English-speaking advice for foreigners and Americans
Foreigners often find themselves persisting in certain grammatical errors, and the reason is the most dreadful one: native speakers are setting the example.
There is certainly an argument to be made for the evolution of language: it is going to change, and change comes from the streets. However, there is no argument for devolution of language, that is, making it less usable.
Might-May
The minister may choose his successor
is ambiguous in modern English. Does it mean that the law allow allows the minister to choose his successor? Or does it mean that the minister is considering choosing his successor? Tragically, English is equipped for this problem: might and may.
John and Susan may marry
means they got state approval or permission from their parents.
John and Susan might marry
means they are uncertain about it, but it is possible.
There is no cost to making the distinction; everyone either understands it or will not notice it.
Should-Ought
Should is a marker of the subjunctive, as in
Should you be late, you'll miss your chance.
There is some irreal condition (hasn’t happened and might not happen) which would have consequences. Thus,
I fear John should be late
and not
I fear John will be late.
The subjunctive appears in expressions of will:
Long live the king
as opposed to
Long lives the king
I insist that he wear a tie
instead of
I insist that he wears a tie
Therefore, when someone tells you,
You should lose some weight
It means, let it be such that you lose weight.
When someone says
You ought to lose some weight
It means there is a compelling reason for you to lose weight, perhaps the threat of coronary disease.
Many times, these implicit orders are given precisely because there is a compelling reason, and therein lies the confusion. However, there are situations in which the distinction is manifest. When someone says,
You ought to smell smoke from the car
it means, there is a compelling reason for you to smell smoke, like the fact that there is smoke, and if you don’t, there might be something wrong with your sense of smell. When someone says,
You should smell smoke from the car
It means, please go smell the smoke coming from the car (maybe you can identify the source).
Admittedly, should and ought are confounded most of the time, and ought is the loser. However, this is no reason to cast away the cases where there is a difference: the speaker may not even think clearly in these cases. The mental tool is not there. The speaker is impoverished in the worst place one may be poor.
Will-Shall
There are two auxiliaries to express future action, and in common practice, they are used more or less interchangeably, with the exception that shall feels more old-fashioned.
Devolution! There is a difference. Consider
I will this union be everlasting.
Will can be used as a verb. Compare to the German will. Ich will singen means I want to sing.
The following is a statement about the present, not the future:
I tried to help her, but she will not have it.
This is a statement about what she wants now, which might affect the future. She might be compelled to accept help, although she will not have it. So when you say
I will be late.
it means something like, Sarah hosts such boring parties, I want to arrive late, and that is what is going to happen. Whereas
I shall be late
means something like, my car has a flat tire.
It is important to remember: in any future dystopia, possibility and permission (might-may) shall be confounded. Possibility is not your concern. Permission is.
Volition and condition (will-shall) shall be confounded. What you want has no effect on the future. The distinction is herewith obliterated.
The loss of might-may, should-ought, and will-shall is actual, real-life, newspeak. It is a simplification of language which eliminates concepts which otherwise make ruling harder.
Its – It’s
I love its color.
and not
I love it's color.
Obviously, the apostrophe is used on nouns, as in
I love the car's color.
But no one writes
I love her's hair color
Similarly, there is no my’s, no your’s, no their’s, and no our’s. These are possessive pronouns. They are specifically designed for the task. They don’t need any help.
This example is not a devolution of language, since it doesn’t make the language less useful. But it is a decidedly weird complication. It is an exception to the way all other pronouns are treated; it provides no special meaning. It seems to be part of an internet dialect (see ad below) which does not understand the use of apostrophes in general and therefore places them randomly where they are orthographically possible.
Try
I'm going to try and get it done.
You’re going to try to do what while you’re getting it done?
Oh, get it done? Does that mean you’re going to try to get it done and get it done? Why not simply say,
I'm going to try to get it done.
The reason to maintain the distinction between and and to is that there are uses where the difference is meaningful:
I tried and spoke up
I tried to speak up
One means I did and the other implies I didn’t. Conclusion: and and to are not synonyms. This is a devolution.
I could care less
if
I could care less
means
I couldn't care less
say
I couldn't care less
Do as you please
I will do as I please
Great. Whom, exactly? Me? Awesome! Please e-mail me for instructions. If you want to please yourself, say,
I will do as I am pleased
or
I will do as best pleases me
Lie-Lay
There is confusion about the verb lie because the present-tense transitive form lay looks like the past-tense intransitive form. Here is how it goes:
I lie on the bed right now
I lay on the bed yesterday
I lay the book on the bed right now
I laid the book on the bed yesterday
There is no I lay on the bed right now. Don’t give up. There is no readed and there is no putted. There are plenty of examples like this. You can do it!