Watashi v boku
Shez
proper to use "watashi" rather than boku/atashi, or is it a matter of
personal preference? For instance might a 14 year old use watashi
without raising eyebrows, or a 40 year old use boku or atashi?
-Shez.
--
______________________________________________________
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
______________________________________________________
Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/
Fabian
"Shez" <ne...@xerez.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K6P0KMIk...@xerez.nospam.co.uk...
> Is there a particular age or time of life when it would be considered
> proper to use "watashi" rather than boku/atashi, or is it a matter of
> personal preference? For instance might a 14 year old use watashi
> without raising eyebrows, or a 40 year old use boku or atashi?
Any time after the age of 14 would be ok for watashi. Atashi should never
be used by men (unless they are homosexual), but can be freely used by
women. Boku tend to be informal amongst men, or by young boys. BINANS.
--
--
Fabian
The big difference this makes, however, is that I NOW HAVE A BOOK! I might
even open it, one day.
Dale Walker
>
>"Shez" <ne...@xerez.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:K6P0KMIk...@xerez.nospam.co.uk...
>> Is there a particular age or time of life when it would be considered
>> proper to use "watashi" rather than boku/atashi, or is it a matter of
>> personal preference? For instance might a 14 year old use watashi
>> without raising eyebrows, or a 40 year old use boku or atashi?
>
>Any time after the age of 14 would be ok for watashi. Atashi should never
>be used by men (unless they are homosexual), but can be freely used by
>women. Boku tend to be informal amongst men, or by young boys. BINANS.
Some of my Japanese friends (from Matsuyama/Miyazaki) recommend 'Ore'
for informal situations but others (Tokyo) say I shouldn't. Is this
regional and what are the nuances depending on the region?
-------------------------------------------------------------
| Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! |
| da...@sorted.org lon...@sorted.org sa...@sorted.org |
| London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trinker
Dale Walker wrote:
> Some of my Japanese friends (from Matsuyama/Miyazaki) recommend 'Ore'
> for informal situations but others (Tokyo) say I shouldn't. Is this
> regional and what are the nuances depending on the region?
"Ore" sounds rougher to me than "boku". (My mother has roots in
Tokyo-ish).
Dale Walker
wrote:
That ties in with what my Tokyo friends say but the Matsuyamans reckon
it's more 'cool' than 'rough'.
Think I'll stick with Watashi. Would like to be able to do 'cool' but
don't fancy being thought of as 'rough'.
Any other "I"s I should be aware of?
Kevin R. Gowen, II
"Dale Walker" <da...@sorted.org> wrote in message
news:2jik3uodm6qsgc042...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:23:13 -0800, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dale Walker wrote:
> >
> >> Some of my Japanese friends (from Matsuyama/Miyazaki) recommend 'Ore'
> >> for informal situations but others (Tokyo) say I shouldn't. Is this
> >> regional and what are the nuances depending on the region?
> >
> >
> >"Ore" sounds rougher to me than "boku". (My mother has roots in
> >Tokyo-ish).
>
> That ties in with what my Tokyo friends say but the Matsuyamans reckon
> it's more 'cool' than 'rough'.
>
> Think I'll stick with Watashi. Would like to be able to do 'cool' but
> don't fancy being thought of as 'rough'.
In informal situations, "watashi" is likely to get you thought of as
"pansy". I think "boku" is a happy medium.
> Any other "I"s I should be aware of?
Sessha.
Toshihiro Matsuda
> for informal situations but others (Tokyo) say I shouldn't. Is this
> regional and what are the nuances depending on the region?
>
I recommend you not to use "Ore" at least in Tokyo.
If I hear Japanese person talk foreginer who is not very good at Japanese
to use "Ore" in Tokyo,
I feel no doubt he makes fun of foreigner.
You should not use the word "Ore" to your superiors
in formal and informal situations.
And it is very difficult problem you might better use
Ore to your friends or your inferiors.
Although the word may sound friendly,
it may also make a impression that
you are self-important and look down people
especially women;
the word "Ore" is often regarded to
reflect masuculine authority.
In fact, Some people manage to use Ore
very well for their social communication
while others make a bad impression of them.
But it is also true that certain people out of Tokyo
feel Watashi to authoritative and Boku to coward.
They may feel these words are Tokyo-like and
those who use these words in informal situation
are not one of them.
Kem Saki
> I recommend you not to use "Ore" at least in Tokyo.
> If I hear Japanese person talk foreginer who is not very good at Japanese
> to use "Ore" in Tokyo,
Also not in the other places out of Tokyo in Japan!
Philip Newton
> Any other "I"s I should be aware of?
Chin (朕). As in "chin omou ni" (朕思うに).
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
That really is my address; no need to remove anything to reply.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Chris Kern
<kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Dale Walker" <da...@sorted.org> wrote in message
>news:2jik3uodm6qsgc042...@4ax.com...
>> Any other "I"s I should be aware of?
>
>Sessha.
washi, ware, oira, ora, wai, attai, wagahai
-Chris
Chris Kern
<gateau...@anet.ne.jp> wrote:
>> Some of my Japanese friends (from Matsuyama/Miyazaki) recommend 'Ore'
>> for informal situations but others (Tokyo) say I shouldn't. Is this
>> regional and what are the nuances depending on the region?
>>
>
>I recommend you not to use "Ore" at least in Tokyo.
>If I hear Japanese person talk foreginer who is not very good at Japanese
>to use "Ore" in Tokyo,
>I feel no doubt he makes fun of foreigner.
Perhaps this also depends on your age? When I was studying in Waseda
this past semester, people told me to use "ore" at school because it
sounded the most natural.
My 6-year old host brother liked to use "ore" at home, and once when I
used "ore" when talking to him he said I was copying that off of him.
:-)
-Chris
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:3c41fe6b...@enews.newsguy.com...
小生。愚生。
(I don't think Dale will have much occasion to use attai)
> -Chris
Sho
[...]
