Unconventional English ?

[kirei_na_me]

Yeah, kind of. It depends on the situation, I think. I know if something is in the backyard, and I'm telling someone--who is in the front with me--where that something is, I'll say "such and such is around back" or "such and such is in the back".

 

[jeisan]

Well, I know they sound right to you, as they are coorect in American English (only) and you are American. Here is what a Briton would say :

"different from/to", instead of "different than"

My Oxford dictionary explains than all 3 (from, to, than) are correct, though there is a slight nuance between them. "From" is usually considered the most "correct", and "than", which is often criticised, is restricted to North America.

"We agree", instead of "we are agreed"
"Agree" cannot be used as a passive, as you are not agreed by someone.

"I've just done it", instead of "I just did it"
"You have already told me", instead of "You already told me"

More generally, the present perfect tense in British English always has a connection with the present. It is used to mean that an action continues "until now" and in a period of time that is not yet finished (today, this week, this year, this afternoon if we are still the afternoon...) or with words like "recently, so far, since, for" and so on, that have a connection with the present.
As a rule, it's "always" the present perfect with the words "just, already and yet".

There are other slight grammatical difference between AmE and BrE. For instance, Americans say "on the street", while Brits say "in the street" (what about Canadians, Aussies and others here on the forum ?)

interesting, thanks. though "different to" just sounds wrong to me. what about "i agree" since for some reason "i am agreed" sounds like theres more than one of me. another thing is we (americans, not sure about BE) use agreed as the past tense of agree, so that may be part reason for the american usage.

I acknowledge that you can say "in front of the inn" (meaning "outside"), because the expression is "in front of", but I had never heard of "in back of", as the opposite of "in front of" is "behind". When it's inside, a cinema (=>BrE for "movie theater") for example, you can sit "in the front" or "in the back".
However, for a car, I'd say "sit at the front/back" and you'd certainly write an address "on the front/back" of the envelope. But that's another issue.

i think 'in back' is a more logical opposite to 'in front' than 'behind' in most cases. the only time i would really take issue with it is when it used in reference to a person. "there is a car in back of me" sounds completly wrong and even worse if 'the' is added. it also depends on what preposition is used 'in' versus 'on' you can also say out front/back and in the top/bottom. movie theaters are the same for me, though for a car i'd sit in the frontseat or the backseat.

Well, for me that's completely wrong , but if they let you speak like this in the great country of liberties, then so be it.

while that certainly isn't the best way to phrase it, it's not neccesarily wrong. i had to think abit before i could come up with something without 'the' or 'time' in it.

 

[Elizabeth]

what about "i agree" since for some reason "i am agreed" sounds like theres more than one of me. another thing is we (americans, not sure about BE) use agreed as the past tense of agree, so that may be part reason for the american usage.

Maybe "I am agreed" is more of a direct German translation, I'm not sure -- something like "How goes it?", which can be understood but isn't really standard in modern English. We are agreed or I am agreed sounds vaguely legalese to me, though, like agreeing to terms of a contract, notice or such.

i think 'in back' is a more logical opposite to 'in front' than 'behind' in most cases. the only time i would really take issue with it is when it used in reference to a person. "there is a car in back of me" sounds completly wrong and even worse if 'the' is added. it also depends on what preposition is used 'in' versus 'on' you can also say out front/back and in the top/bottom. movie theaters are the same for me, though for a car i'd sit in the frontseat or the backseat.

I don't think it's necessarily a human/non-human distinction, since you don't generally say in back of the tree or in back of the plant. Back behind is OK if you're talking about a large span of something or object completely hidden by another. I don't know, back or in back sounds like it could be further distant than behind, but I wouldn't say "there is a car in back of me" if you are also in a car is particularly peculiar, either. Maybe I do prefer Japanese afterall

 

[jeisan]

Maybe "I am agreed" is more of a direct German translation, I'm not sure -- something like "How goes it?", which can be understood but isn't really standard in modern English. We are agreed or I am agreed sounds vaguely legalese to me, though, like agreeing to terms of a contract, notice or such.

i agree you're probably right, the other forms are more formal and most likey used for documents and such but not really for everyday speech.

