English words that conflict with your language. [Archive]

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-13-2009, 17:01

Yeah, english contractions used to drive my German friends nuts. Especially when speaking with fast-talking northern americans.

"They're moving their camp over there.", spoken aloud with my Michigan accent = sounds identical, though I admit "they're" should have a longer "ay" sound in the middle to recognize the 'ey' of they.

"Of" is another one that confuses. 'Should've', 'would've', could've' get written as should of, would of & could of, because of the similar sound. Drives me crazy.

All of this really shows that you should not use contractions. "Should'of" is grammatically nonsensical, but it is the most common mistake children make both speaking and writing. You really have to make sure they don't get the two confused, or it can mean a lifetime of error.

I have an unfair advantage over pretty much everyone in the world though, I have a clerkly (i.e. educated, not posh) Hampshire/Surrey accent; more or less the defnition of "Standard English".

Sasaki Kojiro

12-13-2009, 18:14

"Of" is another one that confuses. 'Should've', 'would've', could've' get written as should of, would of & could of, because of the similar sound. Drives me crazy.

And pronounced "shoulda woulda coulda" :laugh4:

Centurion1

12-13-2009, 18:19

me speak right. yall just wrong

KukriKhan

12-13-2009, 18:28

me speak right. yall'r jus' wrong

amended.

A Very Super Market

12-13-2009, 18:31

Andres

12-13-2009, 19:19

This is for people who don't have English as their native language. There are many words in English I have to think about before typing them.

'Dungeon', it just seems wrong to me. Did it in a single try but only because I use it as an example. I also tend to type 'there' when I mean 'their', and 'than' when I mean 'then'. There is no cure but trying really hard.

Where do you get it wrong.

"Their", "there" and "they're" and "then" and "than"; I usually spot them when I re-read (thank Tosa for the edit button), but I make many mistakes against those pre-edit.

I usually mix up "hear" and "here" and "where" and "wear" as well and anything else that sounds similar.

Strike For The South

12-13-2009, 20:24

About half of this language confuses me.

Spanish is so much simpler

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-13-2009, 21:00

None of you posted a word that conflicts with his native language, although this should've been the topic of this thread, according to the OP. :confused:

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-13-2009, 21:09

That said, I'm incredibly thankful that English in not my mother tongue. It would be a total waste to have it as native language.

the grammar is so simple, it suffices to learn it at age 90, no need to start as a baby
English native speakers normally don't care if anyone uses the language right, leading to an incredibly high amount of bad grammar and orthography among speakers, even native ones
English native speakers normally have no clue about vowels thanks to the incredibly ridiculous pronounciation of their mother tongue
due to the limited English grammar, it must be really hard for native speakers to learn a foreign language, since these normally tend to have grammar
Which leads me to the conclusion that nobody really has to dominate English because nobody really cares. Heck you are even so friendly in the U.S. and start to make all signs etc. bilingual in Spanish and English from what I've heard. In fact there's only one place to find English grammar nazis, and that's undoubtedly Germany. Just come over here to learn it right.

P.S. I know you will pardon my mistakes, if you spot them.

P.P.S. The most common mistake by native speakers I come across in this forum is "definately" and other ways to write "definitely" wrong. Ah the vowels...

Megas Methuselah

12-13-2009, 21:34

Yeah, English grammar is practically non-existent. In fact, despite all my years of learning French, I basically forget its complicated grammar when speaking it, instead favouring a basic form of pigeon French. Those Quebecois can scowl at my butchering of their mother-tongue all they want; it's the best I can do. :laugh4:

Viking

12-13-2009, 21:48

It could still drop the inflection of verbs according to grammatical person:

I am
you am
we am
he, she, it am
they am
you am

:smash:

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-13-2009, 22:21

U am da bestest at grammer.

CCRunner

12-13-2009, 22:26

What I mean is that people write either 'there' or 'their' when the correct word to use would be 'they're'. I assume this is because they all sound the same.Yeah, but their all stupid :2thumbsup:

:laugh4:

Centurion1

12-13-2009, 23:22

I'm Chinese. Just imagine the transfer between phonetic and character-based......

I also speak a bit of French, Spanish, and German. English, with no genders for words, is unbelievably simple. Of course, we have to balance that out with absurd pronounciation.

i speak some mandarin thanks to my family and uh....... yeah it is a very different transition.

i also know a pretty solid amount of russian thanks to family as well but i can't evenn imagine being fluent.

english is a hard language and i have trouble with our own grammar let alone russian and mandarin grammar. ugh

Beskar

12-13-2009, 23:25

Imho English grammar is incredibly straightforward and easy. German and French are much more complicated.

edit, oh spoken

Male Chairs and Female Tables.

Why did they need to give everything a gender?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-13-2009, 23:31

:help:
Male Chairs and Female Tables.

Why did they need to give everything a gender?

In English I think chairs are weak-feminine, but I'd have to check. We lost inflection after the Normans arrived (ironically).

ajaxfetish

12-14-2009, 00:15

the grammar is so simple, it suffices to learn it at age 90, no need to start as a baby
English native speakers normally don't care if anyone uses the language right, leading to an incredibly high amount of bad grammar and orthography among speakers, even native ones
English native speakers normally have no clue about vowels thanks to the incredibly ridiculous pronounciation of their mother tongue
due to the limited English grammar, it must be really hard for native speakers to learn a foreign language, since these normally tend to have grammar

*English grammar is just as complex as that of any human language.
*English native speakers definitely care about correct use of the language, and are as unlikely to make genuine grammatical mistakes as native speakers of any language.
*English vowels experienced a shift in the early modern period. If the orthography hadn't already been fixed, there'd probably be no confusion between English's and other languages' vowels. It's an artifact of the orthography, as English has basically the same vowels as most other European languages (though our mid vowels are universally diphthongized, and we've got a particularly rich lax vowel inventory).
*Again, English grammar is as rich as any natural language's. The greatest problem faced by English speakers learning other languages is the worldwide prevalence of English. If English speakers felt a greater need to learn other languages, and especially if we started learning them much younger, it would be much easier for us.

