😆😆😆😆😆 Funny ! Aarre Peltomaa p.s. Don't forget. There was a conference of monkeys, Orang Utans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Baboons. They decided to create a common language so that they could speak to each other. That language became English ! 🙃
The weird thing is that I have always known these rules, as "it doesn't seem right", behind my mind, but never thought of them as rules. Now it is more apparent.
That's because language is mainly a big memory exercise, irregular forms occur commonly otherwise they become regular. This has happened to many verbs and to wed is in the process as to marry has become more popular.
my first Englisch teacher was a narcissist only interested in ruling, not teaching language and its rules in any meaningful manner. Ironically, I learned English first through British computer books in the early 80's, actually preparing me to a level where I was still taking classes in school when I hadn't to anymore. Thank you so much for your channel, if only we have had it in the 80's...
"Rues of grammar" are rarely taught in the US these days. As a foreign language high school teacher, I've had to teach English grammar. I have to explain verbs, pronouns, prepositions. Amazing!
Native English speakers learn the rules at their mothers' knees. English classes for native speakers should mostly consist of reading and writing English with an eye to improving both, not studying the grammar they already know. I learned more about the mechanics of English in my Spanish classes than I ever did in any of my English classes.
@@buckwylde7965 we don’t always learn grammar rules natively. We also learn the grammar mistakes of our dialects. I know many who use the adjective good instead of the adverb well. They will say I am good instead of I am well.
Thank you for this great video and your examples. I am a teacher of English in my country, and as you probably know, teachers who are not native speakers have to learn all the time to be ready to answer all the questions their students may have :) The information you gave here is so valuable for me. Wishing you great success, Gideon!
Come to think of it, English being a mashup of other languages (which individually have rules not compatible with the others) it's only logical that there are so many exceptions. A non-native speaker can learn the basic grammar rules but to be able to recognise the difference in meaning between "The lecturer closed the door and went on to teach the new material" and "He went on teaching although nobody paid any attention" takes a lot of experience, reading and above all getting the feel of the language. All those BUTs and irregularities make the study of English complex and challenging BUT I love it regardless.
@@LetThemTalkTV can't wait to see the reaction of my colleagues when I inform them that we actually teach a bastard language, they'll probably "excommunicate" me 😂
@@maiter6317 in the first example the lecturer, after completing one action (closing the door) switched to another (teaching) whereas in the second example he proceeded with the same action (continued with what he's already been doing).
You must know the rules in order to break them. The way natives break the rules in colloquial speech is not the same as a learner would potentially break them :)
Less-educated native speakers sometimes do make similar mistakes as the ESL learners (lower and intermediate level).They tend to confuse irregular verbs, phonetically similar elements (e,g, could've, could of), they make subjunctive errors, use double negatives, use adjective instead of adverb, but unlike non-native speakers they would never confuse tenses,phrasal verbs or prepositions.
Semplicemente Anita I wouldn’t call them errors it’s just what separates colloquial speech from say RP or Standard American. I’m no prescriptivist so I wouldn’t call those people less-educated
@@richardharrow2513 I don't think that a particular standard of language is superior to other varieties but I'm a teacher who teaches "standards" so prescriptivism is inherent. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm subscribed to prescriptivism as ideology. P.S. Had no intention to offend less-educated people or sound condescending, I was just pointing out that people with less formal schooling are more inclined to be "descriptive" than people with academic degree.
"You must know the rules in order to break them." - the nail hit right on the head. Also, breaking the rules deliberately helps me come to grips with the rules I'm breaking.
I absolutely love these videos ❣️. I've been teaching English for 6 years in total, admittedly with a break in between. I teach English for a tech company in México City and I share many of your sentiments when it comes to language learning. Thanks for everything Gideon.
Overall, Gideon is one of the best EFL teachers on TH-cam. He has an excellent insight into the English language and tends to avoid saying misleading things. Quite a few of the others are incompetent and spout rubbish.
As an English speaker, I subscribe to the breaking conventions wholeheartedly. As a teacher, I can only say one thing: do not ever break them in a test.
As an American English speaker in informal conversation and informal writing, contractions are used all the time by everyone. In higher academic circles, written articles, papers and textbooks do not. There the standard is formal writing only.
as a flemish in belgium, i first learned french with , AHH so extremely much exceptions! starting at 11.. so when started english courses at 14, when teacher said this is the rule, we were only to happy that it's wasn't followed be , 'except' ... , but i've learned too, 'will keep borthering' huh, a will for present time? :), don't think i've ever heared it used that way.. i would use : 'if you keep on' 'if you don't stop' , so i don't really see the use in that exception will use in any of the exemples, am i missing something? :)
@@JeroenJA You might think breaking the rules of English is easy, but following them is even more easy when they are wrong. Using "more easy" allows the speaker to stress either "more" or "easy", which is an awkward thing to do with "easier". Sure you can say "easy-ERR" but you can't tell me that's not more jarring to the flow of the sentence than "MORE easy".
The sense of that "will" appears in some common American sayings, like "Boys will be boys" or "Evil will out", but not in any other American speech that I am familiar with. Us Yanks would construct the "if" sentence differently, like "If you keep doing that then what do you expect?" or with no "if" at all, like "Since you won't stop, this is going to happen" etc.
In French, we say : « this is the exception that proves the rule ». I studied French, English, Latin and German at school : but for me English grammar was the most easy.
Same here. Swedish is my mother tongue and I've studied English, French and German. The English grammar has always been the easiest, even easier than the Swedish grammar, especially when you try and teach it to someone else. :P
Very true. It’s beyond me to see so many people who are born and raised in the US make so many mistakes. They cannot even distinguish between “their” and “they’re”, “it’s” and “its”, “who” and “whom”
@@dianaperpignan1231 learning English by ear rather than written. Those sets of words sound the same to the American so they don’t differentiate the written form. Social media has revealed exactly how unintellectual the Americans are. Many use the excuse that they are talking their response but I know speech translators “fix” ‘there’ to ‘their’ or ‘they’re’ depending on usage. Lazy people wonder why people talk down to them. It’s because you let your mistakes stand.
Phrasal verbs such as "go on” act as an indivisible unit. The preposition can not be separated from the verb without changing the meaning of the phrasal verb. Nor can the verb in a phrasal verb stand-alone without changing its meaning. When phrasal verbs employ prepositions, their prepositions lose the quality and function that made them prepositions, and so they are no longer prepositions, but part of the stand-alone unit of the phrasal verb. So, your grammar rule was not violated by the example. :)
Yes absolutely! Rather, the verb in his example is “to go on to” which means “to abandon one activity in favour of a related activity”, but if you followed the rule and used a gerund after the verb “to go on”, it has the meaning of “to continue”, at least in my dialect of English.
13:49 The use of contractions in formal writing actually can change a meaning or nuance, and this is made clear: "You won't walk here" (formal, meaning doubt is present) "You will not walk here" (formal, meaning force will be used if you try)
but that just future tense with a tone :) , same in almost every western language i think.. jij zal daar niet lopen, tu ne vas pas y promener, du shallt nicht , ... don't know enough other european language to repeat it in those ;)
I love this! I've long since learnt to say that English doesn't really have rules, more like patterns and tendencies ;) Obviously, there are some rules but I make sure to say there is probably some exception I can't think of right now (but if you can - I say to my students - let me know, so I know for the future). My favourite is the "no *will* after *if*". At the start of someone's journey with the conditionals I don't even mention that yes, in some cases, you might see them worryingly close to each other. With more advanced students I say "there are some situations when you can say that but this isn't one, not yet." About the contractions and writing - I think it might be some misconception carried over from formal writing. Students preparing for taking exams like CAE etc. have to learn to write some very formal pieces of writing and they often find it hard to remember not to contract in those. So maybe some teachers just expand the rule because of this? Not sure. But register sure is tricky sometimes! When I started learning foreign languages we mostly had course books, novels and maybesometimes some films to learn from. So we all sounded a bit pompous ;) Now my students find it hard to get rid of the "gonna" and "coulda" type of forms because they learn a lot from rather informal exchanges on the social media.
