my first Englisch teacher was a narcissist only interested in ruling, not teaching language and its rules in any meaningful manner. Ironically, I learned English first through British computer books in the early 80's, actually preparing me to a level where I was still taking classes in school when I hadn't to anymore. Thank you so much for your channel, if only we have had it in the 80's...
13:00 Another nice example from Shakespeare is the double superlative for emphasis used by Mark Antony in describing Brutus' attack on Caesar: "This was the most unkindest cut of all"
The weird thing is that I have always known these rules, as "it doesn't seem right", behind my mind, but never thought of them as rules. Now it is more apparent.
That's because language is mainly a big memory exercise, irregular forms occur commonly otherwise they become regular. This has happened to many verbs and to wed is in the process as to marry has become more popular.
😆😆😆😆😆 Funny ! Aarre Peltomaa p.s. Don't forget. There was a conference of monkeys, Orang Utans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Baboons. They decided to create a common language so that they could speak to each other. That language became English ! 🙃
Thank you for this great video and your examples. I am a teacher of English in my country, and as you probably know, teachers who are not native speakers have to learn all the time to be ready to answer all the questions their students may have :) The information you gave here is so valuable for me. Wishing you great success, Gideon!
I absolutely love these videos ❣️. I've been teaching English for 6 years in total, admittedly with a break in between. I teach English for a tech company in México City and I share many of your sentiments when it comes to language learning. Thanks for everything Gideon.
Overall, Gideon is one of the best EFL teachers on RUclips. He has an excellent insight into the English language and tends to avoid saying misleading things. Quite a few of the others are incompetent and spout rubbish.
Come to think of it, English being a mashup of other languages (which individually have rules not compatible with the others) it's only logical that there are so many exceptions. A non-native speaker can learn the basic grammar rules but to be able to recognise the difference in meaning between "The lecturer closed the door and went on to teach the new material" and "He went on teaching although nobody paid any attention" takes a lot of experience, reading and above all getting the feel of the language. All those BUTs and irregularities make the study of English complex and challenging BUT I love it regardless.
@@LetThemTalkTV can't wait to see the reaction of my colleagues when I inform them that we actually teach a bastard language, they'll probably "excommunicate" me 😂
@@maiter6317 in the first example the lecturer, after completing one action (closing the door) switched to another (teaching) whereas in the second example he proceeded with the same action (continued with what he's already been doing).
"Rues of grammar" are rarely taught in the US these days. As a foreign language high school teacher, I've had to teach English grammar. I have to explain verbs, pronouns, prepositions. Amazing!
Native English speakers learn the rules at their mothers' knees. English classes for native speakers should mostly consist of reading and writing English with an eye to improving both, not studying the grammar they already know. I learned more about the mechanics of English in my Spanish classes than I ever did in any of my English classes.
@@buckwylde7965 we don’t always learn grammar rules natively. We also learn the grammar mistakes of our dialects. I know many who use the adjective good instead of the adverb well. They will say I am good instead of I am well.
Thank you so much for your content. As a teacher I find it so helpful! Many of your examples and explanations are so great, that I am writing them down and can´t wait to tell them to my students during our lessons.
I love this! I've long since learnt to say that English doesn't really have rules, more like patterns and tendencies ;) Obviously, there are some rules but I make sure to say there is probably some exception I can't think of right now (but if you can - I say to my students - let me know, so I know for the future). My favourite is the "no *will* after *if*". At the start of someone's journey with the conditionals I don't even mention that yes, in some cases, you might see them worryingly close to each other. With more advanced students I say "there are some situations when you can say that but this isn't one, not yet." About the contractions and writing - I think it might be some misconception carried over from formal writing. Students preparing for taking exams like CAE etc. have to learn to write some very formal pieces of writing and they often find it hard to remember not to contract in those. So maybe some teachers just expand the rule because of this? Not sure. But register sure is tricky sometimes! When I started learning foreign languages we mostly had course books, novels and maybesometimes some films to learn from. So we all sounded a bit pompous ;) Now my students find it hard to get rid of the "gonna" and "coulda" type of forms because they learn a lot from rather informal exchanges on the social media.
English has rules or nobody would understand what one English speaker said to another English speaker. Most speakers learn the basic rules before they start grade school. English has a lot of irregularities to learn, and again some of them are absorbed by children listening to or talking to parents and watching television. There is a current prevalent myth that any way a particular group speaks English is on equal footing with any other way. That isn't the case and never will be. Linguists and linguistic anthropologists have recognized the way a language is spoken (and/or written) communicates more than just thoughts and feelings. Consciously and unconsciously you communicate to others your racial, ethnic and socioeconomic background, area of the country, intelligence and level of education, and many other details. And the person listening to you is consciously and unconsciously assigning meanings - even stereotypes - to YOU. One common one is a Southern accent. Subtle and not so subtle meanings can be assigned by speakers outside the South, and some meanings or assumptions can be negative. It's not uncommon for professionals or TV and media persons with Southern accents and speech patterns to attend special classes or tutor-supervised training to reduce or eliminate a Southern accent. Case in point: Stephen Colbert. He's a native of South Carolina, and he's remarked his natural speaking voice is characteristic of that state. He received training early in his career to eliminate his regional accent, and it only pops up again when he visits family and friends when he goes back home. This isn't a new phenomenon in America. As modern life means much more geographic, social and career mobility in the second half of the 20th and into the 21st centuries, so has the rise of speech training and modification private education.
13:49 The use of contractions in formal writing actually can change a meaning or nuance, and this is made clear: "You won't walk here" (formal, meaning doubt is present) "You will not walk here" (formal, meaning force will be used if you try)
but that just future tense with a tone :) , same in almost every western language i think.. jij zal daar niet lopen, tu ne vas pas y promener, du shallt nicht , ... don't know enough other european language to repeat it in those ;)
Dear Gideon I'm used to watching your videos even if I've been studying British English with my londoner teacher. My teacher appreciates your deeper knowledge about grammar. Both of you are important to improve my learning. This video was amazing and I'll share with professor William.Thanks a lot
You must know the rules in order to break them. The way natives break the rules in colloquial speech is not the same as a learner would potentially break them :)
Less-educated native speakers sometimes do make similar mistakes as the ESL learners (lower and intermediate level).They tend to confuse irregular verbs, phonetically similar elements (e,g, could've, could of), they make subjunctive errors, use double negatives, use adjective instead of adverb, but unlike non-native speakers they would never confuse tenses,phrasal verbs or prepositions.
Semplicemente Anita I wouldn’t call them errors it’s just what separates colloquial speech from say RP or Standard American. I’m no prescriptivist so I wouldn’t call those people less-educated
@@richardharrow2513 I don't think that a particular standard of language is superior to other varieties but I'm a teacher who teaches "standards" so prescriptivism is inherent. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm subscribed to prescriptivism as ideology. P.S. Had no intention to offend less-educated people or sound condescending, I was just pointing out that people with less formal schooling are more inclined to be "descriptive" than people with academic degree.
