Tarjima shunoslik va lingvo didaktika kafedrasi

2. The Grammar differences
Nouns
Concordance
In English there are special singularia tantum nouns, which stand for a group of persons, but which may be used both in singular and plural (collective nouns), e.g., team, people, army. In British English, these nouns take both the plural (notional agreement) and the singular (formal agreement). The choice is made according to whether the group is meant as a whole or as a set of its individual members. For comparison: a committee was appointed and the committee were unable to agree.The term the Government in the British Civil Service is always agreed in the plural to fulfill the legal principle of cabinet collective responsibility.An example might also be lines from Elvis Costello's song "Oliver's Army": Oliver's Army is here to stay / Oliver's Army are on their way. Some such words, such as staff, are overwhelmingly plural only.

In American English these words are almost always used in the singular: The committee was unable to agree. However, if the speaker wants to emphasize that the members of the group are acting separately, he or she can add a personal pronoun in the plural to the sentence. Example: the team takes their seats instead of the team takes its seats. In reality, however, it is much more likely that the same phrase will be rendered as the team members take their seats. Sports team names usually agree in the plural, even if the name is grammatically in the singular. There are some exceptions: The New York Times uses both

The difference is evident in all words denoting multitudes (collective nouns) - in both nouns (team, company) and proper nouns (e.g., names of sports clubs and teams). For comparison:

BrE: SuperHeavy is a band that shouldn't work or First Aid Kit are a band full of contradictions; AmE: The Clash is a well-known band. In the first case the band is referred to in the plural, in the second case it is referred to in the singular.

BrE: Spain are the champions; AmE: Spain is the champion.

