[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-09, 20:06, said:

Agreed. Both "DUI" (driving under the influence) and "DWI" (driving while intoxicated) are completely acceptable terms; there's no need to specifically use any form of "to drink".

Except perhaps in a construction like "she drives me to drink".

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-09, 20:00, said:

"whilst" is not a word on this side of the pond.

True.

[Elianna]

Add another American (California if that matters) vote for "drunk driving" or "drinking and driving" being very common. "drive drunk" or "drink and drive" are also acceptable variances. Here's how I would use these phrases in a sentence:

"He was arrested on a charge of drunk driving"/"Drinking and driving is dangerous and illegal"
"Don't drink and drive"/"He's been known to drive drunk"

The first two pairs are using the action as a noun, and the second as a verb. I think I change construction based on tense, too.

[chasetb]

United States, Midwest/Hillbilly location here -> I chose "drunk driving"

If you have already had your fair share of spirits/liquor and are behind the wheel, you are "drunk driving", much like "drunk texting" , "drunk phone calls", and the locally popular "drunk beer cans on a wooden fence post shooting" . DUI and DWI cover much more than just alcohol; it also covers being under drugs, but you first have to get caught in order to be charged with it...

The process of it is "drinking and driving", which is very much in use. However, I tend not to use this term for two reasons: (1.) Drunk driving is less syllables and easier to say.
(2.) I know a few people who on private property / backroads where no cops go, who will on summer nights, actually go drinking and driving. In the old days, it would be with "4 on the floor and Bubba ridin' shotgun". Nowadays, most trucks driven around here are automatics, people rarely name their dogs 'Bubba', and people won't just drive themselves, they will 'car pool' so you have a Full cab full of drunk idiots.

Yes, I know about these things, but have never done any of them. I value my life, and based on the current average male longevity in the USA(~76), I have another 49 years. Based on my current health and recent family history, I can reasonably expect 60+ .

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2015-January-09, 18:03, said:

You mentioned you were not so happy with what he is being taught. Could you give details? I am guessing that "rijden onder invloed" translates fiarly literally to "driving under the infuence". I would hate to see that marked wrong.

Ken, I couldn't agree more with your entire post. I promise I will give all the details you want, but first I want some poll results from the whole world.

My son uses an English method, developed in an English speaking country, not specifically geared to the Netherlands. (I had a similar method when I was in middle school.) This means that the book doesn't provide any translations, nor does it gear to things that Dutch speakers might consider particularly difficult or obvious about English (Dutch and English are relatively similar languages). On top of that, his teacher is a native speaker, with a relatively poor knowledge of the Dutch language.

So, his book had a story, containing the English phrase "d???????driving". In Dutch, there is no literal translation for this phrase. It would be a conjugation of the verb "drinken" followed by "rijden", but it is not used in Dutch, while "rijden onder invloed", which indeed translates literally to "driving under the influence" (DUI), is used. So, he translated it like that, I approve of that, and supposedly the teacher approved it too before he was told to memorize it.

Now, here comes the problem. My son has a handicap. His handicap is that he is already entirely bilingual. We are an international family and my wife and I have been speaking English since we met in Michigan. So, English is my son's first language. We moved to the Netherlands 10 years ago. That is when he started to learn Dutch. Children learn languages very fast and their friends have more influence than their parents, so now the local dialect is his dominant language, but his English is almost as good as that of an American kid his age (except for his writing), except that he sometimes uses a Dutch construction for an English sentence (or an English construction in his Dutch). (In addition, both our kids have been using "I amn't" instead of "I'm not" for ages. I think we got rid of that by now.)

So, our son already knows all the translations. It doesn't matter to him whether he reads a story in English or Dutch. They are equivalent to him (and sometimes he doesn't even remember in what language he read something). Last year's teacher didn't give any feedback on their translations: Her Dutch knowledge was insufficient to judge that. She just assumed that what she found in the dictionary was correct and since the kids supposedly have the same dictionary, their translations must be the same. Quite obviously, our son never opened his dictionary and translated all the words himself. I checked whether his translations were correct and they were impecable.

