Popular Misinterpretations & Equivocations with Disproofs (part II)

Status
Not open for further replies.

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
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...
 

Rinoceronte

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
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.
 
Last edited:

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
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.
 
Last edited:

Rinoceronte

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
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.

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).

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.
 

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
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.)
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.
 

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
"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".
 

Rinoceronte

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
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?

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.

I've always found it too difficult for my little brain.
It's not little.
 

Rinoceronte

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
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.
 

Tullia

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
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?
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
If someone started to use the tense for the purposes it was not designed for, how does it make the whole system adapt to it?
I don't believe tenses were intelligently designed; I believe they evolved.
This difference in perspective might be the basis of the friction that you are finding with some other people.
Evolution allows a system to retain its integrity even when a structure takes on, or loses, functions that it had previously provided. This also leads to vestigial and redundant forms. But we manage to cope - the system does adapt.

But I can see your point. Syntactical purity is mandatory with computer languages but, unlike people, compilers can enforce the correct grammar usage, and evolution of the language is restricted by Error messages and programs crashing.
In artifical human languages, say Esperanto, there might be a case for periodically cleaning up the language to keep it pure. I'm not familiar with any community that uses an artifical human language, but I imagine that, human beings being what they are, there would always be a tendency to use the language 'creatively' in a way that would discomfort the creator and the more prescriptive of users.
 

Rinoceronte

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
I don't believe tenses were intelligently designed; I believe they evolved.
When it comes to English, they were even not designed, but simply borrowed from Latin. If something becomes a mess, you can't call it a result of evolution.
 

Rinoceronte

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
If I said I felt Ukranian needed changing to be more like English, would you be happy about that?
If you explained me what exactly you meant and convinced me it needed it indeed, yes, I would.

Besides, you are teaching my country things much more serious than language. You are teaching us democracy. In fact, I see you acting quite totalitarianly in the most democratic of the environments - the Forum.

Let's discuss issues that are indeed grammar-relevant. You said you understood the aspects. Tell me about them. Prove that Wikipedia was wrong. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
When it comes to English, they were even not designed, but simply borrowed from Latin. If something becomes a mess, you can't call it a result of evolution.

Rinoceronte, English tenses were NOT borrowed from Latin. Writers on English grammar borrowed the names of some grammatical terms from writers on Greek and Latinn grammar and tried to apply them to English constructions.

This has caused, and still causes, problems for those who study the grammar of the language, though not necessarily to those trying to learn to communicate in it. It is virtually impossible to describe the grammar of one language completely accurately in terms devised for another language. To talk about English tenses in Latin terms is almost as silly as - well, talking about English tenses in terms of Slavonic perfective and imperfective aspects.
 

Rinoceronte

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Rinoceronte, English tenses were NOT borrowed from Latin.
This statement of yours is not true. This is not a coincidence:
Latin: habeo factum
English: (I) have done
In both cases the auxuliary verb "to have" in present tense is combined with the passive participle of the lexical verb. The usage of this tense coincides in most cases too. This is not a coincidence.

It was not only you, who borrowed this tense. The Roman languages did that as well. But they understood it correctly and preserved its essence. You misunderstood it, misnamed it, mangled its essence, and now claim it's your own invention.

It is virtually impossible to describe the grammar of one language completely accurately in terms devised for another language. To talk about English tenses in Latin terms is almost as silly as - well, talking about English tenses in terms of Slavonic perfective and imperfective aspects.

There are no terms for separate languages. There are global grammar terms, common for most languages. Since most languages have such words as "one" and "many", most languages have the category of number. Since most languages have such words as "man" and "woman", most languages have the category of gender. Since most languages have such words as "yesterday", "today", "tomorrow", most languages have the category of time. Since most languages have such words as "above" and "under", or "strong" and "weak", most languages have the category of voice. Since most languages have such words as "process" and "result", most languages have the category of aspect.

It's not silly at all to talk about English tenses in terms of Slavonic perfect(ive) and imperfect(ive) aspects. It's the least silly thing on earth. Actually, attributing the aspects exclusively to Slavonic grammars, - that is what seems to be silly. Roman languages are based on aspects almost as solidly as Slavonic ones. So are Turkish, Arab, Georgian, Armenian, Hebrew, Indian languages. Indian and Georgian are the most remarkable cases, Ancient Indian being a proto-language for the whole Indoeuropean family, and Georgian being a pre-Indoeuropean language. Algonquin Indians also have the aspect system in their grammar. So, it's not about Slavs. It's about the rest of the world.

You keep ignoring two questions of mine.
 

birdeen's call

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
As far as I know, the origins of Germanic perfect tenses are not well understood. But I believe their use there became widespread later than in Latin and Romance languages. If anybody knows of any valuable source of information on this, I shall be very happy to learn.

I don't think it's a bad idea to call similar things in different languages by one name. That's generally what we, humans, do - create categories and name them.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I don't think it's a bad idea to call similar things in different languages by one name. That's generally what we, humans, do - create categories and name them.

I agree with you on this, BC.
I have now highlighted the key words in my original sentence: " It is virtually impossible to describe the grammar of one language completely accurately in terms devised for another language". So long as we know that we are talking about similar, not identical things when we use one name for similar categories in different languages, there is no problem.

In response to your question about the perfect in Germanic languages,I cannot come up with a valuable source, but at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varoon_Arya/Proto-Germanic I found this: Proto-Germanic had only two tenses (preterite and present), compared to the six or seven in Greek, Latin and Sanskrit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit Some of this difference is due to deflexionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflexion_(linguistics), featured by a loss of tenses present in Proto-Indo-European, for example the perfect tense.

My (not-to-be-relied-on) memory tells me that the perfect reappeared in English some time during the Middle English period (C. 1066-1500)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top