Four ways to say what you really mean.

[two_heads_talking]

While perusing MSN, I found this article.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=SayWhatYouMean&GT1=27004

I found it a good reminder for both writing and public speaking. (at least for writing out your speaches..) I also found that in reading it, it brought to light correct listening. Hearing the differences and knowing exactly what is being said. Such as knowing that Could've or Should've or Would've are actually could have, should have or would have and not could of.. This point was roughly bounced around on the Shout screen for those that might have missed it.

Anyways, enjoy.

[vkladchik]

Could've or Should've or Would've are actually could have, should have or would have and not could of.

One place the Americans and the Brits (et al Commonwealthers) split is in their analysis of the apostrophe-D in "I'd rather"--Americans think it's "I would rather" while Brits think it's "I had rather." I wonder which is correct.

As for writing style, this is the Mecca I pray to five times a day.

[two_heads_talking]

One place the Americans and the Brits (et al Commonwealthers) split is in their analysis of the apostrophe-D in "I'd rather"--Americans think it's "I would rather" while Brits think it's "I had rather." I wonder which is correct..

I'd think it depends on context.. Because no matter what part of Britain you live in, there is no way you'd say this sentence would be, "I had think it depends," or "you had say this." Silly Brits.. They just like to be different.

Now if I remember correctly, "I'd rather do it now", would be, "I would rather do it now." Where "I'd rather not have done it." would be "I had rather not have done it." perhaps I am wrong.

[ニッキー]

One place the Americans and the Brits (et al Commonwealthers) split is in their analysis of the apostrophe-D in "I'd rather"--Americans think it's "I would rather" while Brits think it's "I had rather." I wonder which is correct..

I'd think it depends on context.. Because no matter what part of Britain you live in, there is no way you'd say this sentence would be, "I had think it depends," or "you had say this." Silly Brits.. They just like to be different.

Now if I remember correctly, "I'd rather do it now", would be, "I would rather do it now." Where "I'd rather not have done it." would be "I had rather not have done it." perhaps I am wrong.

Well, I'm British and "I had rather" just sounds silly to me. It's always "I would rather" for me.

[chikara]

One place the Americans and the Brits (et al Commonwealthers) split is in their analysis of the apostrophe-D in "I'd rather"--Americans think it's "I would rather" while Brits think it's "I had rather." I wonder which is correct. .....

As a "Commonwealther" I have always taken "I'd rather" to be "I would rather" and I have also assumed that my audience would take it the same way.

Take the common saying "I'd rather eat my own vomit". "I had" makes no sense in that context.

On the other hand "I'd better" is a contraction of "I had better".

[vkladchik]

Well, maybe there's some kind of translatlantic (transpacific) linguistic conversion going on.

Technically, I think "had rather" is historically correct, since here "had" isn't past tense but rather some kind of subjunctive (cf. Spanish "quisiera"). You see this kind of thing in the King James Bible. Also in Puritan hortative names, like: Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon (son of Praise-God Barebone*).

In modern English, his, um, middle name (?) would be "If Jesus Christ hadn't died for you, you would have been damned." This "would have" sense of "had" has disappeared from modern English, however, so "I had rather" does sound ungrammatical to our ears.

* Who says English names don't mean anything? Reminds me of the scene in Pulp Fiction when Esmeralda the sultry Columbian taxi driver asks Butch the boxer if his name means anything, and he says, "I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean shit." Tarantino's a freekin' genius!!

[two_heads_talking]

One place the Americans and the Brits (et al Commonwealthers) split is in their analysis of the apostrophe-D in "I'd rather"--Americans think it's "I would rather" while Brits think it's "I had rather." I wonder which is correct..

I'd think it depends on context.. Because no matter what part of Britain you live in, there is no way you'd say this sentence would be, "I had think it depends," or "you had say this." Silly Brits.. They just like to be different.

Now if I remember correctly, "I'd rather do it now", would be, "I would rather do it now." Where "I'd rather not have done it." would be "I had rather not have done it." perhaps I am wrong.