English has rules or nobody would understand what one English speaker said to another English speaker. Most speakers learn the basic rules before they start grade school. English has a lot of irregularities to learn, and again some of them are absorbed by children listening to or talking to parents and watching television. There is a current prevalent myth that any way a particular group speaks English is on equal footing with any other way. That isn't the case and never will be. Linguists and linguistic anthropologists have recognized the way a language is spoken (and/or written) communicates more than just thoughts and feelings. Consciously and unconsciously you communicate to others your racial, ethnic and socioeconomic background, area of the country, intelligence and level of education, and many other details. And the person listening to you is consciously and unconsciously assigning meanings - even stereotypes - to YOU. One common one is a Southern accent. Subtle and not so subtle meanings can be assigned by speakers outside the South, and some meanings or assumptions can be negative. It's not uncommon for professionals or TV and media persons with Southern accents and speech patterns to attend special classes or tutor-supervised training to reduce or eliminate a Southern accent. Case in point: Stephen Colbert. He's a native of South Carolina, and he's remarked his natural speaking voice is characteristic of that state. He received training early in his career to eliminate his regional accent, and it only pops up again when he visits family and friends when he goes back home. This isn't a new phenomenon in America. As modern life means much more geographic, social and career mobility in the second half of the 20th and into the 21st centuries, so has the rise of speech training and modification private education.
On topic of the preposition followed by infinitive: "go on" is a phrasal verb. The preposition here belongs to the verb and changes its meaning (to go means to move, generally; to go on means to continue). In the example sentence (he was talking about his job and then he went on to talk about his holiday), the verb "to talk" doesn't really come after a preposition because the preposition is part of the phrasal verb.
I had a friend in college who was from Germany and in her English classes in Germany she was always told not to use contractions in formal writing. I told her this was not true because sometimes not using a contraction will break up the rhythm of the sentence. She really liked my advice and acted like I had taken a giant weight off of her shoulders.
At the higher academic standards of college and university, contractions are not used. Open a college textbook sometime or read an academic journal article or paper. You won't see contractions.
Thank you so much for your content. As a teacher I find it so helpful! Many of your examples and explanations are so great, that I am writing them down and can´t wait to tell them to my students during our lessons.
since "will" can mean "want to" in rare occasions, I find "If you will keep bothering me..." quite logical because for a non-native speaker like me it sounds like "If you intend to keep bothering me..."
*I would like to offer you the highest marks for your presentation. I am just a poor boy, however, the first written compliment I got, was from a stuffed shirt manager, who complimented me on my clear and concise style (of writing collection letters). I use a lot of contractions in everyday prose, and I have been published in national journals for my editorial commentaries. I really enjoy your videos, and am a mad fan!*
You did it a couple times in this video. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. "He's older than me." I was taught that the rule governing I, me, and myself required you to use, "He's older than I", because "am" is _understood._ "He's older than I am." You wouldn't say, "He's older than me am." Some people tend to misuse the word "I" and never use the word "me" because they think it sounds kinda hillbilly or something. "This belongs to you and I." Grrr...😬 "This belongs to you and me." 🙂 This prevents confusion when comparing. Those song lyrics that say, "Does he love you more than me?" What is literally being asked is, "Does he love you more than he loves me?" The intended question is more to the effect of, "Does he love you more than I [do]?" "Do" is understood. "I like ice cream more than her", means, "I like ice cream more than I like her", which may be true but might not communicate what is intended. "I like ice cream more than she [does]." "Does" is understood.
Both versions ("He's older than me" and "He's older than I") are correct because "than" can serve either as preposition or as conjunction.If it's a preposition "me" is correct and if it's a conjunction "I" is correct (because I is the subject of understood verb).
@@semplicementeanita6563 - I don't think so. "He's older than me am" is the long form of the shorthand "He's older than me." Nobody would ever say, "He's older than me am." I cannot think of a context where "me" would be appropriate in that sentence. "Does he love you more than me", would be appropriate if you were asking whether he loved you or he loved me more. It would not be appropriate if you were asking, "Does he love you more than I love you?" In that kind of sentence you could use either me or I depending on what you were asking. It's when you start getting into when you need to use the word, "myself" that I start to go off the rails. 😄
@@semplicementeanita6563 - I know mostly native English speakers and they are no grammarians, believe me. It's common to hear them say things like: "I should have went to the store." Or "I've never ran that far before." One guy I heard recently say, "I think about all the people over the years - everything they've did to get us where we are today." "They've DID???" Yikes! Most natives never learned proper grammar and so I don't really consider them expert in the least. It's easy to blame the schools but I went to Catholic School like a bunch of others I know who can't get these things right.
@@GizmoFromPizmo But that's what happens. It's not that they haven't learnt proper grammar. Where I'm from the form 'am' has replaced 'are' but 'is' remains the same so I say 'I am, you am, he is, we am, they am'. It's natural that forms take over the use of other forms. For example, you can say 'I drank it yesterday' and 'I drunk it yesterday'. It comes from the fact that 'have' and 'has' don't even get used is sentences much such as 'have you done it yet?' becoming 'you done it yet?'. Look at Swedish. The present tense forms of all verbs for all persons are the same form, but look at Icelandic and they remain largely different forms. It's a natural part of language evolution.
My mom used to grammar-shame me😢. Could never have a conversation with her because she was waiting for me to mess up, so she could interrupt me repeatedly with her English lessons. Severe language trauma...
English is so weird but your videos makes it understandable😁 Thank you🧡 Love your channel🧡 A separate video about adjectives, especially ones with two syllables would be awesome as it's a mind-boggling thing😁
I agree that contractions are perfectly fine in almost all writing. Oftentimes when I choose to write out both words, it is to emphasize or draw attention to the negative. "He can't eat that" versus "He cannot eat that"--in the first, I'd hear "can't" as "shouldn't" and in the second, I'd hear it as an imperative.
Even more confusingly, the examples he gave, "Can't we do that again?" and "Can we not do that again?", very often are used to mean the opposite. Usually, when I say or write "Can't we do that again?", I mean "Can we do that again? Because I want to do that again." Usually, but not always, when I say or write, "Can we not do that again?", I mean, "I sincerely hope we don't do that again. I don't want to do that again." But it depends on context in writing and tone of voice in speaking.
On contractions, I seem to remember that the American writer Damon Runyon (not sure of the spelling of his name) made fun of the "rule" against contractions by having his characters who were lower class New Yorkers try to be more sophisticated by never using contractions and the strange awkwardness that resulted made fun of the "rule".
Dear Gideon I'm used to watching your videos even if I've been studying British English with my londoner teacher. My teacher appreciates your deeper knowledge about grammar. Both of you are important to improve my learning. This video was amazing and I'll share with professor William.Thanks a lot
Good point re-contractions, but I wish you’d mentioned the absolute howler of an error that even native English speakers make, which is writing/saying should of etc… instead of should have. Mind you that probably needs a video of its own!
@@hmm7420 And you’d be correct. Could’ve is short for could have. Could of doesn’t make sense. OMG another AWFUL contraction error people, particularly in East London/Essex make, is confusing “his” and “he’s”. “Peter’s only gone and lost he’s keys!” instead of HIS keys. Drives me nuts.
I personally would avoid using the comparative or superitive of the word "perfect" because the word itself implies (to me at least) whatever you're talking about can't possibly get any better.
13:00 Another nice example from Shakespeare is the double superlative for emphasis used by Mark Antony in describing Brutus' attack on Caesar: "This was the most unkindest cut of all"
I always assumed some "wrong" comparatives are used in spoken language because of the way we think. You might say "It was more" and then only think about what word you actually want to use. So you end up with things like "It was more funny than I expected" simply because you might have started out the sentence in the intention of saying "it was more amusing". Interesting to hear that it would actually not be wrong either way.
Thank you, teacher, for answering my question made for 6 months ago, after watching the video ”5 Ways We use Will as Present Tense! I wrote the following: If you’ll let me finish, I’ll take questions at the end. I went on asking you to comment on this. You really do us a great favour!
Really interesting vid! I disagree with the last opinion, though. Contractions should definitely be avoided in formal writing, e.g. business reports, university papers and probably formal letters. That they've become normal in business emails is just a feature of the fact that business email correspondence has become more and more informal overall. Contractions are okay in journalism (opinion pieces, etc.) and fiction (hence Orwell), but they definitely go against the existing conventions of academic writing.
