Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: I hate it

I thought the "it" in
   I hate it when that happens!
was mandatory, but google finds a lot of occurrences for the variation 
without the "it".
Why is that?
 
-- 
Kiuhnm


Perché hai sbagliato, non è necessario.
 
Risposta scortese? OK, faccio ammenda.
 
Ovviamente, si può oddiare molte cose. Non è necessario dare esempi. Si 
può anche dire "I hate it" e basta.
 
Allora dire "I hate it when that happens" è un rinforzo e, invece di 
dire solamente "I hate it," una chiarificazione della cosa che si oddia.
 


It's called "anticipatory it" and, AFAIK, it's necessary in sentences like
   I find it surprising that you don't know who I am.
so I thought it was required in "I hate it when..." as well. I guess one 
might say
   I find the fact that you don't know who I am rather surprising.
 
-- 
Kiuhnm
 
Gli ottimisti vedono il bicchiere mezzo pieno, i
pessimisti mezzo vuoto e i realisti completamente
vuoto.
 

 
Yeah, no, that's a different thing. You could say "I hate it 
increasingly when you think you know who I am." It is somewhat awkward 
to say "I hate increasingly when you think you know who I am," just as 
it is somewhat awkward to say "I find surprising that you don't know who 
I am. In such cases the "it" or "the fact" is implied and the 
appropriateness becomes a question of expectation or habit.
 


OK, thank you.



"I hate when that happens" sounds wrong to me.


It may be unusual outside of the U.S., I don't know. However, it is 
often literally the punchline of a joke and probably as common in the 
U.S. as the misuse of literally in the place of virtually.
 


I wish there were more people on this ng so we would've a better picture 
of the situation. As things stand, this looks like a difference between 
AmE and BrE. I know I'm stating the obvious.
 
-- 
Kiuhnm
 
The only people with many great ideas are the ones
who never tested them.
 

 
American TV culture is so ubiquitous, I'm not sure the obvious is 
actually true.
 
It's always interesting to get other perspectives and I sympathize with 
your wish for a broader set of native speaker opinions. Then, of course, 
you would also run into differences between those who follow 
prescriptive grammar rules and those who see grammar as descriptive.
 
For my part, I am between the two (prescriptive/descriptive) and stick 
closer to prescriptive for formal situations, but accept and use many 
common expressions in informal situations.
 
(By the way, just last weekend I was talking to an editor for the San 
Francisco Chronicle, a friend whom I have known for many years and who 
has always leaned toward prescriptive grammar. When the topic of editing 
came up, I was quite surprised to discover that she has shifted her 
allegiances toward the descriptive camp! Is there nothing we can depend 
on in these perilous times?)
 
For the expression in question, one objective measure you can consider 
is that a Google search returns an equal number of examples of both 
usages. That isn't one person's opinion, it's hundreds of thousands of 
opinions. I sustain that the "it" is implied and others might say it is 
just not needed, which amounts to the same thing.
 
Because the expression is so common in conversation, in media, as a 
punchline to jokes, and in just about any situation with someone 
expressing an opinion of hate, it would be a losing proposition for 
anyone to argue that it's mandatory, just as it's a losing proposition 
for me when I argue for the proper use of "literally." Damn you, world, 
I refuse to use it improperly!
 
However, I have to face the reality that our power to decide what is 
right or wrong regarding English usage is limited, because the language 
has a life of its own.
 
 
 
 


I agree with you. That said, some mistakes I can't accept because 
they're "stupid" mistakes. For instance, "would of" instead of "would 
have", and "it's" instead of "its".
The latter is incredibly widespread.
 
-- 
Kiuhnm
 
Trusting a single scientist is unscientific.
 


Yes, we who are serious about language should draw lines in the sand and 
I certainly have scratched multiple concentric circles around myself.
 
I second your dismay about the written errors you mention, even in 
instances that barely hinder comprehension. When spoken, "would of" can 
be excused as a sloppy pronunciation of "would've," which was probably 
the origin of that written smudge.
 
But, when I utter or write the occasional English solecism, my regret 
tempers future criticism of others. And in Italian, well, I can only 
hope for compassion.
 
 

 hope for compassion.
 
Isn't compassion a little too strong? I would've used sympathy or 
understanding. Or maybe it was tongue in cheeck and that was on purpose.


 
Hmmm. I'd characterize it as a mixture of playfulness and exaggerated 
modesty to the brink of falseness, or perhaps only self-satirical hyperbole.
 