Well, I'm British and "I had rather" just sounds silly to me. It's always "I would rather" for me.

Take not my post as an insult, but rather take it is me poking fun at my Essex and Cockney English weilding friends. Also, not the smilies and winks.. I was being as sarcastic as anyone is able to.. In other words I was saying there is no way any British, whether they be from Scotland, Ireland, England or even Wales (who like to pretend they aren't British) would use I'd in the way Vkladchik mentioned..

@ Vkladchik, please don't goad me into a discertation of King James English. While I love the essence of it, and I feel it actually holds more emotion and feeling than modern English, Using the Bible to teach old English just isn't plausible. I'll just leave that one completely alone.

[vkladchik]

Take not my post as an insult, but rather take it is me poking fun at my Essex and Cockney English weilding friends. Also, not the smilies and winks.. I was being as sarcastic as anyone is able to.. In other words I was saying there is no way any British, whether they be from Scotland, Ireland, England or even Wales (who like to pretend they aren't British) would use I'd in the way Vkladchik mentioned..

I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. I was only talking about the expression "I'd rather," and not the use of the apostrophe-d contraction in general. If you think about it, rather isn't a verb, so using "would" with it doesn't make much sense.

@ Vkladchik, please don't goad me into a discertation of King James English. While I love the essence of it, and I feel it actually holds more emotion and feeling than modern English, Using the Bible to teach old English just isn't plausible. I'll just leave that one completely alone.

Don't worry, I don't intend to goad you into anything. I don't think it makes much sense, however, to say that one form of the language "holds more emotion" another. Languages are all the same in the sense. Also, the English used in the King James Bible isn't old English. In fact, I don't think it even qualifies as middle English. It's just early modern English, I think.

[becki_kanou]

Don't worry, I don't intend to goad you into anything. I don't think it makes much sense, however, to say that one form of the language "holds more emotion" another. Languages are all the same in the sense. Also, the English used in the King James Bible isn't old English. In fact, I don't think it even qualifies as middle English. It's just early modern English, I think.

Hmmm. I read that as old English, ie: English that is old, rather than Old English ie: Beowulf etc.

[chikara]

.... Also, the English used in the King James Bible isn't old English. In fact, I don't think it even qualifies as middle English. It's just early modern English, I think.

Hmmm. I read that as old English, ie: English that is old, rather than Old English ie: Beowulf etc.

Yes, the King James Bible was published in 1611 which would make it early modern English which is English that is old compared to modern English

[two_heads_talking]

Quite true. Had I meant Beowulf English I'd have used the term Olde English rather than old English. Regardless, I thought it was clear enough. Of course by assuming we've all made assess of each other and that's no fun.

[AJBryant]

Quite true. Had I meant Beowulf English I'd have used the term Olde English rather than old English.

Aside from the extraneous "e" in that...

My observation is this:

This could be an object lesson to those who don't think that capitalization matters.

Tony

[two_heads_talking]

Quite true. Had I meant Beowulf English I'd have used the term Olde English rather than old English.

Aside from the extraneous "e" in that...

My observation is this:

This could be an object lesson to those who don't think that capitalization matters.

Tony

Looks, like I failed at my own thread.. lol doh!!

[Wakannai]

Could've or Should've or Would've are actually could have, should have or would have and not could of.

One place the Americans and the Brits (et al Commonwealthers) split is in their analysis of the apostrophe-D in "I'd rather"--Americans think it's "I would rather" while Brits think it's "I had rather." I wonder which is correct.

Some "States" of "The United States" aren't states at all, they are commonwealths. The Commonwealth of Virginia, The Commonwealth of Maryland" are the two that come first to mind, there may be others.

[AJBryant]

Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Massachusetts.

One of my old "bar tricks" is "How many states are there in the United States?" -- the above four are officially designated (e.g., in their state constitutions, etc.) as "commonwealths" and the answer is thus 46.


Tony