> washi, ware, oira, ora, wai, attai, wagahai
"atai," no?
Sho
Dale Walker
<kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Chris Kern" <ke...@grinnell.edu> wrote in message
>news:3c41fe6b...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:48:50 -0500, "Kevin R. Gowen, II"
>> <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dale Walker" <da...@sorted.org> wrote in message
>> >news:2jik3uodm6qsgc042...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> Any other "I"s I should be aware of?
>> >
>> >Sessha.
>>
>> washi, ware, oira, ora, wai, attai, wagahai
>
>小生。愚生。
>(I don't think Dale will have much occasion to use attai)
Still would like to know them all. Just because "I" won't use them,
doesn't mean I won't hear other people saying them. So, I'd like to
know all the girly 'I's too.
Also, it would be nice to in what situations I'd be likely to hear all
these I's.
Dale Walker
wrote:
Arrghh! So many. Any particular historical/political/social reason
there are so many?
Trinker
Dale Walker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:02:45 GMT, "Sho" <09385...@jcom.home.ne.jp>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Kern" <ke...@grinnell.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3c41fe6b...@enews.newsguy.com...
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> washi, ware, oira, ora, wai, attai, wagahai
> >
> >"atai," no?
>
> Arrghh! So many. Any particular historical/political/social reason
> there are so many?
to drive foreigners insane?
In a language where there are so many levels of formality/politeness/
status marking, is it any wonder that personal pronouns should also
have similar complexity?
Dale Walker
wrote:
>In a language where there are so many levels of formality/politeness/
>status marking, is it any wonder that personal pronouns should also
>have similar complexity?
I was aware of the politeness levels but surely this many is taking
even that a little too far. Surely there are other factors.
Shez
>> there are so many?
>
>to drive foreigners insane?
>
>In a language where there are so many levels of formality/politeness/
>status marking, is it any wonder that personal pronouns should also
>have similar complexity?
It's kind of weird though that there are about a dozen forms of each
pronoun when the use of pronouns is generally avoided in Japanese.
-Shez.
--
______________________________________________________
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board
-- Mark Twain
Trinker
Dale Walker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:58:20 -0800, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In a language where there are so many levels of formality/politeness/
> >status marking, is it any wonder that personal pronouns should also
> >have similar complexity?
>
> I was aware of the politeness levels but surely this many is taking
> even that a little too far. Surely there are other factors.
And how many do you think there *should* be, then?
Dale Walker
wrote:
Erm. I have no idea. I'm the newbie, you're far more adept than me.
You should be telling me.
I just think that there's more to all these I's than just politeness.
Surely a lot of it is down to dialect, maybe some are new words, some
are archaic words and so on.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:54:21 -0800, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dale Walker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:58:20 -0800, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In a language where there are so many levels of formality/politeness/
> >> >status marking, is it any wonder that personal pronouns should also
> >> >have similar complexity?
> >>
> >> I was aware of the politeness levels but surely this many is taking
> >> even that a little too far. Surely there are other factors.
> >
> >
> >And how many do you think there *should* be, then?
>
> Erm. I have no idea. I'm the newbie, you're far more adept than me.
> You should be telling me.
>
> I just think that there's more to all these I's than just politeness.
Yes, that's true.
> Surely a lot of it is down to dialect, maybe some are new words, some
> are archaic words and so on.
Some are dialect e.g. oira, while some are archaic e.g. sessha.
Sho
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:02:45 GMT, "Sho"
<09385...@jcom.home.ne.jp>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Kern" <ke...@grinnell.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3c41fe6b...@enews.newsguy.com...
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> washi, ware, oira, ora, wai, attai, wagahai
> >
> >"atai," no?
>
> Arrghh! So many. Any particular historical/political/social
reason
> there are so many?
I posted my previous message to point out that Chris probably
mistyped "atai" as "attai". I'm not responsible for increasing
the number. :-)
I'm sure Bart will give us an accurate account of this, but one
way of looking at the so-called Japanese pronous is that they are
not as distinctly separate from common nouns as their counterparts
are observed in most western languages. In fact, I find it very
difficult to state their syntactic characteristics that give them
a separate status from nouns in general. Suppose we could say
something like, "there are no such things as pronouns in this
language," then it would be no wonder. In probably any language,
for nearly every word commonly used in everyday life, there can be
a dozen other ways, each with a slightly different shade of
meaning or use in context.
The obvious elements of the linguistic need to express one's
relative position to the adressee(s) in the social hierarchy, the
way they went though historical transitions and dialectal
variations do count, of course.
BIANAPL.
Sho
Ross Klatte
>Date: 2002-01-13 20:54 Eastern Standard Time
>And how many do you think there *should* be, then?
>
Well, English has eight, and there are no politeness levels
at all.
So Japanese should have at least 8 x 3, for a total of 24
first person pronouns.
Ross
http://community.webshots.com/user/ross_klatte
Collin McCulley
"Ross Klatte" <klatt...@aol.commmm> wrote in message news:20020114071103...@mb-fh.aol.com...
> >From: Trinker trinke...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 2002-01-13 20:54 Eastern Standard Time
>
> >And how many do you think there *should* be, then?
> >
>
> Well, English has eight, and there are no politeness levels
> at all.
> So Japanese should have at least 8 x 3, for a total of 24
> first person pronouns.
Yeah, but are you counting different case (subjective,
objective, etc) pronouns in English which doesn't exist
in Japanese? Better divide by the number of cases...
(Of course, that doesn't make this calculation any less
meaningless ;-)
--Collin
Sean Holland
da...@sorted.org wrote on 1/13/02 5:20 PM:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:58:20 -0800, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In a language where there are so many levels of formality/politeness/
>> status marking, is it any wonder that personal pronouns should also
>> have similar complexity?
>
> I was aware of the politeness levels but surely this many is taking
> even that a little too far. Surely there are other factors.
