In defiance of intrinsic contradiction in terms, it seems that there are quite a number of non-native speakers with native-speaker-like abilities who have taken to the idea of regulating the English language.
What’s your take on this? Just a cheap excuse to disguise a lack of proficiency, blasphemy or auspicious gate opener for learners and the illiterate?
Something doesn’t add up here 
. If a person has native-speaker abilities, he/she doesn’t lack proficiency by default, in my opinion.
Also, it doen’t make sence to “regulate” any aspects of English - it would never catch on. People, who got accustomed to “told” would never agree to use “telled”, even if certain members of this forum would foist their “telled” on them
Any examples of such, Ralf?
Well, I do hope your not foisting your “doen’t” and “sence” upon us, LS.
Hi Ralf,
I think it’s almost impossible to impose any new language rules since language develops itself. Nobody ‘owns’ the English language so how can you create rules for its behaviour? Non-native speakers can only learn English by observing native speakers and developing similar language habits. Trying to change the English language artificially is a bit like telling people how to think. It won’t work. Language is an integral part of a culture. For example, the English language reflects the mentality of native English speakers and their way of thinking. If a non-native speaker tries to create new rules for the English language no native speaker will take such an attempt seriously.[YSaerTTEW443543]
TOEFL listening lectures: A lecture from a social sciences class[YSaerTTEW443543]
If we did that, why would we need a native speaker to take us seriously, Torsten? I mean, do you need a native-speaker’s stamp of approval on everything you do regarding using the language?
Not only, Torsten. And, English is also part of many nonnative speakers’ cultures. That’s why Indian-English speakers, for example, have such things as “kitty party”, “batchmate”, "She is knowing the answer “You’re going, isn’t it?”, and so on. Those examples reflect the context in which that variety of English is used in.
All right, all right, I got careless, my bad :oops:
Hi Ralf, and guys
To take the issue into the arena of current debate, there is the discussion as to non native to non native communication, and the influence on the notion of a possible “International English”.
The point here is that some set rules can be ignored in the sense of comprehension, but should they be;
e.g. third person “s”. A non native speaker may forget the S “muss mit”, but does it hinder understanding.
Maybe not, however can we go so far as to omitting the use of S in this way?
Or as one of my students today put forward, it is fine to use;
“You have to hand the project in till Monday”.
He had learned this from a German teacher of English. However would this wrong usage of a preposition cause confusion outside of Germany?
And is it really far removed from the proper usage;
“You have till Monday to hand the project in.”
The issue here could be, is the non native use and the assumption going beyond usage outside their own culture /nationalities application of the language?
Surely it can be argued that natural adjustment to your audience, listener is better that trying to enforce rigid rule changes.
After all even native speakers may adjust their language to a common ground, if confusion is caused by vocabulary or grammar.
Americans, Australians, Kiwis, Canadians and Brits use language different amongst people in their locale as opposed to people from other English native speaking nations or even regions for that matter.
The same could be applied to German, Swiss, Austrian usage of German or even Bavarian and Saxon.
Communication is surely more about finding this common ground, than the regulations.
Do you have a civil servant lurking in you somewhere Ralf or are you rebelling against it? ; )
cheers stew.t.
I feel so enlightened. !
Rob (looking for a 10Kb picture of me)
Hi Stew
What would you tell your German students this sentence means?
“Please have that posted online till the first of the month.”
Wouldn’t you agree that the sentence above means something totally different from this:
“Please have that posted online by the first of the month.”
When I was teaching in Germany, it often seemed that this usage of the word ‘by’ was one of the best kept secrets in Germany. :lol:
.
Hi, Amy
If I understood Stew correctly, he meant that You have to hand the project in till Monday is not a proper sentense, and that it should read You have till Monday to hand the project in
Do you agree that You have to hand the project in till Monday sounds wrong ? (in the sense that you have to hand the project in, and you must do it anytime before Monday.)
Thanks a bunch ! 
Hi Alex
Yes, I also understood Stew’s point and I did not disagree with him. That is one way to correct the sentence.
I wanted to make the point that the word ‘till’ can be misunderstood if it is used incorrectly. Both of my sentences are grammatically correct. However, they do not mean the same thing.
The problem for speakers of German is that the German word ‘bis’ can mean either ‘by’ or ‘until’. Unfortunately, a very large number of Germans don’t seem to know (or remember) how to use ‘by’ to mean ‘not later than’.
.
Hi Amy,
seems the “till-by” issue is a secret in Germany in fact.
First how I´ve got your point:
-“till date” means before date
-“by date” means the last point of/in time.
As for me the difference to the German “bis” is that “bis” always means before and if the deadline ends with date´s ending Germans would add the word “inclusive date”.
However, since your recent post , at least for me, the “by opportunity” won´t be a secret any longer.
Michael
Hi Michael
Basically, my sentences mean the following:
“Please have that posted online until the first of the month.” --> Post it now or as soon as possible and leave it online until the first of the month. After the first of the month, it should no longer be online.
“Please have that posted online by the first of the month.” --> At some point in time between now and the first of the month, it should be online. After you post it, it will remain online.
In Stew’s example, a native speaker of English would probably assume that a non-native speaker had simply made a mistake. However, I think that assumption is far less likely in my first sentence.
So, an incorrect use of ‘until’ can possibly result in quite a misunderstanding. :shock:
.
Hi, Amy
So, sum it up, Please have that posted online by the first of the month basically means that You have until (or till) the first of the month to post that online, right?
Right, Alex.
Put those reflections aside for a while.
Is the English language in need of new regularisations to embrace other English varieties and the bottomless pit of English used by ESL speakers? Or is the only way to get things right a
If you did that, most posts on this forum as well as the last sentence quoted wouldn’t pass the benchmark test. It would however provide job security for English teachers whose first language is English :idea:
I think the point here depends on what is the reason for communicating and in what area are you using the language.
Maybe some learners will wish to have a modicum standard and be fine with that.
However in light of your remark here;
learners particularly using English for Business I believe desire to have as close to native speaker standards as possible. And would new rules that are seen as debasing the language be accepted in this context and by these users .
However this does not mean that they wish for this “native speaker stamp of approval”.
After all native speakers have differing standards, and abilities to communicate.
I really think that a language should be flexible enough to absorb these issues, however the varieties of English used in certain regions of the world (whether that is Indian varieties or even the village I was born in) may not be understood by a proficient, general learner of English or a native speaker for that matter.
So the first point surely is, is it easy to follow, and secondly does it hold the standard for it´s purpose or context.
English maybe flexible, but any language that is spoken on an “International stage” ( and what I mean by this is - has a diverse and global usage) would struggle to absorb all varieties and the changes in the rules necessary to be understood by all users and in all geographical areas.
A blanket statement like the original proposal in this thread is something that no one can answer, but if you get to the nitty gritty of specific rules, then maybe you can discuss them at some depth.
It would be interesting to get more light on the motivation of the thread initiator to bring this very all encompassing issue up?