Turn on thread page Beta

Can I say: Anybody helps me checking this car? watch

Announcements

    Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled
    news:[email protected]:

    [q1]> On 22 Jun 2002 03:28:46 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>|Peng Zhang <[email protected]> burbled |news:[email protected]:[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|> CyberCypher wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|>> Peng Zhang <[email protected]> burbled news:[email protected]:[/q1]
    [q1]>|>>[/q1]
    [q1]>|>> > Or I should say: Anybody help me checking( check) this car?[/q1]
    [q1]>|>>[/q1]
    [q1]>|>> You need to say "{Can/Will} anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|> Does that mean that "Can/Will" is omitted here?[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|No, it means you have a choice of[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|"Can anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>| and[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|"Will anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> These are two different meanings, and neither of them is a request for help.[/q1]

    Yes, they are, if taken literally, two sentences with different meanings. However, they are both
    used to request help

    [q1]> Original poster: Did you mean this to be a request for help? If so, the above examples are[/q1]
    [q1]> ambiguous.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> (well, you picked on me first)![/q1]

    I haven't finished with you either, Howie.

    [q1]> With either of the above, a reply could be:-[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> 1/ Yes.[/q1]
    [q1]> 2/ No.[/q1]
    [q1]> 3/ I don't know.[/q1]

    Only the meanest of pedants would answer those questions with these smartass replies.

    [q1]> And then the responder might walk away. Possibly not what the questioner wanted![/q1]

    Only non-native speaker of English would do such an unkind think out of ignorance of what was being
    asked, and any native speaker of English who would do such a thing could be rightly accused of being
    petty and selfish.

    --
    Franke: "Life is simple: pain is good, pleasure is better, no pain is best. Death is even simpler."
    Bodhisattva F. A. Tchirl. Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language. Grammar 2: Formal
    rules for the written language. Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.

    On 27 Jun 2002 15:46:24 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> wrote:

    <snip>

    [q1]|>|"Can anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]|>|[/q1]
    [q1]|>| and[/q1]
    [q1]|>|[/q1]
    [q1]|>|"Will anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|> These are two different meanings, and neither of them is a request for help.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Yes, they are, if taken literally, two sentences with different |meanings. However, they are both[/q1]
    used to request help

    Agreed. But that was not what was being said. That is why I said
    it.

    [q1]|> Original poster: Did you mean this to be a request for help? If so, the above examples are[/q1]
    [q1]|> ambiguous.[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|> (well, you picked on me first)![/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|I haven't finished with you either, Howie.[/q1]

    Oooh - good!

    [q1]|> With either of the above, a reply could be:-[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|> 1/ Yes.[/q1]
    [q1]|> 2/ No.[/q1]
    [q1]|> 3/ I don't know.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Only the meanest of pedants would answer those questions with these |smartass replies.[/q1]

    As a native speaker - yes.

    [q1]|> And then the responder might walk away. Possibly not what the questioner wanted![/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Only non-native speaker of English would do such an unkind think out of |ignorance of what was[/q1]
    being asked,

    Rubbish. I've seen it done many times by english native-speakers, and so have you! Usually done as a
    joke - I'm glad to say. But the whole -point_ of that joke is to point out that the "asker" phrased
    a question instead of the 'proper' polite request.

    [q1]| and any native speaker of English[/q1]
    [q1]|who would do such a thing could be rightly accused of being petty and |selfish.[/q1]

    So to sum up, you are advocating to a non-native speaker of English, that it's equally valid to form
    a question instead of a request, because,- as long as the request is made of a native-speaker of
    English, you can always rely on their good humour and helpful attitude to make allowances.

    Great.

    Perhaps I'm wasting my time with you after all.

    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    itA:1. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled
    news:[email protected]:

    [q1]> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:19:20 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |> Does that mean that "Can/Will" is omitted here?[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |No, it means you have a choice of[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |"Can anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |[/q1]
    [q1]>|> | and[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |[/q1]
    [q1]>|> |"Will anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> These are two different meanings, and neither of them is a request for help.[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> Original poster: Did you mean this to be a request for help? If so, the above examples are[/q1]
    [q1]>|> ambiguous.[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> (well, you picked on me first)![/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> With either of the above, a reply could be:-[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> 1/ Yes.[/q1]
    [q1]>|> 2/ No.[/q1]
    [q1]>|> 3/ I don't know.[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> And then the responder might walk away. Possibly not what the questioner wanted![/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|This is a bit facetious (and somewhat misleading).[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Exactly![/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>|We often begin |requests with "will" or "can". "Can you open the window?" with or |without[/q1]
    [q1]>"please" is usually a request not a question about somebody's |ability.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> It is a question about somebody's ability. But is often used as a question.[/q1]

    A question is a question, is it not?

    [q1]> However, it is correct AND polite to begin with: "Please will....."[/q1]

    It is probably more natural to put "please" in the middle or the end of the sentence, as in:

    "Will you please help me with this bag?"

    and

    "Will you help me with this bag, please?"

    [q1]>| "Will you help me with this bag?" with or without "please" is[/q1]
    [q1]>|also a request.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> No it isn't. But it is often meant as one.[/q1]

    Howie, you apparently don't know much about English usage or English grammar. Why are you making
    patently false statements on a subject about which you are so absymally ignorant?

    --
    Franke: "Life is simple: pain is good, pleasure is better, no pain is best. Death is even simpler."
    Bodhisattva F. A. Tchirl. Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language. Grammar 2: Formal
    rules for the written language. Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.

