Is syntax important? [Archive] - World Literature Forum

Eric

11-Sep-2009, 11:54

The ways in which you build up a phrase, sentence, or paragraph are supposed to help, not hinder, the reader. Sometimes you wonder, especially in newspapers which are written in indecent haste for the next day, whether the rule is always being followed.

Take these sentences from yesterday's main headline article in the Daily Telegraph:

Labour has refused to set out details of its spending plans beyond 2011. Neither have the Tories, but Mr Lansley?s words signalled that any annual rise in health spending would be well below four per cent.

I am focussing on the words "refused" and "Neither".

Surely, the logic of the word "refused" (a negative idea, but not syntactically) would require the next sentence to start with "So have the Tories...".

Clarissa

11-Sep-2009, 12:20

You are quite right, Eric.

This is gibberish. The 'neither' and the 'refused most certainly do not belong together in his context.

People go on about the misplaced apostrophe and it is true that it crops up evrywhere now - even in foreigners' use of English. Lynn Truss tried to stop the wave of agrammatical writing and nonsense but it seems to be taking over on signs worldwide. Is it the texting, the new slang, advertising? I find it singularly irritating.

Not many people write focussing with double s these days.:)

Eric

11-Sep-2009, 16:38

One doesn't expect this kind of thing from the Torygraph. One imagined that their journos were all terribly-terribly silver-spoon types. And that someone called James Kirkup was probably the son of another Kirkup, now deceased, with Danish roots and a translator. But it was him what did it.

I always write "focussing". Otherwise you could read it as a Brit like "fow-KYOOZ-ing" in the same way as the Americans have a word "tra-VEEL-ing", meaning journeying, going on a trip. A contrary argument is that "focussing" could read to rhyme with "concussing". Take one's pick, is what I say.

The Telegraph or Times has an amusing section with wrongly written signs (or should that be signs', sign's, sines or scynes...?).

Anne

11-Sep-2009, 17:10

I find bad syntax, spelling and basic bad literacy absolutely unforgivable to be honest. I will admit I can make typos and spelling mistakes like the best of them. And, my grammer is not always perfect especially when I am typing quickly on forums for example. However, when I am writing professionally I make darn sure I get it right. And let's be fair there is no excuse. Even if you do find some elements of our written language difficult (in which case writers for the media etc should find another job) the computor does most of it for you these days anyway. I have to be honest, to me it reaks of laziness !! I read the BBC news online today and lost count of how many times I had to read certain parts because bad syntax and other errors made the reading so difficult. I actually went back on it before replying to this post just to make sure it hadn't been me that was the problem. (It's a Friday and that's my "does not compute" day). But no, it wasn't me.

Bad syntax can make the simplest sentence impossible to understand and in books and articles can make the reading hard work.

Eric

11-Sep-2009, 21:38

Anne says:

I find bad syntax, spelling and basic bad literacy absolutely unforgivable to be honest. I will admit I can make typos and spelling mistakes like the best of them. And, my grammer is not always perfect especially when I am typing quickly on forums for example. However, when I am writing professionally I make darn sure I get it right.

i agree dont i cos theres nothing worse than illetterates maskerading as being dillsexic.

One of most over mendaciously exaggerated forms of self-inflicted inequality is the claim that millions are dyslexic. There are a few thousand genuine and serious cases, people suffering from this very real psychological handicap, but many more are simply cashing in on the fancy term to cover up the fact that they larked around at school and are now unemployed and disgruntled.

As Anne points out, we all make typos and other mistakes, and nit-pickers can pounce on them and carp. But if you've never wanted to learn how to spell and construct a sentence, then hard luck if you are rejected for dozens of jobs and become a couch SMS-er. And ignoring capital letters and spelling, out of sheer trendiness, is a sure recipe for failure in any career involving any writing at all.

