Do you see anything grammatically/semantically odd about these sentences. They were spoken/written by AmEng speakers.
-America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling.
-The United States of America will not militarize our border.
-America will not let our consumers or our economy be held hostage to run-away global oil prices.
Anything odd?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
USAer
Hey all!
I'll answer you, metal.
I think Stephen is right, Americans would consider the country "theirs" and so would say "our" in these sentences without thinking twice, though I myself would say "its" as noted by others.
We are taught that the USA is a country tailor-made by ourselves. Our government is representative and we can, if we want, have direct contact with our representatives and they usually respond, if only by form letter. Our boarders are only two, Canada and Mexico, and if we speak about boarder control, we are usually speaking about Mexico, no one (I hope) would consider building a fence to keep Canadians out....
"This land is your land, this land is my land, From California, to the...."
That's what we sing in grade school.
peace,
revel.
I'll answer you, metal.
I think Stephen is right, Americans would consider the country "theirs" and so would say "our" in these sentences without thinking twice, though I myself would say "its" as noted by others.
We are taught that the USA is a country tailor-made by ourselves. Our government is representative and we can, if we want, have direct contact with our representatives and they usually respond, if only by form letter. Our boarders are only two, Canada and Mexico, and if we speak about boarder control, we are usually speaking about Mexico, no one (I hope) would consider building a fence to keep Canadians out....
"This land is your land, this land is my land, From California, to the...."
That's what we sing in grade school.
peace,
revel.
This is a statement that would probably be made by a candidate for President. I suppose it could be the Bush administration assuring Americans. Language is no doubt being employed to render a proposal or stance more reasonable or attractive by hinting at a supposed solidarity of Americans behind it. I see it as mere political rhetoric instead of attempts at good grammar.
Can't this do that just as well?Language is no doubt being employed to render a proposal or stance more reasonable or attractive by hinting at a supposed solidarity of Americans behind it.
An American: "America will not impose its/her own style of government on the unwilling".
Or a president. Bush used similar just the other day.This is a statement that would probably be made by a candidate for President.
Last edited by metal56 on Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
It seems very odd to me. The example with David doesn't work for me at all. The examples with "America" seem to be just some speechwriters attempting a linguistic trope, rather than some elaborate language shift.
Not successfully, to my mind, unless you can imagine some different intonation and even gesture that brings it off a bit better:
America (points at White House) will not impose OUR (gesture to self and crowd) OWN (points at Lincoln Memorial) style of government on the unwilling
(assuming there's a place from which you can point at both).
But generally it seems more English to be "outside" the matter. English speakers speak and write like 3rd person observers, even when talking about themselves, don't they? (Not "we")
Whereas in Spanish, when I say "The British are kind and generous" that "are" is 1st person plural:
Los británicos somos amables y generosos
but a Spanish person talking to me would say "sois" (you are) and "son" (they are) to another, non-Brit, person.
Mind you apparently Franco, when asked what had happened to some enemy or other, would always say "Oh the Nationalists shot him" as if he had't had something to do with it.
Not successfully, to my mind, unless you can imagine some different intonation and even gesture that brings it off a bit better:
America (points at White House) will not impose OUR (gesture to self and crowd) OWN (points at Lincoln Memorial) style of government on the unwilling
(assuming there's a place from which you can point at both).
But generally it seems more English to be "outside" the matter. English speakers speak and write like 3rd person observers, even when talking about themselves, don't they? (Not "we")
Whereas in Spanish, when I say "The British are kind and generous" that "are" is 1st person plural:
Los británicos somos amables y generosos
but a Spanish person talking to me would say "sois" (you are) and "son" (they are) to another, non-Brit, person.
Mind you apparently Franco, when asked what had happened to some enemy or other, would always say "Oh the Nationalists shot him" as if he had't had something to do with it.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Code: Select all
But generally it seems more English to be "outside" the matter.