 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Is "The" useless.
Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes underlying...." That didn't sound like what I wanted to say. I meant to say that science "will identify the numerous causes..." There's a difference > Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some > uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes > underlying...." That didn't sound like what I wanted to say. I meant to say > that science "will identify the numerous causes..." There's a difference Many languages get along just fine without a 'the' or 'a'. How is that relevant to English?  Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" >> Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some >> uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Many languages get along just fine without a 'the' or 'a'. How is that >relevant to English? Why shouldn't it be relevant to English? It suggests that it's not a linguistic necessity - and we need to investigate further. English could dispense with articles without much trouble, I reckon. SignaturePaul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: http://www.justgiving.com/london2004 > >> Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some > >> uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > linguistic necessity - and we need to investigate further. > English could dispense with articles without much trouble, I reckon. Forgive me, I did not realize the goal was to dispense with things that are not 'linguistic necessities', whatever that means. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" > Why shouldn't it be relevant to English? It suggests that it's not a > linguistic necessity - and we need to investigate further. <...> No investigation is necessary. The work's all done. Where've YOU been? It is a FACT that the article is not a linguistic necessity. Other features that are NOT linguistic necessities (in various languages) include prepositions, adjectives, infinitives, tenses, plural forms, alphabets of more than 13 letters, transitive verbs, and sentences of more than one word. None of that has anything to do with English. \\P. Schultz > > Why shouldn't it be relevant to English? It suggests that it's not a > > linguistic necessity - and we need to investigate further. <...> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > \\P. Schultz I could add that not only are "alphabets of more than 13 letters" not a linguistic necessity[1], alphabets are not a linguistic necessity. And to those linguists who see language as being spoken, not written, writing systems are not a linguistic necessity.) Note: Nine letters should suffice for writing the version of Mura-Puraha spoken by women. See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%E3_language where the SAMPA version of the phonemes used by women is /p t k ? b g h a i o/. Men also use /s/. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > > Why shouldn't it be relevant to English? It suggests that it's not a > > > linguistic necessity - and we need to investigate further. <...> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > where the SAMPA version of the phonemes used by women is /p t k ? b g h a i > o/. Men also use /s/. Uh, I gave 10 phonemes there. I should have mentioned that the /k/ can be dispensed with by, as it says at the site for which I gave the link above, considering /k/ to be "an optional portmanteau of /h/ and /i/." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". And, among European languages, most of the Slavonic ones -- and Latin. > I believe it has some uses. I had written in a recent post "...will > identify numerous causes underlying...." That didn't sound like > what I wanted to say. I meant to say that science "will identify > the numerous causes..." There's a difference Articles are mostly courtesies, as is shown by the fact that if they are left out the listener or reader can usually supply them correctly (as we still see in headlines, and used to see in telegrams). But in some situations they may convey essential information or at least color the listener's expectations: Bring glasses from the kitchen. Bring the glasses from the kitchen. Bring glass from the kitchen. Bring a glass from the kitchen. Bring the glass from the kitchen. (Two possible situations) The police found him in Mississippi. The police found him in the Mississippi. Signature--- Joe Fineman jcf@TheWorld.com ||: "Carmella, shame on you! Your dress is dirty!" :|| ||: "Yeah, but it's only dirty on the outside." :|| > > Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The police found him in Mississippi. > The police found him in the Mississippi. (Sorry: I seem to be making this interesting thread into a mess by putting in too many postings at different points.) Your examples seem to me to show the result of using a language which relies on the use of articles. If we didn't have them, might we not have preferred distinct words for glass the material, glass the drinking-vessel, glasses the spectacles, etc.; and for Mississippi the river and Mississippi the state? Mike. > Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some > uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes > underlying...." That didn't sound like what I wanted to say. I meant to say > that science "will identify the numerous causes..." There's a difference All natural languages incorporate redundancies so that, when spoken in a noisy environment such that some parts of an utterance are lost, the meaning of the statement will not be lost. Since many languages get along perfectly well without articles, it follows that they are an example of this kind of redundancy. There are many examples or redundancy in language. Declension of adjectives to show number is a form of redundancy that many languages use, but English does not. The same goes for noun and adjective gender. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some > uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes > underlying...." That didn't sound like what I wanted to say. I meant to say > that science "will identify the numerous causes..." There's a difference We'd manage perfectly well without it, as long as we *all* stopped using it and reached a consensus about what to do instead. For the very good example you offer, we'd then have some other way of expressing the same thing. The need for consensus is, of course, why so many people round here worry that it's possible for too many expressions to change meaning too quickly. Mike. > > Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some > > uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > so many people round here worry that it's possible for too many > expressions to change meaning too quickly. We don't need a perfect consensus. The following is not quite the same thing as change in spoken language, but it should be of interest: Consider what happened when people used to seeing italics as a means of showing emphasis had to represent that emphasis without italics, as in most newspapers and in e-mail and Usenet posts. They found not just one way, but several ways to do the job. Similarly, when Esperantists began writing in contexts that did not permit the use of the letters with a circumflex, they developed various substitutes. Some use the Zamenhof method of an "h" following the consonant: "chambro" for "room." Some follow the "x"-convention, which was unknown before the time of computers: "cxambro." Some write it "c'ambro," some "c^ambro," and some "^cambro." Some people write the smiley without a nose :) and some write it with a nose :-) SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > rushtown@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote in message > news:<20031228130744.19282.00001592@mb-m13.aol.com>... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > We don't need a perfect consensus.[...] We'd be unlikely to get a perfect one, in the nature of things. But without a reasonable consensus there's no useful language. Mike. > Some people write the smiley without a nose :) and some write it with a nose > :-) Netscape gave me exactly the same picture for both. Strangely enough, the red lipped smiley DJ sent in another thread came out perfectly, although I have no idea what the typed characters were. SignatureRob Bannister > Netscape gave me exactly the same picture for both. Strangely > enough, the red lipped smiley DJ sent in another thread came out > perfectly, although I have no idea what the typed characters were. You see smileys as pictures? Is this :-* the red-lipped smiley? If so, I typed : - * but without the spaces in between. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >>Netscape gave me exactly the same picture for both. Strangely >>enough, the red lipped smiley DJ sent in another thread came out >>perfectly, although I have no idea what the typed characters were. > > You see smileys as pictures? Is this :-* the red-lipped smiley? If > so, I typed : - * but without the spaces in between. I had to turn on the "Display emoticons as graphics" option to check, and the :-* does turn into a cute-as-a-button, yellow-faced, three-quarter view smiley with red lips and obvious eyelashes. SignatureMartin Ambuhl > I had to turn on the "Display emoticons as graphics" option to > check, and the :-* does turn into a cute-as-a-button, > yellow-faced, three-quarter view smiley with red lips and obvious > eyelashes. Ah. I know the one you're talking about. I sometimes see those pictures in IMs. I didn't realize some people could see them in newsgroups too since it's not an option with OE or Xnews. SignatureDena Jo Settling for Xfaces Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >>Netscape gave me exactly the same picture for both. Strangely >>enough, the red lipped smiley DJ sent in another thread came out >>perfectly, although I have no idea what the typed characters were. > > You see smileys as pictures? Is this :-* the red-lipped smiley? If > so, I typed : - * but without the spaces in between. Yes I do; yes it is. I wondered how you did it. I also wonder why it should mean that. SignatureRob Bannister >> You see smileys as pictures? Is this :-* the red-lipped smiley? >> If so, I typed : - * but without the spaces in between. >> > Yes I do; yes it is. I wondered how you did it. I also wonder why > it should mean that. It's a kiss. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >>>You see smileys as pictures? Is this :-* the red-lipped smiley? >>>If so, I typed : - * but without the spaces in between. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's a kiss. Doesn't look like one in the picture. The lips are neither puckered nor open and ready to swallow as Hollywood kisses are. A kiss really ought to be an x not an *. SignatureRob Bannister > Doesn't look like one in the picture. The lips are neither > puckered nor open and ready to swallow as Hollywood kisses are. A > kiss really ought to be an x not an *. There's a smiley for everything. : - X (without the spaces) apparently means "My lips are sealed." SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >>Doesn't look like one in the picture. The lips are neither >>puckered nor open and ready to swallow as Hollywood kisses are. A >>kiss really ought to be an x not an *. > > There's a smiley for everything. : - X (without the spaces) apparently > means "My lips are sealed." The things we learn on AUE! SignatureRob Bannister > We'd manage perfectly well without it, as long as we *all* stopped > using it and reached a consensus about what to do instead. For the > very good example you offer, we'd then have some other way of > expressing the same thing. The need for consensus is, of course, why > so many people round here worry that it's possible for too many > expressions to change meaning too quickly. _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert A. Heinlein, is written in a dialect of English he imagines to be spoken on the moon in 2075. It has "a" but no "the". It is perfectly intelligible. Hebrew & Greek, on the other hand, have "the" but no "a". Latin & Russian have no articles at all. Chinese has no articles and no singular-plural distinction for nouns. That doesn't mean, of course, that speakers of those languages are helpless when they need to express definiteness or plurality. They are just not obliged to do so. When they learn English, they are forced to consider irrelevant details of the situation, or make mistakes; in the latter case, which is frequent, they nevertheless manage to be understood most of the time. Nevertheless, it appears that some people find the redundancy provided by articles to be convenient, because they have repeatedly invented them. Typically the definite article evolves out of an unstressed form of a demonstrative, and the indefinite article out of an unstressed numeral "one". That is what happened in all the Romance languages in historical times. In another posting on this thread I called articles courtesies, and I think there is a point to that. To use articles correctly, you have to consider what your reader or interlocutor is likely to know or expect. There is a gesture of empathy in the business. Signature--- Joe Fineman jcf@TheWorld.com ||: Mixima should be rendered manimal. :|| > That doesn't mean, of course, that speakers of those languages are > helpless when they need to express definiteness or