 |
 | 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 / July 2010Is the "lie - lay" distinction falling by the wayside?
From CBS Marketwatch: Republican hopes of recapturing the House of Representatives in November lay in districts like Virginia's 11th end quote and it is clear that the present tense is meant. On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote: > From CBS Marketwatch: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > and it is clear that the present tense is meant. It's been gone for years. When is the last time you heard someone order a dog "Lie down"? Only a few of us know and use both verbs correctly. Actually, I thinik correct use is on the rise. Slowly. It was worst about 30 years ago! > On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually, I think correct use is on the rise. Slowly. It was worst > about 30 years ago! Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English for centuries, and its few remnants (lay = cause to lie; set = cause to sit; raise = cause to rise) are at best zombies, animated only occasionally, for ritual purposes. For the rest of 'lie/lay', see http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/threekindsofword.pdf -John Lawler - http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue "Academic integrity still plagues campus" Headline, University of Michigan Daily 11/12/02 >> On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > are at best zombies, animated only occasionally, > for ritual purposes. But we're talking about more than a vowel change here (tree falls; man fells tree - even though lots of loggers fall trees). The big difference in these verb pairs is that (as in German) the "state" verb is a strong verb (lie, lay, lain; liegen, lag, gelegen), while the factitive verb is weak (lay, laid, laid; legen, legte, gelegt). Where I see the main problem to be is with "lie/lay" - in most European languages the 'movement' verb is reflexive - lay oneself (down), while in English, this is "lie down".  SignatureRob Bannister >Where I see the main problem to be is with "lie/lay" - in most European >languages the 'movement' verb is reflexive - lay oneself (down), while >in English, this is "lie down". It's archaic, poetic or KJV Biblical in English these days, but it's still there. "Now I lay me down to sleep", for instance, and "Laid myself down on the ground. Fingers dripping with dew" from a 2010 album by Louis Barabbas and the Bedlam Six (the latter found by random googling - I've no idea what they sound like). SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > album by Louis Barabbas and the Bedlam Six (the latter found by random > googling - I've no idea what they sound like). Is it possible to find something through random googling? Surely it has to be directed, purposeful and intentional googling to actually find something? At least I suppose that a random google might turn up something, but it's highly unlikely to be related to the particular matter you're interested in. >> album by Louis Barabbas and the Bedlam Six (the latter found by random >> googling - I've no idea what they sound like). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >it's highly unlikely to be related to the particular matter you're >interested in. You're right, of course. I did, however, pick at random one of the umpteen pages offered as the search result. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You're right, of course. I did, however, pick at random one of the > umpteen pages offered as the search result. Ah, I understand. A cunning method - most people pick one of the results on the first page, rather than going to the trouble of generating a number between one and umpteen and choosing that numbered result. >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >generating a number between one and umpteen and choosing that numbered >result. Is there any definition of what exactly the Google "I'm feeling lucky" button does? SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England >Is there any definition of what exactly the Google "I'm feeling lucky" >button does? I Googled for that information and found: http://google.about.com/od/searchingtheweb/qt/imfeelingluckyq.htm Ordinarily when you type in a key phrase in a Google search, you press the search button, (you can also just press return or enter on your keyboard) and Google returns a results page that shows multiple Web sites matching your search phrase. The I'm Feeling Lucky button skips the search results page and goes directly to the first ranked page for that search phrase. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>Is there any definition of what exactly the Google "I'm feeling lucky" >>button does? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Lucky button skips the search results page and goes directly to the > first ranked page for that search phrase. So, I guess you're only lucky if the page you end up with hasn't been gamed to the top. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England >>>Is there any definition of what exactly the Google "I'm feeling lucky" >>>button does? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So, I guess you're only lucky if the page you end up with hasn't been >gamed to the top. That is a possible scenario. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Robin Bignall filted: >>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Is there any definition of what exactly the Google "I'm feeling lucky" >button does? Not Google, but I've run across other sites where you can click a button to be transferred to some truly random page somewhere out on the Web...most of them probably withered and died because the law of averages dictates that you're most likely to end up on a porn site....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. >Robin Bignall filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >probably withered and died because the law of averages dictates that you're most >likely to end up on a porn site....r The OED Welcome page has a button "Lost for words? Get a random entry". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) R H Draney skrev: > >Is there any definition of what exactly the Google "I'm feeling lucky" > >button does? > Not Google, but I've run across other sites where you can click a button to be > transferred to some truly random page somewhere out on the Web... I'm surprised that the fubnction of this button is not well known. It has been there almost from the first day Google was launched. It's not random. Peter Duncanson gave a description. Before I (and my friends) knew much about Google's ranking and before they started selling adds and rankings, it was actually quite surprising how often it hit bulls eye (there were however fewer pages to choose from back then). SignatureBertel, Denmark > R H Draney skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > quite surprising how often it hit bulls eye (there were however > fewer pages to choose from back then). Google's initial popularity was based on two factors: it didn't have advertising, and it zeroed in very accurately on the most relevant pages. In hindsight, we can see that those two factors were related. The curse of sponsorship has meant that you sometimes have to go to the second page of results to find the relevant results. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >Google's initial popularity was based on two factors: it didn't have >advertising, and it zeroed in very accurately on the most relevant >pages. In hindsight, we can see that those two factors were related. > >The curse of sponsorship has meant that you sometimes have to go to the >second page of results to find the relevant results. I don't think that's true. Advertising does not affect Google's search results -- there is a "chinese wall" between advertising and the rest of the company, I am reliably assured by people who work there (and who are not official corporate spokespersons, so I can't cite them by name or position). The same algorithms are used to find search results and relevant advertisements, but they are not integrated. The reason you sometimes have to go to the second page of results is that *everything is now on the Web*, and in particular, everyone who wants to sell you something is now on the Web. Google doesn't do a good job of deduplication, so the same vendor or other data source will often show up many times in the index. (This is also a problem with the infinite clones of Wikipedia: if what you're looking for is something uncommon that a million people aren't selling, you may have to page through many clones of Wikipedia to find information from another source.) Then there's the curse of "search engine optimization". Google initially took a hard line on "index manipulation" (which is the primary business of SEO firms), but they have yet to develop an algorithm that can detect this without human intervention, and they've had to defend themselves against lawsuits by companies that claim they were unfairly penalized for it. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > The reason you sometimes have to go to the second page of results is > that *everything is now on the Web*, and in particular, everyone who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to page through many clones of Wikipedia to find information from > another source.) In the late 1990s, Andrei Broder et al. did some interesting work on deduplication using sketches of shingles (I can explain that if you want; the papers are called "Syntactic clustering of the web", "On the resemblance and containment of documents", "Identifying and filtering near-duplicate documents"). I don't think Google can be bothered to do this; instead they have conditioned us to refine our keyword queries incrementally if we don't get what we want on the first or second page. SignatureSteve: Now, okay. I did say that monkeys could program Visual Basic. Leo: But not that all Visual Basic programmers are monkeys. Steve: Exactly. [Security Now 194] > >> On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Rob Bannister It's normal for derived verbs (causative, inchoative, factitive, etc) to be regular ("weak"), even if the verbs they're derived from are irregular ("strong"). Irregular verbs persevere in a language only if they're common enough to allow all the forms to be learned easily, so they're also common enough to be useful, and therefore likely to have more regular derived forms. But they can't compete with regular verbs that usurp their sense. The vowel change is unimportant in itself, but's that what causes the problems. The normal tendency in English for the last millennium has been to move toward regularity and away from inflection; regular verbs, for instance, no longer have a past participle form distinct from the past tense. So the regular 'lay' gets used in place of the irregular 'lie' again and again; every generation rediscovers this simple solution, and that'll never stop, because it *is* a simple solution. -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler "Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > > >> On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> > > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - excellent explanation, tying the change to the evolution of English away from IE ablaut, rather than sloppy speech, ignorance etc. On Jul 25, 8:23 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> > > > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > but less interesting than looking." > > -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe- > excellent explanation, tying the change to the evolution of English > away from IE ablaut, rather than sloppy speech, ignorance etc.- To respond to the subject header: Uh, no,. it fell by the wayside generations ago. Guesses about what made it happen have nothing to do with the fact that it happened long ago. > Uh, no,. it fell by the wayside generations ago. That must be a different wayside from any around here. I've only heard the misusage in Hollywood films and it's always struck me as peculiar. > > Uh, no,. it fell by the wayside generations ago. > > That must be a different wayside from any around here. I've only heard > the misusage in Hollywood films and it's always struck me as peculiar. What is "around here", pray? Are you sure you haven't been brought up in an environment speaking unnaturally bookish English? If the distinction hasn't fallen by the wayside on all stylistic levels, it is my own impression that it is very widespread in all the regions of the Anglosphere, and in writing it is a universal way to signalize colloquial style. > > > Uh, no,. it fell by the wayside generations ago. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > very widespread in all the regions of the Anglosphere, and in writing > it is a universal way to signalize colloquial style. Sorry for the misleading construction: I meant to say that the erosion of the distinction is widespread, and that in writing, not observing the distinction is a universal way to signalize colloquiality or vulgarism. > Sorry for the misleading construction: I meant to say that the erosion > of the distinction is widespread, and that in writing, not observing > the distinction is a universal way to signalize colloquiality or > vulgarism. It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. I can see that a script writer may have a character use all sorts of malapropisms and other errors to indicate poor education, or intelligence, or that English is not their first language, so, yes, at Universal Studios misusing 'lay' when they should say 'lie' might be one of these standard errors. I'm not sure that use by Universal Studios is the same as being universal though. > > Sorry for the misleading construction: I meant to say that the erosion > > of the distinction is widespread, and that in writing, not observing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > one of these standard errors. I'm not sure that use by Universal > Studios is the same as being universal though. Well, the fact is that there are ample analogies to this in English and in other languages, for example the use of "learn" in the meaning "teach" (which has analogues in other languages). Besides, English shows a marked tendency to use the same verb in two related meanings, one of which is transitive and one intransitive: "how did you translate that word into Upper Brobdingnacian?" vs. "this word doesn't translate easily into Upper Brobdingnacian". Using the same verb for "lie" and "lay" is thus part of a larger tendency in the language. The Leviathan of linguistic change is at work there, and feeble human beings, such as us, cannot stop the irreversible any more than we could tell the wind to blow the other way. Indeed, instead of emotional judgement-mongering ("simply illiterate"), you should stop for a moment to look at and admire that great force which moves the mountains. > you should stop > for a moment to look at and admire that great force which moves the > mountains. Oh, I do! I don't disagree with your points, but it is a surprise to me that anybody should think this of 'lie', that's all. > On Jul 25, 7:47 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:> you should stop > > for a moment to look at and admire that great force which moves the > > mountains. > > Oh, I do! I don't disagree with your points, but it is a surprise to > me that anybody should think this of 'lie', that's all. I have always found the juggernaut of the English language terribly menacing - I would prefer to live in a world with several major languages equally dominant and strong (not that I am particularly good at learning major languages). Everybody else's native language is being shaped into new, unfamiliar and irritating forms by the all- pervasive pressure of the juggernaut. It is deeply satisfying to see, that there are linguistic forces at work which are stronger than this juggernaut. > > Sorry for the misleading construction: I meant to say that the erosion > > of the distinction is widespread, and that in writing, not observing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are > different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. It is odd to me that you consider it a 'difference' but not a 'distinction'. Could you clarify your usage of these terms? Ross Clark > I can see that a script writer may have a character use all sorts of > malapropisms and other errors to indicate poor education, or > intelligence, or that English is not their first language, so, yes, at > Universal Studios misusing 'lay' when they should say 'lie' might be > one of these standard errors. I'm not sure that use by Universal > Studios is the same as being universal though. On Jul 25, 7:38 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > Sorry for the misleading construction: I meant to say that the erosion > > > of the distinction is widespread, and that in writing, not observing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It is odd to me that you consider it a 'difference' but not a > 'distinction'. Could you clarify your usage of these terms? Cf. the catch phrase "a distinction without a difference," which suggests that the usual distinction between the two terms is precisely the opposite of how he has used them. Note that he hasn't _yet_ answered what version of English he has been exposed to (or what his native language may be). > > I can see that a script writer may have a character use all sorts of > > malapropisms and other errors to indicate poor education, or > > intelligence, or that English is not their first language, so, yes, at > > Universal Studios misusing 'lay' when they should say 'lie' might be > > one of these standard errors. I'm not sure that use by Universal > > Studios is the same as being universal though.- > > > It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are > > > different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > suggests that the usual distinction between the two terms is precisely > the opposite of how he has used them. Indeed, as it should be, though I didn't express it precisely enough. The topic heading is suggesting that there is not a distinction any more. So I think it odd that it is considered not to be a distinction, rather than odd that it is considered one. In considering it 'not a distinction', though, it is being considered a distinction in a negative sense. > Note that he hasn't _yet_ answered what version of English he has been > exposed to (or what his native language may be). I've been exposed, as you put it, to English in quite a number of places and dialects, having lived in Pom, in different parts, in New Zealand briefly and in South Africa, also in different parts. I've also been, even more briefly, exposed to English speakers in Australia, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Ireland, Zambia, Scotland, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Wales Swaziland, Lesotho, Madeira, Uganda, Cornwall (if you consider it a separate country) as well in countries where it isn't a colonial language, such as Cameroon, Burkina Faso, the Lebanon, most of Europe, and a few Asian countries. I'm not sure if you consider pidgin a version of English, but I've spoken to people using it in various parts of North and West Africa. I've read books in English by people from a majority of the countries where English is spoken. I've also been exposed to more distant variants, such as those spoken in North America. I can't vouch for that being a comprehensive list - I've also been exposed to variants of English in the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, Greece, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Albania, I realise, after writing the above. I imagine you'd have been happier not to have asked. > > > > It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are > > > > different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > I imagine you'd have been happier not to have asked. "Exposure" has nothing to do with it. A question about your native variety (of English? still not explicitly stated) is answered by where you spent your years before puberty; a question about your local variety ("accent" or "dialect") is most likely answered by where you spent your mid-teen years. You started out in Pomerania? so your native language is a Slavic one, or possibly Baltic? >>>>> It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are >>>>> different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> colonial language, such as Cameroon, Burkina Faso, the Lebanon, most >> of Europe, and a few Asian countries. [snip] > "Exposure" has nothing to do with it. A question about your native > variety (of English? still not explicitly stated) is answered by where > you spent your years before puberty; a question about your local > variety ("accent" or "dialect") is most likely answered by where you > spent your mid-teen years. You started out in Pomerania? so your > native language is a Slavic one, or possibly Baltic? Since he was listing, in that paragraph, his history in places where English is spoken, you might suppose he didn't mean Pomerania. "Pom" is slang for the place where Pommies, i.e. Brits, come from. On Jul 26, 4:25 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are > >>>>> different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > English is spoken, you might suppose he didn't mean Pomerania. "Pom" is > slang for the place where Pommies, i.e. Brits, come from.- So he's nasty as well as evasive. Where is _he_ from? >>>>>> It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are >>>>>> different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > English is spoken, you might suppose he didn't mean Pomerania. "Pom" is > slang for the place where Pommies, i.e. Brits, come from. Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. SignatureRob Bannister > Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. According to whose prescription? It may not have made the OED and you may not have encountered the usage yourself, but it isn't my coinage. Why not try popping the phrase "back in Pom" into google? >> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why not try popping the phrase "back in Pom" into google? I get 36 hits, nearly all of which seem to refer to Port Moresby (including the only ones from a (single) .au domain). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I get 36 hits, nearly all of which seem to refer to Port Moresby > (including the only ones from a (single) .au domain). That's fascinating. Google's ways are strange. When I do it, and I tried it again now, I get 1040 hits. How could you only get 36? There's a puzzle indeed. On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com> wrote in <news:07e0e2d0-27f7-45f3-8e61-3d7dba9f4f02@q2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: >>>> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. >>> According to whose prescription? >>> It may not have made the OED and you may not have encountered the >>> usage yourself, but it isn't my coinage. >>> Why not try popping the phrase "back in Pom" into google? >> I get 36 hits, nearly all of which seem to refer to Port Moresby >> (including the only ones from a (single) .au domain). > That's fascinating. Google's ways are strange. When I do it, and I > tried it again now, I get 1040 hits. How could you only get 36? > There's a puzzle indeed. 'About 1020' for me, but only 62 actually showing, and the relevant ones all appear to refer to Port Moresby. Brian > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks > <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 'About 1020' for me, but only 62 actually showing, and the > relevant ones all appear to refer to Port Moresby. Ah, I see, I hadn't looked at the detail. An alternative search that gives results not related to Port Moresby is "land of Pom". Pom-poms, Pom dogs, Pom Island, Pom-Panga and Port Moresby certainly complicate the search for uses of Pom as a synonym for England. >> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why not try popping the phrase "back in Pom" into google? Right. I had to read several articles before I realised that "POM" is apparently Port Moresby in PNG. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Right. I had to read several articles before I realised that "POM" is >apparently Port Moresby in PNG. POM is the IATA code for Port Moresby airport. I learned from my late father[1] who worked for several years in New Guinea that because of the terrain of much of New Guinea more travel is by air than might be the case in less hilly countries. I wonder whether "Pom" was used as a nickname for Port Moresby before the designation of the airport or whether it arose later deriving from the code "POM"? [1] He was not late when he told me this. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Right. I had to read several articles before I realised that "POM" is > apparently Port Moresby in PNG. Well, I'm not surprised. I've done quite a few google searches, and I've asked about the word on an Australian site that's devoted to poms- in-Oz, I've drawn a blank. I've managed to find a couple of, at best, ambiguous references to Pom as a word to describe England, rather then the English. So I'm forced to conclude that this my memory has failed me (not the first time). Pom, in this sense, must be either my own coinage, or that of somebody in my circle of friends. In my life it has been a common usage. So much so that, as you know, I claimed it to be universal, and have taken some trouble to establish that it actually is. It is most likely, I think, that it's my bother's coinage - and it is part of our shared idiolect. This is a surprise to me. I'm sorry to have doubted the strong objections some of you have made to its being universal - you were right. I can only assert that I was honestly mistaken. I can commend it, though, as a rational coinage. Germans come from Germany, Italians from Italy, the French from France, so, why shouldn't Poms come from Pom? > > >> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Germany, Italians from Italy, the French from France, so, why > shouldn't Poms come from Pom? Why, indeed? But what are Poms? Why don't you say that Germs come from Germany? And Its from Italy? > > I can commend it, though, as a rational coinage. Germans come from > > Germany, Italians from Italy, the French from France, so, why > > shouldn't Poms come from Pom? > > Why, indeed? But what are Poms? Well, Peter, English may not be your first language, so I understand your confusion. 'Pom' is a term used by many for people from England. 'Poms' is the plural of that. > Why don't you say that Germs come from Germany? And Its from Italy? Why don't I say it? Well, Peter, it's because germs come from many places. I'm not sure what 'Germs' are. Perhaps you can help me. What do you think 'Germs' are? As for 'Its', I'm just as confused. What do you think that 'Its' are? I ask these questions in only to be helpful. You might find them confusing but, if you do, there's help: I don't know quite how to put this kindly and gently, but, Peter, the main reason that I don't say what you would have liked me to say is quite evident to normal English speakers. Perhaps you might find somebody to give you a training course in English. They call it 'TEFL' . You might find some places providing this training near you. They'll probably help you learn how germs, a general term for bacteria or viruses that infect people, are different from 'Germs', an imagined name you've found for what we English speakers call 'germans'. Such a course might well, also, help you with the tricky matter of capitalisation. [you can look that word up in what we English speakers call a 'dictionary' - a local book shop should supply these]. > > > I can commend it, though, as a rational coinage. Germans come from > > > Germany, Italians from Italy, the French from France, so, why [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 'Pom' is a term used by many for people from England. 'Poms' is the > plural of that. Who are these "many" who use "Pom" as a term for people from England, and why do they do so? > > Why don't you say that Germs come from Germany? And Its from Italy? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I ask these questions in only to be helpful. You might find them > confusing but, if you do, there's help: From your recent posting history, I find it highly likely that you do not in fact recognize the purpose and content of my question, and that what looks like pretending that you don't is in fact true bafflement. > I don't know quite how to put this kindly and gently, but, Peter, the > main reason that I don't say what you would have liked me to say is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > capitalisation. [you can look that word up in what we English speakers > call a 'dictionary' - a local book shop should supply these]. A highly reputable "dictionary," as you call it, in my possession informs me that "Pom" is short for "Pommy" or "Pommie," and that "Pommy" is, by shortening and alteration, from "pomegranate," which is an alteration of "Jimmy Grant," rhyming slang for "immigrant," and that it is used "disparagingly" in "Australia and New Zealand" -- i.e., just about the smallest segment of the English-speaking universe there is -- for "a Briton, esp. an English immigrant." Thus by using the word you expose not only your cultural inferiority complex and insecurity, but also your ignorance of its highly restricted and insulting meaning. And what was this very useful "dictionary"? Merriam-Websters 11th Collegiate (2003). On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:55951dca-507e-4b7f-90a3-63bdbe0c9b61@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: [...] > A highly reputable "dictionary," as you call it, in my > possession informs me that "Pom" is short for "Pommy" or > "Pommie," and that "Pommy" is, by shortening and > alteration, from "pomegranate," Actually, <Pom> is attested a little earlier than <Pommie> ~ <Pommy>, so it may be directly from <pomegranate>. > which is an alteration of "Jimmy Grant," rhyming slang for > "immigrant," and that it is used "disparagingly" Usually; not always. > in "Australia and New Zealand" -- i.e., just about the > smallest segment of the English-speaking universe there > is -- for "a Briton, esp. an English immigrant." It is, however, quite familiar to many of us outside that segment. Brian > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Usually; not always. It happened especially in Australia, where a number of disparaging terms came to be used as a kind of rough endearment. Of course, the context is all important. "Pommy bastard" used between mates in the Ozzie pub is perhaps one of the extreme examples. >> in "Australia and New Zealand" -- i.e., just about the >> smallest segment of the English-speaking universe there >> is -- for "a Briton, esp. an English immigrant." > > It is, however, quite familiar to many of us outside that > segment. That's quite right. For example, when I lived and worked in England I never came across a Pom who would not be familiar with the term. pjk > It happened especially in Australia, where a number of disparaging > terms came to be used as a kind of rough endearment. Of course, > the context is all important. "Pommy bastard" used between mates > in the Ozzie pub is perhaps one of the extreme examples. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA about 0:35 and 1:20, for example SignatureHistory teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure. (Thurgood Marshall) >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > England I never came across a Pom who would not be familiar > with the term. The same goes for American "Limey". SignatureRob Bannister > >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > The same goes for American "Limey". American? That was because the British Navy used limes to stave off scurvy. Did no one but Americans know that? >> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > That was because the British Navy used limes to stave off scurvy. Did > no one but Americans know that? Who knows. However, whenever the US solders came in contact with British infantrymen, they would certainly hear the common swear words "Blimey!" and "Cor blimey!" once every few seconds. If you ever saw a British WW2 film that includes conversation in the British trenches you would certainly have heard it repeated ad nauseum. BTW, "Blimey" and "Cor blimey" from "God, Blind Me!" pjk > >> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > BTW, "Blimey" and "Cor blimey" from "God, Blind Me!" The French called the English 'les goddams' for the same reason. So, if your etymology were true [something I doubt; limes seem a much more plausible origin. The OED says that it's short for ‘Lime-juicers’], then it would provide more evidence that expletives are a defining characteristic of English speech. Isn't it strange that there should be as mild, and kindly, a nickname as 'Poms' in Oz. It's an appealing theory, though, despite being probably wrong. Foreign sounds are a rich source of nicknames. Such as 'Taffy' from a mis-hearing of Welsh pronunciation of 'David' and 'Sawney' from mishearing the Scotchman's pronunciation of 'Sandy'. Also, 'Pong' the Oz nickname for a Chinaman. I think these appellations add spice to language and are fun. It has not always been so, though, the OED reports Haslet as saying that 'A nickname is the heaviest stone the Devil can throw at a man'. > > >> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > > >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > then it would provide more evidence that expletives are a defining > characteristic of English speech. And you have some reason to suppose that "expletives" (what is your definition?) are rare in other languages? > Isn't it strange that there should be as mild, and kindly, a nickname > as 'Poms' in Oz. The entire enterprise of "rhyming slang" is "strange." What is your evidence that "Pom" is :"kindly"? Maybe this means nothing to you, but "Nigger" was used "kindly" in the US for decades. (But literature suggests that in England it wasn't even unpleasant, let alone offensive, for much of that time.) > It's an appealing theory, though, despite being probably wrong. > Foreign sounds are a rich source of nicknames. Such as 'Taffy' from a > mis-hearing of Welsh pronunciation of 'David' and 'Sawney' from > mishearing the Scotchman's pronunciation of 'Sandy'. Also, 'Pong' the > Oz nickname for a Chinaman. Aren't you quite the expert on offensive appellatives. > I think these appellations add spice to language and are fun. It has > not always been so, though, the OED reports Haslet as saying that 'A > nickname is the heaviest stone the Devil can throw at a man'.- You go right ahead thinking they're "spicy" and "fun." Won't you eventually find yourself wondering why no one is interested in interacting with you who doesn't look exactly like you? > > > >> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > > > >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Use of expletives runs in cycles. In English, anyway. All languages have "bad words," but it is not at all uncommon for the worst to be used sparingly: not in front of children and not in mixed company. In the U.S., everybody knew dang, darn, heck, goldarnit, dagnabbit, shoot. Before about 1970, children did not know the words these were euphemism for. And the F-word was not heard by me (then a young woman) until about then. Did y'all know that during WWII, American soldiers sent to Britain were given a booklet about the U.K. and its language? One item my high school U.S. history teacher (who'd been given one of those booklets 25 years before) told us about was the warning against saying "bloody," because it was not used in polite company. The N-word: In AmE, in the early 19th century and for some time after, it was a common mispronunciation of, or accented form of, the scientific term "Negro." In BrE, it was the common term for anyone who was European, including Arabs, East Indians, Pacific Islanders... In the U.S., I know personally that it was considered an insulting term in 1952; I don't know how far back that goes, but I think a number of decades. In the U.S., for the first third or so of the 20th century, the polite term was "colored." About 1940 (perhaps a little earlier), it became "Negro." In 1967, a change was mandated: "Black" (oh yes, it had to be capitalized, but "white" did not). Then, of course, it was declared that "black" had become a nasty word, and there was much discussion of what should be substituted: "of color," "Afro-American," or "African-American." Those whom I'm friends with have said it doesn't matter; when it must be mentioned, "black" is fine. On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT), Cece <ceceliaarmstrong@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:b79a8e1d-6f75-4c7b-ab85-eb57c3357d32@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: [...] > Use of expletives runs in cycles. In English, anyway. > All languages have "bad words," but it is not at all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shoot. Before about 1970, children did not know the > words these were euphemism for. That's a very considerable exaggeration. As a child in the '50s I certainly knew, and I was probably a bit more sheltered than average (though I did read a lot). [...] Brian >Did y'all know that during WWII, American >soldiers sent to Britain were given a booklet about the U.K. and its >language? One item my high school U.S. history teacher (who'd been >given one of those booklets 25 years before) told us about was the >warning against saying "bloody," because it was not used in polite >company. The first US troops to arrive en masse in the UK landed in Belfast. There was a build-up of forces in Northern Ireland prior to moving to Britain. A "Pocket Guide to Northern Ireland"[1] was given to all soldiers sent to NI. One section is: <quote> DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE THE Ulster accent may at first be hard to understand. The upper-class Irishman speaks like the upper-class Englishman, but the speech of the shop and the farm and the public house is not the speech of England, Scotland, or America. In its richest form, the Irish version of English is a brogue, and there is a brogue for every county in Ireland, just as we have a Brooklyn accent, a Boston broad "a", and a Texas drawl. Many of the expressions may strike you as funny; some of them may not be understandable. Remember that many of your expressions will strike the Irishman as funny -- even if he is too polite to laugh -- and that he has a hard time understanding you too. The moving pictures have brought some Americanisms to Ireland. You will find that the young people use and understand terms such as "okay," "oke," "guy," and "scram." But they will also invite you in for "a squib of tea," and refer to an unmarried man or woman well over 40 as a "boy" or a "girl." Only married people who have children are called men and women; bachelors and spinsters remain juvenile until the end of their days. You will learn that the word "friend" has a very special meaning. It means a cousin of some degree (a member of the clan) who is about one's own age. There are obligations, particularly in the rural districts, that go with the relationship; relatives have mutual obligations to help in farm work, to come to the rescue in financial troubles, and to be on hand to assist in such important ceremonies as weddings and funerals. When an Irishman says: "I am after drinking my beer," he doesn't mean he is about to do it or that he wants to do it; he means, quite sensibly, that he has just finished doing it. When he says his wife is a "homely kind of person" he is paying her a compliment; he means not that she is ugly but that she is cozy, kind, and unassuming. He is likely to be vague and optimistic in giving you directions: "Just up the road a bit" may mean a long way, and a "five-minute walk" a jaunt of several miles. You probably know that English and Irish drivers of motor cars (not "automobiles") travel on the left side of the road. You may not know that a drug store is a chemist's shop; that garters are "sock suspenders," and suspenders "braces" or "galluses"; that a street car is a "tram"; that a "stationer" sells writing materials and newspapers, and a "draper's shop" clothing. The Ulsterman will be tolerant about your ignorance of Ireland; it is only fair play to be tolerant about his ignorance of America. If you live in Buffalo and he inquires if you know his uncle in Los Angeles, don't laugh at him--you'll pull an equally bad boner about Ireland before the hour is out. <endquote> Some of that is very dated but the conclusion finishes with the timeless: It is common decency to treat your friends well; it is a military necessity to treat your allies well. [1] Published by the War and Navy Departments, Washington, DC (1942). Prepared by Special Service Division, Services of Supply, United States Army. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jul 30, 1:45 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT), Cece > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > Prepared by Special Service Division, Services of Supply, United States > Army. Those booklets were published anonymously but they were written by eminent linguists as part of their War work, most of which was done in Lower Manhattan (I think the celebrated address was 165 Broadway). One or some got reprinted a few years ago, and a review in *Language* talked about their value. Another part of their work was to produce grammars of strategically important languages which linguists could then use to prepare teaching materials for GIs in transit -- among these were R. A. Hall, Jr.,'s Hungarian and Melanesian Pidgin English; Carleton Hodge's Hausa and Serbo-Croatian; and Bernard Bloch's Japanese. Chas Hockett did Chinese (resulting in a series of articles on "Peiping" morphophonemics etc.) and wrote of his experience crossing the Pacific on a troop ship, which took long enough to teach the airmen who would be flying "Over the Hump" (i.e., from India across the Himalayas to attack Japanese positions in China) sufficient Chinese to be helpful in case they got shot down. >On Jul 30, 1:45 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] >positions in China) sufficient Chinese to be helpful in case they got >shot down. A linguist might have contributed to the Pocket Guide to Northern Ireland, however, it contains political and cultural information that goes beyond language differences. The section headings are: There are Two Irelands The Country Government Eire Border Problems The People -- Their Customs and Manners About Arguments Difference in Language The Girls Ulster at War Pay-Day Blues Conclusion Money, Weights, and Measures The 27 pages (5 1/4 x 4 inches) of text contain basic information and advice for ordinary GIs to help them avoid trouble and to get on with the locals. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > > > > >> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > > > > >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > euphemism for. And the F-word was not heard by me (then a young > woman) until about then. I have to agree with Brian here -- children (at least boys) did know the "bad words", but would not have used them in front of their parents, or maybe even in front of girls. Did y'all know that during WWII, American > soldiers sent to Britain were given a booklet about the U.K. and its > language? One item my high school U.S. history teacher (who'd been > given one of those booklets 25 years before) told us about was the > warning against saying "bloody," because it was not used in polite > company. It was still quite offensive to some people in NZ within my time here (since the 70s). > The N-word: In AmE, in the early 19th century and for some time > after, it was a common mispronunciation of, or accented form of, the > scientific term "Negro." Not exactly. "Negro" is from Spanish. OED thinks "nigger" is direct from Latin (niger), though I wonder if it's been reinforced by French (negre). They both appear in English from the 1500s. During the 50s and 60s, Southerners commenting on the race issue in the media could be heard using the word "nigra", which at the time I took as a kind of monstrous hybrid, but could have been simply a locally accented pronunciation of "Negro". In BrE, it was the common term for anyone > who was European, including Arabs, East Indians, Pacific Islanders... > In the U.S., I know personally that it was considered an insulting > term in 1952; I don't know how far back that goes, but I think a > number of decades. In the U.S., for the first third or so of the 20th > century, the polite term was "colored." About 1940 (perhaps a little > earlier), it became "Negro." Quite a bit earlier. African-American writers like Booker T. Washington and W.E.B.duBois were using it ca.1900. Harry T.Burleigh's arrangements of "Negro spirituals", identified as such, appeared from at least 1917. Ross Clark In 1967, a change was mandated: > "Black" (oh yes, it had to be capitalized, but "white" did not). > Then, of course, it was declared that "black" had become a nasty word, > and there was much discussion of what should be substituted: "of > color," "Afro-American," or "African-American." Those whom I'm > friends with have said it doesn't matter; when it must be mentioned, > "black" is fine. benlizro@ihug.co.nz filted: >I have to agree with Brian here -- children (at least boys) did know >the "bad words", but would not have used them in front of their >parents, or maybe even in front of girls. It may have been Tom Lehrer who once observed that there were once words you couldn't say in front of girls, then added that you can now say all of them, but you can't say "girls"....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > benli...@ihug.co.nz filted: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > couldn't say in front of girls, then added that you can now say all of them, but > you can't say "girls"....r Here in Espanola, New Mexico, we're back to the old situation where the word you can't say is "woman". (If people here ever left it.) -- Jerry Friedman >>> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >>> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Who knows. If you can believe WP, the term originated in the West Indies (where the RN got most of their limes) around 1880 and is (or was) current in Newfoundland (well, maybe) and Australia (which it certainly isn't, and never was). > > However, whenever the US solders came in contact with British [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in the British trenches you would certainly have heard it repeated > ad nauseum. I think if you were actually there in the trenches, you'd have heard a very different set of swearwords repeated ad nauseum. Those old war films were _severely_ expurgated. J. [...] >>>> The same goes for American "Limey". >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you can believe WP, the term originated in the West Indies (where > the RN got most of their limes) around 1880 I may get egg on my face, but I flatly refuse to believe that date without overwhelming evidence. The lime juice thing was a hundred years before that: see Captain Cook. > and is (or was) current in > Newfoundland (well, maybe) and Australia (which it certainly isn't, > and never was). Well, one would have thought so, and I once did. But I now find that OED suggests it was originally an Australian expression (earliest quoted record 1859), but for a "new chum", one who had just arrived in the colony --presumably from his having drunk a lot of the stuff en voyage. The form "Limey" /is/ first quoted from a US source, but dated 1918, which smacks (and apparently eggs) my gob no little. [...] SignatureMike. >>> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote : [...] >>>>> The same goes for American "Limey". >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > which smacks (and apparently eggs) my gob no little. > [...] You do have "lime-juicer" going back to about 1850, and in British use as well. Gooboo has it used and partly explained on pp 353-4 of Ainsworth's Magazine, dated 1852. I know such dates are not reliable, but the piece purports to be a diary of events in 1851. I wasn't able to find anything from before 1850. "'As long as we lime-juicers are in sight,' observed our first-mate, ... '[the Americans] will carry every rag of canvas...'". "Our first-mate further informed me, that American vessels do not make use of lime-juice, ... and hence the appellation of lime-juicers being derisively applied by them to the British." The writer doesn't vouch for the story, though. Does sound a bit Australian. Throw another prawn at the Limey. http://books.google.ca/books?id=-DoFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA354&dq=lime-juicer&hl=en&ei=K2 BTTPyHDoP_8AbB1_HmBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=on epage&q=lime-juicer&f=false http://tinyurl.com/2bowjc6 > [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > in the colony --presumably from his having drunk a lot of the stuff > en voyage. I see it in Google Books back to 1852, in an English source, but from an American speaker, and apparently a new term to the Englishman: [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating] Going on deck, the Yankee skipper will say to his chief--for so they call the officer in my place, that is, first mate--'How is the lime-juicer? Has he clewed up?' 'Yes.' 'Well, then, I guess we'll carry him to eternity.'" Our first-mate further informed me, that American vessels do not make use of lime-juice, the food given to the crew being sufficiently good to render such antidote to scurvy unnecessary; and hence the appellation of lime-juicers being derisively applied by them to the British. How far this may be correct I cannot undertake to declare. Joseph Anthony, Jun. [sic], "Rough Notes From My Diary", _Ainsworth's Magazine_, 1852. > The form "Limey" /is/ first quoted from a US source, but dated 1918, > which smacks (and apparently eggs) my gob no little. > [...] I see it (twice) in Robert Dunn's 1909 "Semper Sparlin" (_Everybody's Magazine_, September, 1909), but that's a US source as well. So it looks as though in both forms it might well be originally American naval slang. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The Society for the Preservation of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Tithesis commends your ebriated and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |scrutable use of delible and |defatigable, which are gainly, sipid kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and couth. We are gruntled and (650)857-7572 |consolate that you have the ertia and |eptitude to choose such putably http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |pensible tithesis, which we parage. > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > BTW, "Blimey" and "Cor blimey" from "God, Blind Me!" > pjk Sorry Peter, I suspect, when I posted the above, I was wrong. Cor blimey, even my own Collins ED says I was wrong. pjk > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Sorry Peter, I suspect, when I posted the above, I was wrong. > Cor blimey, even my own Collins ED says I was wrong. ? >>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > That was because the British Navy used limes to stave off scurvy. Did > no one but Americans know that? But in recent history, no-one but Americans has used the term. SignatureRob Bannister >On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" ><grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >It is, however, quite familiar to many of us outside that >segment. Indeed; I (UK Eng) have known it ever since I can remember, and I've never lived outside England. I am not sure that I had seen "Pom" for the country before, but I found it perfectly understandable and unexceptional. Katy ke10@cam.ac.uk * > >On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > ><grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > "Pom" for the country before, but I found it perfectly understandable > and unexceptional. It is interesting to note, though, that this "Pom" appears to belong to the register of English in which the lie-lay distinction is routinely ignored. So the /other Peter/ does seem to apply double standards. SignatureThere is a full-scale war going on, except nobody calls it a war. Offically, it's an anti-terrorist campaign. But no matter what the politicians call it, it's a battleground. Simon Templar in "The Sign of the Claw" (1964) [irony: the heavy infantry] > They'll probably help you learn how germs, a general term for > bacteria or viruses that infect people, are different from 'Germs', > an imagined name you've found for what we English speakers call > 'germans'. And back around to Oz, where, as I was delighted to learn, they used to know the budding Greer as "Crazy Germs". Say that in your best Aus accent for a lark. [...] > [irony: the heavy infantry] Or, in the form of sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. Mr. Daniels certainly tries hard. I think he must have had that on his report card at school at least once. It is an admirable quality. Particularly in the physical sphere. > > They'll probably help you learn how germs, a general term for > > bacteria or viruses that infect people, are different from 'Germs', [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > accent for a lark. > [...] Actually, brilliant as 'The Female Eunuch' was, Germaine recanted. She's a clever woman, but, more importantly, a principled one. > > [irony: the heavy infantry] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Actually, brilliant as 'The Female Eunuch' was, Germaine recanted. > She's a clever woman, but, more importantly, a principled one. Whereas Peter Brooks is stupid, ignorant, and a would-be bully. > Whereas Peter Brooks is stupid, ignorant, and a would-be bully. Lol! Thanks for the confirmation you've received the message. I hope it has some effect. [...] > They'll probably help you learn how germs, a general term for bacteria > or viruses that infect people, are different from 'Germs', an imagined > name you've found for what we English speakers call 'germans'. "Germs" is certainly not an imagined name. It's the standard appellation for a certain well-known author and academic who, though she hails from my homeland, has spent most of her professional career in Pommyland (so perhaps we should call the latter Germsland?). John. > "Germs" is certainly not an imagined name. It's the standard > appellation for a certain well-known author and academic who, though she > hails from my homeland, has spent most of her professional career in > Pommyland (so perhaps we should call the latter Germsland?). Naming a country after a living individual is probably not good for the humility of that person. I think, though, that you'd find many people preferring Brendaland to Germsland if the idea was to be considered. >> "Germs" is certainly not an imagined name. It's the standard >> appellation for a certain well-known author and academic who, though she [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Naming a country after a living individual is probably not good for > the humility of that person. I'm sure any attempt to do anything to impart humility into that particular person would be a lost cause. > I think, though, that you'd find many > people preferring Brendaland to Germsland if the idea was to be > considered. Private Eye? > >> "Germs" is certainly not an imagined name. It's the standard > >> appellation for a certain well-known author and academic who, though she [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Private Eye? Brooks exudes sarcasm and disrespect, regardless of the object or its desert. (Cf. the whole "Pom" business, and "talk yank.") He called _me_ the bully -- but I never insult someone until they have proven themself deserving of insult. > Brooks exudes sarcasm and disrespect, regardless of the object or its > desert. (Cf. the whole "Pom" business, and "talk yank.") > > He called _me_ the bully -- but I never insult someone until they have > proven themself deserving of insult. Uh-huh, by your peculiar & arrogant definitions of "deserving". SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] > >> "Germs" is certainly not an imagined name. It's the standard > >> appellation for a certain well-known author and academic who, though she [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Private Eye? The very one! >>> "Germs" is certainly not an imagined name. It's the standard >>> appellation for a certain well-known author and academic who, though she [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm sure any attempt to do anything to impart humility into that > particular person would be a lost cause. One link said Simón Bolívar had an apparent lack of humility, but I could not immediately see if that was before or after the naming of Bolivia. Hans http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelblogs/379/28068/The+Art+of+Persuasion%3A+Simón +Bol%C3%ADvar+and+Jose+de+San+Mart%C3%ADn?destId=363337 > I can commend it, though, as a rational coinage. Germans come from > Germany, Italians from Italy, the French from France, so, why > shouldn't Poms come from Pom? Because you haven't analysed your own model which would lead us to believe that Germans came from Germ and Italians from Ital. In fact, it leads us back to Pomerania, although I suggested Pommyland to you at the start. SignatureRob Bannister >> >> Where? "Pommyland", yes; "Pom", no. >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Germany, Italians from Italy, the French from France, so, why > shouldn't Poms come from Pom? That's right, just like Poles come from Pol, Swiss from Swis, Scots from Scot, English from Engl, etc. :-) pjk > > I've been exposed, as you put it, to English in quite a number of > > places and dialects, having lived in Pom, in different parts, > > You started out in Pomerania? so your native language is a Slavic > one, or possibly Baltic? This is too funny. We need to put PTD in a sitcom. SignatureChristian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de > > > I've been exposed, as you put it, to English in quite a number of > > > places and dialects, having lived in Pom, in different parts, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is too funny. We need to put PTD in a sitcom. Yes, it is good. I had simply tried to answer a question put to me - insistently a second time, apparently. For some reason somebody wanted to know what variants of English I'd been exposed to - I suppose a variant itself on a question about dirty old men. Now it seems to be a question about native language, based on a supposition that that's set by location of birth and residence until puberty. I'd not been aware that language was set in concrete by the process of puberty - I'd be interested to know the evidence for this. I can see that it makes sense in a standard case. Somebody born of Chinese parents in China, who lives there all his life can be assumed, reasonably, to have Chinese (possibly Mandarin, but possibly another Chinese language) as his 'native' language. I can't imagine, even in China, that it's quite that simple, it'd be odd if somebody from Hong Kong will have the same dialect as somebody from Beijing. So somebody with one parent from Beijing, another from Hong Kong and a nanny from Chongqing who lived in Shanghai would have a different native language from someone with a different combination of immediate contacts in early life. So, to answer the question about my native language, I'd have to say that for most of my life I've been mainly involved with speakers of RP English, though, in early life, I also had lots of contact with speakers of Welsh influenced RP, Scotch influenced RP and Zulu influenced English. I've given the list of other places where I've spoken to people in variants of English who, consequently, presumably, have been influences. I realise that I've left out the Internet, particularly usenet, as well as Singapore, Thailand, India, South Korea, the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Algeria and Morocco. In all these places, I've been also exposed to the local language, so, over my life, I've been exposed to halting attempts at conversation with people who didn't speak English, but spoke inter alia French, Russian, German, Italian, Greek, Arabic, Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaans, Spanish, Turkish, Korean, Thai, Albanian, and Swahili. Quite why anybody wants to know all this about me, I'm not quite sure. > > > > I've been exposed, as you put it, to English in quite a number of > > > > places and dialects, having lived in Pom, in different parts, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > puberty. I'd not been aware that language was set in concrete by the > process of puberty - I'd be interested to know the evidence for this. The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's virtually impossible to master a language -- to not have a "foreign accent" -- if you didn't acquire it in the usual way by the time you're 12 or so. If you learned it as a foreign language after that, you'll have an accent. Since you tried to distinguish "distinction" from "difference," doubtless you noticed that I used "acquire" and "learn" in their different technical senses. > I can see that it makes sense in a standard case. Somebody born of > Chinese parents in China, who lives there all his life can be assumed, > reasonably, to have Chinese (possibly Mandarin, but possibly another > Chinese language) as his 'native' language. I can't imagine, even in Nope. Someone raised among Chinese-speakers, no matter what their parentage, will have Chinese as their native language. If they are exposed to some other language(s) at home, they will have more than native language. One's parentage has nothing whatsoever to do with one's native language(s). Only the languages one is exposed to in one's early years do. > China, that it's quite that simple, it'd be odd if somebody from Hong > Kong will have the same dialect as somebody from Beijing. So somebody > with one parent from Beijing, another from Hong Kong and a nanny from > Chongqing who lived in Shanghai would have a different native language > from someone with a different combination of immediate contacts in > early life. No matter what their parentage, if they all live in Shanghai, then Shanghainese will be their native language. > So, to answer the question about my native language, I'd have to say > that for most of my life I've been mainly involved with speakers of RP [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spoken to people in variants of English who, consequently, presumably, > have been influences. I realise that I've left out the Internet, All completely irrelevant. > particularly usenet, as well as Singapore, Thailand, India, South > Korea, the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Algeria and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Quite why anybody wants to know all this about me, I'm not quite sure. Because you made an absurd claim regarding the use of "lie" and "lay" by English-speakers -- namely, that they are not widely confused -- that indicated little familiarity with spoken English. > The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's > virtually impossible to master a language -- to not have a "foreign > accent" -- if you didn't acquire it in the usual way by the time > you're 12 or so. If you learned it as a foreign language after that, > you'll have an accent. I thought it was much younger than that. > One's parentage has nothing whatsoever to do with one's native > language(s). Only the languages one is exposed to in one's early years > do. That's a fascinating claim. I'd have thought that this could only be true if one's parents were absent or mute. Could you explain, perhaps, how it is possible for parents who are present, in the usual way, during one's upbringing and not mute not to expose one to their language - if one is not oneself deaf? It's make an interesting science fiction story to conceive of the consequences of a world where all children spoke languages quite different from their parents - it'd make the inter-generational misunderstanding we have today seem quite trivial. >> The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist >> Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > present, in the usual way, during one's upbringing and not mute not to > expose one to their language - if one is not oneself deaf? I believe that in the first Hawaiian Creole generation some (perhaps many) of the speakers were born into households in which Hawaiian Pidgin was the only (or at least primary) language spoken, since the mother and father did not otherwise have a language in common. The children were exposed to the pidgin but did not acquire it, as it apparently did not have sufficient structure to be acquired as a first language. Rather, they acquired the creole developed by their peer group. Of course, there are lots of people who grow up in households in which a parent speaks more than one language but only speaks one to their children, who therefore don't acquire the others. My father grew up in a household in which his father was a native Yiddish speaker who occasionally spoke Yiddish with his friends, but my father did not become a native Yiddish speaker (or even learn more Yiddish than most American Jews do). Similarly, my wife grew up with a mother who was a native German speaker but did not learn German. When the language the parent does use is one they don't speak well, as with recent immigrants who insist on speaking (a broken version of) the language of their adopted country, I suspect that the child very early on decides that the parent is a poor model for the language compared to their peers and doesn't pick up a lot from the parent. > It's make an interesting science fiction story to conceive of the > consequences of a world where all children spoke languages quite > different from their parents - it'd make the inter-generational > misunderstanding we have today seem quite trivial. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its |worst state, an intolerable one. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > >> Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > on decides that the parent is a poor model for the language compared > to their peers and doesn't pick up a lot from the parent. [NB This isn't a conscious "decision." The input that doesn't cohere with the input from the rest of the speech community gets overridden. Which is different from acquiring two or more different languages, where there is more than one set of coherent input.] > > It's make an interesting science fiction story to conceive of the > > consequences of a world where all children spoke languages quite > > different from their parents - it'd make the inter-generational > > misunderstanding we have today seem quite trivial. >> When the language the parent does use is one they don't speak well, >> as with recent immigrants who insist on speaking (a broken version [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with the input from the rest of the speech community gets > overridden. Right. It's the acquisition process that anthropomorphically "decides". > Which is different from acquiring two or more different languages, > where there is more than one set of coherent input.] Correct. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |First Law of Anthropology: 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | If they're doing something you Palo Alto, CA 94304 | don't understand, it's either an | isolated lunatic, a religious kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | ritual, or art. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > > Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I thought it was much younger than that. [Lenneberg's term that I couldn't remember last night is "critical period."] > > One's parentage has nothing whatsoever to do with one's native > > language(s). Only the languages one is exposed to in one's early years > > do. > > That's a fascinating claim. I'd have thought that this could only be > true if one's parents were absent or mute. Have you never met a "war orphan"? The US is full of native speakers of perfect English who were born in Korea, China, Vietnam, Romania, Russia, etc., (and not of mixed parentage!) who were adopted as infants. > Could you explain, perhaps, how it is possible for parents who are > present, in the usual way, during one's upbringing and not mute not to > expose one to their language - if one is not oneself deaf? Have you never encountered children of immigrants who spoke little to no English, whose English was perfect? > It's make an interesting science fiction story to conceive of the > consequences of a world where all children spoke languages quite > different from their parents - it'd make the inter-generational > misunderstanding we have today seem quite trivial. It's commonplace with the grandchildren of immigrants. Their parents want them to Americanize so they avoid the home language and the kids never acquire it. > > > The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > > > Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Russia, etc., (and not of mixed parentage!) who were adopted as > infants. So you admit that parentage does have something to do with the native language then - that's better, it was a pretty bizarre claim before. Or do you hold to the first claim on the grounds that you think that being an orphan has nothing to do with parentage? I'm pleased to manage the odd bizarre statement, comparable to Derrida juvenilia, but I can see that you'd not find achieving that particularly remarkable. > > > > The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > > > > Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > So you admit that parentage does have something to do with the native > language then - that's better, it was a pretty bizarre claim before. I "admit" no such thing. Your genetic background has absolutely nothing to do with what language you acquire. It simply provides you with the inevitability of acquiring at least one language, unless you somehow manage to survive in an environment in which no human language is spoken at all. > Or do you hold to the first claim on the grounds that you think that > being an orphan has nothing to do with parentage? When it comes to attempting sophistry, you're a piker compared to even those who are poor at it. What does being an orphan have to do with parentage? An infant can lose its parents, no matter who they are. > I'm pleased to manage the odd bizarre statement, comparable to Derrida > juvenilia, but I can see that you'd not find achieving that > particularly remarkable.- Was that meant to be a sentence of English? > > > > > The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > > > > > Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > somehow manage to survive in an environment in which no human language > is spoken at all. So now it's not parents having nothing to do with it, it's genetic background. Wonderful. You're a competitor with Don Quixote - the only difference being that you build your own windmill before tilting at it. You said - just a few lines up - that 'parentage' had nothing to do with language. Then it was dead parents that had nothing to do with it. Now it's dead parent's genes. Brilliant! > What does being an orphan have to do with parentage? An infant can > lose its parents, no matter who they are. Yes, you are funny! Come on, just for fun, why not try to defend your original argument - copied from above: " > > > > > One's parentage has nothing whatsoever to do with one's native > > > > > language(s). " I dare you...! Just for a start you could explain why all those Russian children end up speaking the same language as their parents - nothing whatsoever to do with the parents you say, and you're not, you say, claiming that the parents or the children are deaf, nor that the parents are mutes. Then you could move on to explaining how the same applies to Japanese children and their parents. 'Nothing whatsoever' is quite a strong claim you see, Mr Daniels. It's best to reserve it for cases where you're pretty sure it's true. In article <3ad782de-c047-4fb2-a7b4-28d4104dc087@h25g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > > > > > > Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > 'Nothing whatsoever' is quite a strong claim you see, Mr Daniels. It's > best to reserve it for cases where you're pretty sure it's true. Not that Peter needs help on this one, but let me make it clearer since you seem to be having some difficulties. First of all, the normal understanding of 'parentage' is biological parentage (check the OED on this if you like). So the language that your biological parents spoke/speak is not determinative of your own native language since your biological parents may not be around at all. This is the case of orphans and adopted children. The defining property of what language you acquire as a child is dependent solely on the language environment in which you grow up. It has nothing to do with parents necessarily, only accidentally. So your native language is not even dependent necessarily on your parents in either sense of the word (biological) or other. Of course, since your parents are *usually* part of your language environment, they will *usually* have an effect, but even then, they may not cause you to acquire their native language (as Peter's examples of immigrant parents attest to.) So in terms of answering the question "what determines your native language", parents have a role only by accident, not out of some necessary causal relation. This is something that one learns in the most basic introductory linguistics course, and is backed up by decades of research. Alan > In article > <3ad782de-c047-4fb2-a7b4-28d4104dc...@h25g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > This is something that one learns in the most basic introductory > linguistics course, and is backed up by decades of research. I can even imagine a "war orphan" being adopted by immigrants who never manage to learn their new community's language -- and such an orphan would acquire the new language (and also the parents' language, though that competence could later disappear). I knew a guy in Chicago whose mother spoke only Nahuatl; he was perfectly trilingual in English, Spanish, and Nahuatl. (He had a Spanish surname, so his father may have been a Spanish-speaker, but I don't know whether he was still around.) >>>>>>>> The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist >>>>>>>> Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's >>>>>>>> virtually impossible to master a language -- to not have a "foreign >>>>>>>> accent" -- if you didn't acquire it in the usual way by the time >>>>>>>> you're 12 or so. If you learned it as a foreign language after >>>>>>>> that, you'll have an accent. Years ago, there was on Swedish National TV a Israeli linguist who had been able not only to learn to speak the main Swedish dialect without any accent what I could hear in less than a year, but also started speaking dialects. The sample was short, but it does not seem impossible for some individuals learn new foreign languages without accent throughout life. Otherwise, one knows though that when newly born, the brain creates about a million neurons per minute, and those neurons that do not get a stimulation die. This high creation of neurons then decline, though I think there is another surge in puberty. So it probably means that if one does not get a stimulation for a certain language feature when very little, it may be difficult to acquire it later simply becuase the physical mechanism for developing the needed neurons may not be there in any high amounts. In same cases children have been left without proper parenting, even raised by animals, getting no language. In such cases, they find it hard to learn any language at all when older. But children also have access to adults willing to train them in their language skills. Some adults can do very well with the right trainers. But perhaps it is the case when one has lernaed the language when young with an accent, and then it might be possible to train that away. > I knew a guy in Chicago whose mother spoke only Nahuatl; he was > perfectly trilingual in English, Spanish, and Nahuatl. (He had a > Spanish surname, so his father may have been a Spanish-speaker, but I > don't know whether he was still around.) There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and write English before Russian. Hans > >>>>>>>> The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist > >>>>>>>> Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > acquire it later simply becuase the physical mechanism for developing > the needed neurons may not be there in any high amounts. When infants start babbling, they babble all sorts of sounds that happen to occur in languages world-wide, but after a short time their babbling becomes more and more limited to the sounds of the language(s) they hear around them. > In same cases children have been left without proper parenting, even > raised by animals, getting no language. In such cases, they find it hard [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and > write English before Russian. His French writing is apparently as good as his Russian and English. But his accent in English was close to impenetrable. (You didn't see _him_ turning up on Dick Cavett to plug *Ada*!) >>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist >>>>>>>>>> Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > babbling becomes more and more limited to the sounds of the > language(s) they hear around them. So what is not encouraged, they may loosed the ability to learn as efficiently later in life. A guy here said his parents were Chinese, but he did no learn to speak Chinese when little, and he found it difficult to handle the tones. A word I found difficult to pronounce is Eyjafjallajökull [ˈɛɪjaˌfjatlaˌjœkʏtl̥], that is, the "ll"s are pronounced as "tl", but in the last one, the "l" is voiceless. I haven't encountered this last feature before, but found it possible to learn by practicing. (The English Wikipedia says that both "l"s should be voiceless, which seems wrong. The Swedish page only says the last one.) >> In same cases children have been left without proper parenting, even >> raised by animals, getting no language. In such cases, they find it hard [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But his accent in English was close to impenetrable. (You didn't see > _him_ turning up on Dick Cavett to plug *Ada*!) No, but but there are videos here, him discussing the "Lolita" book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldpj_5JNFoA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wcB4RPasE Others here perhaps can analyze his accent. It sounds to me like a bit of a mixture, sometimes a bit Russian, but not so much. Hans >> There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by >> governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But his accent in English was close to impenetrable. (You didn't see > _him_ turning up on Dick Cavett to plug *Ada*!) Supposedly [1] he was very popular as a lecturer, although I think he taught Russian language & literature. [1] I guess that's close enought to "It is supposed that..." to pass the Follett-Barzun test. ;-) SignatureDo you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita? http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html > >> There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by > >> governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > [1] I guess that's close enought to "It is supposed that..." to pass > the Follett-Barzun test. ;-) In this instance the question really does arise of who was doing the supposing -- Cornell folklore had him very much in the Pnin mold. Two volumes of lectures were published posthumously, one on Russian literature, one on world (or was it English) literature. >>>> There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by >>>> governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Two volumes of lectures were published posthumously, one on Russian > literature, one on world (or was it English) literature. There are actually four listed here, though two are more special (on Ulysses and Don Quixote): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Vladimir_Nabokov (1980) Lectures on Literature (1980) Lectures on Ulysses. Facsimiles of Nabokov's notes. (1981) Lectures on Russian Literature (1983) Lectures on Don Quixote Hans > >>>> There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by > >>>> governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > (1980) Lectures on Literature > (1980) Lectures on Ulysses. Facsimiles of Nabokov's notes. As it says, a facsimile of the notes for the lecture published in the Lectures on Literature, oversize, issued only in a limited edition. > (1981) Lectures on Russian Literature > (1983) Lectures on Don Quixote Dating from a pre-Cornell stint at Harvard -- the various reviews (published and customer) at amazon indicate that it's nothing like the other two volumes. (One wonders why he devoted a year-long seminar to a work he hated so much!) The product of the "completeness" mania that last year saw the "publication" of his "last novel" -- namely, facsimiles and transcriptions of the note cards he had used to begin to sketch a new work. I couldn't look inside the book because every copy was shrink- wrapped because the facsimiles are on punch-out cards so you can shuffle them around and create your own narrative (or use the different sets of numeration he'd put on them). >>>>>> There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by >>>>>> governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > other two volumes. (One wonders why he devoted a year-long seminar to > a work he hated so much!) He might have had strong views on music, too, if this quote is correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfhyqxQbR0 The quote, also written in the video description, is at time 4:00, but the discussion subject starts at 3:40. > The product of the "completeness" mania that last year saw the > "publication" of his "last novel" -- namely, facsimiles and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shuffle them around and create your own narrative (or use the > different sets of numeration he'd put on them). Might have been better to have it in computer form. Hans > >>>>>> There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by > >>>>>> governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > The quote, also written in the video description, is at time 4:00, but > the discussion subject starts at 3:40. Does he say why he thinks Nabokov said that? (You found it, doubtless, because you were checking up on my observation that N. never appeared on C.'s program.) Nabokov's son Nicholas is a respected composer and performer. > > The product of the "completeness" mania that last year saw the > > "publication" of his "last novel" -- namely, facsimiles and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Might have been better to have it in computer form. Why? How could they collect $30 a copy that way? >>>>>>>> There is also the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who was raised by >>>>>>>> governesses, becoming trilingual at an early age, learning to read and [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Does he say why he thinks Nabokov said that? No. He says it exactly as in the text, to which the reply by Lennon was "Well, he's an intellectual - they can't hear or feel anything..." > (You found it, doubtless, because you were checking up on my > observation that N. never appeared on C.'s program.) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Why? How could they collect $30 a copy that way? To the user. Hans >> He might have had strong views on music, too, if this quote is correct: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfhyqxQbR0 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (You found it, doubtless, because you were checking up on my > observation that N. never appeared on C.'s program.) I just plugged both names into the YouTube search engine, and among the top three making suggest on the partial search string gave the two videos where Nabokov discussed Lolita. I felt that was interesting enough. When looking around other links, I found the one above. > Nabokov's son Nicholas is a respected composer and performer. It was interesting reading about his father. He had a tragic death. Hans > >> He might have had strong views on music, too, if this quote is correct: > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfhyqxQbR0 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It was interesting reading about his father. He had a tragic death. ? Of an "undiagnosed fever" and "bronchial congestion" at the age of 78? >>>> He might have had strong views on music, too, if this quote is correct: >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfhyqxQbR0 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ? Of an "undiagnosed fever" and "bronchial congestion" at the age of > 78? His father Vladimir Dmitrievich was shot dead when saving a political opponent from being assassinated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Dmitrievich_Nabokov Hans > Nabokov's son Nicholas is a respected composer and performer. Isn't it Nicolas Nabokov (April 17 [O.S. April 4] 1903 – 6 April 1978), his first cousin, you have in your mind? Hans > > Nabokov's son Nicholas is a respected composer and performer. > > Isn't it Nicolas Nabokov (April 17 [O.S. April 4] 1903 – 6 April 1978), > his first cousin, you have in your mind? I did not know he had a cousin. I have not received the impression that Nicholas Nabokov is the same age as Vladimir. >>> Nabokov's son Nicholas is a respected composer and performer. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have not received the impression that Nicholas Nabokov is the same > age as Vladimir. From what I can see, he had only one son, Dmitri, who became an Opera singer. http://www.notablebiographies.com/Mo-Ni/Nabokov-Vladimir.html Hans > > > Nabokov's son Nicholas is a respected composer and performer. > > > Isn't it Nicolas Nabokov (April 17 [O.S. April 4] 1903 – 6 April 1978), > > his first cousin, you have in your mind? > > I did not know he had a cousin. He had lots. Brian Boyd quotes him, "with most of the boy cousins I was friendly at one time or another,... with most of the girls I was openly or secretly in love." http://books.google.com/books?id=1qfhBbklYnIC&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false > I have not received the impression that Nicholas Nabokov is the same > age as Vladimir. The only Nicolas Nabokov in Brian Boyd's biography is the writer's cousin, a composer, the man Hans Aberg mentions above. (There's no "Nicholas Nabokov" in the biography.) Vladimir mentioned his dislike of and inability to understand music several times. I wonder how he felt attending his son's opera performances. (He and his wife taped their son's Paris debut in /La Boheme/. The Rodolfo was also making his debut--a promising tenor, Luciano Pavarotti--and parts of the recording were later released.) -- Jerry Friedman >> > The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist >> > Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Russia, etc., (and not of mixed parentage!) who were adopted as >infants. So your claim is based on your view that parents of adopted children are not "parents"? Your observation could be sensible if you used the term "biological parents" or "biological parentage", but - as it stands - is just another PTD foolishness. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:12:13 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > parents" or "biological parentage", but - as it stands - is just > another PTD foolishness. Another jackass heard from! What in Peter Brooks's specious "arguments" suggested that by "one's parents" he intended anything other than biological parents? Do you now expect every mention of parents to employ the retronym "biological parents" instead? > Have you never met a "war orphan"? The US is full of native speakers > of perfect English who were born in Korea, China, Vietnam, Romania, > Russia, etc., (and not of mixed parentage!) who were adopted as > infants. On the other hand, back in the sixties in London, I came across quite a lot of people who spoke up to ten languages, but not one of them properly. I was particularly friendly with a Hungarian man who used to speak to me in an apparently random mixture of Russian, English and German, and with a Russian lady who language was "broken" in whichever language she tried - her Russian certainly had a Russian accent, but the grammar was just as lacking as when she tried to speak English or French. These were, I think, the true war orphans - kids who were moved around from country to country and never really learned any one language properly. As I've said in another post, you can hear little kids with perfect native speech in any big city, translating for their immigrant parents, who can barely speak a word. SignatureRob Bannister > > Have you never met a "war orphan"? The US is full of native speakers > > of perfect English who were born in Korea, China, Vietnam, Romania, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > perfect native speech in any big city, translating for their immigrant > parents, who can barely speak a word. Two of the greatest linguists of the 20th century, Roman Jakobson and Jerzy Kurylowicz, fit that pattern. They were said to have a thick accent in every language. (I heard Jakobson once, in 1974, but Kurylowicz never.) ... > As I've said in another post, you can hear little kids with > perfect native speech in any big city, translating for their immigrant > parents, who can barely speak a word. Some small towns, too. -- Jerry Friedman lives in a small town in New Mexico. >> The phenomenon was first described and labeled by the sociolinguist >> Eric Lenneberg in 1967, but it was always well known that it's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > different from their parents - it'd make the inter-generational > misunderstanding we have today seem quite trivial. Every day, in most big cities of the world, you can hear little children translating for their parents. The children learn both languages as natives. Their parents may or may not learn the language of the country they have moved to as a foreign language. SignatureRob Bannister On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:23:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:46e73f24-340e-488d-bbc7-7f8fc5ec5489@h2g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang: > On Jul 26, 8:09 pm, Peter Brooks > <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] >> Somebody born of Chinese parents in China, who lives >> there all his life can be assumed, reasonably, to have >> Chinese (possibly Mandarin, but possibly another Chinese >> language) as his 'native' language. > Nope. > Someone raised among Chinese-speakers, no matter what > their parentage, will have Chinese as their native > language. As Peter recognized, 'Chinese-speakers' is not a well-defined term. [...] Brian > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:23:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > As Peter recognized, 'Chinese-speakers' is not a > well-defined term. I therefore expect that even he can understand that I used the word the same way he did. > Because you made an absurd claim regarding the use of "lie" and "lay" > by English-speakers -- namely, that they are not widely confused -- > that indicated little familiarity with spoken English. Coming out the gym this morning, I met one of the ladies, who is usually an early bird, just arriving. I said, "Had a lie-in this morning?" -- "I always have a lay-in in winter", she corrected. She's a nice old lady, but I couldn't help thinking "silly old chook". SignatureRob Bannister > > Because you made an absurd claim regarding the use of "lie" and "lay" > > by English-speakers -- namely, that they are not widely confused -- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > always have a lay-in in winter", she corrected. She's a nice old lady, > but I couldn't help thinking "silly old chook". What's "chook"? Maybe she meant she has a gigolo to keep her warm. >> > Because you made an absurd claim regarding the use of "lie" and "lay" >> > by English-speakers -- namely, that they are not widely confused -- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What's "chook"? A "chook" is a chicken. We (in the US) might say "Silly old hen". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > I've been exposed, as you put it, to English in quite a number of > places and dialects, having lived in Pom That last phrase suggests you don't understand English very well. SignatureRob Bannister > > I've been exposed, as you put it, to English in quite a number of > > places and dialects, having lived in Pom > > That last phrase suggests you don't understand English very well. That's one option, yes. > > > > It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are > > > > different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > distinction', though, it is being considered a distinction in a > negative sense. No, this makes no more sense. (Sounds like Jacques Derrida's lost juvenilia.) The subject line refers to "the 'lie-lay' distinction". Thus it is being considered a distinction. The question being asked is whether there is a historical trend towards losing that distinction in English. You evidently do make the distinction, and consider those who do not to be "illiterate". But this has nothing to do with the question raised, nor with whether 'lie-lay' is a distinction. No-one, as far as I can see, has suggested that it is "not a distinction" -- merely that some English speakers no longer make this distinction. Ross Clark > > Note that he hasn't _yet_ answered what version of English he has been > > exposed to (or what his native language may be). [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I imagine you'd have been happier not to have asked. On Jul 27, 2:55 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > It's odd to me that it is considered a 'distinction'. The words are > > > > > different and using the wrong one is simply illiterate. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > No, this makes no more sense. (Sounds like Jacques Derrida's lost > juvenilia.) Thank you! I'm impressed to have managed to produce English prose that sounds like French - mad French furthermore! > The subject line refers to "the 'lie-lay' distinction". Thus it is > being considered a distinction. The question being asked is whether [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as far as I can see, has suggested that it is "not a distinction" -- > merely that some English speakers no longer make this distinction. It was the claim that not just some, but many, so many indeed that the distinction is, as the heading puts it, falling by the wayside, that surprised, and surprises me. For a distinction to 'fall by the wayside' I think that a trifle more than it being missed by a few people. Despite a large number of people failing to understand the difference between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested', the very important distinction remains strong in literate speech and writing. You suggest that all that was intended was that some English speakers fail to make the distinction. That is no surprise at all, in fact I think that my comments have indicated that I'm aware of exactly that. > On Jul 27, 2:55 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > distinction is, as the heading puts it, falling by the wayside, that > surprised, and surprises me. Why you would express this surprise by saying you were surprised that 'lie-lay' was "considered a distinction", and then change your mind and say that you were surprised that it was "considered not a distinction", still baffles me. For a distinction to 'fall by the > wayside' I think that a trifle more than it being missed by a few > people. Quite a lot of people, actually. At least in North America. Despite a large number of people failing to understand the > difference between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested', the very > important distinction remains strong in literate speech and writing. So, for your answer to the original question, a simple "no" would have sufficed? Ross Clark > You suggest that all that was intended was that some English speakers > fail to make the distinction. That is no surprise at all, in fact I > think that my comments have indicated that I'm aware of exactly that. On Jul 27, 8:45 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2:55 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Quite a lot of people, actually. At least in North America. I don't usually consider yank as English. I can believe all sorts of things might be very different in North American languages, without this affecting the state of English usage. > Despite a large number of people failing to understand the > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, for your answer to the original question, a simple "no" would have > sufficed? I don't think so. Had I thought so, I should have provided that as an answer. > On Jul 27, 8:45 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > things might be very different in North American languages, without > this affecting the state of English usage. OK, I don't suppose there would be any point in protesting that as a Canadian, I don't speak "yank". We're back to base-line a.u.e snobbery. > > Despite a large number of people failing to understand the > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't think so. Had I thought so, I should have provided that as an > answer. So you still consider your bizarre "not a distinction" answer appropriate? Or would you like to attempt another? Ross Clark >> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote: [leave the living critter lay] >>> For a distinction to 'fall by the >>>> wayside' I think that a trifle more than it being missed by a few [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Canadian, I don't speak "yank". We're back to base-line a.u.e > snobbery. Most posters in AUE are decently respectful of the varieties of English. Your impression that we are snobbish may be created by the fact that the Topic here is <English as a cultural artifact> as much as it is <English as a linguistic process>. I find that "North America(n)" meaning "us too" is a code phrase often misunderstood by non-Canadians, until you've worked on them for a while. [...] > benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote: > >> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Most posters in AUE are decently respectful of the varieties of > English. I'm not sure whether you mean to include or exclude Peter Brooks here. He seems to post as part of some self-amusement program of his own, rather than out of any interest in (never mind respect for) the varieties of English. Your impression that we are snobbish may be created by the > fact that the Topic here is <English as a cultural artifact> as much > as it is <English as a linguistic process>. Could you explain further? > I find that "North America(n)" meaning "us too" is a code phrase often > misunderstood by non-Canadians, until you've worked on them for a > while. True. Ross Clark >> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote: >>>> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > his own, rather than out of any interest in (never mind respect > for) the varieties of English. Homer nods, and we occasionally do too. No one makes an issue of it, most of the time. I am a long-time fan of the Nero Wolfe novels, and I mutter "the malefic spite of a primacy too often challenged" to my screen, and let it go. >> Your impression that we are snobbish may be created by the >> fact that the Topic here is <English as a cultural artifact> as >> much as it is <English as a linguistic process>. > > Could you explain further? It seems to me that AUE is not as tightly-focussed as SL. The introductory spiel has: "We discuss how particular words, phrases, and syntactic forms are used; how they originated; and where in the English-speaking world they're prevalent. (All this is called "description".) We also discuss how we think they *should* be used ("prescription"). alt.usage.english is for everyone, *not* only for linguists, native speakers, or descriptivists." In my own observation, there is a good deal of talk here about the *effective* use of English, which necessarily involves considerations of register. One of the most culturally-important registers discussed is formal English, a somewhat artificial dialect; this raises questions of "correctness". Other languages are often discussed, but the focus tends to be on their relationship to English, not on discussing them for their own sake. As well, we often get questions from non-native speakers framed in terms of traditional grammar, and usually answer them in the same terms. There are many descriptivists in the group, some of whom would probably disagree with at least some of the above. >> I find that "North America(n)" meaning "us too" is a code phrase >> often misunderstood by non-Canadians, until you've worked on them >> for a while. > > True. On Jul 27, 12:02 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 8:45 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Canadian, I don't speak "yank". We're back to base-line a.u.e > snobbery. I didn't suggest that you did - you seem rather sensitive about this. Snobbery? Surely it's kinder to exclude Canadians? If you're keen to associate them, I suppose it's up to you though. > > > Despite a large number of people failing to understand the > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So you still consider your bizarre "not a distinction" answer > appropriate? Or would you like to attempt another? I wouldn't dream of trying to improve it. Usually I'm keen on clarity and disappointed if I fail to achieve it. In this case I'm delighted to have said something so obscure as to be compared to juvenile Derrida. I'll treasure it. So, yes, (since you like monosyllabic answers, it seems), I do consider my answer not just appropriate but a stroke of happy good fortune that's livened up my day. I managed it sober as well - something I've difficulty believing Derrida did. > On Jul 27, 8:45 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 2:55 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > I don't usually consider yank as English. I can believe all sorts of I'll amend my previous comment. A nasty sumbitch. > things might be very different in North American languages, without > this affecting the state of English usage. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't think so. Had I thought so, I should have provided that as an > answer.- [...] >> I don't usually consider yank as English. I can believe all sorts of > > I'll amend my previous comment. A nasty sumbitch. Well, there ya go. As I'm told they say in the gay bars, it takes one to know one. [...] SignatureMike. > > Uh, no,. it fell by the wayside generations ago. > > That must be a different wayside from any around here. I've only heard > the misusage in Hollywood films and it's always struck me as peculiar. Where is "around here"? Do you go among native speakers of English? >> Uh, no,. it fell by the wayside generations ago. >> > That must be a different wayside from any around here. I've only heard > the misusage in Hollywood films and it's always struck me as peculiar. I've noticed it a lot in songs. Not so much in the speech of the people around me. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. On Jul 26, 11:26 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: > >> Uh, no,. it fell by the wayside generations ago. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org > For an e-mail address, see my web page. It was not uncommon in my corner of North America 50 years ago, though of course disapproved of in school grammar books. In that sense it seems natural to me, though I think I make the distinction consistently myself. By contrast I don't remember hearing anybody use "learn" for "teach", and this always suggests Hollywood hillbillies or cowboys. Surely part of the problem with "lie/lay" is that their paradigms intersect: the past tense of the former is homophonous with the present of the latter, and "lay down/laid down" is a minimal phonetic distinction that would easily be missed. Also the past participle of "lie" seems to be needed relatively infrequently, and I find "lain" a little bit of a reach when I do need to use it. As John pointed out, a regular (weak) verb is always ready to fill in in such situations. Ross Clark > [...] > It was not uncommon in my corner of North America 50 years ago, though [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anybody use "learn" for "teach", and this always suggests Hollywood > hillbillies or cowboys. I remember my 1st-to-3rd grade teacher just under 70 years ago telling us we should not say "lay" for "lie" or "set" for "sit." I rarely hear the latter--"Set awhile and chat" is clearly a dialectism--but I hear "lay" for "lie" ALL THE TIME. SignatureBart Mathias <mathias@hawaii.edu> > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:48:04 -0700 (PDT) > "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote (of saying "lay" for "lie): [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I remember my 1st-to-3rd grade teacher just under 70 years ago telling us we should not say "lay" for "lie" or "set" for "sit." I rarely hear the latter--"Set awhile and chat" is clearly a dialectism--but I hear "lay" for "lie" ALL THE TIME. Cf. "play it as it lays" -- even though the position of the golf ball is called its "lie"! [...] > By contrast I don't remember hearing > anybody use "learn" for "teach", and this always suggests Hollywood > hillbillies or cowboys. I heard an NCO on a methods of instruction course say to the class: "We are going to learn you how to teach." SignatureMike. >> By contrast I don't remember hearing >> anybody use "learn" for "teach", and this always suggests Hollywood >> hillbillies or cowboys. > > I heard an NCO on a methods of instruction course say to the class: "We > are going to learn you how to teach." ... and then there is the often-heard "borrow me ten bucks". SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>>>> On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > excellent explanation, tying the change to the evolution of English > away from IE ablaut, rather than sloppy speech, ignorance etc. And yet I wonder why this happens in English, but not for example in German or Russian where the verbs are also similar. SignatureRob Bannister > analys...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > excellent explanation, tying the change to the evolution of English > > away from IE ablaut, rather than sloppy speech, ignorance etc. > And yet I wonder why this happens in English, but not for example in > German or Russian where the verbs are also similar. > Rob Bannister Easy. German and Russian still have industrial-strength inflectional systems. Every verb in both languages has dozens (occasionally hundreds, in Russian) of derived and inflected forms. Regular English verbs have exactly three, all formed with a single suffix: infinitive/present "look" past/participle "looked" gerund "looking" ... and that's *it*. Irregular verbs can have more, but even the most irregular ("be") has only eight: "am, are, is, was, were, be, been, being" English speakers simply find inflection difficult to deal with; the language is now analytic for all intents and purposes. So they'll always look for a fixed phrase instead of reaching for a suffix or (*shudder*) an internal sound shift. Under those circumstances discontinuous verbs like "lie" that require one to integrate by parts are not going to wear well. The perceived similarity of some verbs is irrelevant; being a *verb* in German or Russian is simply different from being a verb in English. -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/sig.html "... and, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing." > > analys...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > past/participle "looked" > gerund "looking" What's "looks," chopped liver? > ... and that's *it*. Irregular verbs can have more, The Germanist snobs are about to leap on you for misusing the term "irregular." > but even the most irregular ("be") has only eight: > "am, are, is, was, were, be, been, being" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > German or Russian is simply different from > being a verb in English. > English speakers simply find inflection difficult > to deal with; the language is now analytic for all > intents and purposes. So they'll always look for > a fixed phrase instead of reaching for a suffix or > (*shudder*) an internal sound shift. So why do children spontaneously - and, apparently, independently - come up with conjugations like bring/brang/brung? As far as I know, that's a common phenomenon in all English-speaking countries. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> English speakers simply find inflection difficult >> to deal with; the language is now analytic for all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > come up with conjugations like bring/brang/brung? As far as I know, > that's a common phenomenon in all English-speaking countries. That's a good question, particularly as in adult life the tendency is so often reversed --"weaved" is fast displacing "wove". But of course "bringed" doesn't match "sang" or "rang", which most children would learn before the verb "wing". I suspect children's early lexicon has a greater proportion of strong and "irregular" verbs than does the adult vocab...run, sing, eat, fly, throw, drink, lie, sit, stand, give, take, put, stick... it wouldn't be really surprising if we consider this kind of thing the language's ancient "core". (I bet Crystal discusses it.) SignatureMike. On Jul 26, 3:54 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> English speakers simply find inflection difficult > >> to deal with; the language is now analytic for all [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > put, stick... it wouldn't be really surprising if we consider this kind > of thing the language's ancient "core". (I bet Crystal discusses it.) The little English-acquiring devices follow a very standard pattern. First they try to conjugate the strong verbs regularly, then they learn the patterns, and "ring" and "sing" being more transparent than "bring" in their formations, overgeneralization to "bring" is quite reasonable. (But how long does it last before they discover the wonders of "brought"?) (Cf. think/thank/thunk, as in "Who'da thunk it?") Peter T. Daniels filted: >The little English-acquiring devices follow a very standard pattern. >First they try to conjugate the strong verbs regularly, then they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >wonders of "brought"?) (Cf. think/thank/thunk, as in "Who'da thunk >it?") What hath Education wreaked?...r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. On Jul 26, 6:48 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: > > English speakers simply find inflection difficult > > to deal with; the language is now analytic for all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org > For an e-mail address, see my web page. Because they sound funny and they're fun to fool around with. Really, no other excuse is necessary. But it's also true that kids are always searching for regularities (cf Jesperson: "snikker/snakker, nikker/nacker", which he attributed to his child -- the correct Danish is nikker/nikkede). -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Official Correct English, like the Tooth Fairy and Civic Virtue, is a product of grade school mythology and, like all such concepts, is of no help in making useful decisions, or finding satisfying answers. > On Jul 26, 6:48 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "snikker/snakker, nikker/nacker", which he attributed to his child > -- the correct Danish is nikker/nikkede). And "-ung" as the past participle of "-ing" verbs is about as regular an irregular as you're going to find: fling/flung, ring/rung, sing/sung, sling/slung, spring/sprung, sting/stung, string/strung, wring/wrung Interestingly, though, while "bring" gets cast in this mold, others, like "king", "zing", or "wing" don't seem to, which would seem to indicate that speakers having internalized that the verb is irregular makes them more likely to seek out the most likely irregular paradigm. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |super genius, but they don't Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up |with all the idiots in the world. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > On Jul 26, 6:48 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > indicate that speakers having internalized that the verb is irregular > makes them more likely to seek out the most likely irregular paradigm. Perhaps the knowledge that they are denominal guarantees their conjugation as weak. Can you think of any denominal strong verbs? >> And "-ung" as the past participle of "-ing" verbs is about as regular >> an irregular as you're going to find: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Can you think of any denominal strong verbs? "String". Originally weak, the OED reports strong forms from 1590, which quickly took over. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |and it didn't look anything like Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this. | MST3K kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> And "-ung" as the past participle of "-ing" verbs is about as regular >>> an irregular as you're going to find: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "String". Originally weak, the OED reports strong forms from 1590, > which quickly took over. Also "sling". From the noun in at least one of its senses according to the OED. "Kneel", probably, although the form isn't identical to the noun. The OED cites the noun "deal" 150 years before the verb, but they both go back to Old English. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired |for their resemblance to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger. (650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Can you think of any denominal strong verbs? >> "String". Originally weak, the OED reports strong forms from 1590, >> which quickly took over. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but they both go back to Old English. > To be irrelevantly pedantic, "kneel" and "deal" aren't strong verbs, they're weak and a bit irregular. J. >>>> Can you think of any denominal strong verbs? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > To be irrelevantly pedantic, "kneel" and "deal" aren't strong verbs, > they're weak and a bit irregular. Good point. I'll stick with "string" and "sling". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Easy. German and Russian still have industrial-strength > inflectional systems. Every verb in both languages has > dozens (occasionally hundreds, in Russian) of derived > and inflected forms. I'll bite: How do you get hundreds of forms in Russian, a language whose verb morphology essentially consists of a single tense and a bunch of participles? SignatureChristian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de >> Easy. German and Russian still have industrial-strength >> inflectional systems. Every verb in both languages has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whose verb morphology essentially consists of a single tense and a > bunch of participles? Well, for each specific verb there's about 13 conjugation suffixes, a couple of verbal adverbs, and 4 participles each with about 15 distinct case suffixes, so, yes, there's less than a hundred _inflected_ forms for each specific verb, right. Maybe double that for verbs that can take -sya. But many simple verbs can take several prefixes, suffixes, and internal changes, yielding lots of _derived_ verbs, each of which can be inflected. In my other post, I listed seven verbs derived from leg-, "lie", and there's maybe 20 more I left out. Each of which takes all those inflections. So there's a couple of thousand "derived and inflected forms" for one verb (well, I admit, it would have been more accurate if he'd said "one verbal root".) J. >> Easy. German and Russian still have industrial-strength >> inflectional systems. Every verb in both languages has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whose verb morphology essentially consists of a single tense and a > bunch of participles? I am only guessing at what he means by "derived forms". Perhaps he means the multitude of various afixes that modify meaning of the verbs, aspect, etc. If he includs all those derived forms as a single verb with various morphological variations then the numbers could indeed be quite large. Whether as high as "occasionally hundreds" or not, I don't know. pjk > Under those circumstances discontinuous verbs > like "lie" that require one to integrate by parts are > not going to wear well. The perceived similarity > of some verbs is irrelevant; being a *verb* in > German or Russian is simply different from > being a verb in English. Life is tough for English verbs. You've got to feel sorry for them. Perhaps we ought to have looked after them better, but it's too late now. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister: > Life is tough for English verbs. You've got to feel sorry for them. > Perhaps we ought to have looked after them better, but it's too late now. You have to feel even more sorry for this word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUnBGk2nb3w SignatureJohn > Robert Bannister: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUnBGk2nb3w Excellent. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > And yet I wonder why this happens in English, but not for example in > German or Russian where the verbs are also similar. IIRC, Trond pointed out last time this came up that it does in fact happen in Norwegian. What's the story in Dutch? As for Russian cognates with "lie" are: lezhat' (imperfective), polezhat' (perfective) to lie lech', to lie down klast' (imperfective), polozhit' (perfective), to lay which involves (what looks like) ablaut, but also the productive prefix ko-. The reasons others here have suggested for what happens in English don't apply here, since they involve the fact that the English lie/lay differ only by the no-longer-productive causative ablaut. There's also lozhit'sya, to lie down polagat', to think, suppose both with what looks like ablaut. Cognates with "sit" are: sidet', to sit sest', to sit, get into sadit' (imperfective), posadit' (perfective) to plant The vowel change in the last is (I presume!) cognate with that in "set", viz causative, but the meaning has become restricted and it no longer means simply "cause to sit". Instead we have stavit' for "set", cognate with our "stand". Similarly, the Russian for "fall" and "fell" aren't cognates. So the situation in Russian is not really all that similar to that in the Germanic languages, AFAICS. John. John Atkinson: > Robert Bannister: > >> analyst41@hotmail.com: >> >>> John Lawler: [...] >>>>>>> analys...@hotmail.com: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>>>> end quote >>>>>>>> and it is clear that the present tense is meant. [...] >>>> It's normal for derived verbs (causative, inchoative, factitive, >>>> etc) to be regular ("weak"), even if the verbs they're derived from [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > IIRC, Trond pointed out last time this came up that it does in fact > happen in Norwegian. Sounds about right. I may have generalised it to Scandinavian and then specified that it's faster in Danish and slower in Swedish. SignatureTrond Engen > >> excellent explanation, tying the change to the evolution of English > >> away from IE ablaut, rather than sloppy speech, ignorance etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > IIRC, Trond pointed out last time this came up that it does in fact > happen in Norwegian. What's the story in Dutch? No sign of merging AFAIK (but we've merged leren, learn/teach:-) : to lay, set: leggen/legde/gelegd, zetten/zette/gezet to lie, sit (state): liggen/lag-en/gelegen, zitten/zat-en/gezeten (notice short/long vowel change in sg. zat, pl. zaten...) to lie down, sit down (action): gaan liggen, gaan zitten ("go lie"), or zich neerleggen, zich neerzetten ("lay o.s. down"); the latter comparable with the reflexive forms in Romance (acostarse, se coucher) where, however, no "state" verb exists. Liggen te, Zitten te, Staan te +inf. are frequent ways of expressing "our" progressive mood (besides Aan het +inf. zijn), without any risk of confusion with causative lookalike constructs: Hij ligt te slapen: he is sleeping ("he lies to sleep") Ze legt me te slapen: she puts me in bed ("she, er, lays me to sleep") guido http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:44:28 -0700 (PDT): wugi <wugi@scarlet.be>: in sci.lang: >> >> excellent explanation, tying the change to the evolution of English >> >> away from IE ablaut, rather than sloppy speech, ignorance etc. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No sign of merging AFAIK (but we've merged leren, learn/teach:-) : Some Hollandish dialects use "leggen" for what in standard language is "liggen". Example: "Hij leg te slapen" = standaard "hij ligt te slapen". SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > > >> On Jul 24, 1:24 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> > > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > the last millennium has been to move toward regularity > and away from inflection; Except the well-known exceptions, such as "snuck", of course. > regular verbs, for instance, no > longer have a past participle form distinct from the past [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > solution, and that'll never stop, because it *is* a simple > solution. This doesn't explain why some people use "lie" in place of "lay". When we discussed the two words in a.u.e. last November, I was proud of finding this. "...what ya do is guide it and lie it down flat, so it should be like this, and you want to fold it back the other way just so it knows what it's supposed to be doing here so it's laying pretty flat...." http://www.ehow.com/video_4790358_make-paper-rose.html You can see it in the transcript at the bottom or hear it from about 4:10 to 4:30 in the video. As far as I could tell from looking at hits on "lie it down", people say it only about things that can sit or stand up. You can lie a refrigerator down, but you can only lay down a layer of paint. (And I'll bet the past tense and past participle of transitive "lie" are very rare.) The main flow may be toward regularity, but the river has eddies, "the tribute of the current to the source". -- Jerry Friedman [...] > Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English > for centuries, Yes, obviously enough. > and its few remnants > (lay = cause to lie; > set = cause to sit; > raise = cause to rise) > are at best zombies, animated only occasionally, > for ritual purposes. It's not like you to be shamelessly exaggerating for rhetorical effect: that's more my style. Have I badly misunderstood you? Or are things really so different in America? Over here, there's nothing remotely unusual in maintaining the distinctions in speech or writing, though of course the "collapsed" versions are found. (I'm not at all sure a rise-for-raise substitution exists over here, though, except in special contexts such as baking. This, I think, reflects a process taking place with the other two, in which the transitives may be used slightly differently.) [...] SignatureMike. > [...] >> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that's more my style. Have I badly misunderstood you? Or are things > really so different in America? I was wondering the same. In AusE it seems to be fairly common - but by no means universal - to use "sit" to mean "set", but I can't imagine anyone confusing "raise" with "rise". The lie/lay distinction is a borderline case. It seems to be a shibboleth that separates those who finished high school from those who didn't. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> [...] >>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I was wondering the same. In AusE it seems to be fairly common - but by > no means universal - to use "sit" to mean "set", but not for specialised meanings of "set" as in "set the table" or "set plants" - only for meanings like "sit that enormous thing on the floor for a minute". but I can't imagine > anyone confusing "raise" with "rise". Nor me. > The lie/lay distinction is a borderline case. It seems to be a > shibboleth that separates those who finished high school from those who > didn't. SignatureRob Bannister > >> [...] > >>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Rob Bannister You're right, Rise/raise does seem to be unconfused. So far. I just put them in to show the parallelism with sit/set and lie/lay. Parallels make things easier to understand, in my experience. -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you. -- Oscar Wilde > You're right, Rise/raise does seem to be unconfused. So far. I just > put them in to show the parallelism with sit/set and lie/lay. > Parallels make things easier to understand, in my experience. Don't back off so quickly. See my other article. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> [...] >>>>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > lie/lay. Parallels make things easier to understand, in my > experience. Foreigners, on the other hand, can have problems with rise/raise, as I know from bitter experience. SignatureJames >> [...] >>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I was wondering the same. In AusE it seems to be fairly common - but by > no means universal - to use "sit" to mean "set", How about vice versa? > but I can't imagine anyone confusing "raise" with "rise". About daylight he awoke from his slumbers, and pushing off the top of his coffin he raised up, and and looking round him, exclaimed: 'Well, by Gosh! I'm the first that's riz, anyhow!" _Harper's New Monthly Magazine_, June-November, 1860 He held his eye there as much as a minute; then he raised up and sighed, and says 'Consound it, I don't seem to understand this thing, no way; however, I'll tackle her again.' Mark Twain, _A Tramp Abroad_, 1880 He raised up, and blinked his eyes around, and says ... Mark Twain, _Huckleberry Finn_, 1885 The other boy, who as herinbefore stated was a witness for defendant, testified that upon hearing the noise his coemployé said, "It is a fox," and just after this was said the defendant fired and that, immediately after the shot, "I seen this boy Corwin McLaughlin, he raised up and he hollered 'Oh! oh!' like that, and walked a little ways and fell" _The Southwestern Reporter_, 1921 All the way through Brushing his damp hair back from his brow, she laughed. He raised up and kissed her tenderly. Sherrilyn Kenyon, _Born of Fire_, 2009 > The lie/lay distinction is a borderline case. It seems to be a > shibboleth that separates those who finished high school from those who > didn't. I suspect that most, if not all of these come from the fact that the intransitive verb is pretty much equivalent to transitive verb with a reflexive object: "lie down", "lay yourself down"; "sit down", "set yourself down"; "rise up", "raise yourself up". Googling Stevenson's Requiem, I see 100 hits for "And I laid me down with a will" to 28 for "And I lay me down with a will". On Google Books, the ratio is even closer: 301:97. ("Laid" is the correct line. Of course, it's possible there that the writers were unsure whether it was past tense or present.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive. | Lori Karkosky kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> [...] > >>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > How about vice versa? Do we count "The jello/jelly didn't set"? > > but I can't imagine anyone confusing "raise" with "rise". [snip examples] > Brushing his damp hair back from his brow, she laughed. He raised > up and kissed her tenderly. > > Sherrilyn Kenyon, _Born of Fire_, > 2009 ... This is almost certainly not the whole-for-the-part trope so common in sex scenes. I checked. Anyway, I got 30,100 Google hits on "fall a tree", starting with another one from eHow, entitled "How to Fall a Tree in Any Direction". http://www.ehow.com/how_4893933_fall-tree-direction.html I got 38,700 for "fell a tree". I wouldn't have guessed they'd be so close. -- Jerry Friedman is shuddering. > Anyway, I got 30,100 Google hits on "fall a tree", starting with > another one from eHow, entitled "How to Fall a Tree in Any Direction". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I got 38,700 for "fell a tree". I wouldn't have guessed they'd be so > close. I'm not familiar with this one, but I see it given as "now common in America" in John Boag's 1848 _A Popular and Complete English Dictionary_. It's not a causative, but you've also got things like "lease". From 1570 until 1868, the OED's citations only pertain to the one who owns the property. From 1877 on they only pertain to the one who acquires it. "Rent" took the same path, but earlier and quicker. The owner did it in 1447, the occupier in 1530. These seem perfectly normal now, but they're pretty much equivalent to "borrow" for "lend" and "learn" for "teach". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> [...] >>>>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I got 38,700 for "fell a tree". I wouldn't have guessed they'd be so > close. Now you mention it, I did know an old farmer (originally from Shropshire, I think) who more than once in my hearing said "fall a tree". (OT, he was bewailing the invention of chainsaws: before that, you thought twice, because it was hard work "to fall a tree".) SignatureMike. >>> [...] >>>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > line. Of course, it's possible there that the writers were unsure > whether it was past tense or present.) In connection with the above, I thought of "rear", an early rhoticisation of the ancestor of "raise" which is used in both "raise" and "rise" senses (rear a child, rear up). The OneLook etymology uses "raise" intransitively in a definition. rear (v.) O.E. ræran "to raise, build up, set on end," from P.Gmc. *raizijanau "to raise," causative of *risanan "to rise" (see raise). Meaning "bring into being, bring up" (as a child) is recorded from early 15c.; that of "raise up on the hind legs" is first recorded late 14c. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rear >>> [...] >>>> Causative ablaut has been unproductive in English [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How about vice versa? Never, in my experience. >> but I can't imagine anyone confusing "raise" with "rise". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > _Harper's New Monthly Magazine_, > June-November, 1860 This, and the other similar examples you gave, are very strongly marked as "American" in my mind. More specifically, they seem to belong to the time and place where the Mark Twain stories were set. I can imagine hearing "riz" in Australian English, especially in rural Australian English, but I doubt that you would ever hear "he raised up" without an object. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >This, and the other similar examples you gave, are very strongly marked >as "American" in my mind. More specifically, they seem to belong to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Australian English, but I doubt that you would ever hear "he raised up" >without an object. Indeed; all these examples seem to me strongly American (and, as far as an outsider can judge, rather Southern). "Set" for "sit" and "raise" for "rise" I have never heard in UK English, and "lay" for "lie" is very rare in writing (including newspaper headlines) and strongly colloquial/dialectal in speech. So I was surprised to hear (well, read) so many US speakers saying that the lie/lay battle is lost. Battle has barely been joined over here. Katy [...]> > So I was surprised to hear (well, read) so many US speakers saying > that the lie/lay battle is lost. Battle has barely been joined over > here. Well, "lay for lie" is already an established social-class marker, though "lie for lie" isn't. This is implied, I think, in Peter's more democratically*-expressed "finished high school" suggestion. *(I wanted to form an adverb from "egalitarian", but it refused point-blank.) SignatureMike. > From CBS Marketwatch: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > and it is clear that the present tense is meant. TV news copy was never proofread for grammatical correctness the way newspaper copy used to be, mainly because it was written to be read orally, not read with the eye. Only in the last few years have TV newscasts begun to display headlines for the eye, too late for TV newsroom habits to change (even if news editors had the budget to pay for this sort of proofreading.) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) On Jul 29, 2:32 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > Thus by using the word you expose not only your cultural inferiority > complex and insecurity, but also your ignorance of its highly > restricted and insulting meaning. My, my, Peter. Now, I wonder what somebody like Anthony Clare might make of your suggestion. I'm not a great fan of pop psychology, nor, indeed, of psychiatric diagnoses. However, it is rather difficult to come to a conclusion that avoids the possibility that your being here in a forum discussing language, and your talk about insecurity and the rather dated term 'inferiority complex' - along with your notion of cultural inferiority - suggests that you, yourself are a tad insecure (to make it plainer; that's an understatement). You also, rather revealingly, think that a lack of modern hyper- sensitivity to possible slights (in cultural deserts it's known as not showing 'respec') indicates ignorance of this fashion. This is all probably rather unkind of me, I know. Sorry, Peter, it's rude to make it all so plain. I can only, in my defence in exposing you, is that you, clearly, think nothing of doing it to others. You thought that I was easy game and attacked, with all your puny weapons, thinking that I'd crumble and slink away and you'd be able to wave your imagined victory about, like some Mr. Punch with his club. Let me make it as simple and clear as possible, so that you, with what you imagine to be your great intellect should have no problem comprehending: You are a bully. You think that you're cleverer than you are. You find it satisfying to bully people in a way that you think is clever. This makes you a rather unpleasant person. We (that is most of your audience - because there are some genuinely clever people here) know that you're an unhappy and frustrated person. People who are comfortable in themselves don't need to bully others to feel happy with themselves. So, Peter, look at yourself in a mirror. See your insecurity and fear of being inferior. Then, having faced your fears, think of yourself again. You can, if you humble yourself, come out of it a happier and nicer person. |
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.