A few queries related to English

[ascher]

1-what is it with the sub-continent dialect that makes us pronounce "hours" as "Aarz" and "flowers" as "flarz", have never seen anyone pronounce these words like that, be it the mainstream english, u.s, australian, Nz, canadian or south african accents for that matter.

However, apparently in our schools it is emphasized that you pronounce those words precisely in the above mentioned fashion.


2-can "would" replace "used to" everywhere, when one is talking about something that was done regularly in the past i.e .."we used to play cricket after coming back from school" OR "we would play cricket after coming back from school"?

3-The exact use of "would":

Although if my memory serves me well then our english grammar books told us to use "will" when talking about future (the exact use of "would" for some reason always went above my head) but it seems that more and more native english people hardly make any distinction between these words while speaking at least.

So would really appreciate it if some one can make me understand the real and proper use of these word ..and btw can we use"could" in place of "can" in the present sentences as well ..some on told me that replacing "can" with "could" sounds more "courteous"?

[AZ]

1 - It is from the British accent, upper class type.

2 - Yes.

3 - Not sure about this one :P

[ascher]

1 - It is from the British accent, upper class type.
2 - Yes.

3 - Not sure about this one :P

1-Are you sure about it, I mean have you actually heard some character pronouncing these words like that in any of those british royal/ period dramas or is it just something that you heard with in pakistan?

2-In that case which is more acceptable and preferable?


3-Is it just me or you also came across such cases, though, didn't find them worthy enough to ask about?

[AZ]

1 - watch some old Merchant Ivory films, you'll hear it :)

2 - Would sounds more classy, I suppose...makes it sound more dreamy and nostalgic.

3 - I admit I've never pondered over it like you have, but I can see where you're coming from :)

[MC]

Number 1 is definitely not 'polished' British upper class pronunciation. I'd say its pretty cockney sounding.

[kkmix]

1 - I think it's a sub continent thing when people try to fake accent, or try to look cool, they would pronounce it like that.

2 - You can use both, but "We used to ..." sounds better. When you say "we would ...", the person has to know you are talking in the past. If he doesn't then he will be lost. But if you say "we used to ...", then they immediately know that you are talking in the past. So use that just to be on the safe side.

3 - I am not sure actually. I've been using it forever but I donno why and where I use it.

[LethalSami]

1.......hours is pronounced "Ourz"

2.....can be replaceable sometimes, but doesn't sound right always........


See boy, me ain't no grammer freak, if it soundz right, then it meanz it prolly is........and remember just Keep it real' Bro.........don't try to over-do it..............and git 'er done :P

[ascher]

1.......hours is pronounced "Ourz"

2.....can be replaceable sometimes, but doesn't sound right always........


See boy, me ain't no grammer freak, if it soundz right, then it meanz it prolly is........and remember just Keep it real' Bro.........don't try to over-do it..............and git 'er done :P

Yo bla!...homey it's just that me have problems while writing ..yo! :D

[LethalSami]

^^i was doin Redneck/Southern (Amriki) thang........and u did that Hispanics wannabe niggerz thing boi........

Lolz anyways

[ApolloX]

In school we had a teacher from Lahore she use to say the Number one all the time

[SAF]

1. I think its just the desies who pronounce it that way.
Dont know about the british accent that but this is how we say it in US:
http://www.forvo.com/word/hours/ (Click play)

2. Yes it can. But I think 'used to' sounds better ;-)

Btw, Ascher--Do you live in Pakistan??? or somewhere internationally?

[ascher]

Faisalabad, pakistan..why do you ask?..if i may..
Sent from my Ideos using Tapatalk

[ace4rmspace]

Regarding the Aarz and Flaarz thing, it is something the ultra posh tend to do, the awfully-awfully gang. AZ is on the money with that one.

One of the most absurd pronunciations I've heard is hours being pronounced "Haarverz" and flowers "Flaarvers". It's a desi abomination.

[ascher]

Regarding the Aarz and Flaarz thing, it is something the ultra posh tend to do, the awfully-awfully gang. AZ is on the money with that one.

