LauraM

The quotation marks always go after the period at the end of a sentence. Likewise, they will go after a coma or a semicolon. So it would be written this way: He said, "I love America." Also: He said, "I love America," but he refused to say more. He said," I love America;" his friend said nothing. I have seen it written incorrectly from time to time, and this adds to the confusion over the correct form; people don't always know which one is correct.

I first started learning Spanish when I was around 15 or so; I was in 10th grade in high school in the U.S. Foreign language was optional and I was glad for the opportunity. Classroom study was very helpful for the basics of vocabulary and grammar, but I was motivated to do a lot of self-study and immersion to the extent that I could, as I did not have a chance in those days to visit or spend time in a Spanish speaking country. I did a lot of reading on my own, and I also listened to radio and watched TV in Spanish as much as possible. It was later in college that I had more of an opportunity to delve into the language, with literature courses as well as living in the Spanish language dorm for a year. I was fluent by this time, but over the years I did not maintain it. I have a lot of relearning to do!

I agree. Rihanna could have taken her style cues from Princess Diana and commended her for them without calling her "gangsta!" I've noticed lately that people sometimes use this word as a compliment especially when it's clear that the person who is being complimented is anything but "gangsta." It comes across to me as a trivialization of the word "gangsta" and suggests that the speaker needs a bigger vocabulary so as to be more precise and expressive. Even a bigger slang vocabulary! But I think what's really happening here is that the meaning of the term is evolving and broadening from its original definition and it's being applied in ways that it wouldn't have been originally. Which begs the question, of course, if someone really is gangsta, what can we call them, since supposedly Princess Diana was gangsta!

Thanks for sharing the web comic. I like the writer's way of coping with seeing grammatical errors and spelling errors and not getting upset about them. It is quite frustrating to see the same errors over and over. It makes me think the whole society is devolving into illiteracy! Thinking of "alot" as a creature is very amusing. I think this will work for me, too. The next time I see that misspelling I'll remember that cute creature! Thanks also for your explanation of why it is "a lot" and not the misspelling. You're so right. We would never say "abunch."

I agree completely. For me that's part of the pleasure and the intrigue in learning another language. I have a passion for history and culture anyway and so it's not a stretch for me. If anything, it might even be the opposite for me; being so fascinated with the culture and the traditions, that the logical and natural progression would be to learn the language. Long before I studied German I had an interest in German opera, in part because I had grown up hearing opera; Italian and French opera as well. My parents were opera buffs and it was much more likely to hear opera playing in the house than pop music. So as a consequence I was fascinated by these languages -- German in particular -- from constantly hearing opera and from learning about the composers and the historical details about the culture and historical settings of opera. So yes, it's always been that way for me. A language is deeply intertwined with creative expression and traditions of a culture and society.

There are so many idioms in English that make reference to fish and/or to fishing. I was realizing this from reading one of our previous threads -- "More Fish in the Sea" which you can see here: http://linguaholic.com/english-idioms/more-fish-in-the-sea-d/ Those idioms were focused primarily on dating. But beyond dating there a many other idioms with fish, and other creatures of the sea; whales, oysters, eels, etc. Likewise, the profession or pastime of fishing has been the subject of many idioms. Here are some that I thought of. Fishing Idioms in the English language "Fish out of water" -- meaning someone feels out of place, and/or is in an unfamiliar environment. "She was born and raised in New York City and was a fish out of water when she spent a week at her cousin's horse farm in Kentucky." "Shooting fish in a barrel" -- something that is very easy to do or effortless. "He is a champion marathon runner; competing in a 10 mile run and winning was like shooting fish in a barrel." "Fish or cut bait" -- do something or avoid getting in the way of others. It can also mean make a decision and act accordingly. "We have to finish this report in an hour. Are you going to fish or cut bait?" Please add to the list.

I would not want to see a homogenization of cultures and society for the sake of knowing a common language. But it would be ideal if we all retained the knowledge and proficiency of our respective native languages, and yet had a common language that we knew and could also speak. English, as an example, could be that language. But this is not likely to happen as it takes time and effort to learn a language, and people have to be highly motivated to learn. Either that, or take it in school when it is mandatory, but again there must be sufficient motivation to be able to excel and not just scrape by to meet a requirement.

Yes, I agree an interesting topic for sure. It's so hard to have a perspective on English when you're a native speaker. It terms of the sound of spoken English in comparison to other languages, I always thought that many other languages sounded better than English. The romance languages in particular as they are so mellifluous compared to English. But for me this is overridden by the emotional comfort of knowing and being able to speak my native language and feeling more confident that I could fully express my thoughts. So in that sense, if anything, I might find I like English even more just because of that feeling of comfort and familiarity.

Alot vs. a lot Yes, this is a classic case of misspelling. It's one of those words that gets misspelled so often one can easily get the impression that there are actually two different -- and correct -- ways to spell it. But that's not the case. As the others on this thread have said, the correct spelling is "a lot." There is also a verb, "allot" which means to divide, or to give out, or to distribute. As in, "His schedule was busy so he could only allot a few minutes to answer questions."

