tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post4950006452561991611..comments2024-03-28T16:11:36.465+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: write (to) someonelynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-2111152816634775892022-05-16T00:40:11.965+01:002022-05-16T00:40:11.965+01:00Isn’t that still missing the information “a letter...Isn’t that still missing the information “a letter”?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-84073341392183699882022-05-16T00:29:33.288+01:002022-05-16T00:29:33.288+01:00I think it sounds wrong to BrE speakers because it...I think it sounds wrong to BrE speakers because it sounds like you're omitting "... a letter."<br />See the examples you used are verbs and nouns so it's actually a different expectation.<br />You wouldn't say, <br />"I emailed you an email." <br />"I texted you a text." or,<br />"I IM'd you an IM." any more than you'd say, <br />"I wrote you a write."<br /><br />"I wrote you." just sounds like it's missing too much information. Wrote me what? A book? A paper? Or did you just write the word "you" on a blackboard? "I wrote "you"." :P<br />It isnt as clear as just saying, "I wrote to you". <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-69284449798543022612022-02-07T12:26:29.937+00:002022-02-07T12:26:29.937+00:00Interesting about "to redd up" - my firs...Interesting about "to redd up" - my first guess would have been that it came from Danish, as the Danish for "to tidy" is "rydde op" (I don't know off the top of my head whether it's the same in Norwegian and Swedish). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-34719546596577547352010-07-24T01:39:00.886+01:002010-07-24T01:39:00.886+01:00"Based off" (not necessarily followed by..."Based off" (not necessarily followed by "of") was jarring to my ears when I first heard it from my teenage(d) son, but I now more or less accept it as a harmless bit of language change; I just give him a look when he says it and usually don't say a word.emptyhttp://voidplay.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-55517689717873283482009-11-24T03:00:36.234+00:002009-11-24T03:00:36.234+00:00Without doubt there are such regional effects: one...Without doubt there are such regional effects: one might even say that American English is Hiberno-English as pronounced by Germans. In addition to New York Yiddish, there is North Central Scandinavian, where they say "ish" instead of "ick" when disgusted; there is Western Pennsylvania Scots-Irish, there are the Hoi Toiders of the Virginia shoreline, and so on.<br /><br />But as the dominant effect in AmE, no.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-1707813134940619052009-11-12T00:59:43.560+00:002009-11-12T00:59:43.560+00:00@RMWG: again, I'd expect to see a more regiona...@RMWG: again, I'd expect to see a more regional effect in that case.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-30930034997904097452009-11-12T00:54:09.066+00:002009-11-12T00:54:09.066+00:00@lynneguist But could the influence of immigrants&...@lynneguist But could the influence of immigrants' native languages have kept the usage alive in America when it was dying out in England?RWMGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04271851970303022440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-29137325289720337412009-11-12T00:27:15.730+00:002009-11-12T00:27:15.730+00:00It's OK by me. What do I know from preposition...It's OK by me. What do I know from prepositions?Harry Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01675794936870568336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-28438051475317177912009-11-12T00:26:07.832+00:002009-11-12T00:26:07.832+00:00@Pisteve: Interesting thought, but note that the ...@Pisteve: Interesting thought, but note that the form that is now AmE was originally BrE, so there's little reason to suppose that the influence of non-native speakers is needed to explain the facts. Also, immigration to the US is very regionally-sensitive. While there are a lot of Polish immigrants in one city, another might have Vietnamese instead. So, I'd probably look for immigrant influences mostly where there's regional difference within the US. A good example of other-language influence is the effect of Yiddish in New York City--some of which has spread considerably beyond.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-43202010094340560422009-11-12T00:03:39.064+00:002009-11-12T00:03:39.064+00:00I have noticed that in these kind of discussions t...I have noticed that in these kind of discussions the differences between British and American English are generally assumed to have arisen only as a result of the geographical separation of speakers of the language, where one form retains an archaic or dialectal form and the other "evolves."<br />To what extent are the differences in American English the result instead of a large number of non-English speakers learning the language and then slightly altering things like use of prepositions to fit the patterns in their first language? <br />This post (and more particularly the one on "meet with" and "vsit with") reminded me of this idea. I think it occured to me when learning Polish (and some other Slavic lnaguages) which always requires "with" with the verb for meet. I believe it is the same in German.<br />Come to think of it, a lot of "typically American" usage (that isn't used in BrE) sounds rather like a mirror translation of forms in German and/or Slavic languages.<br />Has this idea not been discussed just because we are all so bad at foreign languages, or is that a naughty assumption?<br /><br />I'm not suggesting that a couple (of) generations ago the new arrivals to America didn't quite learn English properly, just that American English may have been more influenced by other European languages than the more insular British English.Pistevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-48583627029554669822009-11-02T20:08:57.049+00:002009-11-02T20:08:57.049+00:00Hm, I'm supposed to be reviewing their book. ...Hm, I'm supposed to be reviewing their book. Marc, did you send the question to both of us?lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-36359100641437312932009-11-02T16:07:53.169+00:002009-11-02T16:07:53.169+00:00@Lynne:
