| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Swindle
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
 |
|
In a discussion about cameras
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&thread=28487373
a question arose: What is an "'sb"?
An "sb" is of course a "somebody," just as an "sth" is a "something."
The person who used the term had an excellent command of English as a
second language and had seen "sb" in definitions in all of his
dictionaries. But I suspect it's familiar to native speakers only if
they've taught ESL or if they've used bilingual dictionaries to study
other languages.
My question is: Why would the abbreviations "sb" and "sth" be used
only in addressing second-language learners and not in addressing
native speakers? Do native speakers have less use for the terms
"somebody" and "something"? How could that be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lars Eighner
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
In our last episode, <p6lr64paudmspr73p6plmkhjkvamtse777@4ax.com>, the
lovely and talented John Swindle broadcast on alt.usage.english:
| Quote: |
My question is: Why would the abbreviations "sb" and "sth" be used
only in addressing second-language learners and not in addressing
native speakers? Do native speakers have less use for the terms
"somebody" and "something"? How could that be?
|
I think native speakers do have less need of 'somebody' and 'something' than
ESL students have. I suppose it is more often necessary to make it clear to
ESL students when a verb is transitive. With nouns and the pronoun 'it,'
ESL students may no be able to tell if there is an object in a sentence, and
if there is, what it might be.
Of course native speakers will not know whether some verb that is new to
them is transitive, but given one example, they can sort it out without
trouble. A native speaker can get through grammar school without
appreciation that there is a difference in the meaning of 'burn' in
'It burned' and 'Tom burned it.' But a native speaker does not need to be
able to expound upon the difference in a five-page paper. He know the
difference, and adjusts for it, at the practical level because he is a
native speaker. If he encounters 'It set fire,' the native speaker
immediately asks 'To what?' In other words he knows:
It burned.
*It set fire.
*It set afire.
He burned it.
He set fire to it.
He set it afire.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com
If you want to sacrifice the admiration of many men for the criticism
of one, go ahead, get married. --Katherine Hepburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Swindle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 02:42:50 -0600, Athel Cornish-Bowden (BrE)
<acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 2008-07-04 02:09:44 -0600, John Swindle <jcswindle@msn.com> said:
In a discussion about cameras
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&thread=28487373
a question arose: What is an "'sb"?
An "sb" is of course
Why "of course"? When this came up before it was clear that for many
native speakers it is by no means obvious why "sb" should mean
"somebody". It's only obvious to people who teach or learn English as a
foreign language, or to people who spend a lot of time reading
dictionaries.
In ordinary English "someone" is at least as common as "somebody":
would you say that of course "so" means "someone"?
a "somebody," just as an "sth" is a "something."
The person who used the term had an excellent command of English as a
second language and had seen "sb" in definitions in all of his
dictionaries. But I suspect it's familiar to native speakers only if
they've taught ESL or if they've used bilingual dictionaries to study
other languages.
That's exactly why your earlier "of course" is wrong.
My question is: Why would the abbreviations "sb" and "sth" be used
only in addressing second-language learners and not in addressing
native speakers? Do native speakers have less use for the terms
"somebody" and "something"? How could that be?
Quite simply: (a) the two words are much more common in dictionaries
that include usage examples than they are in ordinary speech; (b)
dictionaries can save a lot of space by using abbreviations that save a
trivial amount of space in ordinary writing. Would you advocate using
"v", "n", "adj", "prep", "conj" and "adv" in ordinary writing?
|
Thanks for your response.
The "of course" was because this forum is about language, and "v",
"n", "adj", "prep", "conj", "adv"--and "sb" and "sth"--are
abbreviations used in talking about language. It seemed likely that
folks who hang out here would be familiar with them. Of those
abbreviations, though, only "sb" and "sth" seem to be limited to use
in works for non-native language learners. Lars Eighner has kindly
(and convincingly) explained why that should be the case.
John Swindle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Swindle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
<usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
. . .
I think native speakers do have less need of 'somebody' and 'something' than
ESL students have. I suppose it is more often necessary to make it clear to
ESL students when a verb is transitive. With nouns and the pronoun 'it,'
ESL students may no be able to tell if there is an object in a sentence, and
if there is, what it might be.