One of the most absurd pronunciations I've heard is hours being pronounced "Haarverz" and flowers "Flaarvers". It's a desi abomination.

Could you please come up with some evidence on it?

It's just that while most of the people come up with this kind of explanation here, in reality none of them could show me any grammatical or real justification of it.

The way I see it, it must have been some archaic or obsolete pronunciation which is still being taught at our "colonial" schools.

[Die-Hard TestCricket Fan]

In regards to the first point, that is how we learnt it at school from a young age. We would have to enunciate the words and saying hours as 'ourz' is the correct way to do so. It is not to do with class or being posh, it is merely the (at the risk of sounding like a stuck up snob) refined way to say the word. It is the same way with words such as glass, or fast. Some say it with a flat 'a' sound, rhymes with mass. But it should be pronounced (at least the way I learnt it) with emphasis on the 'a' sound.

See, same thing. Did that make sense?

Also on the second and third points, the way I was taught, we would use the word 'would' instead of 'used'. I never really understood it, but it sounds correct and proper.
I don't think that there is any real grammatical connotations for the use of the word in such a way, but it is widely used for forming conditional verbs.

About the can/could issue, it depends on the context of the sentence. Are you talking about using the words in a statement or a question? When asking questions, 'could' is more formal and polite. e.g. 'Could you pass me the water?' as opposed to 'Can you pass me the water?'

Wow... just realised I wrote a lot. I'm not a posh stuck-up brat! Just an lover of English Literature.

[ascher]

JIn regards to the first point, that is how we learnt it at school from a young age. We would have to enunciate the words and saying hours as 'ourz' is the correct way to do so. It is not to do with class or being posh, it is merely the (at the risk of sounding like a stuck up snob) refined way to say the word. It is the same way with words such as glass, or fast. Some say it with a flat 'a' sound, rhymes with mass. But it should be pronounced (at least the way I learnt it) with emphasis on the 'a' sound.



See, same thing. Did that make sense?



Also on the second and third points, the way I was taught, we would use the word 'would' instead of 'used'. I never really understood it, but it sounds correct and proper.

I don't think that there is any real grammatical connotations for the use of the word in such a way, but it is widely used for forming conditional verbs.



About the can/could issue, it depends on the context of the sentence. Are you talking about using the words in a statement or a question? When asking questions, 'could' is more formal and polite. e.g. 'Could you pass me the water?' as opposed to 'Can you pass me the water?'



Wow... just realised I wrote a lot. I'm not a posh stuck-up brat! Just an lover of English Literature.

At the first point:
So are you saying that pronouncing hours as "aarz", flowers as "flaarz" and our as "aar", is in fact the right way ?
And if so then did you learn it in school outside pakistan?
Though, don't you think that even if that is the right pronounciation yet we are much better off ignoring it as most of the native english speaking world (from articulate authors to eccentric gangsters) is pronouncing it the otherway anyhow?

2- thanks a lot for shedding light on could/ can issue (even though it would have been better if you had shed some more light on using could in place of can in present sentences where can comes in the middle of a sentence) I would really appreciate it if you could explain the real difference while using will/ would? :)
Sent from my Ideos using Tapatalk

[Die-Hard TestCricket Fan]

In the first instance, saying flowers in such a way is hardly even heard anymore. Most people say it with two distinct syllables flow-ers, I learnt to say it as almost one syllable, sort of rolling off the tongue in one go, making it sould like 'flaarzs'. I think it originated from 1600's English where pronunciation of words was very different from today.
It seems very rare nowadays to hear that anymore, I went to an old fashioned school in England. Although sometimes, with certain dialects, the 'w' is not pronounced, but this is because of accents. I don't think that the pronunciation of these words are that important, most people don't even notice the difference when they are said in a sentence.

When using 'can' in the middle of a sentence, it can be used as a possibilty/ability in the present or the future, e.g. I can play cricket. Can't is the negative, e.g. I can't play cricket. Here 'could' could also be used when referring to the past tense. It could be used for general paat ability but you have to be careful as 'was/was able' can also be used. Could is also used in future possibilities, e.g. Pakistan could win the WC.

