As Shawn says, in general we can't leave out the subject of a sentence in the same way as you can in some Latin languages. Our verb forms don't vary much, so you need to hear the subject to understand the sentence. With some verbs and in some phrases, though, you can drop the subject, in informal speech.
' is an example of a informal phrase without a subject. I wouldn't recommend you try this, however. Native speakers know instinctively when you can and can't drop the subject, and - in most cases - you can't. As for 'am' instead of 'I'm' , no, we never say that. This is probably because it's just as quick and easier to say the full form.
The only time that 'am' is ever used without the 'I' is when we are writing informal notes, messages, texts and so on. You might write a note to your friend or family saying something like 'Am in town. This 'telegram' style of writing is quite common in casual messages.
A double negative is a construction occurring when two forms of grammatical negation are used in the same sentence. Multiple negation is the more general term referring to the occurrence of more than one negative in a clause. In some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation. Languages where multiple negatives affirm each other are said to have negative concord or emphatic negation.
Portuguese, Persian, French, Russian, Greek, Spanish, Old English, Italian, Afrikaans, Hebrew are examples of negative-concord languages. This is also true of many vernacular dialects of modern English. Chinese, Latin, German, Dutch, Japanese, Swedish and modern Standard English are examples of languages that do not have negative concord. It is cross-linguistically observed that languages with negative-concord are more common than those without. Around 1795, the language authorities Lindley Murray, Joseph Priestly, and Hugh Blair, amongst others, campaigned against pronoun irregularities in pronoun use, such as lack of agreement in gender and number. Without coining words, this can only be done in the third person singular by use of compound terms like "his or her".
Grammarians in 1879, 1922, 1931, 1957, and the 1970s have accepted "they" as a singular term that could be used in place of "he" or "he or she", though sometimes limiting it to informal constructions. Others in 1795, 1825, 1863, 1898, 1926, and 1982 argued against it for various reasons. And whatever the grammarians might argue, people have been using the singular "they" for about the last 600 years, though it can only be applied in certain cases. If new gender-neutral pronouns are not adopted, i'm sure that singular "they" will still be a point of contention for centuries to come. For further information on the use of singular "their" throughout the centuries, see thelarge body of informationthat Henry Churchyard has compiled on the subject. The phrase it is I is correct for formal writing.
Traditionally, the use of I is appropriate when it follows a linking verb like is, was, or were. Linking verbs express a state of being rather than describing an action. They're usually paired with subject pronouns.
Subject pronouns include I, he, she, they, and we. They reference the person performing the action in the sentence. There are some words in the English vocabulary which sound the same as another word but have a drastically different meaning. These words are called homophones and are very common in everyday English.
Homophones are pairs, and occasionally trios, of words that sound the same but have different spellings and different means. They often cause native English speakers problems and are a frequent source of questions for those who learn English online, especially those who learn English online. Incorrect word selection is often not found when spell-checking documents since many do not check for correct grammar. This adds another level of difficulty for those just learning English as the incorrect usage is not discovered until too late. English is a language that evolves quite rapidly. This means that its grammar rules and its vocabulary evolve from how native speakers are speaking.
French has l'Académie française, and so it evolves much less rapidly. If I were to take a stab at it, I would say that in the US, "learnt" became "learned" in an attempt to simplify the language and to remove exceptions. Canada also follows the British English rules. Another one of those rules is the use of the "z". In the US, you would write organize, criticize, etc. whereas in Canada, as per British English, we would write organise, criticise, etc.
Also, in the US you would write color, odor, etc., whereas in Canada we would write colour, odour. In this case, I do not believe that the evolution stems from a mispronunciation, although many words have evolved and evolve today due to chronic mispronunciations. It is what is taught in schools as proper English. In the US we us a z in many places that an s is used in the UK.
Calling it "British" English is simply differentiating the more common rules between the two countries, not the accents. If accent was the only rule then we would be speaking thousands of English forms in the US alone. However, it is rules dealing with the proper use of words, phrases, etc. We do not use "learnt" in the US nor do we spell it, organisation.