    Typo here, sorry. This bit should have read:

    "It is a STATEMENT about somebody's ability. But is often used as a question."

    (Thanks to my mate Franke for pointing it out)
    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    ICQ:4502837. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    Howie wrote:
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:19:20 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |> Does that mean that "Can/Will" is omitted here?[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |No, it means you have a choice of[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |"Can anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |> | and[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |> |"Will anybody help me check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> These are two different meanings, and neither of them is a request for help.[/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> Original poster: Did you mean this to be a request for help? If so, the above examples are[/q1]
    [q1]> |> ambiguous.[/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> (well, you picked on me first)![/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> With either of the above, a reply could be:-[/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> 1/ Yes.[/q1]
    [q1]> |> 2/ No.[/q1]
    [q1]> |> 3/ I don't know.[/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> And then the responder might walk away. Possibly not what the questioner wanted![/q1]
    [q1]> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |This is a bit facetious (and somewhat misleading).[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Exactly![/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> |We often begin |requests with "will" or "can". "Can you open the window?" with or |without[/q1]
    [q1]> "please" is usually a request not a question about somebody's |ability.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> It is a question about somebody's ability. But is often used as a question. However, it is correct[/q1]
    [q1]> AND polite to begin with: "Please will....."[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> | "Will you help me with this bag?" with or without "please" is[/q1]
    [q1]> |also a request.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> No it isn't. But it is often meant as one.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |Regards, Einde O'Callaghan[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Surely you're not going to argue with this as well ?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    Well since I disagree with your pedantic interpretation I have to.

    Ability is not the only possible meaning of the modal auxiliary verb "can". It is also used to talk
    about permission, to make deductions and to make requests.

    "Will" is not only used to talk about teh future, it is used to talk about habitual behavious in the
    presence, to talk about willingness and for requests and offers.

    This list of possible meanings are not exhaustive. I can provide you with examples from
    authoritative grammar books and guides to English usage if you like.

    Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

    On 27 Jun 2002 15:52:08 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> was fighting someone else's battles.
    This is what happened....

    <snip>

    [q1]|> It is a question about somebody's ability. But is often used as a question.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|A question is a question, is it not?[/q1]

    I have corrected this typo in this thread. Of course, it should read: " It is a STATEMENT about
    somebody's ability. But is often used as a question.
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|> However, it is correct AND polite to begin with: "Please will....."[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|It is probably more natural to put "please" in the middle or the end of |the sentence, as in:[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|"Will you please help me with this bag?"[/q1]

    Disagree. That makes it pleading.

    [q1]|"Will you help me with this bag, please?"[/q1]

    Splitting hairs again Franke? OK, I concede that it rarely makes much difference whether you put the
    "please" at the beginning or the end of a request.

    [q1]|>| "Will you help me with this bag?" with or without "please" is[/q1]
    [q1]|>|also a request.[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|> No it isn't. But it is often meant as one.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Howie, you apparently don't know much about English usage or English |grammar. Why are you making[/q1]
    patently false statements on a subject |about which you are so absymally ignorant?

    Are you ACTUALLY saying that "Will you help me with this bag?" is a request and not a question?

    So, if you asked me: "Will you help me understand English"? You are seriously saying that you would
    expect an action, and NOT a verbal response?

    You are getting semantics seriously mixed up with grammar aren't you?

    (Yes - I will, by the way).

    H.

    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    HAA:1. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:19:56 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]|> Surely you're not going to argue with this as well ?[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|Well since I disagree with your pedantic interpretation I have to.[/q1]

    Are you disagreeing on my accuracy then, or because you don't like this version of accuracy because
    it gives you the impression of pedantry?

    [q1]|Ability is not the only possible meaning of the modal auxiliary verb[/q1]
    [q1]|"can".[/q1]

    True.

    [q1]| It is also used to talk about permission, to make deductions and[/q1]
    [q1]|to make requests.[/q1]

    see below....

    [q1]|"Will" is not only used to talk about teh future, it is used to talk[/q1]
    [q1]|about habitual behavious in the presence, to talk about willingness and |for requests and offers.[/q1]

    If you use "can" or "will" as a modal verb in a question, it does NOT turn the question into a
    request. Although I have always agreed that when we do so, we often expect it to.

    [q1]|This list of possible meanings are not exhaustive. I can provide you |with examples from[/q1]
    authoritative grammar books and guides to English |usage if you like.
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Regards, Einde O'Callaghan[/q1]

    I have them thanks. And i've looked at them again as a result of our little discussion. Have you?

    Look, are we advising a foreign speaker about the [1]best,
    [2]most accurate, [3]most polite and [4]most effective way to use the english language, or not? If
    so, you are only causing confusion with every argument you raise on this matter.

    Regards, Howard.

    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    ICQ:4502837. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    Howie wrote:
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:19:56 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> |> Surely you're not going to argue with this as well ?[/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |Well since I disagree with your pedantic interpretation I have to.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Are you disagreeing on my accuracy then, or because you don't like this version of accuracy[/q1]
    [q1]> because it gives you the impression of pedantry?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    No. what is pedantic is your insistence that one possible meaning of the modal auxiliary verb is the
    only legitimate one. and it's not only pedantic, it's plain wrong.