I hope Bart will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, among other
things, there has been a tendency over the centuries for a term of address
to start out as formal and respectful and to gradually lose those qualities
and become informal and less respectful. e.g. "boku" started off as meaning
"manservant" (Nelson's term) and was at one time a humble form to be used
when addressing superiors, or something like that. Anyway, as one term loses
its status, so to speak, another comes in to fill its place, and you end up
with a whole bunch of terms.
I think there has also been a tendency for terms to proliferate due to the
use of euphemisms to avoid direct terms of address. For example, using
"sochira" as a term of address. A euphemism eventually loses its buffering
powers and becomes as direct as the term it was being used in place of.
Think of all the English words for the penis; I wonder how many of them
started off as euphemisms and ended up on the taboo list, creating the need
for yet more euphemisms.
BIANA High Level Scholar OJ.
Dale Walker
wrote:
>in article 5fc44ugr06265gmim...@4ax.com, Dale Walker at
>da...@sorted.org wrote on 1/13/02 5:20 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:58:20 -0800, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In a language where there are so many levels of formality/politeness/
>>> status marking, is it any wonder that personal pronouns should also
>>> have similar complexity?
>>
>> I was aware of the politeness levels but surely this many is taking
>> even that a little too far. Surely there are other factors.
>
> I hope Bart will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, among other
>things, there has been a tendency over the centuries for a term of address
>to start out as formal and respectful and to gradually lose those qualities
>and become informal and less respectful. e.g. "boku" started off as meaning
>"manservant" (Nelson's term) and was at one time a humble form to be used
>when addressing superiors, or something like that. Anyway, as one term loses
>its status, so to speak, another comes in to fill its place, and you end up
>with a whole bunch of terms.
> I think there has also been a tendency for terms to proliferate due to the
>use of euphemisms to avoid direct terms of address. For example, using
>"sochira" as a term of address. A euphemism eventually loses its buffering
>powers and becomes as direct as the term it was being used in place of.
Hmmm. Would that mean that the majority of the terms are then used by
the lower classes, talking to higher ones? I can't see there being
many cases where someone in authority would need to be so indirect.
>Think of all the English words for the penis; I wonder how many of them
>started off as euphemisms and ended up on the taboo list, creating the need
>for yet more euphemisms.
Yes, I know that tendency. This is where all this PCness is going to
fall apart in the long run. It's pointless trying to change a language
without changing peoples attitudes. It wouldn't surprise me if
Afro-Carrabian will become an unacceptable term for some over time.
It's already started in the UK with 'special needs', all those '****
challenged' phrases, etc., are becoming, at least for the younger
generation, perjoratives.
> BIANA High Level Scholar OJ.
BANANA!
Daniel Holgate
'ore' isn't just a word.. it's a whole way of life :-) By that I mean
it sets
the whole conversational tone and says something about what sort of
person you are (somewhere between 'cool' and 'rough'). If you're
going to
use it, make sure the rest of your Japanese is at a level which
supports that.
If your Japanese is still at the beginner or even intermediate level,
'ore'
is not a good idea - you'll come across more like a snotty nosed
shougakusei than the cool person you imagine you sound like. Boku is
a good,neutral option
in most situations - wouldn't use it at work, though.
my thoughts.
Daniel
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:71e2d268.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Boku is
> a good,neutral option
> in most situations - wouldn't use it at work, though.
I suppose this would depend on the workplace. I routinely heard men use
"boku" to superiors as well as when addressing a mized group of
equals/superiors at my old workplace. YMMV. This is usually the sort of
thing you could feel out.
> my thoughts.
>
> Daniel
Kevin
Dale Walker
I suppose that sort of situation would be similar to using first names
rather than surnames for westerners.
Sean Holland
da...@sorted.org wrote on 1/14/02 12:52 PM:
> Hmmm. Would that mean that the majority of the terms are then used by
> the lower classes, talking to higher ones? I can't see there being
> many cases where someone in authority would need to be so indirect.
There's always someone higher to whom you must be polite unless you're the
very last guy in the line.
Dale Walker
wrote:
>in article 0cg64ug9vf5ffot8i...@4ax.com, Dale Walker at
Yeah, but the higher up you are, the less people you have to be polite
to. Besides, you can easily do that with just three types of
politeness. Lower, same and higher.
Dave Fossett
> Hmmm. Would that mean that the majority of the terms are then used by
> the lower classes, talking to higher ones? I can't see there being
> many cases where someone in authority would need to be so indirect.
True to an extent, but in situations like formal presentations or
business meetings, even the bosses are likely to use more formal
language.
--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, JAPAN
halfford field
http://www.shuttle-japan.com/BU/e/BU-01-0.html
the male sex organ is painted black (somehow) ?? Especially
in fellatio acts ??
Also, why is it that people performing in fellatio acts
have this peculiar facial painting (triangular shapes) on
their faces ??
Do Japanes or Korean tribal traditions require painting of
sex organs or triangular shapes to be painted upon the faces
of people engaging in porn for entertainment ?? Or something ??
Can someone please explain this ??
(sorry to be so explicit).
"Kevin R. Gowen, II" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a1vr4f$t5mdb$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:33411a5d.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Why is it that in Japanse and Korean Porn (like here),
>
> http://www.shuttle-japan.com/BU/e/BU-01-0.html
>
> the male sex organ is painted black (somehow) ?? Especially
> in fellatio acts ??
In Japan, the genitals have to be blocked out. In film, this is usually done
with a mosaic effect. In print, this is often done by blacking out the
offending organs.
> Also, why is it that people performing in fellatio acts
> have this peculiar facial painting (triangular shapes) on
> their faces ??
Did you read the page? The girl was made up to look like a character from
"Mononoke Hime", an animated film that came out in 1997.
> Do Japanes or Korean tribal traditions require painting of
> sex organs or triangular shapes to be painted upon the faces
> of people engaging in porn for entertainment ?? Or something ??
See above.
