Englishour's Blog 
Pet hates
We all make mistakes!
Accuracy is obviously an important part of speaking a language. Most English teachers would say that not making mistakes is important but at the same time students shouldn’t worry too much about it as long as their mistakes don’t affect understanding. Students though don’t really accept this idea (they want to speak correctly!) and I think rightly so.
People worry about making impressions. Whether it’s a good impression in a first meeting or the impression you give people generally, we have an image of ourselves which we want to portray. And this image is generally positive. We want to be seen as dynamic or successful people. We want to be seen as intelligent and educated people. We don’t want to be seen as someone who makes mistakes. The result of this in the English classroom is students saying ‘please correct me’ to the teacher.
For the teacher there is a little bit of a dilemma here. On one hand they want to correct the learner to promote accuracy in the language. On the other hand they don’t want to undermine the learner’s confidence and correct too much. Correct to a point and let the other stuff go. Tomorrow is another day.
So as teachers, we don’t want to correct students every time we hear a mistake. But there are times we most certainly do correct. And one of those times is when we hear the habitual mistake. These are mistakes which are engrained into learners of particular nationalities. They are mistakes which the same (nationality) learners make again and again. Here are a few examples:
The last week I went to Cork. This is a common habit with the words next and last. Basically, there is no the when next or last refers to now. Last week I went to Cork is correct.
I want one coffee please. Here, the problem is one. In English, one means ‘not two’. What that means is that you only say ‘one’ when the listener is expecting you to say ‘two’ (or ‘three’ etc). Imagine you have been in a bar with your friend for a couple of hours ordering and drinking beer. Every time you order another round you ask for ‘two beers’. Your friend now however, doesn’t want another beer. You decide to have one more for the road. You call the barman over. What does he expect you to say? Two beers! Of course, as this is what you have been ordering all night. But you ask for ‘one beer’. One means not two, and in this case it’s correct. Usually you ask for a beer. Therefore the correct version of the sentence above is I want a beer please.
He’s 19 years. Here, you have an option. You can either say he’s 19 years old, or just simply, he’s 19.
Thanks for all. This is not correct. It should be ‘thanks for everything’. The word all is a modifier used before nouns to mean everything. But it is not a noun itself. All the money, all the world, all Dublin...is correct. Without the noun, you need to say everyone or everything etc.
I cut my hair. Although this is possible it probably isn’t correct. Here you should use the passive form to have/get something done. The idea is that there are things we don’t do ourselves but rather we pay someone to do them for us. Perhaps we don’t do it because we are lazy (I get my grass cut every week) or we don’t have time (I have the dog walked in the evening) or we don’t have the necessary skill to do it (I’m getting my car serviced tomorrow).
I want that he comes to the party. When you want a person to do something the structure is want+person+to+verb...I want him to pay me. She wants me to help her. Therefore the correct version of the sentence above is I want him to come to the party.
Next week I will come back to Italy. Here, the problem is come. Basically you always come here and go there. Come is to where you are and go is to all other places. Italy is there, and so the sentence should read next week I’m going back to Italy. I have also changed the tense to the present continuous as it is a planned arrangement (I have the ticket).
Are there any other common mistakes you can identify? If there are please tell us through our 'englishour' facebook page or contact us through the website. Thanks!
John, August 2012.
Saint Patrick - the man behind the mitre
It is a surprise to most people when they find out that St Patrick – the patron saint of Ireland, and the man credited with the single biggest annual upsurge in global alcohol sales – was not actually born in Ireland at all, at all. In fact he was born at Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton, in Scotland, in the year 387. Having been taken from his native soil by Irish pirates at the tender age of 16, he spent his formative years tending pigs as a slave in Ireland for a chap called Milchú.
Despite his slavery and debasing labour, it is said that Patrick picked up the Irish language very quickly and also the customs of the people; and that he came to love his Irish captors. This was either one of the earliest documented cases of Stockholm Syndrome, or else life in Scotland can’t have been that good.
Whatever the case, the voice of the Irish people was to haunt him forever, until, unable to take it any longer he finally succumbed and came back to Ireland to convert this polytheist nation to Christianity.
Well we are told that St Patrick on coming to Ireland, initially joined a small Christian community, (which would seem to contradict the belief that he in fact was the first to bring Christianity to Ireland), and by clever manipulation of the pagan rituals of the people he gained acceptance of the Christian faith. He knew, however that the only way to completely evangelise Hibernia was to convert the chieftains. He famously built his Pascal fire on Slane Hill in Meath to attract the attention of the High King living across the way on the hill of Tara (the Irish used bone fires at various ceremonies to appease their gods, so the king would at least be intrigued). When invited to the court to explain himself he immediately set about the task of converting the king. The king - like many an Irishman since, listening to a foreigner trying to communicate in the lingua franca - nodded and smiled ... but seemed to be paying attention. It is said that having been given a good evangelisation, the king feigned willingness to believe most of it but couldn’t get his head around the whole question of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, being the same entity. Ever the pedagogue, Patrick - at first flummoxed - espied a shamrock in the grass – and – holding it aloft – proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that not only was there only one true God; but there were three of them.
