English 101 with Trihan sometimes!

[Trihan]

Yeah, I don't know where you learned that one Terran but it's just been pretty thoroughly disproven.

[Sektor 13]

Hi

Well, I won't ask anything about English .

But if you think English is strange I will give one example from my language (Slovenian) that a lot of languages don't have.


In English you use:   He, she or it -> for 1 person (thing)
                                 They -> for 2,3,4 or more persons

In Slovenian we use:  On, ona -> for 1 person
                                   Onedva, onidve -> for 2 persons
                                   Oni, One -> for 3 or more persons   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must say that English is not that hard to understand. And some things are far easier to explain in english than a slovenian language. And we have a lot of rules on how to place "commas", which I hate .

-> a bit off topic <-

[Trihan]

If English isn't that hard to understand, why do so many people have trouble with it?

[Anian]

Well it's far easier to understand and construct simple sentences, it's harder to master it. What Sector was trying to say that other languages have more grammar rules to learn adn for instance German has 4 but in some Slavic languages there are 7 declinations (don't know if that's the word to use though, 'cause English doesn't even have that):
for example: I'm coming closer to the boat. & I am a boat. --> in Croatian the word boat in the first sentence would be "čamac" while in the second it would be "čamcu." And those are simple things.
Latin has even more and even different for different types of nouns.

[TerranRich]

Ugh. So I mistyped. I didn't mean before every single usage of the word "which", I mean usages of the word "which" used as such:

I have a dog, which is a good thing. ("good thing" describes the act of having a dog, not the dog itself, hence the word "which")

I'm not sure what the correct term is for the usage of the word "which" in that case (restrictive clause?), but in such a usage a comma should be used. If you use the word "that", no comma is needed nor is it used:

I have a dog that smells funny.

That's what I meant. In other words, it is incorrect to say I have a dog which has brown fur.

[Trihan]

Although as an addendum to that, the comma can actually change the meaning of the sentence entirely. To wit:

"I have a dog that is funny." = "I have a dog, and he has a good sense of humour."

"I have a dog, that is funny." = "I have a dog. It is amusing that I have a dog." (though technically you can still mean the first meaning even with the comma. In spoken English the meaning is determined by your -pronunciation- of the word 'that'. If you're conveying the first meaning, you'll pronounce it "thaaat" while the second is more like "tht" or "thit". Who said English was simple? )

To make the second meaning even clearer in written English, you'd use a semicolon: "I have a dog; that is funny."

Though really to avoid confusion if you meant the first meaning you could just go ahead and say "I have a funny dog."

[Oliwerko]

"I have a dog, that is funny."

I have been not to put a comma before "that". Does it apply only for clauses?

[Trihan]

It's frowned upon, yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it. It's really better to use a semicolon.

[Ghost]

"I have a dog that is funny." = "I have a dog, and he has a good sense of humour."

I would've written "...and it has a good sense of humour.", since animals are usually referred to as it. Do pets get the proper he/she?

[edit]

Thanks, good to know!
|
v

[paolo]

It's frowned upon, yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it. It's really better to use a semicolon.

Ah, but that is what is wrong with it. Joining two sentences with a comma is incorrect; a semicolon, colon or conjunction should be used instead. So in this case: "I have a dog and he has a good sense of humour"/"I have a dog and that is funny" or "I have a dog; he has a good sense of humour"/"I have a dog; that is funny" (= it is funny that I have a dog).

"I have a dog that is funny." = "I have a dog, and he has a good sense of humour."

I would've written "...and it has a good sense of humour.", since animals are usually referred to as it. Do pets get the proper he/she?

See my reply earlier on in this thread. "He/she" is OK for pets.
[/list]

[Andail]

Yeah, Terran, you're right about the restrictiveness.

If the information after the "which" is optional, it becomes a non-restricted subclause and thus gets a comma before it.

"She will bring pies, which I like." In this sentence, the fact that I like them doesn't change the pies in any way, it's just extra information.
However:
"She will bring pies which I like", means that she will only bring pies that I like.
In the latter case, most people would prefer "that" instead of "which", although it's not grammatically incorrect.

[TerranRich]

Trihan: "I have a dog, that is funny." is still not correct. If you mean it to be two separate sentence, then separate them as such.

I have a dog; that is funny. (Meaning. "I have a dog. That fact in itself is humorous.")

Andail: That's not the way I was taught in school. Though I guess my teachers could've been wrong. I do live in America, after all.

[Andail]

No worries, I just read on wikipedia that Americans tend to consider using "which" for restrictive clauses incorrect, so you're partly right.

[Gilbert]

Well, the spellchecker in M$Word (2000, which I'm now using, don't know if this is fixed in newer versions) loves to annoy me with the green curly line whenever a sentence contains a 'which' and wants to force me into changing it to 'that' (no matter the language is set to UK or American English). I just ignore it and consider it stupid.

[paolo]

Well, the spellchecker in M$Word (2000, which I'm now using, don't know if this is fixed in newer versions) loves to annoy me with the green curly line whenever a sentence contains a 'which' and wants to force me into changing it to 'that' (no matter the language is set to UK or American English). I just ignore it and consider it stupid.

That's odd. Maybe it's just your application, but I've seen other word processors suggest replacing "X which Y" with either "X that Y" or "X, which Y". Do you not get the second option?

[TerranRich]

Solution: It's Microsoft.

[Gilbert]

Right. And I don't find this "odd". It would take AGE if I need to post its other "oddities" here.

[Atelier]

Ee-ther, i-ther, or nee-ther? Or perhaps ni-ther?

[TerranRich]

What? Are you asking the difference between "either" and "neither", as well as their pronunciation?

[Andail]

Just the pronunciation. I think the function should be pretty obvious

And it's only related to regional accent, I would say. "ee-ther" is prevalent among Americans, while "eye-ther" appears among Brits, but is far from universal anywhere.