Linguistic musing
Tadas Blinda
It is often said that English is a 'simple' language. It certainly is
'simpler' morphologically, compared to (e.g.) the Baltic, Finno-Ugric
and Slavic languages. But it has some complexities in its grammar and
syntax. Mistakes made by people of other native learning background
can be particularly revealing as they throw into contrast the grammar
of the two languages (hence the reason for the mistake: Trying to fit
English words to some other grammatical structure).
One thing I noticed recently was the seeming arbitrariness (in some
cases) of -s plurals in English.
For example: "That will cost you six hundred dollars." – No -s on
'hundred' despite the fact that there are six of them. However: "That
will cost you hundreds of dollars."
Similarly: "The Lithuanians (Russians, Ukrainians) ..." (with an -s
plural) but "the English (French, Spanish) ... " no -s plural. (But
you can't say "an English" or "a French".) And what about "fish"?
"He caught six fish." But "The Parable of the Loves and Fishes".
Another crazy thing are the questions. Many IE languages just reverse
the order of the pronoun and the verb to form a question: "Vous allez
au concert. / Allez-vous au concert?", or use different intonation:
"Váis al concierto. / ¿Váis al concierto?" But English can't do that,
except for modal verbs. "Have you ...?, Will you ...?, May I ...?,
Should we ...?" are all OK, but not "Go you ...?, Stay you ...?, Eat
I ... ?, Smoke he ...?". For all the non-modal verbs you have to use
a periphrastic interrogative construction that includes a modal verb
or some part of "has" or "be":
"Do you smoke?, Are we going to the concert?, Has he finished? Will he
like it?" Same with the negations: "He smokes. / He doesn't
smoke." (vs. Old English "He smoketh not." and the negative
imperatives: Old English "Eat not the bread of idleness.", but Modern
English "Don't eat too much fatty food." Same with tag questions: "Do
we take roubles or don't we?".
So indeed, the 'simple English' can get a little tricky for non-
natives. Not to mention those little bastards called the ARTICLES.
To Balts and Slavs (maybe Finns and Estonians too?): "What is
problem?" seems perfectly adequate. Who needs "the"? (Or would that
be who needs a "the"? Or who needs the "the"? :-)
Eugene Holman
<4e786ee9-2171-4bf2...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Tadas
Blinda <tadas....@lycos.es> wrote:
> The arbitrariness of English
Aren't all languages arbitrary systems of signs by definition? The
arbitrary nature of the signans, the signatum, and the relationship
between the two is the entire basis of Saussurian structuralism which,
although superseded, is still the basis of most modern linguistic
theories. The would also hold true for the larger structures that the
basic linguistic signs combine to form.
> It is often said that English is a 'simple' language.
Only by 'simple' people :-) All languages have an extremely difficult job
to do, even if they use radically different strategies to do this.
> It certainly is
> 'simpler' morphologically, compared to (e.g.) the Baltic, Finno-Ugric
> and Slavic languages.
Simpler in the quantitative, but not the qualitative sense. What is left
in English of what was once a lush system of nominal and verbal inflection
is irregular, unpredictable, and often riddled with so-called free
variation: dive and broadcast have dived and dove, and broadcast and
broadcasted as acceptable past tenses, and roof has rooves and roofs.
There are maple leaves on the ground, but the hockey team is the Toronto
Maple leafs. Finnish, for all of its morohological complexity, is almost
completely regular. Confronted with a nominal or verb, you know how to
inflect it 99.5% of the time. There are four slightly irregular vebs, half
a dozen irregular nominals, and a dozen or so nouns that are homonymous in
the nominative singular, but inflect differently, e.g. kuusi 'six', gen.
sg. kuuden vs. kuusi 'spruce tree', gen. sg. kuusen; viini 'quiver', gen.
sg. viinen vs. viini 'wine', gen. sg. viinin.
> But it has some complexities in its grammar and
> syntax.
That's putting it mildly. With no case marking but stylistics and syntax
influenced by Latin, English can produce some sentences that are difficult
to understand, e.g.
1) Walking in the town, I saw my friend.
Modelled on Latin
2a) In urbe ambulans amicum meum vidi.
'Walking in town (-ns = I was walking), I saw my friend.'
and
2b) In urbe ambulantem amicum meum vidi.
'Walking in town (-ntem = my friend was walking), I saw my friedn.
English 1) is now normatively fixed to be the equivalent of Latin 2a, but
that does not prevent otherwise careful writers from producing sentences
such as the following:
3) My friend and I arriving at the harbor late, the ship had already left.
The English system of relative pronouns is also extremely complex:
4a) The package that arrived this morning is on the kitchen table.
4b) The package, which arrived this morning, is on the kitchen table.
> Mistakes made by people of other native learning background
> can be particularly revealing as they throw into contrast the grammar
> of the two languages (hence the reason for the mistake: Trying to fit
> English words to some other grammatical structure).