    [q1]> |Ability is not the only possible meaning of the modal auxiliary verb[/q1]
    [q1]> |"can".[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> True.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> | It is also used to talk about permission, to make deductions and[/q1]
    [q1]> |to make requests.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> see below....[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> |"Will" is not only used to talk about teh future, it is used to talk[/q1]
    [q1]> |about habitual behavious in the presence, to talk about willingness and |for requests and offers.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> If you use "can" or "will" as a modal verb in a question, it does NOT turn the question into a[/q1]
    [q1]> request. Although I have always agreed that when we do so, we often expect it to.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    Usage is what defines meaning, not your somewhat eccentric views. If we expect the usdage to be a
    request, then the usage can be a request. Anything else is does not reflect the English language as
    she is spoke.

    [q1]> |This list of possible meanings are not exhaustive. I can provide you |with examples from[/q1]
    [q1]> authoritative grammar books and guides to English |usage if you like.[/q1]
    [q1]> |[/q1]
    [q1]> |Regards, Einde O'Callaghan[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I have them thanks. And i've looked at them again as a result of our little discussion. Have you?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    Since I've been studying the uses of modal auxiliary verbs all week with an advanced learner
    preparing for the Cambridge Proficiency I should imagine that I've consulted the relevant grammar
    and usage books a bit more thoroughly than you ever have.

    [q1]> Look, are we advising a foreign speaker about the [1]best,[/q1]
    [q1]> [2]most accurate, [3]most polite and [4]most effective way to use the english language, or not? If[/q1]
    [q1]> so, you are only causing confusion with every argument you raise on this matter.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    Naturally we discuss levels of politeness and formality etc. But that isn't what you and I are
    discussing. We are discussing your mistaken insistence that in modern English usage the ability
    meaning of "can" is the primary and predominant one.

    To take just one reference book at random (because it's still on the desk since the last lesson):
    in his book "Modern English Usage" (2nd edition), published by Oxford University Press, Michael
    Swan devotes 7 pages to the use of "can" (and "could"), of which only 2 deal with the ability
    meaning of the word.

    Also being effectively bilingual (and often having to translate from German to English and sometimes
    vice versa) I'm well aware that the German equivalents of "can" (there is more than one) don't all
    refer to ability. Using only the ability sense would often lead to serious distortion of the meaning
    intended by the writer or speaker.

    Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

    On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:27:11 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote:

    <snip>

    [q1]|No. what is pedantic is your insistence that one possible meaning of the |modal auxiliary verb is[/q1]
    the only legitimate one. and it's not only |pedantic, it's plain wrong.

    It is wrong, you're right there, - which is why I didn't say it.

    [q1]|Usage is what defines meaning, not your somewhat eccentric views. If we |expect the usdage to be a[/q1]
    request, then the usage can be a request. |Anything else is does not reflect the English language as
    she is spoke.

    So, following that logic, I can say anything to mean anything else then? How convenient. Liberal
    descriptiveness at it's worst
    IMO.

    [q1]|> Look, are we advising a foreign speaker about the [1]best,[/q1]
    [q1]|> [2]most accurate, [3]most polite and [4]most effective way to use the english language, or not?[/q1]
    [q1]|> If so, you are only causing confusion with every argument you raise on this matter.[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|Naturally we discuss levels of politeness and formality etc. But that |isn't what you and I are[/q1]
    discussing. We are discussing your mistaken |insistence that in modern English usage the ability
    meaning of "can" is |the primary and predominant one.

    We are now, yes. And, when it is used in a question, I stick by that notion. But actually this
    argument started during an effort to advise a non-native speaker how to make a request.

    The most important point here is your last one. My so-called "mistaken insistence" that in modern
    English usage the ability meaning of "can" is the primary and predominant one. The term "Modern
    English" means nothing BTW. I will continue to insist that, as far as foreign learners are
    concerned, this is indeed the primary AND predominant meaning of "can" to begin a question.

    [q1]|To take just one reference book at random (because it's still on the |desk since the last lesson):[/q1]
    in his book "Modern English Usage" (2nd |edition), published by Oxford University Press, Michael
    Swan devotes 7 |pages to the use of "can" (and "could"), of which only 2 deal with the |ability
    meaning of the word.

    Stick with that if you must. It's obviously within your intellectual comfort zone.

    <snip irrelevant stuff about german>

    Good luck with your teaching or EFL students from a viewpoint of pure descriptive grammar.

    ;-)

    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    IMO:1. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled
    news:[email protected]:

    [q1]> On 27 Jun 2002 01:29:37 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>|Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled[/q1]
    [q1]>|news:[email protected]:[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:56:04 +0800, "Benotbe" <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|>|So this makes me even more confused then. |So should I just go by experience, or else there is a[/q1]
    [q1]>|>precise |principle behind this "help + another verb" structure?[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> Personally, I would go by experience and what feels right.[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|Yeah, but you are a native speaker and the original poster is not, |so this seems like not very[/q1]
    [q1]>useful advice.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Did you notice the original poster actually asking if this is what they should do? Only, - I did,[/q1]
    [q1]> you see? This is what made me think that they might be able to apply experience to the problem.[/q1]
    [q1]> You know, - the fact that they could apply experience to it?[/q1]

    It seems to me that the original poster did apply experience to it and that this is why he asked for
    help: His experience was insufficient to satisfy his need for a correct answer.

    [q1]>|> For god's sake DON'T look at rules of written grammar![/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|Is there a reason that you say this? Beyond the time it would take |to look up and verify every[/q1]
    [q1]>question of usage in a grammar book, I |mean.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Yep. Because of fragments and verbless clauses which are used all over the place in spoken[/q1]
    [q1]> english. Look at the example and tell me how a non-native english speaker would start using a book[/q1]
    [q1]> on written grammar? Personally, I don't think that written grammar rules are very helpful to EFL[/q1]
    [q1]> students when analysing spoken english. Do you?[/q1]

    I see only written English on this screen in front of me. I also see written English when I read
    novels with dialogue or comic strips with dialogue.