Trinker
Dale Walker wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:40:46 GMT, Sean Holland <seanh...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >in article 0cg64ug9vf5ffot8i...@4ax.com, Dale Walker at
> >da...@sorted.org wrote on 1/14/02 12:52 PM:
> >
> >
> >> Hmmm. Would that mean that the majority of the terms are then used by
> >> the lower classes, talking to higher ones? I can't see there being
> >> many cases where someone in authority would need to be so indirect.
> >
> >There's always someone higher to whom you must be polite unless you're the
> >very last guy in the line.
>
> Yeah, but the higher up you are, the less people you have to be polite
> to. Besides, you can easily do that with just three types of
> politeness. Lower, same and higher.
But you need to be able to distinguish, if you are at height 2, to
distinguish between talking to someone at height 3, or height 4...
Fabian
"Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C43C014...@yahoo.com...
> But you need to be able to distinguish, if you are at height 2, to
> distinguish between talking to someone at height 3, or height 4...
This is why I seriously recomend that everyone learn Maltese. There are
absolutely no politeness levels in the language whatsoever, wih the
possible exception of 'please' being optional.
--
--
Fabian
The big difference this makes, however, is that I NOW HAVE A BOOK! I might
even open it, one day.
Collin McCulley
"Fabian" <mu...@chung.ii> wrote in message news:a214kv$568$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C43C014...@yahoo.com...
>
> > But you need to be able to distinguish, if you are at height 2, to
> > distinguish between talking to someone at height 3, or height 4...
>
> This is why I seriously recomend that everyone learn Maltese. There are
> absolutely no politeness levels in the language whatsoever, wih the
> possible exception of 'please' being optional.
>
Yeah, but does it put back other factors
like person and number, or other subtle
complexities? TANSTAAFL.
--Collin
Fabian
"Collin McCulley" <cmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PyV08.32990$zw3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Japanese and English both include person and number in the pronouns.
Maltese does too. What comparison are you trying to make here?
halfford field
> > have this peculiar facial painting (triangular shapes) on
> > their faces ??
>
> Did you read the page? The girl was made up to look like a character from
> "Mononoke Hime", an animated film that came out in 1997.
But in more than just a few such asian fellation scenes that I
have seen, these painted face designs have been present. Not just
in this film.
Kevin R. Gowen, II
Send me these films so I can analyze them.
Kevin
Bart Mathias
> I'm sure Bart will give us an accurate account of this, but one way
> of looking at the so-called Japanese pronous is that they are not
> as distinctly separate from common nouns as their counterparts are
> observed in most western languages. In fact, I find it very
> difficult to state their syntactic characteristics that give them a
> separate status from nouns in general. ...
I can't find my accuracy shoes this morning, but I certainly agree
with you that there is nothing to establish daimeishi as a separate
category from meishi; there are some syntactic phenomena (such as
which clause of a complex or compound sentence can "kare" substitute
for "hondakun" if "hondakun" is used in the sentence), but otherwise
they are just a subset (?) of nouns that refer to people (which for
morphological reasons are a subset of nouns referring to animate
beings, a subset of general nouns).
The late John Hinds published a paper about 25 years ago that still
bothers my conscience. It claimed to give seven or eight reasons
Japanese pronouns were distinct from nouns, and he had sent me as
usual a manuscript version asking for comments. I was busy at the
time (moving to Hawaii, I think) and never responded that the reasons
he gave weren't true.
I can't remember all of his criteria any more, but they included
non-modifiability (Japanese "pronouns" are easily modified with the
same words and forms that modify other nouns; contrast English where
some pronouns can't be modified at all, and most others are
resisttant to adjectives and determiners and usually require relative
clauses) and pluralizability (*all* single-person-referent nouns in
Japanese can be made to refer to groups of people by adding
suffixes).
I'm pretty sure the only issue is substitutability, as in the
difference between
hondakun-ni atte kare-no hon-o kaesita. (kare can be hondakun)
and
kare-ni atte hondakun-no hon-o kaesita. (kare can't be
hondakun)
This kind of thing applies to regular nouns in English as well:
I met Honda, and gave the idiot's books back to him. (the idiot
could be Honda)
I met the idiot and gave Honda's books back to him. (Honda's
not the idiot)
This is the reason I questioned the need to establish a subset for
daimeishi above. Would we establish a subset for nouns like "idiot"?
Bart
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> But you need to be able to distinguish, if you are at height 2, to
> distinguish between talking to someone at height 3, or height 4...
The short, and somewhat frustrating response is: "sometimes, yes."
Tony
Fabian
I wonder, are we getting into the "too much information" level here?
I for one, do not wish to know about your porn consumption habits.
Trinker
Fabian wrote:
>
> "Collin McCulley" <cmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:PyV08.32990$zw3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Fabian" <mu...@chung.ii> wrote in message
> news:a214kv$568$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C43C014...@yahoo.com...
> > >
> > > > But you need to be able to distinguish, if you are at height 2, to
> > > > distinguish between talking to someone at height 3, or height 4...
> > >
> > > This is why I seriously recomend that everyone learn Maltese. There
> are
> > > absolutely no politeness levels in the language whatsoever, wih the
> > > possible exception of 'please' being optional.
> >
> > Yeah, but does it put back other factors
> > like person and number, or other subtle
> > complexities? TANSTAAFL.
>
> Japanese and English both include person and number in the pronouns.
> Maltese does too. What comparison are you trying to make here?
Huh? Japanese doesn't include number in the pronouns, unless you're
using that term differently than I think you are.
Collin McCulley
"Fabian" <mu...@chung.ii> wrote in message news:a21ndq$hc0$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Collin McCulley" <cmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:PyV08.32990$zw3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Fabian" <mu...@chung.ii> wrote in message
> news:a214kv$568$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C43C014...@yahoo.com...
> > >
> > > > But you need to be able to distinguish, if you are at height 2, to
> > > > distinguish between talking to someone at height 3, or height 4...
> > >
> > > This is why I seriously recomend that everyone learn Maltese. There
> are
> > > absolutely no politeness levels in the language whatsoever, wih the
> > > possible exception of 'please' being optional.