Absolutely. I agree. That is such rude and inconsiderate behavior. Very inappropriate, especially in a work setting. As for my own experience of not speaking the language as well as I wanted to, I remember several years ago when I had a job interview and the position I was applying for gave preference to bilingual Spanish-English speakers, although being bilingual was not an absolute requirement. I thought I would give speaking Spanish a try. I was feeling bold that day. Being that it was a job interview, I was a bit nervous from the outset -- job interviews in one's native language are tough enough after all! -- and then having to speak Spanish during part of the interview so that the interviewer could assess my level of proficiency made me even more nervous. So I felt disappointed that I didn't do better. But the interviewer was very kind and understanding. I didn't get the job, but I did wind up feeling better because I could see she appreciated that I had made the effort. Ultimately, it was a positive experience.

The English language has many idioms that involve animals in some way. Some of them are quite colorful. What are some of the ones you have heard of and that are your favorites? Here are a few for starters. "The lion's share" -- The larger or better part of something. "He got the lion's share of the attention at the party." "Let sleeping dogs lie" -- Avoid starting trouble, or leave something as it is. "He was going to bring up the topic at the meeting, but he decided to let sleeping dogs lie." "Let the cat out of the bag" -- Telling a secret. "We weren't going to announce the trip, but my cousin let the cat out of the bag." Please add to the list!

Thank you! I find this forum that you have created to be an inspiration! We have so many engaging and fascinating discussions here at linguaholic.com. Great responses right here. I think it's interesting that we've had a few people mention Harry Potter. I can see the appeal. As there were so many books in the series we got a chance to really get to know the character and to see him growing up before our very eyes. He and the other recurring characters are always so familiar, yet they inhabit a world where the magical elements are taken as given, and they are constantly drawn into circumstances we the readers would never experience. And yet we are drawn into that other world little by little as we keep reading. I think that's kind of like the language learning process itself; it allows us to glimpse and to take part in another world, little by little and more and more as we become more proficient.

Yes, accents. Very interesting! That article goes a long way towards demonstrating how and why sign language is a real language in every sense that we think of spoken languages as real. It's particularly fascinating what it has to say about how some native deaf signers, as they are called, can identify whether or not another signer as a fellow native deaf signer, and that they can figure out if someone is deaf or hearing, just by how they sign. It says some of them can also figure out if someone is an interpreter or a "post-lingual learner." This makes complete sense, as someone who is deaf and whose only means of communicating is with sign language -- thus a native speaker -- would have had an entirely different life experience from someone who learned sign language later in life, perhaps as a hearing person with an interest in sign language, or perhaps as someone who became deaf or hard of hearing later in life and had to learn sign language out of necessity. I see this as essentially the same experience we would have in learning a foreign language later in life out of personal interest or necessity; for instance, we moved to a country where the language is spoken or we needed it for a job.

Yes, I agree. Comparing humans' worst behavior to animals is actually an insult to the animals! But the underlying intent of all these terms -- buffalo, dogs, etc. -- I think is really to convey our frustration and disappointment with such people. It can be really harsh. Perhaps the person in question really does have some developmental difficulties or perhaps for some reason is incapable of the task. Yet on the other hand, sometimes this kind of behavior is negative and willful. A person might be purposefully stubborn and uncooperative, for example. That's another story altogether, I think. There are some colorful expressions for that that don't involve animals. "Stick in the mud" or "fuddy-duddy" for example for someone who is stubborn and not willing to change. Or if somebody doesn't listen, we might say talking to him is "like talking to a brick wall." But they are probably not used as much as some of the more insulting terms that often involve animals.

Yes, indeed. American Sign Language (ASL) is the dominate language and there are regional differences worldwide. And as to the original question, yes, sign language is not only another language, but as with spoken languages, it carries with it cultural and social traditions. For someone who wishes to learn sign language and to become really immersed in the language, it can be a similar experience as with spoken languages. It can become a gateway to deaf culture and society. There are also lots of resources on sign language on the Internet especially for American Sign Language (ASL); all kinds of tutorials and study guides, etc.

"That" and "which" seem very similar and it may seem difficult to determine which to use. But fortunately, there are rules to guide us. "That" is used with restrictive clauses. "Which" is used with non-restrictive causes and are separated from the rest of the sentence with commas. Let's start with "that." A restrictive clause is so named because it restricts or limits the meaning. Here are some examples: The house that is around the corner is for sale. The books that are on the top shelf are rare first editions. The road that divides the town needs to be repaved. In each case, the subjects of these sentences are limited or restricted. The house is specifically the house "around the corner" and so on. If a sentence has a non-restrictive clause that means it tells us something about the subject, but it is not essential to know. So we can take those same sentences and reconstruct them with non-essential clauses. We would then use "which." We also separate the non-restrictive phrases with commas. The house, which was built in the 1930s, is for sale. The books, which were owned by a famous actress, are rare first editions. The road, which was originally a dirt road, needs to be repaved. In each sentence above, "which" precedes a clause that tells us some details about the subject, but that are not essential to know. Can you think of some sentences using "which" and "that?"

