I<\/p>\n
Why is I capitalised? It is not done in other languages, nor is it done with other pronouns. The explanation is quite simple. It is the result of a mistake. The convention stems from late medieval writing systems. At the time, (still written with a small letter) was often represented as , and looked pretty much like. This was then taken over by the printers and has remained like this ever since. (Brunner 1962: 100)<\/p>\n
I can hear someone talking<\/p>\n
The meaning of the utterance I can hear someone talking<\/em> shifts considerably when said by a teacher in a classroom and when said by one police officer talking to another when investigating an empty house. Context is clearly crucial in interpreting what is meant. (Holmes\u00a03<\/sup>2008: 357)<\/p>\n If (1)<\/p>\n Conditional clauses are often, for convenience, referred to as “if-clauses”. But even if if is the most common conjunction, it is not the only one: supposing, in case, allowing that, and, with a different meaning, unless and lest, are also found. And sometimes you do not even need a subordinate conjunction: You come here again and you’ll get to know me. (Gramley\/P\u00e4tzold 1992: 160-1)<\/p>\n If you behave properly, you\u2019ll get some sweets<\/em><\/p>\n Consider the sentence If you behave properly, you\u2019ll get some sweets. Now consider the sentence You\u2019ll get some sweets if you behave properly. Both of these sentences are perfectly well-formed English sentences. However, many speakers have a preference for the first. Why is that? The reason is that language, in this case, seems to \u2018picture the world\u2019: The condition must first be fulfilled, only then will the sweets be distributed. Therefore the order subordinate clause \u2013 main clause is the preferred one although both are possible \u2013 in English. There are some language where only one order is possible, the one which is the preferred one in English, but there are no languages where only the reverse order is possible! (Finegan 52008: 7-8)<\/p>\n If (2)<\/p>\n Consider Larry Bruce’s saying about his school: “I won’t say ours was a tough school, but we had our own coroner. We used to write essays like ‘What I’, going to be if I grow up'”. Simply substituting if for when entirely changes the meaning of the sentence. (Aarons 2012: 68)<\/p>\n Inflammable In future<\/p>\n When in future means \u2018from now on\u2019, you do not use the definite article in British English: \u201cIn future, I\u2019d like you to pay more attention to detail.\u201d This is not the case in American English, where you do use the article. When the phrase is used to refer to a time completely detached from the present, the article is used in both British and American English. (cf. Trudgill\/Hannah 4 2002: 72) Who said that English was easy?<\/p>\n Import<\/p>\n This word can be stressed on the first or on the second syllable. If it is stressed on the first syllable, it is a noun, if it is stressed on the second syllable, it is a verb. The basic meaning is the same, but the stress tells us about the grammatical category. It does not, however, in recall. Here both can be verb or noun. To complicate matters further, with subject we do have the distinction between noun and verb, but the meaning is not (usually) the same. (Roach 2001: 32)<\/p>\n In a shambles<\/p>\n If things are in a shambles, they are in complete disarray, in complete disorder. The shamble was originally a stool and then a counter or a bench in a butcher’s shop on which the butcher used to display his good. In medieval towns, where each street used to be occupied by a particular trade, there would have been many different shambles in the butcher’s street (Nottingham and York still have streets named The Shambles). From there, shambles came to mean \u2018slaughterhouse’ and a \u2018place of carnage and bloodshed’. In modern usage, the meaning has weakened to \u2018disorder’, \u2018mess’. (Flavell & Flavell \u00b32000: 167)<\/p>\n In case<\/p>\n At first sight, there is nothing unusual in the pronunciation of this from, but if you listen carefully, you will hear that the \/n\/ is pronounced differently, or rather, that there is no \/n\/. You will notice this if you compare in case and in fact. The of in fact in pronounced like the last sound of sin, the of in case is pronounced like the last sound of sing, at least normally, in connected speech. This is due to the following sound. The first sound of case, \/k\/, is velar, i.e. the tongue touches the velum, the soft palate, and thus \/n\/, which is not velar, is changed into \/N\/, which is. This is a case of assimilation, the process of making one sound more similar to a neighbouring sound. Other examples are incomplete, incapable, uncommon, uncover. (Davis 2004: 133)<\/p>\n Indian Summer<\/p>\n It is sometimes believed that the expression “Indian Summer”, the mild season late in the year, comes from India. It doesn’t. It comes from America. What the exact explanation is is not quite clear. Some people think that the natives believed the mild weather was a gift sent by their god Cautantowwit, but there is another. Less benign explanation which says it was a time which offered the Indians another opportunity to attack the settlements. (Flavell & Flavell \u00b32005: 173)<\/p>\n Indonesia<\/p>\n How do you pronounce Indonesia? There is no one right answer. Some people pronounce it with \/Z\/, others with \/S\/, still others with \/zI\/. The first is used in America, the last in Britain, the one in the middle in either America or Britain. (Gramley\/P\u00e4tzold 1992: 341) These details are not so important, but it is important to see that there is more than one right answer, even when we speak about the Standard language and not about regional dialects.