Similar Sounding Words

Having been in beautiful Brazil for a few weeks now, I have had the luxury of listening to many Brazilians speaking English. I have been busy noting down some very interesting similar sounding word cognates that are quite common to many Portuguese speakers. Most of these mistakes are due to pronunciation differences that exist with some of the same letters of the alphabet, in each respective language. One of the least known of these situations, to Native English speakers, is the`roll´ of "R" in Brazilian Portuguese.
In Brazil the "R" acts as an "H" when it is at the beginning of a word or when it is doubled.
So a word like: Arrive.....becomes ahive......or worse a hive.
Repeat becomes.....he peat (his name is Pete?),
React....He act...
You get the idea.

It is virtually endless, the number of words that can be incorrectly said and interpreted because of this and other pronunciation differences between Brazilian Portuguese and English.
Why are these issues not dealt with more effectively? That will be the subject of the next blog.

Homework: Send us a video clip in which today´s subject matter is highlighted
Next Blog: Slow down!!!!

Brands

If a Portuguese speaker asks you where the "Hoddy Hockey" is what would you say? What if they told you that your "Hay Ba's" looked good. Maybe some "Hevlo" to make your lips brighter. No clue of what I'm talking about? Well, let's just say that Brand names are just like people's - their pronunciation depends on where your from. So just because a Brand is English or French don't expect people to pronounce them as a Native English Speaker would. For some reason this simple point is often overlooked and a world of confusion may ensue.
Homework: Part #1: What three brands are mentioned in the Article?
Part #2: Can you name three other Brands that are often mispronounced?
Next: Similar sounding words,

Autocide part 2

As we mentioned in the last post there is an inherent danger in 'inventing new words', based on our own politics or bias. Nevertheless, I will go against my own advice and suggest a new word to describe a daily violence that happens everywhere, everyday. The violence I'm referring to is the daily massacre that happens on the streets, where automobiles kill over a million people annually: pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and other drivers - not to mention the uncounted number of animals that become "Road Kill". Currently, drivers who are involved in such incidents are deemed to be innocent if there is no clear evidence of culpability and so we say they were in accidents. Those that are guilty of causing 'an accident' can be charged with various driver related crimes such as: reckless driving, driving under the influence (DUI), street racing, and vehicular manslaughter to mention a few. So what term do we use for a criminal act committed while driving a vehicle that caused death, but doesn't easily fit into one of these specific categories? For example, what criminal charge should a driver that sees a pedestrian crossing an intersection but refuses to slow down (expecting the pedestrian to get out of the way) be given, if he/she ends up mowing them down?
Is that reckless driving?, vehicular manslaughter? It seems that these terms fail to capture the true devastation that was known to be possible but ignored by the driver. Maybe we need a new word to describe such a crime. Autocide.

Autocide part 1

A few years ago the Bush Administration decided to invent a new word `homicide bomber´, to replace suicide bomber. This attempt to create a new word that more accurately reflects the act itself, they said, was necessary in order for the general populous to truly comprehend that particular heinous act of terrorism. As far as I know, this practice has officially ceased (i.e., the communiques released by the government no longer use their own constructed term, homicide bomber). But whether the Bush writers continue using this term or not is rather pointless anyways because the fact of the matter is that it never caught on. No one I know ever used it, and few media outlets ever really tried to use it. The reason why I believe it never caught on is simple, the term homicide bomber is purely politically motivated (right-wing) and thus was unable to supplant the existing term suicide bomber, which was created out of the need to describe a new act during World War II, in American editorials. Suicide Bombing(ers) had been accepted by all political stripes to describe particular acts of violence until 2002, in the wake of the 911 attacks.

This is Not "Omitable"

Often students omit prepositions, "S's", determiners and other constructions that to Native speakers are basic. The question that has always fascinated me is "why do students, especially those that have had years of English study, often continue to omit words and/or letters?" I don't really have an explanation as to why this happens but I do have a few examples of how confusing it can be when it does.

Recently, an English Language student said in reference to a book: "I missed one." I interpreted this statement as he having lost a book. However, after much confusion and conversation, I realized that he had omitted a word. He failed to to say this. "I missed this one." I re-interpreted this statement as he was in need of a book. In fact he was. He had forgotten his textbook at home and was asking me, as best he could, if could borrow a specific book from me.

The point of this story is that even when an English Learner misspeaks, s/he can be much better understood if they include all the necessary grammar elements in their speech.´

Homework: Why do some learners continually have problems with omission?
Next Post: Autocide

Beating Around the Bush

Recently, I heard a great misinterpretation of the beloved idiom "beating around the bush". A student used an example to explain what he thought it meant. The following example, although humourous on many levels, is also educational and serves to illustrate just how easily an English learner can suddenly create confusion, unintentionally, because of a small mistake in interpretation, accent, tone etc. The story goes as follows:
One time our friend we'll call Rafael had a bad case of stomach trouble. It was so bad that he didn't know which side had to come out first #1 or #2. His dilemma was whether to use the urinal or public toilet (enough said). He asked me whether his ordeal could be expressed idiomatically as "beating around the bush." Rafael reasoned that he had to make a decision between one of the two processes but didn't want to disappoint the other one. So somehow he had to placate one of the two needed functions and by so doing delaying its turn. Ultimately, Rafael chose to "hold it". So the act of trying to "trick" his colon into "thinking" it's needs weren't so urgent (i.e., wait until getting home) satisfied, in essence, the spirit of the idiom.
Well in a very humourous way, I would even tend to agree...haha.

Homework: Can you think of any double meanings that can be construed from this story?
Next: This is not "Omitable"

What?

What, as we all know, is one of the big 5 questions that English Speakers use to navigate through life. What English learners don't always realize is that 'what' is probably the most complicated of these 5 questions. What can be used in at least 15 different ways:

1. interrogation; (What is this?)
2. repetition; (What did you say?)
3. act like who (What do you think I am)
4. exclamation; (What is that!!!!)
5. introduction; (What, no Breakfast?)
6. direction; (You know what?)
7. tag question; British (a clever play, what)
8. act as that or which (no money but what he inherited)
9. observation; (what I see...)
10. acts as why (what for?)
11. punishment; (Got what he deserved)
12. genre of literature (whatnot)
13. inquiry; (What's happening?)
14. needed tools and (what it takes)
15. true states. (what's what?)

Source:
Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

Homework: Write a paragraph using 3 different forms of what
Next: Beating Around the Bush