"You must know the rules in order to break them." - the nail hit right on the head. Also, breaking the rules deliberately helps me come to grips with the rules I'm breaking.
Thank you, teacher, for answering my question made for 6 months ago, after watching the video ”5 Ways We use Will as Present Tense! I wrote the following: If you’ll let me finish, I’ll take questions at the end. I went on asking you to comment on this. You really do us a great favour!
English is so weird but your videos makes it understandable😁 Thank you🧡 Love your channel🧡 A separate video about adjectives, especially ones with two syllables would be awesome as it's a mind-boggling thing😁
My mom used to grammar-shame me😢. Could never have a conversation with her because she was waiting for me to mess up, so she could interrupt me repeatedly with her English lessons. Severe language trauma...
If I will keep watching too much youtube videos, I will end up explaining to whom I owe my reports most urgently when I should’ve submitted them yesterday.
As an English speaker, I subscribe to the breaking conventions wholeheartedly. As a teacher, I can only say one thing: do not ever break them in a test.
As an American English speaker in informal conversation and informal writing, contractions are used all the time by everyone. In higher academic circles, written articles, papers and textbooks do not. There the standard is formal writing only.
as a flemish in belgium, i first learned french with , AHH so extremely much exceptions! starting at 11.. so when started english courses at 14, when teacher said this is the rule, we were only to happy that it's wasn't followed be , 'except' ... , but i've learned too, 'will keep borthering' huh, a will for present time? :), don't think i've ever heared it used that way.. i would use : 'if you keep on' 'if you don't stop' , so i don't really see the use in that exception will use in any of the exemples, am i missing something? :)
@@JeroenJA You might think breaking the rules of English is easy, but following them is even more easy when they are wrong. Using "more easy" allows the speaker to stress either "more" or "easy", which is an awkward thing to do with "easier". Sure you can say "easy-ERR" but you can't tell me that's not more jarring to the flow of the sentence than "MORE easy".
*I would like to offer you the highest marks for your presentation. I am just a poor boy, however, the first written compliment I got, was from a stuffed shirt manager, who complimented me on my clear and concise style (of writing collection letters). I use a lot of contractions in everyday prose, and I have been published in national journals for my editorial commentaries. I really enjoy your videos, and am a mad fan!*
In French, we say : « this is the exception that proves the rule ». I studied French, English, Latin and German at school : but for me English grammar was the most easy.
Same here. Swedish is my mother tongue and I've studied English, French and German. The English grammar has always been the easiest, even easier than the Swedish grammar, especially when you try and teach it to someone else. :P
Very true. It’s beyond me to see so many people who are born and raised in the US make so many mistakes. They cannot even distinguish between “their” and “they’re”, “it’s” and “its”, “who” and “whom”
@@dianaperpignan1231 learning English by ear rather than written. Those sets of words sound the same to the American so they don’t differentiate the written form. Social media has revealed exactly how unintellectual the Americans are. Many use the excuse that they are talking their response but I know speech translators “fix” ‘there’ to ‘their’ or ‘they’re’ depending on usage. Lazy people wonder why people talk down to them. It’s because you let your mistakes stand.
Phrasal verbs such as "go on” act as an indivisible unit. The preposition can not be separated from the verb without changing the meaning of the phrasal verb. Nor can the verb in a phrasal verb stand-alone without changing its meaning. When phrasal verbs employ prepositions, their prepositions lose the quality and function that made them prepositions, and so they are no longer prepositions, but part of the stand-alone unit of the phrasal verb. So, your grammar rule was not violated by the example. :)
Yes absolutely! Rather, the verb in his example is “to go on to” which means “to abandon one activity in favour of a related activity”, but if you followed the rule and used a gerund after the verb “to go on”, it has the meaning of “to continue”, at least in my dialect of English.
On topic of the preposition followed by infinitive: "go on" is a phrasal verb. The preposition here belongs to the verb and changes its meaning (to go means to move, generally; to go on means to continue). In the example sentence (he was talking about his job and then he went on to talk about his holiday), the verb "to talk" doesn't really come after a preposition because the preposition is part of the phrasal verb.
There's another inevitable use of "whom", when it comes after "to" in "to whom" such as "to whom it may concern" or "this is the person to whom..." I was explained that "whom" must be used when a object pronoun must be used. For instance, you would say "for hiM/theM" so "for whoM" or "to hiM/theM" so "to whoM"
Really interesting vid! I disagree with the last opinion, though. Contractions should definitely be avoided in formal writing, e.g. business reports, university papers and probably formal letters. That they've become normal in business emails is just a feature of the fact that business email correspondence has become more and more informal overall. Contractions are okay in journalism (opinion pieces, etc.) and fiction (hence Orwell), but they definitely go against the existing conventions of academic writing.
You are right. it's worth noting that Cambridge exams directed towards foreign students of English always accept contractions as correct no matter how formal the written task. I think this is because they want to encourage the use of contractions which many non-natives seem to assume are slang.
On contractions, I seem to remember that the American writer Damon Runyon (not sure of the spelling of his name) made fun of the "rule" against contractions by having his characters who were lower class New Yorkers try to be more sophisticated by never using contractions and the strange awkwardness that resulted made fun of the "rule".
I had a friend in college who was from Germany and in her English classes in Germany she was always told not to use contractions in formal writing. I told her this was not true because sometimes not using a contraction will break up the rhythm of the sentence. She really liked my advice and acted like I had taken a giant weight off of her shoulders.
At the higher academic standards of college and university, contractions are not used. Open a college textbook sometime or read an academic journal article or paper. You won't see contractions.
Good thing we can relax with rules, it helps a lot not to worry about how to use adjectives, I can't be pompous in English, I'm still in my infancy in English. Facilitate I prefer. Good to see you Gideon. See you in the next video😎 thanks!
Im a native English speaker and I speak Latin as a second language and spanish as a 3rd ( although my spanish still needs a lot of work) so I stumbled upon this video by accident and I have to say it’s given me a really interesting perspective because even though my Latin is pretty good my native language obviously comes most naturally to me and although I’m sure that I follow all of these “rules” I am nearly completely ignorant of their existence! And I am quite confident that I would be a far better Latin teacher than an English teacher because much like an English student who may watch this video I had to study all of the rules of grammar in order to pick up my second language ( luckily it is very similar to Spanish so I didn’t have to start all over lol) also I make my living as a music teacher and I can’t help but to notice how similar learning grammar is to learning music theory; it’s very helpful and kind of a road map to get to where you are going and yet many of the people who make the best music don’t know the first thing about music theory. I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this is that if you are learning a new language definitely learn grammar but don’t worry too much about it because at the end of the day they are not “rules” they are conventions and the point of language is to understand and to be understood so don’t let the fear of making a mistake or speaking”improperly “ stop you from using the language. I just returned from holiday in Spain and hardly anyone there spoke English fluently so I was forced to use my poor spanish but what I found was that people seemed to really appreciate the fact that I was making the attempt to speak in their language and it was actually a lot of fun !