Yes, the word "compassion" would be too strong if the goal were only 
clear, concise, communication of information, without contamination by 
any impulse for self-amusement.
 
"Empathy" would also be a more appropriate, if duller, choice.
 
I think that there were other odd exclamations in that post that might 
have alerted a reader to my state of mind. But maybe my writing is more 
opaque in revealing my intent than I credit myself.
 
OK, if I'm going to come clean, then I have to say that I don't feel 
"regret" when I make a mistake, I get pissed-off at myself for being 
sloppy (I had understated instead of exaggerated). Then I ask myself if 
my brain isn't as sharp as it used to be and I have to reassure myself 
that I've always made mistakes, so I shouldn't be surprised when I make 
another. It's much worse when it happens in English, but it also 
irritates me when I make mistakes in Italian, and, unfortunately, I 
still make lots of them.
 
 

 still make lots of them.
 
Being a perfectionist can be taxing on onself, and I know something 
about it. We should cut ourselves some slack :-)
 
(Too many emoticons? See here:
https://buffer.com/resources/7-reasons-use-emoticons-writing-social-media-according-science/
)


 U.S. as the misuse of literally in the place of virtually.
 
I asked several Americans and got a mix of "This is fine" and "I have 
never heard this". So it may be regional?
 


I don't think so, Adam. Of course, I could be wrong, my knowledge is 
only anecdotal, but I think the 411K Google results for "I hate when 
that happens" says something. (Adding the "it" lowers the results to 354K.)
 
I could venture a guess that it is more cultural than regional. Cultural 
and regional overlap, of course. But, I imagine that the 
marketing/entertainment niche you're exposed to might influence what you 
hear. I've encountered viral memes that I, to this day, do not have a 
clue about the significance.
 
 

 that happens" says something. (Adding the "it" lowers the results to 354K.)
 
Let's use an ngram viewer, which is more reliable:
*AmE:* 
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hate+when+that+happens%2Chate+it+when+that+happens&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chate%20when%20that%20happens%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chate%20it%20when%20that%20happens%3B%2Cc0
 
*BrE:* 
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hate+when+that+happens%2Chate+it+when+that+happens&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chate%20when%20that%20happens%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chate%20it%20when%20that%20happens%3B%2Cc0
 



Thanks, the ngram is useful, if confined to searching historical 
book-based content.
 

 The latter is incredibly widespread.
 
Sono errori che fanno i madrelingua, che imparano la lingua parlata con 
il latte della mamma ma a volte sbagliano lo spelling. Il nostro 
problema è generalmente l'inverso.
 
"It's" al posto di "its" tra l'altro è interessante perché è la forma 
originaria che nei secoli si è evoluta e ha perso l'apostrofo, forse 
per differenziarsi dalla forma contratte di "it is" o forse per 
conformarsi agli pronomi possessivi senza apostrofo. Così almeno spiega 
l'Online Etimology Dictionary.
 
neuter possessive pronoun; late 16c., from it + genitive/possessive 
ending 's (q.v.). "[A]t first commonly written it's, a spelling 
retained by some to the beginning of the 19c." [OED]. The apostrophe 
came to be omitted, perhaps because it's already was established as a 
contraction of it is, or by general habit of omitting apostrophes in 
personal pronouns (hers, yours, theirs, etc.).
...
https://www.etymonline.com/word/its
 
 
-- 
IdP

 Etimology Dictionary.
 
Questa non la sapevo. Non si finisce mai d'imparare.
 
-- 
Kiuhnm
 
https://flexboxfroggy.com/
          [aiuta le povere rane]
 

 Questa non la sapevo. Non si finisce mai d'imparare.
 
"would of" invece lo avverto come un errore più rozzo, senza neanche la 
possibile nobilitazione etimologica. Abbastanza  curioso, perché "would 
of" non può assumere il significato "would have" in nessun universo 
conosciuto, mi pare :D
 
-- 
IdP


Rozzo sì, ma viene da "would've" che si pronuncia allo stesso modo, 
significato a parte.


Questa invece la sapevo!
 
Altro errore comune: "I'd better" = "I would better".


 Altro errore comune: "I'd better" = "I would better".
 
You better check that one out, I think. :D
 
-- 
IdP


I'd better = I had better
 
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/had-better-do-something
 


__Per Tony__
 
Si può dire
   "questO non lO sapevo"
o
   "questA (cosA) non lA sapevo"
perché si sottintende "cosa".


