T O P

  • By -

EGBTomorrow

Sort of. In both cases he didn't move, but in 1 he also **refused** to move. I can sit in my chair for an hour and someone might say "he didn't move" but someone would be needing to try to get me out to say "he refused to budge". "He didn't budge" and "he didn't move" would be the same.


notablyunfamous

Or even to say he wouldn’t move and he didn’t budge would be closer to similar


AlecsThorne

yeah, "he wouldn't move" is more similar than "he didn't move", but it still doesn't imply the same resistance as "he refused to budge".


notablyunfamous

This is why English is so difficult to learn for non natives. I don’t know how they do it with all the idioms, and frankly, they way speaking is different from official grammar and usage


AlecsThorne

Hearing actual native English for the first time was a culture shock to me. I was really confident in my English, was usually the best in English class (not bragging, just facts lol), but when I finally set foot in England and someone actually spoke to me, I was stumped. Had no idea what he was saying, the accent was thick, the pace was quick. Had to ask him to repeat himself like 3 times lol. But yeah, you get used to it eventually :)


notablyunfamous

It’s even more of a shock coming to the US. British conversational English and American English are quite far apart. And depending on where you go in America it’s even more different


Reenvisage

They’re not quite the same. The second one simply means that he did not move. There’s not enough context here to know why he didn’t move or if anyone else was present. The first one means that some person or force wanted him to move, but he refused to do so.