NationStates Jolt Archive

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

Lo and behold, they day has come! I don't want to discourage anyone who'd still like to participate in the poll / add their answer, but for those who've asked for it, I've finally added my explanation of it all. (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13381562&postcount=164) Thanks for all those who've added to both my knowledge and my entertainment by posting in this thread! You're now officially my favorite native speaker collective.

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

A) Yes.

B) No.

C) Yes.

I'm 20, male, I guess the regional version of English would be Canadian, and I'd rank my regular language use as somewhere between casual and official.

so how many long have you been 21? :p (also you missed out your cup size, this is madness)

A) you can I guess but normal people say "they have"
B) no, that sounds retarded
C) the difference is B is asking you if you want to play and is also grammatically wrong

straight(though you might want male)/18/chocolate brown hair/Northantonian English/casual

a) Yes. ("I wonder why they've done this?")
b) No. ("Could they have done this on purpose?")
1/2) No. They seem the same to me.

Age: 13
Gender: Male
Variant: Australian English
Official/Colloquial: More official than most ;)

As a point of information, where are you from?

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

a) and b) are both yes. Those are acceptable uses of the contraction they've. Though to be honest, I personally tend not to use the contraction in situations like b)

As for c)
1) Is proper English, and 2) which uses the slang term "wanna." They have the same meaning on their face, and any perceptive difference is really just an issue of the comparative formality of the sentences. I personally do not use "wanna," though I know people who do.

I'm 21, a native speaker, and I'm not precisely sure what dialectal group I'd fall into, since while I'm born and raised in Jersey, it tends to feel like I'm speaking a different language than some of the people here.
When writing or speaking formally I tend not to use contractions (I never use "wanna"). However, in everyday speech I tend to.

Edit: Hope that wasn't too long-winded. It's 7:00 AM here and I woke up roughly 30 minutes ago to drive into the office.

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?' I would contract them in the first sentence, but not the second.

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'I suppose it could depend on the context - I'm thinking a sport here - in which case, I don't see a meaning between the two.

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'. I'm 25 and from Pittsburgh. I don't particularly speak url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburghese]Pittsburghese[/url], but I'm sure it plays at least some part in my speech. I'd say I speak more officially than not - I never use double negatives unless doing so actually conveys the meaning I want, for instance.

Age: 13

wagging it are we? :D

born and raised in Jersey

did you spend most of your days on a playground?

A- yes, but I'd be more likely to say "I wonder why they did this?"
B- no
C- no

I'm 17, female, and from Florida.

so how many long have you been 21? :p (also you missed out your cup size, this is madness)

About 10 months ;P I did indeed miss it out; the fourth question was supposed to be "What is your intuitive guess of SoWiBi's cup size?". Duh.

Also, thanks a lot to everyone who answered so far - overwhelming response :] I'm immensely enjoying many of your posts, although some of them severely disprove one part of my theory while brilliantly proving another. Keep 'em coming :]

P.S. I'll try and add [another construction I had a hard time convincing my teacher to be correct these days] a country-/gender-specific evaluation later, if it turns out to make sense.

C) Yes.
Would you mind elaborating on where you see the difference?

C) the difference is B is asking you if you want to play and is also grammatically wrong

I think I might know what you mean, but could you still make it somewhat more clear for someone of my inferior intelligence? And say why it's wrong / how it would sound like in its correct form?

Also: Boy, I always thought you were in the 27-42 age bracket...


As a point of information, where are you from?

Sorry, missed that. Bielefeld, Germany.

I'm 17, female, and from Florida.

doesn't that make you the youngest resident in the state?

About 10 months ;P I did indeed miss it out; the fourth question was supposed to be "What is your intuitive guess of SoWiBi's cup size?". Duh.

omg! *plans birthday cake*

I'm guessing your between D and double D and can never find a bra that fits

a) Yes, unless I was deliberately being as formal as possible.
b) Probably not: It's a legitimate use of the contracted form, but it just doesn't sound as right.
c) I'd give the same answer here as Deus Malum did a few posts earlier.

47, male, south-eastern Midlands/western London (i.e. basically the standard form of 'British' English, although maybe I'm not as precise over vowel sounds as old-style 'BBC English' was). I generally try to use "proper" English rather than excessive colloquialisms.

Wagging it? Me? Never :p

Check Queensland school holidays ;)

I think I might know what you mean, but could you still make it somewhat more clear for someone of my inferior intelligence? And say why it's wrong / how it would sound like in its correct form?

Also: Boy, I always thought you were in the 27-42 age bracket...

the who shouldn't be at the start because "wanna" is a direct question...er it should be this: do you wanna play?

and I'm charmed how you seem to think of me as an old man, I know I dress like one but still...

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Yes, No, No, Male, 17 as of last week, Bastardised Australian English, No idea

I very rarely use "they've" as a contraction, but I would consider it okay to use in situations a) and b).

With that having been said, I seem to have a niggling feeling that using it in situation a) is somehow more correct, or at least more appropriate, than in situation b) but I really can't pinpoint why.

I don't think I've ever used the slang term "wanna".

36, male, Scottish. I've been told in the past that I speak using "BBC English", if that matters.

I might explain later if someone's interested
My curiosity is piqued... what prompted the question?

wagging it are we? :D



did you spend most of your days on a playground?

Probably.

Check Queensland school holidays ;)

...don't Australians go to school?!

all the kids here went back on the 2nd :p

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.
I'm a native English speaker. I grew up in the midwestern US, but my parents are both from the East Coast and I have been told I sound like I'm from New York State. I use English in a formal setting a lot, since I'm a scientist and have to both write and speak in "professional English," but I'm sure I use colloquial English even more.

To answer your questions:

A) I would probably contract "they" and "have," unless I was trying to put special emphasis on "they" or "have."

For instance, "Considering that the Democrats stand to lose so much, I wonder why THEY have done this" (as opposed to some other party). Or "They say they would never do this, and yet they HAVE done this."

However, I should note that I don't always consciously contract words like this. It's more of a verbal slurring in my speech, where "they" and "have" sort of run together. I rarely write "they've" in any situation.

B) I wouldn't contract "they" and "have" in that sentence, but I honestly couldn't tell you why.

C) I don't detect a difference. "Wanna" is a sort of unofficial contraction of "want to."

I very rarely use "they've" as a contraction, but I would consider it okay to use in situations a) and b).

With that having been said, I seem to have a niggling feeling that using it in situation a) is somehow more correct, or at least more appropriate, than in situation b) but I really can't pinpoint why.I'm thinking it has to do with the focus of the sentence. In a), it is on I, in b), it is on they.

a) yes

b) yes

c) no

39, female, from NW England

omg! *plans birthday cake*I'm guessing your between D and double D and can never find a bra that fits
Take your time ;PExactly, and the severe back pains from it are what keep me at my laptop all day:P

the who shouldn't be at the start because "wanna" is a direct question...er it should be this: do you wanna play?

and I'm charmed how you seem to think of me as an old man, I know I dress like one but still...
Alright, getting you now.

Well, umm.

Yes, No, No, Male, 17 as of last week, Bastardised Australian English, No idea
Now that's a nice, short, easily recordable answer :]


My curiosity is piqued... what prompted the question?

A class called "How to Write a Grammar: Complement Clause Constructions" and the discussions therein about the very questions I posed here. In order to not skew the results I'd rather keep the theoretical background to myself until I've gathered more responses, but I promise to come back to it :]

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'


Warning: Full of Disclaimers

Although many are more qualified to give an answer, what the hell…

Personally, it seems that where one places the emphasis is the critical factor in weather or not it "sounds right".

For example, in the first question (technically a statement, by the way) emphasis can be probably be placed on wonder (I wonder why they've done this), why (I wonder why they've done this) and done (I wonder why they've done this). Also, cue the angst any time "why" is emphasized and cue the shock when “done” is emphasized.

The second question puts the emphasis directly on “they” or “have”, so changing the word rips apart the structure of the sentence (in theory).

Take this with a grain of salt though, as it is based on limited knowledge.

I speak two languages fluently: American English and Texan.

Take your time ;PExactly, and the severe back pains from it are what keep me at my laptop all day:P

well I just go out and buy crappy children's birthday cakes so holding your breath can be advised I guessed because no ns'er can resist a good hiding place

-snip-

Thanks, that's been a most illuminating answer - I can see it was one of my rare brilliant ideas to run this by NSG. :]

Thanks, that's been a most illuminating answer - I can see it was one of my few brilliant ideas to run this by NSG. :]

*Googling: How to type faster*

Although many are more qualified to give an answer, what the hell...

No such thing in this thread unless you are not a native speaker. This is about what in the setting of the class I'm doing this for is called "intuitive validation of a theory", and all I need is the spontaneous native speakers' reaction of "This is right / you can say it like that" or, well, not.

I've a little bit of linguistics background from studying French, and I certainly know that it's the intricacies of language that trip you up hardest.

In (a), "they've" is perfectly acceptable gramatically and would not be considered uncommon if you heard it. The implication is that something definite has been done, so "have" forms part of the whole fragment "they have done".

In (b), "they've" is gramatically fine, but would be considered uncommon. The element of doubt from 'could' means "have" relates to something questionable- it links with "could".

The reason for this distinction is also partly spoken emphasis- in (a), "have" is not the important part of the phrase, it is not the part asking the question- that role is taken by "Why". "have done" could probably quite easily be replaced by "did" in most contexts, which would sound more common to a native speaker.

In the second question, "have done" could not be replaced by "did", as "have" is the important part of the question, with "could". The question can be re-cast more directly as "Have they done this on purpose?" to highlight this, while (a) could not be easily re-cast with "have" at the start.

Whew.

Aside from the formal/colloquial points already mentioned (you'd obviously never write "wanna"), there is a potential difference in meaning between the two phrases in (c). The first question is more ambiguous and does not indicate whether you are going to be playing with or against someone- it is simply asking who else you want to take part in the game. The second question, due to the tone created by the colloquial language, has much more of an implication that they you will be competing against them.

Oh, and I'm 24/male with a London (not Cockney) usage- generally formal, but with a habit of flattening vowels and using inflection for questions- "Are you going down to Amadeus (a local nightclub)?" often sounds like "You gan dan 'dayus?". I also tend to drop "t" from the middle and end of the words when speaking, unless I'm being deliberately formal.