Alle ore 03:52:53 di sabato 13/03/2021, Tony the Ice Man ha scritto in 
it.cultura.linguistica.inglese:

Appunto.
 
"I'd better" non è un "altro errore comune" come "would of" ecc.
E' un'espressione corretta, con significato "I had better".
La gente non dice "I'd better" per errore, secondo me.
 
-- 
IdP


L'errore consiste nel pensare che "I'd better" stia per "I would 
better", come ho scritto sopra.



Capito: hai creduto che l'errore fosse mio e mi indicavi l'errata 
corrispondenza.


 come ho scritto sopra.
 
Dove hai visto questo errore?
"I would better" è una forma del verbo "to better".
 
-- 
IdP


Non ho sentito mai "I would better" e mi sembra un errore ma forse è 
un'espressione antica brittanica.
 
In ogni caso, usalo a tuo rischio.
 

 In ogni caso, usalo a tuo rischio.
 
È "had better do something" l'unico esempio di un infinito senza 
"to" dipendente da "to have", o ce ne sono altri?
 
Ciao,
Wolfgang

 had better do something (è l'unico esempio o no?)
 
had better/best Usage Problem
To be wise or obliged to; should or must: He had better do what he is 
told. You had best bring a raincoat in this weather.
See also: better
 
-- 
Et interrogabant eum turbae dicentes: “Quid ergo faciemus?”.
Respondens autem dicebat illis: “Qui habet duas tunicas,
det non habenti; et, qui habet escas, similiter faciat”.
(Ev. sec. Lucam 3,10-11)
 
-- 
Questa email è stata esaminata alla ricerca di virus da AVG.
http://www.avg.com
 
 

Alle ore 22:48:38 di sabato 13/03/2021, Tony the Ice Man ha scritto in 

Non sono un appassionato di sport, non corro il rischio! :D
 
 
A Race Through the Greatest Running Stories
books.google.it
 › books
Damian Hall · 2017 · ‎Sports & Recreation
... also broke the 2:30 barrier, with 2:26:44, also in Tokyo. Kitei 
would better his record in November, running 2:26:42, a time that 
wouldn't be beaten for 12 years.
 
 
www.findagrave.com
 › ... › Oakwood Cemetery
Jan 29, 2002 — The next year, 1912, Red Ames would better his record of 
the year before, winning 11 and losing only 5 as the Giants repeated as 
National ...
 
 
www.newspapers.com
 › newspage
Atcherly ventured the prediction the winning plane would better his 
record by 20 miles an hour.
 
 
"Recreation Management and Employee Services ...
archive.org
 › stream
John Sharp (below) plied the waters of Lake Manitou in search of a fish 
that would better his record entry in NIRA's fishing tourney—in vain.
 
-- 
IdP

 dipendente da "to have", o ce ne sono altri?
 
 
Boh. Non mi vengono in mente altri casi.
 
-- 
IdP

 See also: better
 
 
Ricordiamo anche che esiste solo la forma idiomatica
"had better" +  infinito senza "to",
(meno formalmente "'d better", o solo "better" più colloquialmente)
 
non qualsiasi costruzione del tipo
"to have" + better +  infinito senza "to".
 
Cioè, non si dice mai "You would have better", "You will have better", 
"You have better"...
 
AFAIK.
 
P.s. Parliamo solo dell'uso "to give advice in a specific situation". 
E' possibile trovare scritto "You wold have better ...", certo, ma con 
diverso significato, not come "advice".
 
-- 
IdP


Guarda di nuovo i tuoi esempi e vedi se riesci a capire perché non sono 
esempi dell'argomento di cui stavamo discutendo.
 


Penso di sì. "Had better" è un modo di dire "should" o "must" (con 
enfasi d'obbligo tra le due) che sono "modal verbs."
 
You should be home by midnight. (mi raccomando)
You had better be home by midnight. (o potrebbero esserci delle conseguenze)
You must be home by midnight. (o ti trasformerai in una cucùzza!)
 
Quindi, mi sembra un termine che possa sostituire per questi altri verbi 
modali d'obbligo. Ma non sono linguista e questo è solamente come io 
penso dell'argomento.
 
Allora, ho trovato un paio di siti brevi che possono aiutarti.
 
https://www.englishgrammar.org/infinitives/
 
https://linguapress.com/grammar/modal-obligation.htm
 

 P.s. Parliamo solo dell'uso "to give advice in a specific situation".
 