You are right. it's worth noting that Cambridge exams directed towards foreign students of English always accept contractions as correct no matter how formal the written task. I think this is because they want to encourage the use of contractions which many non-natives seem to assume are slang.
Im a native English speaker and I speak Latin as a second language and spanish as a 3rd ( although my spanish still needs a lot of work) so I stumbled upon this video by accident and I have to say it’s given me a really interesting perspective because even though my Latin is pretty good my native language obviously comes most naturally to me and although I’m sure that I follow all of these “rules” I am nearly completely ignorant of their existence! And I am quite confident that I would be a far better Latin teacher than an English teacher because much like an English student who may watch this video I had to study all of the rules of grammar in order to pick up my second language ( luckily it is very similar to Spanish so I didn’t have to start all over lol) also I make my living as a music teacher and I can’t help but to notice how similar learning grammar is to learning music theory; it’s very helpful and kind of a road map to get to where you are going and yet many of the people who make the best music don’t know the first thing about music theory. I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this is that if you are learning a new language definitely learn grammar but don’t worry too much about it because at the end of the day they are not “rules” they are conventions and the point of language is to understand and to be understood so don’t let the fear of making a mistake or speaking”improperly “ stop you from using the language. I just returned from holiday in Spain and hardly anyone there spoke English fluently so I was forced to use my poor spanish but what I found was that people seemed to really appreciate the fact that I was making the attempt to speak in their language and it was actually a lot of fun !
There's another inevitable use of "whom", when it comes after "to" in "to whom" such as "to whom it may concern" or "this is the person to whom..." I was explained that "whom" must be used when a object pronoun must be used. For instance, you would say "for hiM/theM" so "for whoM" or "to hiM/theM" so "to whoM"
In "go on to do something", "on" is NOT a preposition, "teacher". It is an adverb. That's why it can be followed by a to infinitive. You could do with some brushing up on elementary English grammar, I'm afraid.
If I will keep watching too much youtube videos, I will end up explaining to whom I owe my reports most urgently when I should’ve submitted them yesterday.
Surely, you also teach your students that "go on" is a phrasal verb and so operates a bit differently from some others.
ปีที่แล้ว
“Go on” is a phrasal verb. It doesn’t follow the verb+ing grammar rule. There also rules that are specific for certain verbs, such as like, love, hate, start, stop. These verbs can be followed either by an infinitive or a verb+ing, and this will depend on the intended use.
With "if you will" example it is good to remember that "will" origins from German "wollen" - "to want". Hence, the meaning of "if you will" maybe more close to "if you want to" and has nothing to do with a future tense .
I think it can sometimes make a difference to not using contractions. If you want to be more firm, like giving an order. For instance: "do not do that" instead of "don't do that" is more firm. It emphasizes the "not" and you hear it more like "do NOT do that".
The rule "no verb after a preposition" is rock solid! Mr. Gideon"s example "he went on to look for a job" only confirms it. The thing is that in English there are only two verb forms -V1 (present indefinite) and V2 (past indefinite). The infinitive, Ving and V3 forms are not verbs.
And of course, the most notable fake "rule" (that never even was a rule and need not be followed) is the one prohibiting ending a sentence with a preposition. (E.g, "This is a tough problem to deal with," or "He had a lot of hoops to jump through.") This "rule" apparently came about in the 19th century when scholars were focused on classical antiquity and tried adapt Latin grammar rules to English. But English ain't Latin, so the "rule" doesn't apply. As Churchill famously (but probably never) said, "This is something up with which I will not put!"
You really need to tell that bit about it being OK to use contractions in formal writing to those wankers at Microsoft - I'm sick to death of having bloody green squiggly lines all over my emails because I've said something like "I'll work on your request after I've finished the monthly reporting. It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes." Bloody Microsoft -Outlook- Outhouse and its shitty "grammar checking".
English is quite tricky, isn't it? I learnt that the word PERFECT is non-gradable since it implies the idea of being the best. As well as the adjective DELICIOUS for instance..... You are driving me nuts. ...It's imposiible to master. I'm giving up. Anyway thank you for the lesson.
English is my 3rd language and learn it by myself. I come from a phonetic language with different alphabet /Cyrillic/ and had a very hard time understanding the concept of writing a letter but not pronouncing it or pronouncing it differently when it's a certain combination.
I am a native English speaker. In school I certainly learned that contractions are not acceptable in written text unless quoting spoken remarks. However, I sat my English O level in 1976 and one reason for the success of English is that it doesn't have a codified set of "rules" and is continuously and rapidly evolving. I suspect the corrosive effect of email has spelled the death knell for non-contracted writing. I do think though that it's important to note that not all contractions have the same effect. Spelling out "do not" rather than "don't" for example - the former is an instruction and the latter advice in my mind.
First off, thanks for clarifying the comparative/superlative rule -- even as a native speaker, I never realized syllable count was the deciding factor in -er/-est vs. more/most. Second, I'm surprised you didn't touch on the split-infinitive pseudo-rule. That one's been getting more of a point-and-laugh response ever since William Shatner started breaking it at the beginning of every Star Trek episode ("to boldly go where no man has gone before!") My understanding is that it comes from a time when language snobs thought Latin was the Perfect Language that all other languages could only aspire to. Since it's technically impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, these snobs thought that doing so in English was an aberration, and thus Simply Not Done. Whatever. 🙄
The ambulance was spot on! To be fair I've met a number of english teachers in the past, many of whom told me to never break those rules. Therefore, if you'll keep on making such great videos about the english language, my grammar should be much better in no time at all! It possibly makes live more easy as well. _(Just trying to properly use what I've learned today, please anybody correct me wherever I'm wrong!)_
I think you have to study grammar to teach grammar and that's something that most native speakers never do. In the 1st example the explanation is obvious: after a preposition the verb is used in the gerund always, because it intoduces a prepositional syntagma. The preposition in "go on" is a part of phrasal verb, therefore is part of the verb, and as we know after verbs can be a ver in infinitive as well as in gerund, depending on the verb.
Good thing we can relax with rules, it helps a lot not to worry about how to use adjectives, I can't be pompous in English, I'm still in my infancy in English. Facilitate I prefer. Good to see you Gideon. See you in the next video😎 thanks!
As regards rule two, there is one exception, that is hardly even spoken about, when ‘if’ introduces an indirect question, for instance: ‘I don’t know if he will like the show’ Students are also often taught never to put ‘will’ after ‘when’, whereas this concerns only the time clauses. In other cases, if referring to the future, don’t be afraid to use ‘will’, for example: ‘I don’t know when he will come back’ ‘When will he be ready?” But: “When I come back/am ready, I will make dinner” - this is an adverbial clause of time or simply put, a time clause, where ‘will’ never comes after ‘when’
Thank you very much! After suffering (sic) a lot of "strange" english teachers; a) an spanish military officer with an horrible hispanic american english, b) a french-majorcan lady with the hardest french english accent I ever listened and c) a french woman with polish parents with a rare mix of polish-french-english accent, my best english teachers were the first, a majorcan lady which studied and got her good english level at a girls school in England and living and working there for many years. And the last one, an scottish woman (she got married with a majorcan doctor, both good friends of mine). Their mantra: Don't try to speak like a "native". Get your own accent. Your objective is to be understood, not to speak with a "perfect and false accent". You get english more comprehensive for non native speakers!
I laughed a little bit when you used Shakespeare as an authority for allowing exceptions to the rules. 1) The language he was writing for was somewhat different from modern usage, so there should be an expectation that his writing will not completely match modern usage. 2) While modern society places Shakespeare on a literary pedestal, at the time he was executing functional writing, much like writers for TV programs or movies today. If his words didn't capture the ears of his listeners, or they couldn't understand what he meant, his plays would not have been successful. 3) Plus, he wrote dialog that was appropriate for the character speaking the line, with some being particular with how they spoke and which words to use, while others put together their thoughts more haphazardly, with all levels in between also represented.
