Language desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 12

Grammaticality of "let's English"

Is the expression "let's English" grammatical? It's the name of an English academy in Poland (http://letsenglish.pl/ no need to click the link, the page is in Polish). If not, what kind of mistake is this? I expect a verb after "let's", but even then, I understand the expression. --Llaanngg (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't grammatical, since "English" is not a verb. Of course, maybe someday it will be. Words like "party" didn't used to be a verb, but during the 1970s and 1980s, it became one, and is now. To people of the Baby Boomer generation and earlier "Let's party" sounds ungrammatical. --Jayron 32 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the OED Online shows examples of "party" as a verb (in the relevant sense) from as far back as 1922. The earliest use is in a letter from E. E. Cummings, which uses some eccentric spellings and makes the verb's past tense "partyed". --174.88.135.200 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first moment of usage is not identical to when a word becomes commonly accepted. --Jayron 32 10:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the first moment of usage will likely be well before the first known usage in print as so far discovered by the OED. It's possible in this instance that Cummings was consciously coining a neologism in his letter (I do the same thing when corresponding with like-minded friends), but more likely that he used it because it was already current in speech, at least in his and his friend's shared lexicon. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even "Let's fighting love" sounds less stupid already. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're critiquing grammar, "didn't used to" seems a bit off, Jayron. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

yeah, it do, don't it? --Jayron 32 01:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's is in effect an auxiliary or modal verb that has to be followed by the infinitive form of a main verb for an utterance to be grammatical in English. English is not a verb, so this construction is not grammatical. I would not recommend studying English at a school with that name. Marco polo (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"English" is a perfectly valid (if rather old-fashioned) verb, meaning "to translate into English" - see its Wiktionary entry. However, I agree that the meaning in the OP's text (presumably "learn English" or "speak English") is incorrect. Tevildo (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's French", yes - "Let's English", er, no thank you. Rmhermen (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on the English vice, naturally. Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English may be a "valid" verb, but English is my native language, and I have a doctoral degree and years of experience as a professional editor, and I have never heard or read English used as a verb. It is highly nonstandard. According to the Wikipedia entry, it is archaic. So, based on its name, that Polish school might be a good place to learn archaic or nonstandard English, but not a place to learn English as it is currently used. Marco polo (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No doctorate, not a professional editor, but "Englished" to mean "translated into English" is familiar to me. DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North's Plutarch's Lives is perhaps the most familiar example.

It's certainly a valid archaic verb. William Caxton and Sir Thomas More used it, as did Shakespeare, Milton, H G Wells and Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie, but I agree with Marco Polo that I would not expect to see it in modern English writing except for special effect. Dbfirs 07:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the name's an "ironic" or "meta" statement (whatever those mean anymore), illustrating the pervasiveness of shoddy Engrish in the global marketplace, like some sort of "It can happen to the best of us, unless you're prepared" scare ad. If so, it's a damn risky move. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe there's a play on words that only Polish speakers understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, or at least I don't get it. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a billiards school. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it claimed that you can verb any noun in English, but the OP's example seems to argue against it. --catslash (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EO dates "English" as a verb to the 14th century.[1] Not that that's any excuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think the arcane archaic verb was intended. "Let's [noun]", (see also anthimeria) can be found in all sorts of less formal places online ("let's facebook", "let's chess", "let's monopoly", "let's tonic", "let's beer" (yes, I know "beer" is also an archaic verb ...)), but I agree with Marco and Hulko; it's risky at best to give this name to an English learning institute, and it wouldn't make the school more attractive or recommendable to me (though I'm not prescriptivistically inclined at all). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Beer" isn't so archaic, in a "beer me" (give me a beer) way. In fact, BeerMe.com was updated just today. Any thirsty folk tired of the same old should apparently head to Sant'Arcangelo. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically correct is "Let's Polish".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the academy was owned by a man named 'Let', it would be grammatically correct... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or if it's funded by Pledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]