# Yo soy tu primo,¿verdad? (question tag)



## Henrik Larsson

Ojeando un libro en español, me he encontrado una frase que no sabría traducirla bien en Inglés, usando question tags.

Cómo se diría en Inglés: "¿Yo soy tu primo, verdad?"

Si no me quisiera complicar la vida diría:
"I'm your cousin, right?"

Pero si en vez de usar "right" quisiera usar un *question tag*, me quedaría algo así:

"I'm your cousin, am not I?"
Pero es que no me convence escribirlo así. ¿Cómo debería ser?

HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## esance

Hi Henrk,

I'm your cousin, right? creo que es la mejor traducción 

Any suggestions?


----------



## Philippa

Hi
I'd say 'I'm your cousin, aren't I?'
To me 'I'm your cousin, right?' sounds pretty informal and rather abrupt, depending on how forcefully you say the 'right?'!
"I'm your cousin, am not I?" sounds really formal and long-winded!
¡Creo que no seas mi primo, Henrick!   
Espero que te haya ayudado
Any comments on my fumblings with the subjunctive greatfully received!   
Philippa


----------



## Artrella

Henrik Larsson said:
			
		

> Ojeando un libro en español, me he encontrado una frase que no sabría traducirla bien en Inglés, usando question tags.
> 
> Cómo se diría en Inglés: "¿Yo soy tu primo, verdad?"
> 
> Si no me quisiera complicar la vida diría:
> "I'm your cousin, right?"
> 
> Pero si en vez de usar "right" quisiera usar un *question tag*, me quedaría algo así:
> 
> "I'm your cousin, am not I?"
> Pero es que no me convence escribirlo así. ¿Cómo debería ser?
> 
> HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Yo creo que es así "I'm your cousin, aren't I?"


Art


----------



## Tormenta

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hi
> *I'd say 'I'm your cousin, aren't I?'*
> To me 'I'm your cousin, right?' sounds pretty informal and rather abrupt, depending on how forcefully you say the 'right?'!
> "I'm your cousin, am not I?" sounds really formal and long-winded!
> ¡Creo que no seas mi primo, Henrick!
> Espero que te haya ayudado
> Any comments on my fumblings with the subjunctive greatfully received!
> Philippa




Hi Philippa,

I did not know it is correct to use "are" for the first person "I" .  

I would say : you are my cousin, aren't you? or I am your cousing, am I not?

Can you explain me, why it is  correct to say " I am.....aren't I"   and in which cases it is correct to use "are" for the 1st person????

I do say things like :  " I am not......am I?" But maybe I am being too formal and long-winded
   

I hope you understand what I am asking.

Thanks a lot,

Tormenta


----------



## Artrella

Tormenta said:
			
		

> Hi Philippa,
> 
> I did not know it is correct to use "are" for the first person "I" .
> 
> I would say : you are my cousin, aren't you? or I am your cousing am I not?
> 
> Can you explain me, why is it correct to say " I am.....aren't I"   and in which cases it is correct to use "are" for the 1st person????
> 
> I do say things like :  " I am not......am I?" But maybe I am being too formal and long-winded
> 
> 
> I hope you understand what I am asking.
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Tormenta





Hi, T!!!

Look, from my Grammar and Usage book:

The question tag for "I am" is "aren't I"

So,  "I'm late, aren't I?"

Bye, Art


----------



## Tormenta

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi, T!!!
> 
> Look, from my Grammar and Usage book:
> 
> The question tag for "I am" is "aren't I"
> 
> So,  "I'm late, aren't I?"
> 
> Bye, Art




  My teacher told me  "aren't I"  is very colloquial and it should not be used in written English. 

The last time I said " aren't I" in class, he did not allow me to drink coffee, during class, for 2 weeks.   

Where is Focalist when I need him  


Gracias Art, por tu respuesta 

Tormenta


----------



## Philippa

Tormenta said:
			
		

> Hi Philippa,
> 
> I did not know it is correct to use "are" for the first person "I" .
> 
> I would say : you are my cousin, aren't you? or I am your cousing, am I not?
> 
> Can you explain me, why it is  correct to say " I am.....aren't I"   and in which cases it is correct to use "are" for the 1st person????
> 
> I do say things like :  " I am not......am I?" But maybe I am being too formal and long-winded
> 
> 
> I hope you understand what I am asking.
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Tormenta



Hi Tormenta
I can't explain at all. I'm really sorry - I sometimes wish I could. 'am I not?' sounds like something out of Jane Austin to me - sorry!   
Un abrazo
Philippa


----------



## Tormenta

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hi Tormenta
> I can't explain at all. I'm really sorry - I sometimes wish I could. *'am I not?' sounds like something out of Jane Austin to me - sorry!   *
> Un abrazo
> Philippa



Thanks anyway Philippa,

Now I know what my English sounds like   

Tormenta


----------



## gotitadeleche

Tormenta said:
			
		

> Hi Philippa,
> 
> I did not know it is correct to use "are" for the first person "I" .
> 
> I would say : you are my cousin, aren't you? or I am your cousing, am I not?
> 
> Can you explain me, why it is  correct to say " I am.....aren't I"   and in which cases it is correct to use "are" for the 1st person????
> 
> I do say things like :  " I am not......am I?" But maybe I am being too formal and long-winded
> 
> 
> I hope you understand what I am asking.
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Tormenta



Tormenta, using "am I not?" is technically correct, but here in the States no one ever says it. I suggest to keep using it to please your teacher, then when you finish your classes, forget it and use "aren't I." Am I not sounds VERY formal.