If you can tell me that in Scotland they are using z's instead of an s then we won't group you in calling it British English. However, for the general types without getting picky for the slang and accent preferences to a region, a common type of English is spoken in the UK that is referred to as British English. A common type is spoken in the US that is referred to as American English. All other English speaking countries will typically fall under one of these sets. We don't say, you speak Australian English, or New Zealand or even South African English. For speaking English in the world there are two major distinctions, American English and British English.
The key to understanding the former examples and knowing whether a double negative is intensive or negative is finding a verb between the two negatives. If a verb is present between the two, the latter negative becomes an intensifier which does not negate the former. In the first example, the verb to go separates the two negatives; therefore the latter negative does not negate the already negated verb.
Indeed, the word 'nowhere' is thus being used as an adverb and does not negate the argument of the sentence. Double negatives such as I don't want to know no more contrast with Romance languages such as French in Je ne veux pas savoir. Also, the dichotomy of "he and she" in English does not leave room for other gender identities, which is a source of frustration to the transgender and gender queer communities. I know you brits love to talk shit about Americans, but most of the time you just make fools out of yourselves (which isn't difficult, most of you are fools to begin with). It says learned appears 3 times as often as learnt in britain, as in even in that spotted dick eating country, learned is still more commonly used.
Just because you're English doesn't mean you can't be corrected on the English language (even though that's not what I'm doing. Just pointing out your ignorance). Then you're wrong, as all the sources I've read, including this one, accept both forms. Use "learned" if you like, as I use "learnt" — but it would be rude, and wrong-headed for me to correct your usage just as it would be rude and wrong-headed for you to correct mine. In Modern Greek, a double negative can express either an affirmation or a negation, depending on the word combination. When expressing negation, it usually carries an emphasis with it. Native speakers can usually understand the sentence meaning from the voice tone and the context.
With the meaning "I completely agree", Lowth would have been referring to litotes wherein two negatives simply cancel each other out. However, the usage of intensifying negatives and examples are presented in his work, which could also imply he wanted either usage of double negatives abolished. Because of this ambiguity, double negatives are frequently employed when making back-handed compliments. The phrase "Mr. Jones wasn't incompetent." will seldom mean "Mr. Jones was very competent" since the speaker would've found a more flattering way to say so. Instead, some kind of problem is implied, though Mr. Jones possesses basic competence at his tasks.
I do understand that not everyone who supports the use of terminology "person with autism" would disagree with language like "suffers from," but it is still interesting that there are those who do. It suggests a fundamental shared value — that people with different neurological conditions are not "suffering" because of their difference or disability. Indeed, what makes prepositions tricky is that more than one can seem to fit in a sentence but the wrong one can change its meaning. The best way to learn the correct usage of at is to pay attention to people speaking and to what you're reading, and then keep practicing.
Once you retain that information you will always be able to use this preposition correctly. The method of studying language known as 'contrastive analysis' involves drawing students' attention to similarities and differences between Ebonics and Standard English. So if you say "istoric" or you grew up in a region where everyone says "istoric," it's reasonable that you might think it should be "an istoric" because to you, the word starts with a vowel sound. But, that's not the common, standard pronunciation in most of the world, so unless you're writing for a regional publication and all your readers call things "istoric," it's not the correct choice. I'm is the contraction of "I am", whereas am is simply the verb with no pronoun before it.
No, it's not grammatically correct to drop the "I" and start these phrases with "am". Proper English requires the pronoun before the verb. Using the contraction (I'm) is the less formal way to say it. In this case "learned" has two distinct syllables, ler-ned. The reason a correction comes up for various words is more commonly because spell check is set to "US English". If "Learnt" is more common in Britain, doesn't that make "Learned" the colloquial form?
