Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Degraded, explain, etc. Sorry for misstypings!
    GyJ

    This difficulty is not unique to English.  In Japanese as well, a
    different particle attached to the same noun before the same verb
    (including same verb tense) can completely change the meaning.
    In Japanese, particles usually specify which portion of the sentence
    plays which grammatical role, and some of them end up providing the
    same contributions that prepositions do in English.
    
    Example:
      mise de katta         -->    bought in a store
      mise o katta          -->    bought a store
    
    Another example, which I have a 50% chance of getting right :-)
      kare ni nomasaseru    -->    let him drink
      kare o nomasaseru     -->    make him drink
    (or vice-versa).
    
    Another example, I think...
    I made up this example and have never received feedback from anyone,
    Japanese or foreign, so I cannot be sure if it means what I think it
    does.  The Japanese word "iku" means "go" and "kuru" means "come",
    in ordinary writing or speech.  However, the Japanese slang word "iku"
    has the same meaning as the English slang word "come".
      paati e itta   -->   went to a party
      paati de itta  -->   came at a party  (Japanese slang & English slang)
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    Re: Note 1146.0 by BPSOF::GYONGYOSI

    Am I a "native English speaker"? Are you distinguishing British English
    from American English? (I'm American.)
    
    Well, if you're not interested in the American English version, please
    ignore me. If you are interested (hey - I did provide all of those
    "comma" examples last week ;-), I can safely say that I don't think
    I've ever in my life heard the expression "I go in the theatre". If I'm
    going to the theatre to watch a performance I'll say "I go to the
    theatre" (actually, I'd probably use the word "theater", but they sound
    the same :-). If I worked in (or at) the theater I'd say "I work in (or
    at) the theater."
    
    	BD�

    "I go to the theatre" v. "I go in the theatre"
    
    I don't think you'd ever hear "I go in the theatre" said by a native
    English speaker.  You might hear "I am going in the theatre," but this
    really means "going into," or "entering," and it refers to a specific
    theatre house, not theatre in general.  It would be said by some one
    outside a nearby house to indicate that person's intention to depart
    from his present place:  "It's cold out here, so I'm going in the
    theatre to get warm."
    
    The usual way of indicating that one is a participant in theatrical art
    is "I am in theatre," without the word "the"; the omission indicates
    that the speaker is a participant in theatre generally, as opposed to
    being physicically in a specific theatre house.
    
    Your teacher's explanation, that the normal activity in a theatre is
    watching a performance, sounds made up out of whole cloth (fictitious).
    
    His differentiation between "to" and "in" for school is similarly
    flawed.  One deosn't say, "I go in school."  If one says, "I go to
    school," one means that one is a student.  If one says, "I am in
    school," the same thing is meant.  "I am in school" can also mean that
    the speaker is inside a school building and actively participating in
    classes, either as a teacher or as a student.  Colloquial English also
    allows "I am in school" to express that one goes to school at some time
    other than the immediate present.  "I'm in school from 9:30 to 2:45, so
    you'll have to phone me outside those hours."
    
    -dick

    At and in, at least, are context sensitive for their meaning.
    
    I am at the bar - can be either physical, indicating position in or
    near the bar of tavern, or professional, indicating that I am a memebr
    of the legal profession, having been called to the bar. 
    
    I am in the theatre - is exactly the same, but can be even more
    confusing for the listener or reader.  It can mean that I am physically
    in the theatre, and or a member of one of the theatrical professions.
    
    To may have similar ambiguities, but I cannot think of an example at
    the moment.
    
    Nick (born and educated in England)
    (yes really - educated!)

