You know you love me. Why isnt she answering? And who am i? You know you love me xoxo, gossip girl. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Judi explained how the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes body language suggest that they are still torn between acting like a the royal couple and Hollywood couple since stepping back as working senior royals.
But some fans have praised Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for keeping their backs to the photographers. I like the way she went back to the reporter when asked if she was proud of her husband. What kind of question? Was she going to say NO.
I've worked in a variety of jobs, usually customer service-related. I'm looking for a company that offers growth opportunities. The interview went downhill after that. She had started with personal information and gave the interviewer reason to doubt whether she was an employee who would stay for very long. Responding to this free-form request successfully comes down to three things: focus, script and practice. You cannot afford to wing this answer. Define what you do as it relates to the job, think about three to five past experiences that are relevant to the job at hand and try to quantify in terms of time, money or people.
Then list three to five strengths you have that are pertinent to this job experiences, traits, skills, etc. All of this adds up to the message you want the interviewer to know about you when you leave. Eleanor is strong in communications and connecting with people.
She has a strong background and proven success with customer relationships. Her real strength is her follow-through. She prides herself on her reputation for meeting deadlines.
Write out a script that includes the information you want to convey. In the sentence "If Jane is in the office, then I really need to speak to her," the proper word is "her" because it is the object of a preposition.
The objective case word would be "her. The nominative case word is "she. Ben, the correct sentence is "You are smarter than I," because the understood ending of the sentence is "You are smarter than I am smart. Ben, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what linguists do. Linguists are not in the business of telling people what is "correct" or "incorrect. See the links I gave. This is interesting. I was just called up by a company calling me in for a job interview.
I answered the call with "this is she". Afterwards i wasn't sure if I answered correctly, so i typed the phrase into google Well, considering that from all the posts above, there isn't any general consensus on what's right or wrong, I don't think the person on the other line would think my English was poor, she might just be a little bit confused!
A big relief! Shibrette1 Jul On second thoughts, I think 'this is she' is more grammatically correct. Consider regular sentences with 'her' or 'she': 1. She is beautiful. Her dress is beautiful. If we were to insert names, each sentence would respectively be: 1. Sarah is beautiful 2. Sarah's dress is beautiful. If Sarah were to be asked "May I speak with Sarah?
I didn't major in English though Is it just me is it just I or am I the only one who doesn't have this problem? Maybe it's because it is not often me it is not often I who answers the phone. Or perhaps it is because when I do, if someone asks if I am there, I say, "Wait a minute, I'll check. Better usage of time people? Therefore, this conversation will become irrelevant when the Chinese people take over the world and everybody will have to speak Cantonese or Mandarin.
Reality Check 3: I already spent too much time on this inconsequential topic compared to the big picture , so this will be my first and last post! John, native English can only go so far. English is, after all, native to England, where the most common response we would have received from the great literary figures while English developed would have been: "Who are you?
I belive you're using the term loosely and in reference to Americans. Well, the native americans didn't even speak English. Having said this, maybe we should look for Indian grammar rules, not Latin derivations. And to those of us that are looking for answers with more research, please remember that Wikipedia is yet another website with postings from mere 'native' speakers.
J Asly, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about native English speakers: people who have English as a native language, whether they're American, Canadian, British, etc. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with Shakespeare.
Shakespeare used both "it's me" and "it's I", he mixed up "who" and "whom", he used "between you and I". John4 Sep John, I, too studied, linguistics, and can appreciate where you are coming from about linguists describing what the norm is, and not prescribing the rules. I, however, have bones of contention with the approach you've taken. This concept of native speakers and numbers cannot hold when you realise that put together, the greatest number of English speakers resides not with the Northern American countries and England, but in the Asian countries like India and China, where the largest populations of people in the world hold sway.
There are at least milllion Chinese nationals who speak English as of last count in Jan , and the number extrapolates astronomically when you realise the penetration of the English Language across school classroom curricula. Very soon, if we base the ownership of English grammar rules on the mere size and commonality of the language's occurrence, then you will eventually see both India and China prescribing rules for the rest of the world to follow, including America, Canada and England.
The learning of English in China, at least, requires the reliance on prescriptive rules, and at a young age of junior school, they are taught these so-called 'dead-rules', or 'snobbish English rules', which is an irony since these prescriptivisms derive themselves from the West. With your argument, phrases like "long-time-no-see literal chinese translation , and "clever bug" for the English term "spider" are recently coined terms which have penetrated Global English's lexicon, and are perfectly understood by Chinese speakers of English.
Now, should this population of Asian English speakers continue to expand at an exponential rate also thanks to Bejing's hosting of the Olympics , you will soon find the "archaic" rules and Chinese-coined English terms being the "norm", and eventually the descriptive rules. As these new denominations of linguistic currency circulate online, English's lexical bank grows richer by the day. It also found that Chinglish had contributed 5 to 20 percent of the words added to Global English since , more than any other single source.
Your very argument will soon fail you, and 10 years down the line, the "archaic" may get a retro-revival, all thanks to these New Asian English Speakers. Derek1 Sep Derek, I was talking about native English speakers.
Most of the English speakers in Asia are not native speakers as far as I know. Otherwise, I don't disagree. Here's a thought. John, there's a common thread in many of your posts about descriptivism, the nature of linguistics, etc.
Well, how about this? When someone asks if something is correct English, stay out of it! As you have said many times, linguistics isn't concerned with prescriptive "correctness". It is only concerned with observing how some people speak. Knowing that more or fewer people use a particular twist of speech today than a few years ago, however interesting, does not mean that there are no language "rules" in English.