    [q1]>|>|> Also, I always think it is worth re-inserting all assumed parts[/q1]
    [q1]>|> of an example to help you to focus on the problem. In this case (and I'm still assuming my[/q1]
    [q1]>|> interpretation of meaning here);-[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> " Please will anybody helps me to checking( check) this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> Which of course doesn't work.[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|Why doesn't it work? When explaining things to someone who doesn't |already know this information,[/q1]
    [q1]>it would help to give reasons. |There can be no "of course"s here.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> You're right - of course! But then you have forgotten the original posters ability to use[/q1]
    [q1]> experience haven't you?[/q1]

    No, but I am quite familiar with EFL students' asking for reasons why one thing is right and another
    that looks exactly the same to them is wrong. If they knew the reasons, they would not ask the
    questions.

    [q1]>|> So... try...[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> "Please will SOMEBODY/SOMEONE help me to check this car"[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> or....[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> "Please will SOMEBODY/SOMEONE help me in [the process of] checking this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> or... to re-condense the sentence as a native might reasonably make the request...[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> Anybody/Anyone help me check this car?[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> If you say that, it actually means something like....[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> "Please will someone help me to check this car?"[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> Hope SOME of that helped![/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> As an aside point. If you were to say...[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> "Anybody/Anyone help me whilst I check this car?[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> It changes the meaning to (possibly) allow the person questioned to help with another need/task[/q1]
    [q1]>|> whilst the questioner 'checks the car' alone.[/q1]
    [q1]>|>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> (Stupid language isn't it)?[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|Only as stupid as those who use it poorly, IMHO.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> OK. Of all the examples which we are subjected to listen to in the media, whilst shopping, on the[/q1]
    [q1]> phone, dealing with businesses every day,- as a percentage, how many would YOU say are good[/q1]
    [q1]> examples of using it correctly?[/q1]

    Using the language "well" and "poorly" does not equal using the language "correctly" and
    "incorrectly". What the media does to language may change it from the way English is used in formal
    prose, but that doesn't mean that it is being used poorly or incorrectly. If the language that is
    used communicates the speaker's point, that is good enough. The spoken language is not the same as
    the formal written language. If the intended audience understands what the media says or what
    someone of the telephone says, then the English is good enough even if it is grammatically incorrect
    by prescriptivist rules.

    [q1]> It _is_ a stupid language, and I love it![/q1]

    --
    Franke: "Life is simple: pain is good, pleasure is better, no pain is best. Death is even simpler."
    Bodhisattva F. A. Tchirl. Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language. Grammar 2: Formal
    rules for the written language. Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.

    Howie wrote:
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:27:11 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    <snip>
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> |Usage is what defines meaning, not your somewhat eccentric views. If we |expect the usdage to be[/q1]
    [q1]> a request, then the usage can be a request. |Anything else is does not reflect the English[/q1]
    [q1]> language as she is spoke.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> So, following that logic, I can say anything to mean anything else then? How convenient. Liberal[/q1]
    [q1]> descriptiveness at it's worst[/q1]
    [q1]> IMO.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    ********. Usage means not what one individual says, but what the sppech community (for want of a
    better word) finds acceptable. Language change and development doesn't happen at the level of tzeh
    individual.

    [q1]> |> Look, are we advising a foreign speaker about the [1]best,[/q1]
    [q1]> |> [2]most accurate, [3]most polite and [4]most effective way to use the english language, or not?[/q1]
    [q1]> |> If so, you are only causing confusion with every argument you raise on this matter.[/q1]
    [q1]> |>[/q1]
    [q1]> |Naturally we discuss levels of politeness and formality etc. But that |isn't what you and I are[/q1]
    [q1]> discussing. We are discussing your mistaken |insistence that in modern English usage the ability[/q1]
    [q1]> meaning of "can" is |the primary and predominant one.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> We are now, yes. And, when it is used in a question, I stick by that notion. But actually this[/q1]
    [q1]> argument started during an effort to advise a non-native speaker how to make a request.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    But "can" and "will" are indeed used to make requests, as you've admitted yourself - even though you
    indicate that you don't like this. But that's your problem.

    [q1]> The most important point here is your last one. My so-called "mistaken insistence" that in modern[/q1]
    [q1]> English usage the ability meaning of "can" is the primary and predominant one. The term "Modern[/q1]
    [q1]> English" means nothing BTW.[/q1]

    Modern English is the technical description of teh varieties of English used in the modern period.
    Do you deny that you can periodise English, as do all linguists (including prescriptivists), into
    Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon), Middle English (the language of Chaucer) and Modern English
    (roughly since the beginning of teh 17th century)?

    [q1]> I will continue to insist that, as far as foreign learners are concerned, this is indeed the[/q1]
    [q1]> primary AND predominant meaning of "can" to begin a question.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    Can you cite any authority for this other than your own prejudice? And can you honestly say that you
    have never used the word "can" to start a request? (Note this is the ability use of "can".)

    [q1]> |To take just one reference book at random (because it's still on the |desk since the last[/q1]
    [q1]> lesson): in his book "Modern English Usage" (2nd |edition), published by Oxford University Press,[/q1]
    [q1]> Michael Swan devotes 7 |pages to the use of "can" (and "could"), of which only 2 deal with the[/q1]
    [q1]> |ability meaning of the word.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Stick with that if you must. It's obviously within your intellectual comfort zone.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    I don't know what you mean by that. Swan is regarded as a major authority on English language usage,
    particularly British usage.

