Making Better Your English With a Non-Native Speaker!

[AtomicKitKat]

Alright, I'll kick this post off with the "right" ways to use some phrases and terms. Put down those you've heard, and I'll edit them in.:smallsmile:

"intensive purposes" -> Intents and purposes
"end all be all" -> Be all, and end all
"I could care less" -> "I couldn't care less", unless you actually do care even a little bit.
"alot" -> "a lot" The second is more proper, although the first is usually understood to mean the second(or at least, people allot the definition of "a lot" to "alot").:smalltongue:
"I barely X" -> I hardly X. "Barely" implies a lack of competence. "Hardly" implies a lack of frequency.
"should/would/could of" -> should/would/could have "Have" is not the same as "of". The former implies possession of, while the latter implies being possessed by.
"The car needs washed" -> "The car needs to be washed." Alternatively, "The car needs (a) washing."

"the team is" -> "the team are" Technically, "is" is the correct verb(root form "be"), since "team" is a group noun. See below:
"The teams are" and "The team is" are fine. Note the distinction.

"write me" -> "write to me" This one I'm not so sure on.
"obligate" -> "oblige" As far as I know, it's "oblige(d)", "obliging", "obligate(d)", "obligating", and "obligation". I've never heard "obligate" used.

"wildly" =\= "widely" The first denotes savagery. The second denotes expansiveness. Or remember: "The barbarian wildly swung his axe widely."

"irregardless" -> "regardless" The former, if it actually existed, would mean the complete opposite of the latter. No, adding the extra syllable does not make you look smarter. If anything, it has the opposite effect amongst those who know better.
"Regardless" -> Without regard.
"Irregardless" -> Against/lacking without regard.

"Conflictions" -> "Conflicts" Ironically, "Conflict" is defined(among other definitions), as "Collision", while "Confliction" is defined(among others) as "Collide" Mnemonic reminder to come later.

"Stay for awhile" -> "Stay awhile". According to dictionary.reference.com:


Usage Note: Awhile, an adverb, is never preceded by a preposition such as for, but the two-word form a while may be preceded by a preposition. In writing, each of the following is acceptable: stay awhile; stay for a while; stay a while (but not stay for awhile).

"then" -> Denotes consecutiveness. Example: First, you do A, then you do B.
"than" -> Denotes severity. Example: This object is larger than that.

While on the topic of "than", note the differences between "as much as" and "more than".

10 is 10 times as much as 1.(1*10)
10 is 9 times more than 1.(10-1=1*9)

"one in the same" -> "one and the same" Read them both out loud, and you'll see why the latter makes sense(and is correct).

Edit: The title of the thread is a joke, and is meant to make people feel at least a little bit better about their own mistakes. Or at least lure them here to be blackjacked with the ol' Clue by Four. :smallwink:

And that's all as of noon, September 26 2007.:smallsmile:

Updated 6pm September 30 2007.

[FdL]

Cool I'm watching this one.

Also, please fix the thread title while you're at it.

[Darken Rahl]

I could care less -> "I couldn't care less"

[Green Bean]

"alot" -> "a lot"

That one drives me crazy for some reason.

[Azrael]

I could care less -> "I couldn't care less"

Be careful, some of us use the former intentionally.

[Cyrano]

I barely X -> I hardly X.

[unstattedCommoner]

should/would/could of -> should/would/could have

[Gitman00]

Making Better Your English >> Making Your English Better :smallamused:

[Ashtar]

>> Improving your English

[Darken Rahl]

"The car needs washed" -> The car needs to be washed.


10 points to anyone who can guess where I am from based on this grammatical correction.

[Gitman00]

"The car needs washed" -> The car needs to be washed.


10 points to anyone who can guess where I am from based on this grammatical correction.

Pennsylvania

[Darken Rahl]

You get 5 points for the State n'at.

City? :smallyuk:

[The Prince of Cats]

I really hate the 'could of' thing, but that could be because we wrote a complaint letter once and the reply looked like it was written by a dyslexic five-year-old without access to a spell-checker. One sentence was unintelligible.

in defiance to -> in defiance of

There are a few things that are okay in US English that UK English does not allow (and vice-versa)...