As I'm brushing up my Latin right now, after 40 years of neglect, I am learning once again to analyse the words in front of me and to make sure I understand what every single one is doing in the sentence. With Latin, this can be very tricky, as all sorts of words can end in the very same letter. So unless you have studied the declensions and conjugations in detail, you will make a hash of it - as I did at school. I'm trying to give myself another chance now, having learnt a few other, quite tricky, languages.

But English is our mother-tongue. With English, I think that the study of basic grammar has been abandoned at school level for the most, while clever linguists at university level invent all manner of incomprehensible terms for parts of the sentence, terms which only other clever linguists can understand. Those terms don't help the average person who simply wants to write an article in proper English, not even a thesis or novel.

The English language should be a tool, not a fetish. But tools have to be treated with respect.

Mirabell

12-Sep-2009, 00:41

Eric

12-Sep-2009, 09:28

Mirror Belle, I said in my previous posting:

As Anne points out, we all make typos and other mistakes, and nit-pickers can pounce on them and carp.

Mirror, you will have to learn to foster that element of maturity called gentlemanly behaviour. I too noticed that Anne had misspelt "reeks" but assumed that this was a typo. Mirror, on the other hand has done exactly what I warned about: pounced on her mistake with a huge "ha, ha, ha".

Mirror, a little magnanimity is also part of maturity. Tolerance, explanation (as opposed to one-line put-downs), and revealing a little more about oneself, are also signs of maturity. I'm still fascinated by how your German and Russian selves fit together, and how come you know a lot of English, but you are exceedingly tight-lipped on that one.

Mirabell

12-Sep-2009, 11:38

Mirror Belle, I said in my previous posting:

Mirror, you will have to learn to foster that element of maturity called gentlemanly behaviour. I too noticed that Anne had misspelt "reeks" but assumed that this was a typo. Mirror, on the other hand has done exactly what I warned about: pounced on her mistake with a huge "ha, ha, ha".

Mirror, a little magnanimity is also part of maturity. Tolerance, explanation (as opposed to one-line put-downs), and revealing a little more about oneself, are also signs of maturity. I'm still fascinated by how your German and Russian selves fit together, and how come you know a lot of English, but you are exceedingly tight-lipped on that one.

I know a lot of English because I learned it at school and like to read books. what other reason should there be, pray tell.

My russian isn't in conflict with my German (it does interfere with my French bigtime, tho), I read, speak and write German far better.

magnanimity? please. each should be judged according to his or her rules, and she finds bad spelling "absolutely unforgiveable". I don't give a dickens (muahaha), but if you go and attack people on the basis of arbitrary rules, you should have your own house in order. don't you agree?

Clarissa

12-Sep-2009, 12:30

You say the excuse of dyslexia is frequently used to explain gross spelling mistakes. Even so-called educated people do not seem to be able to write decent English anymore. I once corrected a Master's Degree paper for a French PPE student whose girlfriend, a London University English student, had already been through it.
I was stunned by the spelling mistakes she had overlooked. However, when questioned, she had seen them; she just did not know that actualy is spelt actually. One small example of what the rest was like. And this was an English student at a good university, not some second rate polytechnic. How she passed her GCSEs or how she managed to get a place at London University is beyond me. Anecdotal, I know, but indicative all the same.

The newspapers, be it the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail or even The Thunderer, are no longer examples of good writing and spelling. Now that Keith Waterhouse is no more - now there was an example of good writing - the Daily Mail has lost any interest it may have had. It has reverted to the rag it always was. And the others are no better...BBC Online is getting worse. What must educated 'Johnny foreigner' think?:o

beelzebubbles

12-Sep-2009, 15:51

Important is syntax, hmmm?
--Yoda

Here in the good, old USA, grammar is not taught in the public schools. It has nothing to do with fake dyslexic students. It wasn't taught to my generation and I am forty-seven and I doubt it is being taught know. What small grasp I have of proper form comes from my past prodigious reading appetite and dipping into grammar books as an adult.