No such thing in this thread unless you are not a native speaker. This is about what in the setting of the class I'm doing this for is called "intuitive validation of a theory", and all I need is the spontaneous native speakers' reaction of "This is right / you can say it like that" or, well, not.

Well, there is "technically qualified" and there is QUALIFIED.

...don't Australians go to school?!

all the kids here went back on the 2nd :p

You're forgetting some important things, it's summer here, and that post was made at about 10pm.

According to my sister in this state they go back on the 29th. I think I go back to uni on the 24th/25th of February, my last exam last year was on the 10th of November.

The first question is more ambiguous and does not indicate whether you are going to be playing with or against someone- it is simply asking who else you want to take part in the game. The second question, due to the tone created by the colloquial language, has much more of an implication that they you will be competing against them.

Could also be asking about a theatrical role - who do you want to play, Romeo or Juliet?

Most of these depend on emphasis and context.

well I just go out and buy crappy children's birthday cakes so holding your breath can be advised I guessed because no ns'er can resist a good hiding place
S'okay, I appreciate any cake whatsoever, especially if you can make it with chocolate.
*Googling: How to type faster*
Try googling "how to avoid timewarps" instead :] But my browser is kind enough to point out posts above mine that I haven't read yet due to timewarp, so all's well :]

I has timewarpage. I should note that my first post in this thread was actually placed a lot earlier than it should have been.

Edit: So was this one. Odd.

the who shouldn't be at the start because "wanna" is a direct question...er it should be this: do you wanna play?

and I'm charmed how you seem to think of me as an old man, I know I dress like one but still...

Who do you wanna/want to play and do you wanna/want to play are different questions, though. I understood the sentence as if one were picking teams or something.

A) and B) are both grammatically fine and, in fact, I often use they've in both those contexts, in written and spoken English. I think it's just the juxtaposition of the two that's jarring, to be honest. In C), both sentences sound exactly the same to me. I don't really see anything wrong with "wanna" in colloquial English, though if someone were to ever use it in a paper or some such, I'd have to smack them.

I'm Male, 22 and from Milwaukee area, Wisconsin. Pretty much, I speak in your average Midwestern dialect, though with the added Milwaukeeism of calling water fountains "bubblers." I have been told that I speak in an odd accent and use odd language/sentence structure sometimes so I may not be the most representative of my area's dialect.

Thanks, that's been a most illuminating answer - I can see it was one of my rare brilliant ideas to run this by NSG. :]
Heh, glad I could help.

I should note that my spoken grammar is unusually bad even for an American, and I blame this on my Minnesotan upbringing.

For example, instead of asking, "We are going to the park. Would you like to go there with us?" a Minnesotan will say, "Gointoda park. Wanna go with?" This is because it's generally so freaking cold that you can't be bothered to stand around un-dangling your participles.

Try googling "how to avoid timewarps"

Better yet, combine the two:

"How to type faster than the normal progression of space time"

WARNING: Possibly involves being in a vehicle traveling at near light speed.

Who do you wanna/want to play and do you wanna/want to play are different questions, though. I understood the sentence as if one were picking teams or something.

Yes, CtP's meaning wasn't what I was getting at, either, but now I understand how he understood it. Or something.


I should note that my spoken grammar is unusually bad even for an American, and I blame this on my Minnesotan upbringing.
Dear, I'm an avid reader of your NSG posts, and I don't at all concur with that statement. Light, bushel, and all that.
*Yes, I know the difference between "spoken" and "written on NSG", but I was playing on the "ability" angle.

For example, instead of asking, "We are going to the park. Would you like to go there with us?" a Minnesotan will say, "Gointoda park. Wanna go with?" This is because it's generally so freaking cold that you can't be bothered to stand around un-dangling your participles.

But if you don't unclench your teeth for too long, they might get frozen shut!

a) yes
b) no
c) no

M, 22, english speaker from southern England

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'



a) Depends on who iam talking to normally i stick to the dialect word

B) same as A

C) aye

31-Lincolnshire Wolds/Marsh-Casual

C) aye

31-Lincolnshire Wolds/Marsh-Casual

Male, I assume by default?

And where do you see the distinction in meaning?

33/M

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

No, I'd have said "I wonder why have they done this?" It is technically more correct.

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

No. Typically we only use 'they've' when 'they' is the subject of the sentence.

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'

Technically, 'wanna' is slang, like saying 'gonna' or 'ain't' and would only be used if the sentence is asking "who do you want to play [against]?" as opposed to "who do you want to play [with us]?"

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

No. Typically we only use 'they've' when 'they' is the subject of the sentence.
a) Thanks for the nice formatting :]

b) Technically, "they" is the subject in that sentence, too.

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'

Technically, 'wanna' is slang, like saying 'gonna' or 'ain't' and would only be used if the sentence is asking "who do you want to play [against]?" as opposed to "who do you want to play [with us]?"
Thanks for the circumlocution explanation; that's very helpful.

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

If I were to be true to my roots it would be

"I wonder why they've done this"
and
"Could they of done this on purpose" ;)

But that is a whole nother matter.



c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'

Other then formality I don't discern any difference

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!


Male, 23, From the north-west (my accent is a bit odd apparently. I have a fairly 'southern' accent, but I flatten my vowels and use other local shibboleths.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

Yes please :)

(apologies if you already have and I missed through typing this.

Male, 23, From the north-west (my accent is a bit odd apparently. I have a fairly 'southern' accent, but I flatten my vowels and use other local shibboleths.
Umm.. UKian? USAian?

Yes please :)

(apologies if you already have and I missed through typing this.

I shall in due time, but right now I'll withhold that information so that everyone can respond in intuitive innocence untainted by theoretical explanation of what they should have said. :]

a) yes

b) Sort of. If we're talking regular everyday speech then I'd probably pronounce it 'could they uv done it', sort of half way between the two. The rhythm sounds all wrong to me to run them fully together into one syllable.

c) I don't see any difference in meaning, just tone.

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

24, male, North west England, Lancashire and probably half and half on the official/colloquial front.

a) Thanks for the nice formatting :]

You're welcome

b) Technically, "they" is the subject in that sentence, too.

True. I should have said "they" is at the beginning of the sentence.

Thanks for the circumlocution explanation; that's very helpful.

Was that sarcasm? Kinda hard to tell...

(But you should know by now from seeing me post that circumlocution is my middle name on here.)

True. I should have said "they" is at the beginning of the sentence.
That's another interesting theory; I do, however, wonder about its validity. "When they've finished drinking...", "How they've made an ass of themselves" etc. sound perfectly fine to my (non-native) ear..

Was that sarcasm? Kinda hard to tell...
Despite sarcasm being MY middle name, absolutely not. I found it the most helpful explanation of the perceived difference so far, plus terribly effective in its shortness.

Umm.. UKian? USAian?

UKian, sorry. From Manchester.

More Tony Wilson than Christopher Eccleston.

UKian, sorry. From Manchester.

More Tony Wilson than Christopher Eccleston.

Right. I should read sigs more.

Umm.. any pop culture references are utterly lost on me. Is that a valid excuse for this one?

Umm.. any pop culture references are utterly lost on me. Is that a valid excuse for this one?

One though reasonably well known by music, was (sadly RIP) a local TV presenter (though he did show up everywhere). The other is a reasonably well known english actor, though the only hollywood film I can think of is Gone In 60 Seconds


So you probably have a good excus. TBH, in retrospect, it was a stupid comparison, but the best I could come up with on short notice.

That's another interesting theory; I do, however, wonder about its validity. "When they've finished drinking...", "How they've made an ass of themselves" etc. sound perfectly fine to my (non-native) ear..


Good point, but then those aren't asking questions, they're adverbial phrases.


Despite sarcasm being MY middle name, absolutely not. I found it the most helpful explanation of the perceived difference so far, plus terribly effective in its shortness.

Woot!
:)

a.) Yes.
b.) Yes.
c.) I don't see a difference.
Female, 20, Upper Midwest. I'm pretty colloquial in speech and formal in writing.

Book recommendation that will clear up English usage questions like these:

The Stuff of Thought, by Steven Pinker

Relates grammer, language, words and thinking to physical and mental processes. Fascinating stuff, if a little duller (to me) than his earlier books The Blank Slate and How the Mind Works.

Turns out there are good reasons for most of the weird little oddities of language, what sounds right, what doesn't, like why you can kick something, you can kick AT something, you can touch something, but you can't touch AT something.

And also explains why some words are obscene, from the psychology point of view.

Good point, but then those aren't asking questions, they're adverbial phrases.
Ah, another limitation! Okay :]
It's too bad that when I rephrase the examples I gave, the other principle I'm trying to get at starts to overplay this subversively.. If I can think of a question that remains untouched by that, I'll post it, until then, receive this SoWiBian Golden Star for Smart Thinking :] (I'll make a dandy teacher, no?)


Female, 20, Upper Midwest.

USAian?

Ah, another limitation! Okay :]
It's too bad that when I rephrase the examples I gave, the other principle I'm trying to get at starts to overplay this subversively.. If I can think of a question that remains untouched by that, I'll post it, until then, receive this SoWiBian Golden Star for Smart Thinking :] (I'll make a dandy teacher, no?)


Yes you will!

SWEET
:: puts the gold star on shirt ::

Book recommendation that will clear up English usage questions like these:

The Stuff of Thought, by Steven Pinker


a) The main motivation of this thread is not to find out the theoretical workings behind the perception that becomes rather obvious in the poll results already, because that's what I've been presented at length in my class today. What I'm striving for here is the empirical validation of that theory, because I myself had no intuition conforming to that theory whatsoever, and I felt the urge to get a wider native speakers' opinion on this than just my lecturer's.

b) I thank you for taking the time to make that recommendation, but my previous experiences with Pinker books do not exactly encourage me to turn to his linguistic elaborations. The school of thought he comes from, linguistically seen, clashed very much with mine, and in combination with the disregard for a scientific approach/tone he oftentimes displays, I cannot take him serious enough to consult him as a source much.

I do, however, concede that he makes for on okay enough pop science writer with books like e.g. The Language Instinct, at least for people who like to read about Innate Language Instinct theories.

I speak a BBC English/Geordie variant but I would say it was 'proper English'.

Naturally, I would contract 'they' and 'have' under any circumstance I can think of.

I'm unsure whether this is a 'style' difference, so I shall post it in the hopes that it may be useful. The difference between 'want to' and 'wanna' can be quite significant. While the denotations are exactly the same, the connotations differ. 'Want to' is a more standard mode of speech and is acceptable (I'd imagine) in any English speaking environment, whereas 'wanna' suggests idiocy and perhaps childishness. 'Wanna' might be acceptable depending on your environment, though it's always safer to stick with 'want to'.

