# For the whole next year



## clapec

Is it possible to say: "He will be presenting the new programme for the whole next year"?


----------



## lsp

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me, and sounds natural. "Entire" is more formal than "whole" if necessary.


----------



## clapec

Thanks a lot


----------



## la reine victoria

It is correct to say 'He will be presenting the new programme for the whole *of* next year.'


----------



## lsp

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> It is correct to say 'He will be presenting the new programme for the whole *of* next year.'


That's an AE/BE thing, but since he spelled program "programme" your advice is probably better.


----------



## clapec

What's the difference between 'program' and 'programme'? 
I know that 'programme' is used when talking about tv, while 'program' is used concerning computers. Is this 'rule' correct?


----------



## shamblesuk

I think this could mean one of *two *things:

He will be presenting the new programme for the whole *of* next year (eg starting January 2006), or

He will be presenting the new programme for the next 12 months, eg Nov 2005-Oct 2006.






			
				clapec said:
			
		

> Is it possible to say: "He will be presenting the new programme for the whole next year"?


----------



## Manuel_M

clapec said:
			
		

> What's the difference between 'program' and 'programme'?
> I know that 'programme' is used when talking about tv, while 'program' is used concerning computers. Is this 'rule' correct?


 
_Programme _is British English (BE). _Program_ is American English (AE).


----------



## Moogey

I recommend studying the BE primarily (it is the "correct" English I believe)

One really good thing is, there aren't a lot of differences between BE and AE (mostly spelling) so you can learn them both and go to the UK and USA and speak English (and they should understand you if you pronounce it right!)

I.e.

(BE) Colour
(AE) Color

(BE) Programme
(AE) Program

Just some words are spelling differently.


----------



## ElaineG

> I recommend studying the BE primarily (it is the "correct" English I believe)


 
I'd have to disagree (I won't bore you with the details, but I've done graduate work on regional English, and basically, American English is correct in America and British English is correct in Britain.)  Luckily, the differences in spelling and usage are not so great that we cannot understand one another.

As far as what to study goes, I would recommend concentrating on what would be most useful to you, but to rest assured that Americans will understand British spelling and vice versa.


----------



## giantsg7

> It is correct to say 'He will be presenting the new programme for the whole *of* next year.'


 
NO! You can take it from me I am American.  Of course someone would understand that sentance, but it sounds awfully weird.  I agree 'for the entire next year' would be better, but if you're going to say it that way, just get rid of the *of. *

And also, *programme* is not meant specifically for television.  It's possible the Brittish use it that way, but in America program is used for both t.v. and computers, never programme.


----------



## lsp

Moogey said:
			
		

> I recommend studying the BE primarily (it is the "correct" English I believe)...
> 
> ...there aren't a lot of differences between BE and AE (mostly spelling) so you can learn them both and go to the UK and USA and speak English (and they should understand you if you pronounce it right!)



No, Moogey, they are different, that is all. And in fact, there is a greater difference in pronunciation between them than in any other aspect (again, neither is right or wrong). 

clapec, in AE, "program" is never spelled "programme" (which is why I assumed you learned English BE-style). "Whole of next year" would be "whole next year." Search the forum and you will find many threads about the differences. And where you see AE/BE, that's what we mean .


----------



## Moogey

giantsg7 said:
			
		

> NO! You can take it from me I am American. Of course someone would understand that sentance, but it sounds awfully weird. I agree 'for the entire next year' would be better, but if you're going to say it that way, just get rid of the *of. *
> 
> And also, *programme* is not meant specifically for television. It's possible the Brittish use it that way, but in America program is used for both t.v. and computers, never programme.


 
I have to disagree. I don't see anything wrong with using "of". In fact, I speak that way all the time (but acknowledge few people speak as "elegantly" and "proper" as I do that I know from school and such)

lsp, I will correct myself:

1. If only one English program is available to you, take it
2. If you have a selection (AE/BE/Canadian E/Australian E) I would learn the one of the country you'd be speaking it in. (I.E. you move to Australia, learn Australian English)

But I don't mean to confuse anybody and sorry if i did  Also apologies for getting off topic like this, another asset of my poor judgement which I'll need to work on


----------



## la reine victoria

No English person would say 'for the whole next year'.  It is definitely 'for the whole of next year'.

Program is just AE for programme.  We use programme for any type of programme, not just television or radio.

No offence intended.


----------



## Moogey

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> No English person would say 'for the whole next year'. It is definitely 'for the whole of next year'.


 
Yes, I agree.

Another form that sounds right to me is "for all of next year"


----------



## la reine victoria

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Elisa68

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> No English person would say 'for the whole next year'. It is definitely 'for the whole of next year'.


This is a google search (I know it is not the bible)! 

for the whole of next year (759 results)

for the whole next year (628 results)

Quite a challenge, isn't it?


----------



## You little ripper!

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> No English person would say 'for the whole next year'.  It is definitely 'for the whole of next year'.
> 
> Program is just AE for programme.  We use programme for any type of programme, not just television or radio.
> 
> No offence intended.


I have to agree with you. No Australian would say: "for the whole next year" even tho' it may be grammatically correct. We would say "for the whole _*of*_ next year"


----------



## Moogey

Elisa68 keep in mind that there are a lot of English speakers that don't speak English properly.

I don't have any backing statistics but I think more people incorrectly speak it than speak it correctly (that is, in America against the rules set in English textbooks. I can't speak for other countries...)

