Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinoceronte 
Reliable data? My Slavic languages have such a strict grammar system that even for the least literal person it's very difficult to compose a phrase wrongly or ambiguously, no matter what tense, mood or voice it is. I suspect Polish boasts as a developed structure. But if you can convince me to the contrary, be my guest.
I don't understand what you mean by a developed structure. But I'm sure there are ambiguous sentences in Polish. I'm not going to give any examples because it would require too much effort. I hope you believe I did encounter them. If not, I can take it too.
I believe our languages are less likely to have ambiguities because of the infexion, which is barely present in English. I did have problems internalizing some English structures. They did seem illogical to me. But the only thing I could do was get over it. What is your actual goal? Do you want them to give up their ways and take up yours? This is not going to happen...
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
birdeen's call What is your actual goal? Do you want them to give up their ways and take up yours? This is not going to happen...
What is not going to happen? Acknowledging that Present Perfect is not present? That Perfect Progressive is not perfect? That Continuous tenses are not continuous? That stative verbs can and should be used in continuous tenses? That Past Participle is not past? Five definitions and rules that contradict to sound reasoning and make the language impossible to exist as a system. Why are you so sure it's not going to happen?
By the way, that's the difference between our languages and theirs. Ours do exist as systems, theirs doesn't.
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinoceronte Why are you so sure it's not going to happen?
Just take a look at the English ortography. Everybody knows it's bad and illogical. It is acknowledged. But no serious efforts have been put into really changing it. No one can do it, it's too difficult.
The things you're talking about are much less problematic to the native speakers, which is problably because they don't have to learn them consciously. Also, they're not that important to the non-natives. Why? Because most learners don't care very much about tenses' names, nor do they care about their nature. And by non-natives, I mean the Slavic ones. I have no idea about the way it goes for others. Maybe for some of them somewhere it's all as natural as nouns and verbs are for us.
What would you like to change, the language itself or the names given to its structures?
PS: I'd also like to know what your definition of a system is. If English is not a system, it is not a language either according to some of the greatest thinkers.
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
birdeen's call Just take a look at the English ortography. Everybody knows it's bad and illogical. It is acknowledged.
I have no idea about the way it goes for others. Maybe for some of them somewhere it's all as natural as nouns and verbs are for us.
What would you like to change, the language itself or the names given to its structures?
Orthography is an annoying thing, but that's not a system error.
Quote:
Also, they're not as important to the non-natives. Why? Because most learners don't care very much about tenses' names, nor do they care about their nature. And by non-natives, I mean the Slavic ones.
Don't you care about that indeed? Haven't you ever asked youself, why "I did" is translated both as "ja robyw" and "ja zrobyw"? (correct me, if I didn't phrase it well in Polish, but I bet, you understand what I'm talking about).
Quote:
What would you like to change, the language itself or the names given to its structures?
For now the names. It will entail the language changes itself. It's not just changing the names, it's bringing the grammar into order.
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinoceronte Don't you care about that indeed? Haven't you ever asked youself, why "I did" is translated both as "ja robyw" and "ja zrobyw"? (correct me, if I didn't phrase it well in Polish, but I bet, you understand what I'm talking about).
I did. Some people do. But most don't... I'm not talking now about what should be. (And I'm not going to. I've always found it too difficult for my little brain.)
Quote:
For now the names. It will entail the language changes itself. It's not just changing the names, it's bringing the grammar into order.
I'm almost sure it's not going to happen. That's all I can say.
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinoceronte "I did" is translated both as "ja robyw" and "ja zrobyw"? (correct me, if I didn't phrase it well in Polish, but I bet, you understand what I'm talking about).
Since you ask, it's "(ja) robię" and "(ja) zrobiłem/zrobiłam".
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
birdeen's call Since you ask, it's "(ja) robię" and "(ja) zrobiłem/zrobiłam".
Sorry for giving you Ukrainian forms :)
I thought it might be "robłem" and "zrobłem". So, "(ja) robię" is imperfect, and "(ja) zrobiłem/zrobiłam" is perfect, right?
Quote:
I'm almost sure it's not going to happen. That's all I can say.
Who knows. Virtually all the things in this world were done. Quite few of them happened by themselves.
Quote:
I've always found it too difficult for my little brain.
It's not little.
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinoceronte Sorry for giving you Ukrainian forms :)
I thought it might be "robłem" and "zrobłem". So, "(ja) robię" is imperfect, and "(ja) zrobiłem/zrobiłam" is perfect, right?
Right. :-)
Thank you.
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
PS: I'd also like to know what your definition of a system is. If English is not a system, it is not a language either according to some of the greatest thinkers.
I don't mean the whole language. I'm talking only about grammar. The language in fact is cool. If we leave aside the orthography, it's very rational. In word forming, for example. It's much better here than Russian.
By a grammar system I understand a set of notions which are common throughout the world. Clear definitions that do not contradict to themselves. Clear understanding that any verb system is based on time-vs.-aspect correlation. But the point is that if there are system errors, the system stops existing, no matter if you have a definition for it or not.
Re: Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rinoceronte For now the names. It will entail the language changes itself. It's not just changing the names, it's bringing the grammar into order.
I find that rather offensive.
I don't see why English needs "bringing into order". I would say in fact that I value the richness and diversity of my language. If you think English is so deficient, why did you bother learning it? If I said I felt Ukranian needed changing to be more like English, would you be happy about that?