I hope this is of help. :)

Edit: Male, 17 ^^;

Yes you will!

SWEET
:: puts the gold star on shirt ::

Alright.. so I can hit you up for a recommendation TG when I apply for my first teaching post in the UK in, say, seven months?

"Wanna play" is a colloquial contraction of "want a play". Hope that helps to make it easier to grasp.

You're Australian, no?

I'll have to admit I know "wanna" only as contraction for "want to", but I'll happily stand corrected if and when you native speakers gang up on me on this.

"Wanna play" is a colloquial contraction of "want a play". Hope that helps to make it easier to grasp. I'm trying to learn French and It is getting your heads around things like these which are the hardest. That, and misspelled words, because you don't you just have no idea what the word is.

Eh, wanna can be "want a" or "want to".

The only difference is that using wanna for either makes you sound relatively stupid.

Alright.. so I can hit you up for a recommendation TG when I apply for my first teaching post in the UK in, say, seven months?

For what it's worth from an American Software Developer, absolutely!

I'll happily stand corrected if and when you native speakers gang up on me on this.

If these fora should have taught you anything, and they shouldn't've, it's that being a native speaker of English counts for very little when it comes to actual knowledge about and often of the language.

33/M

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

No, I'd have said "I wonder why have they done this?" It is technically more correct.


I was thinking about this, and I think I made an error.

"I wonder why they have done this." Is a statement, and is correct as phrased, and I might well use 'they've.' If it's a question then it would be either:

"I wonder, why have they done this?" (Like i said before but with the comma) or
"Why have they done this?"

(A) Yes,
(B) No,
(C) No.

Male,
22,
Speaker of Wenglish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_English),
Colloquial

... Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

Yes, in formal and informal circumstances.

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

Probably not. The 'could' suggests some doubt on my part, so I'd be likely to say it slowly. That would mean I'd sound the aitch.

However, Australian spoken English makes a lot of use of that indeterminate vowel the phonetics folk represent by an upside-down 'e'. So my "Could they hev done this on purpose?" would probably sound like "Could they've ...".
c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'

It would depend on the circumstances, natch. But 1) is a formal construction -- the sort of thing that might be used towards a guest. It sounds as if I'm being asked to make a choice among people who will then play (a game, an instrument) for me to watch or listen to. "Who do you want to play (the violin: Maestro Stroganoff, Shamus O'Celtic or my four-year-old nephew)?"

2) sounds as if I might be involved myself -- "Who d'y'wanna play against, me or Marg?"

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Gender: female; age: 50s; educated Australian; usually more colloquial.

About that, though: as Ferwickshire said earlier, the connotations differ. Public speakers of Australian English have been known to "Strine-ise" their accents because of others' perceptions that they they sounded too pompous and show-offy. In such a climate, colloquial usage is favoured.

(If it comes out at the end of this that you were in fact looking at something entirely different, with the language aspects a nice little psychological smokescreen, I swear, I will sool the nearest bunyip on you. :p)

Contractions such as 'they've' are not correct for formal documents such as school or work reports, resumes, cover letters, or any other formal communication. In colloquial speech, they are acceptable, and if you are writing a story they would be acceptable as a part of character conversation. I wouldn't use contractions in any narration situation, though, if I were you.

A- yes, but I'd be more likely to say "I wonder why they did this?"
B- no
C- no

I'm 17, female, and from Florida.
I am inclined to go along with the young lady from Florida here. I wonder why they did this, sounds much better than "I wonder why they've done this".

Old as dirt/male/Ontario

a) I would contract the words to “they’ve”.

b) I wouldn’t contract the words.

c) I don’t see any difference in meaning.

21 y/o Male.

Scots English. (colloquial)

A) yes
B) no
C) yes, but only after I re-read them.

26/F, Southern/Plains US, colloquial I assure you.

However, Australian spoken English makes a lot of use of that indeterminate vowel the phonetics folk represent by an upside-down 'e'.

A schwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa)?

A schwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa)?

Yschwas, that one.

(Actually, in "Yes" it'd be that sort of c-looking thing, but I'm not gonna be lured further into a phonetics threadjack.)

If these fora should have taught you anything, and they shouldn't've, it's that being a native speaker of English counts for very little when it comes to actual knowledge about and often of the language.

The thing is, sweetie, that I'm not looking for book-correct answers - I have those aplenty, and I don't seek them from strangers. As I've repeatedly said in the thread, I'm looking for what a native speaker's intuition says - no matter whether this goes conform with what is technically correct or not.


(If it comes out at the end of this that you were in fact looking at something entirely different, with the language aspects a nice little psychological smokescreen, I swear, I will sool the nearest bunyip on you. :p)

You know, this occurred to me too when I read a lot of these answers. I've hesitated a bit to put the questions regarding age/sex/location/etc. in there, and I'm amazed how many people answered that so freely in this thread, in comparison to the comments galore in "what's your X / are you Y?" threads about how you should never give those away. I'm in no way advocating malice, but it does seem like if you wanted to pry any such information from people here, you oughtn't ask directly, but in a side remark while making the main topic their linguistic preferences.


C) yes, but only after I re-read them.

Care to tell us what difference you see?

Yschwas, that one.

(Actually, in "Yes" it'd be that sort of c-looking thing, but I'm not gonna be lured further into a phonetics threadjack.)

Please, don't; phonetics is so semester before last. ;P

Ich weiß Du hast nach Muttersprachlern gefragt, aber da ich auch Linguistik mache (und alsbald sogar meine Examensarbeit über Inversion schreiben werde - ich habe mich doch tatsächlich am Montag angemeldet :eek: ) finde ich 1. diesen Thread sehr interessant und 2. bin ich sehr auf Deine Theorie gespannt.

Meine Überlegung: Hat das vielleicht etwas mit der zugrundeliegenden Struktur des unverstellten Satzes zu tun?

Bei a) wäre das "(I wonder) They have done this why" und somit ist ein zusammenziehen der Elemente "they" und "have" durch ihre Positionierung vor der Umstellung zur Frage naheliegender als in b) wo doch die ursprüngliche Reihenfolge "They could have done this on purpose" die beiden Elemente "they" und "have" durch "could" getrennt werden.

Zu c) würde ich sagen, daß es sich um verschieden Register handelt, zum einen formal, zum anderen umgangssprachlich.

Mein Bauchgefühl sagt mir auf Deine Fragen a) Ja b) Nein c) Nein, obwohl es grammatikalisch nicht falsch ist, in beiden Fällen zu verkürzen.

(Vielleicht hilft's Dir ja? Ich setze mich seit 20 Jahren intensiv mit der englischen Sprache auseinander...)

Viel Erfolg noch! ;)

I’ve hesitated a bit to put the questions regarding age/sex/location/etc. in there, and I’m amazed how many people answered that so freely in this thread, in comparison to the comments galore in “what’s your X / are you Y?” threads about how you should never give those away.
I’m still amazed at the paranoia people display about information on the net.

What possible danger could come from me stating my (potentially false) age and country of residence?

I’m still amazed at the paranoia people display about information on the net.

What possible danger could come from me stating my (potentially false) age and country of residence?

Ask Fassitude. Someone will come, for some mysterious reason find you particularly interesting, start stalking your net self and meticulously assemble all kinds of innocent information you drop here and there, and then some day they'll have enough to find you and steal your sugar spoon as a trophy or something. *nods*

Ich weiß Du hast nach Muttersprachlern gefragt, aber da ich auch Linguistik mache (und alsbald sogar meine Examensarbeit über Inversion schreiben werde - ich habe mich doch tatsächlich am Montag angemeldet :eek: ) finde ich 1. diesen Thread sehr interessant und 2. bin ich sehr auf Deine Theorie gespannt.
Viel Glück mit der Arbeit!

Meine Überlegung: Hat das vielleicht etwas mit der zugrundeliegenden Struktur des unverstellten Satzes zu tun?

-snip rest-


Lalalalala niemand kann Dich hören, niiiieeeemand, noch nicht mal die mit dem kleinen gelben Fischlein! Du bist viel zu nah dran für meine comfort zone, also back out. Wenn Du willst, gibt's natürlich Privat-Telegramm frei Haus.

Zu c) würde ich sagen, daß es sich um verschieden Register handelt, zum einen formal, zum anderen umgangssprachlich.

Sicherlich auch.

Mein Bauchgefühl sagt mir auf Deine Fragen a) Ja b) Nein c) Nein, obwohl es grammatikalisch nicht falsch ist, in beiden Fällen zu verkürzen.

Mindestens ein Statement in diesem Zitat ist falsch.

Wie gesagt, ich kenne die Theorie / grammatische Struktur dahinter, ich erkunde nur gerade, inwiefern Muttersprachler sie tatsächlich umsetzen und auch, inwiefern sie das bewusst tun (ich beömmele mich ob der Menschen, die sagen sie hätten ein schlechtes Bauchgefühl bei dem einen oder anderen, würden es aber trotzdem einfach mal als korrekt einstufen - obwohl es mir sicher beim Deutschen auch ständig so ginge..)

Viel Glück mit der Arbeit!
Oh, danke... Kommende Woche ist erstmal ein Termin beim Prof zwecks genauerer Themenstellung. Ich dreh jetzt schon durch...

Lalalalala niemand kann Dich hören, niiiieeeemand, noch nicht mal die mit dem kleinen gelben Fischlein! Du bist viel zu nah dran für meine comfort zone, also back out. Wenn Du willst, gibt's natürlich Privat-Telegramm frei Haus.
Das war meine spontane Idee dazu. Scheint als läge ich da gar nicht so verkehrt.

Deswegen auch auf Deutsch (in der Hoffnung, nicht allzu viel Schaden anzurichten) und mein Edit im Post. Sowwy, Sowibi!

Und ja, bitte! Und welches Buch nimmst Du als "Standardwerk"?

Mindestens ein Statement in diesem Zitat ist falsch.
Uh-oh! Was hab ich getan?!?