It could still drop the inflection of verbs according to grammatical person:

I am
you am
we am
he, she, it am
they am
you am

English syntax is sufficiently rigid that it doesn't require a richer morphology. Most verbs have only one present-tense variant (the 3rd person singular), a random relic, and would be just as clear if that form were the same as all the others. Because be is still highly inflected, it looks weirder to level it, but it would do no more to inhibit meaning.

Ajax

Azathoth

12-14-2009, 00:18

Well, English technically isn't my first language, but it's the one I'm most fluent in.

I know all the grammar, but ignore certain rules either for ease of use or because I just disagree with them.

I sometimes devolve into an Eastern-Europeanish accent when aggravated.

Azathoth

12-14-2009, 00:20

*English grammar is just as complex as that of any human language.
*English native speakers definitely care about correct use of the language, and are as unlikely to make genuine grammatical mistakes as native speakers of any language.
*English vowels experienced a shift in the early modern period. If the orthography hadn't already been fixed, there'd probably be no confusion between English's and other languages' vowels. It's an artifact of the orthography, as English has basically the same vowels as most other European languages (though our mid vowels are universally diphthongized, and we've got a particularly rich lax vowel inventory).
*Again, English grammar is as rich as any natural language's. The greatest problem faced by English speakers learning other languages is the worldwide prevalence of English. If English speakers felt a greater need to learn other languages, and especially if we started learning them much younger, it would be much easier for us.

English syntax is sufficiently rigid that it doesn't require a richer morphology. Most verbs have only one present-tense variant (the 3rd person singular), a random relic, and would be just as clear if that form were the same as all the others. Because be is still highly inflected, it looks weirder to level it, but it would do no more to inhibit meaning.

Ajax

God, I need to study linguistics or something.

pevergreen

12-14-2009, 00:31

Gaol?

Seriously, what is that!

Guernsey?

What. the. hell.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-14-2009, 00:42

*English grammar is just as complex as that of any human language.
How that? You * don't inflect, conjugate or do other things...

*almost

ajaxfetish

12-14-2009, 00:49

How that? You * don't inflect, conjugate or do other things...

*almost

What's your point?

Ajax

Owen Glyndwr

12-14-2009, 03:54

Weird has always been a funny word to me. Doesn't it just look so weird?

What I have learned over the years is that there is no most difficult/easiest language to learn in the world. All recognized languages have some facets to them that are incredibly easy to learn, and others that are exceedingly difficult.

For example, grammar and conjugation are for the most part simple in English, however pronunciation and learning to read/spell are both supposed to be rather difficult.

Compare that to Spanish, which has fairly simple and rigid pronunciation, but has a rather difficult grammar riddled with tons of rules and even more exceptions.

French, on the other hand, has a much simpler grammar, (only one subjunctive wut?) but pronunciation and spelling can be rather difficult.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-14-2009, 04:41

What's your point?

Ajax
The point is that if I don't have to learn any grammar, there is no grammar, no matter what you say.

It's really strange that I seem to be able to communicate in this language fairly well although I have never made any effort to learn its grammar, whereas my French skills are zero, although I have put the double effort into learning it's ridiculously difficult grammar and orthography.

Compare that to Spanish, which has fairly simple and rigid pronunciation, but has a rather difficult grammar riddled with tons of rules and even more exceptions.
Yeah but the RRRRRRR still gives me headaches even after eight years... the grammar is not that difficult. OK, it's very difficult to be honest, but "riddled with tons of rules and even more exceptions" is a little strong. I mean, their they're there are like no exceptions at all.

French, on the other hand, has a much simpler grammar, (only one subjunctive wut?) but pronunciation and spelling can be rather difficult.
Really? I remember it as the epitome of difficulty. Man how I hated it. Their weird constructions with apostrophs made me sick regularly.

A Very Super Market

12-14-2009, 05:20

l'apostrophes? As far as my mandatory French lessons go, I haven't seen them used except for words that start with vowels. Don't start me on "H" being a vowel. That's just weird.

Owen Glyndwr

12-14-2009, 05:42

I mean, their they're there are like no exceptions at all.

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.

ajaxfetish

12-14-2009, 05:47

The point is that if I don't have to learn any grammar, there is no grammar, no matter what you say.

It's really strange that I seem to be able to communicate in this language fairly well although I have never made any effort to learn its grammar, whereas my French skills are zero, although I have put the double effort into learning it's ridiculously difficult grammar and orthography.

You seem to be equating grammar with morphological complexity. Do you think Mandarin Chinese is an easy language to learn? If so, more power to you, but most of us westerners would not agree. I, for one, struggle tremendously distinguishing tonal differences. Yet English has much more morphological complexity than Chinese, and much more phonotactic complexity, especially in syllable codas. English does not have the morphological complexity that some languages do (including older varieties of English), but like all languages, it makes up for lack of complexity in some areas with greater complexity in others. English phonology is quite complex, including interdental fricatives and highly complex syllable codas and onsets (a single syllable may have three segments in both its onset and its coda), and its syntax is quite complex as well. Word paradigms may be quite easy to pick up; correct word order is likely to cause more problems.

The point of language is communication. To accomplish this it must have a fine balance of complexity, or you won't be able to communicate. Your statement that you are able to communicate fairly well in English is a testament to the complexity of the language's grammar. (edit: and by the way, your written grammar is quite impressive, probably indistinguishable from a native speaker. I'd have to hear you speak to know whether you've mastered English phonology as well as its syntax and morphology)

Ajax

CCRunner

12-14-2009, 05:47

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.Or the sheer number of different conjugations.... I hate you ir, ser, ar verbs, er verbs, ir verbs, haber, saber, decir, dar, car/gar/zar verbs, 2vv verbs, o-> ue, e->ie, e->i, o->u, ir sole verbs, informal commands, go verbs, and any other verbs I may have missed

Azathoth

12-14-2009, 06:18

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.