The sense of that "will" appears in some common American sayings, like "Boys will be boys" or "Evil will out", but not in any other American speech that I am familiar with. Us Yanks would construct the "if" sentence differently, like "If you keep doing that then what do you expect?" or with no "if" at all, like "Since you won't stop, this is going to happen" etc.
Good point re-contractions, but I wish you’d mentioned the absolute howler of an error that even native English speakers make, which is writing/saying should of etc… instead of should have. Mind you that probably needs a video of its own!
@@hmm7420 And you’d be correct. Could’ve is short for could have. Could of doesn’t make sense. OMG another AWFUL contraction error people, particularly in East London/Essex make, is confusing “his” and “he’s”. “Peter’s only gone and lost he’s keys!” instead of HIS keys. Drives me nuts.
English is my 3rd language and learn it by myself. I come from a phonetic language with different alphabet /Cyrillic/ and had a very hard time understanding the concept of writing a letter but not pronouncing it or pronouncing it differently when it's a certain combination.
The rule "no verb after a preposition" is rock solid! Mr. Gideon"s example "he went on to look for a job" only confirms it. The thing is that in English there are only two verb forms -V1 (present indefinite) and V2 (past indefinite). The infinitive, Ving and V3 forms are not verbs.
With "if you will" example it is good to remember that "will" origins from German "wollen" - "to want". Hence, the meaning of "if you will" maybe more close to "if you want to" and has nothing to do with a future tense .
I always assumed some "wrong" comparatives are used in spoken language because of the way we think. You might say "It was more" and then only think about what word you actually want to use. So you end up with things like "It was more funny than I expected" simply because you might have started out the sentence in the intention of saying "it was more amusing". Interesting to hear that it would actually not be wrong either way.
2 года назад
“Go on” is a phrasal verb. It doesn’t follow the verb+ing grammar rule. There also rules that are specific for certain verbs, such as like, love, hate, start, stop. These verbs can be followed either by an infinitive or a verb+ing, and this will depend on the intended use.
First off, thanks for clarifying the comparative/superlative rule -- even as a native speaker, I never realized syllable count was the deciding factor in -er/-est vs. more/most. Second, I'm surprised you didn't touch on the split-infinitive pseudo-rule. That one's been getting more of a point-and-laugh response ever since William Shatner started breaking it at the beginning of every Star Trek episode ("to boldly go where no man has gone before!") My understanding is that it comes from a time when language snobs thought Latin was the Perfect Language that all other languages could only aspire to. Since it's technically impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, these snobs thought that doing so in English was an aberration, and thus Simply Not Done. Whatever. 🙄
The ambulance was spot on! To be fair I've met a number of english teachers in the past, many of whom told me to never break those rules. Therefore, if you'll keep on making such great videos about the english language, my grammar should be much better in no time at all! It possibly makes live more easy as well. _(Just trying to properly use what I've learned today, please anybody correct me wherever I'm wrong!)_
I agree that contractions are perfectly fine in almost all writing. Oftentimes when I choose to write out both words, it is to emphasize or draw attention to the negative. "He can't eat that" versus "He cannot eat that"--in the first, I'd hear "can't" as "shouldn't" and in the second, I'd hear it as an imperative.
Even more confusingly, the examples he gave, "Can't we do that again?" and "Can we not do that again?", very often are used to mean the opposite. Usually, when I say or write "Can't we do that again?", I mean "Can we do that again? Because I want to do that again." Usually, but not always, when I say or write, "Can we not do that again?", I mean, "I sincerely hope we don't do that again. I don't want to do that again." But it depends on context in writing and tone of voice in speaking.
As regards rule two, there is one exception, that is hardly even spoken about, when ‘if’ introduces an indirect question, for instance: ‘I don’t know if he will like the show’ Students are also often taught never to put ‘will’ after ‘when’, whereas this concerns only the time clauses. In other cases, if referring to the future, don’t be afraid to use ‘will’, for example: ‘I don’t know when he will come back’ ‘When will he be ready?” But: “When I come back/am ready, I will make dinner” - this is an adverbial clause of time or simply put, a time clause, where ‘will’ never comes after ‘when’
For comparatives: if the two-syllable word ends in "-ty" then -er and -est are completely normal (at least in American English, where the multi-syllable rule applies generally). Pickier, wittiest, emptiest, funnier, etc.
I think it can sometimes make a difference to not using contractions. If you want to be more firm, like giving an order. For instance: "do not do that" instead of "don't do that" is more firm. It emphasizes the "not" and you hear it more like "do NOT do that".
"Who" introduces a question or a nominative subclause that describes or elaborates on the direct object of the sentence. "Whom" introduces an accusative, dative, or ablative, descriptive subclause.
I personally would avoid using the comparative or superitive of the word "perfect" because the word itself implies (to me at least) whatever you're talking about can't possibly get any better.
So what's the difference between "go on to talk" and "go on talking"? Do infinitive/gerund change the meaning like in "I remembered to do sth" versus "I remembered doing sth"? Please let me know! Also what's the difference here: "It started to rain" vs "it started raining"
If I may share my thoughts with you, I think, X went on to do Y implies X finished/quit doing something else, say Z, before starting doing Y. Whereas X went on doing Y implies X continued to do Y (after a short pause or interruption?).
About your second question, Gallomph Rattlebone: "Remember to lock the door" means the same as "don't forget to lock the door (when you go out)" (applies to future actions). "I remember locking the door" means "I remember that I (have) locked the door" (applies to past actions).
And of course, the most notable fake "rule" (that never even was a rule and need not be followed) is the one prohibiting ending a sentence with a preposition. (E.g, "This is a tough problem to deal with," or "He had a lot of hoops to jump through.") This "rule" apparently came about in the 19th century when scholars were focused on classical antiquity and tried adapt Latin grammar rules to English. But English ain't Latin, so the "rule" doesn't apply. As Churchill famously (but probably never) said, "This is something up with which I will not put!"
Perhaps not of any practical help for learners but I think that when a phrasal verb like go on can be followed by either a gerund (go on doing) or an infinitive (go on to do), the particle of the phrasal verb changes function. Case in point, the 'on' in 'go on to do' is adverbial an therefore not a preposition. Also when a phrasal verb is intransitive, the particle is not technically a preposition. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!
