5 ms·

Is it my imagination or does British English seem to retain more French grammar than US English? I’ve often noticed in Duolingo that a sentence that I translate

by willyt 5y ago

Is it my imagination or does British English seem to retain more French grammar than US English? I’ve often noticed in Duolingo that a sentence that I translate into English that seems correct to me gets me a “alternative answer you could have used” or sometimes a rejection for incorrect English when it’s a more literal translation of the French. E.g US “I already saw this movie” UK “I have already seen this film” FR “J’ai déjà vu ce film”. My sentence was rejected as incorrect. Maybe my English grammar is just bad, people my age weren’t taught English Grammar at school, it wasn’t fashionable.

leephillips 5y ago
I can’t understand your comment. Which one is your sentence? What does the use of the present perfect tense in English have to do with French? Both of your English examples are correct, but the one using the present perfect is closer to the French version. I wouldn’t take DuoLingo too seriously: https://lee-phillips.org/whyDuoLingoWhy/ https://lee-phillips.org/whyDuoLingoWhy/
- msrenee 5y ago
  That's pretty bad that they don't have pronouns correctly identified by their case. El and ella are nominative, equivalent to he and she in English. Him and her are objective/accusative/dative (since those cases all use the same pronouns in English). As far as I can remember my Spanish, lo (and la for feminine nouns I think) would be the equivalent of him and her. If someone out there is less rusty and sees an error in my explanation, please let me know. I learned cases in Russian 10 years ago and it's hard to turn around and apply them to languages that use fewer cases.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Not quite. Pronouns in Spanish are more complicated than in English. You can use él and ella as objects preceded by prepositions, as in a ella. And, while in English we make do with just subject and object pronouns, in Spanish there is a distinction between direct and indirect objects. So (since you asked) lo is for neuter or masculine direct objects, and la is for feminine direct objects. But for indirect objects, use le for him, her, or formal you. It’s tricky, at least for English speakers, because the indirect object comes up where you would least expect it. For example, I tell her in English includes the direct object, but in Spanish the equivalent is indirect.
- willyt 5y ago
  Mine was the UK english one. I don't know what present perfect is, as I said many UK state schools didn't teach English grammar in the late 80's/90's.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Your answer was not incorrect. DuoLingo is often wrong. See the example on my web page.
morsch 5y ago
So Americans would consider the phrase “I have already seen this movie” non-idiomatic? Huh.
- leephillips 5y ago
  No, they wouldn’t.
- mc32 5y ago
  No, but it’s kind of similar to have/have got. Do you have the banana? Have you got the banana? It’s just a tendency.
viciousvoxel 5y ago
Your "US" sentence is "correct" in that it would not be considered odd if used colloquially/informally, but it is incorrect grammar. The one you call "UK" is correct grammar, in the US or the UK.
- leephillips 5y ago
  “I already saw this movie” is incorrect? Why do you say that?
  - viciousvoxel 5y ago
    It really depends on the context -- it is acceptable as informal speech in the US. It comes down to the socioelect you intend to learn. So perhaps "I already saw x" is not incorrect per se (from a Descriptivist point of view), but it sounds very colloquial and would not be found in formal writing.
yeetman21 5y ago
I think most americans would say "I've already seen this movie"
DoreenMichele 5y ago
Anglo-Norman was never the main administrative language of England: Latin was the major language of record in legal and other official documents for most of the medieval period. However, from the late 12th century to the early 15th century, Anglo-Norman French and Anglo-French were much used in law reports, charters, ordinances, official correspondence, and trade at all levels; they were the language of the King, his court and the upper class. During the 12th century, development of the administrative and judicial institutions took place. Because the king and the lawyers at the time normally used French, it also became the language of these institutions. From the 12th century until the 15th century, the courts used three languages: Latin for writing, French as the main oral language during trials, and English in less formal exchanges between the judge, the lawyer, the complainant or the witnesses. The judge gave his sentence orally in Norman, which was then written in Latin. Only in the lowest level of the manorial courts were trials entirely in English. During the 15th century, English became the main spoken language, but Latin and French continued to be exclusively used in official legal documents until the beginning of the 18th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language As far as I know, most early US colonies exclusively used English, not French, at a time when British courts operated in French. So it seems not unreasonable that British English has more French influence than American English because French was the official language of the British courts for centuries and it never was here. A notable exception in the US is that Louisiana has French influences of various sorts, including on its legal system. But most of the US is very much British influence and English language based.