Verbs
Verb Morphology

The past and past participle of learn, spoil, spell, burn, dream, smell, spill, leap and other verbs can be either correct (learned, spoiled) or incorrect (learnt, spoilt). In British English, both forms are used equally. However, in some words (such as smelt and leapt), the irregular form is more common, especially among speakers of Received Pronunciation. Other words, by contrast, are more often heard with the correct ending. In American dialects, the irregular forms are rare and almost never used, but again, there are exceptions (burnt, leapt and dreamt).
Endings to the letter t are often found in older American texts. If the verb is used as an adjective (as in burnt toast), the ending can be arbitrary. The two-syllable word learnèd /ˈlɜrnɪd/ (usually spelled without the accent), meaning "learned" or in reference to educational institutions, is in the correct form in both versions of English. Another exception is the words dwell and kneel. Their past participle forms are dwelt and knelt in both versions as well. In American, however, the forms dwelled and kneeled are also acceptable.
In Britain, lit, not lighted, is used as the past form of the verb to light. American English gives lit as "set on fire/ignited" and lighted as "lit", as in "The stagehand lit the set and then lit a cigarette"[The opposite is true of the word fitted: in British English fitted is preferred, while in American English there are difficulties of meaning. Fitted is used by Americans to mean to bring an object into a suitable condition (synonymous with suited), as well as to mean to fit a more important object to a less important one (a construction like "fitted X around Y"). Fit is used in the sense of fitting a less important object to a more important object (construction of the form "fit[-past] X into Y"). When neither object changes, fit is also used in American English ("The clothes [past-]fit."; "The clothes [past-]fit me well.").
In British English, only spat is used as a past form of the verb spit in the sense of "to spit"; in American English, spit or spat.[ Spat is used in metaphors ("He spat out the name with a sneer") or if anything other than spit itself is spit out ("He spat out the foul-tasting fish"). In all other cases, Americans prefer spit.
The past participle of the verb saw sounds like sawn in British English and sawed in American English. By comparison, sawn-off/sawed-off shotgun.
The form got as a past participle of get is almost never used in modern British English; the only exceptions are some dialects of northeastern and western England. Instead, got is used everywhere, except in some obsolete expressions like ill-gotten gains. According to the compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, "The got form is not used in British English, but is very common in North American English. Webster's Dictionary even designates got as the norm. Usually in American English, got is used to emphasize acquiring an object, while got is used to denote possession of an object. For example, Have you got it? (Did you get it?) and Have you got it? (Have you got it?). Also, in spoken American English, the got form is common in phrasal verbs with get, such as get off, get on, get into, get up, and get around. For example, If you hadn't gotten up so late, you might not have gotten into this mess. In American English, forget is also found as a form of the past participle of forget, as opposed to the standard, British form of forgotten.
In British English the past participle proven is used instead of proven, in American English both are used almost equally.Both British and American versions of proven are used in the sense of an adjective and in stable expressions like not proven (Scottish court verdict).
American English develops the theme of verb irregularity, causing the appearance of incorrect simply spoken forms like dove (from dive) and snuck (from sneak). Sometimes American English even mixes the preterite and past participle forms (spring-sprang or spring-sprungand as a result, verbs like shrink are incorrectly modified. For example, the verb shrink is modified by the rules as shrink-shrunk-shrunk, whereas in American English you might find shrink-shrunk-shrunken. Such forms are considered non-compliant. One American style guide, the AP Stylebook, considers the unusual past forms of some verbs as colloquial and colloquial, and recommends their correct equivalents (this includes dive, plead, sneak and other verbs). The forms dove and snuck are considered incorrect in the UK, although dove is present in some British dialects and snuck can sometimes be heard in British speech.
As the structure of verb forms has further evolved, some verbs with an irregular preterite in American English have acquired their own non-standard past participle forms.
Use of Tenses
Traditionally, British English uses the tense Present Perfect and the adverbs already, just, or yet to describe recent events. In American English, both Present Perfect (if we are talking about facts) and Past Simple (if we are talking about expectations) can be used for this purpose. The American manner of this temporal distribution has only become common in the last 20-30 years and is used on a par with the British manner. There has been a recent trend in British English to use just with Past Simple, especially in headlines and advertising slogans such as "Cable broadband just got faster".
BrE: "I have just arrived home" or "I've just arrived home." AmE: "I just arrived home." ("I've arrived home.")
BrE: "I have already eaten" or "I've already eaten." AmE: "I already ate." ("I have already eaten.").
In the same way, in American English, Past Perfect is sometimes replaced by Past Simple.
In British English, have got or have to can mean belonging, and have got to or have to can give modality. The forms with got are mostly found in informal contexts, the forms without got in more formal contexts. In American speech, got is more common than in British speech, but the latter often use got to give more meaning to an action. In colloquial American English, got plays the role of the verb have, as in I got two cars or I got to go.
Conditional sentences in American speech may include would or would have (abbreviated as [I]'d or would've) constructions for the tenses Past Perfect (pluperfect) and Past Simple. For example, If you'd leave now, you'd be on time; / If I would have [would've] cooked the pie we could have [could've] had it for lunch. Traditionally in English, constructions with would are not used after if, so there are no such phrases in written speech in America. In conversation, however, this phenomenon is common in all strata of American society. Some authoritative sources even classify such constructions as standard in American English, without classifying them as colloquialismsThere are also cases where would after if is also used in British English. This usually occurs when would carries a modality, as in the following sentence: If you would listen to me once in a while, you might learn somethingAnother permissible case is if the action in an if dictation occurs after the action in the main sentence. For example: If it would make Bill happy, I'd [I would] give him the money.
The American subjunctive mood (morphologically the same as the infinitive) often uses mandative clauses. Example: They suggested that he apply for the job. In British English, the use of this type of adjective had all but disappeared by the end of the 20th century, giving way to sentences like They suggested that he should apply for the job, or even more ambiguous constructions like They suggested that he applied for the job. Nevertheless, mandative clauses have never completely disappeared in the history of British English.
Auxiliary verbs
Shall instead of will is much more common among Britons than among Americans]. Shan't (short for shall not) is almost never used in American English, instead won't or am/is/are going to is used. American grammar also often ignores some of the historical differences between should and would.
The periphrastic future as "to be going to" is twice as common in American English as it is in British English.
The use of the verb "do" as a predicate is typical only for British English. For example, "Did Frank love nature or fair play?" - "Why, he must have done." In this case, the typical American response would be "Why, he must have." without the "do" at the end]. The British can use "do" for the answer in all forms
The American subjunctive mood (morphologically the same as the infinitive) often uses imperative clauses. Example: They suggested that he apply for the job. In British English, the use of this type of adjective had all but disappeared by the end of the 20th century, giving way to sentences like They suggested that he should apply for the job, or even more ambiguous constructions like They suggested that he applied for the job. Nevertheless, imperative clauses have never completely disappeared in the history of British English.
Auxiliary verbs.
Shall instead of will is much more common among Britons than among Americans. Shan't (short for shall not) is almost never used in American English, instead it is used won't or am/is/are going to. American grammar also often ignores some of the historical distinctions between should and would.
The periphrastic future as "to be going to" occurs twice as often in American English as in British English
The use of the verb "do" as a predicate is only common in British English.For example, "Did Frank love nature or fair play?" - "Why, he must have done." In this case, the typical American answer would be "Why, he must have." without the "do" at the end. The British can use "do" for an answer in all forms
Completeness
The verbs prevent and stop can be used in two different constructions: "prevent/stop someone from doing something" and "prevent/stop someone from doing something. The latter is more common in British English than in American English.
Some verbs are used either in a to+infinitive construction or in a gerund construction (e.g., to start to do something/to start doing something). The gerund is more common:
In American English with the verbs start, begin, omit, enjoy
In British English with the verbs love, like, intend
The presence or absence of syntactic elements
When two different actions occur in a statement, in American English it is acceptable to use to go with the bare infinitive, that is, the initial form of the verb without the to particle. The British, on the other hand, separate the two actions with the word and. For example, an American will say I'll go take a bath and a Brit will say I'll go and have a bath. In both, it is possible to go to if it is assumed that the action will not succeed, as in He went to take/have a bath, but the tub was full of children. The same is true of the word come. In American English, it is preferable to come see what I've bought; in British English, it is preferable to come and see what I've bought (the typically British Present Perfect is also noticeable)[55]. The shortening of the word and to 'n' is more often used in American English in sentences like "come 'n' get it" and "wait 'n' see".
The use of prepositions before indicating a particular day in the year or week also differs. In the United Kingdom they say She resigned on Thursday, while in the United States it is quite popular to say She resigned Thursday without the preposition on. Both are about equally common in American English. Sometimes there may even be no preposition in front of months: I'll be here December, but such forms are generally regarded as colloquial.
In the United Kingdom, the preposition from is used more often in sentences of the "beginning at some time" type than in the United States. Where the British will say the new museum will be open from Tuesday, Americans are more likely to say the new museum will be open starting Tuesday or on Tuesday. This difference is not seen in the A to B constructions, where both British and Americans unanimously say from. Also in America they say the play opens Tuesday, while in Britain they say the play opens on Tuesday.
With some nouns meaning place (sea, prison, college) the definite article is not used if a certain relation of the subject to this place is assumed. For example, it is said at sea (if a sailor is meant), in prison (a prisoner), and at/in college (a student). In British English, in hospital (for a patient) and at university (for a student) do not require an article, whereas in American English, in the hospital and at the university are the norm. The combinations in college and in school in American English, however, are acceptable. When it is not a patient or a student, the definite article is required in both variants. Both British and Americans also do not add an article to the phrase rush hour - British English at rush hour / American English in rush hour.
British English distinguishes between the phrases in future and in the future. American English uses in the future to express both thoughts.