[Hiram]

I’m a pragmatist about grammar.

If I understand – it works.

As Yoda once said
"Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you."

[MaxBigfoot]

Quote:
   Hey, "no problem". I`m not interested in your problems but you`re welcome. Why don`t people say "you`re welcome" any more?  

Kinda related to this:  "How's it going?" for hello.  I get bugged by a person I know walking by me and saying this.  For some reason I want to answer the question.  If I ask, "How's it going?", I am asking a question, and I don't use it in passing.

[MasterDragonfly]

It's called "phatic communion".

http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/conversation/part1-C.html

See also the Wikipedia entry for 'phatic':

Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In linguistics, a phatic expression is one whose only function is to perform a social task.

For example, you're welcome is not intended to convey the message that the hearer is welcome; it is a phatic response to being thanked, which in turn is a phatic whose function is to be polite in response to a gift.

Similarly, to ask, "How are you today?", is usually a rhetorical phatic question which is an automatic response resulting from meeting someone. Although there are times when, "How are you today?" is asked in a sincere, concerned manner and does in fact anticipate a detailed response from the person met, which should be inferred by the inflection in the delivery of the expression, this is often contrary to some people's perceived need to respond in verbose utterance as to the exact nature of their present ills, when the question was actually a rhetorical phatic!

The utterance of a phatic expression is a kind of speech act.

See also etiquette.

For other references, check Google.

[doggo]

 

Quote:
...a phatic expression is one whose only function is to perform a social task.

Any Dutchmen reading this? You mustn't say to a Dutchman "How do you do?" because he will take the question literally and tell you exactly how he does.

[smiley]

Quote:
As Yoda once said
"Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you."

Stop doing those horrible things to my language you obscurantist little Kermit-lookin', Fozzie-soundin' boghopper! You might think it makes you sound ancient, wise and mysterious, in actuality it just makes you sound like a German.

Unless you've written "Paradise Lost" just leave the Miltonic inversions to Milton!  

Sorry about that, Yoda is just like glass in the eyes to me

[ZoD]

Miltonic. Better than Platonic by a mile.

[AZWolf]

Quote:
Take the word 'taxi'.  As far as I know, this word is the same word (complete with the same spelling and meaning) across more languages than any other word.

That's just a case of linguistic borrowing.  If a concept or object didn't exist in a culture prior to another one creating it, coining the term for it, and then the concept finding its way over, usually it will be borrowed as closely as certain requirements of a given language allows.  Why make up a new word for "vodka" when the Russians, who brought it to you, call it that?  (For example....Almost all of the French words I know, I know from my study of Russian, simply because Russians integrated those words into their language, and only later did I learn they were actually French.)  The words have their own linguistic origins, but in your language, that's not important.  And so on....  

Quote:
The word 'computer' is fairly widespread across multiple languages.  But the French decided to rigidly stick with "l'ordinateur".  Puzzling, but that's the way it is.

That's because the French actually have some kind of government organization that specifically concerns itself with keeping their language's Frenchness intact.  So other words are sometimes ridiculously translated into something French rather than coining some other language's word.  It's extemely pompous and closed-minded, but would you expect anything else from the French?  

[MasterDragonfly]

Quote:

That's because the French actually have some kind of government organization that specifically concerns itself with keeping their language's Frenchness intact.  So other words are sometimes ridiculously translated into something French rather than coining some other language's word.  It's extemely pompous and closed-minded, but would you expect anything else from the French?  

Yup, familiar with it.  Think I learned the name of it back during my Linguistics studies, some 23 years ago.  As with many things, it's relegated itself to my forgettory.  On a related note, there's an interesting bit of linguistic dichotomy in Canada.  Not specifically the English vs. French, but rather the efforts taken to preserve French as being 'pure' (despite it sounding distinctly different from Parisienne), while at the same time unofficially being accepting of such gems as "le building" and "les windshield wipers" (the purists would prefer "l'edifice" and "les essuie-glaces", respectively).

Another bit of linguistic trivia:  The French word for 'window' is 'fênetre', in German it's 'Fenster'.  In English it's neither (apparently instead derived from the Old Norse for 'wind eye', from what I recall).

More trivia:  The French word for 'lemon' is 'citron', in German it's "Zitrone" (very similar pronunciations).  The closest connection to English I'm familiar with is the Italian 'limone'.

Wild tangents notwithstanding, I'm still a fan of some sort of language standardization.  It doesn't need to be immutable, but it does need to be a reasonable benchmark.  Words come and go, but the structural changes in grammar are far more gradual.  Removing the verb "to be" altogether (and not replacing it with anything other than having an implied "to be") is somewhat retrograde, and reminiscent of the way children acquire English language skills.