This stroke of genius has long since served the Irish people. In the early 1930’s it saved a lot of controversy over what would go on the tailfin of the Irish state airline Aer Lingus; and on March 17th every year, leaders of nations, who bestow gifts on the Irish people for the increase in (alcohol fuelled) prosperity around St Patrick’s Day, have to look pleased when we give them a pot of Shamrock.
Darren
Saint Valentine
"My heart is in Ireland
That’s where I long to be
Her hills and her valleys
Are calling to me”
(Irish folk song by the Wolfe Tones)
I seriously doubt these were the sentiments running through St Valentine’s head as he was being beaten to death and then beheaded in the name of true love: however, that is exactly what was to happen….
There are three contenders for the crown of “The Saint of Love”. Of the third contender, who apparently died in Africa, very little else is known, so let’s discount him straight away.
The first and second were reportedly beaten to death with clubs and liberated of their heads in 269AD on the Flaminian Way, outside Rome. One was purported to be a Christian priest who defied Claudius the Goth (Claudius II Gothicus, then Emperor of Rome), by carrying out secret marriages. **(Claudius blamed the flagging numbers queuing up to join his armies on the fact that the men had too many other distractions - such as wives and children…)**. The other Valentine was Bishop of Terni, a small town 60 km outside Rome. Because of the proximity of the two Valentines and the coincidental timing of their deaths, it is a widely held view that they are in fact one and the same; and that two cults were formed in Terni and in Rome to the same martyr, until over time the facts became distorted.
Fast forward to 1835 when an Irish Carmelite priest called John Spratt went on a pilgrimage to Rome. Spratt was an eloquent speaker, and already had a reputation as a famous preacher in the Holy See, mainly due to some visiting Jesuits who had witnessed his teachings while visiting Dublin. Such was his popularity in Rome that he was endowed with many gifts in recognition of his work, and that of his order, (the Carmelites) on the outer reaches of Europe: most important of these gifts were the remains of St. Valentine. These were bestowed on him by Pope Gregory the XVI; and the letter authenticating the relics as those of St Valentine are kept within the church.
On St. Valentine’s Day the casket with his remains is taken out of its crypt and put on display on the altar. It is a very popular time for young couples to come to the church, and there is a ‘blessing of the rings’ ceremony for those about to get married.
Darren
Those little words
Auxiliary verbs are great. They act like mini-discourse markers at the beginning of sentences, except instead of signaling an emotion or intent, they signal a time.
Discourse markers are words or phrases which prepare the listener for what is to come. Like if you’re driving and you see a signpost which tells you that your destination is 200km away and to the left. The sign not only tells you the distance and which way to turn, it also mentally prepares you for the journey ahead. It gets you thinking about whether or not you need petrol, if you need to go to the toilet. You think about when you will stop for a break, now or towards the end of the journey? That sign situates you within your journey. It offers you comfort and the power to make informed decisions.
In language we use signposts too. If a teacher is talking to a student and says I read your essay. Unfortunately…. The student gasps upon hearing this word unfortunately. There is a small intake of breath as they prepare themselves for what surely will be bad news. Can I be blunt with you? Another signpost. Whatever they are going to say, it’s probably terrible! They will tell me some horrible truth about myself. The answer to can I be blunt with you? is of course, always yes! I’ve got some good news and some bad news is an old favourite. Which do you want to hear first?
Which brings me back to auxiliary verbs. They are words like have, do, will and did. They go with a verb and through them we know the tense. For example, if I ask do you walk to work?, you know that I am asking if you walk to work generally, every day, usually. Did you walk to work? Now we’re talking about a specific point in the past. But that’s an important idea. The listener must know exactly what time you are talking about if you use did. They know because you either say it or it’s implicit in the idea. If you walk up to a person and ask did you go to the cinema?, their impulse is to immediately ask when? They need a time because you said did.
If I ask have you walked to work?, it’s not necessary to specify the time. Have you implies a time before now. Any time. Have you been to Japan? Yes? When? Now you talk in the past. I went three years ago etc. Have you been …ing? Again, the listener knows that the question refers to recently, to a time close to now. This is the present perfect continuous tense, a tense we use when we see evidence of an action. For example, I see someone out of breath (the evidence), I ask have you been running? As soon as they hear have you been…? They know that my question refers to something recently and also to some evidence that they have spotted. If someone asks you out of the blue have you been sewing? You would most probably respond with why do you ask? You are wondering what possible evidence they see to ask whether or not you have been sewing.
In class, students often have a problem between the simple past (I did), the present perfect (I have done) and the present perfect continuous (I’ve been doing). There is no need for this to be problematic as long as you think about them in relation to time. I did requires a specific named past time. Either you say it or the other person knows exactly what time you are referring to. If you name the time, use the simple past and NOT the present perfect. The present perfect refers to an action which happened in an unnamed time in the past but has importance for now. Perhaps a message for now. If you say I’ve eaten, the message for now is I’m not hungry. If you say I’ve done everything to your boss the message for now is perhaps can I go now?
Having said all of that, there is a challenge for students regarding understanding of the concept. It is often not the same in other languages and does need time to sink in. The good news (nice discourse marker!) is that there is a ‘eureka’ moment. A moment when the student suddenly gets it. It’s one of those really satisfying moments when learning a language which can be so frustrating at times.