By the by, dyslexia is a neurological problem not a psychological one. I myself have a very slight case of dyscalculia or dissymbolia. It was not something that was noticeable but it kept me behind in maths as simple arithmetic is a bit of a problem for me due to numbers transposing themselves and turning into letters occasionally. The cheeky little devils. Yet when I left high school and entered college, I found that understanding mathematical concepts was not outside my grasp.

Eric

13-Sep-2009, 12:12

I'll take your definition of dyslexia as the right one; I only heard of discalculia about a week ago when I read about it in the paper. Will this become another cult disease?

Reading (books where the author is literate) is definitely a very good way of getting a subconscious feel for the way sentences work. But a little formal analysis can do no harm. This lifts your ideas up into the realm of consciousness. Grammar books are there to be consulted. But you have to understand the explanations given there. And I still claim that learning a foreign language can stimulate one's interest in the logical, analytical side of languages. I too had little formal teaching of English grammar at school. But I learnt a thing or two by learning other people's languages instead.

beelzebubbles

13-Sep-2009, 13:29

I'll take your definition of dyslexia as the right one; I only heard of discalculia about a week ago when I read about it in the paper. Will this become another cult disease?

I know of very few people who have been diagnosed with dyslexia. As I said it is neurological and as with many neurological deficiencies one's brain can relearn how to perceive symbols on paper just as a stroke victim can often relearn to walk and speak by creating new neural pathways through use. The way the brain perceives is not necessarily automatic; sometimes it must be learned.

And I still claim that learning a foreign language can stimulate one's interest in the logical, analytical side of languages. I too had little formal teaching of English grammar at school. But I learnt a thing or two by learning other people's languages instead.

I believe that the elimination of classical Latin and Greek in a college bound students education certainly diminished people's understanding of both English grammar and spelling.

Anne

13-Sep-2009, 13:33

As I said in my post I make typos and spelling mistakes like the rest of them. I also said however that when I am working professionally I make sure everything is correct. And it is people writing professionaly that we are talking about. Lets be honest, if everyone pointed out everyone elses spelling mistakes and typos on a forum there would be very little room left for actual discussion. I do not claim to be perfect, nor do most writers...that is why we have proof readers. The problem is some professionals are so full of themselves they do not even bother to have people check their work.

I actually find work done by people who are dyslexic is usually better grammatically because they actually take the time to check what they do. One of the best ways to reach perfection is first of all to admit you are not perfect. Those who know they have difficulties aren't too pig headed to check their work...those who don't have 'difficulties' generally believe they don't need to check.

Have checked for spelling mistakes and typos, but might have missed a few. I have proof readers who check the web-site I build but not sure they'd appreciate being asked to check my posts on a forum :D

Eric

13-Sep-2009, 15:00

Beelzebubbles says:

I believe that the elimination of classical Latin and Greek in a college bound students education certainly diminished people's understanding of both English grammar and spelling.

I quite agree. As I've mentioned on several threads, I've again started tackling the complications of Latin grammar after a lapse of forty years. And this has tended to give me valuable insights into chopping up a sentence into a hierarchy of analysable bits.

And when you see that, for instance, the Latin adverb is often replaced by a noun in the ablative case, you will realise that you can do things differently in some languages. We use an adjective with -ly stuck on, for the most. This insight into how other languages tackle things does, in turn, help you look out for similar things when you learn the next language. Sadly, the first foreign language is often lacking amongst native-speakers of English, so the next one never comes.

Anne, as I'm a translator, I'm often faced with checking what I have written - and all my translations are wholly into English. So although I need to know foreign languages to read the things I'm translating, it's my English that counts professionally.

The problem with the level of accuracy on this forum is a real one. Some people take pride in writing things correctly, unless under great stress. Others appear to make a point of deliberately flouting the rules as a kind of provocation. As with dyslexics, most non-native-speakers of English are more careful here on the WLF. But not all.