Wie gesagt, ich kenne die Theorie / grammatische Struktur dahinter, ich erkunde nur gerade, inwiefern Muttersprachler sie tatsächlich umsetzen und auch, inwiefern sie das bewusst tun (ich beömmele mich ob der Menschen, die sagen sie hätten ein schlechtes Bauchgefühl bei dem einen oder anderen, würden es aber trotzdem einfach mal als korrekt einstufen - obwohl es mir sicher beim Deutschen auch ständig so ginge..)
Das hatte ich mir schon fast gedacht. Wäre schön, wenn Du mich einweihst, dann nehme ich nur noch passiv am Fädchen teil.

P.S.: Kleine gelbe Fischlein?!?

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'
In casual spoken dialogue, I would contract both (a) and (b). I generally try to avoid the "they've" contraction in writing, though.

I would pick up a dialetical difference between the phrases of (c), but semantically I'd consider them equivilent. However, I would be subconsciously aware that "wanna" suggests a more colloquial context in written word (obviously not a problem in spoken language since there are other indicators of context).

Oh, and 21, Male and Indeterminate British. I lived in a middle-class area of Belfast (Northern Ireland) before coming to Cambridge, and my mum is from Norway and watched far too much imported TV as a kid, so my dialect is a weird mixture of Ulster-Scots, posh Southern English and a trace of emulated American.

Oh, danke... Kommende Woche ist erstmal ein Termin beim Prof zwecks genauerer Themenstellung. Ich dreh jetzt schon durch...

KP. Sag einfach, eine random internet acquaintance hätte gesagt, Du wärst schon arg der Held und alles würde nach Plan laufen; das macht sicher Eindruck. *nod*

Deswegen auch auf Deutsch (in der Hoffnung, nicht allzu viel Schaden anzurichten) und mein Edit im Post. Sowwy, Sowibi!

Super, danke. Kommt ein TGchen geflogen, setzt sich nieder auf Dein' Fuß...

Und ja, bitte! Und welches Buch nimmst Du als "Standardwerk"?

So grundsätzlich für den Kurs "Semantics" von J.I.. Saeed; da wir dieses spezielle Thema heute erst hatten, hab' ich da noch nicht geschaut..


Uh-oh! Was hab ich getan?!?

Unqualifizierte Äußerungen abgelassen,w as sonst? Wir sind hier schließlich in NSG.. ;P

I’m still amazed at the paranoia people display about information on the net.

What possible danger could come from me stating my (potentially false) age and country of residence?
Well, there is a certain element of traceability that builds up over time. For example, from my answer on this thread - assuming, as you mentioned, that I was being honest - someone could learn that I was 36 years old, male, and lived in Scotland. Going back over posts I've made in the past they could add to that the knowledge that I am - or claim to be - married and to live in Ayr. I may have made reference to previous employments or qualifications on NSG in the past... can't honestly remember.

Every little additional item of information could theoretically allow them to narrow down a search (assuming that they have access to some kind of database that allowed them to cross-reference the info that they'd gathered) until, ultimately, they were able to know who I was and where I lived.

It's not something that I dwell on, though. Honestly, I'm not all that interesting ;)


(EDIT: and on topic... I've just noticed that I used the contraction "they'd" in this post. It looks so odd seeing it there on the page that I'm now wondering if it's a phrasing that I use all the time or whether this instance was subliminally prompted by this thread. Thanks a lot, NSG!)

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue! That's me!

Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?' Yes. Although, I'd rather say "I wonder why they did that?"

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?' No.

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'Apart from the lazier pronunciation of "want to" in the second one? None.

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'. Age is in my profile, gender you know, regional version of English is run-of-the-mill, unplacable American English.

P.S.: Kleine gelbe Fischlein?!?
Ich wollte Babelfish nicht verwenden und habe deswegen reference to Anhalter d.d. Galaxis gemacht... ;P

P.S. TG sent.

Yes. Although, I'd rather say "I wonder why they did that?"

Jajajaajaaa, das fiel mir erst viel später auf... ich habe eine kleine Perfekt-Schwäche, um genau zu sein eine große Perfekt-Schwäche, und platziere es mit Vorliebe überall, wo es nicht hingehört. Ich hoffe sehr, dass das die Ergebnisse nicht sonderlich beeinflusst.. *reißt sich selber Haare aus*


P.P.S.: Why hello, Wittig :] The non-native onlooker party seems to grow and grow ;P Have a seat; the chips'll be 'round shortly.

Jajajaajaaa, das fiel mir erst viel später auf... ich habe eine kleine Perfekt-Schwäche, um genau zu sein eine große Perfekt-Schwäche, und platziere es mit Vorliebe überall, wo es nicht hingehört. Ich hoffe sehr, dass das die Ergebnisse nicht sonderlich beeinflusst.. *reißt sich selber Haare aus*Ich würd wahrscheinlich auch kein Fragezeichen setzen, da es ja eigentlich keine richtige Frage ist, eher eine Bemerkung. Aber das bin bloß ich.
P.P.S.: Why hello, Wittig :] The non-native onlooker party seems to grow and grow ;P Have a seat; the chips'll be 'round shortly.Ich zähl zwar nich' dazu, würde aber trotzdem ein paar Chips abhaben wollen... :(

Ich zähl zwar nich' dazu, würde aber trotzdem ein paar Chips abhaben wollen... :(

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Ich hab' das schon seit ewig gehört und erst vor kurzem begriffen, d.h. ich brauchte unbedingt eine Gelegenheit, es anzuwenden.. sorry. Umm.. Schwäbische Knusperbrezel? *greift in Tüte neben sich*

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Yeah well:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Youre-a-MONSTER.jpg

Ich hab' das schon seit ewig gehört und erst vor kurzem begriffen, d.h. ich brauchte unbedingt eine Gelegenheit, es anzuwenden.. sorry. Umm.. Schwäbische Knusperbrezel? *greift in Tüte neben sich*Hab'n wir etwa keine Krossengs mehr? :(

Care to tell us what difference you see?

well, in reading them to myself no difference really, wanna around here is often used as a mismash of "want to" however, reading them aloud I can hear an inflection in my voice which makes "who do you want to play?" sound more like you have a choice of characters, and "who do you wanna play?" sounds more like "with which person do you want to compete?"

I have no idea why I hear that difference nor do I know if I have an arbitrary rule stored somewhere that makes it so, but it's my own weird interpretation of what difference there may be.

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

A) Yes
B) No
C) No, although depending on the context there could be a difference however that would be very dependent on the context and the tone in which it was said.

21/Female/Dundonian (which is a regional variation of Central Scots) and I would say I speak more formally than most Dundonians, I certainly dont speak 'broad' Dundonian or Scots

P.P.S.: Why hello, Wittig :] The non-native onlooker party seems to grow and grow ;P Have a seat; the chips'll be 'round shortly.
Hehe.

I'm a bit bummed that we can't play, boo, but yeah, I can see why...

Anyway, this is pretty interesting and also frustrating because I totally would have said the contraction in example B is just as normal as in example A. I might not necessarily have used it every time, but then I wouldn't necessarily use it every time in the first example, either.
So yeah, it's frustrating because stuff like this makes you aware of how far away from a native speaker you actually still are even if you're fluent. There are soooooo many little things that one can't even explain in one's own language - how is a non-native speaker ever going to get all of them? Can one ever become as fluent as a native speaker, even after, say, living in England for 50 years? I doubt it.

Hab'n wir etwa keine Krossengs mehr? :(
Nein, keine Schangse auf noch eins..

Anyway, this is pretty interesting and also frustrating [...] because stuff like this makes you aware of how far away from a native speaker you actually still are even if you're fluent. There are soooooo many little things that one can't even explain in one's own language - how is a non-native speaker ever going to get all of them?

That. I get terribly, horribly, utterly, devastatingly frustrated every time such things happen. I was lucky we had to do a "vocabulary inventory" test the day before and I clocked in at an okay-ish 9,000 words or I'd just have flung myself into the nearest corner and cried myself to neverending sleep.

Nein, keine Schangse auf noch eins..Ich werd' das Bild von vorhin nicht nocheinmal gebrauchen, obwohl es mal wieder sehr gut passt. :p


That. I get terribly, horribly, utterly, devastatingly frustrated every time such things happen. I was lucky we had to do a "vocabulary inventory" test the day before and I clocked in at an okay-ish 9,000 words or I'd just have flung myself into the nearest corner and cried myself to neverending sleep.Was is'n dit?

Was is'n dit?

Dat is so'n Dingenskirchen wo schlaue Wissenschaftler herausgefunden haben, was ein repräsentativer Wortschatz is für Leute, die über eine bestimmte Anzahl von Wörtern in ihrem aktiven/passiven (jeweils verschiedene Tests) Wortschatz verfügen, und eine klug ausgewählte Selektion genau dieser Wörter fragen sie dann ab. Wenn Du also theoretisch alle Vokabeln kennst, die sie als "Diese Wörter kennt ein Mensch, der einen englischen (Fremd)wörterschatz von 5.000 Wörtern hat" klassifiziert haben, darfst Du Dich offiziell als "5.000-Wörter-Wortschatzhaber" bezeichnen. Und Klein SoWiBi hat nach 9,000 angefangen zu schwächeln.. aber die meisten aus der 10,000 kannte ich! *schluchz*

*pulls out her test* For example, one of the questions I flunked at the 10,000 level was to complete the follwoing sentence: "I wouldn't hire him; he is unmotivated and indo___". You were supposed to add "lent" to make the word "indolent", which I'd never heard of before, thus making my vocab penis much smaller than it should be by now.

Dat is so'n Dingenskirchen wo schlaue Wissenschaftler herausgefunden haben, was ein repräsentativer Wortschatz is für Leute, die über eine bestimmte Anzahl von Wörtern in ihrem aktiven/passiven (jeweils verschiedene Tests) Wortschatz verfügen, und eine klug ausgewählte Selektion genau dieser Wörter fragen sie dann ab. Wenn Du also theoretisch alle Vokabeln kennst, die sie als "Diese Wörter kennt ein Mensch, der einen englischen (Fremd)wörterschatz von 5.000 Wörtern hat" klassifiziert haben, darfst Du Dich offiziell als "5.000-Wörter-Wortschatzhaber" bezeichnen. Und Klein SoWiBi hat nach 9,000 angefangen zu schwächeln.. aber die meisten aus der 10,000 kannte ich! *schluchz*

*pulls out her test* For example, one of the questions I flunked at the 10,000 level was to complete the follwoing sentence: "I wouldn't hire him; he is unmotivated and indo___". You were supposed to add "lent" to make the word "indolent", which I'd never heard of before, thus making my vocab penis much smaller than it should be by now.Indolent is' aber auch sehr schwierig.

