|
|
English grammar is chaotic !
Ben,
Hello,
Re: "The Irish language is a REALLY regular language. It only has 11 irregular verbs, and virtually all words are spelt phonetically' "
First of all, I'd like to say that this is not an attempt on my part to tear you apart. I'm glad that you are willing to dialogue with us on Antimoon - just some things about Gaelic, as I see it , that I think you ought to consider :
1)Don't forget the multitude of irregular plural forms too like blath (flower) blathanna (flowers); madra / mada (dog) madraí /madaí dogs); capall (horse) capaill (horses); tom (bush) toim, tomanna or tomacha (bushes - and pronounced twim, too-muh-nee and too-muckh-ee); crann (tree) crainn / croinnte (trees - and pronounced krIn / kreen-tchuh) just to mention a few! Gaelic is more like Welsh, Romanian and the Semitic languages in this respect.
2) There are also oddities like: Tá sé ina mhac léinn (He is a student - literally "he is in-his student") from macléinn (student); Tá cion agam uirthi (I love her - literally "I have fondness for-her); Tá sé ag cur báistí or Tá sé a' deanamh fearthinne (It's raining - literally "It is putting down rain" or "It is making rain.") and Ádh mór ort! / oraibh ! (Good luck! - literally "Great luck upon thee / ye!) etc.
3) Literal translations from English (or French or German ) to Gaelic are seldom possible. The Gaelic language is very idiomatic (i.e. built on idioms) and you have to know several thousand idiomatic expressions to speak it properly. This takes many years of learning or study. People who are born speaking Irish have the greatest advantage by far. The same is true of the Rom or Gypsy language from what I've read. It is true. in large part, for English too.
4) One final note : Unfortunately, Irish words are not spelled phonetically in most cases; For example, take the expression " Chomh salach leis an mhadadh" (As dirty as a dog). The actual pronunciation of this phrase is something more like "Kah sal-ah lesh'uh wah-doo") - There's no real /ch/ or /m/ sound in it. .
Adam,
Re: "England hasn't been invaded a lot. It hasn't been invaded since 1066."
(Please keep in mind This is not an attempt on my part to "slam Adam" just my take on the topic) :
1) Okay, it was invaded a lot until 1066 but these were some of the most formative years in the English language's history. (In a sense, the Nazi Blitzkrieg of World War II was still an invasion; if one gets in to metahistory you could call Cromwell and his Puritans invaders too. They were more like New England Yankees than Brits and that's why I've always called the Glorious Revolution (1642-1649) as the first British / American War even though it took place on English soil).
2) Re: "Yeah, that's why the Germans only this year had to reform the language." --- Adam
The Germans haven't reformed their language anytime recently. Howeverthey continue to acquire more words and loan translations from English especially American English. This is evident if you watch German news programs on cable tv or peruse through any German language magazines.
Russian was likewise having a similar influence on the German of East Germany before the country was reunified in 1990 with loans and calques like Soljanka (a beef & vegetable stew), Sabotnik (a day of unpaid work on Saturday), Traktorist (tractor driver) and Forschungskosmonaut (research cosmonaut) etc.
<<Oh no! What ever happened to "Fun with Phonics"? Did my first-grade teacher lie? :)>>
Nah, your teacher did just fine. I was just pointing out that most spelling systems aim for phonemic contrasts (underlying, contrastive sounds) as compared to sounds on the phonetic level (phonetic is the actual spoken forms and how they combine together). Even spelling systems which are pretty regular within themselves like Spanish don't strive for phonetic accuracy, but phonemic accuracy.
An example of the difference between phonemics (underlying) and phonetic (surface forms) is that of the /p/ in English "spit" and "pit." Say one after each other while holding a paper in front of your lips and you'll notice the paper will move noticeably after "pit" but not after "spit." This is because there is an English phonological rule which adds a puff of aspiration to unvoiced stops such as /p/ in initial position. This does not apply to "spit" since the /p/ is followed by an /s/ so no aspiration results. So, what we have here is really two different /p/s on the phonetic level, but the difference is not underlying, only depending on the surface surrounding environment. I should mention in transcription slashes // represent phonemic (underlying) while the phonetic level is represented by brackets []. Look at the two different words below:
/pIt/ --> [p_hIt] "pit"
/spIt/ --> [spIt] "spit"
That [_h] represents the burst of aspiration accompanying the [p] in "pit." It would make no sense for English spelling to distinguish between phonetic differences because they're not crucial to meaning. Thus, spelling aims for underlying contrasts, so in spelling, "spit" and "pit" get the same 'p'.
However, what's phonetic in one language might be phonemic in another and vice versa. In Korean, the difference between aspirated and non-aspirated /p/ is not one that deals with a particular environment (like in English), but one that is crucial to meaning. Thus, look at the following Korean words:
/p_hi/ --> [p_hi] "blood"
/pi/ ---> [pi] "rain"
In Korean this burst of air is crucial in distinguishing meaning between two different sounds--those are two very different liquids! So, while English only makes a phonetic distinction for those sounds, Korean has a phonemic one (crucial to meaning), so that difference is marked at the phonemic level with slashes //. Also, Korean spelling notes this difference, unsurprisingly.
