comprehend, apprehend, reprehend

I may be over my head with this one, but I'll give it a shot...(Oh wow, too many English expressions there! 'over my head' means too difficult for me; 'give it a shot' means to try). An English learner I know commented that comprehend, apprehend and reprehend sound similar but their meanings are different, so etymology (the study of the origin of words) may not always be a very helpful tool for English learning. I decided to check this out. These words all end in -prehend, from the Latin prehendere to grasp. Let's take each word: 1) comprehend = to understand, or to grasp with the mind! It also has another meaning of to take in, to include. 2) apprehend from the Latin apprehendere, to lay hold of. Confusingly, apprehend has several meanings. One, maybe most common meaning, is to take into custody, as in "the police apprehended the suspect". prehendere is 'to grasp', also 'to seize', so the police seized the suspect. Another meaning of apprehend is also to understand. (comprehend = apprehend?) Another meaning is to fear. This is more commonly seen in adjective form: 'apprehensive' (fearful). 3) reprehend = to find fault with. It comes from the Latin reprehendere = to hold back or rebuke, itself coming from re + prehendere to seize. I'm taking a wild guess that putting re- on 'to seize' could be seize back, hold back??? Can't think of any more -prehend words...Are there any?

gonna/wanna/shoulda,coulda,woulda

Just a short post about the use of gonna and wanna. Gonna and wanna are casual forms. Gonna comes from "going to" and wanna comes from "want to". When Americans speak and say "going to" it sounds like "gonna"! The same is true with "wanna". Many foreigners may become familiar with the forms gonna and wanna from American pop songs. However "gonna" and "wanna" should not be used in written English, unless you're writing a very casual note to a friend. They will stick out from the rest of the sentence because of their slang nature. The same is true with the forms "shoulda" (should have), "coulda" (could have) and "woulda" (would have). Note also that although in speaking "should have" sometimes sounds like "should've" it should not be spelled "should of" (people often make this mistake). There is also a (slang) expression in English: "shoulda, coulda, woulda" which one person will say to another to tell them not to regret things (or try to change what they did in the past), because of course "should have", "could have" and "would have" all refer to possible changes to events in the past.

Countries/Nationalities, Cities, etc

I noticed a student was mixing up countries and nationalities, so I decided to write this post. For instance she said, "She is from Spanish" (incorrect) instead of "She is from Spain" or "She is Spanish" (both are correct). Here are more examples of countries & their nationalities: She is from France. She is French. He is from Germany. He is German. We are from Holland (or the Netherlands). We are Dutch. (-ish endings): They are from Sweden. They are Swedish. He is from Denmark. He is Danish. (Also, he is a Dane). They are from Ireland. They are Irish. He is from Switzerland. He is Swiss. She is from England. She is English. He is from Poland. He is Polish. It looks there might be a pattern with countries ending in 'land', but note: She is from Thailand. She is Thai. (-an, -n endings): He is from America. He is American. She is from Jamaica. She is Jamaican. They are from Mexico. They are Mexican. They are from Russia. They are Russian. He is from Australia. He is Australian. She is from India. She is Indian. (-ian endings): They are from Canada. They are Canadian. She is from Jordan. She is Jordanian. I am from Brazil. I am Brazilian. (-i ending): He is from Iraq. He is Iraqi. She is from Israel. She is Israeli. (-ese endings): She is from Japan. She is Japanese. They are from China. They are Chinese. I am from Portugal. I am Portuguese. We are from Taiwan. We are Taiwanese. Cities/People living in or from certain cities: She is from New York. She is a New Yorker.* He is from San Francisco. He is a San Franciscan. We are from Paris. We are Parisian. *note that this always means New York City and not the state of New York. Then, you would say, "She is from New York state" or "She is from the state of New York". Hope you are able to use this.

Embedded questions

My plan is to tackle one English mistake at a time, and try to explain why the grammar is incorrect. Today I heard someone say: "Do you know where's Robert?" Within the overall sentence (question) we have the question: "Where's Robert?" In this kind of sentence, the embedded question cannot be put into the sentence as it is. Let's recreate the sentence. Do you know X? X= Where's Robert? 1) Make the question X into a statement (by making up an answer): Robert is at the store. 2) Replace the unknown part (in bold) with a WH-word (who, where, when, etc): Robert is where. 3) Move the WH-word to the front of the clause: where Robert is 4) Embed the clause in the sentence: Do you know where Robert is 5) Add the question mark: Do you know where Robert is? (correct sentence) So, in the correct sentence "Do you know where Robert is?" the 's of where's was changed to is. (We can't have: "Do you know where Robert's?" We just don't use that contraction in English). I hope this makes sense.

use of "a lot" as an adverb

I was inspired by talking to foreigners recently to revive my blog about English language and grammar. I hope it will be helpful to English learners. In addition it will help me review English grammar for teaching. I heard a common error in English recently in the use of adverbs. The example was: "I held a lot the baby." The mistake has to do with the placement of "a lot". In this sentence, "I" is the subject, "held" is the verb, "the baby" is the direct object and "a lot" is an adverb. In this case the adverb describes "how much". (How much did I hold the baby? A lot). The correct form of the sentence is "I held the baby a lot." What did we do? We just moved "a lot" from its position between the verb and the direct object to the end of the sentence. There is no other place for it to go. The following are also incorrect: "I a lot held the baby";"A lot I held the baby". Why not? I was told this is just something you have to memorize. The adverb "a lot" always goes 'at the end of the sentence'*. Other correct examples: "I haven't been to the movies a lot". "They had dinner at that restaurant a lot". In these cases "to the movies" and "at that restaurant" are also adverbs (of place) describing where I haven't been or where they went to dinner which precede the adverb "a lot". *At times another adverb could also follow "a lot", such as: "I haven't been to the movies a lot recently." Whew! That's enough for one lesson :)

Introduction

I am starting this blog to explore questions about English usage that come up in lessons with my foreign English students. I hope to be able to clarify English for both the students, myself and other English learners. It will also be a way for me and them to keep track of what we learned or taught each week. Hopefully the posts will be short & only explore a few items each post. It's also a good opportunity for me to practice writing in both correct and simple English (unlike the stranger and more difficult English I like to explore in my creative writing). Until next time!