> >
> > Yeah, but does it put back other factors
> > like person and number, or other subtle
> > complexities? TANSTAAFL.
>
> Japanese and English both include person and number in the pronouns.
> Maltese does too. What comparison are you trying to make here?
>
I slipped into thinking about verbs, but
my point is still valid ... I'm sure the
complexity just shifts to a different aspect.
--Collin
Fabian
> > Japanese and English both include person and number in the pronouns.
> > Maltese does too. What comparison are you trying to make here?
>
>
> Huh? Japanese doesn't include number in the pronouns, unless you're
> using that term differently than I think you are.
What's that watashitachi and anatara doing in the language then?
Trinker
Fabian wrote:
>
> "Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C44B9C2...@yahoo.com...
>
> > > Japanese and English both include person and number in the pronouns.
> > > Maltese does too. What comparison are you trying to make here?
> >
> >
> > Huh? Japanese doesn't include number in the pronouns, unless you're
> > using that term differently than I think you are.
>
> What's that watashitachi and anatara doing in the language then?
JDIC notes "-tachi" as "plural suffix"
As far as I know, "-ra" is the same, "orera", "arera", etc.
-tachi isn't exclusive to pronouns. "sensei-tachi", "tomodachi-tachi",
etc.
Bart? Jim? Am I misinterpreting this?
Bart Mathias
> ... TANSTAAFL.
I think I get all of this but the third "A." But it may just be that
such writing is ambiguous in nature. Is the second "T" "things"?
Bart
Bart Mathias
> Fabian wrote:
> > "Trinker" [done say]:
> > > Huh? Japanese doesn't include number in the pronouns, unless
> > > you're using that term differently than I think you are.
> > What's that watashitachi and anatara doing in the language then?
> JDIC notes "-tachi" as "plural suffix"
> As far as I know, "-ra" is the same, "orera", "arera", etc.
> -tachi isn't exclusive to pronouns. "sensei-tachi",
> "tomodachi-tachi", etc.
> Bart? Jim? Am I misinterpreting this?
I wouldn't say so. I suppose on the grounds that "boku" alone can't
mean "we," and "anata" can't mean "y'all" without a "pluralizing"
suffix, one could logically argue that the so-called pronouns include
"singular" (one alternative--subclass?--of "number"), but that's true
of all nouns with a specific referent, and not a feature that
distinguishes a part of speech.
Probably "plural suffix" isn't exactly accurate; "-tachi, -domo,
-ra," etc., work pretty much like Hawaiian "pluralizing" suffixes
(and the Pidgin "-folk") to establish a group around a representative
member. "bokutachi" doesn't imply that there is more than one of
"boku." "senseitachi" could be a group of sensei-to yuu hodo bakana
people, but it could also be sensei and his non-sensei friend(s).
Bart
Bart's Believe-it-or-not:
"ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
"child(.)r(.)en."
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:v3.N2.cH2QB0...@hawaii.edu...
Bart, you can't decipher this? According to Sean, that means you are either
a) not a long-term participant in this newsgroup, or b) dense. So, Bart,
which is it? ;)
Do you like puzzels?[sic]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3847896834d&hl=en&selm=B863EAD9.80DB%
25seanholland%40telus.net
> Bart
Kevin
Joshua Hesse
:"Collin McCulley" writes:
:> ... TANSTAAFL.
Of all the letters, the third "A" is the hardest one _not_ to get right.
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
UNL Anime Club: http://www.unl.edu/otaku
"I'd be proud to vote for tax increases... You bet I would." -Dick Gephardt
Fabian
That matches my understanding. The plurality of pronouns is (or can be)
marked. English marks this particularly sharply, by having a completley
unrelated word for the plural, but they are both still marked.
Of course, Maltese does make it more complicated in other ways. "I wrote
it for her" is "ktibtilha". Subject, verb, direct object, and indirect
object, all in one compact package :)
--
Trinker
Fabian wrote:
>
> "Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C456A52...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Fabian wrote:
> > >
> > > "Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C44B9C2...@yahoo.com...
> > >
> > > > > Japanese and English both include person and number in the
> pronouns.
> > > > > Maltese does too. What comparison are you trying to make here?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Huh? Japanese doesn't include number in the pronouns, unless you're
> > > > using that term differently than I think you are.
> > >
> > > What's that watashitachi and anatara doing in the language then?
> >
> > JDIC notes "-tachi" as "plural suffix"
> >
> > As far as I know, "-ra" is the same, "orera", "arera", etc.
> >
> > -tachi isn't exclusive to pronouns. "sensei-tachi", "tomodachi-tachi",
> > etc.
>
> That matches my understanding. The plurality of pronouns is (or can be)
> marked. English marks this particularly sharply, by having a completley
> unrelated word for the plural, but they are both still marked.
Wait, but that means that number is not included in pronouns, unless
you mean "there is an implicit value of one".
> Of course, Maltese does make it more complicated in other ways. "I wrote
> it for her" is "ktibtilha". Subject, verb, direct object, and indirect
> object, all in one compact package :)
*every* language has some sort of "maddening to outsiders" trait.
Collin McCulley
"Trinker" <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C460402...@yahoo.com...
>
> *every* language has some sort of "maddening to outsiders" trait.
>
I thought I said that... :)
--Collin
Collin McCulley
Don't pluralize anything and try it again.
Solution to the puzzel is found below.
--Collin
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
(Heinlein, I believe)
Joshua Hesse
:"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:v3.N2.cH2QB0...@hawaii.edu...
:--Collin
:(Heinlein, I believe)
From the book, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
Sean Holland
kevin...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/16/02 1:43 PM:
> "Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message
> news:v3.N2.cH2QB0...@hawaii.edu...
>> "Collin McCulley" writes:
>>
>>> ... TANSTAAFL.
>>
>> I think I get all of this but the third "A." But it may just be that
>> such writing is ambiguous in nature. Is the second "T" "things"?