----------



## Philippa

Tormenta said:
			
		

> My teacher told me  "aren't I"  is very colloquial and it should not be used in written English.
> The last time I said " aren't I" in class, he did not allow me to drink coffee, during class, for 2 weeks.
> Tormenta


But if you _said_ it rather than _writing_ it, then that should've been okay, shouldn't it?   
Philippa


----------



## Tormenta

Philippa said:
			
		

> But if you _said_ it rather than _writing_ it, then that should've been okay, shouldn't it?
> Philippa




This is exactly what I told my teacher but his reply was:  I am your teacher , AM I NOT?    
My teacher  is harder on me than on the rest of the students. He said that one day he will tell me why. Go figure!  

Tormenta


----------



## Artrella

Tormenta said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I told my teacher but his reply was:  I am your teacher , AM I NOT?
> My teacher  is harder on me than on the rest of the students. He said that one day he will tell me why. Go figure!
> 
> Tormenta





Tormenta, I found "aren´t I " in a British book.  If your teacher is like that, well try with my PE teacher!!!!


----------



## Tormenta

Artrella said:
			
		

> Tormenta, I found "aren´t I " in a British book.  If your teacher is like that, well *try with my PE teacher*!!!!





Now you are talking!  I would  take your PE teacher any time    

Tormenta


----------



## Philippa

Tormenta said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I told my teacher but his reply was:  I am your teacher , AM I NOT?    That's funny   , but rather nasty!!
> My teacher  is harder on me than on the rest of the students. He said that one day he will tell me why. Go figure!  How strange!! What sort of place are you studying at?
> Tormenta



Hey, this makes me appreciate my Spanish teacher - but then she is Argentinian (so you won't be surprised that she's nice!!  )
Philippa


----------



## StarsAndSemblance

Tormenta said:
			
		

> My teacher told me  "aren't I"  is very colloquial and it should not be used in written English.


 "Aren't I?" is only said in spoken English. It is too colloquial to use in written English unless, for example, you're writing a story and want to quote your character speaking in a colloquial way.

 "Am I not?" is more formal, but is also sometimes used in spoken English.

 I think the main reason English people prefer to say "Aren't I" is laziness, in the same way people say "I wanna" instead of "I want to" but either is acceptable.


----------



## Tormenta

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hey, this makes me appreciate my Spanish teacher - but then she is Argentinian (so you won't be surprised that she's nice!!  )
> Philippa




It's the English sort of place   ( College actually  )

My teacher is not that bad, it is just that when I make a mistake, he feels it's his mistake, or something like that  

Cheers!

Tormenta


----------



## Edwin

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi, T!!!
> 
> Look, from my Grammar and Usage book:
> 
> The question tag for "I am" is "aren't I"
> 
> So,  "I'm late, aren't I?"



Hay una discusión interesante sobre este tema en el sitio:

http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=324140

donde dice que en Escocia y Irlanda se usa amn't I en vez de aren't I para abreviar am I not. 

Also of interest is this comment from that website:

" the original (or at least earlier) contraction for am I not was ain't I. When the grammar police went after ain't meaning isn't, its proper usage in the first person singular was caught up in the bust, and people started saying aren't I (which was even more incorrect but was gc~before there was pc there was gc). But perhaps this is just some creative jive..."


----------



## Tormenta

Edwin said:
			
		

> Hay una discusión interesante sobre este tema en el sitio:
> 
> http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=324140
> 
> donde dice que en Escocia y Irlanda se usa amn't I en vez de aren't I para abreviar am I not.
> 
> Also of interest is this comment from that website:
> 
> " the original (or at least earlier) contraction for am I not was ain't I. When the grammar police went after ain't meaning isn't, its proper usage in the first person singular was caught up in the bust, and people started saying aren't I (which was even more incorrect but was gc~before there was pc there was gc). But perhaps this is just some creative jive..."



Thanks for the link, Edwin  (I'am sure Art does not mind I borrowed it  ), it is very interesting and it shows that my teacher is not the only one who insists on using "am I not" .