Those who say you shouldnt use contractions in formal writing should try to read any book or writing from, say, the 17th or 18th century; they would surely have a heart attack, with words like "every" being contracted to "ev'ry" and so on. Tons of contractions that wouldn't even occur to us to use today
As a non native English teacher, I play safe and follow the rules. I don't know what I might sound like if I break them. But I always tell my students to be aware of differences, of how ppl speak on movies and series and to keep in mind that usually we speak to ppl who are also non-native.
Perhaps not of any practical help for learners but I think that when a phrasal verb like go on can be followed by either a gerund (go on doing) or an infinitive (go on to do), the particle of the phrasal verb changes function. Case in point, the 'on' in 'go on to do' is adverbial an therefore not a preposition. Also when a phrasal verb is intransitive, the particle is not technically a preposition. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!
One of our PhD students used contractions in her thesis but a British professor who reviewed it said that this is unacceptable in a thesis. I guess there are different standards. I suspect some publishers won’t accept these in published articles or books. Your examples are actually from informal speech, e.g., emails or text messages. You don’t say ‘let’s meet tomorrow’ in an essay.
I still wouldn't use contractions in formal writing: research papers, legal communication, official notifications. Sometimes, the apostrophe s might be mistaken for a possessive, not good in formal writing.
Sure but in the case of "go on", "go on" basically functions as a phrasal word. The preposition "on" isn't actually a preposition in the overall phrase, just within the phrasal word "go on", so whether or not there's a gerund after doesn't mean anything
It is perfect, is an absolute statement, it can´t be more perfect. Because perfect is flawless, and it should not be possible to have less then no flaws. This reminds me on some diskussion I had around 15 years ago. I was writing something and referring to mankind as humans. An acquaintance corrected me and said in this circumstance it is wrong to say humans. I said it is not usual but I am sure it is not wrong.
If I might add, the only instance where I can think of perfecter or more perfect being used would be when you have called something perfect and then changed your mind, but without actually admitting you were wrong.
"Never split infinitives" is my favourite fake rule. In Old and Middle English it wasn't done, and then around the time Modern English started to form we started doing it (some early examples include Shakespeare doing it). Then the Victorians were like "NO! DO NOT DO IT!" and some people still think we shouldn't. I'd argue that we get some fantastic phrases by doing it. Can you imagine if Star Trek's motto was "To go boldly" instead of "to boldly go"? It just doesn't have the same impact. Also, as languages evolve over time, I think it's fine to let certain words die. "Whom" has fallen out of favour of the general public and that's ok, let the rules of the language change.
Too bad they mostly change for the worse, and I mean they oftentimes get simpler. Dropping "whom" is just sad, really. We're heading toward simplification.
@@podavus There are good simplifications and bad ones. I feel that whom is just old fashioned and doesn't make much sense any more. Things like "thru" drive me up the wall.
@@WandererEris But why the need to make it all simpler? Complexity is wonderful - there are more shades to choose from, more ways we can convey our thoughts. Add grammatical cases, for example, and leave out 'whom' and then I'd be: "Ok, I'm sad about dropping 'whom' but I'm good. Let's embrace change." But it seems we'll be speaking a dull language in 200 years.
@@podavus Because there are certain things you don't want to be complicated. Speaking should be easy and simple, with the option for complexity when it comes to poetry and art. The average person doesn't need whom or victual or any other word that's fallen out of fashion. What you're talking about is a pool that is deep at both ends, not a pool that is shallow at one end and deep at the other.
Middle aged American here. I have *never* heard any American with competent language ability use the word "will" in the way you describe. Americans also never use "whom" except in starting a letter "To whom it may concern." Using the word here marks you as pretentious. I did hear it fairly commonly when I was at college in Wales and Scotland. Always enjoy your videos and seeing the national differences.
Funny, I as an American regularly use "whom" in all kinds of spoken language (formal, informal, and everything else under the sun) but I have never once started a letter or email with "To whom it may concern." I'd rather start an email with "heya what's poppin" than "to whom it may concern."
"Go on" is an interesting example. I think it also demonstrates that English Prepositions and prefixes have turns into "Postpositions". If we were to reconstruct this using the Latin rules, "go on" would be "ongo", "onwent", "ongone". Same as we do with "forego", "forwent", "forgone". ... > "and then he [onwent] to talk about his holiday." With English verbs that come from Germanic languages, over the centuries the tendency was to "untag" the prefix (turning it into a preposition) and then put AFTER the verb. I think there is term for this phenomenon. But it explains the constructions. (go on) should be thought of as verb unit, and not as VERB followed by a preposition.
I had a really good English teacher up to 'O' level (age 15), but he did one day have a spaz and tried to ban the use of the word 'got' on the grounds that there was 'always another way to phrase it'. We all sat baffled, as 'got' had worked fine for all of us every time up till then, then we collectively shrugged it off and he got a grip and things got/went back to normal.
The "on" in "go on" isn't a preposition.It's an "adverbial particle''.
Followed by a present progressive, not a gerund 😉
And 'to go on' is different from 'to go'...
@@AnnabelleJARankin Foreigner here, shouldn't one say "different THAN" instead of "different FROM"? Or are both correct?
@@askadiaHi! Actually, 'different from' is absolutely the correct form although many people wrongly use 'different than'!
@@AnnabelleJARankin I see, thank you! Have a nice day 😚
There's an Esperanto joke that English grammar is very simple - There is only ONE rule.
1. Every word in English has its own grammar rules
😁
😆😆😆😆😆 Funny ! Aarre Peltomaa p.s. Don't forget. There was a conference of monkeys, Orang Utans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Baboons. They decided to create a common language so that they could speak to each other. That language became English ! 🙃
Facts
Excellent!
The weird thing is that I have always known these rules, as "it doesn't seem right", behind my mind, but never thought of them as rules. Now it is more apparent.
That's because language is mainly a big memory exercise, irregular forms occur commonly otherwise they become regular. This has happened to many verbs and to wed is in the process as to marry has become more popular.
my first Englisch teacher was a narcissist only interested in ruling, not teaching language and its rules in any meaningful manner. Ironically, I learned English first through British computer books in the early 80's, actually preparing me to a level where I was still taking classes in school when I hadn't to anymore. Thank you so much for your channel, if only we have had it in the 80's...
"Rues of grammar" are rarely taught in the US these days. As a foreign language high school teacher, I've had to teach English grammar. I have to explain verbs, pronouns, prepositions. Amazing!
Native English speakers learn the rules at their mothers' knees. English classes for native speakers should mostly consist of reading and writing English with an eye to improving both, not studying the grammar they already know. I learned more about the mechanics of English in my Spanish classes than I ever did in any of my English classes.
The only time I ever sat down to study English grammar was when I was about studying French. Natives rarely study grammar
@@buckwylde7965 we don’t always learn grammar rules natively. We also learn the grammar mistakes of our dialects. I know many who use the adjective good instead of the adverb well. They will say I am good instead of I am well.
@@stranger9216 That's weird in my eyes... everyone in my country have to study our native language grammar before we do it in English
You, of course, know what is taught in almost every school district, private and public.
Thank you for this great video and your examples. I am a teacher of English in my country, and as you probably know, teachers who are not native speakers have to learn all the time to be ready to answer all the questions their students may have :) The information you gave here is so valuable for me. Wishing you great success, Gideon!
Come to think of it, English being a mashup of other languages (which individually have rules not compatible with the others) it's only logical that there are so many exceptions. A non-native speaker can learn the basic grammar rules but to be able to recognise the difference in meaning between "The lecturer closed the door and went on to teach the new material" and "He went on teaching although nobody paid any attention" takes a lot of experience, reading and above all getting the feel of the language. All those BUTs and irregularities make the study of English complex and challenging BUT I love it regardless.
we speak a bastard tongue
@@LetThemTalkTV can't wait to see the reaction of my colleagues when I inform them that we actually teach a bastard language, they'll probably "excommunicate" me 😂
@@LetThemTalkTV no, a mongrel language.... cause the parents who gave birth to the Eng language were not 2 but a lot more than that. -:))
Which is the difference between the two examples you mentioned?
@@maiter6317 in the first example the lecturer, after completing one action (closing the door) switched to another (teaching) whereas in the second example he proceeded with the same action (continued with what he's already been doing).