Of course native speakers will not know whether some verb that is new to
them is transitive, but given one example, they can sort it out without
trouble. A native speaker can get through grammar school without
appreciation that there is a difference in the meaning of 'burn' in
'It burned' and 'Tom burned it.' But a native speaker does not need to be
able to expound upon the difference in a five-page paper. He know the
difference, and adjusts for it, at the practical level because he is a
native speaker. If he encounters 'It set fire,' the native speaker
immediately asks 'To what?' In other words he knows:
It burned.
*It set fire.
*It set afire.
He burned it.
He set fire to it.
He set it afire.
|
Yes, I see. That does make sense. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Athel Cornish-Bowden (BrE
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On 2008-07-04 02:09:44 -0600, John Swindle <jcswindle@msn.com> said:
Why "of course"? When this came up before it was clear that for many
native speakers it is by no means obvious why "sb" should mean
"somebody". It's only obvious to people who teach or learn English as a
foreign language, or to people who spend a lot of time reading
dictionaries.
In ordinary English "someone" is at least as common as "somebody":
would you say that of course "so" means "someone"?
| Quote: |
a "somebody," just as an "sth" is a "something."
The person who used the term had an excellent command of English as a
second language and had seen "sb" in definitions in all of his
dictionaries. But I suspect it's familiar to native speakers only if
they've taught ESL or if they've used bilingual dictionaries to study
other languages.
|
That's exactly why your earlier "of course" is wrong.
| Quote: |
My question is: Why would the abbreviations "sb" and "sth" be used
only in addressing second-language learners and not in addressing
native speakers? Do native speakers have less use for the terms
"somebody" and "something"? How could that be?
|
Quite simply: (a) the two words are much more common in dictionaries
that include usage examples than they are in ordinary speech; (b)
dictionaries can save a lot of space by using abbreviations that save a
trivial amount of space in ordinary writing. Would you advocate using
"v", "n", "adj", "prep", "conj" and "adv" in ordinary writing?
--
athel (BrE) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike L
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On Jul 4, 10:08�am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
[...explanation of abbrs "s.b." etc...]
Yes, I see. �That does make sense. �Thanks!
|
Note also that these abbrs are much used by EFL teachers writing on
blackboards: they can save quite a bit of time.
But, for reasons which still remain slightly opaque to me, several
Respected Regulars of this newsgroup, though readily accepting "AmE",
"adv.", and others, do find the "s'th." family of contrs irritating in
a manner likely to entertain the bystander.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tony cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike L
<mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 10:08?am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
[...explanation of abbrs "s.b." etc...]
Yes, I see. ?That does make sense. ?Thanks!
Note also that these abbrs are much used by EFL teachers writing on
blackboards: they can save quite a bit of time.
But, for reasons which still remain slightly opaque to me, several
Respected Regulars of this newsgroup, though readily accepting "AmE",
"adv.", and others, do find the "s'th." family of contrs irritating in
a manner likely to entertain the bystander.
|
Time and place. I accept "AmE" in this group because there are so
many discussions of the difference between AmE and BrE. This is the
only newsgroup in which I see "AmE" or "BrE". A regular in one of the
other newsgroups that I read (photography, coins,Photoshop) might well
object to it.
If I participated in an EFL newsgroup, I wouldn't find "s.b."
objectionable.
In the coin newsgroup I read, there are many similar abbreviations. I
accept them there, but I wouldn't use them here.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On 2008-07-04 17:40:20 +0200, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike L
mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:08?am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
[...explanation of abbrs "s.b." etc...]
Yes, I see. ?That does make sense. ?Thanks!
Note also that these abbrs are much used by EFL teachers writing on
blackboards: they can save quite a bit of time.
But, for reasons which still remain slightly opaque to me, several
Respected Regulars of this newsgroup, though readily accepting "AmE",
"adv.", and others, do find the "s'th." family of contrs irritating in
a manner likely to entertain the bystander.
Time and place. I accept "AmE" in this group because there are so
many discussions of the difference between AmE and BrE. This is the
only newsgroup in which I see "AmE" or "BrE". A regular in one of the
other newsgroups that I read (photography, coins,Photoshop) might well
object to it.
