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with
joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k".
This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have
one less letter. There will be growing publik
enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome
"ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words
like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling
kan be expekted to reach the stage where! more
komplikated changes are possible.
Governments will enkourage the removal of double
letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate
speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent
"e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go
away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from
vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil
hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.
Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil
find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united
urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German
like zey vunted in ze forst plas. |
|
I don't advocate doing anything about accents. Nor do I advocate making words look like how they sound. All I ask is that Brits dispense with -ise and color because it's pathetic and reminds me of Koreans and their East Sea and Dokdo. We expect this behavior in Koreans because their country has contributed very, very little indeed, but the British have achieved like no other. There's simply no need to not adopt American spellings other than childish pride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| I don't advocate doing anything about accents. Nor do I advocate making words look like how they sound. All I ask is that Brits dispense with -ise and color because it's pathetic and reminds me of Koreans and their East Sea and Dokdo. We expect this behavior in Koreans because their country has contributed very, very little indeed, but the British have achieved like no other. There's simply no need to not adopt American spellings other than childish pride. |
And presumably you believe Britain should make the change (rather than the US) because Britain is the less populous nation? Then will you ask the Indians (1 billion of them) to change their spelling system from British to American (.3 billion Americans). Remember that English is an official language in India, and all school children are supposed to learn it, along with Hindu and their local language. English is now an integral part of the Indian administrative and economic system, and Indian English is slowly becoming recognised as yet another formal variant of English. And there are many other nations (Nigeria for example) that use English as the (or one of) their official languages - with British spelling. And will you ask the Australians and New Zealand to change over (although there are signs the Aussies are slowly doing so)? And the Irish? And the South Africans? I do not know for sure, but I would wager far more people on this earth are using the British spelling system (especially in those countries where English is an official language) than are using the American one. Will you consult them too? Perhaps it should be put to a vote.
Come on. Humans are clever and can easily navigate between the 2 spelling systems. A change over at this late stage would cause more problems than leaving it as it is.
Rather ironic I think (in view of your post) that it was national pride that caused the US to change their spelling in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As if this fire needed any more fuel:
Breakfast/lunch/dinner is not universal.
I eat breakfast/lunch/supper, and I know people who eat breakfast/dinner/supper.
Last edited by JustJohn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
As if this fire needed any more fuel:
Breakfast/lunch/dinner is not universal.
I eat breakfast/lunch/supper, and I know people who eat breakfast/dinner/supper. |
I wondered when 'supper' would make an appearance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wonder no longer, my fully feathered friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nobbyken
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Location: Yongin ^^
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In Scotland, I ate breakfast/diner/tea + supper for a later snack.
In London, I ate breakfast/lunch/dinner + supper for a later snack.
I heard some people call supper 'elevenses'.
Interchangeable would be dinner-lunch, and tea-dinner.
The meal time in near midday was always lunchtime or dinner time.
Evening meal was always called tea-time.
Drinking tea was always a 'cup of tea', or a 'tea-break'.
These days it's easier to use Korean! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Both breakfast/lunch/dinner and breakfast/dinner/tea are current in Australia.
I mostly think in the former, which can cause some confusion when somebody asks to have dinner together....
I also eat tea, there is a tea house in Insadong that sells these wonderful green tea coated chocolates. Yummmmmmmy.
h |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
