What in your opininon are some of thre trends that are occuring now, and will beocme more prominent in the future?
How is the English language evolving?
In the age of Technology, I'd say that 'text talk', or all the abbreviations used on MSN are gradually slipping their way into everyday speech. People say 'lol' in conversation, and you can even say that somebody is LOLling to mean they're laughing. Instead of saying 'can't be asked', people say 'cba'. People say 'gonna' instead of 'going to'.
<<What in your opinion are some of the trends that are occurring now, and will become more prominent in the future? >>
The introduction of an excessive quantity of new slang in order to circumvent censorship (MTV) or pretend to be politically correct.
You won't use your penis anymore, get ready to use your "lolly pop" (which is going to have "juice" in it).
So if your children ask for a lolly pop or a glass of juice, please slap them. They might have watched too much MTV.
The introduction of an excessive quantity of new slang in order to circumvent censorship (MTV) or pretend to be politically correct.
You won't use your penis anymore, get ready to use your "lolly pop" (which is going to have "juice" in it).
So if your children ask for a lolly pop or a glass of juice, please slap them. They might have watched too much MTV.
Canadian-raising of AI, cot/caught merger, and the gradual disappearance of non-rhotic dialects, in the case of American English.
Do you think English has evolved grammar-wise in the last 100 years or so?
>>Canadian-raising of AI, cot/caught merger, and the gradual disappearance of non-rhotic dialects, in the case of American English.<<
The cot-caught merger, though, seems unlikely to happen in the NCVS area, where the cot-caught merger has largely not happened (and the areas where they do overlap are more due to the westwards advance of the NCVS more than anything else). However, there does seem at least here in Milwaukee to be a good chance of there rather being a, well, cow-caw merger here, that is, of historical /aʊ̯/ and historical /ɔː/ (present [ɑɔ̯]~[ɑ]~[ɐo̯]~[ɑ̝] and [ɒ]~[ɑ] respectively) as /ɑ/.
The cot-caught merger, though, seems unlikely to happen in the NCVS area, where the cot-caught merger has largely not happened (and the areas where they do overlap are more due to the westwards advance of the NCVS more than anything else). However, there does seem at least here in Milwaukee to be a good chance of there rather being a, well, cow-caw merger here, that is, of historical /aʊ̯/ and historical /ɔː/ (present [ɑɔ̯]~[ɑ]~[ɐo̯]~[ɑ̝] and [ɒ]~[ɑ] respectively) as /ɑ/.
"Do you think English has evolved grammar-wise in the last 100 years or so? "
Here is an interesting article on some syntactic evolutions that have been observed since the 20th C.
http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~callies/grammatical.change/papers/mair&leech2006.pdf
Here is an interesting article on some syntactic evolutions that have been observed since the 20th C.
http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~callies/grammatical.change/papers/mair&leech2006.pdf
I'd guess that we'll see the end of the -er and -est adjective endings (as in "more clear" 'most long", etc.)
That paper does point out a lot of important things about syntactic change in English, but it does miss some important things due to its being focused largely on corpora and not on the spoken language. In particular, one important thing that I noticed it missed was the extreme broadening of the usage of the "-y" adjective suffix into a general adjectification suffix, which I have noticed as having occurred at least in North American English but which I practically *never* see even mentioned in writing. (But I have noticed it leak out even in formal speech at times when someone just needs an adjective for something but they just cannot find the right word at the moment.)
<<In particular, one important thing that I noticed it missed was the extreme broadening of the usage of the "-y" adjective suffix into a general adjectification suffix, which I have noticed as having occurred at least in North American English but which I practically *never* see even mentioned in writing.>>
Does '-ish' fall into the same category as '-y'?
Does '-ish' fall into the same category as '-y'?
I think an increasing use of the verb 'to get' instead of 'to be' in order to express the passive. i.e.
'He got run over' instead of 'He was run over'. This would actually be a return to the more Germanic structure. German uses the verb 'werden' to express the passive. While English rarely uses 'to become' for such constructions, 'to get' has a much more similar meaning than 'to be'.
'He got run over' instead of 'He was run over'. This would actually be a return to the more Germanic structure. German uses the verb 'werden' to express the passive. While English rarely uses 'to become' for such constructions, 'to get' has a much more similar meaning than 'to be'.
>>Does '-ish' fall into the same category as '-y'?<<
That is a common adjectification suffix in spoken English today, along with "-y", but there are some clear semantic differences between the two. Unlike its German counterpart "-isch" or its Dutch counterpart "-s", English "-ish" is not a straight adjectifier suffix but rather produces a semantically weakened adjective. This is unlike "-y" in spoken English, which just directly adjectifies whatever it is attached to without any other change in meaning; in most cases, "-y" in spoken English would be much closer in usage to "-isch" in German than its English cognate "-ish".
That is a common adjectification suffix in spoken English today, along with "-y", but there are some clear semantic differences between the two. Unlike its German counterpart "-isch" or its Dutch counterpart "-s", English "-ish" is not a straight adjectifier suffix but rather produces a semantically weakened adjective. This is unlike "-y" in spoken English, which just directly adjectifies whatever it is attached to without any other change in meaning; in most cases, "-y" in spoken English would be much closer in usage to "-isch" in German than its English cognate "-ish".
>>I think an increasing use of the verb 'to get' instead of 'to be' in order to express the passive. i.e.
'He got run over' instead of 'He was run over'. This would actually be a return to the more Germanic structure. German uses the verb 'werden' to express the passive. While English rarely uses 'to become' for such constructions, 'to get' has a much more similar meaning than 'to be'.<<
Mind you though that the English get-passive has some special aspects to it that really do not have any relation to the German werden-passive. The key thing about the get-passive is that it is what could be called an *active* passive; it indicates that something actually happened with respect to the subject rather than merely stating that the subject is in a particular state, which would be a static passive. This is unlike both the be-passive in English and the werden-passive in German, which can be either static or active.
'He got run over' instead of 'He was run over'. This would actually be a return to the more Germanic structure. German uses the verb 'werden' to express the passive. While English rarely uses 'to become' for such constructions, 'to get' has a much more similar meaning than 'to be'.<<
Mind you though that the English get-passive has some special aspects to it that really do not have any relation to the German werden-passive. The key thing about the get-passive is that it is what could be called an *active* passive; it indicates that something actually happened with respect to the subject rather than merely stating that the subject is in a particular state, which would be a static passive. This is unlike both the be-passive in English and the werden-passive in German, which can be either static or active.