I agree that if we nit-picked too much, no one would ever dare say anything interesting about books. But people shouldn't aim to be inaccurate just to protest at the linguistic stranglehold of the bourgeoisie, the illogicality of shared spelling conventions, and so on.

saliotthomas

13-Sep-2009, 16:15

Some of us love books,literature and feel like talking freely about it.
What they read,their discoveries,exchanging views,clumsily or not,with good or not so good english.
Other love taking the bloody teacher stance,read about two or three book a year and are scarring away others who would like to participate but must be discouraged by now.
And showering the forum using the wiki machine gun to dig up author their never read and never will,diluting real reading experiences of others in a mass tasteless information.
So thank you very much for being the watchdog of syntax,spelling, grammar and younameit but i would rather read the heart felt appreciation of a dear book from a lad of say,Azerbaijan in bad english than those never ending rant spear all over the place.(no coma no nothin')

That is of course my opinion,and i would like the place,at least in the "Off topic" section,to be a bit more relax,warm and friendly.A bit more of what your different worlds are made of,more music,films,food,daily life.
Instead of the paramilitary/schoolish atmosphere creeping up on us.

phoenix press

13-Sep-2009, 21:31

What Saliotthomas has said here encapsulates a philosophy that has dominated our school system here in Australia for decades. It has problems that we now know as the dumbing-down process. What he says is obvious - that tolerance and diversity are vital things for humans. But they aren't at the opposite end of a spectrum where we have to choose one or the other - the other here being 'the paramilitary/schoolish atmosphere creeping in.' There are no opposites, according to our wise men, other than the ones we manufacture in our deluded minds. So let's not have any of the 'them and us' creeping in, please.

I learned Latin from a De La Salle brother who was barely a page in front of us in the book, and it was the most dreadful experience of my life. Then I ended up in France, obliged to learn the language if I was to eat and survive. I went to night school with a bunch of people from every nation on Earth. After twelve months, I was fluent enough to enrol at a university. But what struck me most was that for the first time in my life, I appreciated what a beautiful language English was - and French, and all languages. Syntax is a crucial element of that beauty.

Nature has set the rules for us in questions like this. We either do things properly and flourish, or we just tinker and gradually fall off the twig. Blaming those who care and put in the hard yards is a game that leads nowhere. In my experience as a teacher and a design professional, any student who is scared away from the substance of what he has voluntarily undertaken is admitting that he only wants to tinker and hold others back to relieve the discomfort he feels about being in the wrong place.

I think they should let the serious ones get on without the levelling pressure. They're on a mission Nature considers sacred enough to inscribe as Holy Writ. Our school system here was wrecked by the 'anything goes' approach, and will take a long time to correct the damage. As a university lecturer, I had to correct assignments twice - once because I couldn't read the dumbed-down language used, and a second time for the reason I was actually paid. I don't like reading the heart-felt opinions or work of lazy people. They've had their way for too long. The party's over.

Let them ask themselves if they want their approach to be the one aircraft maintenance technicians use, or whether the paramilitary rule of only driving on only one side of the road should be relaxed for the poor dears who don't feel up to concentration and a bit of effort. This is all about caring. The non-carers have had their fifteen minutes.

saliotthomas

13-Sep-2009, 22:18

Off you go,welcome to the club Phoenix.I really like your avat.Like a little sunshine it is.
Good night lads,i'll put my teeth in the glass and to bed i go.

phoenix press

13-Sep-2009, 22:31

Well argued, Sal. You certainly put my argument out of the ball park.

Eric

13-Sep-2009, 22:35

There is a little libertarian in all of us. And there is an obvious danger in starting telling people how to write on this voluntary forum, where writing your impressions about specific books is a hobby, pastime or sport.

But even sports have rules. I note today that one international tennis star said she'd kill the umpire. That isn't really following the rules. If you played football, cricket, baseball, any way you chose, the sports would soon descend into anarchy. Not the romantic anarchy of Anarchists, but bickering, hair-tearing, and fisticuffs. Grammar and spelling are democratic tools, available to all, to keep forums like this one equal.