Or the sheer number of different conjugations.... I hate you ir, ser, ar verbs, er verbs, ir verbs, haber, saber, decir, dar, car/gar/zar verbs, 2vv verbs, o-> ue, e->ie, e->i, o->u, ir sole verbs, informal commands, go verbs, and any other verbs I may have missed

It's not that bad. But I guess that's why I got a hundred in Spanish OHHHH SNAAPPP

CCRunner

12-14-2009, 06:24

Corro ~~ Corremos
Corres ~~ Correis
Corre ~~ Corren

Run ~~ Run
Run ~~ Run
Runs ~~ Run

Azathoth

12-14-2009, 06:37

Corro ~~ Corremos
Corres ~~ Correis
Corre ~~ Corren

Run ~~ Run
Run ~~ Run
Runs ~~ Run

I Run ~~ We Run
You Run ~~ You (all) Run <----Blame the Spanish for this
He/She/You Run(s) ~~ You/They Run

Veho Nex

12-14-2009, 06:44

At my school I work with a lot of ESL students. What I've learned is that when people from primarily spanish or deep latin roots countries or households write in english they write how its spelled. Messes a lot of them up.

I tell them they have to add an accent to everything if there is a silent letter. Teach them selves to say their there and they're slightly different so they know which one to write.

Azathoth

12-14-2009, 07:02

I tell them they have to add an accent to everything if there is a silent letter. Teach them selves to say their there and they're slightly different so they know which one to write.

According to my Spanish teacher, everyone in her neighbourhood speaks a kind of Spanglish (ie. advertisements for frozen goods say "freezado" instead of "congelado").

Major Robert Dump

12-14-2009, 07:03

"Drunk Cherokee"

"Frat boy with homosexual tendencies"

"Bingo players in sweatpants"

No, wait, those are redundancies, never mind.

Owen Glyndwr

12-14-2009, 07:56

It's not that bad. But I guess that's why I got a hundred in Spanish OHHHH SNAAPPP

Your skill at the language does not make the language itself any less complex. I got a 5 on the AP test, but I still respect how outrageously difficult Spanish grammar can be. What Spanish are we talking about? Spanish 1 is a lot easier than Spanish 4.

Husar

12-14-2009, 10:49

Yeah, lots of native english speakers also mess up then and than.
It's better then waking up and than missing the train to work. :sweatdrop:

Yeah, english contractions used to drive my German friends nuts. Especially when speaking with fast-talking northern americans.
That's because the Americans are doin' it 'rong. :smash:

Imho English grammar is incredibly straightforward and easy. German and French are much more complicated.
German is pretty easy, trust me, I grew up with it. :sweatdrop:

In fact there's only one place to find English grammar nazis, and that's undoubtedly Germany. Just come over here to learn it right.
Can't be, I don't know any german who would be an english grammar nazi...

P.P.S. The most common mistake by native speakers I come across in this forum is "definately" and other ways to write "definitely" wrong. Ah the vowels...
That's deffo correct.

It's really strange that I seem to be able to communicate in this language fairly well although I have never made any effort to learn its grammar, whereas my French skills are zero, although I have put the double effort into learning it's ridiculously difficult grammar and orthography.
I'd say I pick(ed) up english rather naturally, never learned the grammar either but then it was similar with german, I learned most of the german grammar during latin lessons long after we were supposed to learn it in german lessons. One of the few things I find difficult in both are things like indirect speech in some kind of past tense or whatever.

About conflicting words, 'wand' would be one, in english a magical one can turn you into a frog and in german it divides rooms in a building.

Hax

12-14-2009, 11:27

Damn you all to infernity!

Dutch is one of the hardest languages to learn, or so I heard.

miotas

12-14-2009, 11:29

It's better then waking up and than missing the train to work. :sweatdrop:

Depending on the context, that could actually work... maybe... :thinking:

Subotan

12-14-2009, 11:31

Here they are all said exactly the same :shrug:
Same here.

Damn you all to infernity!

Dutch is one of the hardest languages to learn, or so I heard.

Dutch is just German with more Oos.

ajaxfetish

12-14-2009, 15:57

How that? You * don't inflect, conjugate or do other things...

*almost

By the way, you're absolutely right that English has an impoverished inflectional morphology. Most of our verbs have just four distinct forms (for instance, jump, jumps, jumped, jumping), though some of our strong verbs have slightly more or fewer. By contrast, classical Latin, a language with a rich inflectional morphology, has I believe about 100 distinct forms for each verb. Other languages blow Latin out of the water. (edit: I understand that Kivunjo has about 500,000 distinct forms for each verb)

But the lack of complexity in that part of the English grammar is made up for in the syntax, with our especially rich system of auxiliary verbs. I can throw out a sentence like

If I were to have been being helped, I wouldn't have come to complain

with a string of five auxiliaries and a main verb in the first subordinate clause. Between them all, I know the verb is subjunctive, non-finite, perfective, passive, and progressive. Replace any of them with a differently inflected form, or change the order, and the sentence would immediately become incorrect. Furthermore, because overt subjects are obligatory in English and the verb and subject agree, I also know the verb is first-person singular. That's some serious complexity. Even with 100 different inflected forms, Latin can't encode more verbal information in a single clause than that.

Ajax

Riedquat

12-14-2009, 19:00

According to my Spanish teacher, everyone in her neighbourhood speaks a kind of Spanglish (ie. advertisements for frozen goods say "freezado" instead of "congelado").

Thats very true, here in Argentina we speak Spanglish every day, mostly because of foreign terms that don't have a proper translation into Spanish; freezado, chateando are examples of every day words we use.

There isn't any single written word in English that conflicts with my language... and there isn't any single spoken word that doesn't :clown:

InsaneApache

12-14-2009, 20:06

It's a 'soft' G, as in Geoffrey. Not a 'hard' G as in goal.

Anyroad, these days I have all on speaking in Yorksheer. Ecky thump.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-14-2009, 20:54

You seem to be equating grammar with morphological complexity.
[...]

Yes I was. I didn't know there was a difference. Thank your for explaining that.

(edit: and by the way, your written grammar is quite impressive, probably indistinguishable from a native speaker. I'd have to hear you speak to know whether you've mastered English phonology as well as its syntax and morphology)

Ajax
Wow, thank you very much! Though if you would hear me speak you would be disappointed I think, I haven't actually spoken English a long time. All my practice basically comes from the .Org!

