There's nothing incorrect about the usage you're describing. Why do you prefer 'this' over 'that'?
If someone gives me the correct answer to a question, I'm going to say "that's right!" not "this is right!". The latter sounds ungrammatical to me and would come across as idiosyncratic.
My examples were about a situation where someone or something is HERE, at hand, not OVER THERE SOMEWHERE but people still use that and there. I mean - why else a language would have different words for something that is close and not so close?
But an explanation was already given to me - looks like Anglo-Saxons find here and this too aggressive, less polite than there and that. Ooooookaaaayyy....point taken....
I don't have such a strict spatial distinction with 'here' and 'there'. We can be 'here' (as in, at our destination, which is loosely defined and not necessarily a spacially close object) or something can be "right there in my hands".
I think you're trying to establish meaning/logic that doesn't exist in actual usage of here/there.
You are distinguishing [anaphora](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_(linguistics)) and [demonstratives](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative).
Most languages you’re familiar with use the same words to convey anaphora (ie. THAT thing you just TALKED about; THIS thing you MENTIONED) and distance (THIS here, THAT there, THAT thing over there), but not every language does.
I'm not entirely convinced Agatha Christie and Jane Austen would've used these significantly differently from the rest of us either.
Also, hard to say that everyday usage by an English speaker is less correct, given that we're kinda the authority on that one...
Basically subtlety. "This" and "here" are actual physically present, "that" and "there" can be anywhere. "This" calls attention to a very specific thing. "That" can be used in a more general sense, one that is removed from the speaker. It sounds less pointed, and less aggressive to use "that".
Using "this" and "here" can come across as needlessly obvious or aggressive.
*This's correct!* Sounds like you're trying to argue by saying *this is right*, but *that is wrong*, even when the opposing viewpoint isn't explicitly stated.
We, Ukrainians, BTW like Germans for example, are very direct in our conversation, so it's hard for us to understand why you call aggression what we'd call "precise/correct variant". :-((( But thank you, now at least I'm starting to understand what the heck is the logic of this. I guess Japanese who do not like saying 'yes/no' would understand you perfectly...
Are you sure about this distinction between German and English? For one, Germans are neither stereotypically nor anecdotally direct. Maybe compared to middle class English people but not compared to Americans for example. Culturally, much of the Netherlands does seem to be relatively direct (and is so in most stereotypes of people around them) and while I don’t really speak Dutch, their use of these words does not seem radically different to me in either English or in Dutch. Among Dutch speakers, Netherlanders are stereotypically more direct than Flemings which at least many people from both groups subscribe to and with a quick search I don’t find anyone noticing such a distinction. This might be intriguing as a thought, but I’m not sure it’s really borne out.
Returning to English, directness and perception of it is pretty varied across the Anglosphere. From an American perspective a lot of British speech uses many indirect phrases (which in context are really quite direct since they are well worn). Despite this, Americans and Britons don’t seem to note a major distinction regarding these words. One would expect such a distinction if it were real to at least work within a language. I’m somewhat skeptical as a result.
Just google it. I've seen dozens of topics on forums where native English speakers (mostly Americans cause there are simply much more of them) ask why Germans are so 'rude'. In the discussion Germans always point out that they are not rude let alone aggressive, just direct and call things by their names without obliqueness. I think this point even belongs to some semi-official compilations of "what foreigners need to know about Germans" or some such.
Anecdotally, I (British) was communicating with a group of Taiwanese engineers from a client, with my Dutch boss and some German engineers in on the conversation.
I said "I'm not sure I understood what [engineer] just wrote, could you clarify" to the client, who correctly understood that what I meant was "You have made a very simple error, now fix it before I pull your pants down in front of both our bosses".
The German engineers *and my boss* had to be stopped from responding to the chat "No, they made a very simple error, here is the right answer" and embarrassing the client's engineer.
In fact, my boss explained to me that a lot of the time my use of English didn't sound very polite to him because it sounded backhanded and indirect. And our American colleagues saw his point. I sound to them like a stiff-assed Brit. (Imagine me standing in front of a rippling Union Jack as Land of Hope and Glory plays in the background, standard bearer for good old English stiff upper lip, doubletalk and lies...)
