Ask the English Teacher

Speak and Talk

Debby in Taiwan asks an interesting question:
On one of my English tests, there is a question about "speak" and "talk."

Question: "He can speak English with that American." The correct answer is, "He can talk to that American in English."

My answer is, "He can speak with that American in English," which is wrong .

But I found that the usage of "speak" and "talk" are quite similiar from your blog. It makes me confused. Could you please kindly tell me?

"Speak" and "talk" mean the same in many ways, but both have special meanings also. Both mean "to utter words in speech."

We tend to use "speak" in formal ways:
Speak to me of love. (Tell me you love me.)
Speak for England! (Said to Winston Churchill in Parliament during a bad time in the war.)
Now we must speak to another issue. (We must discuss a new subject.)

Notice that these expressions suggest a "one-way" communication. When you speak to an audience, you do not expect every person to answer you. When you speak English, it doesn't matter who is listening. (I can speak Spanish to my Canadian students, but not many can understand me!)

But when you talk with your friends, that suggests everyone is communicating. And when you talk English, other people answer you in English. "He can talk to that American in English," and that American can talk to him in English also.

We also make a distinction: When I am talking to you, or with you, I expect an answer. When I am talking at you, I don't expect an answer—you just have to be quiet and listen to me.

Thanks for a very good question, Debby!

Take or Get?

Phuong asks:
What is the difference between take and get?
EX: Take this glass of water to your dad.
I'll get you a cup of coffee.

Take in this usage means "accept and carry": Accept the glass of water I'm giving you, and carry it to where Dad is.

Get is an English word with many, many uses. In this usage, it means "go and return": I will go to where the coffee is, and I will return to give it to you.

Would or Used to?

Weslei in Brasil writes:
I've seen lots of explanations about the usage of would and used to but I'm still confused. What does, exactly, "past states" mean? Is there a "short cut" which I could easier identify when "would" could not be used? I also observed that, most of the times, "would" (meaning "used to") comes in the same sentence with a time reference (My mother would bake me a cake whenever I visited her.) . Is there anything to do with a short cut or was it just a coincidence?

I love this kind of question because I've never thought about these usages before.

You're right: When we're talking about some past state of affairs, and we use would, we usually give a time reference:
When I lived in Mexico City, I would take the streetcar to visit my friend in San Angel.
When our kids were little, I would get up with them on Sunday mornings so their mother could sleep.
On Thursdays, I would take the ferry to Sechelt.

If we didn't give the time reference, it would be easy to misunderstand:
I would take the ferry to Sechelt. (When? Why? What's keeping you from doing so?)

"Used to" is more flexible. We don't need a time reference:
I used to live in Mexico City.
I used to get up with my kids on Sundays.
I used to take the ferry to Sechelt.

But we can also use it in place of "would":
When I lived in Mexico City, I used to take the streetcar ...
When our kids were little, I used to get up...
On Thursdays I used to take...

Lay and Lie

Callie writes:
I am constantly trying to improve my writing skills and the usage of the English language. So can you help me out with the correct usage of Lie and Lay. What is the best way to not confuse these verbs?

This may be one of the hardest problems in English! When I try to explain it to my students, I see little question marks form over their heads. Well, let's give it another try.

LAY means to put or place: Lay the book on that table.
LIE means recline: All he does is lie around watching soap operas every day.

The past tense of “lay” is “laid”: He laid the book on the table. The chickens laid six eggs today.

The present continuous is “laying”: He is laying the book on the table. The chickens are laying a lot of eggs this week.

The past tense of “lie” is “lay”: Dave and Susan lay sunbathing on the beach all day.

The present continuous is “lying”: Dave and Susan are lying on the beach all day.

The past perfect tense of “lie” is “lain”: They had lain sunbathing on the beach all day.

You can see why people are confused: Lie/lay, lay/lain. Even worse, many people have simply stopped saying "lie"; they prefer to say "lay" for both "put or place" and for "recline."

When we hear this error so often, it's even harder to remember the correct ways to use "lie" and "lay."

My or Our?

Wanda asks:
I am hoping you can clear up a long time dispute between my husband and me.

If I am speaking to a stranger by myself and I make reference to "my" house, would it be best to say "my house" or "our house"?

I feel using the term "our house" is confusing unless my husband is standing there, talking to the third party with me, then I would use "our house".

I suspect that most people (at least in North America) would understand "our house" to mean "the house I own with my spouse/partner/relatives." But with the other owner absent, "my house" is also acceptable. If the co-owner of the house is present, "our house" is preferable.

Fine? All right? Satisfactory?