If I were to have been being helped, I wouldn't have come to complain
I must confess that I probably get the meaning of your sentence just 75%. You beat my English skills. :sweatdrop:

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-14-2009, 21:11

Corro ~~ Corremos
Corres ~~ Corréis
Corre ~~ Corren

Always keep an eye on the accent.

Or the sheer number of different conjugations.... I hate you ir, ser, ar verbs, er verbs, ir verbs, haber, saber, decir, dar, car/gar/zar verbs, 2vv verbs, o-> ue, e->ie, e->i, o->u, ir sole verbs, informal commands, go verbs, and any other verbs I may have missed
There are fairly simple rules concerning that. The great thing about Spanish is that it's logical. The orthography is completely logical, the use of the accents, even the conjugations. The shift between indicative and subjunctive is logical... Once you have seen and revised all the grammar (morphological changes ;)), you'll suddenly understand and be deeply satisfied.

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.
I *know* all this rules. It's the four great dualisms of Spanish, you forgot ser vs. estar. I don't know if there are so many exceptions to the rules. As stated above, it's really quite logical. Also, I believe you can't learn them all, you better get a feeling to when to use what.

l'apostrophes? As far as my mandatory French lessons go, I haven't seen them used except for words that start with vowels. Don't start me on "H" being a vowel. That's just weird.
Qu'est-ce que c'est? (What's that?)
Est-ce que c'est? (Is that...?)
How can you invent such combinations...

ajaxfetish

12-14-2009, 21:26

Yes I was. I didn't know there was a difference. Thank your for explaining that.

No problem. I just tend to get a little excitable on this topic, since I'm making the study of grammar, and especially the history of English, my pursuit in life. Incidentally, German's one of the other languages I'm working on picking up, though I'm nowhere near fluent yet (and I'm not exactly surrounded by German speakers I can practice using it with over here).

Ajax

Azathoth

12-15-2009, 00:00

Your skill at the language does not make the language itself any less complex. I got a 5 on the AP test, but I still respect how outrageously difficult Spanish grammar can be. What Spanish are we talking about? Spanish 1 is a lot easier than Spanish 4.

T'was in Spanish 3, I'm now in Spanish 7/AP Spanish. Mostly we've just been practising for the AP Exam and going over grammar that we should have learned years ago. I think I'll just start a new language next year, I'm getting tired of Spanish.

CCRunner

12-15-2009, 00:25

Always keep an eye on the accent.I tried to input it directly but that didn't work on the browser, and I'm to lazy to open up word to do it :sweatdrop:

Louis VI the Fat

12-15-2009, 03:39

Every single word of English conflicts with my language and plans for global domination.

For specific words, too many to mention:

1) Prix - price, prize. It never dawned on me until I learned English that 'prix' has two distinct meanings.

2) Actuel / actual:

Actuel - present
Actuellement - at the moment
Réel - actual
Réellement - actually

3) To ask = Demander. To demand = Réclamer. To reclaim = Récupérer. Etcetera. :wall:

A Very Super Market

12-15-2009, 03:46

Yet we're closer to French than anything else...

Azathoth

12-15-2009, 03:54

Yet we're closer to French than anything else...

:inquisitive:

ajaxfetish

12-15-2009, 04:06

Yet we're closer to French than anything else...

Except Frisian . . . Dutch . . . Afrikaans . . . German . . . Swedish . . . Danish . . . Norwegian . . . Icelandic . . . Faroese . . .

But yeah, after Old Norse, French has had a deeper influence on English than any other language.

Ajax

A Very Super Market

12-15-2009, 04:11

Just a silly joke about the Norman influence everyone....

Fragony

12-15-2009, 06:57

Except Frisian . . . Dutch . . . Afrikaans . . . German . . . Swedish . . . Danish . . . Norwegian . . . Icelandic . . . Faroese . . .

But yeah, after Old Norse, French has had a deeper influence on English than any other language.

Ajax

More then you think, can't dismiss french influence in any language because it used to be the common standard for European elites to speak in French, also in England. French is a germanic language like English and German, maybe it takes the distance a non-native speaker can take to see the similarities.

Azathoth

12-15-2009, 07:05

French is a germanic language like English and German, maybe it takes the distance a non-native speaker can take to see the similarities.

But French is a Romance language.

The Stranger

12-15-2009, 09:56

This should be interesting. Don't worry about 'there' and 'their', countless English people get those two mixed up, and hardly anyone seems to use 'they're' :shrug:

its very simple... i misspell it only when im in a hurry and typing casually, because then i tend to start writing phonetically... than and then i still find very hard, but apart from a few odd words, i tend to have little problems...

one thing i find very odd though, why do you pronounce sword as if the W isnt in there... its not the same with sworn, swagger, swollen, swallow etc...

The Stranger

12-15-2009, 09:58

But French is a Romance language.

it has some germanic influences, because the franks were germanic. before that they had celtic language. english though has a lot of romanic influences, from when the normans invaded. alot of english is french... hence the stubbornness of the french to maim their great french language into something of a bastard

The Stranger

12-15-2009, 10:01

english i think is easy to learn but hard to master.

Fragony

12-15-2009, 11:11

it has some germanic influences

It doesn't have some germanic influence it's a germanic language, has nothing to do with german, we just call this type of language germanic.

The Stranger

12-15-2009, 11:45

i know it has nothing to do with german... but isnt it classified as an romanic language?

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-15-2009, 16:38

French is a Romance language that's most closely related to Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Gallego, etc. Dutch on the other hand shares a language group with English, German and Frisian. IIRC.

ajaxfetish

12-15-2009, 18:25

French is indeed a Romance language, not a Germanic one. The Franks were a Germanic people and presumably spoke a Germanic language prior to migrating into Roman territory, but in France they came to adopt Latin as their language, and French is a descendant of that vernacular Latin, most closely related to Spanish and Portuguese (and other members of the Western Romance branch).

