Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Hello,
I am a listener in San Diego and I really love show.
I had a disagreement with my father about something I said. I would like to see if I can get an answer to my question.
Recently, I took our two children to visit my brother and parents in the Bay Area. I told my brother that we just came back from our vacation in New Zealand. I said, "We went to New Zealand for 2 weeks."
My father immediately said that I was not speaking English correctly. He said that the word "go or went" is the process of getting to New Zealand; therefore, I cannot say that we went for 2 weeks. The correct way of saying that is, "We went to New Zealand, and stayed there for 2 weeks." Who says that?!
I know it sounds rather trivial, but here is the context of our debate. We are a very argumentative family, as you can see already. We immigrated to the US from China in the 1980's. My father initially came to this country as a graduate student, and my mother, brother and I moved here in 1989. Back then, I was 16 and was in 11th grade. Since then, I have gone through college, medical school and residency. I would like to think that I speak English as well as a native speaker. However, my father always wants to correct my grammar or syntax as if I am speaking English as a second language. In China, they taught English quite differently. He learned the structure of the sentences first before forming them. My husband is a native English speaker, born and raised in San Diego. When I asked him who is correct, he kind of dodged the question. He doesn't think what I said was wrong, but sees some reasoning my my father's argument.
My father thinks that many native English speakers make common mistakes. It drives him crazy. For example, he hears things like, "Long time no see" or "You did so good." He says that even the Queen of England makes mistakes. She was quoted recently as saying, "They are better than us."
So I have been unable to convince him that I am correct. I would really honor your opinion in the matter.
Thank you so much,
Wen Jiang
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "We went to New Zealand for 2 weeks." It means exactly what you intended. If I understand it correctly, your father thinks that the 2 weeks should apply only to the travel time as if it took 2 weeks to go to New Zealand. That would not be a native speaker's natural interpretation of the prepositional phrase.
Have your father think about different sorts of endings to sentences starting with "I went to New Zealand for ... ."
I went to New Zealand for a wedding.
I went to New Zealand for jewelry.
I went to New Zealand for my brother.
I went to New Zealand for the snorkeling.
I went to New Zealand for a two-week stay. (What does your father think about this one?)
(Or this one? or "I went to New Zealand for a two-week vacation.")
I agree with your husband that there is also nothing wrong with your father's sentence. It is simply a different way to say a similar, not identical, thing. I might put it as your father did given the right nuance. Your father's sentence allows more for more separation of the length of stay from the original intent of the travel. Perhaps if I intented to visit Sydney, with an overnight in New Zealand, I might use your father's sentence in preference to yours in discussing my trip. In your sentence, there is a stronger implication that your 2 weeks in New Zealand was your original intent in going.
Hello Jiang, welcome to the forum!
I agree with everything Glenn wrote, but I'll add my two cents. (Maybe your father does not like the expression "two cents"?)
I'm going to guess that your father worked hard to become fluent in English, and he has done very well. I'm also guessing that he began to learn English as a young man, not from the time he was a child. Therefore, he had to learn English the "adult way," which is more "technical" than learning as a child. Another guess is that your father is a disciplined man, who pushed himself to become very proficient in the technical/grammatical aspects of English - perhaps more so than the average native speaker of English. In order for your father to learn all of the technical nuances of English, he had to understand them at a deeper level than native speakers. Your father notices and understands the technical difference between I went to New Zealand for two weeks and I vacationed for two weeks in New Zealand or I spent two weeks in New Zealand or I went to New Zealand and stayed two weeks. It might be tempting to say that your father is being too literal and too technical, but I think it takes another leap in language proficiency for an adult to be comfortable enough to know when it is okay to bend the technical rules of grammar. In order for your father to make that leap, he would have to desire it first. But perhaps your father prefers to hold on to his vast technical knowledge as a way of showing off, for his ego. We all like to puff up our egos from time to time, and we all have our pride.
If I were in a similar situation, I might tease my dad, in good humor. I might say, "Yes, you're right, Dad, it took us two weeks to get to New Zealand; we swam there!" But at some level, your dad has to understand that proficiency in any language is not about technical perfection or the following of rules without exceptions. Every language has its idioms and other "crazy" constructions.
I agree. You father deserves lots of credit. Nearly identical sentences mean exactly what he thinks, but the pattern is very flexible.
I drove for two hours to the specialist. (The trip took two hours.)
I went for two hours of therapy. (The therapy took two hours.)
I went for 24 hours without eating. (The fasting lasted 24 hours.)
It isn't easy at all.
I like samaphore's point about your father's position. Take it from someone who also wrestles sometimes with the "technically correct" vs. "expedient" issue. I hear and read things constantly that ring alarm bells and then I must make a decision whether to verbally raise a ruckus. More often than not that is the wrong choice (especially since I catch myself in verbal gaffes regularly).
I think that brings up a related issue. I would wager that 99% (and maybe 99.99%) of native American speakers would intuitively absorb your proper meaning from "We went to New Zealand for 2 weeks". I also believe the podcast has discussed when enough of the public co-opts a grammatical choice that may not be technically correct for the era, but the overwhelming acceptance overwhelms the grammarians and they eventually concede. But then the whole point of language is to convey meaning, isn't it?
The incident reminds me of a scene from a political forum I witnessed early one Sunday morning years ago. George Will was a guest amongst about 5 others in a round-table discussion. The host was trying to wrap up and a guest made one more point at which Will jumped in and said something like "No, no, no...the Latin root of that word is ------ which conveys an entirely different connotation than what is being discussed!" Of course, everyone rolled their eyes as the host smiled and wrapped the discussion up. What was so amusing was the lloks on the other guests faces. If I was to interpret the non-verbal impression, it was something like "YES George, you are correct of course, but why oh why do we have to put up with you?"
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)