Grammar in the UK vs the US

>>8535176
who is that?

>>8535176
american way is better in all examples

>>8535186
Why do you believe the American way is superior?

>>8535176

>I shall arrive around noon

UKfag here and no one says that, they may say I'll arrive around noon but if you asked them they would say it was a contraction of I will.

>>8535216
Perhaps shall is used primarily in the elderly or upper class then. Or is it really just not used by anyone?

>>8535201
because it sounds better

>>8535232
More often used in the upper classes, though that's usually just a stereotype more than a realistic description of how they would speak.

Though I'd say people are more inclined to write "I shall" rather than say "I shall".

Either way OP, I prefer the British approach in all your examples. American feels cheap to me, and often lazy. I prefer the tradition of the British, but that might just be because I read a lot of Victorian novels.

>>8535233
>I will make sure to write you
No, it doesn't. I shall concede the other two.

>>8535233
I prefer 'shall' to 'will' because the 'sh' sound is produced as the back of the mouth whereas the 'w' sound is produced by moving the lips together in an annoying way.

On the subject of grammar, should I write " Hitchens' " or " Hitchens's "?

>>8535318
first one's UK, second US

>>8535176

Can you explain what you mean by the quoting thing? Do you mean in dialog when someone speaking quotes some one else?

I listen to a lot of English panel shows. They use the verb "have" a lot. It's hard to describe the situations. It seems like it has something to do with replacing the past tense of a verb.

>>8535176
What the fuck does it mean for grammar to be logically sound?

File: 1464828110143.jpg (199KB, 1181x954px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1181x954px

>>8535318
A style book within arm's reach states that proper nouns require an additional 's' after the apostrophe that indicates possession.

Only Hellenic names, Jesus', and the likes do not require the additional 's'.

The fucked up thing about British English is that you use 'were' for hypothetical situations even if it is singular. For example you would say "If I were to win the award..." instead of "If I was to win the award..."

>>8535360
In American English, you're supposed to use "were" for desirable hypotheticals and "was otherwise."

"If I were a millionaire."
"If I was disabled..."

>>8535370
Wot the fuk m8 thats ridiculus

>>8535360
>The fucked up thing about British English is that you use 'were' for hypothetical situations even if it is singular
>>8535370
>you're supposed to use "were" for desirable hypotheticals and "was otherwise."
both of you go look up the subjunctive and indicative.

>>8535341
When someone is speaking. Not when someone is quoting someone else. I feel like "" is more popular in the US. Perhaps '' is only used in the UK. I wonder about places such as Canada and Australia.

>>8535381
This. Didn't realize /lit/ were such grammar plebs.

>>8535381
>both of you go look up the subjunctive and indicative.
What did he mean by this?

>>8535381
>both of you go look up the subjunctive and indicative.
why don't you make me you queer

>>8535390
the imperative

>>8535394
Elaborate

>>8535402
it was a joke you fucking moron

>>8535402
the imperative mood, such as you have just used

>>8535407
So was what I said.

Ha! Now look who's the stupid one.

>>8535421
oh man, i have well and truly been tricked

>>8535424
You have

>>8535176
I'm going to shower.

>>8535176
Amerifat here. Are these really differences between US and UK dialects? None of these examples seem particularly American or British to my ears

>>8535370
Who told you that lmao

You use "were" in both cases, you knob.

File: 543143_3621928085736_831815643_n.jpg (17KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x400px

>grammar
>logically sound

I am not a native speaker, and in both primary school and high school I was told modern English speakers almost never use Shall and Ought.

The Alannis Morissete hit single is the only popular instance of Ought being used I can think of now.

>>8535176
Both use both in all examples so far as I am aware.

>>8536315
You are going to shower? What are are you showering?

>>8535176
I'd like to conjugate her verbs.

>>8536351
It depends on the area that you have been brought up in. People where I lived used ought and shall all the time. Ought more often than shall though.

English doesn't have a definite grammar system dumbnuts.

>>8536380
Yes it does...

>>8535176

These are all grammatical sentences. Past that, I'm not sure what exactly you're asking.

>>8535360
>The fucked up thing about British English is that you use 'were' for hypothetical situations

This is a general rule that would apply to any dialect of English. It's called the subjunctive mood.

American English speakers rarely ever say "If I was..." Likely the few times you would encounter that would be in some backwoods county where public education is horribly underfunded.

>>8535344
You mean perfect tense ? That's universal in all dialects of English.

File: 1462765626940.gif (989KB, 455x344px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 455x344px

>>8536380

>>8536484
What is the perfect tense? I've never really understood.

>>8536341
>>8535352
The "proof system" is the rules of composition, and the semantics is whether people find it agreeable.

>>8535293
Thats not how contemporary americans talk, that is a european thing.

I ran into an instance of "get a Chinese" in British English and I've been turning the phrase over in my head. Is it more popular in the UK than "get some Chinese" or "get Chinese"? It seems unusual to say "get a Chinese [food]".

>>8535355
>tfw I argued this in fifth grade with my teacher
>told me flat-out that I was wrong, no discussion, got the question wrong
>decided that she was a dummy, did it anyways

Maybe that's why I have so much disdain for educational systems. Yes, that's almost certainly it.

>>8536556
Other way around. In Europe when we speak English we say "write to you". After living in America for a few years I notice all the time Americans will say "I will write you a letter.", etc.

File: giphy_0.gif (990KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 500x281px

>>8536581
I quite literally just read over a publication that had used the improper form of denoting possession. It was literature published within the US, so you'd think it would follow general conventions. However, they still added the additional 's' after the apostrophe with 'Jesus'.

