posted
Sometimes, ESL students ask the darndest questions...And legitimately so...
Okay native speakers, what is the difference between:
Just/Only: "It's just 5 dollars!" - "It's only 5 dollars!" "I am just 18 years old." - "I am only 18 years old." "We need just a little more time." - "We need only a little more time."
Sure, you can get into where they do differ such as "The king is a just man." "The king is an only man." The second one doesn't make sense, but here we are dealing with another definition of "just." I am talking when they are the same, what is the difference?
So you can figure that one out, try these:
Each/Every: Oh that is easy...They are nothing similar. Afterall: "In poker each player gets 5 cards." - "In poker, every player gets 5 cards." uh... "In a square, each side is the same length." - "In a square, every side is the same length."
hmm...maybe they are so similar so why do they just feel different?
Now try to guess what "each and every one of you" means...
But/Yet:
"He is tall, but he doesn't play basketball." - "He is tall, yet he doesn't play basketball."
"They studied, but they didn't pass the test." - "They studied, yet they didn't pass the test."
Again, try to explain the difference...UGH!!
We just plain know when to say which word in these and other similar situations, but (yet) when it comes to trying to explain the difference using the very langauge students don't understand, it gets messy.
There are a whole bunch of these combos of words that are similar, but we as fluent speakers know exactly when to use which. These miniscule differences are still nonetheless differences. With no effort, we know how to speak them when the time comes, but just imagine if you are a non-native speaker.
No wonder some people just say "Oh forget it!"
Posts: 736 | From: Maryland | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO "yet" carries a stronger expectation than "but". For instance, "They studied, yet they didn't pass the test" seems to imply an expectation that someone who has studied would pass the test.
Posts: 333 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The just/only one and the but/yet one are cases where one of the words of the pair (just and yet) have more than 1 definition. How it is used in the sentence will tell you which definition is being used. Do other languages not have words that have more than one definition? I imagine they would.
The each and every is different in that the word 'each' you are talking about the individual people/things/events in the group while the word 'every' refers to the entire group of individual people/things/events. In the case you give it really doesn't matter and I honestly cannot think of a case where it does. So as a rule use whichever one works better. And either way 'each and every' is simple repeatative nonesense.
Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In cases where the usage is very difficult to describe, and sometimes even arbitrarly assigned by English-speaking culture, try not to focus too much on the meaning and instead give as many examples as possible. The students will be able to look back on that "database" of previous examples and find a similar one. That is, of course, how native speakers do it. We don't determine usage by meaning. Meaning is determined by usage.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So everyone knows. As I understand it, the difference in the three word pairs is as follows:
JUST - an implication of simplicity ONLY - an implication of small quantitative/sequential value
"He is just a baby." vs "He is only a baby." shows this more clearly. One implies the simplicity of being a baby, the other that he is not that chronologically far along in life. The difference is very subtle. "Just turn here." - It is EASY. "Only turn here." - Do this move and no more.
BUT - is a simple contraster where the outcome is not what would be expected but is still well within the realm of what might happen. YET - is a stronger contraster where the element of surprise or shock or illogic in what happened is present.
"I love her, but I'm not going to marry her." - a common situation, even if it's not what everyone would do. "I love yer, yet I'm not going to marry her." - "Goodness! Why in the world am I not marrying her?"
Each - all considered individually Every - all considered collectively This is why we say "50 cents for each apple" which is clear but not "50 cents for every apple" which could mean either one or all of them depending on how you read it.
Point I was making was, there are so many words that are so similar that it takes a frustratingly long time to figure out these subtle differences. If we as fluent speakers have to think about what the differences are, just imagine if you did not grow up with these words.
Think about what "help" vs "help out" mean or the differnce between "Can someone help me?" vs "Can anyone help me?" There are so many more examples. We FEEL the difference even if we can't explain it. THAT...takes time for new learners.
Just keep practicing by example and eventually they learn it. But it takes so dang long sometimes and I totally sympathize.
Posts: 736 | From: Maryland | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a speaker of Queen's English, none of the variants sound that strange to me. I agree that "yet" has a more expectant quality to it but it is a minor difference.
Blues
Posts: 207 | From: Woolhampton, Berks, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are in a car, but on a train. The house is on the river, Sally's at the River, and Johnny's in the river.
