I’m a native fluent speaker of English. Someone recently suggested that “out” was incorrect and that “outside” should be used in that sentence. To me, they are interchangeable. I’m not even aware of a nuanced difference between the two.
Should it be I’m a fluent
native speaker" instead?
What is “nuance difference”?
Thanks!
Yes, ‘fluent native speaker’ is definitely better than ‘native fluent speaker’.
It’s not ‘nuance difference’ but ‘nuanced difference’ which means it’s a very slight/small/insignificant difference.
The order of “native” and "fluent’ is irrelevant, because one can modify the other equally well. I’m a native speaker who is fluent and I’m a fluent speaker who is native. It’s beyond irrelevant.
And, yes, It’s nuanced difference.
Sorry Paul, but the phrase ‘a native fluent speaker’ doesn’t sound right at all. Also, what do you mean by ‘a fluent speaker who is native’? Who speaks like this?
If I had to choose between the two above. I would agree with Torsten that ‘fluent native speaker’ is more sensible.
However, if we look at “native speaker” more closely you could say the following:
A native speaker is more than fluent —he correctly and easily uses his first language, in a proper sense as well as understands and can use colloquialisms, idioms and slang.
I really don’t think fluent is necessary for a native speaker.
Fluent speakers have a command of a language that is good enough to allow them to work as interpreters, but they may still have accents that marks them non-native speakers . … A native speaker is someone who learned a certain language from birth or early infancy and grew up using it.
Your comment in pure subjectivity.
Seriously, is it really necessary to explain this?
Let’s do it this way, explain grammatically and syntactically how/why the order of those two modifiers changes the meaning of the sentence.
But don’t kid yourself that a native speaker is necessarily fluent. I live in an area where people are proud of the fact that they do not know English very well and it’s the only language they know. There is much of their own language that they do not comprehend. They have a severely limited vocabulary. Talking with them is, in many respects, like talking with a non-native speaker.
I’m a native English speaker and I was trying to help. So please don’t get all defensive. It’s not all about your viewpoint.
I think Andrea explained the differences perfectly. Yes, I think it is necessary to give detailed explanations. This has always been a practice that has been followed since the origins of this site over 25 years ago when Torsten and I first developed English online.
How can you be proud of not knowing something well? I mean, language is what sets us humans apart from other species. Your command of the language is the single most skill you should develop and honing your language skills should be a lifelong process. What kind of person are you if you are ‘proud of the fact that you do not know English very well’?
Go ask the people who live here. Clearly, I’m not talking about myself.
I’m not even slightly defensive – merely factual.
There’s absolutely no functional, grammatical, or syntactical difference between "native fluent speaker’ and “fluent native speaker.” They mean the exact same thing and are completely interchangeable. Yes, subjectively, some people prefer one over the other, but that’s nothing but subjectivity. So, I said, if someone believes there is a difference between the two, then explain that difference.
This has been a long and pointless journey down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with my original post. The original post was about using “out” vs “outside.” The person who went off track didn’t even bother to answer the original question.
Well, as Andrea has already explained the phrase ‘native fluent speaker’ doesn’t make any sense and is neither idiomatic nor meaningful while ‘fluent native speaker’ might make sense in theory but still sounds rather odd.
By the way, what is pointless to you might be interesting to other people.
Yes, this is true…
It has just occurred to me that the following would be possible:
a native/fluent speaker
But it makes exactly as much sense either way. Why can’t one be used as a modified for the other? That’s rhetorical, as they each modify the other equally well. Both arrangements are equally intelligible. Both say the exact same thing. If you understand one, you understand the other. That is, if you are a native fluent speaker or a fluent native speaker.
Additionally, why can’t they both be modifying “speaker”? Answer: They can. No problem. Happens frequently in English.
It comes down to pure subjectivity. And I get it, you like one but not the other. And that’s as far as it goes.
Some people say, “upside down,” others say, “downside up.”
Some people say, “right side up,” others say, “upside right.”
It’s preference, and preference alone.
Do you say, “soda,” “pop,” or “soda pop”? I use all three because they all mean the exact same thing and all three are equally correct.
To the point when explain…
Well, there is a difference between ‘a big front wheel’ and ‘a front big wheel’. The first one makes sense while the second version doesn’t. The words ‘native speaker’ and ‘front wheel’ are compound nouns that can’t be separated.
It’s worth noting that where there is more than one adjective, the most appropriate/suitable/natural adjective usually immediately precedes the noun. In other words you tend to go from general to particular. In the present ‘fluent/native’ contretemps. you would prefer ‘fluent native speaker’ although it is a wonky construction.
Hello, Mesasnem,
It is great that we can exhibit a range of viewpoints on the forum, but I believe that we should just leave our response to the poster and move on. The forum is a ‘polling of opinions’ not a debate.
Best,
Tom
Hi Tom, the forum is only a platform that enables us to exchange ideas. These exchanges can have various forms such as dialogue, discussion, debate, test, etc.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘polling of opinions’ though.
Regards,
Torsten