My point being, "regular" people don't care much for things only those of whom are persnickety in nature care for. That, or it's such a inconsequential little obscurity that people don't bother to inform themselves.

Also, I don't think your schoolteacher liked it very much that they were being questioned about a matter they should know all about, to some extent. Being told that you're wrong by a little child is quite humiliating.

>>8535176
Comparing US English to UK English is like comparing Middle English to UK English. You really can't compare dialects and variations of the same language in terms of their grammar usage because the grammar usage would have evolved to that variation of the language. In both cases the grammar is correct but to a different dialect of English.

>>8536570
A friend I know from the UK says things like "Get a Chinese", "Get a Pizzahut", "Get a McDonalds". It sounded weird to me but then I heard another person from the UK say something similar and I realized its more common than I thought.

>>8535176
If you were really all this interested in semantics, you'd realize how arbitrary caring about syntax or how "more correct" that some dialects are than others. This is literal autism.

>>8536629
*realised

>>8535176
>I will make sure to write you

This one is the best.

We should say "I'm gonna leave a shit." I mean who would want to take a shit, removing it from the bowl, that's disgusting!

"Have a shit" is a bit better but still not ideal. Once the feces is expelled, I should not wish to keep it in my possession.

>>8535176
the worst is when americans say 'i could care less'

>>8536738
>irregardless

another one i can't stand is 'off of'

>>8536570
The 'Chinese' in this sense means 'a Chinese takeaway meal'.

> I would like to get a Chinese
> I would like to get a Chinese meal

>>8536547
The perfect tense is a past tense, in which the action was completed also in the past tense.

> I have read this thread
> I have seen your post

In English, the perfect tense is formed with the auxiliary verb 'to have' + the verb.

File: 1404992043027.jpg (191KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 576x432px

>>8535176
Hiberno-English is the best and most aesthetic.

>>8535381
Would you recommend any particular text book?

>>8536728
I think it might be take as in undertake

>>8535216
Shall has a different meaning, as it implies a sense of volition rather than the bare fact of 'I will'

>>8537292
>>8536484
No, I don't think that's what I'm talking about. Maybe they drop the verb after "have" in the perfect tense in weird spots? I need to go back and watch some episodes and find an example.

>>8535176
>logically more sound
>grammar
dude, it's all arbitrary. no way of doing it is more logical than any other way, even an ungrammatical way.

>>8535370
this is an artificial rule that somebody just made up. it is not part of english.

>>8536547
"perfect tense" doesn't really refer to a tense, it refers to an aspectual reference.

>>8536554
there are theories that treat grammatical derivations as formal proofs, but I'm guessing that's not what you're referring to.

>>8536716
this better be bait

>>8536716
Fuck off Frenchy. Oxford don z master race coming through.

>>8536570
Are you going to get pizza tonight? Are you going to get pasta tonight? Are you going to have Chinese food tonight?
Decisions, decisions.

To me, American English just sounds lazier.

Although I think some of the examples in this thread, notably shall/will are examples of 20th/21st Century English rather than UK/US English.

>>8536629
This is true.

>>8537370
>"perfect tense" doesn't really refer to a tense, it refers to an aspectual reference.
I don't think you understand how conversations work.

>>8537361
It's verb agreement shit I think you're talking about. So
>Have you ever eaten a watermelon?
>I have
>You have the money?
>I have

A fair number of langauges use this (v common in Slavic languages) and some use this above yes and no (I think Gaelic and Chinese). English just has a fairly limited version that's common with the perfect tense but less common elsewhere (like you can say "I eat" to "Do you eat" but it has certain implications etc)

>>8536738
>>8536741

My favorite is 'supposably'.

>>8535183
a semen demon

Around here a lot of Hispanics say "put gas". It sounds ok when they say the whole thing "put gas in the car" but I would never shorten it to anything other than "pump gas". What do they say in other places?

anyone else her go on /int/'s brit thread?

their lingo is interesting.

"havin a think"

"havin a wank"

>>8536622
Its absolutely nothing like that at all, middle english is incomprehensible.

>>8538029
UK most common would be 'get petrol' I think.

>>8535232
You've pulled that one out of your ass I'm afraid.

The one I can't get as a Brit, however hackneyed moaning about it is by now, is 'could care less'. Think about it for a second!

File: 1474221141964.jpg (320KB, 800x805px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 800x805px

>>8536547
Kek?

File: 1445578059476.jpg (485KB, 968x1296px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 968x1296px

>>8538029
I used to live in Florida, and my classmates always referred to it as "filling up," sometimes "getting some gas."

Here in California, I normally hear "buying gas."

In the Philippines, they say "going to the petrol station" to indicate that they're getting gas. Most stations there aren't self-service, they have people who do it for you.

>>8535186
>I will write you
>write you

>>8535233
Sounding better =/= Correct

File: l04he.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>8535370
Americans:
>Fahrenheit
>Imperial
>American English

>>8535402
Where are you from originally?

It's a creole language anyway, who cares if one's more consistent than the other?

>>8535360
Subjunctive motherfucker.

>>8536364
showering his furry toy with his white paste

Whoever gives a shit about British vs American English should try being a Lusophone for a hot minute.
PT vs BR is more dramatic than you can imagine.

>>8539155
Elaborate

>>8539161
Actually visible grammatical differences, total lack of tu-vos distinction in BR as opposed to PT which has three levels of it (tu, você, o senhor/a dona) and accents so different that they sometimes can't understand each other.

>>8537355
This.

>>8539271
Well. Whoever spoke it first is right.

>>8539333
Nah, they've both been changed a lot, PT by a French ruling class and BR by tribal dialects/mass illiteracy.

>>8535383
Australians would typically use single inverted commas, as far as I know.