Главное меню
Мы солидарны с Украиной. Узнайте здесь, как можно поддержать Украину.

dear native speakers and bi-linguas, is the text correct?

Автор Vera Voss, октября 10, 2008, 18:53

0 Пользователи и 1 гость просматривают эту тему.

Vera Voss

Please suggest how to say better! Any help is very appreciated:

Here is a good book about a fascinating trend of/on the global market nowadays. Personally I found interesting the point about innovation which gives the new approach to outsourcing and off-shore.

iopq

This is a great book about the fascinating current trends of the global market. Personally, what I found most interesting was the point about innovation; it gives us a new outlook on outsourcing and off-shoring.
Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

Dana

Homo homini cattulus est

Хто не знає про добро, той завжди буде злим,
Хто забув свою мову, той прокинеться німим,
Хто завжди був рабом, той залишиться ніким,
Все почалося з нічого і закінчиться нічим...

iopq

That's because the heart of the matter itself is lame. My wording is so expressive that it brings it out in an unfavorable light. Oh! How I wish I wasn't this talented!
Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

djwebb1969


iopq

Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

djwebb1969

Another similar thing that niggles me is "support of" instead of "support for". Eg: Brown thanked the minister for his support of the housing policy. It should be "support for the housing policy". Maybe these things just go with the territory of being a big language - there are hundreds of millions of users, with learners in the majority, and spread across dozens of countries, and so they are unlikely to all adhere to the same usage. In England, there is such as thing as "language rage", but I am not sure if it exists to the same degree elsewhere. Some people in England do object to what they perceive as incorrect usages! These incorrect usages are multiplying, apparently in line with MTV viewer statistics. I was watching Stargate Atlantis the other day, and Ford kept saying, "I am good". I suppose this will catch on in England one day...

iopq

I've heard both "support of" and "support for"
Results 1 - 10 of about 93,700,000 for "support of". (0.18 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 155,000,000 for "support for". (0.17 second
Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

djwebb1969


iopq

Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

djwebb1969

You have correctly identified that the syntax depends on the exact idiom used. This is the problem with the English language.

You are right to use "in support of". This shows that Googling for "support of" and "support for" cannot resolve syntactical questions, because there is more than one phrase that uses the word "support". In support of is correct.

"He expressed his support of Putin" would be incorrect. This is not the "in support of" idiom, but another usage of "support" that must be followed by "for".  He expressed his support FOR Putin. I did say in my earlier post that the use of "support of" was only wrong in the original context. (Check back and see my specific wording.) I did not say there were no idioms in English where "support of" was correct.

You ask me to provide links or evidence, but clearly Google is not evidence of correct usage. It is evidence of actual usage, but this includes usage by the uneducated and by non-native speakers.

If you read this link http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6004202# in the Times Educational Supplement, you will see that a very large minority of children in England cannot identify standard English. Unfortunately, we have reached the point where being a native speaker of English is not evidence enough that one has a mastery of good English. There are countless native speakers of English teaching in Russia, China and elsewhere who could do with a course in English themselves.

I have spent many years as an English language subeditor working for a well-known publishing house in England, correcting the English produced by "native speakers" of England, graduates in most cases. If you are not sure that "his support of Putin" is incorrect, then, presuming that you are a native speaker of English, I would assume your English is largely of the text-message and video game variety.

Ultimately, Russians cannot really be expected to distinguish between native speakers with good English and native speakers with poor English. All they have to go on is things like the possession of a degree in English. However, as you will know if you read the English press, possession of a degree in English is no guarantee of good English. There have been numerous articles in the press about graduates who cannot spell!!!!!!!!!!!!! Part of the reason is the anti-intellectual trend in the UK, whereby all subjects are being relentlessly dumbed down. All must have prizes. All must have degrees. University professors have even been quoted in the UK press calling for substandard spelling to be accepted as equivalent to correct spelling. As the emphasis in academic linguistics has moved towards communication as the sole criterion of linguistic standards, academics are increasingly inclined to deny there is or could be any such thing as good English. This sub-Marxist context is probably unknown to the average English school in Russia. They may not know their English teachers have spent their time in university learning theories about how substandard English should be valued as equal--or even superior (because more authentic) to standard English.

