English natives - Forum - Virtual Popstar

Private
Popstar

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

ouch wrote:
No u can only ignore feminine n switch it out w masculien while still being grammatically correct. Saying en eple is wrong n nobody rlly says it either

argh okay, i thought it was just streetstyle that u ignored it, then nvm again

but still funny that you can just switch things out, have never heard of that
only in french that u if a group is only women, it's feminine and visa versa, but if the group contains both men and woman, it's always masculine

I don't think its rlly switching out cus I think en is just officially both or sum, u can't switch from male to female either. Only feminine to masculine Im 99% sure

Kalypso
International Star

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
why, my question isn't related to this at all

my first thought was why are you questioning that, wouldn't u urself cringe if someone said en æble and not et æble; wouldn't u cringe if someone used the wrong (artikel) title, but now i found out that it's actually common for u to ignore the right way to use titles? so im thinking that's why you're wondering

but English doesn't have grammatical gender so it's not what I'm asking, I'm wondering about the degree of unacceptability of the ungrammatical use of a vs an in English as it could relate to the underlying phonological rules of the language, completely removed from syntax and morphology which grammatical gender is more closely related to although some linguists claim phonology determines grammatical gender to some degree but it's unclear exactly how.

mate i understood ouch comment, cause she literally wrote "ignore", as in ppl have gotten more lazy and therefore just ignores grammar, cause that is what will happen. it's normal. so i just assumed that, being ignore was the word. In the danish it's also common to say "det dårligt vejr" for example, but that is so wrong to say grammar wise. nobody thinks or cares about it, but it's not the right way to say "det er dårligt vejr", it's laziness, bc ppl just ignore it saying it or when other say it.

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

kalypso wrote:
argh okay, i thought it was just streetstyle that u ignored it, then nvm again

but still funny that you can just switch things out, have never heard of that
only in french that u if a group is only women, it's feminine and visa versa, but if the group contains both men and woman, it's always masculine

I don't think its rlly switching out cus I think en is just officially both or sum, u can't switch from male to female either. Only feminine to masculine Im 99% sure

Oh yeah, except like one word in trøndersk but it's argued to be a rare instance of dative

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

kalypso wrote:
my first thought was why are you questioning that, wouldn't u urself cringe if someone said en æble and not et æble; wouldn't u cringe if someone used the wrong (artikel) title, but now i found out that it's actually common for u to ignore the right way to use titles? so im thinking that's why you're wondering

but English doesn't have grammatical gender so it's not what I'm asking, I'm wondering about the degree of unacceptability of the ungrammatical use of a vs an in English as it could relate to the underlying phonological rules of the language, completely removed from syntax and morphology which grammatical gender is more closely related to although some linguists claim phonology determines grammatical gender to some degree but it's unclear exactly how.

mate i understood ouch comment, cause she literally wrote "ignore", as in ppl have gotten more lazy and therefore just ignores grammar, cause that is what will happen. it's normal. so i just assumed that, being ignore was the word. In the danish it's also common to say "det dårligt vejr" for example, but that is so wrong to say grammar wise. nobody thinks or cares about it, but it's not the right way to say "det er dårligt vejr", it's laziness, bc ppl just ignore it saying it or when other say it.

but that's different

Private
Popstar

ouch wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

ouch wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
Nope I've checked it several times and it's masculine

ALSO THE WORST ONE, it's supposed to be "en hån" and not "et hån" and I'm like sorry "en hån" is "et hån" to the Norwegian language goodbye dictionaries I disagree strongly. I should do my quantitative methods in linguistics paper on the frequency of masculine and neuter for hån.

Ok but I think both might b correct tho idk?? I never got any grammar mistakes in norwegian in school but I know I for sure must have gotten smth wrong if both of those r masculine, nobody says them as masculine

I think w hån, it depends on the context for me, hmmm. Like en hån is an action or sum, but et hån is the hån itself . Does that makes sense even

Nah according the dictionary I used only masculine is accepted.

I disagree 100% with what you say, I'm more inclined to subscribe to en hån being the person while et hån is the action.

Ok goodbye ive literally never heard ppl refer to it as en hamster like this makes me angry

https://www.sprakradet.no/svardatabase/sporsmal-og-svar/hamster/

Kalypso
International Star

kalypso wrote:

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

kalypso wrote:
argh okay, i thought it was just streetstyle that u ignored it, then nvm again

but still funny that you can just switch things out, have never heard of that
only in french that u if a group is only women, it's feminine and visa versa, but if the group contains both men and woman, it's always masculine

I don't think its rlly switching out cus I think en is just officially both or sum, u can't switch from male to female either. Only feminine to masculine Im 99% sure

you're just making me more confused to whether or not u're norwegian too lololol

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

ouch wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

ouch wrote:
Ok but I think both might b correct tho idk?? I never got any grammar mistakes in norwegian in school but I know I for sure must have gotten smth wrong if both of those r masculine, nobody says them as masculine

I think w hån, it depends on the context for me, hmmm. Like en hån is an action or sum, but et hån is the hån itself . Does that makes sense even

Nah according the dictionary I used only masculine is accepted.

I disagree 100% with what you say, I'm more inclined to subscribe to en hån being the person while et hån is the action.

Ok goodbye ive literally never heard ppl refer to it as en hamster like this makes me angry

https://www.sprakradet.no/svardatabase/sporsmal-og-svar/hamster/

Yeah I actively hate it and it's going to be et hamster for me until I die.