1:35 “I can’t think of any exceptions but perhaps you can.” This is solid advice. A phrase like that will make sure that any smart spotted boy like Pedro will keep his witty remarks to himself.
Sure but in the case of "go on", "go on" basically functions as a phrasal word. The preposition "on" isn't actually a preposition in the overall phrase, just within the phrasal word "go on", so whether or not there's a gerund after doesn't mean anything
Thank God my school didn't have grammar classes. We were corrected when we misspoke. Whatever grammar we learned was from studying French. My children moaned when I corrected their grammar, but I told them that they wouldn't have to memorise a ton of rules. They finally agreed.
I think you have to study grammar to teach grammar and that's something that most native speakers never do. In the 1st example the explanation is obvious: after a preposition the verb is used in the gerund always, because it intoduces a prepositional syntagma. The preposition in "go on" is a part of phrasal verb, therefore is part of the verb, and as we know after verbs can be a ver in infinitive as well as in gerund, depending on the verb.
As a non-native speaker I don't get the WILL in "if you will keep bothering me". Why does WILL in this sentence imply repetition when there's already KEEP in it? "If you keep bothering me" already sounds repetitive to me. 🤔
I agree. "If you will.." doesn't express repetitiveness so much as determination. "If you decide /wish to be such determined" if it is your will, that I don't appreciate...
In "go on to do something", "on" is NOT a preposition, "teacher". It is an adverb. That's why it can be followed by a to infinitive. You could do with some brushing up on elementary English grammar, I'm afraid.
Hi, just a thought on the 'go on' issue. Could it be that in this case the preposition 'on' is not actually part of a prepositional phrase? I mean, doesn't a prepositional phrase by nature need a noun, or 'ing' form in the case of a verb for that matter? Isn't the infinitive or 'ing' form which follows 'go on' a non-finite clause instead? I hope I have explained myself clearly 🤦♀️. Would love to know your view on that. And as always, thanks for your great videos and for the food for thought!
I for one feel it could be interpreted as a prepositional phrase with an elided/implied verb. eg, "he went on (talking, explaining, complaining, etc) about the weather".
You could also think of "on" as an adverb modifying the verb "go"... but I believe the current consensus is to call these constructions "phrasal verbs" - thus solving the whole problem with one swipe of the sword. It's always risky in English grammar to try to make everything fit into neat little boxes.
since "will" can mean "want to" in rare occasions, I find "If you will keep bothering me..." quite logical because for a non-native speaker like me it sounds like "If you intend to keep bothering me..."
Thank you very much! After suffering (sic) a lot of "strange" english teachers; a) an spanish military officer with an horrible hispanic american english, b) a french-majorcan lady with the hardest french english accent I ever listened and c) a french woman with polish parents with a rare mix of polish-french-english accent, my best english teachers were the first, a majorcan lady which studied and got her good english level at a girls school in England and living and working there for many years. And the last one, an scottish woman (she got married with a majorcan doctor, both good friends of mine). Their mantra: Don't try to speak like a "native". Get your own accent. Your objective is to be understood, not to speak with a "perfect and false accent". You get english more comprehensive for non native speakers!
I'd be interested to hear your views on the rule 'don't split the infinitive'. It's a pet hate of mine and (imo) results in some very clumsy phrases when followed rigidly. EDIT: never mind, I just found your video on that very subject - off to watch it now!
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
The "on" in "go on" isn't a preposition.It's an "adverbial particle''.
Followed by a present progressive, not a gerund 😉
And 'to go on' is different from 'to go'...
@@AnnabelleJARankin Foreigner here, shouldn't one say "different THAN" instead of "different FROM"? Or are both correct?
@@askadiaHi! Actually, 'different from' is absolutely the correct form although many people wrongly use 'different than'!
@@AnnabelleJARankin I see, thank you! Have a nice day 😚
my first Englisch teacher was a narcissist only interested in ruling, not teaching language and its rules in any meaningful manner. Ironically, I learned English first through British computer books in the early 80's, actually preparing me to a level where I was still taking classes in school when I hadn't to anymore. Thank you so much for your channel, if only we have had it in the 80's...
13:00 Another nice example from Shakespeare is the double superlative for emphasis used by Mark Antony in describing Brutus' attack on Caesar: "This was the most unkindest cut of all"
The weird thing is that I have always known these rules, as "it doesn't seem right", behind my mind, but never thought of them as rules. Now it is more apparent.
That's because language is mainly a big memory exercise, irregular forms occur commonly otherwise they become regular. This has happened to many verbs and to wed is in the process as to marry has become more popular.
There's an Esperanto joke that English grammar is very simple - There is only ONE rule.
1. Every word in English has its own grammar rules
😁
😆😆😆😆😆 Funny ! Aarre Peltomaa p.s. Don't forget. There was a conference of monkeys, Orang Utans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Baboons. They decided to create a common language so that they could speak to each other. That language became English ! 🙃
Facts
Excellent!
Thank you for this great video and your examples. I am a teacher of English in my country, and as you probably know, teachers who are not native speakers have to learn all the time to be ready to answer all the questions their students may have :) The information you gave here is so valuable for me. Wishing you great success, Gideon!
A good teacher is someone who is engaging and interesting to listen to. You, sir, are a good teacher.
I absolutely love these videos ❣️. I've been teaching English for 6 years in total, admittedly with a break in between. I teach English for a tech company in México City and I share many of your sentiments when it comes to language learning. Thanks for everything Gideon.
Thank you my dear colleague
Overall, Gideon is one of the best EFL teachers on RUclips. He has an excellent insight into the English language and tends to avoid saying misleading things. Quite a few of the others are incompetent and spout rubbish.
Come to think of it, English being a mashup of other languages (which individually have rules not compatible with the others) it's only logical that there are so many exceptions. A non-native speaker can learn the basic grammar rules but to be able to recognise the difference in meaning between "The lecturer closed the door and went on to teach the new material" and "He went on teaching although nobody paid any attention" takes a lot of experience, reading and above all getting the feel of the language. All those BUTs and irregularities make the study of English complex and challenging BUT I love it regardless.
we speak a bastard tongue
@@LetThemTalkTV can't wait to see the reaction of my colleagues when I inform them that we actually teach a bastard language, they'll probably "excommunicate" me 😂
@@LetThemTalkTV no, a mongrel language.... cause the parents who gave birth to the Eng language were not 2 but a lot more than that. -:))
Which is the difference between the two examples you mentioned?
@@maiter6317 in the first example the lecturer, after completing one action (closing the door) switched to another (teaching) whereas in the second example he proceeded with the same action (continued with what he's already been doing).
"Rues of grammar" are rarely taught in the US these days. As a foreign language high school teacher, I've had to teach English grammar. I have to explain verbs, pronouns, prepositions. Amazing!
