Author Topic: Features of Eglish from a certain point of view, contex and goal in mind  (Read 108 times)

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Hi,

The "pros" and "cons" of something are its "advantages" and "disadvantages".
/it will be done in a relaxed way, so there will be mistakes/


I yam what I yam.
Popeye the Sailor


Native speakers don't notice some features of their "language" ("language" is a habit). Foreigners on the other hand are more critical/nitpicking.



"pro": English nouns have not grammatical gender. They lost their case endings (they have only one form, apart from genitive) - so: no endings - no gender! (very few exceptions) /look at the mess in German/

"pro": English pronouns - the same: Nom. form and the Other form (apart from genitive)

"con": One cannot say have not, read not, ...(in general) (which is normal in other languages) - don't/doesn't have, read ...  is a little bit too ... posh.

"pro/con": Prefixes which are prepositions are set/put after the verb where they belong. This makes verb short (which is good) but it is hard for the foreigners to decide if it is a Preposition or a Verb particle.
/This is extremely elegant. But I as a foreigner make the Verb particle a Prefix and then the phrasal verb sounds "normal" /like German, Russian, Latin, ... verbs// 

"pro/con": "What are you talking about?" The "normal" way would be "About what are you talking?" It is a simplification - if you have a question word (and a preposition) in a question - the question begins with the question word (and the preposition is at the end).

"pro": Perfect tenses use only HAVE (they are made regular!!!). /see German as a bad example/

"pro": Conditionals are simplified (due to simplified future, regular perfect tense and losing Subjunctive) /on the other side German is a way more punctual (with Subjunctive), Russian Conditionals are simplified but one cannot see the "logic"!!! (SO EVEN "RUSSIANS" cannot understand the "logic" of their own Conditionals (I prefer to leave that without comment)) /
...



P.S.
It will take time.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:32:30 AM by waive15 »

Online Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: English - pros, cons and how one deals with them
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2020, 05:51:47 AM »
Quote
The pros and cons of something are its advantages and disadvantages.
Languages don't have advantages and disadvantages. They just have features (and from an outside perspective, variation).

Advantages and disadvantages only exist in a context. If a language is insufficient for the purposes in which it is used, it will surely be adapted and expanded to become sufficient. I suppose you might think of some features are more convenient than others as a learner (or maybe just simpler to learn), but I don't agree with the premise of this. This really is part of what having the perspective of a linguist will do: we pick up a different perspective on languages that results in different questions.

Now, there certainly can be some conditional advantages or disadvantages. Having a language that distinguishes gender can be extremely useful in some cases, and extremely unfortunate in others. For example, if you want to distinguish between a male friend and a female friend, Spanish "amiga" and "amigo" are useful! But if you don't want to specify the gender of that friend (or their gender identity is non-binary) then you're going to be stuck! In English we just say "friend", for better and worse. It depends on context. One fundamental ability that language speakers have and use is vagueness, which isn't always available in some languages. That's interesting. Translators face this all the time, when something isn't specified (or is intended as a mystery) in the original text, but a choice must be made in the new language!
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline panini

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
Re: English - pros, cons and how one deals with them
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2020, 08:25:48 AM »
I contrarily think that languages and tools in general do have advantages and disadvantages, but that is a relationship between the think in question and the "experiencer" of the advantage. It's not intrinsic to the language (thus I end up agreeing with Daniel, just phrased differently). A torx screwdriver has definite advantages and disadvantages. If you have a torx screw, a torx screwdriver clearly advantageous and a flat-head screwdriver is clearly disadvantageous. Norwegian is clearly advantageous when talking to village elders in remote valleys of Norway, and clearly disadvantageous when talking to village elders in remote parts of the Atlas mountains. The lack of pharyngeal consonants and ridiculous consonant clusters makes English disadvantageous when one strives to speak Moroccan Arabic; the presence of such things in Tamazigh is advantageous when one strives to speak Moroccan Arabic. The ability to breathe air and water is a clear advantage for certain kinds of fish. "Advantage" is about goals, which is a thing that living beings have.

As for your specific examples, esp. the last point, you assume that foreigners need to perform a theoretical analysis whereby they label tings as Particle vs. Preposition. That's not necessary. Such a classification is one way of learning a language, but not a necessary way.


Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Hi,

You are right. The name of the topic is not right.  I have changed it.


---
 “Snatch” (2000)

“Bullet-Tooth Tony: A bookie's got blagged last night.
 Cousin Avi          : Blagged? Speak English to me, Tony. I thought this country spawned the f***ing language, and so far nobody seems to speak it.”