    [q1]> <snip irrelevant stuff about german>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    Why is it irrelevant? It's about the German equivalents of the English verb "can", many of which
    have no connection with "ability", even though you insist that this is the predominant one

    [q1]> Good luck with your teaching or EFL students from a viewpoint of pure descriptive grammar.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    So we now come to your hobby horse. You're an adherent of prescriptivist grammar. Unfortunately for
    you, the English language pays absoutely no attention to the your prescriptions and those of your
    ilk. EFL students want to know what English speakers mean when they use certain structures. This is
    our job as English teachers

    On 27 Jun 2002 16:20:16 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]|Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled[/q1]
    [q1]|news:[email protected]:[/q1]

    <snip>

    [q1]|> My qualifications are of no matter or concern to this forum,[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|You act as if that were true, but it actually isn't. If you think that |EFL students are happy with[/q1]
    the advice of just any ignorant native |speaker, then you'd better think again.

    This group is not for EFL students.

    [q1]|Most EFL students, and |especially Far East Asians, know a hell of a lot more about English[/q1]
    [q1]|grammar than the vast majority of native speakers, and that includes |English teachers.[/q1]

    Agreed.

    [q1]|The EFL students I know want quality information from |people who know what they are talking about[/q1]
    and who can back it up with |evidence, just as their English teachers in their home country did and
    [q1]|do. Most of them also know lots of native English speakers who got |their jobs only because they[/q1]
    are native speakers and not because they |are teachers or are capable of teaching.

    That's interesting.

    [q1]|> and they are unnecessary to allow me to have a voice.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|ANyone can have a voice here,[/q1]

    How very kind of you!

    [q1]|but whether your voice is merely a bray |or something worth listening to is another story.[/q1]

    Quite right too.

    [q1]|> But I am quite confident in my thoughts and advice, thank you.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|You may have confidence in your language advice, but I certainly don't. |I would not recommend that[/q1]
    anyone listen to anything that you have to |say. Your record so far is pretty poor, IMHO.

    You are entitled to your opinion, others have theirs. And I must thank the couple of people in this
    group who have privately e-mailed me with enthusiasm, as a direct result of making the challenges to
    your "knowledge" which has (apparently) been missing.

    [q1]|> Your suspicions are also quite irrelevant for the same reason. And if you think that I have spent[/q1]
    [q1]|> 22 years in business whilst not knowing english better than many "language professionals", you[/q1]
    [q1]|> are in a world of your own.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|You will have to explain what all these words mean.[/q1]

    Have to? To you? Please pardon me if I decline to pander to your lazyness.

    [q1]|> If you have a quote from the content of any of my messages, and wish to argue about it,[/q1]
    [q1]|> please do so.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Well, I have just pointed out a reasonably meaningless couple of |sentences you wrote. Care to[/q1]
    explain them

    I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave previously...

    [q1]|> If you have a personal problem with me joining in your 'cosy little newsgroup',[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|This is not a cosy little newsgroup. It's an open forum. If it were |cosy, as you charge, you would[/q1]
    be outta here already.

    A threat. How grown-up! I would be hugely interested in YOUR explanation of the meaning of that one!

    [q1]|> please explain your neurosis.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Do you also give psychiatric advice?[/q1]

    No, I am interested in the workings of anyone who chooses to interact with me.

    [q1]|Does "new media consultant" mean |that you are qualified to dispense public psychiatric opinions[/q1]
    about |the mental condition of others?

    No, It means that I specialise in advising on New-Media technologies. What a curious question?

    [q1]|> If you just don't like me, either killfile me or e-mail me to sort it out.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|If you think anyone here has time for that, you must live in a leisure |world. I don't.[/q1]

    Has time for the first option, or the second? You are contradicting your own claim of being short of
    time just by arguing with me - aren't you?

    [q1]|> AND: God save me from ever wishing to describe myself as a "Lanuage Professional" ![/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|It's okay, Howie, because nobody would ever believe you.[/q1]

    And you speak for all people, I'm sure.

    Fondest Regards,
    H.

    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    HAA:1. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    On 27 Jun 2002 16:04:14 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> droned....

    [q1]|> Did you notice the original poster actually asking if this is what they should do? Only, - I did,[/q1]
    [q1]|> you see? This is what made me think that they might be able to apply experience to the problem.[/q1]
    [q1]|> You know, - the fact that they could apply experience to it?[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|It seems to me that the original poster did apply experience to it and |that this is why he asked[/q1]
    for help: His experience was insufficient to |satisfy his need for a correct answer.

    "It seems to me" is a phrase which means "I interpreted it to be..." Therefore, opinion, - yours.

    <snip>

    [q1]|I see only written English on this screen in front of me. I also see |written English when I read[/q1]
    novels with dialogue or comic strips with |dialogue.

    Dou you? - REALLY? Only, I think most of us just see the spoken word,- as interpreted in
    written phrases. Interesting. So when you see these types of texts as written english, do you
    get your "written grammar" books out and analyse them as such? (As you were asking the original
    poster to do).

    <snip>

    [q1]|> You're right - of course! But then you have forgotten the original posters ability to use[/q1]
    [q1]|> experience haven't you?[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|No, but I am quite familiar with EFL students' asking for reasons why |one thing is right and[/q1]
    another that looks exactly the same to them is |wrong. If they knew the reasons, they would not ask
    the questions.

