The Brits & English speakers are linguistically disabled
Rise in liver deaths shows drinking is English disease
By Sam Lister, Health Correspondent
"EXCESSIVE drinking is killing people in Britain faster than anywhere else in Europe as the country’s alcohol consumption continues to soar, according to research"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1972500,00.html
Wow, so it's really true, The Brits are the drunks of Europe. Maybe that is why the Brits don't learn and can't learn languages, because they always drink and are drunk most of their spare time.
In vino veritas!
By Sam Lister, Health Correspondent
"EXCESSIVE drinking is killing people in Britain faster than anywhere else in Europe as the country’s alcohol consumption continues to soar, according to research"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1972500,00.html
Wow, so it's really true, The Brits are the drunks of Europe. Maybe that is why the Brits don't learn and can't learn languages, because they always drink and are drunk most of their spare time.
In vino veritas!
Wow. just like the Roman Empire disappeared in a haze of alcohol and debauchery!
"Wow. just like the Roman Empire disappeared in a haze of alcohol and debauchery! "
WOW! AND ENGLISH IS STILL 60% LATIN ! HA HA HA !
WOW! AND ENGLISH IS STILL 60% LATIN ! HA HA HA !
Steve : « Euro seems, too, to forget that it is the trend for languages to simplify grammatically as a matter of evolution. »
Ah bon ? Et pourquoi ?
Ah bon ? Et pourquoi ?
Why does Euro forget? or why is it that way?
I don't know, that just seems to be the general trend, does it not?
I haven't seen any languages of late introducing new cases.
I don't know, that just seems to be the general trend, does it not?
I haven't seen any languages of late introducing new cases.
<<I don't know, that just seems to be the general trend, does it not?
I haven't seen any languages of late introducing new cases.>>
I assure you that if you've come to the conclusion that languages don't sprout new cases anymore you've only been looking at a small set of languages (likely Indo-European ones at that).
<<Euro seems, too, to forget that it is the trend for languages to simplify grammatically as a matter of evolution.>>
As a linguistic universal, languages do not get "simpler." Now, certain aspects of languages may become simpler (such as tense or case markings) or disappear altogether but language is tricky in that at the same time those things are happening other aspects are getting more complicated. English lost most case markings but as it moved toward analysis (in the linguistic typological sense) it gained incredibly complex and rigid rules regarding syntax which had not been around to the same extent before. Classical Chinese and Vietnamese lost a lot of their final consonants but as a direct result gained complex tone distinctions which are arguably much more complicated than what they had before. Even creoles, which display some of the lowest degrees of irregular grammatical forms initially, eventually acquire grammatical irregularities (sometimes randomly, sometimes thru sound changes) as time goes on. In fact, it's likely that a good degree of modern languages today have creole origins but no one can tell by this point as too much time has passed and too much complex "needless linguistic gunk" (as linguist John McWhorter humorously calls it) has been acquired over time to be able to tell.
If languages truly were always moving towards simpler states we'd at least expect languages to get easier to learn over time but that's certainly not the case.
I haven't seen any languages of late introducing new cases.>>
I assure you that if you've come to the conclusion that languages don't sprout new cases anymore you've only been looking at a small set of languages (likely Indo-European ones at that).
<<Euro seems, too, to forget that it is the trend for languages to simplify grammatically as a matter of evolution.>>
As a linguistic universal, languages do not get "simpler." Now, certain aspects of languages may become simpler (such as tense or case markings) or disappear altogether but language is tricky in that at the same time those things are happening other aspects are getting more complicated. English lost most case markings but as it moved toward analysis (in the linguistic typological sense) it gained incredibly complex and rigid rules regarding syntax which had not been around to the same extent before. Classical Chinese and Vietnamese lost a lot of their final consonants but as a direct result gained complex tone distinctions which are arguably much more complicated than what they had before. Even creoles, which display some of the lowest degrees of irregular grammatical forms initially, eventually acquire grammatical irregularities (sometimes randomly, sometimes thru sound changes) as time goes on. In fact, it's likely that a good degree of modern languages today have creole origins but no one can tell by this point as too much time has passed and too much complex "needless linguistic gunk" (as linguist John McWhorter humorously calls it) has been acquired over time to be able to tell.
If languages truly were always moving towards simpler states we'd at least expect languages to get easier to learn over time but that's certainly not the case.
Anyway, just a few examples of languages which have acquired more cases over time and have more in their current state than they did before:
--Finnish
--Hungarian
--Russian. The genitives have split into two cases, genitive possessive and partitive from older one, as have prepositions which apparently can be locative or referative now.
--Lithuanian. Has gotten new cases from joining the older genitive with postpositions.
--Finnish
--Hungarian
--Russian. The genitives have split into two cases, genitive possessive and partitive from older one, as have prepositions which apparently can be locative or referative now.
--Lithuanian. Has gotten new cases from joining the older genitive with postpositions.
I realise that languages become more complex in certain ways. However, having had the pleasure of learning Norwegian and attempting to learn Icelandic, I can assure you that some languages most certainly do become simpler as time passes. Although that might be because the Norse grammar had some sort of parallel development with that of my own native language.
Perhaps the case of Latin and Italian is a better example?
Anyway, despite the fact that I may be completely wrong (which wouldn't surprise me as I make no claim to a wide knowledge of linguistics), you have basically just disproved Euro's point that English grammar is simpler than, say German, and thus the reason that "English speakers are linguistically disabled".
I believe the point of this thread was to try and prove that English speakers were intellectually incapable of learning one of the languages around them and one argument used was the difficulty of other grammars for English speakers. Since the majority of these are Indo-European. Perhaps my point holds to some degree?
Perhaps the case of Latin and Italian is a better example?
Anyway, despite the fact that I may be completely wrong (which wouldn't surprise me as I make no claim to a wide knowledge of linguistics), you have basically just disproved Euro's point that English grammar is simpler than, say German, and thus the reason that "English speakers are linguistically disabled".
I believe the point of this thread was to try and prove that English speakers were intellectually incapable of learning one of the languages around them and one argument used was the difficulty of other grammars for English speakers. Since the majority of these are Indo-European. Perhaps my point holds to some degree?
I meant, that the Norse language became simpler to learn, not just simpler.
Out of genuine interest:
Finnish is agglutinative is it not? Do those actually qualify as cases?
Also, is Russian a direct descendent of Old Church Slavonic? How many cases did OCS have?
Out of genuine interest:
Finnish is agglutinative is it not? Do those actually qualify as cases?
Also, is Russian a direct descendent of Old Church Slavonic? How many cases did OCS have?
to Kirk and Steve.
Can you explain to me, plz, what's the meaning of the word "case" in your two mentioned examples:
1. Kirk: "Russian. The genitives have split into two cases, genitive possessive and partitive from older one, as have prepositions which apparently can be locative or referative now."
2. Steve: "Also, is Russian a direct descendent of Old Church Slavonic? How many cases did OCS have?"
Probably I'll be able to answer your questions.
Can you explain to me, plz, what's the meaning of the word "case" in your two mentioned examples:
1. Kirk: "Russian. The genitives have split into two cases, genitive possessive and partitive from older one, as have prepositions which apparently can be locative or referative now."
2. Steve: "Also, is Russian a direct descendent of Old Church Slavonic? How many cases did OCS have?"
Probably I'll be able to answer your questions.
Guest of Russian origin, "case" means "подеж" (I'm not sure that's the correct spelling), as in "родительный подеж".