Hahahaha, listening to the video about rules to be broken, I learned some rules I wasn't aware of.
You're excellent teacher!
English rules are made to be broken, "it's the exception that proves the rule" 😆
You must know the rules in order to break them. The way natives break the rules in colloquial speech is not the same as a learner would potentially break them :)
I agree with your first point. Learn the rules then break them
Less-educated native speakers sometimes do make similar mistakes as the ESL learners (lower and intermediate level).They tend to confuse irregular verbs, phonetically similar elements (e,g, could've, could of), they make subjunctive errors, use double negatives, use adjective instead of adverb, but unlike non-native speakers they would never confuse tenses,phrasal verbs or prepositions.
Semplicemente Anita I wouldn’t call them errors it’s just what separates colloquial speech from say RP or Standard American. I’m no prescriptivist so I wouldn’t call those people less-educated
@@richardharrow2513 I don't think that a particular standard of language is superior to other varieties but I'm a teacher who teaches "standards" so prescriptivism is inherent. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm subscribed to prescriptivism as ideology. P.S. Had no intention to offend less-educated people or sound condescending, I was just pointing out that people with less formal schooling are more inclined to be "descriptive" than people with academic degree.
"You must know the rules in order to break them." - the nail hit right on the head.
Also, breaking the rules deliberately helps me come to grips with the rules I'm breaking.
I absolutely love these videos ❣️. I've been teaching English for 6 years in total, admittedly with a break in between. I teach English for a tech company in México City and I share many of your sentiments when it comes to language learning. Thanks for everything Gideon.
Thank you my dear colleague
Overall, Gideon is one of the best EFL teachers on TH-cam. He has an excellent insight into the English language and tends to avoid saying misleading things. Quite a few of the others are incompetent and spout rubbish.
As an English speaker, I subscribe to the breaking conventions wholeheartedly. As a teacher, I can only say one thing: do not ever break them in a test.
As an American English speaker in informal conversation and informal writing, contractions are used all the time by everyone. In higher academic circles, written articles, papers and textbooks do not. There the standard is formal writing only.
as a flemish in belgium, i first learned french with , AHH so extremely much exceptions!
starting at 11.. so when started english courses at 14, when teacher said this is the rule, we were only to happy that it's wasn't followed be , 'except' ... ,
but i've learned too, 'will keep borthering' huh, a will for present time? :), don't think i've ever heared it used that way..
i would use : 'if you keep on' 'if you don't stop' ,
so i don't really see the use in that exception will use in any of the exemples, am i missing something? :)
for my, 'more easy' sounds horribly wrong 😀
@@JeroenJA You might think breaking the rules of English is easy, but following them is even more easy when they are wrong. Using "more easy" allows the speaker to stress either "more" or "easy", which is an awkward thing to do with "easier". Sure you can say "easy-ERR" but you can't tell me that's not more jarring to the flow of the sentence than "MORE easy".
@@mattmexor2882 perhaps cause its same rule in dutch: gemakkelijk, gemakkelijker , gemakkelijkste
Interestingly, the "if you will" exception is really a very British construction, which I think is almost never used in American English..
Nor the colonial dialects of British English that I've come across
Yeah, American here and I’ve never heard that construction. It sounds so off to my ear!
The sense of that "will" appears in some common American sayings, like "Boys will be boys" or "Evil will out", but not in any other American speech that I am familiar with. Us Yanks would construct the "if" sentence differently, like "If you keep doing that then what do you expect?" or with no "if" at all, like "Since you won't stop, this is going to happen" etc.
Agree. Literally no American says that, figuratively speaking.
I haven't finished this yet but all of the first four don't really apply to american english.
In French, we say : « this is the exception that proves the rule ».
I studied French, English, Latin and German at school : but for me English grammar was the most easy.
Easiest 😉
In German we say that too: Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel. (Exceptions confirm the rule.)
Same here. Swedish is my mother tongue and I've studied English, French and German. The English grammar has always been the easiest, even easier than the Swedish grammar, especially when you try and teach it to someone else. :P
Very true. It’s beyond me to see so many people who are born and raised in the US make so many mistakes. They cannot even distinguish between “their” and “they’re”, “it’s” and “its”, “who” and “whom”
@@dianaperpignan1231 learning English by ear rather than written. Those sets of words sound the same to the American so they don’t differentiate the written form. Social media has revealed exactly how unintellectual the Americans are. Many use the excuse that they are talking their response but I know speech translators “fix” ‘there’ to ‘their’ or ‘they’re’ depending on usage. Lazy people wonder why people talk down to them. It’s because you let your mistakes stand.
A good teacher is someone who is engaging and interesting to listen to. You, sir, are a good teacher.
You forgot, 'MUCH Ado About Nothing', by a lesser known playwrite who may have influenced the course of British literary history.
Another case of using "if you will" grammatically correctly is in the meaning of "as it were", "so to speak", "as they say", and so forth.
Phrasal verbs such as "go on” act as an indivisible unit. The preposition can not be separated from the verb without changing the meaning of the phrasal verb. Nor can the verb in a phrasal verb stand-alone without changing its meaning. When phrasal verbs employ prepositions, their prepositions lose the quality and function that made them prepositions, and so they are no longer prepositions, but part of the stand-alone unit of the phrasal verb.
So, your grammar rule was not violated by the example. :)
Yes absolutely! Rather, the verb in his example is “to go on to” which means “to abandon one activity in favour of a related activity”, but if you followed the rule and used a gerund after the verb “to go on”, it has the meaning of “to continue”, at least in my dialect of English.
13:49 The use of contractions in formal writing actually can change a meaning or nuance, and this is made clear:
"You won't walk here" (formal, meaning doubt is present)
"You will not walk here" (formal, meaning force will be used if you try)
but that just future tense with a tone :) , same in almost every western language i think..
jij zal daar niet lopen,
tu ne vas pas y promener,
du shallt nicht , ...
don't know enough other european language to repeat it in those ;)
I love this! I've long since learnt to say that English doesn't really have rules, more like patterns and tendencies ;) Obviously, there are some rules but I make sure to say there is probably some exception I can't think of right now (but if you can - I say to my students - let me know, so I know for the future). My favourite is the "no *will* after *if*". At the start of someone's journey with the conditionals I don't even mention that yes, in some cases, you might see them worryingly close to each other. With more advanced students I say "there are some situations when you can say that but this isn't one, not yet."
About the contractions and writing - I think it might be some misconception carried over from formal writing. Students preparing for taking exams like CAE etc. have to learn to write some very formal pieces of writing and they often find it hard to remember not to contract in those. So maybe some teachers just expand the rule because of this? Not sure. But register sure is tricky sometimes! When I started learning foreign languages we mostly had course books, novels and maybesometimes some films to learn from. So we all sounded a bit pompous ;) Now my students find it hard to get rid of the "gonna" and "coulda" type of forms because they learn a lot from rather informal exchanges on the social media.
All very good points. As for the contractions I always say "write for the reader".
@@LetThemTalkTV That's a very clever way of putting it! And, as a bonus, can be applied to life in general.
Or "should of" for "should've".
English has rules or nobody would understand what one English speaker said to another English speaker. Most speakers learn the basic rules before they start grade school. English has a lot of irregularities to learn, and again some of them are absorbed by children listening to or talking to parents and watching television. There is a current prevalent myth that any way a particular group speaks English is on equal footing with any other way. That isn't the case and never will be. Linguists and linguistic anthropologists have recognized the way a language is spoken (and/or written) communicates more than just thoughts and feelings. Consciously and unconsciously you communicate to others your racial, ethnic and socioeconomic background, area of the country, intelligence and level of education, and many other details. And the person listening to you is consciously and unconsciously assigning meanings - even stereotypes - to YOU. One common one is a Southern accent. Subtle and not so subtle meanings can be assigned by speakers outside the South, and some meanings or assumptions can be negative. It's not uncommon for professionals or TV and media persons with Southern accents and speech patterns to attend special classes or tutor-supervised training to reduce or eliminate a Southern accent. Case in point: Stephen Colbert. He's a native of South Carolina, and he's remarked his natural speaking voice is characteristic of that state. He received training early in his career to eliminate his regional accent, and it only pops up again when he visits family and friends when he goes back home. This isn't a new phenomenon in America. As modern life means much more geographic, social and career mobility in the second half of the 20th and into the 21st centuries, so has the rise of speech training and modification private education.