    Ahhh. So, even when they ask if they should apply "previous experience" to the problem, you
    think they can't do so because they must have the exact same abilities as all the EFL students
    you have previously known. I suppose this also must mean that the students you have known were
    all of an exactly similar, low standard, without variation too? I must admit, I'd never thought
    of it like that!

    <snip>

    [q1]|> OK. Of all the examples which we are subjected to listen to in the media, whilst shopping, on the[/q1]
    [q1]|> phone, dealing with businesses every day,- as a percentage, how many would YOU say are good[/q1]
    [q1]|> examples of using it correctly?[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Using the language "well" and "poorly" does not equal using the |language "correctly" and[/q1]
    "incorrectly".

    What utter drivel ! Look... INCORRECT = BAD CORRECT = GOOD

    I know it's a bit general, but surely you can understand THAT.

    [q1]|What the media does to language |may change it from the way English is used in formal prose, but[/q1]
    that |doesn't mean that it is being used poorly or incorrectly.

    Ahhh, here it is; the old "Prescriptive versus Descriptive" argument! Have you ever considered a
    middle ground approach to that?

    [q1]|If the |language that is used communicates the speaker's point, that is good |enough.[/q1]

    For what,- exactly? It _isn't_ good enough for many EFL students. They want to know the rules and
    get them right. (At least - the ones I have known do).

    [q1]|The spoken language is not the same as the formal written |language.[/q1]

    Hurrah! Well, we got there in the end. It's all been worthwhile! {big smile}.

    Plonk!

    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    ICQ:4502837. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:13:19 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]|> "Language Professionals"! What a jumped-up lot they must be if this is how they describe[/q1]
    [q1]|> themselves.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|I used "language professionals" as shorthand for all people who earn |their living working with the[/q1]
    language - it includes among others |language teachers, translators, interpreters, writers,
    journalists, |authors, linguists, editors and sub-editors (the list is by no means |complete, which
    is why I - me myself - used the shorthand term)

    WOW! So I could actually call myself one then? Fantastic. But I prefer to just be me - for now.

    [q1]|> And I notice you prove yourself to be one of the "dispensers" occasionally, don't you?[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|I make no claim to omniscience or infallibility, but I have worked in |more than one of teh above[/q1]
    capacities for many years.
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|> | I don't know if you have any teaching[/q1]
    [q1]|> |experience but suspect as a "new media consultant" you probably have |none - and it shows[/q1]
    [q1]|> sometimes, even if occasionally you might trip one |of us up when we over-generalise.[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|> My qualifications are of no matter or concern to this forum, and they are unnecessary to allow me[/q1]
    [q1]|> to have a voice. But I am quite confident in my thoughts and advice, thank you. Your suspicions[/q1]
    [q1]|> are also quite irrelevant for the same reason.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|I only mentioned that your approach seemed to indicate no understanding |of the skills and[/q1]
    techniques necessary to convey information about the |intriccies of teh English language to
    non-natives who are trying to |improve their understanding of how the English language functions.

    No. What you 'mentioned', was your assumption that my existing profession told you enough of what
    you need to know in order to categorise me as worthless in helping others with their English. As it
    happens, the REAL problems of innacuracy have come from the so-called 'language professionals'.
    Don't you think that it's more dangerous to call yourself a language professional and give
    innacurate advice to others, than give advice from an 'equals' point of view, which is less likely
    to be taken as definative, but is useful in it's own right?
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|> And if you think that I have spent 22 years in business whilst not knowing english better than[/q1]
    [q1]|> many "language professionals", you are in a world of your own.[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|I'm afraid that I've had to proofread so much businessese garbage (i.e. |to translate the[/q1]
    "thoughts" of "business professionals" into readable |English) that I have no confidence that
    somebody who has been in |business necessarily knows how to write literate English.

    So have I ;-)

    [q1]|This may not |apply to you, but it is a fact that success in business does not of |necessity endow[/q1]
    the businessman with any literary ability.
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|> If you have a quote from the content of any of my messages, and wish to argue about it, please do[/q1]
    [q1]|> so. If you have a personal problem with me joining in your 'cosy little newsgroup', please[/q1]
    [q1]|> explain your neurosis. If you just don't like me, either killfile me or e-mail me to sort it out.[/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|I've no objection to you joining this newgroup,[/q1]

    Thank you.

    [q1]| and some of your[/q1]
    [q1]|messages have been reasonably accurate and informative.[/q1]

    Oh, praise indeed!

    [q1]| However if I[/q1]
    [q1]|feel you're wrong I'll correct you and I would expect you to correct me |if I overgeneralise and[/q1]
    make a mistake.

    Absolutely.

    [q1]|> AND: God save me from ever wishing to describe myself as a "Lanuage Professional" ![/q1]
    [q1]|>[/q1]
    [q1]|You don't have to describe yourself as one, but if a major part of your |job involves writing or[/q1]
    otherwise manipulating language then you are one |whether you like it or not.

    Oh dear....

    Regards, Howard.

