English 101 with Trihan sometimes!

[Stee]

It's apparently a regional affectation, and I've just moved in recent years to the region that's affected.

Ah that explains it, had me confused for a minute there as I've travelled all over the UK and not heard it used in that way!! You meant American not English!! Those folks like to do some strange things with the language over there!!

On that subject, things like capitalize, institutionalized and scrutinize (which I suppose I'm kinda doing here heh) are Americanised versions of the word. The proper English way to do it is to use 's' not 'z'. So capitalise, institutionalised and scrutinise.


That annoys me as much as the incorrect usage of 'their , they're, there' - and I've seen myself do it a few times!!!

[Cassiebsg]

On that subject, things like capitalize, institutionalized and scrutinize (which I suppose I'm kinda doing here heh) are Americanised versions of the word. The proper English way to do it is to use 's' not 'z'. So capitalise, institutionalised and scrutinise.

Simple rule to remember: If S is between two vocals, then it reads Z... (which implies that it's written with an s) 

[MiteWiseacreLives!]

We were taught that in Canada too, but all the spell checkers are killing it off. 

[Cassiebsg]

Uhm, you are right... I normally don't think much about it, and have the English (US) dictionary installed, and it does correct those words to z... however, I just installed the British dictionary to my Firefox, and checking with that one will not correct the words... So it does depend on which dictionary you are using.   

[monkey0506]

Here's something I came across a couple days ago. I am a native (American) English speaker, but it kind of bothers me when I see or (shudder) use contractions inside of a hashtag. Granted, I don't use hashtags very often, and when I do it's usually meant as a joke more than anything else.

The other day I was posting (to Facebook) about working out, and I was quite exhausted, so I appended the hashtag, "#pleaseexcusemewhileImdead". Including the apostrophe would break the hashtag, but saying, "while I am dead" just sounded excessively formal.

Obviously hashtags aren't even remotely proper grammar, but I was curious what the general convention is for cases like this.

[Snarky]

On that subject, things like capitalize, institutionalized and scrutinize (which I suppose I'm kinda doing here heh) are Americanised versions of the word. The proper English way to do it is to use 's' not 'z'. So capitalise, institutionalised and scrutinise.


That annoys me as much as the incorrect usage of 'their , they're, there' - and I've seen myself do it a few times!!!

This is not actually true. The "-ise" spelling is somewhat more common in British English, but both versions are in current use, and have been throughout history, with "-ize" being the older one (predating Americanization) and "-ise" a French borrowing. The OED and Oxford University Press use "-ize" (while the Cambridge University Press uses "-ise"), and it's therefore sometimes known as the Oxford spelling. "-ize" is also more authentic to the Greek root and to pronunciation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize_.28-isation.2C_-ization.29

[Mandle]

Damn it, Mandle, take it easy on me!

Yeah right. I saw what you did there...

[Adeel]

It's been exact one month since this thread was last touched, so I hope that I'm not breaking the rules (and even if I am, it's for a good cause ). I've a very simple question (for those of you who are proficient or well-versed in English). Consider the following:

I ____ become a doctor. (may, might)

Which one is correct (or more suitable, in case both are correct and/or can be used)? The above question was given in a test, and I chose "might" but my English's teacher disagrees with me. She says that "may" is the correct option. It's not like I don't trust my teacher but my mind just can't seem to accept her opinion for some reason. It's just that I can't help but strongly feel that "might" is the more suitable option here. That's why I need an opinion of a third person. Can someone please help me? This little "thing" is constantly bugging me off and now I'm desperate to seek an answer.

Spoiler

Some of you may be wondering why I'm asking such a simple question (or why such a simple question was given in a test - after all, I'm not a student of 4 grade/class). Well, the reason is that English is a language foreign to us. I try to get a good grasp on English but occasionally, like a handful of sand, it feels as if it's slipping away from my hold.

[close]

[Tramponline]

'Might' suggests a less likely probability of you becoming a doctor, than 'may'.

Perhaps, that's the reason for your teacher to insist on 'may' (= as not to deliberately degrade
your own statement).

However, grammatically they are both interchangeable and both are 'proper' English in this instance.
Just expressing slightly different things:

I may become a doctor. // Certain connotation of somewhat more confidence.
I might become a doctor. // Not quite as likely of that happening. 

[Intense Degree]

Further to that, "may" often (not always) carries connotations of choice and "might" of trying.