For instance;

the team is -> the team are
write me -> write to me
obligate -> oblige

[Telonius]

You get 5 points for the State n'at.

City? :smallyuk:

I'm guessing Penn Hills, since you actually know the right way. :smallcool:

As a friend of mine put it: "Erie is like Han Solo to Pittsburgh's Chewbacca. We're the only ones that understand what they're saying, but even we can't speak it." :smallbiggrin:

[Darken Rahl]

I'm guessing Penn Hills, since you actually know the right way. :smallcool:

As a friend of mine put it: "Erie is like Han Solo to Pittsburgh's Chewbacca. We're the only ones that understand what they're saying, but even we can't speak it." :smallbiggrin:

I'm actually from Mars originally, but I love Pittsburgh. I'm in Scranton now, though. Coalspeak is just wretched.

[Crow]

As far as I know, it's "oblige(d)

Don't forget "obligatory"!

[valadil]

It doesn't take a non-native speaker to screw up then and than. Confusing and with an has been irritating me for a while too.

One of my coworkers (incidentally none of my coworkers are native english speakers) says wildly when he means wildly. He also calls conflicts conflictions.

Irregardless is not a word. As far as I can tell it's used by people who mean regardless but want to include an extra syllable so they sound smarter.

[MrEdwardNigma]

One of my coworkers says wildly when he means wildly.

Is it me, or is that twice the same word?:smallconfused:

[Ego Slayer]

This one got me for a while. :smallamused:

Awhile/a while -> "Stay awhile," "stay for a while." The former means "for a time," so if you said "stay for awhile" you would be saying "stay for 'for a time.'"

I don't want to get any more grammatical than that. >.<

Edit: Forgot to say something. Good thread, AKK!

[tannish2]

Alright, I'll kick this post off with the "right" ways to use some phrases and terms. Put down those you've heard, and I'll edit them in.:smallsmile:

"intensive purposes" -> Intents and purposes
"end all be all" -> Be all, and end all
"I could care less" -> "I couldn't care less", unless you actually do care even a little bit.
"alot" -> "a lot" The second is more proper, although both are generally accepted.
"I barely X" -> I hardly X. "Barely" implies a lack of competence. "Hardly" implies a lack of frequency.
"should/would/could of" -> should/would/could have "Have" is not the same as "of". The former implies possession of, while the latter implies being possessed by.
"The car needs washed" -> "The car needs to be washed." Alternatively, "The car needs (a) washing."

"the team is" -> "the team are" Technically, "is" is the correct verb(root form "be"), since "team" is a collective noun, like "furniture".
"write me" -> "write to me" This one I'm not so sure on.
"obligate" -> "oblige" As far as I know, it's "oblige(d)", "obliging", "obligate(d)", "obligating", and "obligation". I've never heard "obligate" used.

Edit: The title of the thread is a joke, and is meant to make people feel at least a little bit better about their own mistakes. Or at least lure them here to be blackjacked with the ol' Clue by Four. :smallwink:
actually "i could care less" can be used sarcastically. in fact, it usually is.

"OH****NINNNJASHABEDONET3HPWNAGE@ME" is actually "oh ****, i just got my ass kicked by ninjas."

[Ego Slayer]

actually "i could care less" can be used sarcastically. in fact, it usually is.

"OH****NINNNJASHABEDONET3HPWNAGE@ME" is actually "oh ****, i just got my ass kicked by ninjas."
Mine in bold.
i -> "I." When referring to oneself "I" must be capitalized.

->Also, the first word in every sentence must also be capitalized.

:amused:
I just couldn't help myself. People seem to slip up on these rules often.

[Catch]

"the team is" -> "the team are" Technically, "is" is the correct verb(root form "be"), since "team" is a collective noun, like "furniture".

Incorrect. While a collective noun is made up of more than one person or thing, it still a single entity. Furthermore, the word "team" is also a count noun, meaning it can be modified by a numeral or exist in either singular or plural form. Thus, your structure could be as such:

"The team is" OR "The two teams are"

Furniture, however, is a mass noun and cannot be used in the same way. In English, a mass noun cannot be expressed by a numeral without specifying a measurement, and cannot be combined with an indefinite article. In effect, you cannot have "a furniture" or "two furnitures," but you can have "some furniture" or "two pieces of furniture."