Then he gets the test: He needs to translate the Dutch words and phrases that he was supposed to have learned into English. About a third of the translations are different from what he translated. And in 95% of the cases, I consider his translations to be more accurate (but I only see that when he gets his test back). So when he takes his test, he gets a Dutch phrase that he never studied to translate into English. He does that, but doesn't always find the original phrase from his book (but a better one). WRONG!!! So, this bilingual boy, who is absolutely fluent in Dutch and English, gets insufficient grades on his vocabulary tests. (I am not kidding.)

So, his handicap, compared to the other children, is that he needs to forget what he has known for years, and replace it by something that he feels is wrong. That is awfully hard to do.

When I was his age, I often mentioned that using English methods developed in English speaking countries was a very bad idea. My arguments back then were that the methods are not specific to the Dutch situation and that if you want to pick anybody to develop a good method to teach you a foreign language, people from English speaking countries should be at the bottom of the list. They have the least experience in learning and teaching foreign languages (since the whole world speaks English anyway, look what I am writing now) and are completely clueless on how to teach or learn a foreign language compared to people from ... Denmark or India or the Netherlands, or practically any country in the world, who at least will have learned/taught foreign languages themselves. My teachers agreed with me, but explained that these books were simply cheaper by economy of scale. They are used to teach English in Mexico, India, Brasil, Spain. Books specific for the small Dutch market are much more expensive.

I think these arguments (mine and my teachers') are still valid. Now I at least had a teacher who was fluent in Dutch. My son has English teachers who don't speak Dutch. They only know English. Great for pronunciation (last year he developed a New Zealand accent) but poor for a proper understanding of the language structure, since his teachers can't explain how the English language is structured: they just speak it. That's how you make a sentence, because that's how it is. They can't tell why, or what the underlying principles are. They don't even understand why people would ask about that, nor do they realize that only sentences in English are structured that way and that this is not universal.

This rant has little to do with the DUI translation. I just thought that the DUI phrase he was taught was weird and was wondering where it came from, since it "certainly ain't American" and I felt it was incorrect British English too. My wife thought the same and I got the idea to ask here where there are a lot of smart native speakers of English in all its varieties.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Funny. When I was in elementary, junior high, and high school, some half a century ago and more, my English teachers not only knew how English is structured, they required us to learn it too. So it seems to me that if the current crop of native-English speaking English teachers can't explain how the language is structured, there's something seriously wrong with the educational system wherever they came from, and in particular with the teacher certification process.

[mgoetze]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-09, 12:45, said:

It needs to contain "driving" in the continuous tense and some form of the verb "to drink".

Before reading the post associated with your poll, "drunk driving" seemed like an obvious winner to me. But it's not the right answer to your question because "drunk driving" contains not the past participle of the verb "to drink", but rather the adjective "drunk" being used as an adverb. The fact that they are spelled the same is purely coincidental.

Therefore, my answer to the question as you phrased it is "drinking and driving".

The first/primary form of English that I learned was Canadian English.

[Mbodell]

I voted "drunk driving" because that is sort of what seemed right. But I started thinking about it more as reading the thread and I'm not so sure. The issue is that I usually think of it as not an activity, but a person. So I think of a "drunk driver". As in, he was injured in an accident with a drunk driver. Or, after drinking too much on New Year's, Bob got a ticket for being a drunk driver. Although that last one could easily be "a ticket for drinking and driving". But saying they got a DUI also is easily recognizable (DWI as well, but DUI > DWI for me).

Finally:

DUI driving: 30.6 M
DWI driving: 11.7 M
"drunk driving": 10.7 M
"drinking and driving": 6.27 M
"drink driving": 1.61 M
"drunken driving": 1.26 M

These are all google hit numbers for me (note for the two acronyms I added driving to narrow the field but didn't require it to be that phrase, while the quoted strings need to be exact matches).

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-10, 00:11, said:

(In addition, both our kids have been using "I amn't" instead of "I'm not" for ages. I think we got rid of that by now.)

"I amn't" is routinely used by my Scottish relatives, who argue perfectly reasonably that it's acceptable to say "we aren't" or "we're not".

[the hog]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-09, 20:00, said:

"whilst" is not a word on this side of the pond.

Really? It is in the Merriam Webster dictionary.
Whilst refers to specific time. While is general.
Whilst I did the dishes she entertained the guests. (While here would sound incorrect to a native speaker).
She often entertains the guests while I do the dishes.

[mgoetze]

the hog, on 2015-January-10, 04:11, said:

Whilst I did the dishes she entertained the guests. (While here would sound incorrect to a native speaker).