    Re:.0

    Since you're apparently pursuing a deep understanding of the subtleties of
    English, I think you might like to reconsider your use of the phrase
    "native English speakers".  As .3 indicated, most of us who were born in
    the U.S. and who speak English, are perceived to have English as our
    "native language". Your phrasing might be considered simply ambiguous, but
    the fact of the matter is, had you not subsequently mentioned "american
    usage", I would have completely misunderstood what you meant. I wouldn't
    have noticed the ambiguity at all, and would have gone right ahead and
    interpreted that you meant "people whose native language is English", which
    includes Americans, Australians and lots of other people. It occurs to me
    that I might even guess that anyone who uses the phrase "native English
    speakers" might not be one, no matter what the intended meaning of the
    phrase. As one "whose native language is English" or even as "a native
    speaker of English", I feel that I would automatically avoid such an
    ambiguous expression all the time, but especially if I meant to say what
    you meant to say.

    John

    

    Re .3 and .6
    
    Friends, you're right. Any helping hand should be apprechiated. We have
    a saying: you can't bloww both hot and cold wind out of your mouth in
    the very same time! It intends to mean: You must make your decision and
    keep going accordingly. I made my one: Queen's English, that is tought
    in schools, and is expected during language proficiency exams as well. I
    try to do my best in learn English as fluent as possible. My limitation
    intended to mean: I don't want to be confused by mixing UK and US language
    usage. Some words are used/spelled more or less different ("please hang
    up", thearter/theatre, etc.)  
    
    Imigrants in the US had added their typic failures to the language.
    Some of them became commonly accepted during the recent decades/centuries.
    (I also committ my faults being unable to totally neglect thinking in
    Hungarian.) UK is closer to me (in the sense of geography), and is
    supposed to have ahsorbed less foreign influence as US English did,
    (remember the melting pot!)
    
    I love the self confidence and pride of American people but I chose
    British English...
    
    Joska

	Joska,

	Being married to an Eastern European woman, I can understand the aspect
	of pride in pursuing perfection of the English language.  Eastern
	Europeans are, in my opinion, some of the very best linguists and
	conversationalists in the world.  

	However, you should be aware that "Queen's English" is no longer very
	meaningful in today's multi-cultural world.  In fact it doesn't really
	mean anything more than a certain "house-style" which is definitely
	out of vogue these days.  See a previous note in here on RP (Received 
	Pronunciation).

	Particularly in the computer world where many people from many different 
	cultures speak perfectly understandable English, an insistence on "Queen's" 
	English (or "British" English as you later call it) will distinguish you as 
	somewhat of a pedant.  This is not necessarily a bad thing and pedantry is 
	indeed a large part of what this Notes conference is all about.

/Chris.

    Re .-1
    
    Chris,
    You must be right. I am a maximalist. As for instance you can't reach
    but can approach the total 0 kelvin tempareture, neither can anybody
    get aware of total pure English language. One of my native English
    colleague -- whom I used to bother with similar stupid questions -- has
    also told me nowdays that I should rather concentrate on being able to
    communicate and forget about these maximalist "suckers", because it's
    waste of time... They are accustomed to common failures since English
    is spoken by so many non-native people...
    Joska

	Joska,

	Great!  You took my point which I was trying so diplomatically
	to make which in essence was that concentrating on correctness
	when one already speaks a language well, can very often hinder
	effective communication with a native speaker.

	Lo!, the postillion has been struck by lightning!  :-)

	/Chris.

What about "in the house" versus "at the house"? I find that I use both 
more or less interchangeably, but do others make any distinction? I 
suppose now that I think about it, I would say "in the house" if I happen 
to be near the house, but "at the house" if I'm far away from it. Also, "in 
the house" refers to any house that I'm near, while "at the house" always 
refers to my own house.

Wook

    Interesting replies. My guess is that the distinction your teacher was
    trying to make was between the two senses of "I am in the theatre,"
    which can mean either that I am in the theatrical profession, i.e. an
    actor, stagehand, director, or that I am physically located in a
    theatre, depending on the context. 
    
