Thread: Which sentence is correct?

Which of the following statement sounds correct or more natural?

1.Smith has some difficulty to get himself understood.
2.Smith has some difficulty getting himself understood.
3.Smith has some difficulty in getting himself understood.

2 and 3 sound normal. 1 sounds kind of weird.

If 1,2, and 3 were said at a normal conversational speed, it really wouldn't make much difference.

"Smith hazsm difficultyt getmself understood."
"Smith hazsm difficulty gettingmself understood."
"Smith hazsm difficultyn gettinmself understood."

They're all horrible. Horrible.

2 and 3 would be just about acceptable if you replaced 'getting himself' with 'making himself'. 'Get' is an ugly, ugly word. Ugly. Pravit has a point about the garbling, though: you know you've cracked the language when you can be indistinct succesfully in it.

If even the variation with 'making' is barely passable, how would you suggest it should be changed then? I think it's only because you see the same sentence three times and are forced to analyse them, that it gets on your nerves. If you think too hard about the words 'helpful' or 'clock' or 'fridge' you can also go crazy. I agree that the first sentence is the worst though.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

If even the variation with 'making' is barely passable, how would you suggest it should be changed then?

Smith needs to pull himself together.

Originally Posted by joysof

'Get' is an ugly, ugly word. Ugly.

Now I can hear that French accent of yours.

I could've expected something like that...

Hehehehe...

I have a bone to pick with "fridge." (There's a sentence you'll never think you'll say!) Why is is spellt with a d when refrigerator isn't? Well I suppose frige would look weird... anyway... *scarpers off to next forum*

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by joysof

'Get' is an ugly, ugly word. Ugly.

Now I can hear that French accent of yours.

Could you say what's French here? I'm awfully interested.

Originally Posted by joysof

'Get' is an ugly, ugly word. Ugly.

I really do think the word "get" could be eliminated from the English langauge without it suffering any ill effects. I can't think of any example where "get" can't be replaced by a more active, descriptive verb. I suppose there may be a few, but, eh.

Yeah, but it sounds like the way people talk. For example, when narrating conversations, many American youth will say something similar to this:

And then I was like, "xxx"
Then he was like, "xxx"
Then I'm like, "xxx"
Then he's all like, "xxx"
Then I'm all, "xxx"

Also, you can say "ummmmmmmmmm" and "uhhhhh" for long periods of time without sounding weird. If you don't know what something is called just call it a "thing."



EDIT: And unless you're talking with Joysof, if you say "Smith has some trouble getting himself understood", most English speakers won't stop and exclaim "Oh! That was simply horrible! Horrible!" The point is you will get yourself understood even if you say something like "Smith having some troubles get understand."

"Smith has some trouble getting himself understood" sounds ok to me...mabye thats because last year my English teacher was a total moron and got himself fired because he was such a moron.

Originally Posted by Pravit

EDIT: And unless you're talking with Joysof, if you say

You capitalized His name!?....

Originally Posted by Tu-160

Pravit wrote:
EDIT: And unless you're talking with Joysof, if you say

You capitalized His name!?....

Is outrage!

I'm sick and tired of this Smith character. He needs to sort his life out and learn some of the local lingo!!


Anyway, what is wrong with being understood, rather than 'getting yourself understood' which doesn't sound like normal usage to me?

To Friendy: actually I think bm's comment is very deep .. bas et profond

We have all these old Germanic little words like 'get', from which we form a plethora of indecipherable phrasal verbs (just to throw off the non-natives, of course).. at the same time we have plenty of Latin-based words (usually inherited via the French language).
I can't come up with a good list right now, but things like:
get -> receive
put out -> extinguish (e.g. cigarette)
hold out -> extend
well these aren't very good examples, but there are millions of them, trust me.

A key feature of native Romance language speakers, when they learn English, is that they tend very strongly to use the latter forms, whereas natives tend to use the former.

! This is nothing. I once saw a site for ESL learners (I'm a native speaker, but I wanted to see what they were teaching) and it told those poor non-natives that "Has John got a motorcycle" is correct and proper English.

And why not? Other than the fact that the "?" has been ommitted of course!

"Has John got a motorcycle?" is colloquial slang. Learners of a language should be taught how to say things right.
Does John have a motorcycle?

Colloquial perhaps, but not slang. There's nothing wrong about using "get" in my opinion (which means joysof will say the opposite soon unless he can resist it), but it does sound rather inelegant. From a style point of view, it's best not to use it in formal writing, but in speech it's about as common, if not more so, as the alternative, so I see no reason why they shouldn't teach it.

Except that the proper participle is "gotten." "Got" has become acceptable through common use in England, but it is not yet considered acceptable in American grammar, so I would recommend using "gotten," as it is possible to use in both dialects. "Has John gotten a motorcycle?" The use of got is common, but incorrect in American English. I see no problem with teaching it to non-native speakers, seeing as how is common in casual speech, but they should be aware that it would not be acceptable in certain more formal contexts.