Native English speakers learn the rules at their mothers' knees. English classes for native speakers should mostly consist of reading and writing English with an eye to improving both, not studying the grammar they already know. I learned more about the mechanics of English in my Spanish classes than I ever did in any of my English classes.
The only time I ever sat down to study English grammar was when I was about studying French. Natives rarely study grammar
@@buckwylde7965 we don’t always learn grammar rules natively. We also learn the grammar mistakes of our dialects. I know many who use the adjective good instead of the adverb well. They will say I am good instead of I am well.
@@stranger9216 That's weird in my eyes... everyone in my country have to study our native language grammar before we do it in English
You, of course, know what is taught in almost every school district, private and public.
Hahahaha, listening to the video about rules to be broken, I learned some rules I wasn't aware of.
You're excellent teacher!
English rules are made to be broken, "it's the exception that proves the rule" 😆
Thank you so much for your content. As a teacher I find it so helpful! Many of your examples and explanations are so great, that I am writing them down and can´t wait to tell them to my students during our lessons.
The only channel, teacher and a person I trust blindly in this world full of everything virtual and misinformation.
🥰
I love this! I've long since learnt to say that English doesn't really have rules, more like patterns and tendencies ;) Obviously, there are some rules but I make sure to say there is probably some exception I can't think of right now (but if you can - I say to my students - let me know, so I know for the future). My favourite is the "no *will* after *if*". At the start of someone's journey with the conditionals I don't even mention that yes, in some cases, you might see them worryingly close to each other. With more advanced students I say "there are some situations when you can say that but this isn't one, not yet."
About the contractions and writing - I think it might be some misconception carried over from formal writing. Students preparing for taking exams like CAE etc. have to learn to write some very formal pieces of writing and they often find it hard to remember not to contract in those. So maybe some teachers just expand the rule because of this? Not sure. But register sure is tricky sometimes! When I started learning foreign languages we mostly had course books, novels and maybesometimes some films to learn from. So we all sounded a bit pompous ;) Now my students find it hard to get rid of the "gonna" and "coulda" type of forms because they learn a lot from rather informal exchanges on the social media.
All very good points. As for the contractions I always say "write for the reader".
@@LetThemTalkTV That's a very clever way of putting it! And, as a bonus, can be applied to life in general.
Or "should of" for "should've".
English has rules or nobody would understand what one English speaker said to another English speaker. Most speakers learn the basic rules before they start grade school. English has a lot of irregularities to learn, and again some of them are absorbed by children listening to or talking to parents and watching television. There is a current prevalent myth that any way a particular group speaks English is on equal footing with any other way. That isn't the case and never will be. Linguists and linguistic anthropologists have recognized the way a language is spoken (and/or written) communicates more than just thoughts and feelings. Consciously and unconsciously you communicate to others your racial, ethnic and socioeconomic background, area of the country, intelligence and level of education, and many other details. And the person listening to you is consciously and unconsciously assigning meanings - even stereotypes - to YOU. One common one is a Southern accent. Subtle and not so subtle meanings can be assigned by speakers outside the South, and some meanings or assumptions can be negative. It's not uncommon for professionals or TV and media persons with Southern accents and speech patterns to attend special classes or tutor-supervised training to reduce or eliminate a Southern accent. Case in point: Stephen Colbert. He's a native of South Carolina, and he's remarked his natural speaking voice is characteristic of that state. He received training early in his career to eliminate his regional accent, and it only pops up again when he visits family and friends when he goes back home. This isn't a new phenomenon in America. As modern life means much more geographic, social and career mobility in the second half of the 20th and into the 21st centuries, so has the rise of speech training and modification private education.
13:49 The use of contractions in formal writing actually can change a meaning or nuance, and this is made clear:
"You won't walk here" (formal, meaning doubt is present)
"You will not walk here" (formal, meaning force will be used if you try)
but that just future tense with a tone :) , same in almost every western language i think..
jij zal daar niet lopen,
tu ne vas pas y promener,
du shallt nicht , ...
don't know enough other european language to repeat it in those ;)
Dear Gideon I'm used to watching your videos even if I've been studying British English with my londoner teacher. My teacher appreciates your deeper knowledge about grammar. Both of you are important to improve my learning. This video was amazing and I'll share with professor
William.Thanks a lot
You must know the rules in order to break them. The way natives break the rules in colloquial speech is not the same as a learner would potentially break them :)
I agree with your first point. Learn the rules then break them
Less-educated native speakers sometimes do make similar mistakes as the ESL learners (lower and intermediate level).They tend to confuse irregular verbs, phonetically similar elements (e,g, could've, could of), they make subjunctive errors, use double negatives, use adjective instead of adverb, but unlike non-native speakers they would never confuse tenses,phrasal verbs or prepositions.
Semplicemente Anita I wouldn’t call them errors it’s just what separates colloquial speech from say RP or Standard American. I’m no prescriptivist so I wouldn’t call those people less-educated
@@richardharrow2513 I don't think that a particular standard of language is superior to other varieties but I'm a teacher who teaches "standards" so prescriptivism is inherent. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm subscribed to prescriptivism as ideology. P.S. Had no intention to offend less-educated people or sound condescending, I was just pointing out that people with less formal schooling are more inclined to be "descriptive" than people with academic degree.
"You must know the rules in order to break them." - the nail hit right on the head.
Also, breaking the rules deliberately helps me come to grips with the rules I'm breaking.
I must admit that you are a HELLUVA teacher! Many thanks for your time as well as the lesson. Take it easy matey.
much appreciated
Some of these I knew about but contractions being ok in formal writing blew my mind. That's great to know !
That's debatable in some instances....
be careful if you are writing in an academic setting such as university, for instance.
Another case of using "if you will" grammatically correctly is in the meaning of "as it were", "so to speak", "as they say", and so forth.
To whoM I speaking? Your point about using what sounds right is the best advice you can give. That is how language evolves.
Thank you, teacher, for answering my question made for 6 months ago, after watching the video ”5 Ways We use Will as Present Tense!
I wrote the following: If you’ll let me finish, I’ll take questions at the end.
I went on asking you to comment on this.
You really do us a great favour!
English is so weird but your videos makes it understandable😁 Thank you🧡 Love your channel🧡 A separate video about adjectives, especially ones with two syllables would be awesome as it's a mind-boggling thing😁
My mom used to grammar-shame me😢. Could never have a conversation with her because she was waiting for me to mess up, so she could interrupt me repeatedly with her English lessons. Severe language trauma...
If I will keep watching too much youtube videos, I will end up explaining to whom I owe my reports most urgently when I should’ve submitted them yesterday.
More perfect? Most perfect? There are no degrees of perfection. It's a superlative in itself. I'm surprised a grammar teacher didn't know this!
As an English speaker, I subscribe to the breaking conventions wholeheartedly. As a teacher, I can only say one thing: do not ever break them in a test.
