Listen to the author reading this blog post.

by Liz Walter
One of the best ways to learn a language is to go to a country where it is spoken, or to interact with speakers of the language in other ways. However, you are likely to come across some non-standard grammar. Some of these forms are very common, so it is useful to be aware of them. However, they are not considered correct, especially in formal contexts, and you will lose marks if you use them in exams. This post and my next one will look at a few such grammar points.
Let’s start with the past simple form of the verb to be. In standard English, was is used after I/she/he/it while were follows you/we/they. You might, therefore, be confused to hear sentences such as the following:
We was hungry.
I thought you was going to cry.
This usage is usually associated with less educated speakers and isn’t often seen in written English, but it is common, and it is also part of some regional dialects.
Another common non-standard grammar point is the use of a ‘double negative’. In standard English, there is only one negative word in a sentence:
He hasn’t got any money.
She didn’t do anything wrong.
However, it is common to hear double negatives, with two negative words in the sentence. As before, these are more associated with spoken English and with less educated speakers. It is also common to hear the informal word ain’t instead of am not, isn’t, aren’t, hasn’t and haven’t. It is not appropriate to use ain’t in formal writing:
He ain’t got no money.
She didn’t do nothing wrong.
The final issue I’m going to look at today is the use of subject and object pronouns. It is extremely common to hear people use I/me, she/her and he/him incorrectly in compound subjects or objects with the conjunction and:
Me and my friends are going to the cinema.
Him and Maria have been dating for years.
In standard English, these sentences would be:
My friends and I are going to the cinema.
He and Maria have been dating for years.
This is because these sentences need a subject pronoun, not an object pronoun. Interestingly, some people try too hard and over-correct their pronouns, producing sentences such as:
He gave the money to my friends and I.
A simple rule for getting this right is to imagine you were only using the pronoun:
He gave the money to me.
The pronoun you use on its own is the one you should use when you add someone else using and:
He gave the money to my friends and me.
My next post will look at a few more non-standard grammar points that are very commonly used by people who speak English as their first language.
Very enriching
This is very good. This is helpful. I have struggled with pronouns for years.
The part of your explanation about the informal word ‘ain’t’ was helpful to me.
English is so easy, it’s unbelievable. The grammar is so simple. I can’t imagine how hard it must be for an English speaker to learn a foreign language, let’s say German, which has got so many declensions and forms (for nouns as well as for pronouns). Btw. my native language is Czech. I speak English, Portuguese, Spanish, and I learn German. English is by far the easiest language (grammar-wise) out there.
I’m confused about double negation, the case of “ain’t” is relatively clear as it’s commonly used with double negation to mean negation, but double negation does sometimes resolve to affirmation right? Like should we understand “You haven’t got nothing to say” or “There isn’t nothing here” as “There is nothing” or “There is something”? I would’ve taken these as double negation = affirmation here.
A double negative is most of the time still negative. ‘You ain’t (haven’t) got nothing to say’ would be understood as ‘You ain’t (haven’t) got anything to say’.
The main point is that standard English does not use double negatives, as that would be redundant. Of course, in other languages, this structure is possible, but not in English.
Very helpful and useful since it confirmed to me certain habits and whenever I asked why they said certain things in the common way rather than the correct way
Maybe include would, should and could “of”?
Yes, they are in my next post!
That’s nice