The fact that linguistics is not concerned with rules or correctness does NOT mean that rules or correctness do not exist. If anything, your assertions make linguistics mostly irrelevant! It seems at times that you are asserting that anything that anyone says is OK as long as there are many, no, even a few people who say it. Well, I guess it is "OK" for them, but if someone is asking about correct grammar, such comments are not particularly helpful. Everyone over the age of four learns English by studying it in school according to prescriptive rules.
Yes, we don't have a government bureau of English, at least not in the US, but that doesn't mean we don't have a vast system of education much, if not most, of which is dedicated to the prescription of our language. If I may make an analogy, speeding is illegal almost everywhere on the planet. However, most people drive a little over the speed limit, some, a lot.
Everybody does it mostly with impunity, but it's still against the law. If someone asked about it, an intelligent and useful answer would be "The rules say that you should drive within the speed limit. If you drive a little faster on the highway, you are unlikely to get a ticket. If you exceed the limit by more than, say, 10 MPH, you stand a good chance of being pulled over. Regardless, if you want to obey the law, you should not speed. While it is unlikely, you can get prosecuted for going even 1 MPH above the speed limit.
Everybody does it. Drive as fast as you want. Everyone does. Rules are some arbitrary irrelevant thing made up by society. They shouldn't concern you. Speaking a language is such a different activity than driving a car that I don't think your analogy works. We don't learn our native language in the same way we learn to drive a car.
We acquire language unconsciously, but we learn to drive consciously. Also, using nonstandard English will not result in death or prosecution. How do we determine what is correct? I think the only reasonable position is that usage is the final arbiter. Look at the relevant evidence. How can any rules about English usage have no bearing on how English is used by the speakers and writers you want to emulate? The idea that usage is the final arbiter has a place in discussions about correctness.
It is not a new idea; Oldmixon wrote in that any arbiter besides usage is the "Arbitrary Fancy of a Few, who would impose their own Private Opinions and Practices upon the rest of their Countrymen. And they show that a lot of opinions about what is "correct English" don't describe the facts. For instance, "which" is used restrictively by many good writers more often than it is used nonrestrively.
Singular "they" has been used for years by the best writers of English. I'm not saying that "anything goes," I'm saying "look at the relevent evidence. Language does have rules, and they are largely unconscious rules. For instance, no native speaker will normally produce the sentence "It can do easily it.
This is a rule. It is also a rule for many speakers to use accusative pronouns after "be": it's me, it's her. And indeed many good writers use these constructions. Don't use these constructions if you don't want to, but there's no evidence for saying that they are incorrect. So I am concerned with what is correct. I think a lot of assertions about what is correct are misinformed because they are based on opinions instead of evidence.
John, this is where you will be interested to know that there are many native speakers of English in Asia, because English is by nature of its easy assimilation of foreign language words an international language. It has its roots in its Anglo Saxon origins, but to implicitly claim that people in Asia are not native speakers of English suggests that only those in western Europe, Canada and the rest of Northern America are Native English Speakers.
Also, your assertion that "not anything goes" is on its own a fallacy, because if a sizeable number of people started speaking in poetic language rather than in common prose, your positioning of adverbs and adjectives goes 'awry'. Like it or not, if you had to teach children the rules of English, I wonder which population of English speakers you can refer to?
Because sooner or later, judging from where your part of town is, it's not going to have the majority of speakers of English. Come to Asia, and hear English as it is taught, not as it is treated by the whims and fancies of those who had made unconscious errors and have decided to casually abandon all they've been taught depending on which space and time they exist for the sake of "natural evolution" of language.
I think the Suite There is no "object" in the sentence "This is she. Because again, you have a linking verb. You can't use an object form with a linking verb; you have to use a P. Drew Oct So which is which? I really felt bad after a phone interview when I said "This is her". Should I? I don't expect everyone to understand all the rules of grammar since it's not even taught anymore, but I cannot believe this is an issue.
Were you never taught this in Elementary school, or by your parents? I promise you. May I be stricken dead this instant if I am wrong. And that first comment was not meant to insult educators. I'm an English teacher, and I can tell you, the curriculum does not focus on grammar. None of my students have ever diagrammed a sentence. Actually, John, Abby Normal's analogy with speed limit rules is right on target. You failure to see the clarity of the analogy goes directly to her opening suggestion: as you take the stance of a linguist observer rather than grammarian prescriber , then your opinions and viewpoints are irrelevant -- and in fact distracting -- in any discussion of what is CORRECT.
So if the query is "which is correct", your response is not germaine. What about languages with prescriptive manuals? If we keep to this analogy, we must assume that speakers of these languages might be "speeding" whenever they use their language, since there are no written rules for them to follow.
What about speakers of English who lived before the 18th century which is when prescriptive grammar was invented? Were Chaucer, Spencer and Shakespeare speeding when they used their language?
Would their works have been better if there was a cop telling them what to do? In my opinion and in the opinion of many other usage commentators, "correct" means "what is used by good writers". In other words, usage is the final arbiter. I don't see how this view is irrelevant to the discussion of correctness. How can the rules have no bearing on how English is used by the writers you want to emulate?
Just speaking as someone who googled the keywords "this is she correct grammar" and stumbled across this exchange, thank you! On the other hand, as much as I love to have technically correct language, I always follow the immortal Dana Scully and say,. Carmela Mar Sorry to come in at the end -- but could anyone tell me what they think of this angle?
You are showing someone a picture of a friend of yours and you say -- this is she and her father on vacation last year. You can think of it as: pointing to the girl This is she In fact, "This is her and her father" as my wife would say it sounds rather awkward to my ears Let me get something straight: why is everybody disagreeing with John?
There, I just posed a question that is worthy of an entire book. I mean, face it. He's right. It's called "idiolect. Guess what.
0コメント