3 ms·

I always thought that "some" was technically an article (the plural form of "a"/"an") but I hadn't considered how plurals weren't used in phrases like that. On

by saghm 14d ago

I always thought that "some" was technically an article (the plural form of "a"/"an") but I hadn't considered how plurals weren't used in phrases like that. One thing I did notice about strangeness in English articles is how British English seems to use definite articles in places where American English uses indefinite ones. Back when reading Murder on the Orient Express in school, I remember finding it amusing how one character mentioned that he had "the toothache", which as an American to me sounded like he was saying there's only one toothache in the world that just travels around to me or something. Articles are weird. My very inexperienced impression is that maybe the only weirder thing is how inconsistently prepositions map to each other between languages, which never seems to be 1:1. Sometimes there's even variation within a language; I always grew up saying "by accident", so it sounds wrong to me when I hear someone say "on accident" but I also realize there's no objectively more correct phrasing.

dspillett 14d ago
> the toothache As a native of England, “he had the toothache” sounds odd to too. I would say “he had a toothache” or just “he had toothache”. Though we aren't entirely consistent: “he had flu”, “he had the flu”, are both fine. “he had a flu” would normally sound wrong (though is technically correct, there are many flu viruses) but “he had a cold” is always fine. “he had the cold” only works in a context where it would be understood as a shorthand for something like “he had the cold that was going around”. > I always grew up saying "by accident", so it sounds wrong to me when I hear someone say "on accident" but I also realize there's no objectively more correct phrasing. If speaking actual English rather than a North American variant, “by accident” is objectively the correct phrasing. I'm not aware of any common accent from England in which “on accident” is used.
- saghm 14d ago
  I just double checked and it's exactly what I remembered; the detective was interviewing someone explicitly described as being English (who in the same conversation said they had never been to America): https://esl-bits.eu/ESL.English.Learning.Audiobooks/The%20Orient%20Express/07/text.html https://esl-bits.eu/ESL.English.Learning.Audiobooks/The%20Or... > “I went to bed, sir, but I didn’t sleep.” > “Why didn’t you sleep?” > “I had the toothache, sir.” I'm inclined to trust Agatha Christie to have accurately reflected speech patterns that someone from England at least with a certain social status at a given point in time. Maybe it's not common anymore, or it used to be common in America as well back in the day. > If speaking actual English rather than a North American variant At this point you've at least disagreed with Agatha Christie about what English from someone from England sounds like, and now you're claiming that English as spoken by far more people than in England isn't "actual" English, so it's not clear to me that taking what you're saying at face value is worthwhile. It honestly seems like you have a bit of an inflated sense of authority about the language because the name of it happens to have originated with where you're from to the point where you're dismissive of anything other than your own direct knowledge, even when it's from a world-renowned author who has the same regional source of authority as you.
  - dspillett 14d ago
    And you sir, appear to have taken my view rather personally. There is nothing wrong with American English, but it is American English: English as commonly spoken in America. Just as Australian English is Australian English, and so forth. I was pointing out that in the former what you (a speaker of the latter) found strange would also not sound correct. > I'm inclined to trust Agatha Christie to have accurately reflected speech patterns that someone from England at least with a certain social status at a given point in time. Social status and point in time are doing a lot of work there. I don't know the character being discussed at all, it could also be that she intended to give him a slightly out-of-place mode of speech. In any case, you'd need more