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

How about an experienced ESL teacher? :)

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

Just a hint - untrained native speakers who aren't experienced aren't very reliable either. ;)

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:



a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

In conversational speech, yes.

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

It's possible, but sounds un-natural to many ears.

[QUOTE=SoWiBi]c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'

Not when spoken in casual speech. "Wanna" is an eye dialect spelling of the common reduction when using "want" with the weak form of "to". Note that it is not, as some have suggested, a "lazy" pronunciation.

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

39, male, Texas/Southwestern US English

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

:::gets in the car and doesn't drive SoWiBi crazy:::

How about an experienced ESL teacher? :)
You're hired.
Just a hint - untrained native speakers who aren't experienced aren't very reliable either. ;)
Maybe not for telling me why one can/cannot say something, but for giving answers on whether or not that sound sidiomatic to them or not, sure.

Indolent is' aber auch sehr schwierig.

Danke. Kriegst ein Held der Tröstung Keks.

I'm a native (well, I was born here...)Northern Californian who uses a mish mash of surfer slang, hipster slang (outdated mostly), and slacker slang (mostly pop culture references...). 36

I would contract "they have" in both instances. Generally if a Californian (not all, but a lot) can contract they will.

The first 'want to' is asking who do you want to join you play, the second asks who you want to play as (i.e. the thimble or the race car in a game of Monopoly, Chun Li or Ryu in a game of Streetfighter II, etc)

KP. Sag einfach, eine random internet acquaintance hätte gesagt, Du wärst schon arg der Held und alles würde nach Plan laufen; das macht sicher Eindruck. *nod*
Ganz bestimmt!

Aber es ist vielmehr die Tatsache, daß ich mich wirklich angemeldet habe, nicht so sehr das Treffen an sich.
Super, danke. Kommt ein TGchen geflogen, setzt sich nieder auf Dein' Fuß...
Sind ja glatt zwei geworden. Geht klar! Versprochen.
Und c) habe ich erst nach der Erklärung kapiert. Döööh!
So grundsätzlich für den Kurs "Semantics" von J.I.. Saeed; da wir dieses spezielle Thema heute erst hatten, hab' ich da noch nicht geschaut..
Muß ich mich mal schlau machen. Kann nicht schaden.
Unqualifizierte Äußerungen abgelassen,w as sonst? Wir sind hier schließlich in NSG.. ;P
Rüchtüch!!!

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:
Kein Problem!

I'm eighteen, and speak the, erm, English version of English. Usually I speak in a fairly formal way, and have a very "English" accent, rather than a northern English accent.
a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'
Yes, in fact you normally would do so. On the other hand, we would usually use the past tense and 'that' instead of 'this' - "I wonder why they did that".
b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'
Not really, although in speech it might sound like "they've" instead of "they have".
c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'
Yes,

1) Suggests that someone else is playing something, and you get to pick which one(s). Although it could be you playing, and also picking.

Depends on context, really.

2) Suggests that you're the one playing, and you're being asked, in a very umgangssprachlich kind of way, who you wish to play against.

Anyway, this is pretty interesting and also frustrating because I totally would have said the contraction in example B is just as normal as in example A.
Muahahahaha. Nä nä nänä nä!

So yeah, it's frustrating because stuff like this makes you aware of how far away from a native speaker you actually still are even if you're fluent. There are soooooo many little things that one can't even explain in one's own language - how is a non-native speaker ever going to get all of them? Can one ever become as fluent as a native speaker, even after, say, living in England for 50 years? I doubt it.
I don't. :p

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!


1) Have belongs to they in part of an embedded clause, so it can be contracted.
2) Have belongs to the main verb phrase as an auxiliary, so can not be contracted with they
example 1 for the want to/wanna is ambiguous because it is unclear what the "to" belongs to: want or play. Example 2 solves this by explicitly making the "to" part of "want"

21 Boston/American English, and I tend to use very standard English

doesn't that make you the youngest resident in the state?


Haha. No. I'm not even the youngest person in my house right now...

And I have a birthday coming up!

Is the random age and gender thing for statistical analysis or something else?

First contraction is ok, second is not, but I don't have the linguistics knowledge to explain why. In fact, I generally reverse the subject and verb in questions i.e. 'why have they done this?'

The other two statements mean the same grammatically, but I expect that, colloquially, they will be used in different situations.

-snip-

-snip-

You guys, get your icky edumacation off me! You're ruining the intuitivity of my thread! ;P

Is the random age and gender thing for statistical analysis or something else?


It's been added on a random whim when I thought that maybe one could detect some sort of pattern if and when there was a deviation from the theoretically 'correct' answers - but so far, none really emerged that I could detect.

It's been added on a random whim when I thought that maybe one could detect some sort of pattern if and when there was a deviation from the theoretically 'correct' answers - but so far, none really emerged that I could detect.

I wouldn't expect there to be a huge correlation, this is quite a select group of intelligent, middle-class people with similar interests. Generational and socio-economic differences would be found more likely in a more random sampling.

You guys, get your icky edumacation off me! You're ruining the intuitivity of my thread! ;P
Tut mir leid :(

You guys, get your icky edumacation off me! You're ruining the intuitivity of my thread! ;P

Muahahhaha


At least I didn't go into the theory of the "sense" of the word and such. I just gave you the fun grammar run down :)

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

A) Yes
B) No
C) Yes. they can both mean the same, but the first one can be one of those sentences that leaves out loads of words but retains it's meaning in the right context. in this case it could mean "who do you want to have over to play tomorrow/today/whenever?" as a parent might ask their child. it's a bit of an awkward one though. doesn't sit to well in the head but it's possible people would say it.

I'm 23/male/orange haired, and i speak a mishmash of british colloquial styles.

I wouldn't expect there to be a huge correlation, this is quite a select group of intelligent, middle-class people with similar interests. Generational and socio-economic differences would be found more likely in a more random sampling.

Dunno, we've covered quite a bit of gender-typical language in my previous classes, and I was just curious whether this might factor in (with the lofty hypothesis that women might be less likely to contract), but of course there's way to few women on the internets for any such thing :)

Or, what do I know, Brits being less likely to contract, or what have you. It was worth a shot.


At least I didn't go into the theory of the "sense" of the word and such. I just gave you the fun grammar run down :)

Mr Sarkhaan, I am in classes called "How to Write a Grammar: Complement Clause Constructions"; don't you think I've had my share of fun grammar run downs? I'm at the advanced stage now, sorta like the HyperFun Incubator, y'know?

straight(though you might want male)/18/chocolate brown hair/Northantonian English/casual


I'm 23/male/orange haired, and i speak a mishmash of british colloquial styles.

What's up with this? I've no hair color fetish that I know of, thankyouverymuch. But, sure, I'll just jot it down for future reference.

haha...have you had to do tree diagrams of sentences? I can't stop running through them.

Sure I have. That was a first-semester class mysteriously enough called "How to Make a Dictionary: From Phonology to Pragmatics". For reasons unbeknownst to me, my uni feels compelled to add idiosyncratic tidbits like "How to Make a Dictioray" or "How to Write a Grammar" to the course titles, as if that made the classes any more useful.

What's up with this? I've no hair color fetish that I know of, thankyouverymuch. But, sure, I'll just jot it down for future reference.
Here in the UK, your hair colour is very important to your way of life. Those with ginger hair are 17% less likely to succeed in life, and have a 9% higher risk of infertility than those with brown hair.

*nods*

Mr Sarkhaan, I am in classes called "How to Write a Grammar: Complement Clause Constructions"; don't you think I've had my share of fun grammar run downs? I'm at the advanced stage now, sorta like the HyperFun Incubator, y'know?

haha...have you had to do tree diagrams of sentences? I can't stop running through them.

*shakes fist at Modern English Grammar, Max Morenburg, and Prof. Pierce*

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

a) When you speak it, you could probably get away with it. In writing, no. Especially since in formal writing you're not supposed to use contractions

b) No.

c)Yes, in a formal writing the second sentence is horrible. When spoken, it's the first sentence that sounds horrible.

Male, 15-25 years old (i.e. not an adult), living in the US. I speak English the "typical" way (i.e. the politicians and reporters you probably see on TV)

Oh yeah, while we're on the topic of grammar, could you tell me when I should use "nun" and "jetzt"?? That's actually been bothering me for a while.

Oh yeah, while we're on the topic of grammar, could you tell me when I should use "nun" and "jetzt"?? That's actually been bothering me for a while.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=132355

*edits*

And it's Vereinigte, sondern 'vereinige' Staaten!

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'Sure.

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'Not really. I wouldn't think it particularly odd to hear, but I can hardly imagine saying it.

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'Obviously it depends on context, but if I catch your drift then I'd say "yes."

The cadence of the first sentence seems to suggest invitation: "what person(s) would you like to play [with us, as in a game]?" The cadence of the second sentence, however, suggests to me a different meaning of the verb "to play": "what person(s) would you like [you and I] to play [a trick on, deceive]?"

More broadly, even in the context of a game I think the latter sentence suggests the meaning "whom do you want to play [against]?" while the first sentence suggests "who do you want to play [with]?"

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.I am 27, male, and I grew up in America's mid-Atlantic states. I strongly suspect, however, that my speech patterns and interpretive standards are influenced as much by the literature I read as a child as by my immediate language environment, so I'm not sure I'm typical of my age/region.

I tend to be more or less formal, except with my closest friends. Even so, I make a conscious effort to be clear and unambiguous (unless, as happens on occasion, my particular language game demands ambiguity).

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=132355

You have no idea how helpful that was. Thanks

Here in the UK, your hair colour is very important to your way of life. Those with ginger hair are 17% less likely to succeed in life, and have a 9% higher risk of infertility than those with brown hair.

*nods*

Ah. So one advertises one's ginger hair in order to gain pity from the internets?


Male, 15-25 years old (i.e. not an adult)
You're ruining my classifications. I have a "10-20" and a "20-30" category - which do you want to be filed under?

Oh yeah, while we're on the topic of grammar, could you tell me when I should use "nun" and "jetzt"?? That's actually been bothering me for a while.

Easy.

Uses of "nun":

a) Start off a sentence, somewhat like "well,..." : "Nun...ich weiß nicht, wie ich das sagen soll..."

b) Sound like your grandmother's stuck-up German teacher and his/her contemporaries when trying to express "now".

c) Have a try at some whacky German dialect, at the risk of sounding like your grandmother's stuck-up German teacher.

d) Try for some stilted, literary language while writing a poem / emo short story / etc., at the risk of sounding like your grandmother' stuck-up German teacher.