    --

    Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant. My messageboard:-
    http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/.../ikonboard.cgi e-mail...
    howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
    ICQ:4502837. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)

    Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled
    news:[email protected]:

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>|> Yep. Because of fragments and verbless clauses which are used all over the place in spoken[/q1]
    [q1]>|> english. Look at the example and tell me how a non-native english speaker would start using a[/q1]
    [q1]>|> book on written grammar? Personally, I don't think that written grammar rules are very helpful[/q1]
    [q1]>|> to EFL students when analysing spoken english. Do you?[/q1]
    [q1]>|[/q1]
    [q1]>|It helps to know the rules before you start bending and breaking |them, because there are "rules"[/q1]
    [q1]>about how you can bend and break |the rules. In English it's not a case of anything goes.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Or in most other languages. Please note the term 'written grammar' which was the recommendation[/q1]
    [q1]> for explaining an utterance I was arguing with.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>|Native speakers know instinctively what goes in what |circumstances. People come here looking for[/q1]
    [q1]>guidance. Telling them |to rely on their gut feeling isn't very helpful, particularly |because[/q1]
    [q1]>their gut feeling will often be heavily influenced by |their native language until they have[/q1]
    [q1]>sufficient experience with |the English language to rely on their gut feeling - and even then |they[/q1]
    [q1]>may often make errors.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I have dealt with this previously.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>|There are, unfortunately, more than enough enough native and |non-native pundits dispensing[/q1]
    [q1]>misleading information in various |newsgroups. If you insist on joining them you will inevitably[/q1]
    [q1]>rub |some language professionals up teh wrong way.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> "Language Professionals"! What a jumped-up lot they must be if this is how they describe[/q1]
    [q1]> themselves. And I notice you prove yourself to be one of the "dispensers" occasionally, don't you?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>| I don't know if you have any teaching[/q1]
    [q1]>|experience but suspect as a "new media consultant" you probably |have none - and it shows[/q1]
    [q1]>sometimes, even if occasionally you might |trip one of us up when we over-generalise.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> My qualifications are of no matter or concern to this forum,[/q1]

    You act as if that were true, but it actually isn't. If you think that EFL students are happy with
    the advice of just any ignorant native speaker, then you'd better think again. Most EFL students,
    and especially Far East Asians, know a hell of a lot more about English grammar than the vast
    majority of native speakers, and that includes English teachers. The EFL students I know want
    quality information from people who know what they are talking about and who can back it up with
    evidence, just as their English teachers in their home country did and
    do. Most of them also know lots of native English speakers who got their jobs only because they are
    native speakers and not because they are teachers or are capable of teaching.

    [q1]> and they are unnecessary to allow me to have a voice.[/q1]

    ANyone can have a voice here, but whether your voice is merely a bray or something worth listening
    to is another story.

    [q1]> But I am quite confident in my thoughts and advice, thank you.[/q1]

    You may have confidence in your language advice, but I certainly don't. I would not recommend that
    anyone listen to anything that you have to say. Your record so far is pretty poor, IMHO.

    [q1]> Your suspicions are also quite irrelevant for the same reason. And if you think that I have spent[/q1]
    [q1]> 22 years in business whilst not knowing english better than many "language professionals", you are[/q1]
    [q1]> in a world of your own.[/q1]

    You will have to explain what all these words mean.

    [q1]> If you have a quote from the content of any of my messages, and wish to argue about it,[/q1]
    [q1]> please do so.[/q1]

    Well, I have just pointed out a reasonably meaningless couple of sentences you wrote. Care to
    explain them

    [q1]> If you have a personal problem with me joining in your 'cosy little newsgroup',[/q1]

    This is not a cosy little newsgroup. It's an open forum. If it were cosy, as you charge, you would
    be outta here already.

    [q1]> please explain your neurosis.[/q1]

    Do you also give psychiatric advice? Does "new media consultant" mean that you are qualified to
    dispense public psychiatric opinions about the mental condition of others?

    [q1]> If you just don't like me, either killfile me or e-mail me to sort it out.[/q1]

    If you think anyone here has time for that, you must live in a leisure world. I don't.

    [q1]> AND: God save me from ever wishing to describe myself as a "Lanuage Professional" ![/q1]

    It's okay, Howie, because nobody would ever believe you.

    --
    Franke: "Life is simple: pain is good, pleasure is better, no pain is best. Death is even simpler."
    Bodhisattva F. A. Tchirl. Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language. Grammar 2: Formal
    rules for the written language. Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.

    Howie wrote:
    [q1]>[/q1]
    <snip>
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> "Language Professionals"! What a jumped-up lot they must be if this is how they describe[/q1]
    [q1]> themselves.[/q1]

    I used "language professionals" as shorthand for all people who earn their living working with the
    language - it includes among others language teachers, translators, interpreters, writers,
    journalists, authors, linguists, editors and sub-editors (the list is by no means complete, which is
    why I - me myself - used the shorthand term)

    [q1]> And I notice you prove yourself to be one of the "dispensers" occasionally, don't you?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    I make no claim to omniscience or infallibility, but I have worked in more than one of teh above
    capacities for many years.

    [q1]> | I don't know if you have any teaching[/q1]
    [q1]> |experience but suspect as a "new media consultant" you probably have |none - and it shows[/q1]
    [q1]> sometimes, even if occasionally you might trip one |of us up when we over-generalise.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> My qualifications are of no matter or concern to this forum, and they are unnecessary to allow me[/q1]
    [q1]> to have a voice. But I am quite confident in my thoughts and advice, thank you. Your suspicions[/q1]
    [q1]> are also quite irrelevant for the same reason.[/q1]

    I only mentioned that your approach seemed to indicate no understanding of the skills and techniques
    necessary to convey information about the intriccies of teh English language to non-natives who are
    trying to improve their understanding of how the English language functions.