As an American English speaker in informal conversation and informal writing, contractions are used all the time by everyone. In higher academic circles, written articles, papers and textbooks do not. There the standard is formal writing only.
as a flemish in belgium, i first learned french with , AHH so extremely much exceptions!
starting at 11.. so when started english courses at 14, when teacher said this is the rule, we were only to happy that it's wasn't followed be , 'except' ... ,
but i've learned too, 'will keep borthering' huh, a will for present time? :), don't think i've ever heared it used that way..
i would use : 'if you keep on' 'if you don't stop' ,
so i don't really see the use in that exception will use in any of the exemples, am i missing something? :)
for my, 'more easy' sounds horribly wrong 😀
@@JeroenJA You might think breaking the rules of English is easy, but following them is even more easy when they are wrong. Using "more easy" allows the speaker to stress either "more" or "easy", which is an awkward thing to do with "easier". Sure you can say "easy-ERR" but you can't tell me that's not more jarring to the flow of the sentence than "MORE easy".
@@mattmexor2882 perhaps cause its same rule in dutch: gemakkelijk, gemakkelijker , gemakkelijkste
*I would like to offer you the highest marks for your presentation. I am just a poor boy, however, the first written compliment I got, was from a stuffed shirt manager, who complimented me on my clear and concise style (of writing collection letters). I use a lot of contractions in everyday prose, and I have been published in national journals for my editorial commentaries. I really enjoy your videos, and am a mad fan!*
In French, we say : « this is the exception that proves the rule ».
I studied French, English, Latin and German at school : but for me English grammar was the most easy.
Easiest 😉
In German we say that too: Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel. (Exceptions confirm the rule.)
Same here. Swedish is my mother tongue and I've studied English, French and German. The English grammar has always been the easiest, even easier than the Swedish grammar, especially when you try and teach it to someone else. :P
Very true. It’s beyond me to see so many people who are born and raised in the US make so many mistakes. They cannot even distinguish between “their” and “they’re”, “it’s” and “its”, “who” and “whom”
@@dianaperpignan1231 learning English by ear rather than written. Those sets of words sound the same to the American so they don’t differentiate the written form. Social media has revealed exactly how unintellectual the Americans are. Many use the excuse that they are talking their response but I know speech translators “fix” ‘there’ to ‘their’ or ‘they’re’ depending on usage. Lazy people wonder why people talk down to them. It’s because you let your mistakes stand.
Phrasal verbs such as "go on” act as an indivisible unit. The preposition can not be separated from the verb without changing the meaning of the phrasal verb. Nor can the verb in a phrasal verb stand-alone without changing its meaning. When phrasal verbs employ prepositions, their prepositions lose the quality and function that made them prepositions, and so they are no longer prepositions, but part of the stand-alone unit of the phrasal verb.
So, your grammar rule was not violated by the example. :)
Yes absolutely! Rather, the verb in his example is “to go on to” which means “to abandon one activity in favour of a related activity”, but if you followed the rule and used a gerund after the verb “to go on”, it has the meaning of “to continue”, at least in my dialect of English.
What a wealth of examples! Thank you very much!
On topic of the preposition followed by infinitive: "go on" is a phrasal verb. The preposition here belongs to the verb and changes its meaning (to go means to move, generally; to go on means to continue). In the example sentence (he was talking about his job and then he went on to talk about his holiday), the verb "to talk" doesn't really come after a preposition because the preposition is part of the phrasal verb.
That 's a good answer. I get tired of explaining that 'on' is not an adverb.
All members of The Whom are excellent musicians. 🙃
You forgot, 'MUCH Ado About Nothing', by a lesser known playwrite who may have influenced the course of British literary history.
Oh, woe. Vere, very intetesting... Demistifying severeal grammar rules! Awesome! Ty for sharing.
Thank you for clarifying when to use contractions.
From French, "if, then" is: present/future; imperfect/conditional; past perfect/future perfect. Makes total sense.
you existing is a blessing to human kind
There's another inevitable use of "whom", when it comes after "to" in "to whom" such as "to whom it may concern" or "this is the person to whom..."
I was explained that "whom" must be used when a object pronoun must be used. For instance, you would say "for hiM/theM" so "for whoM" or "to hiM/theM" so "to whoM"
Really interesting vid! I disagree with the last opinion, though. Contractions should definitely be avoided in formal writing, e.g. business reports, university papers and probably formal letters. That they've become normal in business emails is just a feature of the fact that business email correspondence has become more and more informal overall. Contractions are okay in journalism (opinion pieces, etc.) and fiction (hence Orwell), but they definitely go against the existing conventions of academic writing.
You are right. it's worth noting that Cambridge exams directed towards foreign students of English always accept contractions as correct no matter how formal the written task. I think this is because they want to encourage the use of contractions which many non-natives seem to assume are slang.
On contractions, I seem to remember that the American writer Damon Runyon (not sure of the spelling of his name) made fun of the "rule" against contractions by having his characters who were lower class New Yorkers try to be more sophisticated by never using contractions and the strange awkwardness that resulted made fun of the "rule".
I had a friend in college who was from Germany and in her English classes in Germany she was always told not to use contractions in formal writing. I told her this was not true because sometimes not using a contraction will break up the rhythm of the sentence. She really liked my advice and acted like I had taken a giant weight off of her shoulders.
At the higher academic standards of college and university, contractions are not used. Open a college textbook sometime or read an academic journal article or paper. You won't see contractions.
Good to have you here Gideon! Never before, have I seen you uploading on Tuesdays.
Tuesday is the new Friday
Good thing we can relax with rules, it helps a lot not to worry about how to use adjectives, I can't be pompous in English, I'm still in my infancy in English. Facilitate I prefer. Good to see you Gideon. See you in the next video😎 thanks!
I'm sure you're making good progress. Be relaxed with the rules
@@LetThemTalkTV thanks Professor 🧡
14:20 that's what I like about English, that its written formal form is close to its spoken one, compared to other languages, e.g. German. 🤐
Im a native English speaker and I speak Latin as a second language and spanish as a 3rd ( although my spanish still needs a lot of work) so I stumbled upon this video by accident and I have to say it’s given me a really interesting perspective because even though my Latin is pretty good my native language obviously comes most naturally to me and although I’m sure that I follow all of these “rules” I am nearly completely ignorant of their existence! And I am quite confident that I would be a far better Latin teacher than an English teacher because much like an English student who may watch this video I had to study all of the rules of grammar in order to pick up my second language ( luckily it is very similar to Spanish so I didn’t have to start all over lol) also I make my living as a music teacher and I can’t help but to notice how similar learning grammar is to learning music theory; it’s very helpful and kind of a road map to get to where you are going and yet many of the people who make the best music don’t know the first thing about music theory. I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this is that if you are learning a new language definitely learn grammar but don’t worry too much about it because at the end of the day they are not “rules” they are conventions and the point of language is to understand and to be understood so don’t let the fear of making a mistake or speaking”improperly “ stop you from using the language. I just returned from holiday in Spain and hardly anyone there spoke English fluently so I was forced to use my poor spanish but what I found was that people seemed to really appreciate the fact that I was making the attempt to speak in their language and it was actually a lot of fun !