I find that common grammar and reasonable spelling help you get your point across in an egalitarian way. You don't have to be perfect. This is indeed a voluntary forum, for the discussion books, not a k.u.k. military academy. And it is courteous and sensible to avoid what has been called nit-picking. But I do get the feeling that some people think it liberates you not to use capital letters, spacing, and spelling where required by convention, something you can learn very quickly. English, German, French, etc., differ considerably in this respect. Learn the local rules!

Some people puzzle me. They can write several perfectly grammatical sentences, then appear to suddenly "remember" that they were trying to write in a strange manner, and shower the next sentence or two with mistakes. These almost seem deliberate!

And I do think that claiming any attempt at correction is paramilitary is an unusual way of thinking. I don't think that saying you should write in an intelligible manner is a move in the direction of fascism.

So I agree with Phoenix Press (whoever he or she is) on this one. You can't become an aircraft engineer by choosing which bits of physics to accept, and smoking joints as you're doing exact calculations.

The party's over, quite true, for those who want all the benefits of our Western civilisation, but don't want to actually lift a finger to understand the rules that give us the good life.

Clarissa

15-Sep-2009, 09:12

This certainly belongs here!:)

George W Bush's mangled syntax begins its echo down the generations - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/6163503/George-W-Bushs-mangled-syntax-begins-its-echo-down-the-generations.html)

Mirabell

15-Sep-2009, 09:58

Let them ask themselves if they want their approach to be the one aircraft maintenance technicians use, or whether the paramilitary rule of only driving on only one side of the road should be relaxed for the poor dears who don't feel up to concentration and a bit of effort. This is all about caring. The non-carers have had their fifteen minutes.

Rrrright. Two examples, both about professions or situations where lives are at stake. Because both aircraft and driving (mostly) depend on rules being followed to properly work at all. Language is about communication and you'll find people like Saliotthomas or me, despite making occasional mistakes, can make ourselves perfectly understood. Language just doesn't work that way, I'm sorry. But I AM glad you clarified the opinion that quite a few here harbor, I think: those who don't use language the way we do, GET OUT of the debate. Yeah. Well. In that light, Saliotthomas' reply was excellent and, as usual, commendable.

Mirabell

15-Sep-2009, 09:59

And I do think that claiming any attempt at correction is paramilitary is an unusual way of thinking. I don't think that saying you should write in an intelligible manner is a move in the direction of fascism.

YouTube - Downfall of Grammar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fbrUjjivw)

Clarissa

15-Sep-2009, 10:10

Originally Posted by Eric http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/general-chat/20358-syntax-important-post36224.html#post36224)
And I do think that claiming any attempt at correction is paramilitary is an unusual way of thinking. I don't think that saying you should write in an intelligible manner is a move in the direction of fascism.
'Writing in an intelligible manner' is surely a form of courtesy.

That said, Fascism - Nazism used a form of doublespeak infinitely more dangerous than clearly stated intentions. If Final Solution had been called 'extermination of the Jews', would the German people have followed quite so blindly? I think not. Final solution is bland and could be used to describe many activities - extermination of the Jews says exactly what it means. Not quite a question of syntax but the use of vocabulary - rather the misuse of vocabulary - to lull the crowds into a form of sleepwalking.

The intentions were clear in Mein Kampf but I doubt if as many people in Germany ever read it as have read Harry Potter.

Mirabell

15-Sep-2009, 10:15

'Writing in an intelligible manner' is surely a form of courtesy.

That said, Fascism - Nazism used a form of doublespeak infinitely more dangerous than clearly stated intentions. If Final Solution had been called 'extermination of the Jews', would the German people have followed quite so blindly? I think not. Final solution is bland and could be used to describe many activities - extermination of the Jews says exactly what it means. Not quite a question of syntax but the use of vocabulary - rather the misuse of vocabulary - to lull the crowds into a form of sleepwalking.