Tormenta


----------



## Artrella

Edwin said:
			
		

> Hay una discusión interesante sobre este tema en el sitio:
> 
> http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=324140
> 
> donde dice que en Escocia y Irlanda se usa amn't I en vez de aren't I para abreviar am I not.
> 
> Also of interest is this comment from that website:
> 
> " the original (or at least earlier) contraction for am I not was ain't I. When the grammar police went after ain't meaning isn't, its proper usage in the first person singular was caught up in the bust, and people started saying aren't I (which was even more incorrect but was gc~before there was pc there was gc). But perhaps this is just some creative jive..."





OK, Edwin.  I've been reading that link, but they don't reach an agreement about usage.
Now I say, if all the rest of question tags are built by putting the auxiliary in the negative/affirmative form of the same personal pronoun... why is there  so much disagreement as regards "I am"???  Why grammarians think that it has to be "aren't I" if "are" is not the conjugation of the verb "to be" that corresponds to the 1st sing "I"???
What is the fact that makes "I" different from the rest???  If we come to think that "I" is capitalized and the rest of the personal pronouns are not... maybe this fact leads us to somewhere...but I don't know where.
I try to think in sth that makes "I" different, and I think that going in that way will give me some answer.
I'll have to read some linguistic books and try to find out whether there is such difference and why.

Thanks a lot for your link...

Art


----------



## Henrik Larsson

Joder si que ha tenido éxito mi post, y cada vez me aclaro menos de como formar el question tag. ¡Aclaraos ya!


----------



## Chaucer

Henrik Larsson said:
			
		

> Joder si que ha tenido éxito mi post, y cada vez me acalro menos de como formar el question tag. ¡Aclaraos ya!



I admit, this is long and I risk getting my head lopped off; but for those who may be interested, I'm saying something I have long wanted to say; and this thread is as good as any given that it touches on the subject of "The Seeming Popular Vote for Plainness of Language":

So often it is a question of the social circles you are familiar with or run in and out of; and the level of choices you consciously believe that you have when it comes to language. "Am I not" is not uncommon, no more than a well-cooked steak at table is. And it does not imply a "Jane Austen" reader's level of education or bookishness; nor is it formal or old-fashion. I will say it is classier sounding, without sounding sophisticated, and requires no particularly high educational level to use.

"Am I not" has the advantage of being more emphatic without having to resort to physical strength and tone of voice, because of the group of three naturally accented mono-syllabic words (feet) in a row, that ends in a consonant (masculine ending, in poetics) compared to the two syllable (two feet of) "Aren't I" that ends in a vowel (feminine ending in poetics); it is just more emphatic and carries more power. In fact, to tone down its authority or force one must actually use tone of voice to do so: that is self-sufficienct and self-contained, effective language. "Aren't I" is common, usual, everyone uses it, some always, some sometimes, I use it always and sometimes; but it has no other function than to ask a question. Though emphasis or authority can be added by raising the tone or volume of the voice, it is not equipped to do what "am I not" can do through architecture and meter alone.

For those who use it with precision, and even those who use it without knowing why, to use "am I not" as a question tag increases the authority of what the person is asserting. It is similar, not quite parallel, to switching to _Usted_ when wanting to emphasize distance or the higher authority of the statement or the speaker.

Crazy analogy, but maybe the sense can come through:

Just because it is less "formal" and quicker to eat hamburgers and fries, which many many people do quite quite often, does not mean that sitting down with fork-and-knife to eat a well-done steak and baked potato increases the formality or takes that much longer: though many many people eat that plate quite often too. It does not take any formality or special training to do so; it merely takes longer and more effort to dine that way. Many Americans are inclined to do the fastest, simplest-- I don't know if to call it the "lazy"-- way of doing things, believing that the popular, what most everybody does, must be the right way, the only way to live.

"Am I not" is also used quite easily in another position that isn't a question tag; I don't suppose that those saying it is "too long", too "Jane Austen", "to long winded" have ever said something to the effect:

"Why are you angry that I'm late? Well, am I here or am I not?"

To say, "Well, am I here or aren't I?" simply falls flat, the "aren't I" just disappears from a lack of parallelism and balance in relation to "am I here"; on top of that, there is a semantic interference from another sense the phrase carries, which is about asking some metaphysical question like "Am I really here or aren't I really" (to use the "aren't" word). But I'm not saying that "flat" cannot be a choice, by all means. I am simply saying that there are those, many, who make the other choice based on a vigilant looking-out for moments where they can choose between grace and gracefulness of expression as opposed to the _no-need-to-cultivate plainness_ of "plain spoken people" (another quote from another post).

Simply, how many times in this forum do posters post "nobody says that", "that sounds 17th century", "that's too formal", "I never talk that way, and nobody I know does either". And I'm sure, it has crossed some foreros' minds when they see these comments, _This person just hasn't been enough circles and places yet._

Anyway, I've have over talked. I expect to be ignored or howled at. But this had to be said.