If I participated in an EFL newsgroup, I wouldn't find "s.b."
objectionable.
In the coin newsgroup I read, there are many similar abbreviations. I
accept them there, but I wouldn't use them here.
|
That expresses my own point of view very well.
In addition, I suspect that most of the Chinese contributors to this
group simply don't know that sb and sth are unintelligible to ordinary
people who are not EFL teachers or avid readers of dictionaries, and
they need to know if they want to communicate with a broader audience.
--
athel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:
| Quote: |
In addition, I suspect that most of the Chinese contributors to this
group simply don't know that sb and sth are unintelligible to ordinary
people who are not EFL teachers or avid readers of dictionaries, and
they need to know if they want to communicate with a broader audience.
|
And then, just when that message sinks in and they agree to stop using them,
they go and set off a bomb like "third conditional"....r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Oleg Lego
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike L posted:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 10:08?am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
[...explanation of abbrs "s.b." etc...]
Yes, I see. ?That does make sense. ?Thanks!
Note also that these abbrs are much used by EFL teachers writing on
blackboards: they can save quite a bit of time.
But, for reasons which still remain slightly opaque to me, several
Respected Regulars of this newsgroup, though readily accepting "AmE",
"adv.", and others, do find the "s'th." family of contrs irritating in
a manner likely to entertain the bystander.
|
I find it irritating because some (perhaps most), ESL/EFL teachers
don't seem to realize that those particular abbreviations are jargon
unique to ESL/EFL references, and don't bother telling their students
that the use of them will forever mark them as non-native writers of
English.
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
Oleg Lego wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike L posted:
On Jul 4, 10:08?am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
[...explanation of abbrs "s.b." etc...]
Yes, I see. ?That does make sense. ?Thanks!
Note also that these abbrs are much used by EFL teachers writing on
blackboards: they can save quite a bit of time.
But, for reasons which still remain slightly opaque to me, several
Respected Regulars of this newsgroup, though readily accepting "AmE",
"adv.", and others, do find the "s'th." family of contrs irritating in
a manner likely to entertain the bystander.
I find it irritating because some (perhaps most), ESL/EFL teachers
don't seem to realize that those particular abbreviations are jargon
unique to ESL/EFL references, and don't bother telling their students
that the use of them will forever mark them as non-native writers of
English.
|
But it's worse than that. I had no idea what they meant before I found
AUE, and I bet my family still don't. What the students risk is being
incomprehensible to native speakers.
--
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
Oleg Lego wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike L posted:
On Jul 4, 10:08?am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
[...explanation of abbrs "s.b." etc...]
Yes, I see. ?That does make sense. ?Thanks!
Note also that these abbrs are much used by EFL teachers writing on
blackboards: they can save quite a bit of time.
But, for reasons which still remain slightly opaque to me, several
Respected Regulars of this newsgroup, though readily accepting "AmE",
"adv.", and others, do find the "s'th." family of contrs irritating in
a manner likely to entertain the bystander.
I find it irritating because some (perhaps most), ESL/EFL teachers
don't seem to realize that those particular abbreviations are jargon
unique to ESL/EFL references, and don't bother telling their students
that the use of them will forever mark them as non-native writers of
English.
|
Of course, some of us remember a time when, apart from a very few common
and mainly Latin ones, abbreviations were not used by anyone outside
those work areas where jargon was required, and even then, was
restricted to things like footnotes. I recall being soundly chastised
for using "etc." at school. I might add that, for me, "EFL" is
guessable, but not an abbreviation I am familiar with.
One of the sadder changes of our time is the extensive use of
abbreviations and acronyms in "normal" writing. NTIBM.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: |
Oleg Lego wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike L posted:
On Jul 4, 10:08?am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:02:50 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
[...explanation of abbrs "s.b." etc...]
Yes, I see. ?That does make sense. ?Thanks!
Note also that these abbrs are much used by EFL teachers writing on
blackboards: they can save quite a bit of time.