{Cousin Avi ( Dennis Farina  )is an American who has just arrived in London
{Bullet-Tooth Tony ( Vinnie Jones ) is British


P.S.

panini   : " ... "Advantage" is about goals, which is a thing that living beings have."
Daniel   : " Advantages and disadvantages only exist in a context. ..."
waive15: I understand. In a way this was meant as English version of (The) Three trifles in/of/about Russian

Thank you for the interest.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 06:11:31 AM by waive15 »

Offline Rock100

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
Re: English - pros, cons and how one deals with them
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2020, 02:24:55 PM »
> For example, if you want to distinguish between a male friend and a
> female friend, Spanish "amiga" and "amigo" are useful! But if you don't
> want to specify the gender of that friend (or their gender identity is
> non-binary) then you're going to be stuck! In English we just say "friend",
> for better and worse.
Please, believe me, the native English speakers have absolutely the same problem as the rest of the world – if you need to replace your abstract friend or person with a pronoun, you are stuck. I believe the total majority of languages use “he” by convention. So do the Brits. But politically incorrect choice of an American linguist may cost him (I am a foreigner, I could say that I did not know) his (oh…) teaching license nowadays.

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Hi,

Participles are verbal adjectives (adjectives which come/are made of/ from verbs).


Past participles in "English". I suppose it is no big deal  for anyone to figure out when it is past active and when it is past passive participle.

---

"-ing (2)

suffix used to form the present participles of verbs ... "
" ... The vowel weakened in late Old English and the spelling with -g began 13c.-14c. among Anglo-Norman scribes who naturally confused it with -ing (1)."

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=-ing

The question is if the suffix is used for the present active or the present passive participle.
Is there present passive participle anyway in English?

Let's see what's in "Latin":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OcJXc_jGrQ

Is there present passive participles in Russian? - Yes.

In the "logic" of ("Indo-European") "Languages" one has to have past active and passive, present active and passive and future active and passive participles (past, present, future as exact moments in 1d Time).

or (in other words)

According to any exact moment of/in Time (1d: now; then: past; future) participles (active and passive) are: past, present, future. In a "Simple sentence" (when it is needed) one has two verbs - the 2nd is RELATIVE to the 1st (which "has/takes" the exact moment in 1d Time). In 1d one has 3 possibilities: before, "during", after. Participle is the 2nd verb and it takes form of :

* adjective - after the 1st verb "be". One is ACCUSTOMED in "Simple sentence" after the INTRANSITIVE verb "be" (is') to PUT/PLACE second Quality(adjective). "Apple is' red'."/"He is' gone' (past active participle) (dead')." {after transitive "be" (is'') one puts NOUN (Man is'' animal.)}

* adjective before missing noun (which is always meant) and this way adjective becomes a "noun"(or its "name"). This happens after "has" as the 1st verb (after "have" one has a noun or its "name" (the possessed)).

/tenses' formulae could have been way, way, ... complicated(exact) but one is a simple creature and that is why one uses the very simplest of the possible tenses' formulae/

===

Let's say it once more ...:

* according to a TRANSITIVE verb ("directed graph") one has 1st (doer) and 2nd (sufferer).

* (but) let's see: "Someone_1 give present (to) Someone_2 / Someone_1 give Someone_2 present."
   Now we have: doer, sufferer (in Connection) and direction (in another Connection (the 1st 3 (doer, sufferer, connection) with direction) (3 THINGS). So we have to have 3 participles: active, passive, directive. And 3 "pieces" (exact moments) of Time. ...

===

The term "copula verb" means nothing.

---


There are holes in "logic" of any "language". What holes in "English logic" from the "English" point of view are there? English orthography is a "small change", it is not a problem at all.


P.S.

* The questions are rhetorical.

* Language is a working Consciousness. "Language" (any "language") is Encoding (thing/something/NAME) in which Event (Meaning) becomes. Encodings go by rules (that's the way one gets languages).

Participles (when one has in mind TRANSITIVE verbs) are "so difficult" because they ARE verbs (Connections between the 1st("doer") and the 2nd("sufferer")), which in "Simple sentence" HAVE to be viewed as adjectives(after is')/adjectives(after has'') standing for missing noun (by the rules of the (some)"languages") and they are RELATIVE (in 1d Time) to is' and has'' (there exact moments).

It is "FASHIONABLE" to implement RECURSION wherever one can. But Recursion goes with Definition (as Genitive connections) and they go with "let-say-Iteration" (Non_Genitive connection). Event and its Encoding go along/by the same rules/types of Connections.

* CONTEXT MEANS RECUSION (embedding, let's say "SUBMERGENCE"/"EMERGENCE" in another space).
...


Have a nice day.


P.S.

Mathematics works. Linguists are not mathematicians.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:28:03 AM by waive15 »