As for giving an example in Spanish about controlling consciously/or unconsciously the tone and distance through technique of language rather than physical strength and tone of voice, I offer this (as I said, it is not a parallel, but it is an example of changing implying authority of statement and thus of speaker:

Madre: ¡Tú no sales de esta casa hasta que limpies tu cuarto!

Hijo: ¡Tú no me mandas! ¡Yo hago lo que se me da la gana!

Madre: ¿Ah sí? Pues Usted no saldrá de aquí toda la semana.


----------



## Henrik Larsson

thanks Chaucer


----------



## Artrella

Chaucer said:
			
		

> I admit, this is long and I risk getting my head lopped off; but for those who may be interested, I'm saying something I have long wanted to say; and this thread is as good as any given that it touches on the subject of "The Seeming Popular Vote for Plainness of Language":
> 
> So often it is a question of the social circles you are familiar with or run in and out of; and the level of choices you consciously believe that you have when it comes to language. "Am I not" is not uncommon, no more than a well-cooked steak at table is. And it does not imply a "Jane Austen" reader's level of education or bookishness; nor is it formal or old-fashion. I will say it is classier sounding, without sounding sophisticated, and requires no particularly high educational level to use.
> 
> "Am I not" has the advantage of being more emphatic without having to resort to physical strength and tone of voice, because of the group of three naturally accented mono-syllabic words (feet) in a row, that ends in a consonant (masculine ending, in poetics) compared to the two syllable (two feet of) "Aren't I" that ends in a vowel (feminine ending in poetics); it is just more emphatic and carries more power. In fact, to tone down its authority or force one must actually use tone of voice to do so: that is self-sufficienct and self-contained, effective language. "Aren't I" is common, usual, everyone uses it, some always, some sometimes, I use it always and sometimes; but it has no other function than to ask a question. Though emphasis or authority can be added by raising the tone or volume of the voice, it is not equipped to do what "am I not" can do through architecture and meter alone.
> 
> For those who use it with precision, and even those who use it without knowing why, to use "am I not" as a question tag increases the authority of what the person is asserting. It is similar, not quite parallel, to switching to _Usted_ when wanting to emphasize distance or the higher authority of the statement or the speaker.
> 
> Crazy analogy, but maybe the sense can come through:
> 
> Just because it is less "formal" and quicker to eat hamburgers and fries, which many many people do quite quite often, does not mean that sitting down with fork-and-knife to eat a well-done steak and baked potato increases the formality or takes that much longer: though many many people eat that plate quite often too. It does not take any formality or special training to do so; it merely takes longer and more effort to dine that way. Many Americans are inclined to do the fastest, simplest-- I don't know if to call it the "lazy"-- way of doing things, believing that the popular, what most everybody does, must be the right way, the only way to live.
> 
> "Am I not" is also used quite easily in another position that isn't a question tag; I don't suppose that those saying it is "too long", too "Jane Austen", "to long winded" have ever said something to the effect:
> 
> "Why are you angry that I'm late? Well, am I here or am I not?"
> 
> To say, "Well, am I here or aren't I?" simply falls flat, the "aren't I" just disappears from a lack of parallelism and balance in relation to "am I here"; on top of that, there is a semantic interference from another sense the phrase carries, which is about asking some metaphysical question like "Am I really here or aren't I really" (to use the "aren't" word). But I'm not saying that "flat" cannot be a choice, by all means. I am simply saying that there are those, many, who make the other choice based on a vigilant looking-out for moments where they can choose between grace and gracefulness of expression as opposed to the _no-need-to-cultivate plainness_ of "plain spoken people" (another quote from another post).
> 
> Simply, how many times in this forum do posters post "nobody says that", "that sounds 17th century", "that's too formal", "I never talk that way, and nobody I know does either". And I'm sure, it has crossed some foreros' minds when they see these comments, _This person just hasn't been enough circles and places yet._
> 
> Anyway, I've have over talked. I expect to be ignored or howled at. But this had to be said.
> 
> As for giving an example in Spanish about controlling consciously/or unconsciously the tone and distance through technique of language rather than physical strength and tone of voice, I offer this (as I said, it is not a parallel, but it is an example of changing implying authority of statement and thus of speaker:
> 
> Madre: ¡Tú no sales de esta casa hasta que limpies tu cuarto!
> 
> Hijo: ¡Tú no me mandas! ¡Yo hago lo que se me da la gana!
> 
> Madre: ¿Ah sí? Pues Usted no saldrá de aquí toda la semana.




Chaucer, where do you learnt this??  I am interested in reading something that enlarges my knowledge.  Could you please tell me where do you read this??

Thx, Art


----------



## Edwin

Henrik Larsson said:
			
		

> Joder si que ha tenido éxito mi post, y cada vez me aclaro menos de como formar el question tag. ¡Aclaraos ya!