On topic of the preposition followed by infinitive: "go on" is a phrasal verb. The preposition here belongs to the verb and changes its meaning (to go means to move, generally; to go on means to continue). In the example sentence (he was talking about his job and then he went on to talk about his holiday), the verb "to talk" doesn't really come after a preposition because the preposition is part of the phrasal verb.
That 's a good answer. I get tired of explaining that 'on' is not an adverb.
I had a friend in college who was from Germany and in her English classes in Germany she was always told not to use contractions in formal writing. I told her this was not true because sometimes not using a contraction will break up the rhythm of the sentence. She really liked my advice and acted like I had taken a giant weight off of her shoulders.
At the higher academic standards of college and university, contractions are not used. Open a college textbook sometime or read an academic journal article or paper. You won't see contractions.
The only channel, teacher and a person I trust blindly in this world full of everything virtual and misinformation.
🥰
Thank you so much for your content. As a teacher I find it so helpful! Many of your examples and explanations are so great, that I am writing them down and can´t wait to tell them to my students during our lessons.
Some of these I knew about but contractions being ok in formal writing blew my mind. That's great to know !
That's debatable in some instances....
be careful if you are writing in an academic setting such as university, for instance.
since "will" can mean "want to" in rare occasions, I find "If you will keep bothering me..." quite logical because for a non-native speaker like me it sounds like "If you intend to keep bothering me..."
I must admit that you are a HELLUVA teacher! Many thanks for your time as well as the lesson. Take it easy matey.
much appreciated
To whoM I speaking? Your point about using what sounds right is the best advice you can give. That is how language evolves.
*I would like to offer you the highest marks for your presentation. I am just a poor boy, however, the first written compliment I got, was from a stuffed shirt manager, who complimented me on my clear and concise style (of writing collection letters). I use a lot of contractions in everyday prose, and I have been published in national journals for my editorial commentaries. I really enjoy your videos, and am a mad fan!*
You did it a couple times in this video. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. "He's older than me." I was taught that the rule governing I, me, and myself required you to use, "He's older than I", because "am" is _understood._ "He's older than I am." You wouldn't say, "He's older than me am."
Some people tend to misuse the word "I" and never use the word "me" because they think it sounds kinda hillbilly or something.
"This belongs to you and I." Grrr...😬
"This belongs to you and me." 🙂
This prevents confusion when comparing. Those song lyrics that say, "Does he love you more than me?" What is literally being asked is, "Does he love you more than he loves me?" The intended question is more to the effect of, "Does he love you more than I [do]?" "Do" is understood.
"I like ice cream more than her", means, "I like ice cream more than I like her", which may be true but might not communicate what is intended. "I like ice cream more than she [does]." "Does" is understood.
Both versions ("He's older than me" and "He's older than I") are correct because "than" can serve either as preposition or as conjunction.If it's a preposition "me" is correct and if it's a conjunction "I" is correct (because I is the subject of understood verb).
@@semplicementeanita6563 - I don't think so. "He's older than me am" is the long form of the shorthand "He's older than me." Nobody would ever say, "He's older than me am." I cannot think of a context where "me" would be appropriate in that sentence.
"Does he love you more than me", would be appropriate if you were asking whether he loved you or he loved me more. It would not be appropriate if you were asking, "Does he love you more than I love you?" In that kind of sentence you could use either me or I depending on what you were asking.
It's when you start getting into when you need to use the word, "myself" that I start to go off the rails. 😄
@@GizmoFromPizmo Though BOTH versions are grammatically correct, most natives would say "He's older than me". Trust me 😉
@@semplicementeanita6563 - I know mostly native English speakers and they are no grammarians, believe me. It's common to hear them say things like:
"I should have went to the store." Or "I've never ran that far before." One guy I heard recently say, "I think about all the people over the years - everything they've did to get us where we are today." "They've DID???" Yikes!
Most natives never learned proper grammar and so I don't really consider them expert in the least. It's easy to blame the schools but I went to Catholic School like a bunch of others I know who can't get these things right.
@@GizmoFromPizmo But that's what happens. It's not that they haven't learnt proper grammar. Where I'm from the form 'am' has replaced 'are' but 'is' remains the same so I say 'I am, you am, he is, we am, they am'. It's natural that forms take over the use of other forms. For example, you can say 'I drank it yesterday' and 'I drunk it yesterday'. It comes from the fact that 'have' and 'has' don't even get used is sentences much such as 'have you done it yet?' becoming 'you done it yet?'.
Look at Swedish. The present tense forms of all verbs for all persons are the same form, but look at Icelandic and they remain largely different forms. It's a natural part of language evolution.
My mom used to grammar-shame me😢. Could never have a conversation with her because she was waiting for me to mess up, so she could interrupt me repeatedly with her English lessons. Severe language trauma...
English is so weird but your videos makes it understandable😁 Thank you🧡 Love your channel🧡 A separate video about adjectives, especially ones with two syllables would be awesome as it's a mind-boggling thing😁
I agree that contractions are perfectly fine in almost all writing. Oftentimes when I choose to write out both words, it is to emphasize or draw attention to the negative. "He can't eat that" versus "He cannot eat that"--in the first, I'd hear "can't" as "shouldn't" and in the second, I'd hear it as an imperative.
Yes exactly.
"But I'm writing my essay" vs.
"But I _am_ writing my essay"
Even more confusingly, the examples he gave, "Can't we do that again?" and "Can we not do that again?", very often are used to mean the opposite. Usually, when I say or write "Can't we do that again?", I mean "Can we do that again? Because I want to do that again." Usually, but not always, when I say or write, "Can we not do that again?", I mean, "I sincerely hope we don't do that again. I don't want to do that again." But it depends on context in writing and tone of voice in speaking.
@@hmm7420 Agreed. That's the nuance of writing out the contraction--to emphasize the negative aspect. Yours is an excellent example of that. Thanks.
On contractions, I seem to remember that the American writer Damon Runyon (not sure of the spelling of his name) made fun of the "rule" against contractions by having his characters who were lower class New Yorkers try to be more sophisticated by never using contractions and the strange awkwardness that resulted made fun of the "rule".
Dear Gideon I'm used to watching your videos even if I've been studying British English with my londoner teacher. My teacher appreciates your deeper knowledge about grammar. Both of you are important to improve my learning. This video was amazing and I'll share with professor
William.Thanks a lot
Good point re-contractions, but I wish you’d mentioned the absolute howler of an error that even native English speakers make, which is writing/saying should of etc… instead of should have. Mind you that probably needs a video of its own!
Should of, could of, would of! Yes, it's very poor. On a par with using 'brought' instead of 'bought'..!
I never say "should of, could of would of". I say "should've, could've, would've" quite regularly, however.
@@hmm7420 And you’d be correct. Could’ve is short for could have. Could of doesn’t make sense. OMG another AWFUL contraction error people, particularly in East London/Essex make, is confusing “his” and “he’s”. “Peter’s only gone and lost he’s keys!” instead of HIS keys. Drives me nuts.
More perfect? Most perfect? There are no degrees of perfection. It's a superlative in itself. I'm surprised a grammar teacher didn't know this!
I personally would avoid using the comparative or superitive of the word "perfect" because the word itself implies (to me at least) whatever you're talking about can't possibly get any better.
Yes, I made a note about that on the video.
13:00 Another nice example from Shakespeare is the double superlative for emphasis used by Mark Antony in describing Brutus' attack on Caesar: "This was the most unkindest cut of all"
I always assumed some "wrong" comparatives are used in spoken language because of the way we think. You might say "It was more" and then only think about what word you actually want to use. So you end up with things like "It was more funny than I expected" simply because you might have started out the sentence in the intention of saying "it was more amusing". Interesting to hear that it would actually not be wrong either way.
Thank you, teacher, for answering my question made for 6 months ago, after watching the video ”5 Ways We use Will as Present Tense!
I wrote the following: If you’ll let me finish, I’ll take questions at the end.
I went on asking you to comment on this.
You really do us a great favour!