than one example to suggest the form is/was commonly considered correct. Writers, even those of her standing, do make mistakes, and if it wasn't deliberate then editing it after initial publication was not as practical back then as it might be today. > spoken by far more people than in England isn't "actual" English It is a form of English. American English. You can call what I speak British English if you like (avoid English English - that will offend people from other parts of the isles/union, who each maintain a linguistic history which predates them being part of the larger entity) and no one will be offended. But claiming the language for your own just because there are more of you, is somewhat tasteless in a “Lake America” way. There are more Spanish speakers in South America than mainland Spain, but they don't take exception to the distinction being drawn between Spanish and Latin American Spanish, where the variants have diverged.
    - saghm 13d ago
      > And you sir, appear to have taken my view rather personally. Yes, I find it somewhat offensive when people act smug about their specific form of language because it's so heavily tainted by attempts to claim cultural superiority (not just between different countries, but often between subcultures in the same area). Saying that you speak "actual" English and I don't and then clutching your pearls at the fact that I point out it's a pretty terrible thing to say is just passive-aggressive. Being formal and pretending that you were being polite about it doesn't make it less rude. > Social status and point in time are doing a lot of work there. I don't know the character being discussed at all, it could also be that she intended to give him a slightly out-of-place mode of speech. In any case, you'd need more than one example to suggest the form is/was commonly considered correct. Writers, even those of her standing, do make mistakes, and if it wasn't deliberate then editing it after initial publication was not as practical back then as it might be today. Sure, I don't disagree with that. I don't see why you had to go out of your way to passive-aggressively insult other cultures than your own to make that point though. > It is a form of English. American English. You can call what I speak British English if you like (avoid English English - that will offend people from other parts of the isles/union, who each maintain a linguistic history which predates them being part of the larger entity) and no one will be offended. But claiming the language for your own just because there are more of you, is somewhat tasteless in a “Lake America” way. There are more Spanish speakers in South America than mainland Spain, but they don't take exception to the distinction being drawn between Spanish and Latin American Spanish, where the variants have diverged. Again, you said the words "actual English". That's rude. No amount of flowery language changes that. You're going out of your way to try to make it seem like I was overreacting to an incidental word choice, and that's not a premise I'm ever going to accept.
- ifwinterco 14d ago
  "He has toothache" or "he has a toothache" are both correct (and mean exactly the same thing), but "he has the toothache" is just wrong, at least in modern English (in the sense that no native speaker would say that)
radarsat1 14d ago
We don't say "the toothache" but we do say eg. "the measles". So I think it's more an older way of talking than a Britishism. As for "on accident" I've always assumed this was just a mistake from childhood, kids equating it with "on purpose" and never being corrected. A bit of a bone apple tea. However I get your point, I used to correct an Indian colleague when he would say expressions a bit wrong, until I gave up and realized it had just become part of his local dialect in the region he was from. (Eg. "I have to go pick my kid" instead of "pick up my kid" which made me laugh at first and then drove me a bit crazy because he would consistently keep saying it.) At some point these things cross a line and become somehow "correct" again, that's just language for you. A native English speakers we are in a particular spot where we have to just accept that the majority of the world is going to be speaking our language non natively, and that is fine once you get used to it.