I see this as an issue of clarity in meaning. As such, I think "another 2 beers" is an awkward construction. I don't think it's incorrect, per se, but it does sound a bit awkward and thus, there is some ambiguity in the meaning. It would be more descriptive and less awkward to say "We drank 2 more beers before going home." This is substituting "2 more" for "another 2" which I think sounds better. To really pin down the meaning it could be: "Each of us drank 2 more beers before going home." Or "Between all of us we drank 2 more beers before going home." In the latter case, it makes it clear that the 2 beers were shared among the group. I hope this is helpful and makes sense.

Unfortunately this is becoming a trend. It's important to learn these basics of grammar, punctuation and spelling. You can't be freed up to be creative in writing if you don't know these fundamentals. Relying on spell checkers and autocomplete is just not the same. And beyond that, it's terrible for students to be robbed of the opportunity to learn from mistakes and failure. This is crucial for development as a human being. We learn the most from our mistakes. And learning that failure is a teacher, not something to be feared, is extremely important. It's so detrimental to the students in the long run when they are treated so indulgently.

In American English "shall" is rarely used in everyday speech. It comes across as very formal, and even old fashioned if you were to use it in conversation. You would say "I will go to the library tomorrow" not "I shall go to the library tomorrow." "Shall" is occasionally heard to express strong intent, with either the first person singular or plural, i.e. the "I" or "we" pronoun but especially with the plural, "we." As in: "We shall remain unwavering in our commitment." Occasionally "shall" is used as an expression of politeness, as in "Shall we dance?" But by and large you just don't hear "shall" in everyday language in American English.

bell hooks is a woman, actually. And not surprisingly for someone who writes her name in lower case, she's known for being an outspoken social critic and activist as well as an author. I don't have any book recommendations per se but she has written numerous nonfiction books on issues of race, class, feminism, culture, etc. So it's a matter of checking out a bibliography and finding a title that sounds appealing.

Yes, those last sentences do need commas. The third sentence is a singular subject -- "a boy" -- and it's modified with that descriptive clause-- "along with two girls" -- so it takes a singular verb "is." That way you have subject-verb agreement.

Yes, unfortunately that is what's happening in the U.S. at least in the public schools. Cursive writing is being eliminated. I did have a chance to learn it when I was in elementary school. I think it's an important skill to have. My handwriting isn't all that great, and I tend to print when someone else has to read it. But having the skill of a "fast longhand" is very handy for jotting down notes.

I have enjoyed reading poetry for years, ever since I was a teenager. Some of my favorite poets include the "confessional" poets of the 1960s, especially Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton. I also like the poetry of Jean Valentine and W.S. Merwin. As for the classic poets, Emily Dickinson is my favorite.

I can relate to this. It's another example of an overuse -- and frankly, misuse -- of superlatives. Such words really should be reserved for situations that call for them; something or someone that truly is "gorgeous." I mentioned earlier that one of my pet peeves is the overuse of "awesome" which is again is a superlative that gets used to describe circumstances that are not really "awesome." I would describe a total solar eclipse as "awesome," for example, if I saw one. That would be awesome! So one has to wonder what do people who overuse these superlatives say when something really does deserve a superlative. Probably something along the lines of "super gorgeous" or "mega gorgeous" I guess!

It's not surprising that capitalization sparks such discussion. I think it's a worthwhile discussion. We've had so many such discussions here at this forum. As we know, language usage and rules do change over time. Just think of hundreds of years ago, of the English language of Shakespeare's time or that of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. It's quite different from modern usage. And these days, the changes in language are driven in some part by the Internet. We have situations in which we sometimes can't capitalize. Sometimes user names that we adopt on various sites we might have online are either not case sensitive or they default to lower case. So if you wanted your user name to be "Mark" for instance, you would have to settle for "mark" instead which might be confused with other uses of the word. But on the other hand on the Internet we know what happens if you do just the opposite. If you use ALL CAPS that is considered shouting, and people don't like it. So we know to use all capital letters sparingly for occasional emphasis. For non-native speakers of English who are learning grammar and grammar rules -- or for that matter, for native speakers as well -- it's important to know the current rules and usage as there will be times when it is crucial, such as in the example that zambothegreat pointed out. If you are sending out a resume or a letter of intent you will want to make sure your capitalization, spelling and grammar are impeccable. So whether we conform or not, it's helpful to know the actual rules. This is a great guide for capitalization usage: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/index.php?category_id=2&sub_category_id=1&article_id=42 Bending the rules of capitalization can spark reactions and it can set you apart. There have been writers and other public figures who, for instance, don't capitalize their names or who otherwise adopt a stylized spelling. The writer bell hooks, for example. Also, the band fun. not only does not capitalize their name but they add a period at the end so their preferred spelling is "fun." rather than "Fun" as we would expect it to be.