by willyt 5y ago

leephillips 5y ago

I can’t understand your comment. Which one is your sentence? What does the use of the present perfect tense in English have to do with French? Both of your English examples are correct, but the one using the present perfect is closer to the French version. I wouldn’t take DuoLingo too seriously: https://lee-phillips.org/whyDuoLingoWhy/ https://lee-phillips.org/whyDuoLingoWhy/

msrenee 5y ago
That's pretty bad that they don't have pronouns correctly identified by their case. El and ella are nominative, equivalent to he and she in English. Him and her are objective/accusative/dative (since those cases all use the same pronouns in English). As far as I can remember my Spanish, lo (and la for feminine nouns I think) would be the equivalent of him and her. If someone out there is less rusty and sees an error in my explanation, please let me know. I learned cases in Russian 10 years ago and it's hard to turn around and apply them to languages that use fewer cases.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Not quite. Pronouns in Spanish are more complicated than in English. You can use él and ella as objects preceded by prepositions, as in a ella. And, while in English we make do with just subject and object pronouns, in Spanish there is a distinction between direct and indirect objects. So (since you asked) lo is for neuter or masculine direct objects, and la is for feminine direct objects. But for indirect objects, use le for him, her, or formal you. It’s tricky, at least for English speakers, because the indirect object comes up where you would least expect it. For example, I tell her in English includes the direct object, but in Spanish the equivalent is indirect.
willyt 5y ago
Mine was the UK english one. I don't know what present perfect is, as I said many UK state schools didn't teach English grammar in the late 80's/90's.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Your answer was not incorrect. DuoLingo is often wrong. See the example on my web page.

morsch 5y ago

So Americans would consider the phrase “I have already seen this movie” non-idiomatic? Huh.

leephillips 5y ago
No, they wouldn’t.
mc32 5y ago
No, but it’s kind of similar to have/have got. Do you have the banana? Have you got the banana? It’s just a tendency.

viciousvoxel 5y ago

Your "US" sentence is "correct" in that it would not be considered odd if used colloquially/informally, but it is incorrect grammar. The one you call "UK" is correct grammar, in the US or the UK.

leephillips 5y ago
“I already saw this movie” is incorrect? Why do you say that?
- viciousvoxel 5y ago
  It really depends on the context -- it is acceptable as informal speech in the US. It comes down to the socioelect you intend to learn. So perhaps "I already saw x" is not incorrect per se (from a Descriptivist point of view), but it sounds very colloquial and would not be found in formal writing.

yeetman21 5y ago

I think most americans would say "I've already seen this movie"

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Anglo-Norman was never the main administrative language of England: Latin was the major language of record in legal and other official documents for most of the medieval period. However, from the late 12th century to the early 15th century, Anglo-Norman French and Anglo-French were much used in law reports, charters, ordinances, official correspondence, and trade at all levels; they were the language of the King, his court and the upper class. During the 12th century, development of the administrative and judicial institutions took place. Because the king and the lawyers at the time normally used French, it also became the language of these institutions. From the 12th century until the 15th century, the courts used three languages: Latin for writing, French as the main oral language during trials, and English in less formal exchanges between the judge, the lawyer, the complainant or the witnesses. The judge gave his sentence orally in Norman, which was then written in Latin. Only in the lowest level of the manorial courts were trials entirely in English. During the 15th century, English became the main spoken language, but Latin and French continued to be exclusively used in official legal documents until the beginning of the 18th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language As far as I know, most early US colonies exclusively used English, not French, at a time when British courts operated in French. So it seems not unreasonable that British English has more French influence than American English because French was the official language of the British courts for centuries and it never was here. A notable exception in the US is that Louisiana has French influences of various sorts, including on its legal system. But most of the US is very much British influence and English language based.