>
> Bart, you can't decipher this? According to Sean, that means you are either
> a) not a long-term participant in this newsgroup, or b) dense. So, Bart,
> which is it? ;)
>
> Do you like puzzels?[sic]
>
Gee, you don't know the "puzzels" referent either? The acronyms you
couldn't figure out followed a long-established pattern and contained
elements that would have been familiar to any regular. Why do insist that
you have been a long-term participant when the actual long-term participants
know you haven't been? I'm not saying long-term participants are better or
have anything to feel proud of. I'm just wondering why you are such a
strange and arrogant creature.
muchan
>
> Bart's Believe-it-or-not:
>
> "ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
> "child(.)r(.)en."
"Children" in Germen is "Kinderen", isn't it?
and "child", "Kinder".
Then, (supposing that German and English words are related, and German represent
more closely to the original common ancester word) .r. of "children" may be the
"r" of "Kinder", that "child" has lost the final "r" that is still conserved in
plural form?
-- my "new" English dictionary tells me that "child" is from
[bef.950; ME OE "cild"; akin to Goth "kilthai" wob] ("" in italic)
so it was muchan's Don't-believe-it.
muchan
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:B86B9CFA.8240%seanh...@telus.net...
> in article a24s5l$up3e0$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de, Kevin R. Gowen, II at
> kevin...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/16/02 1:43 PM:
>
> > "Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message
> > news:v3.N2.cH2QB0...@hawaii.edu...
> >> "Collin McCulley" writes:
> >>
> >>> ... TANSTAAFL.
> >>
> >> I think I get all of this but the third "A." But it may just be that
> >> such writing is ambiguous in nature. Is the second "T" "things"?
> >
> > Bart, you can't decipher this? According to Sean, that means you are
either
> > a) not a long-term participant in this newsgroup, or b) dense. So, Bart,
> > which is it? ;)
> >
> > Do you like puzzels?[sic]
> >
> Gee, you don't know the "puzzels" referent either?
I'm sorry, but according to Google, the "puzzel" referent[sic] didn't appear
in this newgroup until 2000. An old-timer like me tends not to keep up with
the newfangled lingo you whippersnappers cook up.
> The acronyms you
> couldn't figure out followed a long-established pattern and contained
> elements that would have been familiar to any regular.
This is not what you said before, but fine. Your claim was "Since there has
been quite a long tradition of coining acronyms in here,
regular long-term participants have developed the skill of de-ciphering[sic]
them.", which is a ridiculous statement, as Bart's inability to decipher one
such acronym illustrates. By your logic, Bart must be a newcomer, or dense.
Which is it?
> Why do insist that
> you have been a long-term participant when the actual long-term
participants
> know you haven't been?
They know so? Google tells a different story. By the way, despite your claim
to the contrary, I could find no posts from you in this newsgroup from 1991.
According to Google, your first post here was in 1997. Of course, I was
searching under your real name. Before then, were you posting under a cool
alias like Reverb or Acid Zero or something?
> I'm not saying long-term participants are better or
> have anything to feel proud of.
So you are changing your previous position. Fine.
> I'm just wondering why you are such a
> strange and arrogant creature.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Kevin
Sean Holland
kevin...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/17/02 7:12 AM:
>
> Argumentum ad hominem.
Of course. So?
Kevin R. Gowen, II
Why should I respond to a logical fallacy?
Kevin
Chris Kern
<cmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:v3.N2.cH2QB0...@hawaii.edu...
>> "Collin McCulley" writes:
>>
>> > ... TANSTAAFL.
>There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Hah, I was totally off track! I was thinking in the vein of IANANS,
and came up with "Takes a Native Speaker to Answer A ?? ??"
-Chris
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:3c46fe07...@enews.newsguy.com...
Sean, is Chris a newbie or slow?
Kevin
Philip Newton
> > Bart's Believe-it-or-not:
> >
> > "ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
> > "child(.)r(.)en."
>
> "Children" in Germen is "Kinderen", isn't it?
No, though I believe that in Dutch the plural is "kinderen". In German
it's simply "Kinder".
> and "child", "Kinder".
And the singular is "Kind" (and I believe the same in Dutch, except for
capitalisation -- "kind").
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
That really is my address; no need to remove anything to reply.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Don Kirkman
<2Fp18.426$Aj.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
>"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:v3.N2.cH2QB0...@hawaii.edu...
>> "Collin McCulley" writes:
>> > ... TANSTAAFL.
>> I think I get all of this but the third "A." But it may just be that
>> such writing is ambiguous in nature. Is the second "T" "things"?
> Don't pluralize anything and try it again.
>Solution to the puzzel is found below.
>There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
>(Heinlein, I believe)
What puzzels me is why Heinlein seems to get so much credit. :-) Free
lunches were a feature of old time saloons (to sell the beer - there
truly wasn't any free lunch), and the saying may be as old as Heinlein.
[Begin]
Free Lunch
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Despite the claims of rabid
science fiction fans, this bit of folk wisdom has been with us since the
late 1940s. And the term free lunch is even older.
The term free lunch first appeared in print on 23 November 1854, in Wide
West published in San Francisco. It is a reference to the practice of
saloons giving free meals to attract clientele. Of course the savings is
illusory as the price of the drinks subsidizes the food.
The exact phrase, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, is also
first used in the city by the bay in the 1 June 1949 edition of the San
Francisco News (although this is claimed to be a reprint of a 1938
editorial so it may be even older, but the original has not been found).
The science fiction fans come into the picture in 1966 with the
publication of Robert Heinlein's novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He
did much to popularize the phrase and seems to have coined its acronym,
TANSTAAFL. More recently, it has become a favorite saying of economists,
buoyed by Milton Friedman's frequent use of the phrase.
[End - http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorf.htm]
As NASA, of course, TANSTAAFLaunch.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Collin McCulley
"Don Kirkman" <spamb...@covad.net> wrote in message news:s1ae4u8q9cveiugmt...@4ax.com...