Uses of "jetzt":

Express "now" in a contemporary way.

And it's Vereinigte, sondern 'vereinige' Staaten!

Huh? I've no idea what you're on about. All I can say that a correct English sentence would be: "It's "Vereinigte", not "vereinige"!"

ETA:// Now I'm getting it. The location thingy!

Okay. So in your location slot, you want to put "Vereinigte Staaten", as it carries no determiner in that case. If you want to talk about the USA as the subject of a sentence, you'd say "die Vereinigten Staaten".


I am 27, male,...

I thank you for your on-topic input, but I refuse to believe this particular bit - maybe you want to think about that answer for a bit more. You're quite obviously female, and in the 19-24 bracket.

I thank you for your on-topic input, but I refuse to believe this particular bit - maybe you want to think about that answer for a bit more. You're quite obviously female, and in the 19-24 bracket.WHAT?! WHY?!

WHAT?! WHY?!

My thoughts exactly.

Ah. So one advertises one's ginger hair in order to gain pity from the internets?
No, it's actually a requirement in British law that if you give your ASL on the internet, those with ginger hair also have to make their hair colour abundantly clear, so that they can be avoided by the more educated members of society.
Huh? I've no idea what you're on about. All I can say that a correct English sentence would be: "It's "Vereinigte", not "vereinige"!"
Aye -

Fall of Empire
Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kann mann sagen "Die Vereinige Staaten"???

On a similar note - it's 'man', not 'mann' in this context, FoE!

My thoughts exactly.If you're joking, I missed the punchline. And if you're serious, I would honestly like to know what it is in my post that makes you think you can predict (erroneously) my age and gender.

-snip-
Yeah, realized that a wee bit too late, but I edited my post in acknowledgment of this enlightenment.
If you're joking, I missed the punchline. And if you're serious, I would honestly like to know what it is in my post that makes you think you can predict (erroneously) my age and gender.

Sorry, sir, didn't want to strike a nerve, and I sure was on the light-hearted side of life.

I mean, I was not joking in the sense that I was just pulling your leg - I seriously had the connection AnarchyeL=female in her early twenties in my head - but I have no idea how that idea came to be there in the first place, and I most certainly did not want to imply that I'd know better than you what you have in your pants and how wrinkled it is. Basically, I was just making a joke out of the curious but apparently widespread phenomenon on NSG that we create completely wrong images of posters all of the time for no discernible reason, as it's always seen in all its hilarity when we have yet another "watcha look like" thread and every third comment is "but OMG I thought you were the total opposite!".

All three scenario`s would be considered acceptible in the midwest, where butchering the queens english is commonplace.

All three scenario`s would be considered acceptible in the midwest, where butchering the queens english is commonplace.
Oh the apostrophe-based ironing!

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

1) Yes, I'd use they've in that sentence

2) No, it doesn't sound right for some reason. I suppose a difference would be that the emphasis of 1 seems to be on whatever this is, while the emphasis of 2 is on whoever they are. If that even makes sense

3) They're both the same, and I'd tend to use the first. The second is slightly more informal

Age: 17, going on 42 according to some friends
Variant of English: British, with some americanisms. Generally fairly official.

Sorry, sir, didn't want to strike a nerve, and I sure was on the light-hearted side of life.Not a nerve by any means... rather curiosity. If some ripple of text ever suggests to you what it might be that would imply greater youth or (much) greater femininity than I have, I would love to know what it is!!

as it's always seen in all its hilarity when we have yet another "watcha look like" thread and every third comment is "but OMG I thought you were the total opposite!".For the record, then...

http://www.t-mobilepictures.com/photo/photo28/22/79/79cb89c88787.jpg?tw=305&th=228&_rh=7az8zfcl53719aujls2lbpie9

;)

All three scenario`s would be considered acceptible in the midwest, where butchering the queens english is commonplace.

Scenarios. Acceptable. Midwest. Queen. Queen's. English. Irony.


For the record, then...

http://www.t-mobilepictures.com/photo/photo28/22/79/79cb89c88787.jpg?tw=305&th=228&_rh=7az8zfcl53719aujls2lbpie9

;)

Like OMG WTF ur like OMG totally like different than I always imagined you to be!!!11!!1shiftelev!!1!


... right.

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

A and B would not strike me as being wrong, but I doubt I would ever use that particular contraction.

As for C, I generally pronounce "want to" as "wanna" unless someone is having trouble understanding me or I am annoyed.

I am a 25 year old male originally from the midwest but relocated to the south a few years ago.

a) Yeah, I'll contract that.
b) No, probably wouldn't contract that (I might say it quickly though).
c) the first is asking you to pick between people (so that they play), the second is asking who would YOU like to play. That's after thinking about it for a bit though; context should make it obvious which one is most appropriate, although to be honest I doubt anyone will care if you use either one.

M/20/Texas, but I don't have much of a southern accent - or so I'm told. :p

a) Yes I would contract that.

b) No, it sounds weird. But I might pronounce the word "have" more like the word "of" in that sentence.

c) There's not necessarily a difference between the two. However 1 could either mean "Who do you want to play against?" or something more like "Who do you think should be allowed to play in this game?" Whereas 2 can only mean "Who do you want to play against?"

Male/20/Maine

Would you mind elaborating on where you see the difference?



Actually.. thinking it over, I don't really see one now. Instinctively I saw the second sentence as an odd use of "wanna," but it makes sense now that I think about it.

Female, 30+, New York City (so East Coast/ Mid-Atlantic), and an English teacher.

Example one: Yes, I would contract it in an informal conversation.
Example two: No, I would not contract it in any situation.
Example three: Both seem to me to be the same, although the second is slangy and definitely only for use in informal situations.

I would almost always contract "they have" in sentence (a).

I contract "they have" in (b), but not purposely. It's more of a slurring, I guess, rather than a true contraction.

I can tell a difference between the two in (c): "want to" is referring to playing a game or an object or something. So the first sentence makes no sense to me. If I answered the first sentence, I would say "I want to play the John game." "wanna play" is used in seeking an opponent. So I would answer "I wanna play against John."

Naturally this is all in speech. I writing, I would never use contractions and never write "wanna" (I would write "want to" but pronounce it "wanna".). But writing is more crafted, fabricated and regulated than speech.

M/20/Southwest Pennsylvania

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.
a. Yes
b. No
c. 'wanna' usually comes before a verb, BTW

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

First off, you've asked questions, so verb order should be reversed ("would you", not "you would" -- undoubtedly, this has already been addressed in this thread).

A) This is the easier "they've" contraction of the two you've posted. Since the question could easily be considered rhetorical or at least put to oneself out loud as a musing rather than a question one might expect to be answered, it's reasonable to expect that it would be expressed a bit more informally.

B) This example is the less plausible contraction. This is less a neutral musing. Instead, it has the feeling of being at least faintly accusatory, as if you've come across some injustice or irrationality and asked the question out loud as an interjection as much as a demand for an answer. This interpretation depends on context, and neither of your examples have the benefit of context to guide responses. However, all things being equal, A is far more likely (in my experience) to be contracted than B. Inflection also adds another dimension ("could they have done this on purpose?!?" is the way I hear it -- like a grandstanding lawyer trying to hammer a point home to a jury or a journalist asking the question as part of an exposé).

C) The difference between these two is, again, context. The colloquial "wanna" in the second sentence suggests a more nondescript, informal query with no background or previous questions involved. A guy walks into Chess Club at school and the person in charge asks him "who do you wanna play?" The first sentence, unless a perception of stiffness and formality is desired, seems to me like a part of a set of questions, or at least a second question. A known chess player walks into a chess tournament and is interviewed. The first question is a general one about his competition in the field of opponents. The second question seeks a preference of opponents, and requires inflection: "who do you want to play?" -- as in "which player would you rather play if you had a choice?" That second sentence, or variations of it, often gets asked by sports reporters/journalists during post-season tournaments or playoffs. Team X potentially faces either Team Y or Team Z, and the coach or star player is asked "who do you want to play?" Does that make sense?

I am 37 years old, male, I lived in Lansing, Michigan for my first five formative years of linguistic acquisition, which imparted a little of the Midwestern tinge to my American English. I spent the next four years in Fresno, California and the following 26 in the greater Seattle area. I've spent the last three years in Bismarck, North Dakota. I have no idea which "version" of US English I speak, but there's a geographical timeline for you. As a professor, I tend to keep my English more "official", but there are many colloquialisms spread liberally through it.

a. Yes
b. No
c. 'wanna' usually comes before a verb, BTW

it is before a verb...either the infinitive phrase "to play" or the verb "play" by itself.

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?' Contract, in both cases.

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?' Which person do you want to play with us?
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'Which person do you want to be? (presumably a theatrical context).

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'. Well spoken cultivated Australian English. Male, 21.

You know supposedly there is a trick to separate the percentages in a poll. I did it once before...

a) Yes.
b) No.
c) They mean the same thing, but a lot of English-speaking accents find a lot of 't's awkward to pronounce. Like how Americans pronounce the word 'party' as PAR-dee.

28 year old male. Originally British, but now only bring the accent out for parties. I speak English well enough that friends call me on the phone to find out what words mean instead of looking them up in the dictionary. Sometimes, if they do first look them up in the dictionary, they call me up to explain the definition that they found.

I've a little bit of linguistics background from studying French, and I certainly know that it's the intricacies of language that trip you up hardest.

In (a), "they've" is perfectly acceptable gramatically and would not be considered uncommon if you heard it. The implication is that something definite has been done, so "have" forms part of the whole fragment "they have done".

In (b), "they've" is gramatically fine, but would be considered uncommon. The element of doubt from 'could' means "have" relates to something questionable- it links with "could".

The reason for this distinction is also partly spoken emphasis- in (a), "have" is not the important part of the phrase, it is not the part asking the question- that role is taken by "Why". "have done" could probably quite easily be replaced by "did" in most contexts, which would sound more common to a native speaker.

In the second question, "have done" could not be replaced by "did", as "have" is the important part of the question, with "could". The question can be re-cast more directly as "Have they done this on purpose?" to highlight this, while (a) could not be easily re-cast with "have" at the start.

Whew.