So for instance:

"If I choose to, I may become a doctor. Otherwise I may go into law or teaching." (The ability is not in doubt, only the choice)

And

"I might become a doctor, if I can pass all the exams." (The ability is in doubt)

Or to put it another way with a slightly different emphasis:

“OK, you may become a doctor.” - i.e. you are allowed to become a doctor if you want
“OK, you might become a doctor.” - i.e. If you are able to achieve it, you could become a doctor.

(That isn't the only way of reading any of those sentences and, as Tramp said, both can mean a possibility with "may" being more likely than "might").

[Hobo]

I agree with the posts above and it shouldn't really matter much in this case. In addition, there's another distinction between them. Formally (or traditionally), might is the past tense of may, therefore it's probably more logical to use may when talking about the present or the future and might when referring to the past.

In situations like this you should actually ask your teacher to clarify. A proper teacher should be able to explain his/her preferences with valid reasons, rules and regulations.

[Adeel]

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, guys. One reason why I chose "might" be that I took the question personally. And thought, "how would I say that sentence in real life". There's a very little possibility that I would become a doctor since I didn't choose subjects related to medicine, besides having little to no interest in medicine either. Probably that's why my subconsciousness urged me to use "might", because the probability of my becoming a doctor is very low. This was, perhaps, the grave mistake on my part.

When looked from a neutral point of view, it indeed looks more of a choice rather than the ability. Besides, we are talking about future here. Hence, "may" is the best option to go with.

In situations like this you should actually ask your teacher to clarify. A proper teacher should be able to explain his/her preferences with valid reasons, rules and regulations.

I had asked my teacher to clarify and she had given me her reasons. She even agreed to explain it more clearly the next day (so it's not her fault, really). Sometimes, I tend to get quite persistent when I have a strong opinion or feeling about something. That's why I need the opinion of a third person.



Thank you so much for your time and patience, guys. I certainly learnt a lot today!

[Andail]

Ok.
I have always regarded the countable form of youth (a youth, several youths) as a slightly dated equivalent of the Swedish "yngling" which historically has referred to a young man.

Now I've seen "youths" used to mean just young people in general, similar to teenagers. A quick dictionary check tells me that both meanings exist.

So, turning to native speakers, how common is it to use "youths" in the sense of "youngsters" or "teenagers", and do you agree that a language puritan would only use it about young men? Would you even use the word at all, or is it too dated?

[Intense Degree]

Technically "youths" could refer to any group of young people - typically teens as you say.

In terms of common use in the UK, 10-20-30 years ago, "youth clubs" were quite common in places, which were for teenagers of any gender and even "youth centres" were around the place here and there, again for teens of both genders.

However, "youths" is (in my experience) not used so much that way any more. It is more often used in newspapers or in the news etc. as "a gang of youths" which conjures up the image of teenagers in hoodies, likely to be mostly male, drinking in the park at night and engaging in some light vandalism, or hanging around outside convenience stores on bikes which are far too small for them hoping to convince someone to buy them some alcohol, or to steal it! Therefore there is a slightly derogatory or rowdy connotation to it.

Also - on the male v female thing, if the group was entirely male then "youths" would be used in the paper. If a mixed group then "youths" would still be used. If entirely female then it wouldn't (in my opinion). Sexual Equality FTW!

Either way, it is not that common in casual conversation. I wouldn't say "yes there's always some youths hanging around outside bargain booze" although it would be entirely correct technically speaking. It is a slightly outdated term I think, at least around my way, or it is a peculiar one, in that it is in some ways a "formal" term to describe something very much informal!

[xil]

Intense Degree has it pretty much spot on apart from one point.

I think calling it 'dated' is wrong when used in casual conversation as I think that's just a case of where you are in England. I know for a fact some younger people I know from Nuneaton use it as a greeting e.g. Sup youth. How you doing youths?

[Atelier]

Sorry (not sorry?) for the necro, but I have an English question!


Is "preconditional" a valid derivative of "precondition"?

As in: "In the vast majority of cases, no bypassing exemption will apply, and an area of land will thus be subjected to a preconditional physico-legal test."


It is in none of the dictionaries I've consulted, but seems like it should be right and I want to use it over everything else!

[Stupot]

Sounds legit to me. But to be honest "conditional" does the job. The 'pre' part is redundant because it already implies you need to do something 'before' something else can happen.

[LindaBelle]

Oh, I see how many replies are here and read that you thought that this topic will not be popular
I`m also not a native English speaker. what is you the most unexpected rule in English?