> The science fiction fans come into the picture in 1966 with the
> publication of Robert Heinlein's novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He
> did much to popularize the phrase and seems to have coined its acronym,
> TANSTAAFL.
Yes -- I only meant to give him credit
for the acronym. It was largely this popularization
of the acronym that led me to believe I could
get away with using it.
Kevin -- Sean refers specifically to acronyms
containing "IA" and "ANS" somewhere in them,
usually used as a disclaimer, or whatever the
opposite of a disclaimer is, so using TANSTAAFL
doesn't prove your point.
And I'm pretty sure we had puzzels before
2000, but that could be my own bad recollection.
YMMV.
--Collin
muchan
>
> > > Bart's Believe-it-or-not:
> > >
> > > "ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
> > > "child(.)r(.)en."
> >
> > "Children" in Germen is "Kinderen", isn't it?
>
> No, though I believe that in Dutch the plural is "kinderen". In German
> it's simply "Kinder".
>
> > and "child", "Kinder".
>
> And the singular is "Kind" (and I believe the same in Dutch, except for
> capitalisation -- "kind").
Then now I'd believe Bart's Believe-it-or-not. Thanks.
muchan
Sean Holland
kevin...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/17/02 8:39 AM:
Beats me. Why did you?
--
Lei Tanabe
"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote
>
> Bart's Believe-it-or-not:
>
> "ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
> "child(.)r(.)en."
I sometimes encounter "tomodachi-tachi" for "friends".
I'm personally not comfortable about that and replace with "yuujin-tachi"
when I need to express plural "tomodachi".
Lei
T.Oda
Mr Bart Mathias wrote in message...
> "ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice.
> So has "child(.)r(.)en."
AFAIK, 'ren' in children is the result of a form-building suffix '-en' (e.g.
ox / oxen, eye / eyen, brother / bretheren in ME; stemming from an
Indo-European form-building suffix '*-es') + rhotacism 'r', isn't it?
--
Regards
T.Oda
Fabian
"T.Oda" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:a2bu5f$l00$1...@news.sovam.com...
Rhoticism wouldn't add an extra R in the onset of a syllable; that
phenomena in English is limited to the end (rhyme?) of a syllable.
--
--
Fabian
It ain't the money, it's the job title.
It ain't the job title, it's what you do.
It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.
That's what it's all about.
Shez
>Bart's Believe-it-or-not:
>
>"ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
>"child(.)r(.)en."
How about the commonly spoken "sheepses", which has been pluralised
three times!
-Shez.
--
______________________________________________________
Hippogriff, n.:
An animal (now extinct) which was half horse and half griffin.
The griffin was itself a compound creature, half lion and half eagle.
The hippogriff was actually, therefore, only one quarter eagle, which
is two dollars and fifty cents in gold. The study of zoology is full
of surprises.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
______________________________________________________
Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/
Kevin R. Gowen, II
But I didn't.
> --
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> Of course, Maltese does make it more complicated in other ways. "I wrote
> it for her" is "ktibtilha". Subject, verb, direct object, and indirect
> object, all in one compact package :)
Not being a scholar (or even beginning student) of Maltese, I have to ask --
what is the linguistic connection to Arabic? IIRC, "I wrote to her" is
"katabtu liha"
Tony
Anthony J. Bryant
> "Sean Holland" <seanh...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> > I'm just wondering why you are such a
> > strange and arrogant creature.
>
> Argumentum ad hominem.
>
Actually, that's *not* argumentum ad hominem. It's just plain old-fashioned
name calling. Argumentum ad hominem is "your argument is baseless *because*
you're a strange and arrogant creature."
Tony
Sean Holland
kevin...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/19/02 3:51 PM:
Yes you did. And the response is getting longer and longer.
--
Sean Holland
ajbr...@indiana.edu wrote on 1/19/02 6:27 PM:
Damn right.
--
Don Kirkman
<t1wN5$Ar4dS...@xerez.nospam.co.uk>:
>Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>>Bart's Believe-it-or-not:
>>"ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
>>"child(.)r(.)en."
>How about the commonly spoken "sheepses", which has been pluralised
>three times!
So how do you distinguish a singular sheep from plural ones? :-)
I suppose sheeps is appropriate for speaking of groupings of sheep
(merinos, rambuoillets, caraculs, etc., or for separating the sheeps
from the goats, but not for several individuals without regard to type).
ISTR we had a discussion of this type in the last few months.
I'm not sure I've ever heard 'sheepses' except in jest or from the
mouths of babes.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
T.Oda
Mr Fabian wrote in message...
> "T.Oda" wrote in message...
>> Mr Bart Mathias wrote in message...
>>> "ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice.
>>> So has "child(.)r(.)en."
>> AFAIK, 'ren' in children is the result of a form-building suffix '-en'
>> (e.g.
>> ox / oxen, eye / eyen, brother / bretheren in ME; stemming from an
>> Indo-European form-building suffix '*-es') + rhotacism 'r', isn't it?
> Rhoticism wouldn't add an extra R in the onset of a syllable; that
> phenomena in English is limited to the end (rhyme?) of a syllable.
Thanks for your comment.
--
Regards
T.Oda
Bart Mathias
Perhaps. I'm not sure what "rhotacism 'r'" means (I'm fairly
ignorant of IE history), but Quirk, et al., _A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language_ say "'r' added" but give no reason for it
being added.
I was (mis-?)taught that the "r" was the same as that of "Kinder"
from "Kind," and never had reason to doubt it until today.
Bart
Roy Candler
wrote:
>I was (mis-?)taught that the "r" was the same as that of "Kinder"
>from "Kind," and never had reason to doubt it until today.
FWIW, I have come across the explanation that the word "children"
derives from a merging of two different plurals for "child", one being
"childen" and the other "childer". I can't prove it, and don't know
anything really about variants of Old English - and if you've not
found the explanation, I've no chance.
I was going to cite the archaic "Childermas", but on looking it up I
find that it comes from a genitive plural ending.
