0
Milky Posted 19 years ago
Linguistics Studies
even quite educated ones
Kooyeen seems to be having trouble understanding the meaning of "even educated ones" in my post about "there's". Here, I've posted another example of the same expression. It is from the «English Speaking Union’s ( E.S.U.’s ) Nine-Level Scale».
"Level 9 PRE PROFICIENCY
Has a full command of the language, tackling the most difficult tasks with consistent accuracy, fluency, appropriate usage, organisation and comprehension. An exceptional level of mastery, not always reached by native speakers, even quite educated ones."
How would you explain such an expression to someone who did not understand its reference and meaning?
"Level 9 PRE PROFICIENCY
Has a full command of the language, tackling the most difficult tasks with consistent accuracy, fluency, appropriate usage, organisation and comprehension. An exceptional level of mastery, not always reached by native speakers, even quite educated ones."
How would you explain such an expression to someone who did not understand its reference and meaning?
Top answer
LOL, you even opened a thread about this... Well, I wouldn't have any problem with that "even quite educated ones" in that context. Having a full command of the language...
- LOL, you even opened a thread about this...
- Well, I wouldn't have any problem with that "even quite educated ones" in that context.
- Having a full command of the language...
- blah blah blah is not simple, not even for quite educated ones.
- But in the other thread, I found "even educated spekers" strange...
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
LOL, you even opened a thread about this...
Well, I wouldn't have any problem with that "even quite educated ones" in that context. Having a full command of the language... blah blah blah is not simple, not even for quite educated ones. But in the other thread, I found "even educated spekers" strange...
Well, I wouldn't have any problem with that "even quite educated ones" in that context. Having a full command of the language... blah blah blah is not simple, not even for quite educated ones. But in the other thread, I found "even educated spekers" strange...
00
<But in the other thread, I found "even educated spekers" strange...>
But why?
You took up half the thread with an enquiry which was off topic.
But why?
You took up half the thread with an enquiry which was off topic.
00
MilkyBut why?No, that was not completely off topic. I think you were surprised that educated speakers used "that's + plural", and you asked for some opinions. Well, I was NOT surprised that educated speakers talked that way. Even if you are highly educated, what prevents you
You took up half the thread with an enquiry which was off topic.
00
KooyeenNo, that was not completely off topic. I think you were surprised that educated speakers used "that's + plural", *
The thread was about "there's + plural noun".
<what prevents you from using idiomatic English instead of applying prescriptive rules all the time? >
Are you
00
I'm sorry, but I think there's something wrong. This is what you posted:
Quite a few linguists ( J Cheshire being one) state -------> that, even among educated people, usage such as "There's lots of museums" is more common that the grammatically correct "There are lots of museums". -------> How did that come about? Why is the ungrammatical form more popular, even am
Quite a few linguists ( J Cheshire being one) state -------> that, even among educated people, usage such as "There's lots of museums" is more common that the grammatically correct "There are lots of museums". -------> How did that come about? Why is the ungrammatical form more popular, even am
00
Was this a typo, then?
<<No, that was not completely off topic. I think you were surprised that educated speakers used "that's + plural", *>>
<<No, that was not completely off topic. I think you were surprised that educated speakers used "that's + plural", *>>
00
Well, weren't you surprised?
I mean, you heard about that fact, and then you posted here asking "How come? Why?"... if you had thought that was not surprising, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
I mean, you heard about that fact, and then you posted here asking "How come? Why?"... if you had thought that was not surprising, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
00
KooyeenWell, weren't you surprised?Do you see the difference between these?
I mean, you heard about that fact, and then you posted here asking "How come? Why?"... if you had thought that was not surprising, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
<<I think you were surprised that educated speakers used "that's +
00
Ooops, then that was a typo for real, sorry, LOL.
My brain kept on skipping the part in the quotation marks because it already labeled that part as "expected to be non-relevant". But it was the "bug".
My brain kept on skipping the part in the quotation marks because it already labeled that part as "expected to be non-relevant". But it was the "bug".
0
Related Questions