English and French are related only in that they are both Indo-European (one from the Germanic sub-family, the other from the Italic sub-family). However, of the external languages to affect English, French has had the deepest influence of any save Old Norse. Most of that French influence was lexical, though. As far as I know it had little if any effect on English grammar, and was not an important source of functional words.

Here's a great image if you want to see how all the Indo-European languages fit together:
Indo-European Language Family (http://radio.weblogs.com/0126951/images/myPictures/2004/06/02/Indo-European%20Family%20of%20Languages.JPG)

Ajax

Ituralde

12-15-2009, 19:49

So my first thoughts when reading the topic were more among the lines of Louis furhter up. So despite what has been written before I share them with you anyway.

Three things that still get me:

1) gift, which means a present in English is spelled and pronounced exactly like the German word for poison. There's just so many possibilities for confusion there if you are not careful.

2) cell phones or mobile phones are called Handy in German. Handy is pronounced English as well and looks like a English word too if you dismiss the upper case. So a lot of people, even my profs at University have difficulty getting to grips with the fact that no English speaker will understand that a Handy is a cell phone.

3) eventually. That one is tricky for Germans as well. We have the word eventuell in German which means that something might or might not happen. While eventually means that it will definetly (yeah, yeah, I don't know how to write that word) happen. So a lot of people mix that up as well.

Louis VI the Fat

12-15-2009, 20:51

*Hands Ituralde a handy gift. Eventually*

When you shout 'Emergency !!!' a Frenchman will not think of a warning to impending disaster, but think something emerged, and will not understand all the excitement about it.

Entrée in English the main course, in French an appetizer. Most confusing.

'Person having pain' would make a Frenchman think nobody is having bread.

'Personne' in French can mean either one person, or everybody, or nobody, which in delightful retribution confuses the Anglos to no end.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-15-2009, 21:45

Subotan

12-15-2009, 23:01

1) gift, which means a present in English is spelled and pronounced exactly like the German word for poison. There's just so many possibilities for confusion there if you are not careful.

2) cell phones or mobile phones are called Handy in German. Handy is pronounced English as well and looks like a English word too if you dismiss the upper case. So a lot of people, even my profs at University have difficulty getting to grips with the fact that no English speaker will understand that a Handy is a cell phone.

3) eventually. That one is tricky for Germans as well. We have the word eventuell in German which means that something might or might not happen. While eventually means that it will definetly (yeah, yeah, I don't know how to write that word) happen. So a lot of people mix that up as well.
Heh, those are all excellent examples. Ueberalles also gets me, as I always think that that should be "Overall". The other classics are "Sechs", "G", "Koch", "Kochin" "Rat" etc.

pevergreen

12-15-2009, 23:36

Entrée in English the main course, in French an appetizer. Most confusing.

I was of the opinion that the Entrée preceeded the main course, followed by dessert.

Thats how it is here. :shrug:

Husar

12-15-2009, 23:42

1) gift, which means a present in English is spelled and pronounced exactly like the German word for poison. There's just so many possibilities for confusion there if you are not careful.
Great example, forgot about that.

3) eventually. That one is tricky for Germans as well. We have the word eventuell in German which means that something might or might not happen. While eventually means that it will definetly (yeah, yeah, I don't know how to write that word) happen. So a lot of people mix that up as well.
This one confused me as well at first, though I got used to it eventually.
And by the way, it's "definitely".

Êntrèé or however it's spelled sounds too much like "entry" for it to be a main course. :inquisitive:

Louis VI the Fat

12-15-2009, 23:51

I was of the opinion that the Entrée preceeded the main course, followed by dessert.

Thats how it is here. :shrug:So it appears to be indeed.

Always ready to jump on any Anglo in-fighting, so beneficial to our bid for global domination, I present this exchange between an Australian and an American, slugging it out on who takes the title of least capable of emulating French civilisation:

Why do Americans refer to the main course of a meal as the "entree?"

December 14, 2007

Dear Cecil:

I was reading your enlightening discourse on the likelihood of people dining on mammoth (The Straight Dope: Have explorers had feasts of woolly mammoth? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/070914.html) ) and was somewhat dismayed to see you use the term "entree" to allude to the main course of a formal dinner. I understand that as you are writing for the Teeming Millions, who mostly live in the USA, you need to dumb things down a little, and using American idiom is a simple way of doing that. Can you explain to me, though, why Americans would use a word that so clearly does not fit the intended meaning?
— Tony from Australia

(http://www.make-solar-panel-in-3-hours.com/)

Strong stuff, Tony, coming from a country that's only in the last 20 years crawled from a primordial ooze of baked beans and Vegemite to lie panting on the shores of respectable cuisine. Even after recent advances, the Aussies are still trailing about a century behind the serious culinary world powers, so I'll excuse you for not knowing what you're talking about foodwise. What I won't stand for, however, is some smart-ass impugning the intellect of the Teeming Millions - that's my department. So cut the sass and acknowledge your ignorance, and I'll dumb this down enough for you, too.

The issue here is that what Americans call an entree isn't known by that name to English speakers elsewhere, who tend to stick with main course or main dish. Such people often figure entree (from French entrer, "to enter") correctly refers only to a dish serving as an entrance to the meal - i.e., an appetizer, which is how it's used in, e.g., Australia - and assume that the clueless Yanks are getting it wrong yet again. Not a crazy assumption, frankly, given recent world events, but in this instance it's off base.

To see why, we go back roughly 100 years, to when the ritual of the formal dinner - devised in France and modified for use throughout the West - had come to the end of its golden age. A key venue for displays of refinement by the upper and middle classes, formal dining, though less elaborate than it had been 100 years before, retained a tricky set of rules governing everything from the order in which guests entered the room to which of a dozen utensils was most appropriate for eating conger eel.

By the late 1800s, a typical formal dinner in the UK ran to about six courses: soup, fish, entree, roast (or "joint" - no giggling), maybe another savory course (often a pudding), and dessert. As you'll notice, the entree wasn't the opening act. It was generally a "made" or highly prepared dish - possibly meat and vegetables, maybe sweetbreads or liver - as opposed to the more unadorned roast, but this distinction could be blurry; in the earliest use of entree cited by the Oxford English Dictionary, from 1759, the dish described is a roasted ham. So while one could argue that the entree was the last of the preliminaries, it seems equally defensible to see it as the entrance into a series of what we'd now call main courses. Under main course, in fact, the OED has "one of a number of substantial dishes in a large menu," and in most cases the entree was clearly substantial enough to qualify.