With the 'would/will' issue, again 'would' is more polite and formal.
e.g 'Will you come here?'
'Can you come here?'
These sound direct and informal
'Would you come here?'
'Could you come here?'
More polite, sounds like less of an order and more of a request.

When 'can' refers to permission, possibility, or suggestion, the future used is 'could'
When 'can' refers to ability/capacity, the future form remains 'can'

Does that make any more sense, or have I just confused you?

[ascher]

In the first instance, saying flowers in such a way is hardly even heard anymore. Most people say it with two distinct syllables flow-ers, I learnt to say it as almost one syllable, sort of rolling off the tongue in one go, making it sould like 'flaarzs'. I think it originated from 1600's English where pronunciation of words was very different from today.
It seems very rare nowadays to hear that anymore, I went to an old fashioned school in England. Although sometimes, with certain dialects, the 'w' is not pronounced, but this is because of accents. I don't think that the pronunciation of these words are that important, most people don't even notice the difference when they are said in a sentence.

When using 'can' in the middle of a sentence, it can be used as a possibilty/ability in the present or the future, e.g. I can play cricket. Can't is the negative, e.g. I can't play cricket. Here 'could' could also be used when referring to the past tense. It could be used for general paat ability but you have to be careful as 'was/was able' can also be used. Could is also used in future possibilities, e.g. Pakistan could win the WC.

With the 'would/will' issue, again 'would' is more polite and formal.
e.g 'Will you come here?'
'Can you come here?'
These sound direct and informal
'Would you come here?'
'Could you come here?'
More polite, sounds like less of an order and more of a request.

When 'can' refers to permission, possibility, or suggestion, the future used is 'could'
When 'can' refers to ability/capacity, the future form remains 'can'

Does that make any more sense, or have I just confused you?

Actually, I would indeed have been more confused if it wasn't for those bold lines of yours, they really make the whole thing easy and precise. :D

Btw, Does the same rule apply with "will"/ "would" as well?

Also, since we are at it.. :D

1-which is the correct sentence here (formally)

If I were a king/ If I was a king ?

2- why some native english speaker use "shall" instead of "should" in the start of a sentence when asking about some one's opinions?

i.e Shall I push you?, instead of, Should I push you?...I ask this because in Pakistan they teach this hard and fast rule in our grammar books that one should always use "should" when one deals with sentences which have the urdu word "chahiyay" in them! (it may sound totally ridiculous to you that I am actually trying to formulate english sentences on the basis of urdu words but what can I do?, it's almost an unavoidable option for any non-english speaker for whom english doesn't come naturally :( )

[Die-Hard TestCricket Fan]

Will/would is a bit different. That is because these words can be used in a wider range and it really depends on the context used.

It is definitely 'If I were'. Also, technically it is 'If I were King' not 'If I were a King'.

In regard to questions 'should' generally has more flexibilty and is looser.
e.g. Should I do this?
As opposed to
Shall I do this?
The first sounds more like a request for an opinion rather than confirmation as the second does.

e.g Where shall I put these books?'
Where should I put these books?'

When saying 'shall': willingness and offering
When saying 'should': obligation or duty is implied

However, the use of these words is completely flipped and jumbled in the context of legal documents.

It really depends on context of the statement or phrase.
I'm really sure how it is learnt in Pakistan, or the translation directly from Urdu. My mum always complains about the way I speak Urdu/Punjabi!

[ascher]

Thanks bro for taking your time out to answer -what otherwise could be called as -rather dumb questions :D
Sent from my Ideos using Tapatalk

[Die-Hard TestCricket Fan]

That's cool. Hope I was some help. But again with the bro thing, not everyone on this site is a guy!!!

[ascher]

That's cool. Hope I was some help. But again with the bro thing, not everyone on this site is a guy!!!