But, for reasons which still remain slightly opaque to me, several
Respected Regulars of this newsgroup, though readily accepting "AmE",
"adv.", and others, do find the "s'th." family of contrs irritating in
a manner likely to entertain the bystander.
I find it irritating because some (perhaps most), ESL/EFL teachers
don't seem to realize that those particular abbreviations are jargon
unique to ESL/EFL references, and don't bother telling their students
that the use of them will forever mark them as non-native writers of
English.
But it's worse than that. I had no idea what they meant before I found
AUE, and I bet my family still don't. What the students risk is being
incomprehensible to native speakers.
|
Do your family comprehend "AUE"?
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Karatassos
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On Jul 4, 4:09 am, John Swindle <jcswin...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
In a discussion about camerashttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&thread=2848...
a question arose: What is an "'sb"?
An "sb" is of course a "somebody," just as an "sth" is a "something."
The person who used the term had an excellent command of English as a
second language and had seen "sb" in definitions in all of his
dictionaries. But I suspect it's familiar to native speakers only if
they've taught ESL or if they've used bilingual dictionaries to study
other languages.
My question is: Why would the abbreviations "sb" and "sth" be used
only in addressing second-language learners and not in addressing
native speakers? Do native speakers have less use for the terms
"somebody" and "something"? How could that be?
|
In response to the OP...I'm reading this in Google Groups and a lot of
people have commented on this...which often means that we haven't
gotten to the meat and potatoes of it.
I believe Mike Lyle brought up the simple truth that these
abbreviations are much faster to write out than "something/somebody,"
but it takes time at the chalkface in front of inquiring minds before
someone can understand why speed can be as important as it is in
explaining something like "give sby sth/give sth TO sby." I've even
seen quite a few teachers turn to st/sb in recent years.
On the question of someone vs. somebody...yes...it does, to a small
extent, train students to overuse "somebody," which is slightly less
common in US usage and slightly less formal than "someone" in both UK
and US usage.
(For anyone that doesn't agree with the above usage analysis...blame
the corpora, not the messenger.)
But the real reason is time. EFL/ESL instructors don't often have time
to go over the abstract concepts of direct object/indirect object with
their students, and it's difficult to get these abstract concepts
across in a lower-level class. Adding to the time problem is the fact
that a not-so-surprising number of adult students have an extremely
negative reaction to formal grammar as well, so any significant
mention of these concepts tends to turn off the learning circuits for
a while. These learners want to believe, thanks to the extended
influence of Berlitz and his imitators, that they don't need to
understand anything about a language's grammar to learn a language
well.
After all, most first-language learners of English don't know anything
about grammar. Before I got into the ESL game, I was not much of an
exception.
If faced with an intermediate class working on learning how to use
"give," most instructors will write "give sby sth" and "give sth TO
sby" on the board and leave it at that. We save formal discussions on
the important role of word order in modern English, with its
simplified verb conjugations and non-declensed, neuter nouns, for the
advanced classes.
That being said, not too many young people who are non-native speakers
of English end up believing that sby/sth are regular abbreviations in
English. I can only really remember one who used it reguarly in
compositions. Someone writing to this board, of course, would expect
usage gurus to know what it was, not understanding that it's only a
part of ESL/EFL jargon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Karatassos
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: Re: Abbreviations "sb" and "sth" |
|
|
On Jul 5, 2:33 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:37:35 -0700 (PDT), Jim Karatassos
jim.karatas...@gmail.com> wrote:
That being said, not too many young people who are non-native speakers
of English end up believing that sby/sth are regular abbreviations in
English. I can only really remember one who used it reguarly in
compositions. Someone writing to this board, of course, would expect
usage gurus to know what it was, not understanding that it's only a
part of ESL/EFL jargon.
Perhaps not many believe that the abbreviations are allowable
out-of-class, but all who do seem to want to post in this newsgroup.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
|
I've suspected for quite some time that quite a few of the "students"
who post in this group are like "datere," who's a second-rate, half-
trained, chip-on-his-shoulder English language teacher of foreign
extraction, trying to convince himself that after a certain point,
there really is no rhyme or reason to English usage, and that simple
prejudice is why he's paid less than native speakers working in his
home country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
140 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