The intentions were clear in Mein Kampf but I doubt if as many people in Germany ever read it as have read Harry Potter.

germans did not follow blindly. nor were they lulled. they knew what was happening and, on a basic level, approved of it. the final solution was the solution to die j?dische frage / Judenfrage, and everyone knew that. it's shorthand. and the final solution wasn't even always meant to be the extermination. i recently read an excellent study that showed how long shipping them off to madagascar was actually on the table. it really only meant "the final solution to the question of what to do with the Jews". and yes, everyone in Germany knew that the short phrase was, uh, short for the longer phrase. facts.

Clarissa

15-Sep-2009, 10:38

everyone in Germany knew that the short phrase was, uh, short for the longer phrase. facts.

I prefer to think that not the whole nation knew exactly what was going on, not in Germany, not in Austria. The perpetrators, he people living in the immediate vicinity perhaps, but not everyone... That would mean that human nature is even worse than I suspect. And that is bad enough!

Mirabell

15-Sep-2009, 10:41

I prefer to think that not the whole nation knew exactly what was going on, not in Germany, not in Austria. The perpetrators, he people living in the immediate vicinity perhaps, but not everyone... That would mean that human nature is even worse than I suspect. And that is bad enough!

lots. there are clips of Karneval jokes/satire done about this, which suggests it was common knowledge.

Eric

16-Sep-2009, 16:43

Germans this, and Germans that. What ordinary Germans knew about the systematic extermination of Jews is not a black-and-white matter. Similarly, we don't assume that all Russians knew the horrific details of the Russian slave labour camps, which are so ably described in Anne Applebaum's "Gulag" book. In totalitarian r?gimes decent people want to keep their noses clean, their heads down. Otherwise they could get arrested and sent to a concentration camp or be shot.

So even those Germans, Balts, Russians, etc., that knew about mass murder were also ordinary people living everyday lives. It's easy, with hindsight, to start lecturing and blaming the Germans en masse, but we're not all heroic and self-sacrificial. Some people are cowards. Some people have families to bring up. Some people may do things covertly (e.g. Stauffenberg) while playing the game on the surface.

If Muslims, Jews or American soldiers started disappearing under mysterious circumstances in Bonn, would you, Mirabell, go on demonstrations, write to the newspapers, or just keep quiet? That's the sort of question you should be asking yourself every time you blame anyone from the German nation for being complicit or collaborating during WWII. Armchair criticism is different than if you know the Gestapo or KGB could be knocking at your door.

A little more genuine debate would be welcome on these threads. If people could treat us on the WLF as peers, equals, intelligent debating partners, not as people who only deserve one-liners, swearwords, in-jokes and sour quips, I, at least would be happier.

Whatever has all of this got to do with syntax, by the way? A tax on the sin of straying off-topic?

Clarissa

16-Sep-2009, 19:03

Sorry Eric, my fault. I thought the German language had undergone a seachange with so many euphemisms making it difficult fir the people to know what was really happening. According to Mirabell, apparently they did all know. I am still not convinced but I did start out with an opinion on vocabulary...

ferns_dad

16-Sep-2009, 20:41

Eric

16-Sep-2009, 21:55

As far as I know, Clarissa, the German language was certainly damaged by first having Nazi jargon in the whole of Germany and Austria (1933-1945), then, in the GDR, another bout of jargon, this time Communist (1949-1991).

So, especially those Germans who have lived all their lives in what used to be East Germany, will encounter all the time words that have ugly associations.

We have one such word in the English language: fatherland. In many European languages (e.g. Swedish, Estonian, Dutch), the word is quite ordinary and innocuous. But in English it is poisoned by the translation we made of "Vaterland" during World War II. That's just one word. Imagine if there are dozens such words in your language, with associations you don't want to invoke. I imagine that many military terms in present-day German studiously avoid looking like ones the Nazis used.

