|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 30, 2019 13:27:50 GMT
G'day, Dave :-) Good to see you here.
There appears to be a logic to the naming hierarchy you described, but I'm not aware that it operates in Oz; I shall have to check further.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Aug 31, 2019 16:06:41 GMT
I had never appreciated how difficult the contractions we customarily use in spoken English must be for learners of the language until I came across this video intended for speakers of other languages — m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt6RUH1OvKwAs English speakers, you will learn nothing except, perhaps, how complicated it really is. You can skip the first couple of minutes of introduction intended for learners.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Sept 1, 2019 5:02:24 GMT
You’re right, ljh: we learn to use some quite complex patterns “correctly”, without appreciating what those patterns are.
I noted that the presenter pronounced “they’re” exactly as “their” and “you’re” exactly as “your”. That’s fair enough, as that’s the default day-to-day pronunciation. It’s a rare and precise speaker who will go for “they-uh” and “you-uh”. I was taken aback, then, to hear her pronounce “I’d” as “Eye-ud”. I’ve never heard anyone do that! Or, rather, if they did, I’d take it that they’d said “I had” or “I would”, rather blurredly, and would transcribe it as that, rather than writing the contraction.
|
|