Well, you have hit upon a sensitive matter with the question of  aren't I as a contraction for am I not.  The problem is that aren't I  is a contraction of are not I which is unacceptable to all ears.  So many (including myself) when thinking of aren't I, sometimes feel a little uneasy.  

The word ''ain't'' is much used in ''uneducated'' speech as a contraction for "is not'', ''am not'', and ''are not''. ). It is too bad that is outlawed by the grammatical police.  ''Ain't I'' would be a much better contraction for ''am I not''---and, of course, it is used.  In fact, even an educated person can get away with using ain't if you say it in such a way that the listener knows that you know it is ''common''.

I agree with Chaucer, there's no reason to avoid "am I not''.  It can be used with good effect. 

So don't be confused. You may use "am I not?'' or  ''aren't I?'' ---or even ''ain't I'' (if you want to show your knowledge of colloquial or illiterate English.)


----------



## Philippa

Chaucer said:
			
		

> "Am I not" has the advantage of being more emphatic...



Hi Chaucer (or should I say Good Morning!)
I agree with 'am I not' being more emphatic. I still don't think I've ever said it!

I promise I will have a proper, careful read of your post (you seem to be picking up on words from my earlier posts) later.

Philippa


----------



## Philippa

Chaucer said:
			
		

> I admit, this is long and I risk getting my head lopped off; but for those who may be interested, I'm saying something I have long wanted to say; and this thread is as good as any given that it touches on the subject of "The Seeming Popular Vote for Plainness of Language":
> 
> So often it is a question of the social circles you are familiar with or run in and out of; and the level of choices you consciously believe that you have when it comes to language. "Am I not" is not uncommon, no more than a well-cooked steak at table is. And it does not imply a "Jane Austen" reader's level of education or bookishness; nor is it formal or old-fashioned. I will say it is classier sounding, without sounding sophisticated, and requires no particularly high educational level to use.
> 
> "Am I not" has the advantage of being more emphatic without having to resort to physical strength and tone of voice, because of the group of three naturally accented mono-syllabic words (feet) in a row, that ends in a consonant (masculine ending, in poetics) compared to the two syllable (two feet of) "Aren't I" that ends in a vowel (feminine ending in poetics); it is just more emphatic and carries more power. In fact, to tone down its authority or force one must actually use tone of voice to do so: that is self-sufficienct and self-contained, effective language. "Aren't I" is common, usual, everyone uses it, some always, some sometimes, I use it always and sometimes; but it has no other function than to ask a question. Though emphasis or authority can be added by raising the tone or volume of the voice, it is not equipped to do what "am I not" can do through architecture and meter alone.
> 
> For those who use it with precision, and even those who use it without knowing why, to use "am I not" as a question tag increases the authority of what the person is asserting. It is similar, not quite parallel, to switching to _Usted_ when wanting to emphasize distance or the higher authority of the statement or the speaker.
> 
> Crazy analogy, but maybe the sense can come through:
> 
> Just because it is less "formal" and quicker to eat hamburgers and fries, which many many people do quite quite often, does not mean that sitting down with fork-and-knife to eat a well-done steak and baked potato increases the formality or takes that much longer: though many many people eat that plate quite often too. It does not take any formality or special training to do so; it merely takes longer and more effort to dine that way. Many Americans are inclined to do the fastest, simplest-- I don't know if to call it the "lazy"-- way of doing things, believing that the popular, what most everybody does, must be the right way, the only way to live.
> 
> "Am I not" is also used quite easily in another position that isn't a question tag; I don't suppose that those saying it is "too long", too "Jane Austen", "to long winded" have ever said something to the effect:
> 
> "Why are you angry that I'm late? Well, am I here or am I not?"
> 
> To say, "Well, am I here or aren't I?" simply falls flat, the "aren't I" just disappears from a lack of parallelism and balance in relation to "am I here"; on top of that, there is a semantic interference from another sense the phrase carries, which is about asking some metaphysical question like "Am I really here or aren't I really" (to use the "aren't" word). But I'm not saying that "flat" cannot be a choice, by all means. I am simply saying that there are those, many, who make the other choice based on a vigilant looking-out for moments where they can choose between grace and gracefulness of expression as opposed to the _no-need-to-cultivate plainness_ of "plain spoken people" (another quote from another post).
> 
> Simply, how many times in this forum do posters post "nobody says that", "that sounds 17th century", "that's too formal", "I never talk that way, and nobody I know does either". And I'm sure, it has crossed some foreros' minds when they see these comments, _This person just hasn't been enough circles and places yet._
> 
> Anyway, I've have over talked. I expect to be ignored or howled at. But this had to be said.
> 
> As for giving an example in Spanish about controlling consciously/or unconsciously the tone and distance through technique of language rather than physical strength and tone of voice, I offer this (as I said, it is not a parallel, but it is an example of changing implying authority of statement and thus of speaker:
> 
> Madre: ¡Tú no sales de esta casa hasta que limpies tu cuarto!
> 
> Hijo: ¡Tú no me mandas! ¡Yo hago lo que se me da la gana!
> 
> Madre: ¿Ah sí? Pues Usted no saldrá de aquí toda la semana.