I assure you it would not sound incorrect to the vast majority of Americans.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2015-January-09, 13:06, said:

I think drink driving is the phrase we use here in England, and Wikipedia says that's the UK & Australian usage, but I see RMB1 has given a different answer. I could say his answer doesn't count because he doesn't drive, but then he might say mine doesn't count because I don't drink.

I gave the same answer as Robin, and I don't drive either. Perhaps that has given both of us more time to study the English language?

I think that the distinction between "drunk" and "drunken" is (or used to be) that "drunk" describes the state of being drunk, and "drunken" describes something that is affected by someone's being drunk. As in:

"You're drunk."
"A drunken stagger."

"Drink driving" is, I expect, a term invented by bureaucrats to cover not only drunken driving but also the entire spectrum of driving whilst affected by alcohol. As with most such phrases, it's illiterate, except in the rather unusual sense of driving a drink.

[Zelandakh]

Just to mention that the legal basis for this is the Road Traffic Act 1991. Within this the relevant offence is "Driving under influence of drink or drugs". The Act also contains the construction "drink-drive". If one looks elsewhere on the UK government websites one can also find the unhyphenated form "drink driving". I did not find "drinking and driving" (but also did not look too hard, it would not surprise me if it is there) - to me it sounds acceptable but old-fashioned. I would tend to agree with others that "drunk driving" and its derivatives are an Americanism although I also found this in use on some UK websites.

On the side issue, I lived in Scotland for a few years and never once heard the phrase "I amn't". I do not think this in general usage.

Finally, if someone is teaching English I would expect them to be able to explain about rules for constructing English sentences and about alternative translations. One of the most important things in translations is precisely that it is often best not to translate something directly. These are things that I sometimes do here in Germany with "interested" colleagues as a mathematician/IT guy, so for a teaching professional not to have that ability is ridiculous. For sure, they might have to think about difficult cases but simply not to have the knowledge to do so is unacceptable.

As you describe it, it sounds like the school is not providing a suitable level of education and that your child is being disadvantaged about it. If it were me I would take the matter to the Headmaster (Am: Principle). It cannot be that low grades are given because the student provides work more advanced than the teacher can follow. Even worse if the student is being asked to learn a lower form of English.

A caveat though. English is well-known as a language of exceptions and few absolute rules. While any teacher should be able to describe the basic sentence constructions, that construction might not be ideal for a more complex clause. It is genuinely difficult to provide rules sometimes, especially if an answer is expected immediately. On the other hand, it is easy for a native speaker to create a half dozen example sentences of related forms and from this to spot the pattern. That costs time, of course, so I understand why a teacher might be reluctant to do so for every piece of homework. Not to do so for specific, occasional questions is just being lazy imho.

[Bbradley62]

the hog, on 2015-January-10, 04:11, said:

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-09, 20:00, said:

"whilst" is not a word on this side of the pond.

Really? It is in the Merriam Webster dictionary.

Merriam-Webster.com said:

Definition of WHILST
chiefly British
: while

Examples of WHILST

<I like to get my knitting done whilst watching the telly.>

Excellent example -- Americans would never use the word "telly" either.

[kenberg]

gnasher, on 2015-January-10, 04:33, said:

I gave the same answer as Robin, and I don't drive either. Perhaps that has given both of us more time to study the English language?

I think that the distinction between "drunk" and "drunken" is (or used to be) that "drunk" describes the state of being drunk, and "drunken" describes something that is affected by someone's being drunk. As in:

"You're drunk."
"A drunken stagger."

"Drink driving" is, I expect, a term invented by bureaucrats to cover not only drunken driving but also the entire spectrum of driving whilst affected by alcohol. As with most such phrases, it's illiterate, except in the rather unusual sense of driving a drink.

This is what I was trying to say with my preference for drunken driving over drunk driving.
However, if a cop gave me a ticked for drunk driving I would not try to get it dismissed by arguing that I was really engaged in drunken driving.

"drink driving" sounds awful to me.

