Korean Job Discussion Forums

[blackjack]

One of my adult students asked about this

stay at home
stay home

which is more correct?

In my head there is a slight difference but they are interchangeable.
"Do you want to go to the movies? No I am going to stay at home tonight."

"Do you want you do something tonight? No I want to stay home"

reaching I know.

He was asking if "stay at home" is more formal while "stay home" is more spoken.

as a side issue can anyone come up with an acceptable reason why home does not require an article. The best I have heard is that "home" is not a place, it's more a concept, a state of mind, you can't go to home.

but really is this just trying to make it fit a rule that doesn't exist.

Cheers

[kiwiana]

In the sentence 'stay home', 'home' is an adverb.

Here is my correspondence with Noam on the matter:

Re: Another small moment of your time please prof‏
From: Noam Chomsky ([email protected])
Sent: Friday, 13 April 2007 4:16:27 a.m.
To: XXXX (by way of Noam Chomsky <[email protected]>) XXXX

The notions you are using are all imprecise, like everything in traditional grammar. It's true that "home" has an adverbial flavor. The notion "locational noun" has whatever meaning we decide to give it. Without embedding it in a serious theory of language -- something not attempted in traditional grammar -- it's just one description or another, like describing flora and fauna in a pre-Darwninian conception, or like a "wild flower book" today.

Actually "house" is not exactly a tangible object either, a fact discussed by Aristotle, and one that I've written about too. There are a lot of illusions about how referential expressions function in language.

NC
----- Original Message -----
From: XXXX (by way of Noam Chomsky <[email protected]>)
To: Noam Chomsky
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: Another small moment of your time please prof



Prof, you wrote,
OK, I understand.

There's no reason for there to be a preposition. "home" is not a referential term, like "house." E.g., "home (not house) is where the heart is," "my old Kentucky home." "I'm at home." Etc

Thank you so much for your reply Professor. I have compiled a small corpus for info relating to this question:

1. So, as I understand from what you said, 'home' is not tangible, concrete or a physical object in this case--like you said 'not...referential'.

2. A friend told me that 'home' in this case is an adverb. Obviously, you can't put a preposition before an adverb, therefore, we ommit 'to'.

3. Murcia and Freeman (1999), authors of The Grammar Book, take another view. they see 'home' as a noun, locational (locative) noun: "When a locative noun, such as "home" or "downtown," or the pro-adverb "here" and "there" are used with a VERB OF MOTION or DIRECTION, "to" is deleted" (p. 404)

I'm not to sure if 1, 2, and 3 (above) collaborate together; 1., refers to the fact that 'home' is not referential and thus not tangible (if I am correct); 2., Refers to 'home' as an adverb; and 3., refers to 'home' as a locative noun.

Could you shed some light please prof?

Best regards,



XXXX

PS, are you really Noam Chomsky? Or are you an assistant. Regardless, it's great that I get a response from this email address..




From: "Noam Chomsky" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "Noam Chomsky" <[email protected]>
To: XXXX
Subject: Re: A small moment of your time please prof
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:49:26 -0400


OK, I understand.



There's no reason for there to be a preposition. "home" is not a referential term, like "house." E.g., "home (not house) is where the heart is," "my old Kentucky home." "I'm at home." Etc.





----- Original Message -----

From: XXXX
To: [email protected]

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:22 PM

Subject: Re: A small moment of your time please prof


I'm refering to the fact that we don't say "I wanna go to home". Why do we ommit the "to" and say "I wanna go home"?










From: "Noam Chomsky" <[email protected]>

Reply-To: "Noam Chomsky" <[email protected]>

To: XXXX

Subject: Re: A small moment of your time please prof

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:03:58 -0400


Are you referring to the fact that we say "I wanna go home"? If so, the same dialects typically say "I wanna go to bed." I may have missed thepoint of your question.



----- Original Message -----

From: XXXX (by way of Noam Chomsky <[email protected]>)

To: Noam Chomsky

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:16 AM

Subject: A small moment of your time please prof


Dear Professor Chomsky,



My name is Matthew. I lecture English in Asia. One particular grammar question has irritated me over the past few months. Please take the time to read the examples below:



(A) I want to go home



(B) I want to go to bed



Why do we leave the preposition ('to') out of example 'A'?



In my attempt to sound intelligent in front of my students I suggested that the word 'home' is a very familiar word and often used (also, e.g. 'let's go home'), therefore, we don't include the preposition. Have I dug a hole for myself?



Any reply would be highly appreciative,



Best regards,


XXXX

[EvanD85]

The above is incredibly complicated, and will only work as an answer if the korean you are speaking to views language as something mechanical like math with lots of standard rules...

In reality, they are both interchangeable. The preposition was originally needed because, despite what Aristotle (who didn't speak English) said, home was considered a noun. Since then, we've dropped it for simplicity.

My grammar instructor has said if you want to sound "correct", you should say :
"I'm going to stay home" is for when you're already home
"I'm going to stay at home" for when you aren't home, but are claiming you are going to be

But that was merely because that's how people use it in real life.

"I'm going to go home" is said, but switches to "I'm going to go to my house". "I'm going to stay home" is said, and doesn't switch if you say "I'm going to stay at home".

For some reason using the word "home" as part of a verb phrase changes how we say it.

Don't let it confuse you, like you said it's "minor". It's interchangeable. The fact that you grew up speaking English and you don't know off the top of your head shows it doesn't really matter.

[kiwiana]

[EvanD85]

I speak English. I don't wallow in it. =P

If you want to explain to a group of people why you can say "I'm doing well" but not "I'm doing good" to make a point, sure... but we're supposed to be teaching people English so that they can be understood, correct? Giving them an abstract and unused perspective seems a little odd, especially when you have to start it off with "Well CHOMSKY says...".

I'm all for philosophy; I've been reading stuff like Metaphysics since 8th grade and I love trying to explain to people that while you can't grammatically say "I'm doing good" the fact that we do it repeatedly and are understood means it is correct... but that's not something I'm going to tell to a kid who is learning a foreign language. That's all college level stuff that is more trivia than helpful information.

[blackjack]

Cheers for the replies


just to provide a few more details
This is for an adult class (read between 30 and 60 years old) with a real mixture of abilities. It's a private class I do for some people in an English club.

The one that asked is a high level 50ish man that has lived in Canada, that is obsessed with grammar. He was asking which would be better in an essay (his way of asking which is more grammatically correct)

stay home / stay at home

I told him both sounded right but I would consult with some grammar gurus

[lifeinkorea]

[bobbybigfoot]

Let me add a little more to this discussion.

I'm going home.

I'm going to school.

I'm going to the restaurant.

Explain.

[The Cosmic Hum]

[Hanson]

^ Yeah, I think he meant to say "It's not so complicated to explain that an adverb can not be preceded by a preposition."

[kiwiana]