On time, in time.
I don't remember too many other examples of this, but sometimes the explanation was simply that this is just the way it is.
To compare, when I was studying Korean, there was a phrase that meant "except". If the verb was a two-part verb, the phrase would go in the middle of the verb. So to say I did nothing except sleep last night, it literally translated to "Except for sleeping, I didn't sleep last night." That one I just had to chalk up to "that's the way it is."
quote:Originally posted by Orpheum: I can't find my copy of Strunk & White - anyone know if it has these listed?
Mine is at work. I don't remember if it covered these while but I do remember that it deprecates the use of the word while when but would be more appropriate.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Alex Buchet
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
My twin Bibles for usage continue to be Fowler's 'Modern English Usage', as recently updated, and Partridge's 'Usage and Abusage'.
One bracing aspect of teaching ESL is that it forces one to re-examine the language one uses instinctively.
Posts: 202 | From: Paris, France | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this was going to be about words such as "wind" with double meaning...those are homophones or another word...aye.
ETA: to clarify...I mean pronounciation
"The wind is blowing" and "That is a wind up toy" there's an email floating around with this stuff.
-------------------- "Fate is like a strange, unpopular resturant, filled with odd waiters who bring you things you never ask for and don't always like."-Lemony Snicket Posts: 1119 | From: Bronx, NY | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Squishy0405: I thought this was going to be about words such as "wind" with double meaning...those are homophones or another word...aye...
Speaking of "aye"...
3 Scottsman walking down to shore and see an iceberg could have the following conversation:
Scottsman 1: "I see water." Scottsman 2: "Icy water!" Scottsman 3: "Aye! Sea water."
And they would all have that funny accent...
Posts: 736 | From: Maryland | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I use, but should use more often, 'Good Word Guide' by Martin Manser. It addresses the words in the OP. It gives many good examples of correct usage.
For example, just.
Just has a variety of adverbial senses: 'at this moment', 'exactly', 'only', etc. For this reason it must be carefully positioned in a sentence in order to convey the intended meaning.
Your son has just eaten two cakes [i.e. a short time ago]. Your son has eaten just two cakes [i.e. not one or three]. Just your son has eaten two cakes [i.e. only your son; no one else].
The entry for 'just' goes on, but you can see why foreign language students find it difficult.
A quick glance through the book shows that it explains when to use abuse or misuse, fix or repair, flee or fly, shall or will, etc, etc...
I also like words in English which can mean complete opposites - for example, cleave can mean to cut in two or to hold together and fast can mean to move quickly or not to move at all (as in stuck fast). Re-sign and resign are also almost opposite in meaning. There must be many other examples.
Pity the poor non-English speaker.
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Squishy0405: I thought this was going to be about words such as "wind" with double meaning...those are homophones or another word...aye.
ETA: to clarify...I mean pronounciation
Edited again to clarify: You mean pronunciation
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I'll bet you tried and tried. And the trying was a trying time for you.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before we delve too far into these intricacies, I think we should first dedicate our resources to making sure that all *native* (not ESL) speakers understand the differences between the following:
--They're / their / there
--You're / your
Just take a look at almost any MySpace post or chain e-mail if you need further clarification or evidence.
Posts: 918 | From: Southern CA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Alex Buchet
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
I tried to open the windows. (I wasn't successful.)
I tried opening the windows. (I was successful.)
I forgot to post the letter. (I didn't post it.)
I forgot posting the letter. (I did post it, but it's slipped my mind.)
In England, you post a letter by the Royal Mail.
In America, you mail a letter at the Post Office.
Posts: 202 | From: Paris, France | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Class Bravo: Before we delve too far into these intricacies, I think we should first dedicate our resources to making sure that all *native* (not ESL) speakers understand the differences between the following:
--They're / their / there
--You're / your
Just take a look at almost any MySpace post or chain e-mail if you need further clarification or evidence.
Plus are and our.
and have and of (as in saying I would of ... instead of I would have....
Now don't (dont) get me started on the omission of apostrophes or on their overuse (almost every fruit and veg market stall in Britain sells potatoe's).
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Alex Buchet: I tried opening the windows. (I was successful.)