The Grammarphobia blog has jumped on this...@Lynne:<br /><br />The Grammarphobia blog has jumped on this question (minus the typos), with a post wonderfully titled "<a href="http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2009/11/hand-me-wellies-jeeves.html" rel="nofollow">Hand me the wellies, Jeeves</a>.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-2679578733504642682009-11-01T23:57:15.703+00:002009-11-01T23:57:15.703+00:00I can't see how 'based on' could possi...I can't see how 'based on' could possibly sound less accurate than 'based off of'!<br /><br />What's wrong with "based on"?<br /><br />Although that line of thought reminds me of a lengthy argument I had with a school friend when we were about fourteen- She had written "They could of done things differently" and I insisted it should read "could have" but was unable to convince her why that should be so.Solonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64650030841396891792009-11-01T01:58:05.328+00:002009-11-01T01:58:05.328+00:00@Mrs Redboots:
Not that odd. Compare
(BrE) I&#...@Mrs Redboots:<br /><br />Not that odd. Compare <br /><br />(BrE) I'll post you a letter <br /><br />with<br /><br />*I'll post youvphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-45878297057527788482009-10-31T14:47:08.221+00:002009-10-31T14:47:08.221+00:00this is amercian and bad english
I'm British,...<i>this is amercian and bad english</i><br /><br />I'm British, but I think that (a) mispelling American and (b) writing 'American' and 'English' without capitalization are rather worse crimes against English than 'I wrote you'...Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-57765238018341787162009-10-31T12:25:31.340+00:002009-10-31T12:25:31.340+00:00@Mrs Redboots: but the "you" switches b...@Mrs Redboots: but the "you" switches between direct and indirect object, so the two sentences are not equal. (Which is not to say the BrE position on this is in any way more logical or "correct" than the AmE - it ain't, of course).Pickynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-72667332628883937042009-10-31T12:05:21.495+00:002009-10-31T12:05:21.495+00:00The odd thing is that in British English "I w...The odd thing is that in British English "I wrote you a letter" is perfectly correct! Whereas "I wrote you", without "a letter" or "a postcard" after it, is perfectly correct in American English, but sounds wrong to British ears!<br /><br />Such a logical language, ours - not!Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-6157068538873113372009-10-31T00:25:49.536+00:002009-10-31T00:25:49.536+00:00As a native Californian, I find "I'll wri...As a native Californian, I find "I'll write you" a bit more formal than "I'll write to you." I would be more likely to use the former in a business letter, the latter in a note to a friend. <br /><br />I would also be more likely to use "I'll write you" if that's not the whole sentence. "I'll write you tomorrow." "I'll write you a letter." "I'll write you about this matter."Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14376545097377854998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-32262782808658738282009-10-30T20:44:59.197+00:002009-10-30T20:44:59.197+00:00I've been ignoring all the off-topicness (you ...I've been ignoring all the off-topicness (you know I don't like it!), but will note that I've already discussed <i><a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2006/08/meet-with.html" rel="nofollow">meet (with)</a></i>.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-851292952234943872009-10-30T18:34:45.757+00:002009-10-30T18:34:45.757+00:00Correction on my last comment - "wrote" ...Correction on my last comment - "wrote" WITHOUT "to" is wrong to my (AmE) ears.Amanda P.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70533786262694785482009-10-30T18:33:21.417+00:002009-10-30T18:33:21.417+00:00@RWMG - No, I would still put the "to" i...@RWMG - No, I would still put the "to" in the sentence. I think it's just the variations of "to write" that fall into that category, though. "I'll (text, email, phone, call, telephone, etc) you" doesn't require the "to", but "I'll write to you" does.<br /><br />I guess I just have a BrE tendency on this one (meaning that for me "wrote to" is not AmE, it's just wrong... jk).<br /><br />Regarding the "needs /past participle/" - it might also be that where I grew up, this was most commonly "needs washed", except it was pronouced "needs worsht" (rhymes with borscht). That's the fingernails on chalkboard phrase for me! :)Amanda P.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-61453543949434638852009-10-30T16:39:47.075+00:002009-10-30T16:39:47.075+00:00@Matt - and to stray even further off topic, that ...@Matt - and to stray even further off topic, that reminds me of the (Midwestern?) 'visit with', ie. to have a chat with someone. My American mother-in-law always tells me it's nice to have visited with me when we're talking on the phone, which took some getting used to (although she's right, it is nice).<br /><br />It occurs to me that the 'to' in 'I wrote to you' feels necessary to my (BrE) ears whereas all the other verbs (phoned, emailed, etc.) don't because 'I wrote you' is ambiguous - it could mean 'I wrote "you"'. But since when has avoiding ambiguity in English ever been a factor?townmousehttp://cityexile.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-44800087685785431162009-10-30T13:29:24.673+00:002009-10-30T13:29:24.673+00:00While this is certainly straying off topic, 'm...While this is certainly straying off topic, 'meet' and 'meet with' mean different things to Americans. Meet typically means that you are either going to be introduced to someone or are going to intersect their path at some point. 'Meet with' means that you are going to get together and either talk, have a meeting, discuss something, etc. with someone.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12319942981396129418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-81867076490884196122009-10-30T07:58:14.385+00:002009-10-30T07:58:14.385+00:00I am going to meet John. I am going to meet with ...I am going to meet John. I am going to meet with John. Latter sounds AmE to me. Is this an example in the other direction?<br /><br />Something that does make me shudder, although I am getting more used to it, is the AmE practice of saying "nice to meet you" when on the telephone to someone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-21137178869117798892009-10-30T05:25:11.899+00:002009-10-30T05:25:11.899+00:00Just thought of another one: "debate". I...Just thought of another one: "debate". In America you can say "I'm going to debate John"; in the UK you have to say "I'm going to debate with John".Andy JShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15819413906544791899noreply@blogger.com