Four ways to say what you really mean.
- two_heads_talking
- Posts: 4137
- Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
- Native language: English
Four ways to say what you really mean.
While perusing MSN, I found this article.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/ ... >1=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.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/ ... >1=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.
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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.two_heads_talking wrote:Could've or Should've or Would've are actually could have, should have or would have and not could of.
As for writing style, this is the Mecca I pray to five times a day.
/v http://soul-sides.com /~\
- two_heads_talking
- Posts: 4137
- Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
- Native language: English
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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."vkladchik wrote: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..




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.

-
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Mon 07.28.2008 5:34 am
- Native language: British English
- Gender: Female
- Location: Europe
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
Well, I'm British and "I had rather" just sounds silly to me. It's always "I would rather" for me.two_heads_talking wrote: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."vkladchik wrote: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..![]()
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.
- chikara
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Tue 07.11.2006 10:48 pm
- Native language: English (Australian)
- Gender: Male
- Location: Australia (SA)
- Contact:
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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.vkladchik wrote: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. .....
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".
Don't complain to me that people kick you when you're down. It's your own fault for lying there
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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!!

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!!
/v http://soul-sides.com /~\
- two_heads_talking
- Posts: 4137
- Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
- Native language: English
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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..ニッキー wrote:Well, I'm British and "I had rather" just sounds silly to me. It's always "I would rather" for me.two_heads_talking wrote: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."vkladchik wrote: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..![]()
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.
@ 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.

Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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.two_heads_talking wrote: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..
Don't worry, I don't intend to goad you into anything.@ 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.

/v http://soul-sides.com /~\
- becki_kanou
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Sat 04.19.2008 10:09 pm
- Skype chat: yes_becki
- Native language: U.S. English, 米語
- Gender: Female
- Location: Hyogo, Japan
- Contact:
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
Hmmm. I read that as old English, ie: English that is old, rather than Old English ie: Beowulf etc.vkladchik wrote: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.
そうだ、嬉しいんだ、生きる喜び!
例え胸の傷が痛んでも。
例え胸の傷が痛んでも。
- chikara
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Tue 07.11.2006 10:48 pm
- Native language: English (Australian)
- Gender: Male
- Location: Australia (SA)
- Contact:
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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 Englishbecki_kanou wrote:Hmmm. I read that as old English, ie: English that is old, rather than Old English ie: Beowulf etc.vkladchik wrote:.... 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.

Don't complain to me that people kick you when you're down. It's your own fault for lying there
- two_heads_talking
- Posts: 4137
- Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
- Native language: English
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5313
- Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 11:29 am
- Native language: English
- Gender: Male
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
Aside from the extraneous "e" in that...two_heads_talking wrote:Quite true. Had I meant Beowulf English I'd have used the term Olde English rather than old English.
My observation is this:
This could be an object lesson to those who don't think that capitalization matters.

Tony
- two_heads_talking
- Posts: 4137
- Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
- Native language: English
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
Looks, like I failed at my own thread.. lol doh!!AJBryant wrote:Aside from the extraneous "e" in that...two_heads_talking wrote:Quite true. Had I meant Beowulf English I'd have used the term Olde English rather than old English.
My observation is this:
This could be an object lesson to those who don't think that capitalization matters.
Tony
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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.vkladchik wrote: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.two_heads_talking wrote:Could've or Should've or Would've are actually could have, should have or would have and not could of.
- AJBryant
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5313
- Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 11:29 am
- Native language: English
- Gender: Male
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: Four ways to say what you really mean.
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
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