Okay, a proper reply now Chaucer. I think your ideas are interesting and they are certainly making me think! I certainly don't feel like ignoring you, howling at you or lopping off your head!  

I agree to an extent about the language I chose from being linked to the people I talk with. Although I do think that media things like TV tend to standardise our speech so it is possible to talk about what is usually said and what is old-fashioned. When I'm learning Spanish I do want to learn the current, typical way of saying things. I suppose I've assumed that's what the hispanohablantes are wanting if they ask questions. It's not that I think *plain* language itself is good. I've seen people here do both super formal language (for a joke) and much more chatty informal language and I think that's good and interesting, although it's harder to understand. I don't think most of us would be here discussing things if we thought there were only one way of expressing things.

Your analysis of 'am I not' in terms of masculine/feminine, syllables and parallelism sounds very impressive and I do agree that it sounds more emphatic. I've been thinking today, and maybe I have used this tag or almost used it with a class (I'm a teacher) when the kids are questioning my way of drawing a diagram or explaining an answer - perhaps I've said 'I'm your teacher, am I not?!'    But I still maintain that it's not a common phrase and it would sound odd if someone used it lots in regular speech.

I don't think the popular or easy way is necessarily the right way and this is definitely true with things like sitting down with people to eat a proper meal as opposed to junk food on the run or infront of the TV. I think some things are pretty much right or wrong and we often get them wrong in this world because we tend to be selfish and lazy!  But, I don't think language is like this because it is constantly evolving and so what used to be 'right' does become obsolete and 'wrong'. So I'm not sure the food analogy is a good one.

I'm still not quite sure what this sentence is getting at: I am simply saying that there are those, many, who make the other choice based on a vigilant looking-out for moments where they can choose between grace and gracefulness of expression as opposed to the _no-need-to-cultivate plainness_ of "plain spoken people" (another quote from another post). For me I'm not usually too aware of choosing between 'flat' or 'graceful' or which is the simplest/best - I'm mainly just trying to communicate and get people to understand what I'm thinking. Maybe this is me the scientist rather than arty person and I'm missing out.   

Is your madre/hijo scenario likely? Would a parent or other person switch to Usted like that?

Phew, this is my longest ever post I reckon and tricky to write and it's not even in Spanish!! I'm sorry if it's a bit disjointed.
Thanks for making me think!
Saludos
Philippa


----------



## Tormenta

Henrik Larsson said:
			
		

> Joder si que ha tenido éxito mi post, y cada vez me aclaro menos de como formar el question tag. ¡Aclaraos ya!




Vaya lío el que armaste, Henrik   

I am still waiting for Focalist to show and clarify things for us.  If he does not "arrive" soon, I will just ring him  

This is a very good thread, Henrik!

Tormenta


----------



## Tormenta

Henrik, disculpa que te haya contestado en inglés.  Pensé que este era el foro de "solo inglés"

Tormenta


----------



## jacinta

Philippa said:
			
		

> Okay, a proper reply now Chaucer. I think your ideas are interesting and they are certainly making me think! I certainly don't feel like ignoring you, howling at you or lopping off your head!
> 
> I agree to an extent about the language I chose from being linked to the people I talk with. Although I do think that media things like TV tend to standardise our speech so it is possible to talk about what is usually said and what is old-fashioned. When I'm learning Spanish I do want to learn the current, typical way of saying things. I suppose I've assumed that's what the hispanohablantes are wanting if they ask questions. It's not that I think *plain* language itself is good. I've seen people here do both super formal language (for a joke) and much more chatty informal language and I think that's good and interesting, although it's harder to understand. I don't think most of us would be here discussing things if we thought there were only one way of expressing things.
> 
> Your analysis of 'am I not' in terms of masculine/feminine, syllables and parallelism sounds very impressive and I do agree that it sounds more emphatic. I've been thinking today, and maybe I have used this tag or almost used it with a class (I'm a teacher) when the kids are questioning my way of drawing a diagram or explaining an answer - perhaps I've said 'I'm your teacher, am I not?!'    But I still maintain that it's not a common phrase and it would sound odd if someone used it lots in regular speech.
> 
> I don't think the popular or easy way is necessarily the right way and this is definitely true with things like sitting down with people to eat a proper meal as opposed to junk food on the run or infront of the TV. I think some things are pretty much right or wrong and we often get them wrong in this world because we tend to be selfish and lazy!  But, I don't think language is like this because it is constantly evolving and so what used to be 'right' does become obsolete and 'wrong'. So I'm not sure the food analogy is a good one.
> 
> I'm still not quite sure what this sentence is getting at: I am simply saying that there are those, many, who make the other choice based on a vigilant looking-out for moments where they can choose between grace and gracefulness of expression as opposed to the _no-need-to-cultivate plainness_ of "plain spoken people" (another quote from another post). For me I'm not usually too aware of choosing between 'flat' or 'graceful' or which is the simplest/best - I'm mainly just trying to communicate and get people to understand what I'm thinking. Maybe this is me the scientist rather than arty person and I'm missing out.
> 
> Is your madre/hijo scenario likely? Would a parent or other person switch to Usted like that?
> 
> Phew, this is my longest ever post I reckon and tricky to write and it's not even in Spanish!! I'm sorry if it's a bit disjointed.
> Thanks for making me think!
> Saludos
> Philippa