by saghm 14d ago

dspillett 14d ago

> the toothache As a native of England, “he had the toothache” sounds odd to too. I would say “he had a toothache” or just “he had toothache”. Though we aren't entirely consistent: “he had flu”, “he had the flu”, are both fine. “he had a flu” would normally sound wrong (though is technically correct, there are many flu viruses) but “he had a cold” is always fine. “he had the cold” only works in a context where it would be understood as a shorthand for something like “he had the cold that was going around”. > I always grew up saying "by accident", so it sounds wrong to me when I hear someone say "on accident" but I also realize there's no objectively more correct phrasing. If speaking actual English rather than a North American variant, “by accident” is objectively the correct phrasing. I'm not aware of any common accent from England in which “on accident” is used.

saghm 14d ago
I just double checked and it's exactly what I remembered; the detective was interviewing someone explicitly described as being English (who in the same conversation said they had never been to America): https://esl-bits.eu/ESL.English.Learning.Audiobooks/The%20Orient%20Express/07/text.html https://esl-bits.eu/ESL.English.Learning.Audiobooks/The%20Or... > “I went to bed, sir, but I didn’t sleep.” > “Why didn’t you sleep?” > “I had the toothache, sir.” I'm inclined to trust Agatha Christie to have accurately reflected speech patterns that someone from England at least with a certain social status at a given point in time. Maybe it's not common anymore, or it used to be common in America as well back in the day. > If speaking actual English rather than a North American variant At this point you've at least disagreed with Agatha Christie about what English from someone from England sounds like, and now you're claiming that English as spoken by far more people than in England isn't "actual" English, so it's not clear to me that taking what you're saying at face value is worthwhile. It honestly seems like you have a bit of an inflated sense of authority about the language because the name of it happens to have originated with where you're from to the point where you're dismissive of anything other than your own direct knowledge, even when it's from a world-renowned author who has the same regional source of authority as you.
- dspillett 14d ago
  And you sir, appear to have taken my view rather personally. There is nothing wrong with American English, but it is American English: English as commonly spoken in America. Just as Australian English is Australian English, and so forth. I was pointing out that in the former what you (a speaker of the latter) found strange would also not sound correct. > I'm inclined to trust Agatha Christie to have accurately reflected speech patterns that someone from England at least with a certain social status at a given point in time. Social status and point in time are doing a lot of work there. I don't know the character being discussed at all, it could also be that she intended to give him a slightly out-of-place mode of speech. In any case, you'd need more than one example to suggest the form is/was commonly considered correct. Writers, even those of her standing, do make mistakes, and if it wasn't deliberate then editing it after initial publication was not as practical back then as it might be today. > spoken by far more people than in England isn't "actual" English It is a form of English. American English. You can call what I speak British English if you like (avoid English English - that will offend people from other parts of the isles/union, who each maintain a linguistic history which predates them being part of the larger entity) and no one will be offended. But claiming the language for your own just because there are more of you, is somewhat tasteless in a “Lake America” way. There are more Spanish speakers in South America than mainland Spain, but they don't take exception to the distinction being drawn between Spanish and Latin American Spanish, where the variants have diverged.
  - saghm 13d ago
    > And you sir, appear to have taken my view rather personally. Yes, I find it somewhat offensive when people act smug about their specific form of language because it's so heavily tainted by attempts to claim cultural superiority (not just between different countries, but often between subcultures in the same area). Saying that you speak "actual" English and I don't and then clutching your pearls at the fact that I point out it's a pretty terrible thing to say is just passive-aggressive. Being formal and pretending that you were being polite about it doesn't make it less rude. > Social status and point in time are doing a lot of work there. I don't know the character being discussed at all, it could also be that she intended to give him a slightly out-of-place mode of speech. In any case, you'd need more than one example to suggest the form is/was commonly considered correct. Writers, even those of her standing, do make mistakes, and if it wasn't deliberate then editing it after initial publication was not as practical back then as it might be today. Sure, I don't disagree with that. I don't see why you had to go out of your way to passive-aggressively insult other cultures than your own to make that point though. > It is a form of English. American English. You can call what I speak British English if you like (avoid English English - that will offend people from other parts of the isles/union, who each maintain a linguistic history which predates them being part of the larger entity) and no one will be offended. But claiming the language for your own just because there are more of you, is somewhat tasteless in a “Lake America” way. There are more Spanish speakers in South America than mainland Spain, but they don't take exception to the distinction being drawn between Spanish and Latin American Spanish, where the variants have diverged. Again, you said the words "actual English". That's rude. No amount of flowery language changes that. You're going out of your way to try to make it seem like I was overreacting to an incidental word choice, and that's not a premise I'm ever going to accept.
ifwinterco 14d ago
"He has toothache" or "he has a toothache" are both correct (and mean exactly the same thing), but "he has the toothache" is just wrong, at least in modern English (in the sense that no native speaker would say that)

radarsat1 14d ago

We don't say "the toothache" but we do say eg. "the measles". So I think it's more an older way of talking than a Britishism. As for "on accident" I've always assumed this was just a mistake from childhood, kids equating it with "on purpose" and never being corrected. A bit of a bone apple tea. However I get your point, I used to correct an Indian colleague when he would say expressions a bit wrong, until I gave up and realized it had just become part of his local dialect in the region he was from. (Eg. "I have to go pick my kid" instead of "pick up my kid" which made me laugh at first and then drove me a bit crazy because he would consistently keep saying it.) At some point these things cross a line and become somehow "correct" again, that's just language for you. A native English speakers we are in a particular spot where we have to just accept that the majority of the world is going to be speaking our language non natively, and that is fine once you get used to it.