If you think giving up "to be" in all of it's variations might be easy, try spending a day in social contact with others without using it.  Not just "to be", but all variations thereof, such as: am, are, were, was, will be, would be, could have been, might be, should be, should have been, etc.  And yes, "ain't" belongs on that list, too (apparently derived from "amn't", from what I recall).

Another linguistic quirk I've noticed.  I don't think it bothers anyone to use it this way (at least in the regions where I've heard it or used it), but let me know what you think.  (Of course, it could be considered an abomination in the UK.   )

The example is:  "I'm going to regret this, aren't I?"

The part of the sentence most interesting to me is the "aren't I" bit.  If this is correct grammar, then it follows that "I aren't" and therefore "I are not" and therefore even "I are" should be acceptable.  But I don't know anyone who would use these, other than for the purpose of trying to be amusing, or within the context of poetic license.  Of course, the correct form would be "am I not".  However, I don't think too many Canadians/Americans would choose to use this over the more curious form described in the example.  At least in casual conversation.  (I've just checked with cherri, and she thinks the example above would probably be acceptable in common conversation Down Under.)

[PregNut]

Derailed threads.

[solvegas]

AZwolf , according to the National Geographic magazine , the most common and understood word is  " OK " . Irregardless of languge , it's the most common and it's even used in France unchanged . Another reason why the french hate us .

[smiley]

Quote:

Quote:

That's because the French actually have some kind of government organization that specifically concerns itself with keeping their language's Frenchness intact. So other words are sometimes ridiculously translated into something French rather than coining some other language's word.  It's extemely pompous and closed-minded, but would you expect anything else from the French?  

Yup, familiar with it.

This is their website.

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/

As it unaccountably lacks an English translation - and my French is *appalling* - I've no idea what the name is in a proper language  []

Quote:
Think I learned the name of it back during my Linguistics studies, some 23 years ago.  As with many things, it's relegated itself to my forgettory.  On a related note, there's an interesting bit of linguistic dichotomy in Canada.  Not specifically the English vs. French, but rather the efforts taken to preserve French as being 'pure' (despite it sounding distinctly different from Parisienne), while at the same time unofficially being accepting of such gems as "le building" and "les windshield wipers" (the purists would prefer "l'edifice" and "les essuie-glaces", respectively).

French language 'purism' always makes me laugh. The most apt description I've ever heard of French is that it's late classical Latin as spoken by an illiterate German mercenary. In many ways a spiteful summation, but historically accurate.

Quote:
Another bit of linguistic trivia:  The French word for 'window' is 'fênetre', in German it's 'Fenster'.  In English it's neither (apparently instead derived from the Old Norse for 'wind eye', from what I recall).

More trivia:  The French word for 'lemon' is 'citron', in German it's "Zitrone" (very similar pronunciations).  The closest connection to English I'm familiar with is the Italian 'limone'.

English picked the language up via our medieval trading links with Portugal (we gave them cloth, a royal family and back-up against the Spanish, they gave us port wine and fruit). The Portuguese word for lemon being limão incidentally, I'm sure you see the connection...

Quote:
Wild tangents notwithstanding, I'm still a fan of some sort of language standardization.  It doesn't need to be immutable, but it does need to be a reasonable benchmark.  Words come and go, but the structural changes in grammar are far more gradual.  Removing the verb "to be" altogether (and not replacing it with anything other than having an implied "to be") is somewhat retrograde, and reminiscent of the way children acquire English language skills.

If you think giving up "to be" in all of it's variations might be easy, try spending a day in social contact with others without using it.  Not just "to be", but all variations thereof, such as: am, are, were, was, will be, would be, could have been, might be, should be, should have been, etc.  And yes, "ain't" belongs on that list, too (apparently derived from "amn't", from what I recall).

Yep, that's right. Get a library or cheapy copy of Melvyn Bragg's "The Adventure of English" if you can. It's a fantastic little work on the growth of the language from an obscure Frisian dialect into this world-conquering, all-absorbing monster which now gains more new words a year than the whole vocabulary used in "Beowulf".

Quote:
Another linguistic quirk I've noticed.  I don't think it bothers anyone to use it this way (at least in the regions where I've heard it or used it), but let me know what you think.  (Of course, it could be considered an abomination in the UK.   )

The example is:  "I'm going to regret this, aren't I?"