Philippa;

I enjoyed your reply to Chaucer and I say "very well said".  I pride myself on using proper grammar in my speech and I say "aren't I".  I will put myself in the "flat" category and be gosh darned proud of it.  But I agree that "am I not" gives a feeling of emphasis and spoken authority and I'm sure I've said it as well.  

I enjoy these long discussions of language use.  Very interesting to hear all sides!


----------



## Roberto Ignacio

How you doing?

Este caso es una excepción.
Cuando es uno mismo el objeto de la tag TIENES QUE USAR LA SEGUNDA PERSONA DEL SINGULAR, esto es, "are", asi que sería ......, aren't I?.

Venga, hasta otra.


----------



## juanma

aye yam flabby gastight, aunt eye? (sorry, couldn´t help it, cheers everyone)


----------



## Chaucer

Sorry, I've been away. I did want to respond back a few days back to agree and refute, set the record straight on what I said and what I didn't; but I got carried away and my post came to 2450 words, and a rewrite of it 1000 words. I put them both away and decided best not to send them off. I would like to say, Philipa: that was a very courteous response, and well said as has been complimented. As for the things that draw my attention so often in posts, these statements: "never heard that", "that's formal", nobody talks that way", "I never say that"-- statements that seem never to be accompanied by any more support than personal assertion, at that so cocksure-- I don't think I will address them in such long tirades again, at least for a while, it is not my style. I'd prefer to be economical and to the point. I don't think I was clear, very coherent, and very polished when I posted originally anyway. So, thank you for your response, Philipa, you came off even-handed and as no know-it-all (meaning someone asserting and not bothering to assume someone might actually question them, so that they don't bother with even hints about the reasoning to support their assertions [_I never say that_: that's such beautiful supporting reasoning for a given translation. It just keeps ringing in my head.])

I' was not happy with the form and content of my prior post, nor with my impulse in sending it. I have my desktop plastered with about twenty/twenty-five similarly long or passionate responses to other threads, well thought out. But I received what I would call an ignorant response once, and I thought it over and figured, No, don't post anything like that again, a bit disillusioned; but not for myself.

Anyway, if I do have a message I wanting to get across (that, I do), I think I will do it by increments and accumulation; by example; by showing not telling; rather than by overlong and -explicit posts. Not that incremental won't raise a cackle from someone, I'm sure; because mine sure does get raised every other thread. Anyway, by example and accumulation. I will make mistakes.

I do want to say: I have nothing against "aren't I", nor do I think it is improper grammar; grammar cannot explain everything about good writing or speech; and people who use proper grammar don't necessarily know everything about their language. What I am against is people thinking that there is the only way to say things, and because they don't have various ways of saying things those "other" ways are labeled "formal", "archaic", etc.-- and I won't go on. I already said why I think people have "never heard" of this or that: such complete experts in their own language they are.


And Artrella, I would like to answer your post, so please say what you are referring to with _[W]here did you learn this?_ For now, I'll say that I draw from my experience and education; my intention is not to emphasize that explicitly. Catch me in whatever thread I might be passing through and talk to me. What is it exactly you would like to know? I will be perfectly happy to answer any question you may have, assuming I know the answer.

On to another thread, and thank you. Let's get back to business as usual. (This turned out long).


----------



## Philippa

Hey, Chaucer, thanks for answering. I was wondering what you thought of my reply.

I love the thought of all your draft versions of posts!   

Is there something special/interesting about your education/experience that we should know?!!   

Philippa


----------



## cbgb

I just asked my flatmate (british) and he uses "aren't I".
"Am I not" is more formal, but is completly correct and he says it too.