Non dimenticare "I'd better go", che non è un vero consiglio.



Caso autorevole[1]:
--->
Even the poet Robert Browning disgraced himself here. In early editions 
of his dramatic poem Pippa Passes, first published in 1841, the final 
scene has the line “I had better not.” In later editions, Browning 
changed the line to “I would better not.”
 
According to William J. Rolfe and Heloise E. Hersey, who edited an 1886 
edition of Select Poems of Robert Browning, the poet took a dislike to 
“the good old English form ‘had better.’ ”
 
Why? Because he mistook the “I’d” in “I’d better” as a contraction of “I 
would” instead of “I had.”
 
Browning once explained in a letter that he was repudiating “the 
slovenly I had for I’d, instead of the proper I would,” on the advice of 
his friend Walter Savage Landor, who hotly criticized many well-known 
English idioms.
<---
 
[1] 
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/03/had-better.html
 



Ci sarebbe anche "had rather", ma c'è chi lo ritiene old-fashioned e chi 
completamente sbagliato. Consiglio "would rather".


Alle ore 18:32:29 di domenica 14/03/2021, Tony the Ice Man ha scritto 

Si discuteva di quello che per Kiuhnm è "un errore comune", 
consistente, secondo lui, nel pensare che "I'd better" stia per "I 
would better".
 
Tu hai mai notato questo mix-up nei native speakers?
 
-- 
IdP

 Si discuteva di quello che per Kiuhnm è "un errore comune", [..]
 
Comune quanto "would of", non nel senso che quasi tutti lo commettano.


 |I would : I had : I should
 
That seems about right.



Ti do un'altra possibilità.
 
Given another chance, I would improve my percentage of valid responses.
Given another chance, I would better my percentage of valid responses.
Given another chance, I'd improve my percentage of valid responses.
Given another chance, I'd better my percentage of valid responses.
 
Stai cominciando a capire perché i tuoi esempi non sono validi per 
questa discussione?

Alle ore 01:04:12 di lunedì 15/03/2021, Kiuhnm ha scritto in 

Certo, "comune" per quanto possa essere comune un errore, in ogni caso 
riguarderebbe una minoranza. Tuttavia non avevo fatto caso a questo 
errore nei native speaker, anzi mi pare curioso, perché i madrelingua 
imparano la forma idiomatica con il latte della mamma, proprio quella e 
non un'altra, non si basano sul libro di grammatica secondo cui "I'd" 
in generale potrebbe stare per "I had", "I would", "I should". Semmai i 
native eliminano anche il "'d", colloquialmente. Comunque farò più 
attenzione per verificare se alcuni scrivono erroneamente "would 
better" intendendo dare un "advice" ad altri o a sé stessi che 
richiederebbe invece "had better".
Certo, non si può escludere in assoluto che qualcuno commetta tale 
errore, magari per ipercorrettismo come nel caso del poeta Robert 
Browning (1812-1889) che hai segnalato. "'Tis vain contending; I would 
better go." Vatti a fidare dei poeti! Si trattava però di una forma 
(non corretta) sostenuta da taluni grammatici ottocenteschi allergici 
alle espressioni idiomatiche che non si incastravano nelle loro teorie, 
non di un errore popolare, par di capire. "The expressions are old 
idioms thoroughly grounded in correct speech and unhesitatingly used by 
the best writers. Some grammarians condemn I had better go , in favor 
of I would better go , apparently because would go is easier to diagram 
...", riferiva un testo del 1901 (First Year English: Syntax and 
Composition).
In ogni caso questa discussione ci sarà utile per rammentarci di non 
commetterlo noi, l'errore! :D
 Riepilogando,
"I had / I'd better go now", la forma idiomatica. "E' meglio che vada 
adesso".
"I would / I'd better my percentage of valid responses, given another 
chance", forma del verbo "to better".
 
-- 
IdP

 generale potrebbe stare per "I had", "I would", "I should".
 
Non mi pare strano: imparano la forma contratta e credono che 'd stia 
per would.


 would.
 
Imparano anche la forma non contratta, con "had", di medesimo 
significato.
 
Ad ogni modo, non penso di poter provare che un fenomeno non esiste. 
Sarebbe una probatio diabolica (devil's proof)!
Chi invece sostiene che un fenomeno esiste potrebbe mostrare evidenze, 
se ci sono.
 