Private
Popstar

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:
but still funny that you can just switch things out, have never heard of that
only in french that u if a group is only women, it's feminine and visa versa, but if the group contains both men and woman, it's always masculine

I don't think its rlly switching out cus I think en is just officially both or sum, u can't switch from male to female either. Only feminine to masculine Im 99% sure

you're just making me more confused to whether or not u're norwegian too lololol

I am but I don't know the grammar rules in words, I just remmeber it liek, in a practical sense

Kalypso
International Star

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
but English doesn't have grammatical gender so it's not what I'm asking, I'm wondering about the degree of unacceptability of the ungrammatical use of a vs an in English as it could relate to the underlying phonological rules of the language, completely removed from syntax and morphology which grammatical gender is more closely related to although some linguists claim phonology determines grammatical gender to some degree but it's unclear exactly how.

mate i understood ouch comment, cause she literally wrote "ignore", as in ppl have gotten more lazy and therefore just ignores grammar, cause that is what will happen. it's normal. so i just assumed that, being ignore was the word. In the danish it's also common to say "det dårligt vejr" for example, but that is so wrong to say grammar wise. nobody thinks or cares about it, but it's not the right way to say "det er dårligt vejr", it's laziness, bc ppl just ignore it saying it or when other say it.

but that's different

it is indeed, but "ignore" was what there was stated in the first place, if y'all had said switch things out

Private
Popstar

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

kalypso wrote:
my first thought was why are you questioning that, wouldn't u urself cringe if someone said en æble and not et æble; wouldn't u cringe if someone used the wrong (artikel) title, but now i found out that it's actually common for u to ignore the right way to use titles? so im thinking that's why you're wondering

but English doesn't have grammatical gender so it's not what I'm asking, I'm wondering about the degree of unacceptability of the ungrammatical use of a vs an in English as it could relate to the underlying phonological rules of the language, completely removed from syntax and morphology which grammatical gender is more closely related to although some linguists claim phonology determines grammatical gender to some degree but it's unclear exactly how.

mate i understood ouch comment, cause she literally wrote "ignore", as in ppl have gotten more lazy and therefore just ignores grammar, cause that is what will happen. it's normal. so i just assumed that, being ignore was the word. In the danish it's also common to say "det dårligt vejr" for example, but that is so wrong to say grammar wise. nobody thinks or cares about it, but it's not the right way to say "det er dårligt vejr", it's laziness, bc ppl just ignore it saying it or when other say it.

No ppl don't ignore grammar when they speak, not w those words at least

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

kalypso wrote:
mate i understood ouch comment, cause she literally wrote "ignore", as in ppl have gotten more lazy and therefore just ignores grammar, cause that is what will happen. it's normal. so i just assumed that, being ignore was the word. In the danish it's also common to say "det dårligt vejr" for example, but that is so wrong to say grammar wise. nobody thinks or cares about it, but it's not the right way to say "det er dårligt vejr", it's laziness, bc ppl just ignore it saying it or when other say it.

but that's different

it is indeed, but "ignore" was what there was stated in the first place, if y'all had said switch things out

hmm

Kalypso
International Star

kalypso wrote:

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
but English doesn't have grammatical gender so it's not what I'm asking, I'm wondering about the degree of unacceptability of the ungrammatical use of a vs an in English as it could relate to the underlying phonological rules of the language, completely removed from syntax and morphology which grammatical gender is more closely related to although some linguists claim phonology determines grammatical gender to some degree but it's unclear exactly how.

mate i understood ouch comment, cause she literally wrote "ignore", as in ppl have gotten more lazy and therefore just ignores grammar, cause that is what will happen. it's normal. so i just assumed that, being ignore was the word. In the danish it's also common to say "det dårligt vejr" for example, but that is so wrong to say grammar wise. nobody thinks or cares about it, but it's not the right way to say "det er dårligt vejr", it's laziness, bc ppl just ignore it saying it or when other say it.

No ppl don't ignore grammar when they speak, not w those words at least

yeah ik now lol

Private
Popstar

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

kalypso wrote:
mate i understood ouch comment, cause she literally wrote "ignore", as in ppl have gotten more lazy and therefore just ignores grammar, cause that is what will happen. it's normal. so i just assumed that, being ignore was the word. In the danish it's also common to say "det dårligt vejr" for example, but that is so wrong to say grammar wise. nobody thinks or cares about it, but it's not the right way to say "det er dårligt vejr", it's laziness, bc ppl just ignore it saying it or when other say it.

but that's different

it is indeed, but "ignore" was what there was stated in the first place, if y'all had said switch things out

Did I not just say they ignore that ei exists, which is what is being done so I don't see what ur confused abt. U can go from feminine (ei) to masculine (en) cus masculine is a word for both masculien and feminine I guess

Kalypso
International Star

kalypso wrote:

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
but that's different

it is indeed, but "ignore" was what there was stated in the first place, if y'all had said switch things out

Did I not just say they ignore that ei exists, which is what is being done so I don't see what ur confused abt. U can go from feminine (ei) to masculine (en) cus masculine is a word for both masculien and feminine I guess

you said ppl tend to ignore it and use something else. the way i interpreted that was how i explained it in my comment. ppl tend to ignore "er" because of laziness. i dont think i would have interpreted it differently if you said it like that. It made more sense, when you said you can switch masculine out with feminine.

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

kalypso wrote:

ouch wrote:

kalypso wrote:
it is indeed, but "ignore" was what there was stated in the first place, if y'all had said switch things out

Did I not just say they ignore that ei exists, which is what is being done so I don't see what ur confused abt. U can go from feminine (ei) to masculine (en) cus masculine is a word for both masculien and feminine I guess

you said ppl tend to ignore it and use something else. they way i interpreted that was how i explained it in my comment. ppl tend to ignore "er" because of laziness. i dont think i would have interpreted it differently if you said it like that. It made more sense, when you said you can switch masculine out with feminine.

But it's the other way around