----------



## Purrete

Henrik Larsson said:
			
		

> Ojeando un libro en español, me he encontrado una frase que no sabría traducirla bien en Inglés, usando question tags.
> 
> Cómo se diría en Inglés: "¿Yo soy tu primo, verdad?"
> 
> Si no me quisiera complicar la vida diría:
> "I'm your cousin, right?"
> 
> Pero si en vez de usar "right" quisiera usar un *question tag*, me quedaría algo así:
> 
> "I'm your cousin, am not I?"
> Pero es que no me convence escribirlo así. ¿Cómo debería ser?
> 
> HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Look, if English is your second language (see Tormenta) you would like to "pasar desapercibida", pass unnoticed when you talk with native English speakers, it is a natural reaction not to emphasize your foreignness. In that case, just go ahead and use "Am I not", but if you wanna speak (sorry, want to) Queen's English, the affectionate one of the upper classes, definitely go for "Aren't I".
To Artrella with regards to "El sexo sin amor es una experiencia vacía. Pero como experiencia vacía es una de las mejores. 
", quiero saber si se refiere al sexo masculino o femenino pero si se refiere a la accion de hacer el amor (una especialidad mia...) entonces yo diria: "Hacer el amor sin amor es una experiencia vacía......etc.(Y estoy de acuerdo con ello).


----------



## Joe Tamargo

The form "aren't I" (though it is frequently heard) seems to me to be an awkward way of avoiding using the substandard word "ain't."

Many would say "I'm your cousin, ain't I?" but they would not be educated people.

I would recast the sentence to avoid the problem or, as a last resort, I would say "Am I not."


----------



## Leopold

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hi
> I'd say 'I'm your cousin, aren't I?'
> To me 'I'm your cousin, right?' sounds pretty informal and rather abrupt, depending on how forcefully you say the 'right?'!
> "I'm your cousin, am not I?" sounds really formal and long-winded!
> ¡Creo que no seas mi primo, Henrick!
> Espero que te haya ayudado
> Any comments on my fumblings with the subjunctive greatfully received!
> Philippa


 Hey Phi, just a little late but we say "Espero haberte ayudado". You mustn't use the subjunctive when the subject of the verb of the subordinate (?) clause (haberte) is different from the one of the main verb (espero). Instead you must use the infinitive.

 (yo) Espero haberte (yo) ayudado
 (yo) Espero que (tú) le hayas ayudado

 L.


----------



## Artrella

Purrete said:
			
		

> Look, if English is your second language (see Tormenta) you would like to "pasar desapercibida", pass unnoticed when you talk with native English speakers, it is a natural reaction not to emphasize your foreignness. In that case, just go ahead and use "Am I not", but if you wanna speak (sorry, want to) Queen's English, the affectionate one of the upper classes, definitely go for "Aren't I".
> To Artrella with regards to "El sexo sin amor es una experiencia vacía. Pero como experiencia vacía es una de las mejores.
> ", quiero saber si se refiere al sexo masculino o femenino pero si se refiere a la accion de hacer el amor (una especialidad mia...) entonces yo diria: "Hacer el amor sin amor es una experiencia vacía......etc.(Y estoy de acuerdo con ello).




Mirá esta frase no la dije yo, habría que preguntarle a Woody Allen.  Pero no estoy de acuerdo con vos Purrete, si hacés el amor no puede ser sin amor.
Hacer el amor es con amor.  El sexo es estar en la cama con una persona teniendo relaciones sexuales, lo cual puede ser llevado a cabo perfectamente sin amor.  Por eso sería vacía la experiencia, vacía de amor.
HACER  EL  ===>>>> AMOR, lo estás haciendo y lo estás sintiendo.  Así que en esa frase y en esa acción hay amor y si hay amor es la mejor experiencia que una persona puede tener.
Tener SEXO (hombre o mujer) no siempre implica amor, así que si es sin amor, para mí (como para Allen) es una experiencia vacía....

Besos, Art


----------



## Philippa

Leopold said:
			
		

> Hey Phi, just a little late but we say "Espero haberte ayudado". You mustn't use the subjunctive when the subject of the verb of the subordinate (?) clause (haberte) is different from the one of the main verb (espero). Instead you must use the infinitive.
> (yo) Espero haberte (yo) ayudado
> (yo) Espero que (tú) le hayas ayudado
> 
> L.



Leo, thanks for your help/correction but I'm still confused  
(yo) Espero haberte (yo) ayudado  I hope to have helped you - this sort of what I wanted to say. Is this how to say it?
(yo) Espero que (tú) le hayas ayudado I hope that you have helped him/her? Isn't the subject different in the 2 bits *I* hope and *you* have helped  ???? But you say you mustn't use the subjunctive if it's different?

Saludos
Philippa-the grammatically challenged!


----------



## Leopold

Philippa said:
			
		

> Leo, thanks for your help/correction but I'm still confused
> (yo) Espero haberte (yo) ayudado  I hope to have helped you - this sort of what I wanted to say. Is this how to say it?
> (yo) Espero que (tú) le hayas ayudado I hope that you have helped him/her? Isn't the subject different in the 2 bits *I* hope and *you* have helped  ???? But you say you mustn't use the subjunctive if it's different?
> 
> Saludos
> Philippa-the grammatically challenged!


 Oops, sorry. When the subjects are different use the subjunctive. When the subject is the same use the infinitive. 

 L.


----------