Really interesting vid! I disagree with the last opinion, though. Contractions should definitely be avoided in formal writing, e.g. business reports, university papers and probably formal letters. That they've become normal in business emails is just a feature of the fact that business email correspondence has become more and more informal overall. Contractions are okay in journalism (opinion pieces, etc.) and fiction (hence Orwell), but they definitely go against the existing conventions of academic writing.
You are right. it's worth noting that Cambridge exams directed towards foreign students of English always accept contractions as correct no matter how formal the written task. I think this is because they want to encourage the use of contractions which many non-natives seem to assume are slang.
My Mother was very adamant for the family to not say 'more better', one would just say 'better'.
your mother was right
Thank you for clarifying when to use contractions.
Im a native English speaker and I speak Latin as a second language and spanish as a 3rd ( although my spanish still needs a lot of work) so I stumbled upon this video by accident and I have to say it’s given me a really interesting perspective because even though my Latin is pretty good my native language obviously comes most naturally to me and although I’m sure that I follow all of these “rules” I am nearly completely ignorant of their existence! And I am quite confident that I would be a far better Latin teacher than an English teacher because much like an English student who may watch this video I had to study all of the rules of grammar in order to pick up my second language ( luckily it is very similar to Spanish so I didn’t have to start all over lol) also I make my living as a music teacher and I can’t help but to notice how similar learning grammar is to learning music theory; it’s very helpful and kind of a road map to get to where you are going and yet many of the people who make the best music don’t know the first thing about music theory. I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this is that if you are learning a new language definitely learn grammar but don’t worry too much about it because at the end of the day they are not “rules” they are conventions and the point of language is to understand and to be understood so don’t let the fear of making a mistake or speaking”improperly “ stop you from using the language. I just returned from holiday in Spain and hardly anyone there spoke English fluently so I was forced to use my poor spanish but what I found was that people seemed to really appreciate the fact that I was making the attempt to speak in their language and it was actually a lot of fun !
I am curious, how did you end up with speaking a dead language as second language? That sounds like an interesting story.
@@denidale4701 seriously!😅 I couldn't wrap my head around that too
There's another inevitable use of "whom", when it comes after "to" in "to whom" such as "to whom it may concern" or "this is the person to whom..."
I was explained that "whom" must be used when a object pronoun must be used. For instance, you would say "for hiM/theM" so "for whoM" or "to hiM/theM" so "to whoM"
14:20 that's what I like about English, that its written formal form is close to its spoken one, compared to other languages, e.g. German. 🤐
In "go on to do something", "on" is NOT a preposition, "teacher". It is an adverb. That's why it can be followed by a to infinitive. You could do with some brushing up on elementary English grammar, I'm afraid.
Disagree. An adverb describes a verb. How a thing is done.
If I will keep watching too much youtube videos, I will end up explaining to whom I owe my reports most urgently when I should’ve submitted them yesterday.
Surely, you also teach your students that "go on" is a phrasal verb and so operates a bit differently from some others.
“Go on” is a phrasal verb. It doesn’t follow the verb+ing grammar rule. There also rules that are specific for certain verbs, such as like, love, hate, start, stop. These verbs can be followed either by an infinitive or a verb+ing, and this will depend on the intended use.
What a wealth of examples! Thank you very much!
From French, "if, then" is: present/future; imperfect/conditional; past perfect/future perfect. Makes total sense.
With "if you will" example it is good to remember that "will" origins from German "wollen" - "to want". Hence, the meaning of "if you will" maybe more close to "if you want to" and has nothing to do with a future tense .
I’m 100 English I was the spotted school boy at the back of the class. Randomly visit your pages. All the best.
you existing is a blessing to human kind
I think it can sometimes make a difference to not using contractions. If you want to be more firm, like giving an order. For instance: "do not do that" instead of "don't do that" is more firm. It emphasizes the "not" and you hear it more like "do NOT do that".
The rule "no verb after a preposition" is rock solid! Mr. Gideon"s example "he went on to look for a job" only confirms it. The thing is that in English there are only two verb forms -V1 (present indefinite) and V2 (past indefinite). The infinitive, Ving and V3 forms are not verbs.
And of course, the most notable fake "rule" (that never even was a rule and need not be followed) is the one prohibiting ending a sentence with a preposition. (E.g, "This is a tough problem to deal with," or "He had a lot of hoops to jump through.")
This "rule" apparently came about in the 19th century when scholars were focused on classical antiquity and tried adapt Latin grammar rules to English. But English ain't Latin, so the "rule" doesn't apply. As Churchill famously (but probably never) said, "This is something up with which I will not put!"
Thanks for the segment on Who/Whom.
You really need to tell that bit about it being OK to use contractions in formal writing to those wankers at Microsoft - I'm sick to death of having bloody green squiggly lines all over my emails because I've said something like "I'll work on your request after I've finished the monthly reporting. It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes." Bloody Microsoft -Outlook- Outhouse and its shitty "grammar checking".
English is quite tricky, isn't it? I learnt that the word PERFECT is non-gradable since it implies the idea of being the best. As well as the adjective DELICIOUS for instance..... You are driving me nuts. ...It's imposiible to master. I'm giving up. Anyway thank you for the lesson.
This is more delicious than that sounds fine. Why wouldn't it be?
English is my 3rd language and learn it by myself. I come from a phonetic language with different alphabet /Cyrillic/ and had a very hard time understanding the concept of writing a letter but not pronouncing it or pronouncing it differently when it's a certain combination.
In example 2, "keep" is valid since it can be replaced with "continue"
I am a native English speaker. In school I certainly learned that contractions are not acceptable in written text unless quoting spoken remarks. However, I sat my English O level in 1976 and one reason for the success of English is that it doesn't have a codified set of "rules" and is continuously and rapidly evolving. I suspect the corrosive effect of email has spelled the death knell for non-contracted writing. I do think though that it's important to note that not all contractions have the same effect. Spelling out "do not" rather than "don't" for example - the former is an instruction and the latter advice in my mind.
All members of The Whom are excellent musicians. 🙃
First off, thanks for clarifying the comparative/superlative rule -- even as a native speaker, I never realized syllable count was the deciding factor in -er/-est vs. more/most.
Second, I'm surprised you didn't touch on the split-infinitive pseudo-rule. That one's been getting more of a point-and-laugh response ever since William Shatner started breaking it at the beginning of every Star Trek episode ("to boldly go where no man has gone before!") My understanding is that it comes from a time when language snobs thought Latin was the Perfect Language that all other languages could only aspire to. Since it's technically impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, these snobs thought that doing so in English was an aberration, and thus Simply Not Done.
Whatever. 🙄
I also made a video on the split infinitive. Do check it out.
Please do-“feel badly”… my Dad said, and I agree, that “I feel badly” implies some tactile physical action, which a feeling is not…
The ambulance was spot on!
To be fair I've met a number of english teachers in the past, many of whom told me to never break those rules. Therefore, if you'll keep on making such great videos about the english language, my grammar should be much better in no time at all! It possibly makes live more easy as well.
_(Just trying to properly use what I've learned today, please anybody correct me wherever I'm wrong!)_
You use it well.
@@LetThemTalkTV Motivation +1 😎
I think you have to study grammar to teach grammar and that's something that most native speakers never do. In the 1st example the explanation is obvious: after a preposition the verb is used in the gerund always, because it intoduces a prepositional syntagma. The preposition in "go on" is a part of phrasal verb, therefore is part of the verb, and as we know after verbs can be a ver in infinitive as well as in gerund, depending on the verb.
Good thing we can relax with rules, it helps a lot not to worry about how to use adjectives, I can't be pompous in English, I'm still in my infancy in English. Facilitate I prefer. Good to see you Gideon. See you in the next video😎 thanks!
I'm sure you're making good progress. Be relaxed with the rules
@@LetThemTalkTV thanks Professor 🧡
As regards rule two, there is one exception, that is hardly even spoken about, when ‘if’ introduces an indirect question, for instance:
‘I don’t know if he will like the show’
Students are also often taught never to put ‘will’ after ‘when’, whereas this concerns only the time clauses. In other cases, if referring to the future, don’t be afraid to use ‘will’, for example:
‘I don’t know when he will come back’
‘When will he be ready?”