This interpretation prevailed in the U.S., where British conventions held sway, but as American menus became more streamlined in the early 20th century (old-school chefs were already griping about graceless, hurried modern dining as of 1905) some courses got the ax. The roast lost its automatic spot (possibly due in part to WWI meat rationing), the additional savory dish fell away, and soon enough the entree had gone from one of several main dishes to the last main dish standing.

drone

12-16-2009, 00:01

I love the Straight Dope. :2thumbsup:

Ituralde

12-17-2009, 16:52

A German supermarket once advertised a bag for sport clothing as "Bodybag", since "Body" (with y in plural) is "German" for a part of female clothing.

Another one is "aktuell" which means "up to date" in English which we always confuse with "actually" (tatsächlich).

Yeah that second one is a common mistake.

And for the first one. Germans just seem to love using English, but often don't bother to check whether they are using it correctly. Two examples that I just remembered.

1) "Baby an Board" This one is pure genius. I get "Baby on Board" which is the usual English phrase. And I would also understand "Baby an Bord" which would be the German phrase (yeah apparently we have no word for Baby). But mixing them up like that.

2) "World of Accessoires". Once again, Germans use the French word accessoire, while the correct English version would be "World of Accessories".

The Stranger

12-18-2009, 12:07

sounds kinda gay...

Viking

12-18-2009, 22:36

If I compare my language with English, I find alot of conformity. :yes:

dei - they
der - there
her - here (similar pronounciation)
da - that

Yet if words of the same meaning are nothing similar, they do rarely look like words of different meaning. The word "gift" is then an exception, since it just as in German means 'poison' in Norwegian.

Husar

12-19-2009, 03:07

(similar pronounciation)

For some silly reason I've never understood either it's actually "pronunciation". :shrug:

Viking

12-23-2009, 00:13

For some silly reason I've never understood either it's actually "pronunciation". :shrug:

Oh c'mon, this is not the "correct the poster above you" thread. :whip:

(otherwise the misspelling had anything to do with conflicts between languages :laugh4:)

Husar

12-23-2009, 01:11

Oh c'mon, this is not the "correct the poster above you" thread. :whip:

(otherwise the misspelling had anything to do with conflicts between languages :laugh4:)

I was actually correcting you AND sympathising with you at the same time because I find the correct spelling silly. :shrug:

Tellos Athenaios

12-23-2009, 06:52

Fisherking

12-23-2009, 09:37

Maybe I missed it but as to confusion from one language to another, why have none of the Germans listed become?

In German you would gladly become a steak but it may not be a good idea in English.

What many cite as a French influence in English is actually Latin. Norman French had an influence but most French is just borrowed words and the structure is more Latin.

English once had all of the cases and genders of German, as well as the assortment of ways to make a plural. I can’t say that it is bad that it has been streamlined.

It all dose make it more difficult for English speakers to master other languages, at least I think so.

My struggles with German are legion and I won’t even mention Bavarian...

Some of you have confused grammar with sentence structure. English is a very pliable language and it adds to its expressiveness. Nouns can be used as verbs and verbs can be used as nouns and make sense.

The vowels are problematic. Any one can sound like almost any other in a given word and the number of different accents don’t help that at all.

English has more sounds with fewer letters than most other languages and the use of diphthongs can cause problems for non native speakers.

But if you want a challenge you can try the oldest spoken language in Europe. The spelling scares the heck out of me and the pronunciation of letters needs to be relearned and more...

Try to learn Irish or as some would say Gaelic...
:laugh4:

Ituralde

12-23-2009, 15:50

Of course become is a classic. But at least it's one you learn about at school extensively.

And Gaelic really is scary. Just seeing the written word and then how it is pronounced astounds me every time!

Furunculus

12-23-2009, 17:22

TinCow

12-23-2009, 17:46

This is a very interesting conversation. It's a particularly odd one for me, because I put a great deal of effort into mastering the English language, but am very poor at speaking other languages. I very much agree that grammar is less important in English than in other languages, or at least in the Romance languages, which are the only other ones I am familiar with. There is a great deal of grammar in English, but most of it is not necessary. Even with improper grammar usage, it is very easy to understand what someone is saying.

One of the main differences, as far as I am aware, is the depth of the Enlish vocabulary. I have seen statistics indicating that English has approximately 3 times as many words as German and approximately 6 times as many words as French. In most other languages, words tend to be combined together to explain a more specific or nuanced concept. While this can also be done easily in English, most of these concepts seem to have their own very specific word as well. In my experience, what separates and experienced English speaker from an inexperienced speaker is not so much the grammar, but the depth of the vocabulary. Those who are considered 'expert' speakers of English tend to achieve that perception based on the words they use, not how they arrange them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2009, 03:21

Gift is probably Dutch, since in Dutch the meaning of “gift” depends on context. ‘Gift’ as poison in Dutch is more typically referred to as “vergif” or in older texts “vergift”, with gift as “gift” meaning a gift being the preferred use.

Old English, actually; very close to Old Dutch. When the two ceased to be mutually intelligable is debated.

Though, it is theoretically possible to strip out exteneous Romance words and Grammar, put on a Newcastle Dialect and then be understood by a Norwegian.

:inquisitive:

Fragony

12-24-2009, 16:00

Let me show you a fun one, also in the wisdom teeth thread.

wisdom teeth has to come from dutch, we say 'verstandskies' which would translate to wisdom teeth, but the proper name for these baby's is 'verre stand kies' which refers to it's position in the mouth, they are positioned far in the mouth thus 'verre stand'.