I am curious, how did you end up with speaking a dead language as second language? That sounds like an interesting story.
@@denidale4701 seriously!😅 I couldn't wrap my head around that too
Interestingly, the "if you will" exception is really a very British construction, which I think is almost never used in American English..
Nor the colonial dialects of British English that I've come across
Yeah, American here and I’ve never heard that construction. It sounds so off to my ear!
The sense of that "will" appears in some common American sayings, like "Boys will be boys" or "Evil will out", but not in any other American speech that I am familiar with. Us Yanks would construct the "if" sentence differently, like "If you keep doing that then what do you expect?" or with no "if" at all, like "Since you won't stop, this is going to happen" etc.
Agree. Literally no American says that, figuratively speaking.
I haven't finished this yet but all of the first four don't really apply to american english.
Good point re-contractions, but I wish you’d mentioned the absolute howler of an error that even native English speakers make, which is writing/saying should of etc… instead of should have. Mind you that probably needs a video of its own!
Should of, could of, would of! Yes, it's very poor. On a par with using 'brought' instead of 'bought'..!
I never say "should of, could of would of". I say "should've, could've, would've" quite regularly, however.
@@hmm7420 And you’d be correct. Could’ve is short for could have. Could of doesn’t make sense. OMG another AWFUL contraction error people, particularly in East London/Essex make, is confusing “his” and “he’s”. “Peter’s only gone and lost he’s keys!” instead of HIS keys. Drives me nuts.
I find it amazing that I know all this seemingly intuitively.
George Orwell made a lot of excellent observations in “Politics and the English Language.” He really was a master of English writing too.
I've been waiting for this video all my English learning life) Thank you!
If you’re learning English as a second language, don’t fret over any of this. It’s not that important. No point in breaking your head.
English is my 3rd language and learn it by myself. I come from a phonetic language with different alphabet /Cyrillic/ and had a very hard time understanding the concept of writing a letter but not pronouncing it or pronouncing it differently when it's a certain combination.
The rule "no verb after a preposition" is rock solid! Mr. Gideon"s example "he went on to look for a job" only confirms it. The thing is that in English there are only two verb forms -V1 (present indefinite) and V2 (past indefinite). The infinitive, Ving and V3 forms are not verbs.
With "if you will" example it is good to remember that "will" origins from German "wollen" - "to want". Hence, the meaning of "if you will" maybe more close to "if you want to" and has nothing to do with a future tense .
My Mother was very adamant for the family to not say 'more better', one would just say 'better'.
your mother was right
It doesn’t get any better than your lessons!
you're too kind
I’m 100 English I was the spotted school boy at the back of the class. Randomly visit your pages. All the best.
I always assumed some "wrong" comparatives are used in spoken language because of the way we think. You might say "It was more" and then only think about what word you actually want to use. So you end up with things like "It was more funny than I expected" simply because you might have started out the sentence in the intention of saying "it was more amusing". Interesting to hear that it would actually not be wrong either way.
“Go on” is a phrasal verb. It doesn’t follow the verb+ing grammar rule. There also rules that are specific for certain verbs, such as like, love, hate, start, stop. These verbs can be followed either by an infinitive or a verb+ing, and this will depend on the intended use.
I'd like your dissertation on the use, misuse, and alternatives to using the word "ain't".
Thanks for the segment on Who/Whom.
So much in English can depend on emphasis, tone, context:
"Can we *not* do this again?! Please?"
Yes, we can. But could we?
Same in other languages too!
First off, thanks for clarifying the comparative/superlative rule -- even as a native speaker, I never realized syllable count was the deciding factor in -er/-est vs. more/most.
Second, I'm surprised you didn't touch on the split-infinitive pseudo-rule. That one's been getting more of a point-and-laugh response ever since William Shatner started breaking it at the beginning of every Star Trek episode ("to boldly go where no man has gone before!") My understanding is that it comes from a time when language snobs thought Latin was the Perfect Language that all other languages could only aspire to. Since it's technically impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, these snobs thought that doing so in English was an aberration, and thus Simply Not Done.
Whatever. 🙄
I also made a video on the split infinitive. Do check it out.
Surely, you also teach your students that "go on" is a phrasal verb and so operates a bit differently from some others.
Please do-“feel badly”… my Dad said, and I agree, that “I feel badly” implies some tactile physical action, which a feeling is not…
The ambulance was spot on!
To be fair I've met a number of english teachers in the past, many of whom told me to never break those rules. Therefore, if you'll keep on making such great videos about the english language, my grammar should be much better in no time at all! It possibly makes live more easy as well.
_(Just trying to properly use what I've learned today, please anybody correct me wherever I'm wrong!)_
You use it well.
@@LetThemTalkTV Motivation +1 😎
I agree that contractions are perfectly fine in almost all writing. Oftentimes when I choose to write out both words, it is to emphasize or draw attention to the negative. "He can't eat that" versus "He cannot eat that"--in the first, I'd hear "can't" as "shouldn't" and in the second, I'd hear it as an imperative.
Yes exactly.
"But I'm writing my essay" vs.
"But I _am_ writing my essay"
Even more confusingly, the examples he gave, "Can't we do that again?" and "Can we not do that again?", very often are used to mean the opposite. Usually, when I say or write "Can't we do that again?", I mean "Can we do that again? Because I want to do that again." Usually, but not always, when I say or write, "Can we not do that again?", I mean, "I sincerely hope we don't do that again. I don't want to do that again." But it depends on context in writing and tone of voice in speaking.
@@hmm7420 Agreed. That's the nuance of writing out the contraction--to emphasize the negative aspect. Yours is an excellent example of that. Thanks.
As regards rule two, there is one exception, that is hardly even spoken about, when ‘if’ introduces an indirect question, for instance:
‘I don’t know if he will like the show’
Students are also often taught never to put ‘will’ after ‘when’, whereas this concerns only the time clauses. In other cases, if referring to the future, don’t be afraid to use ‘will’, for example:
‘I don’t know when he will come back’
‘When will he be ready?”
But:
“When I come back/am ready, I will make dinner” - this is an adverbial clause of time or simply put, a time clause, where ‘will’ never comes after ‘when’
My English teacher used to say "there's no rules. Only exceptions".
For comparatives: if the two-syllable word ends in "-ty" then -er and -est are completely normal (at least in American English, where the multi-syllable rule applies generally). Pickier, wittiest, emptiest, funnier, etc.