:D...Black and white pic of Imran, A nick-name suggesting immense love for Test Cricket, discussing nitty gritty of a dull subject like English grammar on a language forum..you can't blame me for having ignored that small tinge of "pink" in your signatures, can you? :D

[Die-Hard TestCricket Fan]

Mmk..I'll let you off for not picking up on it. I only recently changed my signature anyhoo. And why do you think only a guy would be interested in Imran Khan and Test cricket?
Also, I will let you off for calling English dull. Maybe...:imran

[ascher]

Mmk..I'll let you off for not picking up on it. I only recently changed my signature anyhoo. And why do you think only a guy would be interested in Imran Khan and Test cricket?
Also, I will let you off for calling English dull. Maybe...:imran

Imran Khan ...perhaps too old for being a heart-throb that he once was for most of the ladies?..though it was the sober black and white test kit pic that deceived me (Mostly guys and that too 30+ use such avatars but then again it just me and the generalizations that I depend upon)


Test Cricket..Then again, Although I was generalizing here as well but tbh with you, to see a girl claiming to be die-hard test cricket fan and that too in a culture (I am referring to Pakistan here) where even men find it too complex/ non-cheesy/sluggish to follow , is certainly a pleasant surprise.

You certainly look like the intellectual types (i.e love test cricket, literature etc, have a tendency to go into the crux of the matter just to help others ) would be too bad if you disappoint me now and say that you are religious!..So, are you?

just asking out of curiosity as I have observed that people who generally have such passions are too good to toe cliched lines of religion!..You can always ignore it if you find it too personal to answer :D

[Die-Hard TestCricket Fan]

First off...Imran Khan too old to be a heart throb?! OK so he is getting on a bit but still...The picture is just one that I like, no particular reason for it being black and white.

I have a insane obsession with Test cricket. My whole family cannot stand it at all. When test series are on, sometimes my Mom disconnects the sports channels (she also does this when I cry when watching cricket). I have skived off school to go and watch Tests in London. I can watch it all day long, its beautiful.


Not particularly religious. Religion is a touchy subject with me. I'm interested in science, especially biology and physics. Once at Mosque I asked a question on how far Muslim beliefs corresponds with idea of modern Physics. The response I received was a slap across the cheek. I am the type of person who does not take things at face value and needs proof and logical answers. Since no one is willing or is just simply lacking in the mental capacity to answer any of my questions, my religious interest have abbated but I still consider myself a (borderline) good Muslim.

You yourself seem like an intellectual person, your interest in the English language is refreshing and rare to see these days.
How are you with religion? Do you toe the cliched lines of religion?

[ascher]

Well I consider myself agnostic deep down inside but of course I am as agnostic as one can be in a conservative/ strongly religious society that Pakistan is. (Don't wanna get killed after being declared as an apostate anyway) :D

No wonder I am known as "Musalmanoon kay ghar payda hua shetan" by my mum , An undercover Ahmedi/shia in my friend's circle and an Indian agent on this forum :D

[Die-Hard TestCricket Fan]

You are brave.;-)
I wouldn't dare come out and say something like that despite what I really feel deep down.

Not really sure if I can call myself a good Musalmaan, but I think I'm a good person (most of the time, everyone slips up right?).
I don't usually talk to my Mom about religion, she doesn't like me asking too many questions. I tend to keep to myself about that sort of stuff. I find people are easily offended when you question their beliefs (or the basis of their beliefs).

[Suresh Iyer]

[3-The exact use of "would":

Although if my memory serves me well then our english grammar books told us to use "will" when talking about future (the exact use of "would" for some reason always went above my head) but it seems that more and more native english people hardly make any distinction between these words while speaking at least.

So would really appreciate it if some one can make me understand the real and proper use of these word ..and btw can we use"could" in place of "can" in the present sentences as well ..some on told me that replacing "can" with "could" sounds more "courteous"?[/QUOTE]

Would is the past form of will in the sense that:

He said, "I will go to school today".

This sentence when converted to reported speech would be: He said that he would go to school that day.

===
Used to refers to something done in the past but no longer in the present.