-- 
IdP

 se ci sono.
 
Potrebbe, ma non è tenuto a farlo. Figurati se dopo che ho lavorato 
tutto il giorno passo altro tempo a fare ricerche e cercare conferme 
solo per convincere qualcun altro.


Alle ore 22:48:55 di lunedì 15/03/2021, Kiuhnm ha scritto in 

Non è neanche necessario fare ricerche. Basterebbe spiegare. Se dici 
che hai visto o sentito quell'errore da più native speakers, mi fido.
 
-- 
IdP

 hai visto o sentito quell'errore da più native speakers, mi fido.
 
Spiegare cosa? Ho spiegato l'errore più volte e ho detto che è comune.


 Spiegare cosa? Ho spiegato l'errore più volte e ho detto che è comune.
 
Ok. Perdonami se sono curioso. In quali ambienti l'hai notato? Per 
esempio "would of" / "could of" / "should of" mi pare tipico di persone 
di scarsa cultura.  "Would better" al posto di "had better" invece 
(magari mi sbaglio) mi fa pensare a un errore di chi si sforza di usare 
la forma più formale al posto di quella contratta, ma la sbaglia, come 
il poeta vittoriano Browning o come questo titolo di un paper a firma 
di ricercatori italiani...
 
How long did it last? You would better ask a human
 
Francesco Lacquaniti,1,2,3,* Mauro Carrozzo,3,4 Andrea d’Avella,3 
Barbara La Scaleia,3 Alessandro Moscatelli,5 and Myrka Zago3
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902214/
 
 
 
In rete si trovano diverse liste di "most common errors", ma credo che 
siano abbastanza arbitrarie. Alcuni "errori" sono in effetti forme 
colloquiali, tipo "He did good" al posto di "He did well".
 
Secondo "Common grammar mistakes that native English speakers make"
https://www.lingoloop.com/learn-english-online/common-grammar-mistakes-that-native-english-speakers-make/
 
sono errori comuni:
 
Should have vs. should of
 
Effect vs. affect
 
By accident vs. on accident
 
It’s vs. its
 
Intents and purposes vs. intensive purposes
 
One and the same vs. one in the same
 
Case in point vs. case and point
 
Couldn’t care less vs. could care less
 
He did well vs. he did good
 
 
 
Un'altra lista è quella di Anna Murray, "20 Writing Mistakes Even 
Native Speakers Make".
 
1. its vs it's
 
2. there vs. their vs. they're
 
3. lose vs. loose
 
4. whose vs. who's
 
5. your vs you're
 
6. write vs. right
 
7. me vs. I
 
8. effect vs. affect
 
9. gone vs. went
 
10. accept vs. except
 
11. the apostrophe disaster for plural forms
 
12. ending sentences with prepositions (inappropriately)
 
13. the dangling participle
 
14. could of vs. could have
 
15. irregardless vs. regardless
 
16. here vs. hear
 
17. to vs. too vs. two
 
18. then vs. than
 
19. Comma splice
 
20. were vs. where vs. we're
 
 
da "Most Common Grammar Mistakes that Native English Speakers Make"
https://www.chatsifieds.com/most-common-grammar-mistakes-that-native-english-speakers-make/
 
 
 
E' anche interessante l'analisi della Murray degli errori tipici dei 
native speakers vs. quelli dei learner avanzati.
 
 
High-level English learner errors that native speakers would never 
make:
 
 Tense confusion, depending on the origin language. French and Italian 
speakers tend to say, “I have gone to that movie yesterday.” A German 
speaker might say, “I am always reading the newspaper every morning.” 
Everyone tends to overuse the past perfect–“I had gone to school last 
week and had done all my homework.” (with no context that would trigger 
the past perfect, such as “…before I dropped out and burned my books.”) 
Native speakers rarely select the wrong tense.
 
 
 Modal confusion: “Tonight I will go home early because I must study.” 
This is fine for communicative purposes, as any native speaker would 
understand immediately what is being said, but no native speaker would 
normally phrase it this way. We would probably say, “Tonight I’m going 
home early because I have to study,” or “Tonight I’m going to go home 
early because I’ve got to study.”
 
 
 Prepositions, phrasal verbs, and articles. They’re idiomatic and 
tough. Native speakers tend not to have problems with these.
 