Forgive me, I'm an English major. Carry on.

[AtomicKitKat]

That and "I could care less" is actually almost never used sarcastically. It's just that they couldn't care enough to add the "'nt".:smalltongue:

Edit: Re: Team and Furniture, I was going from memory of an old book on English from about 20 years ago.:smallbiggrin: I'll edit the first post in the morning(well, when there's sunlight out anyway). I'm sure I'll make more mistakes if I did it now.

[Telonius]

Mine in bold.
i -> "I." When referring to oneself "I" must be capitalized.

->Also, the first word in every sentence must also be capitalized.

:amused:
I just couldn't help myself. People seem to slip up on these rules often.

If your name is e e cummings you have a free pass to ignore those rules. :smallbiggrin:

[valadil]

Is it me, or is that twice the same word?:smallconfused:

D'oh. Meant widely the second time. I think I couldn't decide which order to put them in and changed my mind midway through the sentence.

[The Prince of Cats]

Thus, your structure could be as such:

"The team is" OR "The two teams are"

...snip...

Forgive me, I'm an English major. Carry on.
I am English. Between an Englishman and an English major (I assume you are not a military person, simply a student of the language), I am sure we can be sure that team is both a singular and plural noun.

[Catch]

I am English.

Not to be rude, but I can't see how this gives you any particular jurisdiction over the language.


I am sure we can be sure that team is both a singular and plural noun.

Team can exist in either a singular and plural form. Unmodified, however, it's singular. As I explained before, while a collective noun refers to a group, it is still one group, which is singular and used as such. When you add an "s" or "es" and a numeral to a collective noun, it becomes plural.

"Pride of lions" for example, is singular because there is one group. "Teams of players" is plural because there is more than one team.

"Fish," instead, is a word that is both singular and plural, and its use does not change based on the number.

One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish.

See?

[Jack Squat]

"Fish," instead, is a word that is both singular and plural, and its use does not change based on the number.

One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish.

See?

Alternatively, "fishes" is an acceptable plural of the word. At least that's what my dictionary says...

[Muz]

"alot" -> "a lot" The second is more proper, although both are generally accepted.


And just who, pray tell, "generally accepts" that? (Are we talking accept as in "Oh, he spelled that wrong but I know what he means," or "According to The Chicago Manual of Style, either are acceptable"?)

[Catch]

And just who, pray tell, "generally accepts" that? (Are we talking accept as in "Oh, he spelled that wrong but I know what he means," or "According to The Chicago Manual of Style, either are acceptable"?)

"Alot" is not a word, so it should never be "generally accepted" as one.

"A lot" is the proper usage, otherwise it could be confused with the word "allot," which is entirely different, though not used a lot.

:smallbiggrin:

[Bob_the_Mighty]

I hate it when people say things like, VIN number, PIN number, or ATM machine. The word at the end is already included in the first three letters, so really you're just repeating part of what you said before. Also, it's not a safety deposit box, it's a safe deposit box.

[Muz]

"Alot" is not a word, so it should never be "generally accepted" as one.

"A lot" is the proper usage, otherwise it could be confused with the word "allot," which is entirely different, though not used a lot.

:smallbiggrin:

Thank God. Nice to see the world is still sane. :smallsmile:

[Nibleswick]

Alternatively, "fishes" is an acceptable plural of the word. At least that's what my dictionary says...

It is only correct if you are talking about more than one species of fish.

[Zeb The Troll]

While we're at it...

your - possessive; "Is that your pen?"
you're - contraction of 'you are'; "You're funny."

there - locative; "It's over there."
their - possessive; "It's their turn."
they're - contraction of 'they are'; "They're not going to make it on time."

A trick to remember these, kids...
there - has "here" in it, it's a location
their - has "heir" in it, it implies possession
they're - umm, 'they are', it isn't really that tough
it's - contraction of 'it is'; "It's okay."
its - possessive; "That car lost its wheel!"

are - conjugation of the verb 'to be'; "You are right."
our - possessive; "That's our train."

whom - usually misused when used at all; is properly used in the objective case, for example when it's the object of a prepostion; e.g. 'give to whom' or 'letter for whom' but never 'whom is it'; in informal speech and writing, 'whom' is acceptably replaceable with 'who' so if you're not sure, just say 'who'.
I/me - 'I' is subjective, 'me' is objective; "She and I are interested." "Send your PM to him and me." Never "Me and him went to the show," or "Email both him and I." Also, "between him and me" is correct, not "between him and I".