I think it can sometimes make a difference to not using contractions. If you want to be more firm, like giving an order. For instance: "do not do that" instead of "don't do that" is more firm. It emphasizes the "not" and you hear it more like "do NOT do that".
"Who" introduces a question or a nominative subclause that describes or elaborates on the direct object of the sentence. "Whom" introduces an accusative, dative, or ablative, descriptive subclause.
I wonder if any child who was told : 'Never start a sentence with 'And', pointed out that a lot of them in The Bible start with 'And'?
In example 2, "keep" is valid since it can be replaced with "continue"
I personally would avoid using the comparative or superitive of the word "perfect" because the word itself implies (to me at least) whatever you're talking about can't possibly get any better.
Yes, I made a note about that on the video.
So what's the difference between "go on to talk" and "go on talking"? Do infinitive/gerund change the meaning like in "I remembered to do sth" versus "I remembered doing sth"?
Please let me know! Also what's the difference here: "It started to rain" vs "it started raining"
If I may share my thoughts with you, I think, X went on to do Y implies X finished/quit doing something else, say Z, before starting doing Y. Whereas X went on doing Y implies X continued to do Y (after a short pause or interruption?).
yes, that's right. go on talking means continue. go on to talk means change to a different subject
About your second question, Gallomph Rattlebone: "Remember to lock the door" means the same as "don't forget to lock the door (when you go out)" (applies to future actions). "I remember locking the door" means "I remember that I (have) locked the door" (applies to past actions).
And of course, the most notable fake "rule" (that never even was a rule and need not be followed) is the one prohibiting ending a sentence with a preposition. (E.g, "This is a tough problem to deal with," or "He had a lot of hoops to jump through.")
This "rule" apparently came about in the 19th century when scholars were focused on classical antiquity and tried adapt Latin grammar rules to English. But English ain't Latin, so the "rule" doesn't apply. As Churchill famously (but probably never) said, "This is something up with which I will not put!"
Perhaps not of any practical help for learners but I think that when a phrasal verb like go on can be followed by either a gerund (go on doing) or an infinitive (go on to do), the particle of the phrasal verb changes function. Case in point, the 'on' in 'go on to do' is adverbial an therefore not a preposition. Also when a phrasal verb is intransitive, the particle is not technically a preposition.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!
I was taught comparatives, more vs -er depended on the origin of the word. Latin based used more/ most while Germanic used -er/est.
12:15 I found one more example with the word "fun". more fun and the most fun. funner just sounds strange. Thank you for the lesson.
1:35 “I can’t think of any exceptions but perhaps you can.” This is solid advice. A phrase like that will make sure that any smart spotted boy like Pedro will keep his witty remarks to himself.
Good, gooder, goodest.
Good, better, best.
Sure but in the case of "go on", "go on" basically functions as a phrasal word. The preposition "on" isn't actually a preposition in the overall phrase, just within the phrasal word "go on", so whether or not there's a gerund after doesn't mean anything
It was interesting. I've been learning English for a long time. But I haven't known about these facts of English grammar. Thank you
Thank God my school didn't have grammar classes. We were corrected when we misspoke. Whatever grammar we learned was from studying French. My children moaned when I corrected their grammar, but I told them that they wouldn't have to memorise a ton of rules. They finally agreed.
to go on is a phrasal verb, synonymous to "to continue".
I think you have to study grammar to teach grammar and that's something that most native speakers never do. In the 1st example the explanation is obvious: after a preposition the verb is used in the gerund always, because it intoduces a prepositional syntagma. The preposition in "go on" is a part of phrasal verb, therefore is part of the verb, and as we know after verbs can be a ver in infinitive as well as in gerund, depending on the verb.
04:20f: For example "How much is the fish" by German techno band Scooter. 😎
Example 6: such a relief!
As a non-native speaker I don't get the WILL in "if you will keep bothering me". Why does WILL in this sentence imply repetition when there's already KEEP in it? "If you keep bothering me" already sounds repetitive to me. 🤔
I agree. "If you will.." doesn't express repetitiveness so much as determination. "If you decide /wish to be such determined" if it is your will, that I don't appreciate...
In "go on to do something", "on" is NOT a preposition, "teacher". It is an adverb. That's why it can be followed by a to infinitive. You could do with some brushing up on elementary English grammar, I'm afraid.
Disagree. An adverb describes a verb. How a thing is done.
04:32f: I sometimes heard "plenty of" instead. Is this regarded correct?
Learning English in Sweden, nobody tried to claim there was any grammar or spelling rules at all. 🙂
Hi, just a thought on the 'go on' issue. Could it be that in this case the preposition 'on' is not actually part of a prepositional phrase? I mean, doesn't a prepositional phrase by nature need a noun, or 'ing' form in the case of a verb for that matter? Isn't the infinitive or 'ing' form which follows 'go on' a non-finite clause instead?
I hope I have explained myself clearly 🤦♀️. Would love to know your view on that. And as always, thanks for your great videos and for the food for thought!
I for one feel it could be interpreted as a prepositional phrase with an elided/implied verb. eg, "he went on (talking, explaining, complaining, etc) about the weather".
You could also think of "on" as an adverb modifying the verb "go"... but I believe the current consensus is to call these constructions "phrasal verbs" - thus solving the whole problem with one swipe of the sword. It's always risky in English grammar to try to make everything fit into neat little boxes.
contractions like gonna, ain't and other informal ones should be alright in wriging if you have your characters say these things.
since "will" can mean "want to" in rare occasions, I find "If you will keep bothering me..." quite logical because for a non-native speaker like me it sounds like "If you intend to keep bothering me..."
Thank you very much! After suffering (sic) a lot of "strange" english teachers; a) an spanish military officer with an horrible hispanic american english, b) a french-majorcan lady with the hardest french english accent I ever listened and c) a french woman with polish parents with a rare mix of polish-french-english accent, my best english teachers were the first, a majorcan lady which studied and got her good english level at a girls school in England and living and working there for many years. And the last one, an scottish woman (she got married with a majorcan doctor, both good friends of mine). Their mantra: Don't try to speak like a "native". Get your own accent. Your objective is to be understood, not to speak with a "perfect and false accent". You get english more comprehensive for non native speakers!
If I tried to copy someone's accent, I'd worry that they would think I was being patronising.
I'd be interested to hear your views on the rule 'don't split the infinitive'. It's a pet hate of mine and (imo) results in some very clumsy phrases when followed rigidly. EDIT: never mind, I just found your video on that very subject - off to watch it now!
"To boldly go" (watch the other video)?
:-)
Thanks Sir for this immensely helpful lesson.I'd rather you discussed the nuances of 'notwithstanding' once again.Much obliged.
We might discuss that another time.