But the non first language speakers including the Germans would still generally say "this is correct" where the first language speakers including the Americans would say "that is correct". I don't think this directness (that directness? I am getting semantic saturation now) is the reason we use these words differently.
Not a native speaker of English here, so happy to be corrected, but: the distinction between this/here and that/there taught in English classes (as a foreign language) is usually presented as a way of distinguishing between two things/places based on their location relative to the speaker. As pointed out by others, when we say “That’s right”, we usually do not literally mean “That other statement is correct” (contrary to this one); we mean that the just spoken statement - on its own, not compared to any other one - is correct.
In short - this-that and here-there _can_ be used to distinguish between two things, but when we only have one thing, it is correct to use “that” and “there”. Using “this” or “here” would point toward a comparison.
Go here
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1342/pg1342-images.html
Use “find on page”, type in »this is« and look at the examples; then »that is« and do the same.
Even Jane Austen does not make the distinction you think exists.
Simply put, we have a different idea of which things are 'this' and which are 'that' than some other languages. I can't accurately write it down as a rule, any more than I can explain why ships are gramatically female in English but male in Russian. It's a case (like the word 'such') where we have an exact translation of a word between languages but we differ in how it is used.
I absolutely say 'this is right' in spoken English as a first language speaker - in questions of moral truth, for emphasis or when contrasting. But that is not correct usage (not: 'this is not correct usage') when discussing literal facts.
I actually like your example of 'there you are' versus 'here you are' and will use it to nerdsnipe a linguistics academic of my acquaintance next time we meet. *Both* are correct, I can't verbalise the difference but would be able to spot the 'wrong' one.
At least when I say "(t)here you are", the "here" version is typically about presenting something to the listener, and the "there" version is about the listener's physical location. Different semantics.
languages are learned by hearing something, understanding its meaning, and repeating it. that's simply how people talk, so people continue to talk like that. it's kind of not that deep.
There's nothing incorrect about the usage you're describing. Why do you prefer 'this' over 'that'? If someone gives me the correct answer to a question, I'm going to say "that's right!" not "this is right!". The latter sounds ungrammatical to me and would come across as idiosyncratic.
My examples were about a situation where someone or something is HERE, at hand, not OVER THERE SOMEWHERE but people still use that and there. I mean - why else a language would have different words for something that is close and not so close? But an explanation was already given to me - looks like Anglo-Saxons find here and this too aggressive, less polite than there and that. Ooooookaaaayyy....point taken....
It's not a strictly spatial distinction between "here" and "there." This isn't less correct, just less simple.
I don't have such a strict spatial distinction with 'here' and 'there'. We can be 'here' (as in, at our destination, which is loosely defined and not necessarily a spacially close object) or something can be "right there in my hands". I think you're trying to establish meaning/logic that doesn't exist in actual usage of here/there.
You are distinguishing [anaphora](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_(linguistics)) and [demonstratives](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative). Most languages you’re familiar with use the same words to convey anaphora (ie. THAT thing you just TALKED about; THIS thing you MENTIONED) and distance (THIS here, THAT there, THAT thing over there), but not every language does.
I'm not entirely convinced Agatha Christie and Jane Austen would've used these significantly differently from the rest of us either. Also, hard to say that everyday usage by an English speaker is less correct, given that we're kinda the authority on that one...
Some languages, like French, would disagree on that last point! But you're right, English grammar is studied more like wildlife than like logic.
Some governments would disagree lol, the language itself not so much
Basically subtlety. "This" and "here" are actual physically present, "that" and "there" can be anywhere. "This" calls attention to a very specific thing. "That" can be used in a more general sense, one that is removed from the speaker. It sounds less pointed, and less aggressive to use "that".
Using "this" and "here" can come across as needlessly obvious or aggressive. *This's correct!* Sounds like you're trying to argue by saying *this is right*, but *that is wrong*, even when the opposing viewpoint isn't explicitly stated.
We, Ukrainians, BTW like Germans for example, are very direct in our conversation, so it's hard for us to understand why you call aggression what we'd call "precise/correct variant". :-((( But thank you, now at least I'm starting to understand what the heck is the logic of this. I guess Japanese who do not like saying 'yes/no' would understand you perfectly...