That implies that you were successful in opening the windows but that it probably didn't have the effect you intended! Or rather, that you opened the windows for some purpose, and that it's the purpose that is interesting rather than the fact.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Do you have any wine? All of this would go a lot smoother in an altered state of reality. Posts: 779 | From: Southampton, England | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andrew of Ware, England:
quote:Originally posted by Class Bravo: Before we delve too far into these intricacies, I think we should first dedicate our resources to making sure that all *native* (not ESL) speakers understand the differences between the following:
--They're / their / there
--You're / your
Just take a look at almost any MySpace post or chain e-mail if you need further clarification or evidence.
Plus are and our.
and have and of (as in saying I would of ... instead of I would have....
Now don't (dont) get me started on the omission of apostrophes or on their overuse (almost every fruit and veg market stall in Britain sells potatoe's).
I actually saw an online article on a genuine news site that came from what I expected to be a responsible press agency that used the phrase "could of". I gave a silent scream of anguish.
Can we add "its" and "it's" to the list? If something belongs to it, that something is "its", not "it's". I often see this listed as an exception to the use of the possessive apostrophe, but it isn't really. No possessive pronouns use an apostrophe (yours, ours, hers, theirs).
As for the sort of difficulty mentioned in the OP, I'd expect that other similarly confusing words would be less / fewer (easy enough to explain, but somehow hard to remember), and will / shall (tends to be followed in the UK, at least it was when I was Ethere 22 years ago, but not at all on this side of the Atlantic).
Even worse is when you think you finally have adverbs and adjetives all sorted out, then come across a phrase like "feel bad" which means to be sorry or sick, as opposed to "feel badly" which would mean you have a poor sense of touch.
Posts: 539 | From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Alex Buchet
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
"Its" isn't a possessive pronoun, it's a possessive adjective. And apparently, the possessive "it's" was acceptable well into the 18th century; Thomas Jefferson so spelt it.
Posts: 202 | From: Paris, France | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alex Buchet: "Its" isn't a possessive pronoun, it's a possessive adjective. And apparently, the possessive "it's" was acceptable well into the 18th century; Thomas Jefferson so spelt it.
Since when is "it" an adjective? What noun is it describing/modifying? And what exactly is a possesive adjective anyway? How can an adjective posess anything?
-------------------- "Accompanied by the ghosts of dolphins, the ghost of a ship sailed on..." Terry Pratchett Posts: 660 | From: Gainesville, FL | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "You learn something new every day if you're not careful" - Wilf Lunn Posts: 893 | From: Durham City, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alex Buchet: "Its" isn't a possessive pronoun, it's a possessive adjective. And apparently, the possessive "it's" was acceptable well into the 18th century; Thomas Jefferson so spelt it.
Just because an American president uses something doesn't make it correct. Wasn't there a candidate for the vice-presidency recently who wanted to spell 'potato' with an 'e' on the end?
I take your point, though. Things do change over time. I have a copy of an eighteenth century book on York Minster called, 'The Beautifulest Church'. Whilst these changes must make English more confusing to 'non-native' speakers, it does mean that the language adapts and makes it the language of choice in today's world. Yes, I know Chinese has more first language speakers, but English is the most widely understood language.
French, which is prevented from developing, is now outside the world's top ten languages (from a list I saw recently) and it will continue dropping down until it is little more than a museum piece in the history of civilisation.
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alex Buchet: "Its" isn't a possessive pronoun, it's a possessive adjective. And apparently, the possessive "it's" was acceptable well into the 18th century; Thomas Jefferson so spelt it.
Just because an American president uses something doesn't make it correct. Wasn't there a candidate for the vice-presidency recently who wanted to spell 'potato' with an 'e' on the end?
I take your point, though. Things do change over time. I have a copy of an eighteenth century book on York Minster called, 'The Beautifulest Church'. Whilst these changes must make English more confusing to 'non-native' speakers, it does mean that the language adapts and makes it the language of choice in today's world. Yes, I know Chinese has more first language speakers, but English is the most widely understood language.
French, which is prevented from developing, is now outside the world's top ten languages (from a list I saw recently) and it will continue dropping down until it is little more than a museum piece in the history of civilisation.