<<Yep, there's some sloppy thinking going on in this thread. >>
Most definitely agreed.
<<The Germans haven't reformed their language anytime recently.>>
Not to inject myself into your silly argument, but there was a German spelling reform back in the nineties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spelling_reform_of_1996
<<too-muh-nee and too-muckh-ee>>
<<krIn / kreen-tchuh>>
<<Kah sal-ah lesh'uh wah-doo>>
As I've said before, it would help if learned X-SAMPA so that people could have a clue what you're talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA
I pointed out in another thread that X-SAMPA is the perfect functional equivalent to IPA. I have to say that your ad-hoc faux-netic spelling system "doesn't quite cut it" since it is certainly "not used in any linguistics books or journals".
<<The Germans haven't reformed their language anytime recently.>>
''Not to inject myself into your silly argument, but there was a German spelling reform back in the nineties. ''
Lazar, what do you call a spelling reform?
Classical German spelling system was quite fine until a little group of poor-skilled linguists reintroduced spellings from down to about over hundered years and confusing spelling rules by the aid of the state. But the commission responsible for that lacks constitutional status! There was, as far as I know, no parliamentary assignation for such a task. There were plans for spelling reforms decades ago, even in the darkest time during world war II (Rustsche Reform), but never came into being.
The new actual spellings resemble the spellings of the Rustsche Reform to some degree and didn't become known to the public until the ''reform'' was started in 1996, two years earlier than planned. The majority of the german population is against that reform, the major newspapers do not use it now after they had tested it a few years. Some other newspapers only use parts of the reform, omitting the most confusing parts. German spelling reform yields grammatically wrong spellings and changes the meaning of a sentence due to the splitting of compound words, which might have another meaning in classical orthography. Since the reformers failed to introduce ''gemäßigte Kleinschreibung'', i.e. using lower case letters for nouns as in English etc. (it was not allowed by the ministers of education) they therefore increased the use of upper case letters!
There are lots of groups working against the reform, see: www.vrs-ev.de or www.sprachforschung.org.
So, to my mind, its true: The germans haven't reformed their language anytime recently. We got it reformed by surprise by a group of ideologically blinded poor-skilled linguists and the help of the ministry of the interiour.
At least in german wikipedia, there are a lot of reform enthousiasts. They delete or change information on the reform and on people fighting the reform, see: www.vrs-ev.de. Conclusion: There must be something wrong on german orthographic reform!
If you want to know more about that theme, I posted several information about the german spelling reform in some threads here.
At least in german wikipedia, there are a lot of reform enthousiasts. They delete or change information on the reform and on people fighting the reform, see: www.vrs-ev.de. Conclusion: There must be something wrong with german orthographic reform!
If you want to know more about that theme, I posted several information about the german spelling reform in some threads here.
<<Nah, your teacher did just fine. I was just pointing out that most spelling systems aim for phonemic contrasts (underlying, contrastive sounds) as compared to sounds on the phonetic level (phonetic is the actual spoken forms and how they combine together). Even spelling systems which are pretty regular within themselves like Spanish don't strive for phonetic accuracy, but phonemic accuracy. >>
Kirk, Well that's a relief! Poor old Miss Morgan, I'd hate to see a liar made out of her. Actually she was a witch.:)
Thanks for explaining. Some of the X-SAMPA is actually beginning to make sense to me.
How could Cromwell invade England? He was ENGLISH. He didn't come from outside of England because he was already in it.
Compared to Continental European countries (who were invaded twice by the Germans in the same century and invade each other from time to time) and the Scots and Welsh (who were invaded by the English) and the Irish (who were invaded by the English, Scots and Welsh) England has been invaded very few times.
The Germans have reformed their language a LOT recently -
The History of German Spelling Reform
A Timeline - Eine Chronik
Rechtschreibreform - A Timeline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1901: The Staatliche Orthographie-Konferenz makes official the German spelling rules that only expired on 1 August 1998. This is the last official change in German spelling rules until the current reforms of 1996.
1955: The conference of German education ministers declares the Duden reference publication the official guide in any questions on spelling and punctuation.
1 July 1996: Following ten years of work by an expert commission, a declaration approving the new spelling rules is signed in Vienna by representatives from Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and various other nations with German-speaking minorities.
August 1996: Schools in most German Bundesländer (states) begin teaching the new spelling rules.
6 October 1996: At the Frankfurt Book Fair (Buchmesse) 100 respected authors, professors, and scientists sign the Frankfurt Declaration (Frankfurter Erklärung) calling for rejection of the reforms.
