|
|
Wud English drop the third person singular S someday?
Wud English drop the third person singular S someday?
Don't you think the third person singular S in English is redundant and need to be thrown off? The third person singular S in English seem such a nuisance!
I was under the impression that it already has been dropped in some dialects in (northern?) England.
If it has not dropped in the mainstream English, don't you think there is a reason?
For humans to understand a language, figuring out its grammatical structure is very important. Perhaps Japanese/Korean style of language shows this point more clearly: they have suffixes to indicate the functions of a term. English is a positional language. And at some point in its history, things simplified a lot. Worse, noun can freely become verbs in English. (E.g.: "color" could be noun and verb. Even typical noun words like "sky" can become verbs in some dialects. See: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/solangeknowles/skyaway.html ) Nouns became heavily overloaded with verbs. Because English is a positional language, the order of words (plus the usage of prepositions, articles, etc.) usually offers clue as to the grammatical function of the words. For all other persons in English (except 3rd person singular), to use a verb usually requires an explicit subject, so figuring out which word is a verb usually is not a problem. The problem is with 3rd person singular. If you drop the -s, then very often you will be wondering the grammatical function of certain words, especially when you have a stream of nouns/verbs together without anything in between. Here is a random example I semi-made up: ... he's the kind of person that lecture teachers like Stott and Walker, the kind that the Headmaster take seriously. When you read this sentence, you will end up with a "huh?" Because you wouldn't expect that "lecture" here is a verb. So the little final -s here ("lectures") would help. Languages are not exact science. You could do some experiment with removing the verbal -s from whatever English writings you may find. And you will realize that, very often, when there is a stream of nouns and verbs together without anything in between, difficulty/confusion in deciphering the meaning would arise. Do the experiment yourself. And you will be convinced that, although the little -s is not always necessary, it does help when you have longer streams of words. Foreign speakers often find -s to be nuisance, but that's because they don't use longer streams of nouns/verbs that often. Here is another example: "... The first one look like any old stone." So, which one of "look" and "like" is the verb?
In some types of English, -s is extended to all forms of the present tense verb:
I makes you makes he makes we makes you makes they makes --this in effect cancels out/negates those varieties that drop it. So, no, I do not think it will eventually go away. Not now, after standardisation and printing.
Leasnam Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:54 pm GMT
In some types of English, -s is extended to all forms of the present tense verb: I makes you makes he makes we makes you makes they makes --this in effect cancels out/negates those varieties that drop it. So, no, I do not think it will eventually go away. Not now, after standardisation and printing. ============= Really? What types of English? Can you specify a bit?
Shuimo: "Really? What types of English? Can you specify a bit?"
Northern subject rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_subject_rule Still in use in today's Scots. Shuimo: if you cannot search for answers on your own, that's either a sign of weakness or of laziness. There is Google in front of your eyes and you should use it.
Little Tadpole Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:53 am GMT
Shuimo: "Really? What types of English? Can you specify a bit?" Northern subject rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_subject_rule Still in use in today's Scots. Shuimo: if you cannot search for answers on your own, that's either a sign of weakness or of laziness. There is Google in front of your eyes and you should use it. ================= It is a matter of personal preference actually! I always prefer personal answers with a stamp of humane touch rather than those search-engine-based, machine-produced faceless results! Moreover, not everything is suited to be gooled or baidued (the Chinese engine)!
BTW: wikipedia is the last option for me for information check!
You should know better than use wiki as yr source of information!
There's also the interesting construction that's not limited to unusual dialects:
"There is a house." "There's a house." "There are two cars in the lot." "There's two cars in the lot." (only in speech)
<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_subject_rule
Still in use in today's Scots. >> That's interesting, it's used here in Devon too! Think of verbs like 'to put', 'to hit' etc, where the past and present tenses are the same. At least we know that 'she puts the phone on the table' is present, but without the 's' it could be confused with the past.
<<That's interesting, it's used here in Devon too! >>
Many in the US use it too. It seems to be spreading despite outright efforts to quelch it. African American dialects do this a lot. So do many rural dialects where speakers are mostly white.
Let's get one thing straight: The title of this thread is bad English. The 'wud', even if spelt correctly as 'would', is incorrect in terms of the sentence, it is totally incorrect English. It should read 'will' or 'might'.
As for English losing the 's', well might English not add more inflections? 'We maken', 'you makest' etc or a whole host of new inflections. 'I read thes book', we likej youm'. Who knows?
You makest is unlikely, for that ending was for 'thou', which is hardly used any more. That would be like French people saying 'Vous fais', or Germans saying 'Sie machst'.
|