plurality. They > are just not obliged to do so. When they learn English, they are > forced to consider irrelevant details of the situation, or make > mistakes; in the latter case, which is frequent, they nevertheless > manage to be understood most of the time. Moreover, those languages that do have articles, eg English, French, German, use them in quite different ways, so you still have to relearn how to use them. SignatureRob Bannister > > We'd manage perfectly well without it, as long as we *all* stopped > > using it and reached a consensus about what to do instead. For the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dialect of English he imagines to be spoken on the moon in 2075. It > has "a" but no "the". It is perfectly intelligible. But definitely has a different feel. There are words taken from Russian and other languages in the book, presumably from the languages of countries which would most likely be most closely involved in early space travel. I'm pretty sure that 'Oh Bog' is not 'bog' from English slang but 'Bohk' from Russian for God, for example. > Hebrew & Greek, > on the other hand, have "the" but no "a". Latin & Russian have no > articles at all. But I think that the Vulgate must've had articles since the Romance languages all seem to have them, at least French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. > Chinese has no articles and no singular-plural > distinction for nouns. Singular and plural are not really needed because you can always put a number in front of the noun and know exactly how many, or 'a lot' or a 'a few' and gauge about how many. Black English tends to drop the plural signal when it is redundant, that is when the fact that the noun is plural is marked by something else such as when used with a number. > That doesn't mean, of course, that speakers of those languages are > helpless when they need to express definiteness or plurality. They > are just not obliged to do so. When they learn English, they are > forced to consider irrelevant details of the situation, Not irrelevant details, just different details. I recall Richard Feynman's complaints about learning Japanese and different levels of politeness. > or make > mistakes; in the latter case, which is frequent, they nevertheless [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > by articles to be convenient, because they have repeatedly invented > them. Typically the definite article evolves out Funny how the indefinite article in Northern Germanic languages sits in front of the noun and then moves to the end and attaches to become the definite article. > of an unstressed > form of a demonstrative, and the indefinite article out of an > unstressed numeral "one". That is what happened in all the Romance > languages in historical times. I don't know but I cannot believe that this happened separately all in the same way in such closely related languages. I think, as I said above, that the Vulgate had articles and the Romance languages got the idea from there. That makes more sense to me. Corrections welcome. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" > Funny how the indefinite article in Northern Germanic languages sits in > front of the noun and then moves to the end and attaches to become the > definite article. Macedonian and, I think, Bulgarian also have a postpositive definite article, although it does not resemble the indefinite article, which is simply the number 'one'. They (definite articles) are basically shortened forms of the words for 'that, this and yon', although they are not all used in normal speech. For example, taa kniga - that book; ovaa kniga = this book; onaa kniga = that book over there; knigata = the book; knigava (in theory) = the book (near me); knigana (in theory) = the book (over there). The only one in common use is 'vecherva' - this evening/tonight as opposed to 'vecherta' - the evening; not to be confused with 'vecherot' - dinner/evening meal. I wonder whether the Scandinavians picked it up from the same Tartar tribe that the Bulgarians split from. SignatureRob Bannister My friend Alex introduced a Chinese language learning software product to me. It's focus on learning spoken Chinese. There's a function I love it very much-------You can search Chinese sentences per English ones. Notes:it's sentences but not words. I love it! +) +) Learn Chinese from www.topsn.com/osprey > My friend Alex introduced a Chinese language learning software product > to me. It's focus on learning spoken Chinese. There's a function I > love it very much-------You can search Chinese sentences per English > ones. Notes:it's sentences but not words. I love it! +) +) > Learn Chinese from www.topsn.com/osprey Consider a version for learning English. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Rushtown filted: >Many Asian languages get along without the word "The". I believe it has some >uses. I had written in a recent post "...will identify numerous causes >underlying...." That didn't sound like what I wanted to say. I meant to say >that science "will identify the numerous causes..." There's a difference I read the two formulations given as separated only by shades of meaning...but there's a use of "the" that I can't think of a better way of expressing: describing two qualities that increase and decrease in tandem...how do "many Asian languages" express a thought like "the sooner the better"?... (Okay, make it easier...what's the literal translation of the original line from the Tao Te Ching that in English goes "the farther one travels the less one knows"?)...r >Subject: Re: Is "The" useless. >From: R H Draney dadoctah@earthlink.net [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I read the two formulations given as separated only by shades of >meaning More than a shade. "the numerous causes" seems to refer to all of the numerous causes that the speaker already knows about. When only "numerous causes" (without the "the") is used it sounds like the speaker is expecting the fact of "numerous" to be disclosed; and it also does not mean that ALL the numerous causes may be found. ..but >there's a use of "the" that I can't think of a better way of expressing: >describing two qualities that increase and decrease in tandem...how do "many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the Tao Te Ching that in English goes "the farther one travels the less one >knows"?)... Could be "When (or if) one travels farther one will know less". [...] > (Okay, make it easier...what's the literal translation of the original line from > the Tao Te Ching that in English goes "the farther one travels the less one > knows"?)...r The higher, the fewer? Mike. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.