Re: Jokes
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:42 am
?? There are only a few minor speling difrunces and they are mainly retention of old French spellings which yer man Noah Webster (I think) changed (in his mind improved) when he roat hiz mor lojikul dichshunry. It's revisionist AmE that is out of step.humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:44 pmTheir whole grammar and spelling are weird. Singular nouns take plural verbs. (A couple wait for you.) No, couple is singular; thathence it takes the singular conjugation: A couple waits for you. Same with family. There are others too. Just because a singular word implies more than one does not equal a plural predicate. In addition it is not euphonious. It grates.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:04 pm I was curious about the orchestra question - easily found - it was from a Nottingham UK maths teacher (maths 'cos UK, not math!; they teach in plural there)
While I give a pass on the superfluous u in nouns that end in -or like favor or labor, and the -ise suffix (instead of -ize), I am shocked that they spell programme as such. I am shocked that artifact is spelled (or should I write spelt, like the grain?) artefact. I am really shocked that they spell skeptic with a hard c before the e: sceptic. This last one is truly bizarre.
No wonder we revolted in 1775.
Off Topic
BrE uses "programme" for schedules but "program" for computer code. "Disc" or "disk" similarly.
Past forms of strong and weak verbs are in flux in both countries. BrE is losing or has lost some: e.g. "dived" rather than "dove". How "gotten" became "got" I dunno – but the -en form is retained in compound verbs: "I forgot" but still "it's been forgotten". Odd!
The 1776 Restoration Movement should campaign for reinstatement of the pre-Webster 1776 forms – or as traditionalist Christians for the resurrection of God-given King James Version spellings, just as Jesus used!
Yeah, the BrE rule on verb number for collective nouns is that the plural form can (usually is) used when the members are referred to. It has logic: if you think about "this bag of apples is/are rotten", it's not the single bag that is rotten, it's the multiple apples. So plural?
Or "the government is/are in agreement"? One thing can't be in agreement! It's multiple people who agree. As JamesThurber reminisced "the container for the thing contained ".
Think of the collective as a determiner and it unpacks quite neatly.
Official or formal BrE documents tend to follow the collectives-are-singular rule, but I suspect that's because the authors learnt Latin at "public" (i.e. expensive private! – now that is crazy!) schools.
Some of the BrE->AmE changes arose because many speakers in the US acquired English as an additional language so were less familiar with detailed BrE rules and adopted grammar rules from their native languages.
Celtic languages (Irish and Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Breton, etc.) don't use plural verb forms when the number is given, so (translated to English): "there are dogs in the houses" but "there are four dog in the three house". Go tell them they don't do plurals properly!
In (most) Scandinavian languages we have it easy: singular and plural verb forms are identical! Think: "I are, you are, he/she/it are, we are, you are, they are". Adjectives misbehave a little to restore some balance, but it's only a token gesture
Past forms of strong and weak verbs are in flux in both countries. BrE is losing or has lost some: e.g. "dived" rather than "dove". How "gotten" became "got" I dunno – but the -en form is retained in compound verbs: "I forgot" but still "it's been forgotten". Odd!
The 1776 Restoration Movement should campaign for reinstatement of the pre-Webster 1776 forms – or as traditionalist Christians for the resurrection of God-given King James Version spellings, just as Jesus used!
Yeah, the BrE rule on verb number for collective nouns is that the plural form can (usually is) used when the members are referred to. It has logic: if you think about "this bag of apples is/are rotten", it's not the single bag that is rotten, it's the multiple apples. So plural?
Or "the government is/are in agreement"? One thing can't be in agreement! It's multiple people who agree. As JamesThurber reminisced "the container for the thing contained ".
Think of the collective as a determiner and it unpacks quite neatly.
Official or formal BrE documents tend to follow the collectives-are-singular rule, but I suspect that's because the authors learnt Latin at "public" (i.e. expensive private! – now that is crazy!) schools.
Some of the BrE->AmE changes arose because many speakers in the US acquired English as an additional language so were less familiar with detailed BrE rules and adopted grammar rules from their native languages.
Celtic languages (Irish and Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Breton, etc.) don't use plural verb forms when the number is given, so (translated to English): "there are dogs in the houses" but "there are four dog in the three house". Go tell them they don't do plurals properly!
In (most) Scandinavian languages we have it easy: singular and plural verb forms are identical! Think: "I are, you are, he/she/it are, we are, you are, they are". Adjectives misbehave a little to restore some balance, but it's only a token gesture