So, I cannot "prove" that "his support of Putin" is incorrect. There is no Academy regulating the English language, and anyone can set himself up as an authority on the subject. I am simply a well-read Englishman who knows that "his support of Putin" contains an error. Maybe I should re-phrase that. It contains an error when viewed from the perspective of traditional prescriptive grammar, but the MTV generation neither knows nor cares about such things. I fink I is right, innit?

iopq

You clearly missed that I only wrote that so I could write "in support of" while referencing your argument. Somehow, you didn't find that erroneous. I don't agree with prescriptive grammars. Languages existed before prescriptive grammars did. Even Shakespeare used the singular they that is still considered "incorrect" by academia. This is actually a social issue and not a linguistic one. Here's a link to a CNN article with the line "in support of Putin"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/30/kasparov.putin/index.html
Цитировать..."Young Russia" -- one of many organizations that have sprouted up in support of Putin...
Could it be an Americanism?
Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

djwebb1969

I wrote, "Yes, I've heard both too, but "support of" in that context is incorrect."

Can you guess what the phrase "in that context" might mean? The context was "support for the housing policy". I specifically stated that I was referring to this context only. "In support of" is, as I specifically stated, another matter. These are correct:


1) He spoke in support of Putin. (Here "for" would be wrong.)
2) He expressed his support for Putin. (Here "of" would be wrong.)

Akulina

A very interesting discussion you are having here. I've never thought about this before.

djwebb1969 wrote:
1) He spoke in support of Putin. (Here "for" would be wrong.)
2) He expressed his support for Putin. (Here "of" would be wrong.)

I suppose there is a grammatical rule hidden in there somewhere that could be formulated. In the first sentence there seems to be more focus on the action ("spoke"), and in the second the actual "support" is more important. I'm not sure how to word it in proper grammatical terms, though.

djwebb1969

Akulina, the exact syntactical construction makes a difference in English.

I wrote:

1) He spoke in support of Putin. (Here "for" would be wrong.)
2) He expressed his support for Putin. (Here "of" would be wrong.)

But one could also add a third alternative:

3) He supported Putin. (Here "for" and "of" would both be wrong.)

English syntax is very complex, and a lot of it comes down to idiom. "In support of" is just a separate phrase that needs to be individually learned. When you learn the verb "to support", you need to learn that it takes no preposition. When you learn the noun "support", you need to learn that it is used with the preposition "for". Comparisons with Shakespeare are irrelevant, as his usages predated the highly standardised classical language of the 19th century. As an English language subeditor, I became very aware of the fact that the average native speaker of English is no longer able to write what the Russians would term "the literary language".

Many younger native speakers, as this thread shows, are very shaky in terms of their prepositional collocations, probably because they have not been exposed to much good English (the 19th century high point, including Dickens, Hardy, Austen etc).

iopq

Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

Akulina

djwebb1969
Oh, God. An idiom.
Now that you've pointed that out it does look kind of obvious. "In support of" :)
I know what you mean about the native speakers. I always found it sad how the language seems to deteriorate overtime. Really, if you look at it, Shakespearean English is much more complex than the modern language. Richer vocabulary, more pronouns, all these "whither-thither"... Though I suppose Shakespearean English isn't the language they spoke on the street during the Elizabethan times, it is literature, after all.   Still, back in highschool, I was somewhat shoked to find out that my anglophone classmates actually required a translation in order to read "Romeo and Juliet" :(

Akulina

Цитата: iopq от октября 29, 2008, 04:27
I'm telling you, it's an American thing.
No, it's not. I think it's more because tax cuts and maritime treaties aren't animate objects.

djwebb1969

It may be an American thing - but that just goes to show that many grammatical "innovations" (read: errors) are being accepted in US English. Are we expected to accept "there's" followed by a plural noun? and the conditional used for the subjunctive? Simply because educational standards in the US are so low? It is an error, period.

I am afraid, Akulina, it has nothing to do with "animate objects". In England, where a slightly higher form of English is spoken than in the US, "animate objects" require "support for" in the context under discussion. You can find many examples by Googling for "support for tax cuts". It was ingenious - but wrong - to suggest that the preposition "for" is used only before people.

Do Anglophone students require a translation to read Romeo and Juliet????? As far as I know, the odd Shakespearian word is a little unclear, and most editions have some vocabulary notes in footnotes (one or two words per page), but not a full translation. There would be no point in reading Shakespeare in a modern translation.

As for whether Shakespeare was the language of the Elizabethan street, well, I don't think the peasants spoke in iambic pentameters, but some of the blank prose portions of Shakespeare may be closer to actual speech at the time. Whither, thither - these words can still be used in good English, especially in written English of a certain style.