<\/p>\n Intercity<\/p>\n In American English, is sometimes not pronounced at all, e.g. in words like enter. As a consequence, winter sounds like winner and intercity like innercity. But this applies only when the following sound is a vowel or when the following syllable is unstressed. When the following sound is a consonant and when the following syllable is stressed, is pronounced. That is why in intricate or internal is pronounced. (Gramley\/P\u00e4tzold 1992: 339)<\/p>\n Inwit<\/p>\n Not an English word? And what about birdlore or unfrienden? These and many other should have entered the English language if it had been for William Barnes, a teacher, parson and poet from Dorset, who, in 1878, published a book which he called An Outline of English Speechcraft. Why speechcraft? Well, what Barnes meant was grammar but he did not like the word because it was not ‘English’ enough. It was a foreign loanword, and Barnes wanted a pure English language, consisting of good old Anglo-Saxon words only. Therefore he resuscitated long-forgotten words such as inwit to replace conscience and coined others such as birdlore or unfrienden to replace ornithology and alienate. (Crystal 2007: 50)<\/p>\n Island<\/p>\n There is an in island which isn\u2019t pronounced \u2013 and never was! It was included in the wrong belief that it was derived from the same French-based word as isle and was made to look more similar. Actually, island is derived from the same word as German Eiland, and there is no and there never was. Another spelling accident is the of admiral, which has nothing to do with admire, but with Arabic amir. (Cook 2004: 169)<\/p>\n Is there any salt on the table?<\/p>\n Imagine a dinner-table conversation. Somebody asks, \u2018Is there a state income tax in Connecticut?\u2019 The answer could be \u2018Yes\u2019, \u2018No\u2019, \u2018I don\u2019t know\u2019 or something of the sort. Now consider an equally straightforward inquiry made on the same occasion: \u2018Is there any salt on the table?\u2019 In this instance, the same answer, \u2018Yes\u2019 or \u2018No\u2019 or \u2018I don\u2019t know\u2019, would be considered bizarre, You would be expected to pass the salt. You would recognize that it is salt which is required, not information. The two questions have a different point. But the two questions have a similar form. You cannot tell by the form of the question what the point is. Your experience tells you, your knowledge, your knowledge of how language is used. Now imagine by contrast, in a related context, the host in the kitchen, holding the pepper-mill in his hand, asking somebody who is in the dining room \u2018Is there any salt on the table?\u2019 Now the question is likely to be understood as a request for information not a request for salt, although it is exactly the same question! The context decides. The answer \u2018Yes or \u2018No\u2019, which would be inappropriate at the table would be appropriate in the kitchen. (Finegan 5 2008: 5-6)<\/p>\n I think it’s time to go now<\/p>\n This can be said in a sad way, a happy way, an angry way, etc. Although the message conveyed in each case is quite different, the sounds themselves, i.e. the phonemes, are the same. The difference must be conveyed in other ways. Intonation plays an important part, but we also use pitch, voice quality, speaking rates, etc. to express these different emotions. (Roach 2001: 35)<\/p>\n It’s Greek to me<\/p>\n In English, to denote unintelligible speech, you say \u2018It’s Greek to me’. But what do the Greeks say? They say \u2018It’s Hebrew to me’. The English expression goes back to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, in which Casca overhears something that Cicero says, but he cannot understand it because Cicero chooses to speak Greek. In this case, it is just a mere statement of fact: Casca does not speak Greek. From here, it is not a long way to the later meaning of \u2018unintelligible speech’ of something which is said in your own language. (Flavell & Flavell \u00b32005: 185-6)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I Why is I capitalised? It is not done in other languages, nor is it done with other pronouns. The explanation is quite simple. It is the result of a mistake. The convention stems from late medieval writing systems. At … Continue reading
\nCombustible is the opposite of incombustible. They are, technically speaking, antonyms. Funnily, inflammable is not the opposite of flammable, it is the same. They are synonyms. The reason is this: the in- of incombustible is not the same as the in- of inflammable, the former meaning \u2018not\u2019, the latter meaning \u2018in\u2019, \u2018into\u2019. This difficulty has had practical implications for language: In the early 20th century, firefighters worried that people might think inflammable meant \u2018not able to catch fire\u2019 so they adopted flammable and non-flammable as official safety labels. In general use, flammable is now the preferred term, at least in the US.<\/p>\n