 
 
 
Native speakers, on the other hand, frequently make these mistakes…
 
 
 Confusing the three principal parts of irregular verbs–“drink, drank, 
drunk,” for example, or “lie, lay, lain.” Non-native speakers learn 
right off the bat that the second part is for the past simple and that 
the third (participle) goes after “to be” in the passive or “to have” 
in the perfect tenses. “I have drank,” is incorrect but common. “I’m 
going to lay on my bed,” is another. (Non-native speakers may also make 
these mistakes, depending on their level, but they tend to shed these 
errors as they become advanced, knowing the rules behind them.)
 
 
 Confusing elements that are phonetically similar: e.g. “could’ve” 
rendered “could of” in writing and then in turn in speech. A non-native 
speaker probably wouldn’t do this because it just doesn’t make any 
sense semantically, and they’re more aware of each word that they say 
than your average native speaker.
 
 
 Subjunctive and conditional errors. “If I was rich” should be “If I 
were rich” and “If I would have known…” should be “If I had known.” The 
subjunctive is dying, and the correct formation of a conditional 
sentence is starting to falter as well. (non-native speakers may also 
make these mistakes, because conditionals are a little complicated.)
 
 
 Double negatives–“I wouldn’t know nothing about that”–but these tend 
to be a lot rarer among educated native speakers and frequently 
associated with a lack of education. (You also find these among 
non-natives speakers.)
 
 
 Lack of awareness of countable and uncountable nouns: e.g. “There were 
less people there” instead of “There were fewer people there.” However, 
a native speaker would never refer to “informations” as non-native 
speakers frequently do.
 
 
 Adverb/adjective confusion: “I’m good.” “I feel badly about that.”
 
 
 Subject/object confusion–not just the distinction between whom and 
who, which is now so rare that most ESL books cite whom as optional, 
but also subject/object pronouns: “This picture is of my husband and I 
at the Grand Canyon.”
 
 
 Of course, most of these mistakes might also be made by non-native 
speakers, especially at lower and intermediate levels–but as I said 
before, non-native speakers tend to be made more aware of them through 
ESOL classes and instruction.
 
 [...]
 
-- 
IdP

 Ok. Perdonami se sono curioso. In quali ambienti l'hai notato? 
 
I greci troverebbero il titolo del filo ironico come il macigno rotola 
nuovamente al fondo.

 nuovamente al fondo.
 
I guess you meant "thread". In italiano usiamo spesso espressioni 
inglesi non tradotte: in questo caso diremmo proprio "thread" per 
intendere la successione dei post uno dietro l'altro.


 successione dei post uno dietro l'altro.
 
In alternativa, volendo usare un termine italiano anziché "thread", 
"filone", o semplicemente "discussione".
 
-- 
IdP

 Ok. Perdonami se sono curioso. In quali ambienti l'hai notato?
 
Forum e chat. In passato ho frequentato forum di grammatica dove, ogni 
tanto, qualche madrelingua sosteneva che "I'd better go" stesse per "I 
would better go". Ovviamente veniva prontamente corretto dagli altri 
madrelingua.
L'errore è probabilmente più comune tra i *non* madrelingua, ma anche 
qualche madrelingua ci casca.


 intendere la successione dei post uno dietro l'altro.
 
OK, grazie. Penso d'aver letto dei scrittori italiani nei newsgroup che 
hanno usato "filo" in questo contesto, ma naturalmente ti fido il tuo 
consiglio.


Si può dire "filo del discorso" come in "perdere il filo del discorso", 
ma il "thread" di un forum si chiama "thread" anche in italiano. Può 
essere che hai letto "filone" anziché "filo"? E' un po' insolito, ma 
forse è accettabile.



Boh! Chissà. La memoria tradisce. Cerchiamo sempre di andare avanti.

Alle ore 00:39:54 di giovedì 18/03/2021, Kiuhnm ha scritto in 
it.cultura.linguistica.inglese:

Direi di sì. "Filone" nel senso di "filone di discussione", ovvero 
"line of discussion", quel che in effetti è un "thread".
Non scarterei neanche "discussione", considerato che i newsgroup in 
italiano si chiamano "gruppi di discussione".
Segnalo infine "conversazione", che è la scelta della localizzazione 
italiana del newsreader Mesnews. Per esempio, Ctrl+T = "Segna 
conversazione come letta".
Come ha detto Father, comunque, in italiano usiamo spesso il termine 
inglese "thread".
 