And about the word Gauleiter, the Wikipedia says:

The German word Leiter means leader, whilst Gau was an old word for a region of the Reich, once ruled by a Frankish Gaugraf; it translates most closely to the English shire. Gau was one of the many archaic words from medieval German history that the Nazis revived for their own purposes.

There may even be sentence structure or syntax that has been damaged by Nazi associations. Maybe Mirabell, who has connections to Russia and the GDR, from things he has said, could expand on this topic a bit. Whether on this thread or another is good question.

Mirabell

16-Sep-2009, 23:11

Germans this, and Germans that. What ordinary Germans knew about the systematic extermination of Jews is not a black-and-white matter. Similarly, we don't assume that all Russians knew the horrific details of the Russian slave labour camps,

Armchair criticism is different than if you know the Gestapo or KGB could be knocking at your door.

is the need to follow a mention of Nazis with mentioning 'communists' compulsive with you? interesting, anyway. I bet discussing with you could make for a great drinking game. (he mentioned communists, quick, down another vodka!). this of course leads to ludicrous examples like following up a correct remark of the damage done to the German language by the Nazis with a remark on the GDR, where nothing even remotely comparable has taken place.

and we're not talking mysterious circumstances either. but let's no go there.

@fernsdad: you live and you learn, eh?

Eric

17-Sep-2009, 11:57

Mirabell asks:

Is the need to follow a mention of Nazis with mentioning 'communists' compulsive with you?

Yes always, Mirabell, always. The Russians under Stalin and afterwards murdered as many as did the Germans under Hitler. But Russian propagandists to this day try to twist the truth. So Stalin, the man who wiped out most of his own useful generals and political allies during horrific show trials during the 1930s, signed a pact with Hitler (!), and had millions sent to labour camps after WWII is, for some sick reason, turned into a national hero by some Russians today. A mass-murderer is a mass-murderer, whether Austrian or Georgian by origin.

Another quote from Mirabell:

This of course leads to ludicrous examples like following up a correct remark of the damage done to the German language by the Nazis with a remark on the GDR, where nothing even remotely comparable has taken place.

Note the word "ludicrous".

In German, there is an excellent and detailed list of GDR-isms:

DDR-Sprachgebrauch ? Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR-Sprachgebrauch)

Here's a quote from the introduction to that Wikipedia article:

In der DDR neu gebildete W?rter, so genannte Neologismen, die sich vom ?brigen deutschen Sprachraum unterschieden und dort keine Anwendung finden, zum Teil auch aus dem Russischen stammten bzw. ?bersetzungen aus dem Russischen sind, werden auch aufgef?hrt.

There follows a long list of words, official expressions, slogans and other expressions which no one would use in West Germany. Even for a non-native-speaker of German like myself, the thrust of this article is patently obvious. It cannot be denied that there was a widespread use of different vocabulary (and maybe syntax) in the two Germanies.

Words involving socialism, the working class, political parties, and peace and brotherhood, will have been poisoned by endless insincere repetition in the GDR, so that these words will still have negative connotations for former GDR citizens. And to end on a note of syntax, this is what Comrade Honecker, boss of the GDR once said:

?Kapitalismus ist die Ausbeutung des Menschen durch den Menschen. Im Sozialismus ist das genau umgekehrt.?
~ Erich Honecker 1988 ?ber Sozialismus

That is to say: "Capitalism is the exploitation of people by other people. In Socialism it's the other way round." Did he really say that? Comes from a comic article:

DDR ? Uncyclopedia (http://de.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/DDR)

Who said the Germans lack a sense of humour? The GDR was the most ludicrous thing ever invented in Central Europe.