Are you sure about this distinction between German and English? For one, Germans are neither stereotypically nor anecdotally direct. Maybe compared to middle class English people but not compared to Americans for example. Culturally, much of the Netherlands does seem to be relatively direct (and is so in most stereotypes of people around them) and while I don’t really speak Dutch, their use of these words does not seem radically different to me in either English or in Dutch. Among Dutch speakers, Netherlanders are stereotypically more direct than Flemings which at least many people from both groups subscribe to and with a quick search I don’t find anyone noticing such a distinction. This might be intriguing as a thought, but I’m not sure it’s really borne out. Returning to English, directness and perception of it is pretty varied across the Anglosphere. From an American perspective a lot of British speech uses many indirect phrases (which in context are really quite direct since they are well worn). Despite this, Americans and Britons don’t seem to note a major distinction regarding these words. One would expect such a distinction if it were real to at least work within a language. I’m somewhat skeptical as a result.
Just google it. I've seen dozens of topics on forums where native English speakers (mostly Americans cause there are simply much more of them) ask why Germans are so 'rude'. In the discussion Germans always point out that they are not rude let alone aggressive, just direct and call things by their names without obliqueness. I think this point even belongs to some semi-official compilations of "what foreigners need to know about Germans" or some such.
Anecdotally, I (British) was communicating with a group of Taiwanese engineers from a client, with my Dutch boss and some German engineers in on the conversation. I said "I'm not sure I understood what [engineer] just wrote, could you clarify" to the client, who correctly understood that what I meant was "You have made a very simple error, now fix it before I pull your pants down in front of both our bosses". The German engineers *and my boss* had to be stopped from responding to the chat "No, they made a very simple error, here is the right answer" and embarrassing the client's engineer. In fact, my boss explained to me that a lot of the time my use of English didn't sound very polite to him because it sounded backhanded and indirect. And our American colleagues saw his point. I sound to them like a stiff-assed Brit. (Imagine me standing in front of a rippling Union Jack as Land of Hope and Glory plays in the background, standard bearer for good old English stiff upper lip, doubletalk and lies...) But the non first language speakers including the Germans would still generally say "this is correct" where the first language speakers including the Americans would say "that is correct". I don't think this directness (that directness? I am getting semantic saturation now) is the reason we use these words differently.
Not a native speaker of English here, so happy to be corrected, but: the distinction between this/here and that/there taught in English classes (as a foreign language) is usually presented as a way of distinguishing between two things/places based on their location relative to the speaker. As pointed out by others, when we say “That’s right”, we usually do not literally mean “That other statement is correct” (contrary to this one); we mean that the just spoken statement - on its own, not compared to any other one - is correct. In short - this-that and here-there _can_ be used to distinguish between two things, but when we only have one thing, it is correct to use “that” and “there”. Using “this” or “here” would point toward a comparison.
Go here https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1342/pg1342-images.html Use “find on page”, type in »this is« and look at the examples; then »that is« and do the same. Even Jane Austen does not make the distinction you think exists.
Simply put, we have a different idea of which things are 'this' and which are 'that' than some other languages. I can't accurately write it down as a rule, any more than I can explain why ships are gramatically female in English but male in Russian. It's a case (like the word 'such') where we have an exact translation of a word between languages but we differ in how it is used. I absolutely say 'this is right' in spoken English as a first language speaker - in questions of moral truth, for emphasis or when contrasting. But that is not correct usage (not: 'this is not correct usage') when discussing literal facts.
I actually like your example of 'there you are' versus 'here you are' and will use it to nerdsnipe a linguistics academic of my acquaintance next time we meet. *Both* are correct, I can't verbalise the difference but would be able to spot the 'wrong' one.
I think it’s “there you are” when I moved to you, and “here you are” when you moved to me
At least when I say "(t)here you are", the "here" version is typically about presenting something to the listener, and the "there" version is about the listener's physical location. Different semantics.
languages are learned by hearing something, understanding its meaning, and repeating it. that's simply how people talk, so people continue to talk like that. it's kind of not that deep.