British English

[PeteC]

Perhaps a bit silly but I would like to know, as the teachers at my daughters school can't answer definitively. This concerns Oxford Press reading books:

Biff and Chip went up in the tree house. I think that the proper word is into.

The children went down the garden. I think there should be the word to or into after 'down'.

If the above is proper British English as written, so be it, but I don't want books to start reflecting what may be considered slang or perhaps 'lazy' English usage. Pete

[Dr Mike]

You are correct, its not a transatlantic thing either, the book is incorrect in any form of English

[Spitfire]

I'm afraid that you will now find that a lot of change, or meddling, goes on with the English language and many things that where considered incorrect when you were young have now become acceptable.

There are also more non native speakers of the language than native now. Perhaps what you are getting at is the difference between what we could call 'classic' English as opposed to the 'international' English we have here and elswhere which appears to be in the process of being bastardized.

Also have to mention that 'common usage' seems to play a part.

I'll give a good example, which I disagree with and was very surprised to find it out, but the plural of the noun 'fish' is now 'fish or fishes'. What next, 'sheeps'?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... #fish_1__3

[nanyang]

Perhaps a bit silly but I would like to know, as the teachers at my daughters school can't answer definitively. This concerns Oxford Press reading books:

Biff and Chip went up in the tree house. I think that the proper word is into.

The children went down the garden. I think there should be the word to or into after 'down'.

If the above is proper British English as written, so be it, but I don't want books to start reflecting what may be considered slang or perhaps 'lazy' English usage. Pete

To, initially, put your mind at rest there is no hint of slang being used.
As with many uses of the language one use is, often, better than the other though neither is incorrect.

1. Into and onto are used with verbs showing movement.
They show both the direction and the result of the movement.
In and on may be used both with verbs that show movement and with verbs that do not show movement.
With verbs showing movement, in and on may be used instead of into and onto (though into and onto are clearer).
Tom dived into / in the lake.
He said that the water that's in (not into) the lake is cold.
Mary put the cake into / in the oven.
She decided to leave the cake in (not into) the oven after it had finished baking.
Pete's children went up in / into the tree house.
(Here into is clearer, and preferable).
They played in the tree house until lunchtime.

2. The children went down the garden is perfectly acceptable as it could be used as a reference to direction - from North to South.

Hope that helps!

[Roel]

Spitfire said:

I'll give a good example, which I disagree with and was very surprised to find it out, but the plural of the noun 'fish' is now 'fish or fishes'. What next, 'sheeps'?

My understanding (as a non-native English speaker) is that the plural form FISHES is nothing new and can be used when referring to different species of fish, as in "Fishes of the Mekhong" or a pike and a pike-perch are quite similar fishes.

[barrys]

Spitfire said:

I'll give a good example, which I disagree with and was very surprised to find it out, but the plural of the noun 'fish' is now 'fish or fishes'. What next, 'sheeps'?

My understanding (as a non-native English speaker) is that the plural form FISHES is nothing new and can be used when referring to different species of fish, as in "Fishes of the Mekhong" or a pike and a pike-perch are quite similar fishes.

I'm with Roel on this one, that's how I've always understood it.

Maybe a word of confirmation (or not) from our own resident ichthyologist - what do you think, Terry?

[Lung Per]

I'm afraid that you will now find that a lot of change, or meddling, goes on with the English language and many things that where considered incorrect when you were young have now become acceptable.

There are also more non native speakers of the language than native now. Perhaps what you are getting at is the difference between what we could call 'classic' English as opposed to the 'international' English we have here and elswhere which appears to be in the process of being bastardized.

Also have to mention that 'common usage' seems to play a part.

I'll give a good example, which I disagree with and was very surprised to find it out, but the plural of the noun 'fish' is now 'fish or fishes'. What next, 'sheeps'?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... #fish_1__3

Italian English (Hoboken, N.J.):
He sheeps with the fishes
Get it?

[STEVE G]

Biff and Chip went up in the tree house. I think that the proper word is into.

To be pedanticly English, it would be possible for them to ascend in a treehouse only in the unlikely event that the treehouse was rising also!
How fast was the tree growing?

[PeteC]

.....2. The children went down the garden is perfectly acceptable as it could be used as a reference to direction - from North to South.

Thanks for all that. To clarify, the context of the above was that they were not in the garden in the first place, but going to it. Pete

[PeteC]

Biff and Chip went up in the tree house. I think that the proper word is into.

To be pedanticly English, it would be possible for them to ascend in a treehouse only in the unlikely event that the treehouse was rising also! How fast was the tree growing?

Levitation is a possibility as well. Pete

[Spitfire]

Well, there is certainly some ambiguity surrounding the noun fish and it's plural and is generally regarded as troublesome. When you Google search for the answer you actually have a whole host of sites claiming one or the other that it either doesn't change or that it has the '-es' form after it and both are right.

As said, a good example of the confusion that surrounds some words/grammar rules/punctuation in the modern English language.

As with many other situations/examples, both are correct, and this often is a cause for confusion in non native students that are learning as they are used to the rigid rules of their own native language.

To be honest, in the UK whilst young and at school, I'd never even heard of the fishes form and was taught that it didn't change.

To me the fishes form just sounds alien, like it belongs in a under 5s cartoon book with something like "Look at all the fishes."

Just a personal perspective even if both are correct in certain situations.

Wikipedia seems to think that in general it doesn't change and that it is possible that using the plural fish could imply many individual fish(es) of the same species and using the form of fishes could imply many individual fish(es) of differing species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural

So, "Fishes of Mekong" could well be correct, or not, depending on the context and what the user means.

All shades of grey and hardly a clear-cut case to be honest. It appears that both are correct but both need to be used in the right way or at the right time.

[johnnyk]

Biff and Chip went up in the tree house. I think that the proper word is into.

To be pedanticly English, it would be possible for them to ascend in a treehouse only in the unlikely event that the treehouse was rising also!
How fast was the tree growing?

What if it was a two-level treehouse with a wee ladder or stairs inside?

[barrys]

The general problems associated with the development of the English language include the fact that there are so many globally regional variations (themselves often influenced by other languages/dialects) and that there is no regulatory body to determine what is correct.

Languages are, by nature, evolutionary and even regulatory authorities, as exist in Germany, France etc., cannot force people to use language in the way an academic body deems to be the sole acceptable form.

The simple rule is: you can't hold back the development - right or wrong is simply a subjective perception.
And the route the development takes is invariably that of continued simplification, especially with respect to grammar.

[PeteC]

It's been a long time since I've taken any entrance examinations or SAT's etc. Reading the above it seems all has become so subjective it may be impossible to properly score an essay for grammar rather than just content.

My little one is only in first grade but I can see the day coming in a few years where a mighty battle will take place if she scores badly and the reason is interpretation of rules one way, when several possibilities may exist. Pete

[STEVE G]

Biff and Chip went up in the tree house. I think that the proper word is into.

To be pedanticly English, it would be possible for them to ascend in a treehouse only in the unlikely event that the treehouse was rising also!
How fast was the tree growing?

What if it was a two-level treehouse with a wee ladder or stairs inside?

Yes, I remember treehouses being small but you're quite right, a multi-level treehouse would work. It would also have to be a big tree which might be growing quicker, so they could be going up twice at the same time!

To me the fishes form just sounds alien, like it belongs in a under 5s cartoon book with something like "Look at all the fishes."

Perhaps you can blame the King James version of the Bible for fishes. I'm not sure that the word would exist without it.