But:
“When I come back/am ready, I will make dinner” - this is an adverbial clause of time or simply put, a time clause, where ‘will’ never comes after ‘when’
George Orwell made a lot of excellent observations in “Politics and the English Language.” He really was a master of English writing too.
I'm an English major and I've never heard a professor say that! English has more exceptions than rules. It is known.
I was taught comparatives, more vs -er depended on the origin of the word. Latin based used more/ most while Germanic used -er/est.
Thank you very much! After suffering (sic) a lot of "strange" english teachers; a) an spanish military officer with an horrible hispanic american english, b) a french-majorcan lady with the hardest french english accent I ever listened and c) a french woman with polish parents with a rare mix of polish-french-english accent, my best english teachers were the first, a majorcan lady which studied and got her good english level at a girls school in England and living and working there for many years. And the last one, an scottish woman (she got married with a majorcan doctor, both good friends of mine). Their mantra: Don't try to speak like a "native". Get your own accent. Your objective is to be understood, not to speak with a "perfect and false accent". You get english more comprehensive for non native speakers!
If I tried to copy someone's accent, I'd worry that they would think I was being patronising.
I laughed a little bit when you used Shakespeare as an authority for allowing exceptions to the rules.
1) The language he was writing for was somewhat different from modern usage, so there should be an expectation that his writing will not completely match modern usage.
2) While modern society places Shakespeare on a literary pedestal, at the time he was executing functional writing, much like writers for TV programs or movies today. If his words didn't capture the ears of his listeners, or they couldn't understand what he meant, his plays would not have been successful.
3) Plus, he wrote dialog that was appropriate for the character speaking the line, with some being particular with how they spoke and which words to use, while others put together their thoughts more haphazardly, with all levels in between also represented.
Those who say you shouldnt use contractions in formal writing should try to read any book or writing from, say, the 17th or 18th century; they would surely have a heart attack, with words like "every" being contracted to "ev'ry" and so on. Tons of contractions that wouldn't even occur to us to use today
As a non native English teacher, I play safe and follow the rules. I don't know what I might sound like if I break them. But I always tell my students to be aware of differences, of how ppl speak on movies and series and to keep in mind that usually we speak to ppl who are also non-native.
I'd write, ".. follow rules as I wouldn't know whether it sounds right (or not) if I broke them."
Native speakers tend not to read grammar books 😆😆
Good to have you here Gideon! Never before, have I seen you uploading on Tuesdays.
Tuesday is the new Friday
It doesn’t get any better than your lessons!
you're too kind
Perhaps not of any practical help for learners but I think that when a phrasal verb like go on can be followed by either a gerund (go on doing) or an infinitive (go on to do), the particle of the phrasal verb changes function. Case in point, the 'on' in 'go on to do' is adverbial an therefore not a preposition. Also when a phrasal verb is intransitive, the particle is not technically a preposition.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!
One of our PhD students used contractions in her thesis but a British professor who reviewed it said that this is unacceptable in a thesis. I guess there are different standards. I suspect some publishers won’t accept these in published articles or books. Your examples are actually from informal speech, e.g., emails or text messages. You don’t say ‘let’s meet tomorrow’ in an essay.
Precisely!
If you’re learning English as a second language, don’t fret over any of this. It’s not that important. No point in breaking your head.
I still wouldn't use contractions in formal writing: research papers, legal communication, official notifications. Sometimes, the apostrophe s might be mistaken for a possessive, not good in formal writing.
contractions like gonna, ain't and other informal ones should be alright in wriging if you have your characters say these things.
My English teacher used to say "there's no rules. Only exceptions".
Isn't ''perfect'' a superlative per se? :)
I'd like your dissertation on the use, misuse, and alternatives to using the word "ain't".
Sure but in the case of "go on", "go on" basically functions as a phrasal word. The preposition "on" isn't actually a preposition in the overall phrase, just within the phrasal word "go on", so whether or not there's a gerund after doesn't mean anything
It is perfect, is an absolute statement, it can´t be more perfect. Because perfect is flawless, and it should not be possible to have less then no flaws.
This reminds me on some diskussion I had around 15 years ago. I was writing something and referring to mankind as humans. An acquaintance corrected me and said in this circumstance it is wrong to say humans. I said it is not usual but I am sure it is not wrong.
yes, about more perfect I put a note on the screen about that
@@LetThemTalkTV Oh sorry I missed that.
If I might add, the only instance where I can think of perfecter or more perfect being used would be when you have called something perfect and then changed your mind, but without actually admitting you were wrong.
to go on is a phrasal verb, synonymous to "to continue".
12:15 I found one more example with the word "fun". more fun and the most fun. funner just sounds strange. Thank you for the lesson.
Native speaker here - listening to you I realised I sometimes mix up my comparatives. eg I would say 'stupid - more stupid - stupidest'.
Oh, woe. Vere, very intetesting... Demistifying severeal grammar rules! Awesome! Ty for sharing.
So much in English can depend on emphasis, tone, context:
"Can we *not* do this again?! Please?"
Yes, we can. But could we?
Same in other languages too!
1:11 'go on to talk' This 'on' is not a preposition, but an adverb. This example follows the rules.
"Never split infinitives" is my favourite fake rule. In Old and Middle English it wasn't done, and then around the time Modern English started to form we started doing it (some early examples include Shakespeare doing it). Then the Victorians were like "NO! DO NOT DO IT!" and some people still think we shouldn't. I'd argue that we get some fantastic phrases by doing it. Can you imagine if Star Trek's motto was "To go boldly" instead of "to boldly go"? It just doesn't have the same impact.
Also, as languages evolve over time, I think it's fine to let certain words die. "Whom" has fallen out of favour of the general public and that's ok, let the rules of the language change.
Too bad they mostly change for the worse, and I mean they oftentimes get simpler. Dropping "whom" is just sad, really. We're heading toward simplification.
@@podavus There are good simplifications and bad ones. I feel that whom is just old fashioned and doesn't make much sense any more. Things like "thru" drive me up the wall.
@@WandererEris But why the need to make it all simpler? Complexity is wonderful - there are more shades to choose from, more ways we can convey our thoughts.
Add grammatical cases, for example, and leave out 'whom' and then I'd be: "Ok, I'm sad about dropping 'whom' but I'm good. Let's embrace change." But it seems we'll be speaking a dull language in 200 years.
@@podavus Because there are certain things you don't want to be complicated. Speaking should be easy and simple, with the option for complexity when it comes to poetry and art. The average person doesn't need whom or victual or any other word that's fallen out of fashion. What you're talking about is a pool that is deep at both ends, not a pool that is shallow at one end and deep at the other.
Middle aged American here. I have *never* heard any American with competent language ability use the word "will" in the way you describe. Americans also never use "whom" except in starting a letter "To whom it may concern." Using the word here marks you as pretentious. I did hear it fairly commonly when I was at college in Wales and Scotland.
Always enjoy your videos and seeing the national differences.
I’m an American and I use whom in exactly the way he mentions in this video. It does not sound pretentious at all.
Funny, I as an American regularly use "whom" in all kinds of spoken language (formal, informal, and everything else under the sun) but I have never once started a letter or email with "To whom it may concern." I'd rather start an email with "heya what's poppin" than "to whom it may concern."
"Go on" is an interesting example. I think it also demonstrates that English Prepositions and prefixes have turns into "Postpositions".
If we were to reconstruct this using the Latin rules, "go on" would be "ongo", "onwent", "ongone". Same as we do with "forego", "forwent", "forgone".
... > "and then he [onwent] to talk about his holiday."
With English verbs that come from Germanic languages, over the centuries the tendency was to "untag" the prefix (turning it into a preposition) and then put AFTER the verb.
I think there is term for this phenomenon. But it explains the constructions. (go on) should be thought of as verb unit, and not as VERB followed by a preposition.
I had a really good English teacher up to 'O' level (age 15), but he did one day have a spaz and tried to ban the use of the word 'got' on the grounds that there was 'always another way to phrase it'. We all sat baffled, as 'got' had worked fine for all of us every time up till then, then we collectively shrugged it off and he got a grip and things got/went back to normal.