>
> One thing I noticed recently was the seeming arbitrariness (in some
> cases) of -s plurals in English.
> For example: "That will cost you six hundred dollars." =96 No -s on
> 'hundred' despite the fact that there are six of them. However: "That
> will cost you hundreds of dollars."
Idiomaticity. Every language has these. Luckily, in English this aspect of
idomaticity is competely predictable, e.g. three dozen eggs, four score
years.
> Similarly: "The Lithuanians (Russians, Ukrainians) ..." (with an -s
> plural) but "the English (French, Spanish) ... " no -s plural. (But
> you can't say "an English" or "a French".) And what about "fish"?
> "He caught six fish." But "The Parable of the Loves and Fishes".
Idomaticity-
> Another crazy thing are the questions. Many IE languages just reverse
> the order of the pronoun and the verb to form a question: "Vous allez
> au concert. / Allez-vous au concert?", or use different intonation:
> "V=E1is al concierto. / =BFV=E1is al concierto?" But English can't do that=
> ,
> except for modal verbs.
English. especially the spoken variety, certainly allows intonation as the
sole question marker:
5) You on your way home?
6) Want a beer?
7) Ever seen anything like this?
> "Have you ...?, Will you ...?, May I ...?,
> Should we ...?" are all OK, but not "Go you ...?, Stay you ...?, Eat
> I ... ?, Smoke he ...?". For all the non-modal verbs you have to use
> a periphrastic interrogative construction that includes a modal verb
> or some part of "has" or "be":
> "Do you smoke?, Are we going to the concert?, Has he finished? Will he
> like it?" Same with the negations: "He smokes. / He doesn't
> smoke." (vs. Old English "He smoketh not." and the negative
> imperatives: Old English "Eat not the bread of idleness.",
Not Old English (450 - 1100 AD) but Early Modern English (1500 - ca. 1650).
An interesting coincidence is that Modern English negation is
typologically almost identical with Finnish negation. Instead of having a
'not'-type negative adverb, Finnish has a conjugated negative verb that
patterns with a strippd-down form of the verb being negated:
puhun 'I speak' - en puhu 'I don't speak'
puhut 'thou speakest' et puhu 'thou dostn't speak'
h�n puhuu '(s)he speaks' - h�n ei puhu '(s)he doesn't speak'
> but Modern
> English "Don't eat too much fatty food." Same with tag questions: "Do
> we take roubles or don't we?".
Tag question formation is a notoriously difficult part of English grammar:
8) Queen Elizabeth sometimes wears a crown, doesn't she?
9) The Queen Elizabeth has made her last voyage, hasn't she?/ hasn't it?
10) The Queen Elizabeth has been scrapped, hasn't it?/hasn't she?
>
> So indeed, the 'simple English' can get a little tricky for non-
> natives. Not to mention those little bastards called the ARTICLES.
> To Balts and Slavs (maybe Finns and Estonians too?): "What is
> problem?" seems perfectly adequate. Who needs "the"? (Or would that
> be who needs a "the"? Or who needs the "the"? :-)
All languages have to have a strategy for indicating the difference
between shared and new information. English, which once lacked articles,
has develped a system of marking most noun phrases with a definite or
indefinite article:
11) The boy ran into the room. (what did 'the boy' do?)
12) A boy ran into the room. (who/what ran into the room?)
Standard Finnish deals with this problem using word order:
13) Poika juoksi huoneeseen.
boy ran room-ILLATIVE
'The boy ran into the room.'
14) Huoneseen juoksi poika.
room-ILLATIVE ran boy
'A boy ran into the room.'
Colloquial Helsinki Finnish, strongly influenced by Swedish, has articles:
13a) Se poika juoksi huoneesee(n).
14a) Yksi poika juoksi huoneesee(n).
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Tadas Blinda
> All languages have to have a strategy for indicating the difference
> between shared and new information. English, which once lacked articles,
> has develped a system of marking most noun phrases with a definite or
> indefinite article:
>
> 11) The boy ran into the room. (what did 'the boy' do?)
> 12) A boy ran into the room. (who/what ran into the room?)
>
> Standard Finnish deals with this problem using word order:
>
> 13) Poika juoksi huoneeseen.
> boy ran room-ILLATIVE
> 'The boy ran into the room.'
>
> 14) Huoneseen juoksi poika.
> room-ILLATIVE ran boy
> 'A boy ran into the room.'
Hey, good one! You have just helped me realise that the same applies
in Lithuanian.
„Berniukas įėjo į kambarį.“ Could be translated into English,
depending on the context, as "A boy went into the room." or "The boy
went into the room." But when you put the illative first, „Į kambarį
įėjo berniukas." it's much more likely to mean "a boy".
Ant medžio šakos tupėjo pelėda. On the tree-branch was perched an
owl.
(Owl is mouse-eater: pelė (mouse) + ėda (eats).)