• ThisIsNotHim@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thanks for this. As a native speaker, it never occurred to me that headlines had separate rules that would be hard to parse as a non-native speaker.

    • visor841@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, I imagine those rules were developed for use with physical writing, when minimizing space used up was more important. Nowadays, even as a native speaker these headlines just take extra effort to parse without much of a point.

      • ThisIsNotHim@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When poorly written or complex, maybe. I don’t know how often I’ve had to focus on a headline.

        Headlines are also written to be attention grabbing. I’d rather headline-specific grammar over clickbait. Maybe there’s a different attention grabbing technique, but for now I’ll gladly settle for headlines if given a choice.

    • tal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Some other quirks I ran into – native speakers who don’t read much often confuse “their”, “they’re”, and “there”, because they’re homophones. They learn the language as speakers years before they learn to write or cover grammar, and in that environment, it’s easy to mentally treat the words as one. The people on that Europe forum virtually never did that.

      But one error that did come up – in languages in Europe, there is often a “Romance” word and a “Germanic” word and they translate directly into each other when you move across languages, whereas in English, sometimes both of the words exist as loanwords and have different meanings. Examples are “manikin” and “mannequin” or “block” and “bloc”. I especially saw “block” get used to refer to a political group, whereas normally in English, you’d use “bloc” for that.

      One that I’d been aware of for a while that Russians have trouble with is use of the definite and indefinite article. So, in English, you have the definite and indefinite article, “the” and “a”. In English, you are required by the language to always indicate whether a thing is a specific thing or an example of a type. I didn’t realize until listening to a series of linguistic lectures that that’s actually an unusual property for a language to have – English does that, but most languages do not. In English, you must have “the cat” or “a cat”; you can’t just say “cat drank milk”. But it was so embedded into my thought process that I hadn’t realized that I just always do that. Russian, as well as most languages out there, doesn’t work like that.