>US: "Write me!"
GB: "Write to me!" <
Could be an informal term.
GB: "Write to me!" <
Could be an informal term.
British/American comparison stylebook/grammar
Ash, one way to avoid these annoying usages is to avoid films, television and books from the offending area.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Out of sight, out of mind.
>>Ash, one way to avoid these annoying usages is to avoid films, television and books from the offending area.
Out of sight, out of mind.<<
Yeah, isolate yourself from the rest of the world, in other words.
Out of sight, out of mind.<<
Yeah, isolate yourself from the rest of the world, in other words.
<<Ever read Fowler, Candy? It's certainly not how I learnt it at school. >>
No, I haven't, but just about everybody I know says 'the public have...' or 'the England team have....'. I have no idea what you learned at school. How could I know that?
No, I haven't, but just about everybody I know says 'the public have...' or 'the England team have....'. I have no idea what you learned at school. How could I know that?
No, just from the bit which offends. It's quite easy, and you'll never have to tolerate a fractured vowel, a risible mispronunciation or an un-word again.
Candy, it was not my intention to get into an argument with you, but it was you, not I, who first mentioned how either of us learnt it at school, so your writing "I have no idea what you learned at school. How could I know that?" seems somewhat disingenuous, given that you were replying to my statement that I had learnt a different view from how you "learned it at school".
By the way, Fowler wrote "The King's English" and "Modern English Usage", and compiled the OED.
I don't doubt that "just about everybody you know" follows your example, but this forum is where differences and the reasons for and development of those differences is discussed. I am well aware that your usage is common throughout the UK at present, but what I asked is whether that usage is what is actually being taught NOW as being correct.
It was certainly considered as being extremely INcorrect in my day, which may well have preceded yours by some decades, and I am simply interested in learning when and why the change occurred, especially as all other Commonwealth Englishes, unusually, agree with American English in this respect.
By the way, Fowler wrote "The King's English" and "Modern English Usage", and compiled the OED.
I don't doubt that "just about everybody you know" follows your example, but this forum is where differences and the reasons for and development of those differences is discussed. I am well aware that your usage is common throughout the UK at present, but what I asked is whether that usage is what is actually being taught NOW as being correct.
It was certainly considered as being extremely INcorrect in my day, which may well have preceded yours by some decades, and I am simply interested in learning when and why the change occurred, especially as all other Commonwealth Englishes, unusually, agree with American English in this respect.
I wrote <<I'm sure that's how I learned it at school>>. Notice the word 'I'? I said nothing at all about how other people learn it. I know who Fowler is, but have never read him. I've heard some British people say 'the team has...' or whatever. I've never said that nobody in the country says it like that! And I have no idea how it's taught, these days - it's been a (little!:) while since I was in the UK education system.
I'd suggest you give up, Guest. You're wasting your time trying to get a reasonable response.
For what it's worth, in my time at school in England, it was definitely "the team has", and "the teams have", which made sense to me. Still does.
For what it's worth, in my time at school in England, it was definitely "the team has", and "the teams have", which made sense to me. Still does.
From the Observer today:
<<England were level within five minutes after Corry had eschewed a kick at goal in favour of a kick to the corner.>>
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/sixnations2006/story/0,,1718364,00.html
<<England were level within five minutes after Corry had eschewed a kick at goal in favour of a kick to the corner.>>
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/sixnations2006/story/0,,1718364,00.html
Headline from the Times 2 days ago:
<<England search for edge while staying whiter than White>>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5581-2056025,00.html
<<England search for edge while staying whiter than White>>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5581-2056025,00.html
Scotland 18 - 12 England
Is that not just one wonderful sight for sore eyes??????
Just in case you missed it, I will repeat it in triplicate:
SCOTLAND 18 england 12
SCOTLAND 18 england 12
SCOTLAND 18 england 12
(with humblest apologies to Candy for the lower case bit...sorry, just couldnae help myself...)
I live within roaring distance of Murrayfield..it's literally just down the road....
Is that not just one wonderful sight for sore eyes??????
Just in case you missed it, I will repeat it in triplicate:
SCOTLAND 18 england 12
SCOTLAND 18 england 12
SCOTLAND 18 england 12
(with humblest apologies to Candy for the lower case bit...sorry, just couldnae help myself...)
I live within roaring distance of Murrayfield..it's literally just down the road....
From the Independent today:
<<But confidence alone does not win series. Performance does and this England have performed.>>
http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article347751.ece
Yeah, my claim that the word 'team' usually takes a plural form in BrE is obviously an 'unreasonable response', Chas.
<<But confidence alone does not win series. Performance does and this England have performed.>>
http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article347751.ece
Yeah, my claim that the word 'team' usually takes a plural form in BrE is obviously an 'unreasonable response', Chas.
Great victory, Damian! Edinburgh must have been celebrating last night! I'm sure the roaring was very loud...but joyous! :-) Great for the Scots that the Scottish team HAVE beaten England.......
Quote from the Times article mentioned above:
<<England, the only unbeaten team in the RBS Six Nations Championship, are no better.>>
See? England ARE. Normal, everyday, BrE from respected newspapers.
<<England, the only unbeaten team in the RBS Six Nations Championship, are no better.>>
See? England ARE. Normal, everyday, BrE from respected newspapers.
Well, this has definitely taken an interesting turn. I guess this really means that nobody knows of a book that compares British and American grammatical terminology.
However, I have learned something very important: that Aussies treat collective nouns the way we do in the US. Important because I have students who will go to the US or to AUS, and I try to prepare them for grammatical differences they may encounter, but AUS grammar is something I'm not very knowledgeable (SP?) of. So this is one area I know, now! Hurrah!
Congrats to the Scots for beating England.
I'd like to know more differences between AUS/US/GBR grammar--this has been enlightening (though some of the bickering is a little silly).
M
However, I have learned something very important: that Aussies treat collective nouns the way we do in the US. Important because I have students who will go to the US or to AUS, and I try to prepare them for grammatical differences they may encounter, but AUS grammar is something I'm not very knowledgeable (SP?) of. So this is one area I know, now! Hurrah!
Congrats to the Scots for beating England.
I'd like to know more differences between AUS/US/GBR grammar--this has been enlightening (though some of the bickering is a little silly).
M