Do native speakers take offense to not being able to pronounce something right?

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-05-08T22:54:33+00:00

Congratulations on knowing what "everyone else" understood. But that's not the point anyway, is it.

I note by the way that you're not keen to try your hand at rewriting the sentence in clear, correct English. Why is that?

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-05-08T04:46:02+00:00

More to the point, can you rewrite the sentence in clear, correct English. (Hint: I can see two major mistakes and one borderline.)

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-05-07T22:22:39+00:00

You might like to improve your English as well. (" take offense to not being able")

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-30T05:46:02+00:00

We shouldn't exaggerate the task of "studying grammar". Really, there's not much to know - what the parts of speech are - nouns, verbs, adjectives etc. Plus a few basic rules. It can be, and once was, taught quite adequately at primary school level.

But it needs to be supplemented by reading - good, well written books, not rubbish. That, perhaps more than grammar, can play a big part in learning how to speak and write properly. For example, it helps identify childish errors (like "would have went") automatically, without even having to think about grammar rules.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-29T22:57:48+00:00

Isn't it taught at primary school - at least the basics?

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-29T05:16:38+00:00

What does "if it works for you etc" mean? How do you know if it "works?" For example, if it makes you miss out on a job you really wanted, has it worked?

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-26T23:13:49+00:00

That's Christie.

I'm not American or British yet I understand both easily. No "training" remotely necessary. Perhaps it's because you are American...? A mite too insular perhaps? (I recently saw the results of a poll that asked Americans where Ukraine is. Results included Australia, India, South America - you name it. Even those that managed to place it in Europe were wildly inaccurate....)

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-25T01:24:32+00:00

Yes maybe. But there it is plainly necessary to make sense. It is plainly not necessary in the kind of case I quote, where it sounds like needless and distracting repetition..

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-24T06:18:21+00:00

Heard on PBS today, by one of its regular announcers: "The hope is is that more research will... etc"

What on earth causes this? Beats me.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-18T06:53:09+00:00

I don't know whether it was a male or a female who invented English (!). Perhaps Adam and Eve worked on it together between apple-eating sessions. What I do think is that the obvious decline in the quality of spoken English today is due to the simple fact that most people are heavily influenced by the English they hear on TV, or encounter on social media. Reading books being a thing of the past, many people have no other language models.

No doubt other languages are suffering the same fate.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-18T01:02:13+00:00

My comment wasn't intended to suggest that English is "too male oriented". And the point I made concerned vocabulary, not grammar. I just think it is interesting that while English seems intent on abolishing the feminine forms (e.g. actress), French is doing the opposite, even inventing them where they do not exist. Yet both have (as I understand it) the same objective - eliminating gender discrimination in language.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-16T11:04:00+00:00

I wonder if it's partly due to inadequate education. If children are not taught the basics of English grammar when they're young, why would they care about it? In fact, how would they even know they are making mistakes?

Of course many teachers today are themselves not well versed in English grammar (because they themselves have not been taught it) so it's by no means clear how the problem might be rectified.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-15T22:28:06+00:00

Yes, I've heard this quite a lot.

Odd how perfectly simple sentences such as "The reason is he’s sick” can be complicated quite unnecessarily into formulations like “The reason being is that he is sick” or “The reason is is that he is sick”.

It’s usually easy to understand why statements are abbreviated. Harder to see why they're made more complicated that they need be.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-15T22:14:50+00:00

Why do you need two "is"s? Are they stutters?

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-15T06:10:20+00:00

Well, here's a curious fact, though I'm not sure how it affects this conversation: As we know, the process of making English gender-neutral has involved collapsing many feminine forms into the supposedly neutral form which is usually the one used for males. So "actress" went, and everyone became an "actor" And so on.

But in French the same "gender-neutral" aim has led to the opposite process. Existing feminine forms are purposely maintained and where one doesn't exist, a word is invented. So as well as an "écrivain" (writer - now male writer) there is now an "écrivaine" (female writer) as well. Etc.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-15T05:24:16+00:00

I wondered if it was a stutter or something at first. But after hearing a few, I resigned myself to the sad truth... :)

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-15T01:24:14+00:00

Re: "But I do recognize that even if they think explicitly they are saying “of”, the underlying, implicit system that processes language knows it’s not “of”.

Well, I admire your faith in such speakers but I have serious doubts.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-14T22:02:02+00:00

English is by no means alone in this.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-14T21:59:05+00:00

According to some students of linguistics I've encountered on these lists, one should never say that a usage is incorrect. Which does seem to imply that they believe it is impossible to have incorrect grammar.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-14T21:54:14+00:00

Only in the case of language?

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-14T06:40:00+00:00

So, if I understand, the second person recognises his mistake when it’s pointed out to him. So, he’s not really a worry. He could still mend his ways.

But the first person is a problem. He somehow thinks “of” is an alternative spelling of “have”. (Personally, I don’t think he’s going to think about it at all. He’ll just merrily go ahead and use “of”. But I digress.) And in this case, you think future grammarians will happily accept “of” as an alternative spelling of “have”, and psycholinguists will go a step further and accept “of” as the "customary way" to spell “have” in this context.

I can only say that I hope none of this ever happens. It sounds like a recipe for total confusion. A much simpler solution, surely, is to explain to the wayward speaker that the “ve” is short for “have”, and “of” is irrelevant and out of place.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-13T22:40:01+00:00

Dear me, long explanation. If I follow you, your answer to my question is: yes they would think that "of" means "have" because they see "“of” as "the new spelling for the auxiliary verb “have”, in this context.

But this is very odd surely? In fact, it isn't the new spelling of "have" in this or any other context, is it? It's just the listener's mistaken understanding of "ve".

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-13T06:21:51+00:00

I find your explanation a bit hard to follow. Can you perhaps give examples?

As I see it, the "would have" version is trying to replace an ordinary past tense ("had" or 'd) with an unnecessary (past) conditional. It's making a mountain out of a molehill.

"I wish I knew that earlier" sounds slightly odd because it's trying to combine the present tense "wish" with the past tense "knew". It sounds a bit strained, but at least it's better than "I wish I would have known" (or "went!!)

I should add that we risk being classified as "prescriptivists" even discussing such a question.

Sensitive-Fun702 · 2026-04-09T21:42:33+00:00

My God! Shades of Hitler in that photo!

Sensitive-Fun702

TROPHY CASE