    No-one has mentioned one valid meaning (in American English as spoken 
    in New England at least ) of "I go in the theater", which would be, 
    to put it euphemistically, " I go to the bathroom in the theater." 
    Kids in America who "wet their pants" will say "I went in my pants."
    From there you get "He goes in his pants", to "HE goes in the theater,"
    to "I go in the theater." An embarrassing admission if one were to make
    it! Unlikely as well, no doubt, but a valid usage in American English.
    
    As has been stated in previous replies, no native English speaker would
    say, " I go in the theater" meaning "I (walk,drive,fly)into the 
    theater." 
    Bruce

    G'day,
     onthe other hand.. in vernacular british english 'go' can mean ' have
    sex with'
    
     as in the town bike goes with anyone...
    
    
    so to go in thetheatre suggest that the theatre is a turn on...
    
    or maybe a live night show?
    
   djw
    

>>       <<< Note 1146.4 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>
>>    The usual way of indicating that one is a participant in theatrical art
>>    is "I am in theatre," without the word "the"; the omission indicates
>>    that the speaker is a participant in theatre generally, as opposed to

	Some years ago I was wondering how to express, that music is played
	using a piano as the instrument.  "Play on the piano" sounded very 
	much like somebody was sitting on a piano playing a violin.

	I asked about this (in England, if it makes any difference)
	and I was told that "play on the piano" is the way to say it.
	I was very surpised, as I had come up with "play on piano".

	The "I am in theatre" reminded me about this and made me a little
	confused again.  As I don't trust my memory anymore, I repeat
	the question here.

	Could somebody try and clarify the matter to me a bit, please
	Tatu

    As a pianist, I often play music on the piano on a stool.
    
    Perhaps I should jump to the New verb is bornized topic and invent to
    pianise.
    
    Maybe I should just go home.
    
    Jon

    G'day,
     Now I'd use 'I play the piano' except that would make me a liar, as I
    only play on the carpet...
    
    
     'I am in theatre' means I am associated with theatrical productions in
    some way as a job or hobby according to context. I could be an actor,
    or a stage hand according to one's delusions of grandeur.
    
    'I am in the theatre' depends on context. It could mean the same as
    above (as in a reply to "Do you act in films, theatre or open air?")
    
    or it means that you are physically located in the theatre eg as a
    reply to "where are you?" given over your mobile phone..
    
    derk

Re. .15:

>    Perhaps I should jump to the New verb is bornized topic and invent to
>    pianise.
    
Piantificate?

-stephen

    > Piantificate?
    
    I am not sure whether I am offenced by the implication ;-)
    
    Jon

	Thank you for the replies.  Maybe I should start believing in the "the"
	in this context.  I tried to construct an explample of what I had in my
	mind: "there is a famous Souza march played on the piano by Horowitz".
	The "the" just came in there, but still I wonder "which piano".

	I would appreciate more examples and explanations about articles
	and prepositions.  My native language is finnish, you see, and 
	- there are no articles and no prepositions
	- there is no future tense, no difference between "I do", "I am doing"
	  and "I shall do"
	- in the passive form there is no way of telling who did it (done by)
	- there is no such thing as "there is" in these sentences
	- there is no distinction between he and she (in the language, that is)

	So, when learning your first foreign language there are quite many 
	new aspects to remember and consider in each sentence.  And getting
	them automatic in your thinking takes time and effort.

	Tatu

    Tatu, your real problem is that you are expecting a natural language to
    be sensible and logical.  :-)  That simply doesn't happen; witness in
    Finnish the lack of a future tense.  In order to tell the listener that
    you will do something in the future, you apparently have to include a
    qualification, such as "tomorrow" or "next week," that describes when
    you "are doing" that thing, right?
    
    But I do understand your desire to understand correct usage.  In many
    cases, such as "play a march on the piano," that is just they way it
    is, with no logical explanation.  This is one of the reasons for which
    I like Latin so much; being highly inflected, it often provides better
    consistency between meaning and phrasing than does English.  (On the
    other hand, it also has a few off-the-wall constructs of its own, such
    as the ablative absolute!)
    
    -dick