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alex Buchet: "Its" isn't a possessive pronoun, it's a possessive adjective. And apparently, the possessive "it's" was acceptable well into the 18th century; Thomas Jefferson so spelt it.
Just because an American president uses something doesn't make it correct. Wasn't there a candidate for the vice-presidency recently who wanted to spell 'potato' with an 'e' on the end?
I take your point, though. Things do change over time. I have a copy of an eighteenth century book on York Minster called, 'The Beautifulest Church'. Whilst these changes must make English more confusing to 'non-native' speakers, it does mean that the language adapts and makes it the language of choice in today's world. Yes, I know Chinese has more first language speakers, but English is the most widely understood language.
French, which is prevented from developing, is now outside the world's top ten languages (from a list I saw recently) and it will continue dropping down until it is little more than a museum piece in the history of civilisation.
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andrew of Ware, England:
quote:Originally posted by Alex Buchet: "Its" isn't a possessive pronoun, it's a possessive adjective. And apparently, the possessive "it's" was acceptable well into the 18th century; Thomas Jefferson so spelt it.
Just because an American president uses something doesn't make it correct. Wasn't there a candidate for the vice-presidency recently who wanted to spell 'potato' with an 'e' on the end?
Not just a candidate. That was Dan Quayle, the VP under George HW Bush.
I don't think that 'its' became the accepted form of the possesive until sometime in the nineteenth century.
quote: I take your point, though. Things do change over time. I have a copy of an eighteenth century book on York Minster called, 'The Beautifulest Church'. Whilst these changes must make English more confusing to 'non-native' speakers, it does mean that the language adapts and makes it the language of choice in today's world. Yes, I know Chinese has more first language speakers, but English is the most widely understood language.
I'm not sure this is correct. I think English is the most widely understood language because of the former British Empire and the current power of the US.
I have a hard time believing that English adapts more than any other language. Few changes over the centuries have been adaptations at all, and more often than not simply happen at random and are of no particular benefit.
When a change is genuinely needed, I think all languages, including French, are about as willing to adapt.
quote: French, which is prevented from developing, is now outside the world's top ten languages (from a list I saw recently) and it will continue dropping down until it is little more than a museum piece in the history of civilisation.
I've always thought that we anglophones are too hard on the French. True, the attempts of some to keep English loan words out are silly, but ordinary people still use 'le weekend' and 'les emails'. There's no way to prevent language change from on high.
But then we have our own silly books telling us about the correct use of 'fewer' and less' and insisting that we use 'hopefully' in a way which would render our sentences incomprehensible.
Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one which really gets my goat is the misuse of 'were' in the subjunctive form.
For example, a lot of people would say "I wish I was rich" because it's singular, however this is just wrong wrong wrong! Ut's not something that happenned in the past, it's a hypothetical situation.
Were is this case has nothing to do with being the past plural of 'was'. The correct phrase should be "I wish I were rich".
Everybody I meet gets it wrong and then doesn't believe me screaming 'But it's singular!".
quote: But then we have our own silly books telling us about the correct use of 'fewer' and less'
Why is it silly to get it right? They do have distinct meaning! Does it really aid a language to have fewer words in it making it less precise
-------------------- Dactingyl is meant to sound a bit like Christingle.
It's not very good but I couldn't think of anything else.
Sorry. Posts: 257 | From: Hants, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If everybody you meet gets its 'wrong', doesn't that indicate that grammar has changed and 'I wish I was rich' is now correct?
Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I wish I was rich. I wish I was rich and pissed it all up the wall.
-------------------- "British English speakers point to Americans adding more syllables so that they can make even more noise without actually saying anything." Llewtrah
Posts: 2235 | From: Sussex , UK | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But then we have our own silly books telling us about the correct use of 'fewer' and less'
Why is it silly to get it right? They do have distinct meaning! Does it really aid a language to have fewer words in it making it less precise
But it's not right to argue that we can't say "less books". People do it all the time and it's just as precise as "fewer books". I'm afraid I can't see any loss of precision.
Where do these rules of language come from, anyway? I mean, I can understand a rule prhobiting "fewer water" since no native speaker says such a thing. But a rule prohibiting "less books" is really just an arbitrary distinction. Calling it 'correct' seems odd to me.
Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