TA If you are looking for some truly hilarious dutch screw-ups buy 'I thank you from the bottom of my heart, and also my wives bottom'. Recommended to all flemish for obvious reasons. Most dutch aren't all that good in English, my favorite has to be a college professor telling a foreign student he was trying to lead them around the garden, got him a sausage 'worst teacher award' (worst is dutch for sausage)

ajaxfetish

12-24-2009, 22:17

Those who are considered 'expert' speakers of English tend to achieve that perception based on the words they use, not how they arrange them.

I think this is a good point. Pretty much every native speaker (except those with language disabilities) is going to arrange their words correctly. With the exception of a few prescriptive rules (unnecessary, as you pointed out), the most noticeable difference is likely to be word choice. With English's extensive borrowing from other languages, and its highly productive derivational system, we've got an awfully large set of words to choose from. Mastering the nuances of each term and reliably recalling the best word for each situation takes both talent and work.

Ajax

edit:

Even with improper grammar usage, it is very easy to understand what someone is saying.
This, on the other hand, I can't really agree with. If we take all the words in your post and arrange them without proper grammar usage, the result is incomprehensible, at least to me. I even kept each word in the same sentence to make it easier, but while I might get a vague idea of the topic from some of the words used, I wouldn't have a clue what was being said about it.

Conversation this is interesting very a. Me languages effort mastering but very am other it's particularly poor English the a a odd into for speaking put of deal I great because one at am language. Least am is grammar agree I than the which Romance other in very familiar with are languages languages I at in or in much ones only important English that less the other. In but necessary there grammar English is not great most is it a of deal of. Easy someone with is very improper grammar understand is what saying usage even to it.

Vocabulary differences aware depth English main far I is of the one as of am the the as. Times 6 as I indicating French German English approximately and 3 have approximately words seen many statistics has times many that as words as as. A to be to most or in more other languages combined words tend explain concept specific together nuanced. Have concepts this can in English specific their most easily also done be of seem word these while very as own to well. Separates experience English experienced speaker inexperienced in my grammar depth but what the vocabulary speaker from so much the an and is not of the. Considered to based words on 'expert' English achieve perception how those speakers of tend who use not arrange they the are that they them.

Tellos Athenaios

12-24-2009, 22:57

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

(Or more precisely: why does the cadence of the garbled post make me think of Scandinavian languages?)

Viking

12-25-2009, 00:34

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

(Or more precisely: why does the cadence of the garbled post make me think of Scandinavian languages?)

I can't think of any reason..

Fragony

12-25-2009, 00:39

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

Same reason I do, think of Scandinavian women all the time.

TinCow

12-25-2009, 00:46

This, on the other hand, I can't really agree with. If we take all the words in your post and arrange them without proper grammar usage, the result is incomprehensible, at least to me. I even kept each word in the same sentence to make it easier, but while I might get a vague idea of the topic from some of the words used, I wouldn't have a clue what was being said about it.

LOL, you've got me there. Clearly there are some levels of grammatical butchery which make English essentially incomprehensible. What I was imagining were the numerous grammatical errors which are common in people who are still in the early phases of learning or who have otherwise not learned the language properly. It seems like it would be almost impossible to know enough English words to actually use the proper ones, yet know so little of the structure that you speak gibberish. The paragraph you altered seems like something that would only be encountered in someone who had suffered damage to the language section of the brain, not something that would ever be encountered in an otherwise normal person.

That said, I don't have a lot of experience to base any of this on. One of my friends teaches adult literacy, and he's told me about some amazing difficulties that his students encounter which are almost inconceivable for those of us who learned to read when we were young.

ajaxfetish

12-25-2009, 01:16

The paragraph you altered seems like something that would only be encountered in someone who had suffered damage to the language section of the brain, not something that would ever be encountered in an otherwise normal person.
Very true. You're really only ever going to run into that kind of serious grammatical deficiency in people who never learned a first language (deaf people not exposed to signing until teenagers or later, abused children isolated until the same age), people who've suffered strokes or otherwise damaged the language-related parts of the brain, and people with (probably heritable) language impairments.

What I was imagining were the numerous grammatical errors which are common in people who are still in the early phases of learning or who have otherwise not learned the language properly.
I know what you mean here, but I'd argue that those aren't errors, but features of non-standard dialects/ideolects. When it comes to language, the early phases of learning are 1.5 to 2.5 years. By 3 years old, the grammar is pretty much known. Rules that have to be drilled later are not a part of the language itself, but artificial add-ons. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not important to observe them in certain social settings, because a lot of how we judge people depends on whether they've learned those little add-ons.

Ajax

Louis VI the Fat

12-25-2009, 01:32

TA If you are looking for some truly hilarious dutch screw-ups buy 'I thank you from the bottom of my heart, and also my wives bottom'. This calls for the classic:

https://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4933/skieurs.jpg

Then again, from what we've learned of ski-instructors, for all we know it isn't a mistaken translation.

Marie qui se masse, all the world! :beam:

Subotan

12-25-2009, 02:07

It all dose make it more difficult for English speakers to master other languages, at least I think so.

It's a cultural thing rather than an actual language thing. We seem to take genuine pride in what is actually a national embarrassment; namely, our amazingly poor language skills.

My struggles with German are legion

Der den dem des
Die die der der
Das das dem des
Die die denr der
:wall::wall:

I won’t even mention Bavarian...

"Habèderè, i bî da Pèda und kimm vo Minga"
:dizzy2:

Try to learn Irish or as some would say Gaelic...
It's impossible and pointless. The word order is way more screwed up than in German. Although it is funny having to explain to Germans that Welsh is no mere dialect of English, and then having to show them some Welsh to prove it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-25-2009, 03:10

It's a cultural thing rather than an actual language thing. We seem to take genuine pride in what is actually a national embarrassment; namely, our amazingly poor language skills.

This is true, but with 6-10 times the vocabulary as other languages, and the need to master complex syntax in order to have the flexability of an inflected language. So, a native speaker probably uses more brain-space for his first language if that language is English.

It's impossible and pointless. The word order is way more screwed up than in German. Although it is funny having to explain to Germans that Welsh is no mere dialect of English, and then having to show them some Welsh to prove it.