The easy way to get it right, usually...
Replace who/whom with he/him or she/her, if 'he' or 'she' would be correct use 'who', if 'him' or 'her' would be correct use 'whom'. The same works for I/me.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Mine in bold.
i -> "I." When referring to oneself "I" must be capitalized.

->Also, the first word in every sentence must also be capitalized.

:amused:
I just couldn't help myself. People seem to slip up on these rules often.
If your name is e e cummings you have a free pass to ignore those rules. :smallbiggrin:

or nigel molesworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Molesworth), as any fule kno.

(sigh) It's the schoolboy errors that trip people up...

[Glaivemaster]

I/me - 'I' is subjective, 'me' is objective; "She and I are interested." "Send your PM to him and me." Never "Me and him went to the show," or "Email both him and I." Also, "between him and me" is correct, not "between him and I".

And the easy way to remember this is to make the sentence without the other person. If 'I' makes sense on it's own, use '[it] and I', otherwise it's 'me'

Just thought I'd add that in, since we're doing easy ways

Also, 'often' has a silent 't'. If you're pronouncing the 't' you're wrong

(EDIT: I've noticed that dictionary.com allows you to pronounce the 't' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/often), but the Collin's Concise in my lap doesn't. As I've always been told that what I've put in this post is the right way, I'm standing by what I've said)

[AtomicKitKat]

I/me - 'I' is subjective, 'me' is objective; "She and I are interested." "Send your PM to him and me." Never "Me and him went to the show," or "Email both him and I." Also, "between him and me" is correct, not "between him and I".

That might be how it's done there. For me, I've always put "He and I", or "Him and I". I mean, I disagreed often with my English teachers, but some of the stuff they taught has stuck with me.:smalltongue:

[Youngblood]

I think at this stage in the world, correcting the grammer and especially pronunciation of people who speak English is sadly futile. The major part of the population doesn't care in the slightest.

After all, English doesn't steal words from other languages, it chases them into an alley, hits them over the head with a lead pipe, and rummages through their pockets for loose vocabulary.

[Zeb The Troll]

That might be how it's done there. For me, I've always put "He and I", or "Him and I". I mean, I disagreed often with my English teachers, but some of the stuff they taught has stuck with me.:smalltongue:I'm not sure which part you mean, but I can promise you that "him and I" is never right because "him" and "I" are different cases. You would say "give it to him" but never "give it to he". Likewise you would say "give it to me" but never "give it to I". Therefore you could say "give it to him and me" but never "give it to him and I". On the flip side, "I went" or "he went" are correct while "him went" and "me went" are not, therefore "he and I went" is good but "him and I went" is not. Capiche?

[The Prince of Cats]

whom - usually misused when used at all; is properly used in the objective case, for example when it's the object of a prepostion; e.g. 'give to whom' or 'letter for whom' but never 'whom is it'; in informal speech and writing, 'whom' is acceptably replaceable with 'who' so if you're not sure, just say 'who'.
I disagree with you there on your example. "Whom it is" would be correct, because you would say "whom he is" and not "who him is". One subject, one object...

(and, in answer to Catch, my comment about being English was vaguely tongue-in-cheek)

[Zeb The Troll]

I disagree with you there on your example. "Whom it is" would be correct, because you would say "whom he is" and not "who him is". One subject, one object...Check my example again. I said "whom is it" not "whom it is". As in...

Al: Bob, the phone's for you.
Bob: Whom is it?...which would be totally wrong.

But you're right in that it's not a perfect example. "To whom is it referring?" would be perfectly correct.

[The Prince of Cats]

Hmm... Zeb, you are making sense. I am not sure I am right, but I am not sure you are right either. I think it is an awkward example of a slightly uncertain internal logic.

Can we split the difference? Since 'whom' is somewhat archaic, 'who' can be used in its place. As such, "who is" would be acceptable English and the only answer which is definitely right.