Gramatically I don't think *the whole next year* is correct but I could be wrong. Perhaps the most important thing to note is that is sounds wrong to at least 3 English natives? (Even better, 3 English natives from 3 different countries! USA, England, and Australia!)


----------



## Sierra

... just another native English speaker adding her 2 cents' worth  

but "the whole *of* next year" definitely sounds more normal


----------



## Elisa68

Moogey said:
			
		

> Gramatically I don't think *the whole next year* is correct but I could be wrong. Perhaps the most important thing to note is that is sounds wrong to at least 3 English natives? (Even better, 3 English natives from 3 different countries! USA, England, and Australia!)


Moogey,
I wasn't arguing about what the natives were saying, _per carita'_!!!  
I was trying to point out that sentences like "no English person would say that" are a bit inopportune in a forum where everybody is learning. Do you have a grammatical source which can definitively affirm that a sentence is wrong, well post it. You don't, well just say _in my opinion_. 
I took this occasion to speak up, sorry Moogey, but I am making this point specially for my fellow countrymen.


----------



## Moogey

Cara Elisa68

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem as if I was attacking you


----------



## Manuel_M

_For the whole next year_ immediately grated on my (non-native) ear. _For the whole *of* next year _sounded just right.

I'm far more used to BE than AE, however.


----------



## You little ripper!

Manuel_M said:
			
		

> _For the whole next year_ immediately grated on my (non-native) ear. _For the whole *of* next year _sounded just right.
> 
> I'm far more used to BE than AE, however.


I have never heard anyone say: "For the whole next year" even tho' I still maintain it is grammatically correct. But then I've never been to the U.S.A.


----------



## You little ripper!

When I was in Italy many years ago I met an Italian student on the train to Florence who had a university textbook in her hand entitled: "American English". I asked her: "Why do they call it American English instead of just English since they are basically the same with a few spelling differences and some colloquialisms peculiar to the country?" and she said to me: "They are quite different languages." 
Am I being naive?  And do they still teach "American English" in Italian Universities?
In Australia, when I was at school, be that many years ago, the English we were taught was the Queen's or British English and I presume it is still being taught. We have a lot of Australian colloquialisms but we know that they are Australian expressions and not basic English.


----------



## DareRyan

Although the differences between the forms of English are minimal, there are many phrases that would merit a glazed and confused expression from many of us here in the U.S. who haven't had extensive training in the formal language. One example that comes immediately to mind is the word "Queue", although it is a a legitimate word I'd say at least 50% of Americans would have no idea as to it's definition. Needless to say, we would use "Line" reflexively.

Also, in reference to the post I know I would say 'All of next year'

Sorry for going off on a bit of a tangent


----------



## You little ripper!

DareRyan said:
			
		

> Although the differences between the forms of English are minimal, there are many phrases that would merit a glazed and confused expression from many of us here in the U.S. who haven't had extensive training in the formal language. One example that comes immediately to mind is the word "Queue" although it is a a legitimate word I'd say at least 50% of Americans would have no idea as to it's meaning. Needless to say we would use "Line" reflexively.
> 
> Also in reference to the post I know I would say 'All of next year'


I agree with you but do you think the differences merit being called another language? With T.V. and movies, those expressions are being learnt all the time. I know that watching American T.V. programs I have learnt a lot of American expressions peculiar to your country but they probably wouldn't be my first choice in my communication, altho' I have noticed that occasionally I do use a few. Most Americans, I feel, would recognize many Australian expressions because a lot of our movies have made it big over there.


----------



## ElaineG

To continue with your tanget, Charles, I don't think that they are separate languages; there are just regional variations.  (This reminds me of the thread going on dialetti in Italian!)  But there is "standard American English" and "standard British English" and each are equally correct (and formal) in the appropriate place. (For example, line and queue are both valid and correct word choices).  I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with Australian English to know how much it varies from British and/or American English.

I know some Aussie slang from the movies  (silly, probably outdated words like 'Sheila' and 'barbie' come to mind, and of course everyone knows 'mate' at this point), but slang is not the same as differences in standard written language.  Each town (or here in NY, neighborhood) can have its own slang, but those words don't become part of standard speech.

On the other hand, "program" and "programme" are equally standard, depending on whether you are in London or Long Island!


----------



## ottotootsieplohound

One more AE speaker weighing in - I am definitely in the 'of' camp.  One doesn't say 'for the whole last year' either, does one?


----------



## You little ripper!

ElaineG said:
			
		

> To continue with your tanget, Charles, I don't think that they are separate languages; there are just regional variations. (This reminds me of the thread going on dialetti in Italian!) But there is "standard American English" and "standard British English" and each are equally correct (and formal) in the appropriate place. (For example, line and queue are both valid and correct word choices). I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with Australian English to know how much it varies from British and/or American English.
> 
> I know some Aussie slang from the movies (silly, probably outdated words like 'Sheila' and 'barbie' come to mind, and of course everyone knows 'mate' at this point), but slang is not the same as differences in standard written language. Each town (or here in NY, neighborhood) can have its own slang, but those words don't become part of standard speech.
> 
> On the other hand, "program" and "programme" are equally standard, depending on whether you are in London or Long Island!


I agree with you and DareRyan. I don't think they are separate languages. I think tho' with Italian dialects it is a bit different. One region can sometimes not understand another. That said, a person from the south in Calabria tends to understand another person from the south in Sicily a lot more readily than someone from the north and it's probably the same vice versa.


----------