Shmuel writes:
We are translating Talmudic texts that often analyze statements of earlier sages, discussing whether they fit with the views of later sages.
Does it sound colloquial to write, regarding such a statement:
1) It is fine according to view A. But according to view B, a difficulty arises.
2) It is all right according to view A. But according to view B, a difficulty arises.

Would you recommend:
3) It is satisfactory according to view A. But according to view B, a difficulty arises.

Since the Talmud uses two relatively synonymous terms in these cases, we are looking for two English words or phrases to represent them, but without sounding colloquial.

This is a very interesting question of register—the use of words to convey a relationship as well as the actual meaning of the word. And on serious topics, colloquial expressions can trivialize the relationship between writer and reader.

So I would certainly not accept either 1) or 2). Version 3) does convey the appropriate register. I might also consider alternatives:

It is sufficient according to view A.
It is acceptable according to view A.

Since and After

Nini asks a very interesting question:
How does one use 'since' and 'after' when dealing with time. Since the 1990s or After the 1990s? Can they be used interchangeably? Is there a difference in emphasis?

In this usage, both words are adverbs. "Since" tends to describe a past state of affairs that has continued to the present:
Well, since my baby left me, I've found a new place to dwell...(And Elvis is still living there!)
Since the 1990s we have lived in Vancouver, BC. (And we haven't moved away.)
Since we met, we've been friends. (And we are still friends.)

"After" tends to place an event at a particular time:
After my baby left me, I found a new place to dwell...(But I may have moved again since then.)
After the 1990s, she abandoned the cello. (But she may start playing again some day.)
After we met, we became good friends. (It happened at once.)

I notice one problem for some non-English speakers. They may say:
I have lived in Vancouver since four years.

This is understandable, but not standard. It's preferable to say:
I have lived in Vancouver for four years.
Or:
I have lived in Vancouver since 2002.

Working the Floor

Sara asks:
What does "Work the floor" mean?

When we meet in large groups—at a party, at a conference—we enjoy talking together. Some of us talk just to a few people we know.

Other people want to "network"—that means they want to make friends with a lot of people. So they go across the floor of the gathering, meeting everyone. They shake hands, introduce themselves, gossip a little, exchange jokes. Later, they may phone the people they talked to, and say: "Great to meet you at the conference! I wonder if you'd be willing to vote for me (or invest in my company, or help another friend of mine)."

People who do this are "working the floor."

Swindle

Frédéric asks:
Recently, I've used the word "swindle" with my students and they had a blank face. Is that so uncommon? Are there any connotations to it?

To swindle means to defraud someone by taking money without providing something of equal value. If Frédéric pays me $100,000 dollars for a house in Vancouver, and finds that it's actually a ruined log cabin 500 kilometres from Vancouver, he can say, "Crawford swindled me!"

The word isn't rare, but in ordinary conversation Frédéric would probably say, "Crawford scammed me! Crawford ripped me off! Crawford defrauded me!" And most North Americans would understand at once that poor Frédéric had been swindled.

Here's a related word with a very specific meaning. A "confidence man" is a swindler who takes your money by promising you will get even more money—but dishonestly. (If you have received email from a Nigerian who wants to share millions of dollars with you, you have met a confidence man.)

Such a dishonest scheme is usually called a "con," and the swindler is a "con man." If you actually give him your money, you've been "conned."

This is why North Americans have an old saying: "You can't cheat an honest man." You can't con him because he refuses to do anything dishonest.

Fun and Feasible

Ghassan writes:
Here are some notes which I find a little confusing.
"I like to read fun stories."
Also " We have to do a feasibility study."

I know we use adjectives in such cases and I usually use "funny" and "feasible". Which is true? And can we always use nouns in similar cases?

"Fun" is anything that makes us feel good—a lively conversation, an exciting movie, winning a game, going skiing.

So we can use the noun "fun" as an adjective also: We had a fun conversation. We saw a fun movie. We won a fun game, and the skiing today was also fun. "I like to read fun stories" is equally acceptable.

But what about the adjective "funny"? Now we're talking about things that amuse us and make us laugh, or something that seems odd and unusual:

We had a funny conversation—we joked and laughed.
We had a funny conversation—it didn't seem quite right for some reason.

"Feasible" means something can be done: Your plan looks feasible. Walking to work is very feasible, because the office is only six blocks away. These are adjectives.

"Feasibility" is a noun, meaning the same thing: The feasibility of your plan is obvious.

When we want to find out if something can be done, we do some research (a study). The result is a feasibility study. But we need the resources to do research, or we won't be able to do it. It will not be a feasible study.'

I hope the distinction is clear.