I don't think it's necessarily a human/non-human distinction, since you don't generally say in back of the tree or in back of the plant. Back behind is OK if you're talking about a large span of something or object completely hidden by another. I don't know, back or in back sounds like it could be further distant than behind, but I wouldn't say "there is a car in back of me" if you are also in a car is particularly peculiar, either. Maybe I do prefer Japanese afterall

yeah. now that you meantion it, i think its more of a living/non-living distinction. its all very subtle i would never have noticed or thought about any of the differences had maciamo not brought up this subject.

on another note, i'd say americans are alot more relaxed about their speech than brits. which i think is more fun and makes the language more colorful and supple. also i beleive it helps with our understanding of others speaking english, even if they are foreign. i know in japan they have subtitles for people from different regions and gaijin speaking japanese. occaisionaly you see a show with subtitles for non-native english speakers, you only very rarely see a show in the states that uses subtitles for british, irish or australian speakers, and never for other americans. im curious about anyone elses thoughts on this.

 

[Maciamo]

Maybe "I am agreed" is more of a direct German translation, I'm not sure -- something like "How goes it?", which can be understood but isn't really standard in modern English.

I think there are many translations in German depending on the situation, but they are mostly verbs. So I don't think there is a connection with German.

However, in Latin languages, "agree" is an adjective, not a verb. French would say "je suis d'accord", Italians "sono d'accordo" and Spanish speakers "estoy de acuerdo". They translate as "I am in agreement (with you)", and thus, lots of speakers of Latin languages would mistakenly say "I am agree(d)" instead of "I agree". I guess the large number of Latin languages speakers in the USA (Spanish-speakers in the South-West, Italians in NEW York, Chicago, etc., French-speakers in Louisiana or Vermont + all mixed immigrant from Europe or Latin America) explains how Americans have come to use "I am agreed".

I read that Americans have seen their grammar simplified because of the huge number of non-native English-speaker immigrants, that couldn't cope with the subtilities of the present perfect, for instance. That's also why Americans have developed simplified spellings such as "nite" for "night", "lite" for "light" or "thru" for "through", though the original spelling is still considered better - more formal.

Other spelling differences with BrE like "color/colour", "theater/theatre", "organize/organise" or "plow/plough" are not due to immigrants, but to the work of early Americans, notably Noah Webster, who wanted to distinguish AmE from the Queen's English after the Independence.

 

[Elizabeth]

I think there are many translations in German depending on the situation, but they are mostly verbs. So I don't think there is a connection with German.

However, in Latin languages, "agree" is an adjective, not a verb. French would say "je suis d'accord", Italians "sono d'accordo" and Spanish speakers "estoy de acuerdo". They translate as "I am in agreement (with you)", and thus, lots of speakers of Latin languages would mistakenly say "I am agree(d)" instead of "I agree". I guess the large number of Latin languages speakers in the USA (Spanish-speakers in the South-West, Italians in NEW York, Chicago, etc., French-speakers in Louisiana or Vermont + all mixed immigrant from Europe or Latin America) explains how Americans have come to use "I am agreed".

Something I found online re this intransitive shift.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agreed

 

[jeisan]

i have another one for you maciamo. though you might already know as youve spent some time in aussie land. 'shout' is a verb in austalian. meaning to pay for.
ex.
i'll shout you for lunch.
will you shout me for dinner.
i shouted her 3 times last week.

 

[Maciamo]

=> Jeisan

Yes, that is Australian English, but what's the connection with the grammatical discussion we were having before ?

"to shout" is a verb in every form of English, so far as I know. Differences in meaning are common in regional Englishes, be them local British English or between countries like Australia, the US, Singapore, India... but grammar is supposed to remain the same.

 

[jeisan]

yeah but its meaning and use are different than the norm. ive never heard it used that way in america. i was thinking if someone just read it or heard it without knowing how its used would think it fairly wrong and bad english, when its perfectly acceptable. unconventioal english.

jerry o'connell had a problem with it when he was filming 'kangaroo jack.' he never grasped the sense of the word as the aussies use it. the result was he thought the aussies were nuts for asking him to shout (at) them all the time, while they thought he was a cheapass.