Hmm. No problems at all with that in the UK. Seems perfectly correct English to me. Grammar fits, parts of speech agree, trips off the tongue easily. The technically correct usage of  "am I not?"  is now something of an archaism even in Standard English usage. But then from Chaucer onwards English speakers have always thrown technical grammar out of the window in favour of what *sounds* good. Look at Shakespeare: biggest coiner of neologisms in the English canon!

Quote:
The part of the sentence most interesting to me is the "aren't I" bit.  If this is correct grammar, then it follows that "I aren't" and therefore "I are not" and therefore even "I are" should be acceptable.  But I don't know anyone who would use these, other than for the purpose of trying to be amusing, or within the context of poetic license.  Of course, the correct form would be "am I not".  However, I don't think too many Canadians/Americans would choose to use this over the more curious form described in the example.  At least in casual conversation.  (I've just checked with cherri, and she thinks the example above would probably be acceptable in common conversation Down Under.)

That's one for the language prigs alonge it seems. I doubt even Noah Webster would have objected to it...

[MasterDragonfly]

Quote:
AZwolf , according to the National Geographic magazine , the most common and understood word is  " OK " . Irregardless of languge , it's the most common and it's even used in France unchanged . Another reason why the french hate us .

Heh, another fave is 'irregardless' (sorry Solvegas ).

Until just a moment ago, I was convinced this wasn't a word.  However, it's there in dictionary.com.  The description is simply 'regardless' (with a 'nonstandard' in the preamble).  It also has this tidbit:

Quote:
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

[MasterDragonfly]

Quote:
French language 'purism' always makes me laugh. The most apt description I've ever heard of French is that it's late classical Latin as spoken by an illiterate German mercenary. In many ways a spiteful summation, but historically accurate.

*snicker* I like it.  And, I might add, this is one aspect of history I'm rather soft in.  But Canadians aren't taught this sort of thing, oh no.  We learn Canadian history which I don't find nearly as interesting as, say, American history.  Go read up on "Louis Riel" sometime.

Quote:
English picked the language up via our medieval trading links with Portugal (we gave them cloth, a royal family and back-up against the Spanish, they gave us port wine and fruit). The Portuguese word for lemon being limão incidentally, I'm sure you see the connection...

Oh cool.  Either I didn't know this, or this was one of those snippets of circa Gr. 5 education which gets mentioned as part of an accelerated background to "and this is how Canada came to be" (yes, once again tossed onto the forgettory heap).

Quote:
Yep, that's right. Get a library or cheapy copy of Melvyn Bragg's "The Adventure of English" if you can. It's a fantastic little work on the growth of the language from an obscure Frisian dialect into this world-conquering, all-absorbing monster which now gains more new words a year than the whole vocabulary used in "Beowulf".

See?  The linguist in me would really enjoy this.  Another book one of my linguistics profs strongly urged us to get (but I never did) was the "Penguin History of the World Atlas".

Hmm.  Just checked Amazon.com and it seems that there are several close variants, including "The Penguin Atlas of World History : Volume 2: From the French Revolution to the Present" and "The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History : Revised edition".  Added to my Wish List.    Ditto the various Melvyn Bragg books.  

[MasterDragonfly]

Something I see more and more these days is the abuse of "'s" (apostrophe 's') when the context calls for pluralization, not possession, and definitely not verb inflection.

There are some cases where I'm not even clear, such as when using an acronym.  But for regular, average everyday words?  Sheesh.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, perhaps if I rewrote a couple of the above snippets to read "when the context call's" and "average everyday word's".

These days what with weak Internet literacy abounding, that doesn't usually surprise me anymore.  In fact, some are worth printing out, framing and hanging in a prominent area of the home.

But at the office?

One of the engineers at my company set up a wiki a year or two back.  It's grown to be quite popular and rich with information.  When I joined the company, there were just over 2000 pages.  It's now about 3600 pages.  Pretty sweet.

But yesterday I was reminded that people either don't know, or aren't paying attention, to the use of "'s".  In fact, in the same paragraph I was treated to the same word twice, the first time with the correct plural usage, the second time with "'s"

This then gets into the whole issue regarding (poor) literacy in the corporate world.  There was a good article referenced on Slashdot several months back.  Apparently poor grammar in e-mails between companies (not just within companies) can inflame business relationships.  And some HR groups are sending employees off for remedial writing skills training.

*sigh*

[solvegas]

MasterDragonFly , I did not know irregardless was not a proper word . I moved to the USA when I was 14 and I've heard it here ever since in the TV , radio and seen it in the newspaper . Unlike spanish , english is much more forgiving of incorrect words and even grammar . Unlike France or Spain there is no goverment bureacracy to maintain the " proper " language . You learn something new every day .