If I may go a bit off topic, but still in the area of how kids are taught:

One of the grandkids called for advice. He is 10 and had a problem in math. A kid owes his mothe $75 and is paying her back at the rate of $5 per week. The first issue, and with this there was no trouble, was to determine how much he still owes his mother after 6 weeks of payment. He can do this. The next question was, as closely as I can recall,"Explain the pattern using the independent variable x as the number of payments and the dependent variable y as the amount owed". Huh? His mother, my wife's daughter, said "Call your grandparents, they know this stuff". After some discussion, we decided that probably the answer should be "As the independent variable x increases by 1, the dependent variable y decreases by 5". But really, I don't know. I think of these questions as "Read the teacher's mind" questions. His mother is smart enough but not trained in the lingo. Is some farm mother, or factory worker mother, or father, actually supposed to be able to help with this?
I think kids need to be able to use mathematics to carefully work through practical issues. Who owes who, or rather who owes whom, how much? How long will it take to pay off the debt? If the mother is charging interest, how much will the total of the interest charges be? Maybe some moral lesson about why you should not spend money you don't have. If the kid eventually wants to get into mathematics, there will be time enough to learn about independent and dependent variables.


Back to the OP. Drunk driving, drunken driving, driving while drunk, etc etc, why on Earth should one be right and the others wrong? Most of us grew up learning English "adequately". Presumably that is the goal for a class in English as a second language. If the kid, or the adult, then wants to pursue precise grammar as a profession or a hobby, that's his business.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2015-January-10, 08:37, said:

Back to the OP. Drunk driving, drunken driving, driving while drunk, etc etc, why on Earth should one be right and the others wrong? Most of us grew up learning English "adequately". Presumably that is the goal for a class in English as a second language. If the kid, or the adult, then wants to pursue precise grammar as a profession or a hobby, that's his business.

I agree with you to some extent when your point is: If the kid translates from his own language into English and he does it as grammatically and semantically correct as the average American COP (i.e. incorrect, but everybody knows what is meant), we should be more than happy.

Things are a little different when they get a story to read, supposedly written by a native speaker, with the aim to teach these kids English. Then I expect the English to be correct, or to be representative of the incorrect English that is commonly used (which linguistic liberals could argue is correct English by definition). In this case, I saw it and I was absolutely sure that my son made a typo. Given that the school requirements are not as lax as yours and that it is either 100% correct or it is wrong, I want him to be 100% correct on 90% of his answers (which will give him a 90% score), rather than 90% correct on 100% of his answers (which will score a big fat 0, whether you and I agree with that or not).

Rik

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2015-January-10, 04:33, said:

As you describe it, it sounds like the school is not providing a suitable level of education and that your child is being disadvantaged about it. If it were me I would take the matter to the Headmaster (Am: Principle). It cannot be that low grades are given because the student provides work more advanced than the teacher can follow. Even worse if the student is being asked to learn a lower form of English.

It is very possible to teach English without knowing the students' native tongue; the problem here is that the teacher is asking the children to do something he cannot do himself, ie translations. This teacher is simply not qualified to grade such work.

A slightly related question is where I the English-speaking world is "principle" used for "principal"? This is one I have not seen before.

When I mentioned "drink driving" I almost added that it is "official" language and not really used in conversation, but I was lazy. But as others have pointed out, this is the case.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2015-January-10, 04:33, said:

I gave the same answer as Robin, and I don't drive either. Perhaps that has given both of us more time to study the English language?

I think that the distinction between "drunk" and "drunken" is (or used to be) that [size="2"]"drunk" describes the state of being drunk, and "drunken" describes something that is affected by someone's being drunk.

Yes, but then the problem with the answer you and Robin selected is that the driving might not be affected at all, but doing it is still an offence.

That being said, I do remember the phrase being popular some years ago. LOL not that it is a generational thing since you are the same age as I and Robin not a whole lot older! But maybe as non-drivers you encounter the term very infrequently.

[Bbradley62]

gordontd, on 2015-January-10, 02:48, said:

Trinidad, on 2015-January-10, 00:11, said:

(In addition, both our kids have been using "I amn't" instead of "I'm not" for ages. I think we got rid of that by now.)

"I amn't" is routinely used by my Scottish relatives, who argue perfectly reasonably that it's acceptable to say "we aren't" or "we're not".

I read Rik's post as "I ain't", which is incorrect but not uncommon in certain circles. I've never seen or heard "I amn't" until now.

[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-10, 11:08, said:

A slightly related question is where I the English-speaking world is "principle" used for "principal"? This is one I have not seen before.

In much the same places as where "looser" is used for "loser", I assume.