English words that conflict with your language.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Ferret

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

---

Probably because that means something else, 'they are' ;)

Yeah, lots of native english speakers also mess up then and than.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Probably because that means something else, 'they are' ;)

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Ferret

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.

---

Just teasing ya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Ferret

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.

---

They don't actually sound the same in most dialects. Their and There are inflected slightly differently, They're is actually pronounced very differently.

Here they are all said exactly the same :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They don't actually sound the same in most dialects. Their and There are inflected slightly differently, They're is actually pronounced very differently.

---

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.

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

edit, oh spoken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

"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:

me speak right. yall just wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

me speak right. yall'r jus' wrong

---

amended.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

About half of this language confuses me.

Spanish is so much simpler

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:

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...

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:

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:

U am da bestest at grammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Ferret

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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?

:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

[*]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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

*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.

Gaol?

Seriously, what is that!

Guernsey?

What. the. hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

*English grammar is just as complex as that of any human language.

---

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

*almost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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

*almost

---

What's your point?

Ajax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

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").

"Drunk Cherokee"

"Frat boy with homosexual tendencies"

"Bingo players in sweatpants"

No, wait, those are redundancies, never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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.

Damn you all to infernity!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Ferret

Here they are all said exactly the same :shrug:

---

Same here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

(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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CCRunner

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

---

Always keep an eye on the accent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CCRunner

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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:

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:

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

Quote:

---

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

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Ferret

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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.

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

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.

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

Ajax

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.

*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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

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:

Quote:

---

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? ) 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





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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

---

I love the Straight Dope. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

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".