I understand Welsh sounds like a Scandanavian Language to Germans, apparently.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

12-25-2009, 03:28

It's a cultural thing rather than an actual language thing. We seem to take genuine pride in what is actually a national embarrassment; namely, our amazingly poor language skills.

Der den dem des
Die die der der
Das das dem des
Die die denr der
:wall::wall:

"Habèderè, i bî da Pèda und kimm vo Minga"
:dizzy2:

It's impossible and pointless. The word order is way more screwed up than in German. Although it is funny having to explain to Germans that Welsh is no mere dialect of English, and then having to show them some Welsh to prove it.
Where are you from? Because I always thought you were Bavarian... :sweatdrop:

Fragony

12-25-2009, 10:37

This calls for the classic:

https://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4933/skieurs.jpg

Then again, from what we've learned of ski-instructors, for all we know it isn't a mistaken translation.

Marie qui se masse, all the world! :beam:

The best is found in a bathroom in Thailand 'to avoid drip turn cock', can't find pic sadly

A recent classic, Oogheelkunde naturally means Eyehealing

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/mevrouwikzieniks.jpg

Subotan

12-25-2009, 23:06

This is true, but with 6-10 times the vocabulary as other languages, and the need to master complex syntax in order to have the flexability of an inflected language. So, a native speaker probably uses more brain-space for his first language if that language is English.
What is "brain-space"? And besides, those could easily be turned on their head, as by already having this huge vocabulary, we don't need to memorize whole sets of foreign synonyms.

I understand Welsh sounds like a Scandanavian Language to Germans, apparently.
Haha, that's actually funny. When I showed my exchange partner Welsh, she was visibly shaken.

Where are you from? Because I always thought you were Bavarian... :sweatdrop:
I wish. I'm from Lancashire.

Kadagar_AV

12-29-2009, 01:37

Louis,
Then again, from what we've learned of ski-instructors, for all we know it isn't a mistaken translation.

I'd say the chance is 50/50 :laugh4:

Centurio Nixalsverdrus,
Habèderè, i bî da Pèda und kimm vo Minga

I have spent way to much time among hillbilly germans... I actually have no problem understanding that... :shame:

One word that always irritated me is smell. For me it feels very unnatural to use the same word for something that can go both ways, smells good, smells bad. I know you can specify it, however, most English people don't.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-29-2009, 01:46

One word that always irritated me is smell. For me it feels very unnatural to use the same word for something that can go both ways, smells good, smells bad. I know you can specify it, however, most English people don't.

It's exactly the same for a sight or sound though, isn't it?

Kadagar_AV

12-29-2009, 02:03

It's exactly the same for a sight or sound though, isn't it?

sound yes, but not sight... Guess it is because sounds and smells can be pleasing or not, while sights rarely actually affect you much physicly.

*except for women* :beam:

InsaneApache

12-29-2009, 03:05

One word in English that sounds ridiculous, to me at least, is spoon. Just keep saying it over and over again out loud.

....and no, I'm not drunk. :laugh4:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-29-2009, 03:13

sound yes, but not sight... Guess it is because sounds and smells can be pleasing or not, while sights rarely actually affect you much physicly.

*except for women* :beam:

You're wrong, "that's a sight" can be negative or positive, just like a smell or sound; it needs to be qualified in exactly the same way, "That's a horrible sight" or "that's a fine sight".

See.

Kadagar_AV

12-29-2009, 05:38

You're wrong, "that's a sight" can be negative or positive, just like a smell or sound; it needs to be qualified in exactly the same way, "That's a horrible sight" or "that's a fine sight".

See.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Yes, a sight can of course also be "good" or "bad".

However, sights dont have the same physical impact as smells and noises.

A sight you usually need to explain more vividly than a smell. If something smells bad, it's enough to say that it smells bad and people will get your point.

Bad smell - physicly affects your nose...
Bad noise - physicly affects your ears...

But a sight? It isnt hurting the eyes. Thus you need to be more elaborate when you describe it...

I guess that is the reason why we lack a word for "bad" sight, while we have it for smells and noise.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-29-2009, 14:07

I think I didn't explain well enough. Yes, a sight can of course also be "good" or "bad".

However, sights dont have the same physical impact as smells and noises.

A sight you usually need to explain more vividly than a smell. If something smells bad, it's enough to say that it smells bad and people will get your point.

Bad smell - physicly affects your nose...
Bad noise - physicly affects your ears...

But a sight? It isnt hurting the eyes. Thus you need to be more elaborate when you describe it...

I guess that is the reason why we lack a word for "bad" sight, while we have it for smells and noise.

Ah, I see. Well we have "stink" and "stench" there, a "smell" is just a verbal noun.

Ironside

12-30-2009, 11:06

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

(Or more precisely: why does the cadence of the garbled post make me think of Scandinavian languages?)

Most likely is that it reminds you of the parodied versions they have in English speaking media.

The only thing I can think of is that scandinavian grammar is often the same as the English one, but using constant direct translations would occationally give sentences with odd grammar.

Kralizec

12-31-2009, 14:12

One mistake in English I often seem to make is forgetting the extra O in, for example, "too large". Or misspelling a word in English because the same word exists in Dutch but with a slightly different spelling, like succes(s). Kind of embarrassing. When I found out that mafia is spelled with only one "f" in English, it killed me ~:mecry:

As for grammar, I probably wouldn't be able to explain basic grammar rules in either English or Dutch even if my life depended on it. Generally speaking, I instinctively apply them the right way...or not.

Let me show you a fun one, also in the wisdom teeth thread.

wisdom teeth has to come from dutch, we say 'verstandskies' which would translate to wisdom teeth, but the proper name for these baby's is 'verre stand kies' which refers to it's position in the mouth, they are positioned far in the mouth thus 'verre stand'.

TA If you are looking for some truly hilarious dutch screw-ups buy 'I thank you from the bottom of my heart, and also my wives bottom'. Recommended to all flemish for obvious reasons. Most dutch aren't all that good in English, my favorite has to be a college professor telling a foreign student he was trying to lead them around the garden, got him a sausage 'worst teacher award' (worst is dutch for sausage)

Teh wiki (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstandskies#Naam) disagrees with you...