Roy
T.Oda
Mr Bart Mathias wrote in message...
> "T.Oda" writes:
>> Mr Bart Mathias wrote in message...
BM>>> "ko(.)domo.tachi" has been "pluralized" twice. So has
BM>>> "child(.)r(.)en."
TO>> AFAIK, 'ren' in children is the result of a form-building suffix
TO>> '-en' (e.g. ox / oxen, eye / eyen, brother / brethren in ME;
TO>> stemming from an Indo-European form-building suffix '*-es') +
TO>> rhotacism 'r', isn't it?
BM> Perhaps. I'm not sure what "rhotacism 'r'" means (I'm fairly
BM> ignorant of IE history), but Quirk, et al., _A Comprehensive Grammar
BM> of the English Language_ say "'r' added" but give no reason for it
BM> being added.
If my memory does not betray me, I have read this rhotacism somewhere in
'the History of Germanic Languages' :) (already 3-4 years ago).
This book said that 'r' of the word 'children' stems from rhotacism and
suffix '-en' as plural and were the remains of the Old English element.
I try to re-produce the argument in the book, however in a condemned form.
As far as I remember, in the Germanic parent languages there was three
morphemic system in the structure of noun, i.e. all noun once consisted of a
root, a base-building suffix and ending. But as time goes by, this
construction came to made from two morphemic system (base and ending), and
base-building suffix either come into the structure of base or fell away.
Then nouns were divided into some groups by their declination. One of
declination is 'a noun of base on '-(e)s'. In Germanic nouns of such class
disappeared comparatively soon (in particular in Althochdeutsch), but in OE
these nouns rested relatively more.
In all Germanic languages except the Gothic language the rhotacism was
found. Rhotacism means 's > z > r' phonetic change, such as 'was' >
'war' ('sein' in the past) in German, which was the analogy, or association
of 'waren' (pl).
Therefore some nouns of neuter gender with the base on -(e)s had such a
declination: lamb (sg. nom.) - lambru (pl. nom.), which base was lamb-r- <
lamb-s- in OE. (I suppose that the base-building suffix is hided in singular
and in nominative). cf. corpus - corporis / opus - operis / jus - juris in
Latin.
In this connection I have only indirect evidence of the word 'child' as
neuter. In German 'Kind' is a noun of neuter, and according to 'Le Slave
Commun' by A.Meillet, there was the word cedo ('c' and 'e' with cedille),
which was borrowed from Germanic languages.
From all this I suppose that child (cild) is a word of the neuter gender
with the base on -(e)s, and children comes from child.r.en < child.s.en, in
which child(e)r- (< child(e)s-) is the base of declination in the OE and ME
period.
I added some material, but I re-produced the argument of the book on the
etymology of 'r' in 'children'. If my memory does not decay, I think, I have
written what the author wanted.
But to tell the truth, I doubt a little, so I have no direct evidence now.
And I'm sorry, if I mistakenly resumed this history. (At first I wrote the
first message about '-en' and '-es' otherwise ^_^;).
BM> I was (mis-?)taught that the "r" was the same as that of "Kinder"
BM> from "Kind," and never had reason to doubt it until today.
As far as I remember, the suffix '-er' in German became popular in the
'mittelhochdeutscher' period. In 'Althochdeutsch' was used suffix '-e' (pl.
nom.) as a sign of plural, while English grew up independently. Suffix '-en'
was the sign of plural in the OE period. In ME the suffix '-s' became more
popular as plural.
In spite of these phenomena, I guess, it is impossible to compare these
suffixes, if these phenomena have no origin of IE languages. English has own
history, and so has German.
And today I ordered an etymological dictionary and two Old English grammars
in the library. I shall talk to you, if I know something new and useful. :)
Thanks for those, who read this long Email. :)
--
Regards
T.Oda
Don Kirkman
<3c4cac11...@news.clara.net>:
Considering that English spelling wasn't very standardized till the last
couple of centuries, it's no wonder this is confusing. I found this
explanation, which is at least credible if not authoritative:
[Begin]
Children is a special case. One of the plurals of child was childer.
This was once common in several English dialects; it used one of the Old
English endings, -er, that vanished from the language in medieval times
(it survives in German). This was then re-pluralised using -en in some
parts of the country, perhaps under the belief that childer was actually
singular. Several subscribers have written to say that the same thing
happened in Dutch, to make the modern plural kinderen. The English
plural should similarly have been childeren, but the first e vanished,
as it often does in unstressed syllables in the middle of words. The
intermediate plural childer survives only in some local dialects.
[End] http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-plu1.htm
I'm not sure but what I've heard 'childer' among my even older kinfolk,
who had a number of archaic terms they used humorously.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Juuichirou Tendou
> "pansy". I think "boku" is a happy medium.
>
I almost always use "boku" because it is two keystrokes less.
But what do I know??
I know this is stupid, but though I am male, I often end sentences with
"..kashira" because "..ka na" is a bit confusing, isn't it? Maybe it
does not sound bad to me because I am a silly gaijin.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Collin McCulley
"Juuichirou Tendou" <juuichi...@ranmamail.com> wrote in message
news:ba5ee47fcd658a041c3...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> I know this is stupid, but though I am male, I often end sentences with
> "..kashira" because "..ka na" is a bit confusing, isn't it? Maybe it
> does not sound bad to me because I am a silly gaijin.
Well, cut it out. Anywhere you have a
tendency to use "kashira" just say "ka na"
instead. Either that, or forget "boku" and
start saying "atashi" or "atai". You might
at least be consistent...
--Collin
Kevin R. Gowen, II
news:ba5ee47fcd658a041c3...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > "pansy". I think "boku" is a happy medium.
> >
> I almost always use "boku" because it is two keystrokes less.
>
> But what do I know??
>
> I know this is stupid, but though I am male, I often end sentences with
> "..kashira" because "..ka na" is a bit confusing, isn't it? Maybe it
> does not sound bad to me because I am a silly gaijin.
I am sure it sounds quite girly.