-- 
IdP

Alle ore 00:39:54 di giovedì 18/03/2021, Kiuhnm ha scritto in 
it.cultura.linguistica.inglese:



Alle ore 00:05:42 di lunedì 15/03/2021, Ilario di Poitiers ha scritto 
in it.cultura.linguistica.inglese:

Hi Tony, you didn't reply to my question "Tu hai mai notato questo 
mix-up nei native speakers?". I'm still curious to know your take on 
the topic at hand. Having thoought of it, however, I am inclined to 
believe Kiuhnm was right, and I most likely wrong. That is to say, it's 
plausible that there are a number of native speakers who do believe "I 
would better" stands for "I'd better" with the meaning of "I had 
better". I still think though it's not one of the most frequent 
mistakes among native speakers -- not like "it's" for "its", and so on, 
and that's the reason why I was surprised at first -- but, yes, it's 
well possible that some people make such a mistake.
 
As to the verb "to better" (a performance), of course it's not related 
to "I'd better". I was pointing out that "I would better" can be a form 
of the verb "to better", not the same as "I'd better". A similar remark 
was made in a WordReference thread discussing "had better VS. would 
better".
 
===
 
 
Thomas Tompion said:
 
You would better can be shortened to you'd better but then it's either 
the conditional of to better, meaning to do better than someone, as in
 
1. If you won tomorrow, you would better our previous record, set by 
the treble-winning side in the 1975-76 season.
 
or the conditional of another verb modified by the adverb better, as in
 
2. You would better understand this type of' high-tech' approach if you 
demolished the whole of Trafalgar Square.
 
The second kind of example is unlikely to be elided in this way, I 
think, because of the danger of its being taken initially for you had 
better. The first type of example can happily be elided, in my view.
 
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/had-better-vs-would-better.2498567/
 
 
-- 
IdP

)
 
Alle ore 00:05:42 di lunedì 15/03/2021, Ilario di Poitiers ha scritto 
in it.cultura.linguistica.inglese:

Hi Tony, you didn't reply to my question "Tu hai mai notato questo 
mix-up nei native speakers?". I'm still curious to know your take on 
the topic at hand. Having thoought of it, however, I am inclined to 
believe Kiuhnm was right, and I most likely wrong. That is to say, it's 
plausible that there are a number of native speakers who do believe "I 
would better" stands for "I'd better" with the meaning of "I had 
better". I still think though it's not one of the most frequent 
mistakes among native speakers -- not like "it's" for "its", and so on, 
and that's the reason why I was surprised at first -- but, yes, it's 
well possible that some people make such a mistake.
 
As to the verb "to better" (a performance), of course it's not related 
to "I'd better" with the meaning "I had better". I was pointing out 
that "I would better" can be a form of the verb "to better", not the 
same as "I'd better" with meaning "I had better". A similar remark was 


 WordReference thread discussing "had better VS. would better".
 
Infatti, no, non hai dato quella spiegazione. Hai risposto invece
 
 >>>> Non sono un appassionato di sport, non corro il rischio! :D
 
e seguendo, hai scritto molti esempi di "better" come il verbo invece di 
come l'avverbio che discutevamo. I tuoi esempi avevano nulla da fare con 
l'argomento in discussione e erano presentato come contrasto alla mia 
dichiarazione che "non ho sentito mai "I would better."
 
Sono disposto a dimenticare quest errore ma non cercare di "gaslight me" 
con una razionalizzazione dopo il fatto.

 una razionalizzazione dopo il fatto.
 
Exactly. Because I assumed your objected to "to better". So I brought 
some examples. I should have understood that was not your point.
Anyway, the part about "to better", which caused our misunderstanding 
(or the alleged "gaslighting"!), was even incidental to the main topic. 
Really, who cares? I didn't spend more words on it because it looked 
like we were at a stand-still, not understanding each other, on a minor 
detail. I am back to it just because I realize it got on your nerves 
and I am sorry about that. If it irritated you, it was not intended, 
please accept my apologies.
 You see, I am not interested in "being right" or in covering up 
mistakes. I am here as an ESL learner. My main goal is to learn, to 
practice, to be corrected when I make slip-ups, sometimes to share with 
others what I may find interesting, and that's it.
 
-- 
IdP


OK, no problem.
 
A proposito, probabilmente non è un errore ma invece un po' di 
distrazione: si dice "your objection" o "you objected to" ma non "your 
objected."