Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> Other things: Don't use sentences whose meaning depends on complex tenses of
> the verb. E.g., don't use a sentence where "I would have been X" means
> something different than "I would have X".

I guess I haven't had to worry about the distinction before.  What happens if
the difference between the two makes a difference?  In general terms, of
course, but this sounds difficult for native speakers to remember unless there
clear rules beyond "don't make it too complex."

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a
> mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The
> only objection you could have is that there is another language where it
> does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too
> occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.

Indeed.  There was no mistake when our Sudanese friend told us his brother used
to molest him regularly.  It's perfectly correct in both dialects, only it
turns out people assume something entirely different in American English, as
opposed to the British English he learned.  In his words, "No, not the Michael
Jackson kind!"

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On 18-Jan-09 21:30, triple_r wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a
>> mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The
>> only objection you could have is that there is another language where it
>> does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too
>> occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.
> 
> Indeed.  There was no mistake when our Sudanese friend told us his brother used
> to molest him regularly.  It's perfectly correct in both dialects, only it
> turns out people assume something entirely different in American English, as
> opposed to the British English he learned.  In his words, "No, not the Michael
> Jackson kind!"
> 
>  - Ricky

I like that one. I might use it in future discussion with the daughter.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> - slang does not exist in international English.

English is da shiznit! :D

It's undoubtly the new latin, lingua franca of the internet indeed.

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Other things: Don't use sentences whose meaning depends on complex tenses of
>> the verb. E.g., don't use a sentence where "I would have been X" means
>> something different than "I would have X".
> 
> I guess I haven't had to worry about the distinction before.  What happens if
> the difference between the two makes a difference? 

You get confusion, is all.

I've just found that in my dealings with non-native speakers, subtle tense 
differences are not as well practiced as past-present-future.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:12:51 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> - slang does not exist in international English.
> 
> English is da shiznit! :D
> 
> It's undoubtly the new latin, lingua franca of the internet indeed.

Or indeed of technology in general, certainly of computing in general.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a 
> mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The 
> only objection you could have is that there is another language where it 
> does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too 
> occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.

And if you expect a significant number of your audience to "get it" and thus 
lose concentration, you are making a mistake by saying it.  Know your 
audience, including where they come from and what languages they know.  Of 
course it's very hard to avoid everything like this, but if you know your 
audience you can make a good effort, asking for advice from natives if 
necessary.

> I wouldn't refer to Star Wars in a talk at a conference. I have never see 
> anybody do that and would frown if they did. Unless in a cartoon as the 
> last slide if it gives a comment on the talk.

Someone I know once did a whole presentation for about 30 mins based on Star 
Wars to explain how his department worked.  He had cleverly renamed each 
character from Star Wars with people in his department, and made up a good 
number of very funny animated slides.  I'd say that the majority of the 
audience "got it" and everyone I spoke to afterwards was talking about it 
being the best presentation of the day (this was the last day, which was a 
bit more light hearted than the previous days).  Certainly was a very stark 
contrast to the previous slot which was taken up with 519 slides of 
financial data and a very boring commentary.

>> I've found that most non-native speakers understand *much* more easily if 
>> there's a distinct if brief break between words, so it's obvious where 
>> the word breaks are. It also helps me immensely when trying to understand 
>> a foreign language (of which I barely understand one, so ... :-)

You're screwed though if the language you are trying to learn just joins 
words together to make longer ones!  Even if you see them written you get 
stuck trying to work out where they join, and which sequence of letters you 
should be looking up in the dictionary.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:11:13 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>I recently had a discussion with my daughter. She studies English and it 
>was about English as lingua franca. I said that if on a conference the 
>language is 'English' that means that an international dialect is 
>spoken, not any official version of it.

Out of interest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7844192.stm
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7844192.stm

The funny thing is, when a bunch of bilingual Mandarin speakers get together 
in America, they almost always speak mostly Mandarin, with only the 
technical words coming out in English. So Mandarin still seems to be holding 
out.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:46:48 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7844192.stm
>
>The funny thing is, when a bunch of bilingual Mandarin speakers get together 
>in America, they almost always speak mostly Mandarin, with only the 
>technical words coming out in English. So Mandarin still seems to be holding 
>out.

It is the same here, in the UK, with Cantonese but not with Urdu or Hindi. I
suspect that former colonial countries use English for technical discussions in
preference to their own language because modern technical innovations occurred
after English became the language used to speak to the rulers.
As an aside, a few years ago when I was working in Croatia. I overheard a
technical discussion in Croatian. I was able to follow, it by listening to the
technical words, enough to interrupt and correct some misconceptions. This
surprised my co=workers and myself as my knowledge of the language was limited
to asking for one or two beers or coffees.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message