14 July 1998: The German supreme court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) rules that the new spelling rules may go into effect as planned on 1 August 1998. The ruling denies a claim by a Lübeck couple that the spelling reforms damaged their son's educational rights and their own rights as parents.
1 August 1998: The new rules go into force for all schools and government offices in all German-speaking countries. As of this date, old spellings are now considered outdated but will not yet be marked as incorrect. A transitional period will allow the use of either the old or new spelling rules until 2005.
27 September 1998: Almost 60 percent of voters in the Schleswig-Holstein referendum reject spelling reform in the state's schools, making it the only one of Germany's 16 Bundesländer not to follow the new spelling rules. Legally, the vote was open to question. A later court decision overturns the referendum.
1 August 1999: Most German-language media outlets begin using the new spelling rules. Only a few newspapers and magazines in the German-speaking countries refuse to go along with the reforms.
1 August 2000: Germany's leading daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), returns to the old spelling rules. On July 26, 2000 the paper unexpectedly announces its decision to reject the unpopular spelling reforms that most of the German media had adopted a year before. On the first day of August "die FAZ" appears with the traditional spelling.
August 2004: The debate over spelling reform reignites when two of Germany's leading publishing houses, the Springer-Verlag and Der Spiegel announce they will return to the old spelling rules. Munich's Süddeutsche Zeitung soon announces it will join the other two. Germany's other magazine and newspaper publishers, including Spiegel's competitor Focus, say they will stick with the reforms—for now.
31 July 2005: The transitional period ends. From this date on, only the new spelling rules will be accepted in all German-speaking countries. Private citizens may continue to write German as they see fit, but all official publications and schools must use the new rules.
Old German spellings now verboten
Last Updated Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:59:56 EDT
CBC News
Most German traditionalists are reluctantly switching over to new German spelling rules that came into effect this week, designed to modernize and simplify the language.
But some are vowing to defy the rules and stick to the old ways.
“I don’t agree with the changes,” said German linguist Friedrich Denk, an outspoken critic of the reforms. “It’s a black day for the German language. Our common orthography that has served us well for centuries is being destroyed.”
More than six years ago, a special committee revised spelling rules in an attempt to rid the language of many of its quirks and make it more logical.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland have been in transition since then, with both sets of spelling rules in use.
Under the new system, extremely long compound words have been broken up, comma rules have been simplified, and in many cases a double-S replaces the old letter sign for the sound, which resembles a capital B.
School children have adapted easily to the changes, partly because their textbooks have been re-printed in accordance with the new spelling rules.
Several leading newspapers have stubbornly refused to introduce the changes, though, and stuck to the old spellings leading up to the Aug. 1 deadline for making the shift. Some politicians and intellectuals have even called for the reforms to be stopped, arguing that the new rules only serve to confuse things.
The German states of Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia are resisting the changes as long as they can.
The states, which are home to one-third of Germany’s population, have opted to wait until the German Spelling Council has dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s on all the new rules before declaring the old ways incorrect.
<<Kirk, Well that's a relief! Poor old Miss Morgan, I'd hate to see a liar made out of her. Actually she was a witch.:)>>
Haha, well then maybe you can call her a liar and not feel too bad about it ;)
<<Thanks for explaining. Some of the X-SAMPA is actually beginning to make sense to me.>>
No problem :)
Adam,
Re: "How could Cromwell invade England? He was ENGLISH. He didn't come from outside of England because he was already in it?"
Sounds like a paradox doesn't it? However, it's been said that paradoxes usually exist only when there is something about them that we don't understand. Once we find out what it is, it's no longer a paradox.
I'm one of those people who believes that the formation of the modern American and British nations was already underway in the 17th century in England itself (Call us Toynbee-esque metahistorians if you will) . Those who believe that the American nation started in the thirteen colonies with Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, the Liberty Bell and the Declaration of Independence in 1776 are behind the times.
Oliver Cromwell embodied all of the characteristics of the first American settlers of Massachusetts who were his co-religionists and fellow Puritans. Cromwell was a republican not a monarchist. On the other hand, I would argue that being a monarchist is almost quintessential to being British, even today.
The first Puritans actually began arriving in Massachusetts in 1627 more than 20 years before Cromwell came to power in England - the British didn't have Australia at that time to deport enemies and troublemakers to so it was Massachusetts instead.
Much of modern American culture has been influenced by Protestant Puritanism and Calvinism. The South started out being Anglican but New England missionaries began spreading evangelical christianity there as early as the 1840's. The Union (Northern) victory in the American Civil War (1861-1865) was another important boost for the Protestant Puritan / Calvinist value system in America . The growing Catholic population in the U.S. conceivably could alter this sometime in the future but so far it has not . Instead, Catholic Americans (especially Irish, Italian, German & Polish ) seem to be becoming assimilated into the existing Anglo-Saxon Protestant fabric of America.
Is is not true that a fair proportion of the signatories to the American Declaration of Independence were Scotsmen?
Just thought I'd chuck that one in to the fray. :-)
|