But really, the people claiming that one form is correct and the other arbitrarily wrong are just being arrogant. There's so many instances of highly nuanced usages or multiple words with the same meaning in this language that it's ridiculous to declare one right and one wrong, much as we may hate the ambiguity. Does this extend to other words whose past tense can either end in "-ed" or "-t"? Specifically, I am thinking of "dreamed/dreamt", where the pronunciation is affected more than in "learned/learnt". The former would be pronounced with a long "e" sound and the latter with a short "e".
Can you use am instead of IM Eks – I hate to disagree, but American English does not pronounce "learned" and "learnt" the same. We pronounce them the way they are spelled. Learned with a "d" ending sound and Learnt with a "t" ending sound.
The difference in the two are really quite noticeable. If you are hearing the "t" ending sound it is because the speaker is saying learnt and not learned. I live in and grew up in the southern U.S.. Even with our Southern dialect butchering some words you can tell the difference.
We were always taught to use learned and thought learnt was improper speech or slang. But, we could always tell the difference between the two. To make question sentences from positive or negative sentences, put verb or 'verb + not' before the subject. If you want to make negative questions, you can use the contractions. As with most synthetic satem languages double negative is mandatory in Latvian and Lithuanian.
Furthermore, all verbs and indefinite pronouns in a given statement must be negated, so it could be said that multiple negative is mandatory in Latvian. Words and language are powerful tools by which an individual can express ideas, whether abstract, actionable, or concrete. As a writer and editor, I know firsthand that language and the meanings we attach to words very much impact, influence, develop, and change the attitudes that we have toward the subjects of discussion. That is why people are easily insulted or upset by word choices. Changing a phrase — even if it holds the same literal meaning — alters the subtle connotations and nuances of the speech, and communicates a different meaning and context than the original phrasing. Clearly indicate which part of the day is being referred to, expressions of time like in the morning, this afternoon, and tonight are unnecessary with these time abbreviations.
Although such expressions are common in speech, avoid using them with a.m./p.m. When the exact time is not important, and in informal contexts, such as in everyday speech, the abbreviations a.m. In particular, when it is clear which half of the day is being referred to, using these abbreviations may sound unnecessarily formal. Speakers then use phrases like o'clock, half past, and a quarter past, or simply the numbers for time. You use the phrase "if I were…" when you are using the subjunctive mood. You may or may not have heard of this grammatical tense (it's not taught very often in English studies when English is your first language), but you probably use it all the time.
The subjunctive is used to talk about hypothetical situations or things that are contrary to fact. "If I were" is also used when you are wishing for something. Learnt came about during a period in the 16th through 18th centuries in which there was a trend toward replacing -ed endings with -t in words where -ed was no longer pronounced as a separate syllable. Later, British writers continued to favor the newer -t forms for a handful of verbs, while North Americans went back to the more traditional -ed forms.
Burnt came about during a period in the 16th through 18th centuries in which there was a trend toward replacing -ed endings with -t in words where -ed was no longer pronounced as a separate syllable. An interesting point to note is that both the past tense forms "learnt" and "learned" are pronounced similarly (with the ending 't' sound). Are slowing losing any sense of what grammar even is! Despite being born & raised here, I find it extremely embarrassing to read other posts, watch TV, podcasts, etc. by Americans utilizing "words", slang, or misspelling every other word. I know some people say it is "texting syndrome" and whatnot, but to me?
It's utter laziness & an unwillingness to learn. Teachers & schools, as well, are to blame. Not one of my boys ever had any type of grammar lessons once they are out of middle school. High School English consisted of reading a book followed by a project.
Luckily, I'm a stickler for proper grammar and spelling. I'm not perfect, but I want to hold normal conversations with them and they have the ability to not look ridiculous when they write. Stylistically, in English, double negatives can sometimes be used for affirmation (e.g. "I'm not feeling not good"), an understatement of the positive ("I'm feeling good"). Look for a "by" phrase (e.g., "by the dog" in the last example above). If you find one, the sentence may be in the passive voice.
