Question on English Language to British Members

I agree that they is not an elegant option, especially as it requires plural endings on verbs, which makes no sense when you are referring to an individual.Another option is to use it, but it’s too cold and harsh a word, and too commonly associated with inanimate or non-human objects.What we need is a new pronoun to describe the third person singular, but which is non-gender specific.It also needs to be short and simple — one syllable should suffice.It needs to be a word which has absolutely no other meaning or relevance.I think I've got it. How does this sound? -"When a fire fighter enters a smokey building, god must follow strict safety proceedures."I really like the sound of that!P.S.Talking of male and female fire fighters, does anyone know if it’s possible to obtain a calendar of topless female fire fighters? If not, I think there ought to be one, just to balance things out and ensure nobody's offended.

I agree. And I wonder if the reverse is true, as well. I find that most Americans I communicate with or hear on TV sound better educated and use better grammer than the average British person I encounter, though they may not be representative of the average American.Although certainly not perfect myself, I have many gripes with poor grammer, and the biggest one is probably the use of the word "them" instead of "those". There are huge swathes of the British population who say, "I like them ones" or "who are them people?" It annoys me because it sounds so babyish. I rarely if ever hear Americans making that error - do they?

Sometimes I do briefly tune in to Fox News, just because I need to convince myself that my previous memories of doing so were real.

Ah, yes. Now you put it in context, I have heard you guys talking like that.Isn't the full expression "them there hills"? Or "them their hills"? Or "them they're hills"?

Egg splatted all over face!It's particularly embarrassing as I've just pointed out someone else's spelling mistake on another thread! I was wondering about this point about dialect. At what point does something become dialect rather than a grammatical error? I suppose as long as people are consistent and unambiguous in their use of a word, the meaning is clear and it can be called dialect. I'm not sure that that many people are aware of the formal grammar though. You only need to see how many people write "they're" when they mean "there" or "their", or vice versa. What do they think the apostrophe in "they're" represents?Living in Norfolk is a particular treat for hearing dialect. My favourite is the word "shew" meaning "showed". "I shew him how to do it." It's quite funny because I have a friend who uses it all the time and I think he's slightly aware it's not right, as he sometimes does a sort of stutter before saying it, but he's not quite sure of the correct word so he says it anyway.

Hi Son Goku The phrase "at all" is getting completely out of hand in the UK. I'm not sure what people mean by it. Every time I go to the supermarket, the cashier says, "Do you have a clubcard - at all?"I've got no idea, at all, what they mean by that. Are they asking if I've got at least a part of a clubcard? Why would they suppose that? What would be their reaction if I said, "I have got a clubcard, but I haven't got one at all."?

---

"Bring on the wall!" - Dale Winton

I agree with you generally about rhythm and style in speach. I suppose in the example you give above, as well as in my example where the cashiers all say "do you have a clubcard at all" the "at all" softens the question. It's a kind of politeness. Fair point.However, shouldn't it be "D'you want owt from shop?"?