[adanedhel9]

Also, 'often' has a silent 't'. If you're pronouncing the 't' you're wrong

(EDIT: I've noticed that dictionary.com allows you to pronounce the 't' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/often), but the Collin's Concise in my lap doesn't. As I've always been told that what I've put in this post is the right way, I'm standing by what I've said)

This is probably regional.

All my life, I've heard, and said, often, ofden, and offen, as well as many variations on the second vowel. All are perfectly understandable as often, and I've never seen anyone corrected for it; I've never heard any rules about it not being that way.

It's possible that offen is, or was, the "correct" pronounciation, but it's often is so widespread that that entry is out of date.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Thenks a lot guys, though I did knew much of it, not all.
I'm always looking for ways to improve my english, so if you notice faults in it, please tell me.
And sometimes my english can be rather poor, since I am only fourteen years old:smalltongue:

[Zeb The Troll]

Hmm... Zeb, you are making sense. I am not sure I am right, but I am not sure you are right either. I think it is an awkward example of a slightly uncertain internal logic.

Can we split the difference? Since 'whom' is somewhat archaic, 'who' can be used in its place. As such, "who is" would be acceptable English and the only answer which is definitely right.Yeah, that "who" is universally right was kind of what I wanted to be the point of that. It's far better to say 'who' when 'whom' could be used than to say 'whom' when it's not supposed to be.

[Charity]

Whom's on first?
yeah, well I just did *blows raspberry*

[valadil]

It is only correct if you are talking about more than one species of fish.

Right. It's the equivalent of the word peoples. Even though people is plural for person, people can also be singular to mean something like a society or culture. Fish is confusing because you have one word as opposed to two, and fish can be used as a mass noun on top of that.

(Not an English major, but I minored in linguistics so that ought to count for something. It was enough of a look into grammar that I still feel dirty ending sentences with prepositions.)

[AtomicKitKat]

Okay, I remembered "hoard" vs "horde". Now I need some mnemonic to get people to remember it.

Hoard=stuff you stow away; treasure; stash
Horde=large group, usually barely organised; a mob

eg. You hoard your cache of items to protect them from the barbarian horde.

Preferrably, some word play involving the letters. Should be catchy, so that people can sing/chant it to remind themselves.

[A Rainy Knight]

Everyone in my English class gets this wrong except for me.

it's = contraction of "it is"
its = possesive.

It's crazy how that wolf defends its pond.

Never use "hisself"

to & too:
to = infinitives (to run), preposition (go to the mall, where to the mall is a prepositional phrase)
too = excessive (too much), also (I want to go too.)

[RTGoodman]

To really define the difference between "who" and "whom," you should really pick a verb that isn't "to be" or any of its conjugations (is, was, etc.).

The noun "to be" takes a (nominative) subject complement rather than an (accusative) object. For instance, "I am he who vanquished the heathen hoards." In that instance, all the pronouns ("I," "he," and "who") are all nominative (that is, the same case as the subject).

It's when you have other verbs that you have to worry about he/him and who/whom. For instance, "I see him" and "To whom are you speaking?" (which is the same as "You are speaking to whom?").

"Whom," as far as I can tell, occurs mostly in phrases that are in apposition to another noun (that is, when you use a noun and then tell about it in another phrase; e.g., "The man who saw the dragon just died," where the italics mark a phrase that describes the subject, "man"). "Whom" is usually used in such cases, and usually at the beginning of a phrase in which "whom" itself is the object. "I saw the man whom the dragon killed." The main clause is "I saw the man." The other clause, in italics, is a description of the direct object, and itself is the object of its clause (as in, you could flip it around into a question and the word "whom" would remain the object - "The dragon killed whom?").

Sorry if this is over-complicated, but in two of my foreign language classes here at college (both Latin and German) we've had to take a full hour-long class each to teach people the difference (in English) between subjects and objects, and their effects on pronouns like "who" and "he." It has sort of been drilled into me by this point.

[Vaynor]

Sorry, I just think it's hilarious that the title of the thread has a grammar error in it.

[AtomicKitKat]

Sorry, I just think it's hilarious that the title of the thread has a grammar error in it.

I purposely made it like that. I debated over "Make Better" and "Making Better". Decided that making it all "Borat"-y would help attract more people.:smallbiggrin: