Originally posted by Proofreader: Y iz it onely Engalish edjakaturz r 4 elimnatng roolz?
Who knows, there could be French or Chinese teachers who feel the same way.
quote:
Short vowel sounds Drop the final e from words if the preceding vowel sound is short: Give becomes giv but love remains love
Who came up with this? The vowel in love /lʌv/ is a short vowel - we don't pronounce it /lov/ (loave). We know it's a short vowel because short vowels cannot end a word: we don't have words like /kæ/, /lʌ/ or /ɡɪ/. It would make much more sense to spell love as "luv".
Yes, as a language, English is exceptionally easy to lern. Compared with the six uther European languages which I hav studied (Lithuanian, Russian, German, French, Spanish and Italian), it has almost no grammatical difficulties whatsoever.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
Yes, as a language, English is exceptionally easy to lern.
I would amend this assertion just slightly. English is a very easy language to learn sufficiently well to communicate adequately; it is a very difficult language to learn fully and properly.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Originally posted by Richard English: I would amend this assertion just slightly. English is a very easy language to learn sufficiently well to communicate adequately; it is a very difficult language to learn fully and properly.
I would agree with Vivian Cook: no language is absolutely easier or harder to learn than any other. It depends on the learner's native language, their motivation, etc. One of the reasons that people think English is difficult to learn fully and properly is because of there are so many books full of presciptions about what you should and shouldn't do in English - prescriptions that have little to do with how the language actually works.
One of the reasons that people think English is difficult to learn fully and properly is because of there are so many books full of presciptions about what you should and shouldn't do in English - prescriptions that have little to do with how the language actually works.
Plus the fact that, although few people use more than a few thousand words, English has more words than any other language, by a significant margin.
Thus, whereas it is simple enough to learn to communicate adequately in English (a thousand or so words will do the trick) it is still possible for erudite people to be baffled by the, seemingly inexhaustible, supply of strange English words that are the grist to the mill of such programmes as "Call my bluff" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A455320
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Originally posted by Richard English: Plus the fact that, although few people use more than a few thousand words, English has more words than any other language, by a significant margin.
This is another myth. First you have to answer the question "what is a word?" and we can't agree on an answer. Some linguists try to answer the question "what is a word": "There is no clear-cut way of defining 'word', even in written language."
Second, we have to count all the words in all the languages, and this has not yet been done, because we cannot define "word" within one language, let alone cross-linguistically. Jesse Sheidlower:
quote:
The problem with trying to number the words in any language is that it's very hard to agree on the basics. For example, what is a word? If run is a verb, is the noun run another word? What about the inflected forms ran, runs, and running? What about words with run as a base, such as runner and runnable and runoff and runway? Are compounds, such as man-bites-dog, man-child, man-eater, manhandle, man-hour, man of God, man's man, and men in black, to be counted once or many times?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
This is another myth. First you have to answer the question "what is a word?" and we can't agree on an answer.
I don't think you can answer any question about anything unless you first of all define what that thing is. But I would think it is far easier to arrive at a sensible definition of a word than it is to arrive at a definition of many other things - art, for example.
And I would think that by most definitions, English would have the most words - with more being added every day. There are languages, such as Finnish, which for special reasons have an infinite number of words through combination possibilities with numerals, but any definition that I would accept would exclude such combinations - as it it would exclude hyphenated compounds in English that contained such forms as "first-born", "second-born" "third-born" and so on, since any one of these can go on to infinity.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Originally posted by Richard English: I don't think you can answer any question about anything unless you first of all define what that thing is. But I would think it is far easier to arrive at a sensible definition of a word than it is to arrive at a definition of many other things - art, for example.
Then I invite you to devise a cross-linguistic definition of "word" that is generally agreed on - something no one has yet been able to do, afaik. In the Linguist List link I gave, one linguist cannot define "word", one can but the definition means that some languages don't have words, so it's not a helpful definition, and one doesn't think it's an interesting question.
For instance, Inuit: tusaatsiarunnanngittualuujunga I can't hear very well.
Is that a "word" or a "sentence"?
Then you have to count all the words in all languages.
quote:
And I would think that by most definitions, English would have the most words
so you have counted them?This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
As a lay linguist (how's that for alliteration?), can you tell me what constitutes a word? Everything I wrote in these sentences is, I assume, a "word" but do linguists count grunts or sighs or other sounds that can't be shown on a printed page except phonetically?
If my wife says, "I'll be home in an hour," and I make a noise that either expresses incredulity, or affirmation, or dismissal, or any other understandable locution, is that grunt considered a "word'?
As I said above, linguists haven't been able to define "word" in a way that makes sense for all languages. Linguists instead talk about morphemes. A morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning. So run is a morpheme, and suffixes like -ing and plural -s are morphemes.
One of the examples I like to use (which I originally stole from David Crystal) is to ask the person suggesting words are easily countable whether flowerpot, flower-pot, flower pot count as one, two, three or four words.
It's an utterly trivial and facile question but it does illustrate the difficulty.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
Well, what about things usually shown on printed pages as "Uh," "Er," "Ah,"Eh"? Do linguists consider those words, since they can indicate some sort of understanding, questioning, agreement, etc.? Would they be considered morphemes?
Then I invite you to devise a cross-linguistic definition of "word" that is generally agreed on - something no one has yet been able to do, afaik.
I could easily write a definition of "word" that would satisfy me; I could write a definition that might satisfy the majority. But (as you have already demonstrated) neither I (nor anyone else, I suspect) could write a definition of "word" that would satisfy everyone.
Indeed, to write a definition that is simply "generally agreed upon" would be tricky - even if you were first to define what you mean by "general agreement".
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Oh, I missed this delightful discussion. One ongoing discussion on Wordcraft has always been "what is a word."
There was an article in the Tribune today, entitled, "r u listening 2 ur teachr?" I found it interesting that one graduate student teaching assistant puts this on all his syllabi: "All course work must be fully readable; text messaging acronyms and jargon are not accepted." Duh!
The "what is a word?" question has no real answer that satisfies.
However, the problem remains: should English spelling be simplified?
I assume that reformers are in favour of spelling the word as it is pronounced. Next question: whose pronunciation? English is used across the globe, and local factors affect the way it is spoken, and therefore presumably if every writer spelt a word as pronounced locally a free-for-all would ensue, giving rise to far more confusion than it would solve.
To give just one example, many New Zealanders pronounce "grown" as "growen". That would surely puzzle pretty well all other English-speakers (apart from Mackems in Sunderland, perhaps, whose dialect is similar).
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The "what is a word?" question has no real answer that satisfies.
I can't think of one thing in life that satisfies everyone. But it is an interesting discussion. I've learned so much about words as we discussed the question of "what is a word?"
I can't think of one thing in life that satisfies everyone.
Wait a second! The name Drambuie comes from the Scottish Gaelic phrase an dram buidheach, meaning the drink that satisfies. Are you calling these folk to the carpet?
Myth Jellies Cerebroplegia--the cure is within our grasp
I was tempted to say that the drink that satisfies everyone is water but at least one person found that unsatisfying: W.C. Fields. His contention was fish performed acts in the water that are not fit for mentioning publicly. Therefore I wiull not name them. But I am sure there are some of you who have actually performed (or attempted to perform) these perverted pleasures.