    [q1]> And if you think that I have spent 22 years in business whilst not knowing english better than[/q1]
    [q1]> many "language professionals", you are in a world of your own.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    I'm afraid that I've had to proofread so much businessese garbage (i.e. to translate the
    "thoughts" of "business professionals" into readable English) that I have no confidence that
    somebody who has been in business necessarily knows how to write literate English. This may not
    apply to you, but it is a fact that success in business does not of necessity endow the
    businessman with any literary ability.

    [q1]> If you have a quote from the content of any of my messages, and wish to argue about it, please do[/q1]
    [q1]> so. If you have a personal problem with me joining in your 'cosy little newsgroup', please explain[/q1]
    [q1]> your neurosis. If you just don't like me, either killfile me or e-mail me to sort it out.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    I've no objection to you joining this newgroup, and some of your messages have been reasonably
    accurate and informative. However if I feel you're wrong I'll correct you and I would expect you to
    correct me if I overgeneralise and make a mistake.
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> AND: God save me from ever wishing to describe myself as a "Lanuage Professional" ![/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    You don't have to describe yourself as one, but if a major part of your job involves writing or
    otherwise manipulating language then you are one whether you like it or not.

    Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

    Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled
    news:[email protected]:

    [...]

    [q1]> As it happens, the REAL problems of innacuracy have come from the so-called 'language[/q1]
    [q1]> professionals'.[/q1]

    You seem to have a grudge against people who know more about language than you do, Howie.
    Why is that?

    [q1]> Don't you think that it's more dangerous to call yourself a language professional and give[/q1]
    [q1]> innacurate advice to others, than give advice from an 'equals' point of view, which is less likely[/q1]
    [q1]> to be taken as definative, but is useful in it's own right?[/q1]

    Gee, Howie, if you are going to give advice about English, please be more careful about how
    you use it.

    --
    Franke: "Life is simple: pain is good, pleasure is better, no pain is best. Death is even simpler."
    Bodhisattva F. A. Tchirl. Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language. Grammar 2: Formal
    rules for the written language. Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.

    Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled
    news:[email protected]:

    [. . . ]

    [q1]> This group is not for EFL students.[/q1]

    This group is for anyone who comes here to ask questions about English. It has no moderator, so
    anyone can ask any kind of question about English, and if someone wants to answer the question,
    there is no moderator to block out answers to EFL questions.

    Most of the questions here seem to be from EFL/ESL students, from native speakers of English who
    would like to have a grammar or a usage point clarified, and from English teachers who would like to
    ask for or offer help with English classes. [...]

    [q1]> You are entitled to your opinion, others have theirs. And I must thank the couple of people in[/q1]
    [q1]> this group who have privately e-mailed me with enthusiasm, as a direct result of making the[/q1]
    [q1]> challenges to your "knowledge" which has (apparently) been missing.[/q1]

    Would you care to put that into clear English? I'm sure you wouldn't, but it's of no consequence. I
    have put you in my killfile--as a direct result of your suggestion--so I hope you enjoy your fan
    club, Howie. You can all congratulate yourselves on whatever it is you think you know and have to
    offer here.

    --
    Franke: "Life is simple: pain is good, pleasure is better, no pain is best. Death is even simpler."
    Bodhisattva F. A. Tchirl. Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language. Grammar 2: Formal
    rules for the written language. Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.

    On 28 Jun 2002 01:25:02 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]|This group is for anyone who comes here to ask questions about English. |It has no moderator, so[/q1]
    anyone can ask any kind of question about |English, and if someone wants to answer the question,
    there is no |moderator to block out answers to EFL questions.

    You need to read the charter. (But you won't see this as you have now killfiled me).

    [q1]|Most of the questions here seem to be from EFL/ESL students, from |native speakers of English who[/q1]
    would like to have a grammar or a usage |point clarified, and from English teachers who would like
    to ask for or |offer help with English classes.

    True, and you'd know why after reading the charter. Shame you won't see this.

    [q1]|> You are entitled to your opinion, others have theirs. And I must thank the couple of people in[/q1]
    [q1]|> this group who have privately e-mailed me with enthusiasm, as a direct result of making the[/q1]
    [q1]|> challenges to your "knowledge" which has (apparently) been missing.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Would you care to put that into clear English?[/q1]

    Not again. No.

    [q1]| I'm sure you wouldn't,[/q1]

    Not again. No.

    [q1]|but it's of no consequence. I have put you in my killfile[/q1]

    Good. Save me a lot of time - that will.

    On 28 Jun 2002 00:56:16 GMT, CyberCypher <[email protected]> wrote:

    [q1]|Howie <[email protected] sage.com> burbled[/q1]
    [q1]|news:[email protected]:[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|[...][/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|> As it happens, the REAL problems of innacuracy have come from the so-called 'language[/q1]
    [q1]|> professionals'.[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|You seem to have a grudge against people who know more about language |than you do, Howie.[/q1]
    Why is that?

    If that were true I would admit it. But you didn't read it properly AGAIN did you? There is yet
    another clarification of my viewpoint, which you are about to be childish about, here...

    [q1]|> Don't you think that it's more dangerous to call yourself a language professional and give[/q1]
    [q1]|> innacurate advice to others, than give advice from an 'equals' point of view, which is less[/q1]
    [q1]|> likely to be taken as definative, but is useful in it's own right?[/q1]
    [q1]|[/q1]
    [q1]|Gee, Howie, if you are going to give advice about English, please be |more careful about how[/q1]
    you use it.

    Picking a fight about punctuation is your last refuge, I hope. You're happy about the above "Gee,
    Howie," I expect.

    Anyway. I'm killfiled. So no matter!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.