Let me explain the point about the use of conditional for the subjunctive in US so-called English. I mean usages such as "If he would have gone, he could have..." instead of the correct "if he had gone, he could have..." This seems to be being used more and more in the US. I look forward to the time when the US becomes a Spanish-speaking country. Let the MTV generation over there mangle some other language!

Akulina

About support:
I think I just said the same thing. Animate objects - Putin- require "support for". Inanimate objects - tux cuts - require "support of".  Perhaps my Canadian English is a bit too American, but "support for tax cuts" just doesn't sound right to me.

About Shakespeare:
My feelings exactly. Yet the textbook we used in class was practically a translation - one page would be the actual play, and the next would be detailed explanations. I'd understand if the editors were just playing safe, but my classmates actually were using it. Worse, we've read the entire thing out loud in class and went through all the explanations. Grade 12 Academic English, mind you, not ESL. It was just frightening.

djwebb1969

Akulina, what sounds right to a Canadian can hardly be the criterion for good English. Do you speak the Queen's English? English is fundamentally the language of England. England is where the culture is, not North America. "Support of tax cuts" is just wrong. I don't mean wrong in British English. I mean wrong in English, full stop. Canada and the US should immediately implement educational programmes to upgrade their English standards to those of the better schools in England.

iopq

It doesn't follow that wherever the language is from is the "correct" dialect. There is no such thing as "higher form of English." You say that England is where the culture is, but you are incorrect. The entire world takes their culture from Hollywood. Just because you personally regard the culture of England as superior, that doesn't mean that culture does not exist in the US. I'm sure you believe that the spelling "programme" is proper and that the American spelling is wrong. But I insist that "program" conveys meaning no worse than its longer counterpart.
Poirot: Я, кстати, тоже не любитель выпить, хоть и русский.
jvarg: Профессионал? ;)

Akulina

I could start talking about dialects right now, but I believe it's against the rules here, so I'll try not to :)
Ultimately, it is a matter of perspective. Canadians appear to think that American English, Canadian English, and British English are three diffirent languages and it is therefore only natural for them to have different standards. I'm not sure I agree with that point of view, but I don't think there's any sense in imposing British (or Queen's) standards upon North America, either.

I understand that British culture is more... prominent, shall we say. Frankly, when I first moved here,  I was also of the opinion that Europe is "where the culture is". I still prefer European cultures to the North American one. However, it does not mean that  there is no distinct culture here; more, even Canada and the US are vastly different from each other.  I do not know what you mean when you talk of "English language, full stop". It's almost like talking of "European culture, full stop". Sure, there is one, but there are subdivisions.

Personally, I find simplification of languages disturbing. After all, language affects our thinking, so what does its simplification say about the state of our minds? It would have been wonderful if we could preserve all the finer points. Yet it just never seems to work, does it? Languages just keep changing. You consider the 19th century English to be a good standard (am I right?), but, in a century or two, the modern, debased, version might appear quite satisfactory. For God's sake, Cardinal Richelieu founded the Academy to preserve the purity of French language - did it prevent it from evolving? And which version are we supposed to consider good French now - the one in France which changed a lot but is in Europe "where culture is", or the one in Quebec which is in North America but closer to the original standard?

Anyway, I hope I didn't stray too far off topic. Back to the idiom. Just to make sure, are you saing that "in support" is always "of", and plain "support" is always "for"? I'd like to use the correct British version in future :)

Akulina

iopq
I agree with you to some extent, but isn't saying that "the entire world takes their culture from Hollywood" taking it a bit too far? It would be one sad world, that ;)

djwebb1969

In support: this is always followed by of.
Support as a noun is always followed by for (except in "in support for").
Support as a verb doesn't take a preposition.

Iopq, we shouldn't just aim to convey meaning. We should aim to use our language well. In general, culture shouldn't be simply utilitarian. We have a great heritage and should keep it up.

Быстрый ответ

Обратите внимание: данное сообщение не будет отображаться, пока модератор не одобрит его.

Имя:
Имейл:
Проверка:
Оставьте это поле пустым:
Наберите символы, которые изображены на картинке
Прослушать / Запросить другое изображение

Наберите символы, которые изображены на картинке:

√36:
ALT+S — отправить
ALT+P — предварительный просмотр