Aside from the formal/colloquial points already mentioned (you'd obviously never write "wanna"), there is a potential difference in meaning between the two phrases in (c). The first question is more ambiguous and does not indicate whether you are going to be playing with or against someone- it is simply asking who else you want to take part in the game. The second question, due to the tone created by the colloquial language, has much more of an implication that they you will be competing against them.

Oh, and I'm 24/male with a London (not Cockney) usage- generally formal, but with a habit of flattening vowels and using inflection for questions- "Are you going down to Amadeus (a local nightclub)?" often sounds like "You gan dan 'dayus?". I also tend to drop "t" from the middle and end of the words when speaking, unless I'm being deliberately formal.

Brilliant post.

Could also be asking about a theatrical role - who do you want to play, Romeo or Juliet?

Most of these depend on emphasis and context.

Completely agreed. Inflection for intent and context inform all the OP sentence examples.

Heh, glad I could help.

I should note that my spoken grammar is unusually bad even for an American, and I blame this on my Minnesotan upbringing.

For example, instead of asking, "We are going to the park. Would you like to go there with us?" a Minnesotan will say, "Gointoda park. Wanna go with?" This is because it's generally so freaking cold that you can't be bothered to stand around un-dangling your participles.

Anything dangling in the Upper Midwest tends to get frostbite.

Eh, wanna can be "want a" or "want to".

The only difference is that using wanna for either makes you sound relatively stupid.

...whereas grammatical elitism makes you sound relatively snobbish. I'm sorry, but are you seriously telling me you NEVER use slang constructs like "wanna"? Never? Lighten up.

*snip*

You know, this occurred to me too when I read a lot of these answers. I've hesitated a bit to put the questions regarding age/sex/location/etc. in there, and I'm amazed how many people answered that so freely in this thread, in comparison to the comments galore in "what's your X / are you Y?" threads about how you should never give those away. I'm in no way advocating malice, but it does seem like if you wanted to pry any such information from people here, you oughtn't ask directly, but in a side remark while making the main topic their linguistic preferences.

*snip*

This kind of deception is how much information is gathered, either through interrogation, polls, research, psychiatric evaluation, cons, or random assholes online pretending to be Nigerian oil barons who need YOU to cash a check for them. I find it amazing how the mind can be distra-- OOH, SHINY!

Actually for the first one A. I probably would just say it with no 've or have if I was saying it that way. But I wouldn't say it that way. I would say Why would they do that or Why would they do this? Possibly saying Why'd instead of Why would. For the second B. it would sound like 'they uv done this' .. Unless of course I was putting forth effort to speak proper. C. doesn't make a difference, the wanna or want to change nothing. I mean the question itself can be asking different things, but whether or not its wanna or want to .. doesn't make a difference to me. F 33 colloquial

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

Yes I would contract it, particularly in conversation. It's a bit of an artificial sentence though, I'd be more likely to say something like "I wonder why they did that?"

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

No, it doesn't sound right & is actually quite hard to say.

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'

I can't see a difference in meaning, only that wanna isn't correct grammar. I would be unlikely to say it & I certainly wouldn't write it.

Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Australian male, 35, I'd say more 'official' than 'colloquial'.

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.
A) yes
B) yes...sort of - it's unusual for me to pronounce the "have" distinctly in that context, generally I'd shorten it to be something phonetically like "could theyuf ..." - it's distinct from how I pronounce "they've", (more like "thave"), the later being one syllable and the former being two...but not really two distinct words.
C) yes.
"who do you want to play" = "who should I invite to play, who do you think should play the game", whereas
"who do you wanna play" = "you have the opportunity to play tennis against tim or tom, which is it?"
I think contracting "want to" into "wanna" emphasizes that verb, making the "to" part of "you want", whereas the un-shortened "want to" leaves the emphasis on the full infinitive, "to play". the former one could take on either meaning, really, but I think "who do you wanna play" would only be used in the secondary context in which the listener's desire and not the action of playing is being emphasized. you might read about bare and full forms of the infinitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive#Uses_of_the_bare_infinitive)...a distinction I did not notice existed until I tried to explain it to you. I think I'm going to have a hell of a lot of fun as an ESL teacher eventually...(and had I said "I'm gonna have" it would've emphasized the having, as opposed to emphasizing the time when it will be had with "going to")


I'm 20 years old, gay male, I speak "standard american english"...I'm from pennsylvania, my father from maryland and mother from indiana, they married in california, I now live in arkansas, but have lived in new york...as such none of us have a distinct regional accent, and I've been highly literate from a very young age, (as is my mother) so I'd say my regular language usage is more "official". I've also been rather more strongly influenced by british english than most americans, I think, as I read a lot of it and always have. I understand formal and archaic language effortlessly, and actually have deliberately dumbed-down my spoken english...I realized later that a lot of people talk like most of my family does only when they're being pretentious, though it was just how a family of 3 heavy readers talked for me *shrug*

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!


<snippety>

Not that the OP needs another answer, but for what it's worth....

Age: 38 (but 39 next week)
Gender: Male
English: British; but have also lived in the USA and Australia, and am familiar with the respective idiomatic usage thereof.
Language Use: Fairly formal even in everyday speech; I also edit a professional society newsletter and have guest-edited professional journals (of archaeology).


a) By all means use the contraction in everyday speech. I do, and I speak quite formal British English. You would not use the contraction in formal academic writing, however, as almost all contractions are discouraged in the latter.

b) I would never use a contraction here in either spoken or written English. On a personal note, a quick poll at the office suggests that I also tend to slur the 'they' and 'have' less than most people; I'm apparently known for my careful enunciation. But that's just me.

c) 'Wanna' is simply poor grammar to my eyes, and is therefore not a contraction I'd use. As a permissable colloquialism, it's most commonly associated with American English, and is therefore doubly not a contraction I'd use (that's geography, not snobbery). However, issues of grammar and regional variation aside, I see no distinction in strict meaning between the two, but I tend to see the 'wanna' variation as both less formal and more aggressive.

c) 'Wanna' is simply poor grammar to my eyesthere's no such thing as poor grammar - there's linguistic evolution (that usually reflects a subtlety of meaning or the identity of the speaker and relationship to the listener) and there's linguistic elitism used to reinforce the social dominance of a particular region and social class. an evolving dialect is not "poor grammar", it's the process by which modern english exists in the first place.

/sociolinguistics student rant

there's no such thing as poor grammar - there's linguistic evolution (that usually reflects a subtlety of meaning or the identity of the speaker and relationship to the listener) and there's linguistic elitism used to reinforce the social dominance of a particular region and social class. an evolving dialect is not "poor grammar", it's the process by which modern english exists in the first place.

/sociolinguistics student rant

And this archaeologist with a PhD - while happily accepting the principle of linguistic evolution - still holds that 'wanna' is poor grammar under current standards, grasshopper.

Don't worry. You students usually grow out of it.

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

If I can think of a good way, a poll might be added.

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

Im more concerned about your need to entitle the thread 'Female/21/brunette'

Were you assuming that if you didn't come across as an available female that noone would answer your question?

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

a) Yes.

b) No, but I wouldn't annunciate the two words as clearly separate either.
Resulting in something more like: "Could theyav done this on purpose." the 'av' being the word 'have' conjoined with 'they'... but my natural inclination is to
say "Could they of done this on purpose"

c) No, unless you count familiarity & formal-speech.

I'm 17, female, speak both British (Old Yorkshire to be exact) and South African English, the Yorkshire influence being from my mother and her parents. My use of language tends to be rather upper-class & formal (or more proper) than many of my peers and superiors here, with some specific exceptions... like ending sentences with propositions when I'm not quick enough to catch myself doing it. I have a larger English vocabulary than most people in my country, even than that of native English speakers here.

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!

P.S.: Folks! Don't drive me crazy! If you aren't sure between "I personally might not say it / sounds funny" and "but I think it is right anyway", by all means post that - it's what interests me most - but also decide on one final answer for me to record in my log, yes?

*Of course I might explain later if someone's interested.

a) Yes.

b) No, but I wouldn't annunciate the two words as clearly separate either.
Resulting in something more like: "Could theyav done this on purpose." the 'av' being the word 'have' conjoined with 'they'... but my natural inclination is to
say "Could they of done this on purpose"

c) No, unless you count familiarity & formal-speech.

I'm 17, female, speak both British (Old Yorkshire to be exact) and South African English, the Yorkshire influence being from my mother and her parents. My use of language tends to be rather upper-class & formal (or more proper) than many of my peers and superiors here, with some specific exceptions... like ending sentences with propositions when I'm not quick enough to catch myself doing it. I have a larger English vocabulary than most people in my country, even than that of native English speakers here.

Also, I'm interested!

Not that the OP needs another answer, but for what it's worth....

Of course the OP needs another answer, as she needs as many answers as possible and enjoys every one of them. Or so I was told.

Also, I'm interested!

Yeah, I'm thinking of 'solving the riddle' tonight, seeing how I don't think the poll outcome is going to change drastically anymore, percentage/ratio wise, and everyone and their dog are spouting off their try at theoretical explanations already since last page.

What's up with this? I've no hair color fetish that I know of, thankyouverymuch. But, sure, I'll just jot it down for future reference.

i'm just following your example in the thread title :P

amerenglish, male, old.

contraction and supercontractedness to the point of cryptic obscurity (the brits seem to love this even more then us yanks, leaving out entire words and phrases when they are supposedly implied from context) are the conversational norm. the none contractive form would be a way of putting a slight emphasis on the point being made by the statement.

=^^=
.../\...

i'm just following your example in the thread title :P

You mean, prostituting your outer appearance for academic knowledge?

"We were young and needed the info..."

could be, could be. i honestly didn't put that much thought into it. just being a parrot, an orange one.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2383919/2/istockphoto_2383919_perched_orange_parrot.jpg

F 33 colloquial
Wow. And here I thought I had everyone figured out...

This isnt a fucking serious question...its a 'look at me im female' thread

Just for the record I have a degree in English...but If I did feel the need to ask a question I wouldn't entitle it

Beeks/34/dark hair/big cock

This isnt a fucking serious question...its a 'look at me im female' thread

Just for the record I have a degree in English...but If I did feel the need to ask a question I wouldn't entitle it

Beeks/34/dark hair/big cock

Why are you so angry, young fella? Where did "big cock" come from, anyway? There's no mention of genitalia in the thread title. She used a perfectly legitimate attention-getter to get people to look at her thread in the interest of getting as many responses as she could. Hell, for all we know, the thread's not about English so much as it is about how people respond to a bait-and-switch thread title.

Regardless of the OP's intent, the thread has been valuable for me to read, with information about grammar and sociolinguistic theory. As an amateur linguist/etymologist/scribe I'm all for it. Sheesh, relax already.

Regardless of the OP's intent, the thread has been valuable for me to read, with information about grammar and sociolinguistic theory. As an amateur linguist/etymologist/scribe I'm all for it. Sheesh, relax already.

I'm glad you're liking it, Intangelon, and as I've promised a fellow 'amateur scribe' before, I'll unravel the secret of what this has all been about tonight, hopefully, if I get around to it.

However, I must personally admit that while I never thought of that when I created the title, this thread has raised quite some interesting stuff (the switch-and-bait, the "reveal information" aspect, the Anglo-Saxon oppression of redheads, the sociolinguistic debate over who defines 'good' language use, the amazing negative correlation of overtly claimed academic achievement and actual intellectual/linguistic performance, etc.) that I, as a sociology major (English is actually but my minor), might or might not find some ideas for my upcoming bachelor thesis in it.. ;P

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'


Unless it's too much of a hassle, I'd be delighted to also know your age/gender, which regional version of English you speak, and whether you'd rank your regular language use as more 'official' or more 'colloquial'.

Thanks!
A) Both forms are correct. I would contract unless I'm in a mood to speak slowly.

B) Both forms are correct. I would probably not contract; it feels clumsy coming off of my tongue.

C) No difference.

I'm 30, male, born and raised in New York City. Compared to the mass media, my usage of English is fairly close.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

.. concerning a disconcerting linguistic problem she's facing. Calling all native speakers of the English language to rescue!

It's terribly frustrating to be a non-native student of English and ever so often come across something you can only solve by "intuition" about the language, which is not a very reliable instrument if it is but a learned language. So..

I'm not going to bother you much with the theory behind it*; I just want you to give me your native speaker, intuitive response. Please tell me whether, in regular everyday speech:

a) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'I wonder why they have done this?'

b) you would contract the words "they" and "have" to "they've" in the following sentence: 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

c) you detect a difference in meaning between the sentences

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'



A: Yes "I wonder why they've done this?" looks right.

B: "Could they've done this on purpose?" looks funky to me for some reason.

C: The second is gramaticly incorrect but has the same meaning.

C: The second is gramaticly incorrect but has the same meaning.
Erm, not really.

It's grammatically fine, it just sounds slight odd and has a bias towards 'who do you want to play personally, with you being involved' more than 'who do you want to play'.

Alright, long post ahead.

It's 21:32 around here, and as promised, I'm going to tell you now what this was all about (for me). As I've already said, I am an English student at university currently enrolled in a Grammar class. I posted the thread right after our last session where we discussed the theory I'll explain below, and while the theory sounded all nice and good to me, I just didn't hear the grammatical 'wrongness' / difference in sentences like the ones I posted. So, instead of just believing my teacher that natives would hear it, I decided to put it to an empirical test - the results are in this thread.

Now, what was the theory? Mainly, it's about the linguistic concept of trace theory, which again ties in with Government&Binding Theory, but I'll ignore the latter for now.

Basically, what trace theory says is all our sentences originate from some sort of "base" sentence, i.e. some declarative sentence. Whenever we form a new sentence of a different kind, say, a question or a construction using could/will/etc. out of this base sentence, the transformation will not be complete in all regards, but e.g. the original word order will leave a "trace".

Allow me to clarify this further using the sentences I've asked about in my OP. The first couplet was

A) 'I wonder why they have done this?'
and
B 'Could they have done this on purpose?'

The "base sentence" for a) is "They have done this";
the one for B) is "They could have done this (on purpose)".

Please note that with the first base sentence, the potential contraction partners we're looking at, i.e. "they" and "have", are right next to each other and can therefore be easily contracted there and in the derivative sentence, while with the second base sentence, they are separated by the "could". Trace theory now holds that this separating instance leaves its (separating) trace in the transformed question, therefore disallowing a contraction in the derivative sentence where the words are technically right next to each other, just like with sentence A).

I've noted that while the poll actually shows a rather large number of people who answered "B) is contractible, too", most longhand answers I got regarding this actually qualify that absolute statement by saying "A contraction in B) is grammatically possible, but I personally wouldn't use it / but it sounds awkward". Had I foreseen such reluctance to generalize their intuition / gut feeling, the thing I was after, into actual grammatical (in)correctness, I would have phrased the poll option more clearly to read "Do you think it sound okay to contract this?" or something; I hypothesize the results would have been more clearly on the "No" side then.



Now, on to C). This is still the same theory, but applied to a meaning difference issue. The sentences were

..........1) 'Who do you want to play?'
..........2) 'Who do you wanna play?'

As several of you did indeed find out, there is supposed to be the following difference there:

1) asks you who you want to play (with you), as in, who (else) you want to join in the game. The base sentence for this would be "I want [name] to play / Do you want [name] to play?".

2) asks you who you want to play (against), as in, who do you want to compete with. The base sentence is "I want to play [name] / Do you want to play [name]?".

Please note again that with base sentence 1), the potential contraction partners "want" and "to" are separated by [name], but not so in base sentence 2).

Therefore, sentence 1) could carry both meanings (as a lack of contraction needn't mean that you cannot, but also that you just chose not to contract), but 2) excludes the "play with/join in" meaning, because the trace prevents a contraction there. (In pretty linguistics terms, that means that with sentence 1, "who" can be either the object or the subject of "play", and with sentence 2, it must be its object).

----

Isn't that all awesome? Now go and rejoice in your newfound knowledge. Oh, and all participants who voted in the poll please queue over there on the left-hand side; you'll receive a thank-you cookie each; everyone who could be arsed to write an actual response is entitled to three cookies (please be prepared to show proof of identification).


Thank you and good night; you've been an awesome audience! *bows and leaves*


.

*snip*

Isn't that all awesome? Now go and rejoice in your newfound knowledge. Oh, and all participants who voted in the poll please queue over there on the left-hand side; you'll receive a thank-you cookie each; everyone who could be arsed to write an actual response is entitled to three cookies (please be prepared to show proof of identification).


Thank you and good night; you've been an awesome audience! *bows and leaves*


.

Excellent, what flavours do you have? My favourites are ANZAC buiscuits.

Proof of ID. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13380408&postcount=144)

A) Yes
B)No
C) Sort of. The latter is slang but when speaking to someone they'd understand. Who do you want to play, they Knicks or Lakers? You know what I'm asking? Who dou want to face in a game of basketball? Who do you wanna play the Knicks, or Lakers? Same meaning. Ones non-slang one isn't. So I guess no.

I speak the US dialect of english, although if I was in the UK or read an article by a writer from the UK I'd have no problem figuring out what the people were saying/what was written. Same goes for Australia,Canada,etc.

Orright, I've called off the bunyips (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13378207&postcount=67).

And I'd like Anzac biscuits too, please, but home-made, not those fakes they sell in the shops.

This isnt a fucking serious question...its a 'look at me im female' thread

Just for the record I have a degree in English...but If I did feel the need to ask a question I wouldn't entitle it

Beeks/34/dark hair/big cock

Relax, it's not a direct insult to you.

can i call beeker a tool for that? only i think he's amusing and i'd call my palls that. but he's a fucking idiot for that coment.

Tee hee. Oh, people.

a) I'd contract pretty much all the time, even when speaking slowly. It's just an ingrained thing.

b) I wouldn't normally contract; it's awkward to me. nothing grammatically wrong with it, though.

c) The difference I see in those sentences is that 1 could be saying "Who do you want to play," either want to see playing (like on TV), or want to play against (when you're on one of the teams), whereas 2 only makes sense to me in the case of the latter, playing against. I don't know why that is, and I know what you mean by it being a difficult question for non-native speakers.

Male/21/dirty blond? Kekek. Call it Canadian English, with some British loanwords thrown in for amusement every now and then. My usage ranges anywhere from Joe Blow colloquial to downright pedantic.

I read your theory and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Excellent, what flavours do you have? My favourites are ANZAC buiscuits.
I've got all the flavours nyou teach me to make. Never heard of ANZAC, so.. recipe?

And I'd like Anzac biscuits too, please, but home-made, not those fakes they sell in the shops.
Don't worry, I don't think they sell those things in German shops anyhow.. as soon as Boony gets us the recipe, I'll get to baking those suckers.

can i call beeker a tool for that?

Not in my thread you can't.


I read your theory and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Newsletters can only be collected in person, sorry. Thursday mornings, 08-10, in rooom C0-106, Uni Bielefeld.

/big cock
That's not what i've heard.
Ask anyone here? :p

As for A, both are perfectly OK.

As for B, "they have" seems more natural (to me) but "they've" is not incorrect.

As far as the want to / wanna, I would say that 'wanna' can only replace 'want to' when 'want to' is used as a verb phrase.

"who do you | want to | play" is OK as "who do you | wanna | play," and means something along the lines of "who do you want to play against"

but "who do you want | to play" (where the 'to' is part of the 'to play' phrase) is not OK as 'wanna.' The meaning here is "what people do you want to play in the game"

<< 23 year old male American with a degree in Linguistics.

I've got all the flavours nyou teach me to make. Never heard of ANZAC, so.. recipe?

ANZAC biscuits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_biscuit) & a couple of recipes (http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s1087121.htm).

ANZAC biscuits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_biscuit)
culinary anthropologist
Yay! My new favorite profession.
recipes (http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s1087121.htm).

Mind if I do it following these (http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/bunyips/flash-site/swf/html/fun-games/recipe-anzac.html) instructions? This way, I can beautifully incorporate Ardchoille's bunyips in the spirit of a wholesome thread group fluffle.

I've got all the flavours nyou teach me to make. Never heard of ANZAC, so.. recipe?Grab some Aussies, some Kiwis, add guns: Presto! You've got an Australia New Zealand Army Corps! There's buiscuits that go with them. ;)

Grab some Aussies, some Kiwis, add guns: Presto! You've got an Australia New Zealand Army Corps! There's biscuits that go with them. ;)

Ah, alright. So instead of the tedious going to the store and buying ingredients, which is what I thought of doing first, I just leaf through the thread and pick out the Aussies and NZers, quickly peek into II and grab some spare guns, mix 'em all up and let them conjure the cookies? Awesome.

NOW I know why I asked about the nationalities.. it all makes a Higher Sense afterwards. *nod*