Mirabell

17-Sep-2009, 12:02

I get that you don't understand what most people who talk about the "damage" that Nazis did to the German language mean. Nazis poisoned simple words, words that have been used before and are rarely if at all used today because they have been used in so insidious a way. this is not about neologisms. I see you don't understand that. good thing I helped you out then. neologisms don't damage a language. they are bonus content, they don't supplant other stuff. ok? good.

now hop along and tend to faulty syntax or whatever.

ferns_dad

17-Sep-2009, 16:14

speaking of language poisoning

"Who monopolized Life, Time and Fortune?"

Eric

18-Sep-2009, 11:35

Mirabell: my name is not Cassidy.

Fern's Dad: "the wicked [American] capitalists" is the answer you are fishing for. Rhetorical one-liners are not as good for sincere debate as clear questions and answers.

ferns_dad

18-Sep-2009, 15:25

actually it's a quote from Burroughs, and the answer is William Randolph Hearst.

I was merely commenting on the co-option of language by the commercial interests. For a more modern example "Friends and family" is a cell phone package in the US, so widely advertised that the words engender the ad....

for me, this is much worse than "work will set you free", if only because the latter has not changed the definition of either work or freedom.

Clarissa

18-Sep-2009, 15:55

Arbeit macht frei -
"work will set you free", if only because the latter has not changed the definition of either work or freedom.
Not sure we have the same definition of freedom in this context.

ferns_dad

18-Sep-2009, 19:17

I'm saying the definition of the words were changed by the advertising, not so by Dachau. I think that is an important distinction.

hdw

18-Sep-2009, 20:56

By gum, I'm just re-connecting with the virtual world again after a week's hols in the real world of Andaluc?a, and after browsing the two pages of this thread I feel I need to lie down in a darkened room with a cold compress on my forehead. Such vehemence! Such learning!! Such wit!!! (or lack of same).

One or two comments on various threads in the argument -

re the cavalier attitude to conventional rules of grammar and syntax - I don't know if anyone here is or has been a teacher (apart from the Australian gentleman who is a university lecturer), but I trained to be a secondary teacher of English in 1969-70, and the prevailing orthodoxy in the teacher-training-colleges was that you mustn't curb little Johnny's creativity by pointing out his spelling or grammar mistakes. Creative writing had only recently come in, and was the new big thing. Despite being an English graduate with a good linguistic training, I didn't have the guts or the confidence to rebel against this patronising attitude to children's language skills, but luckily I got out of school-teaching before I could do too much damage to the rising generation.

Re the damage done to the German language by authoritarian dictatorships of left and right, was there not some literary movement in West Germany after WWII - the names Gruppe 47 (?) and Heinrich B?ll come to mind - designed to heal the language and restore the true meaning of words degraded by the Nazis (putting it crudely in the fever-heat of composition - this is my form of "creative writing"!). I could stop and look it up on WickedPedia (sounds like a website for potential Humbert Humberts) but I imagine I would lose my current thread in more ways than one.

Harry

Eric

20-Sep-2009, 09:09

Fern's Dad #36: you mention the quote that the Nazis had written over the portals to their death camps "Arbeit macht frei" i.e. "Work will set you free". This is surely a mangled allusion to the Biblical "The truth will set you free" (John 8:31-32) said by someone a tad holier than Adolf. This latter, Biblical, quote was carved into a more decent place than Auschwitz, i.e. the floor of Canterbury Cathedral.

Welcome back from Spain, Harry! Syntax is the stage you get to once you have enough words to make a sentence with. But the orthodoxy of the 1960s and 1970s (let it all hang out grammatically) has maybe damaged the analytical language skills of a generation or two since.

I'll Google to see what Gruppe 47 said specifically about language, and see whether I can find something.

*

Syntax revisited:

I often mention that I have a downer on many linguists. What triggers off my disdain and irritation in this respect is that people have produced no end of theories during recent decades, while the basics of the language, in our case English, are no longer taught properly in school.

For instance, if you look at the Wikipedia article on syntax, you are soon confronted with sections on Generative Grammar, Categorial Grammar, Dependency Grammar, Stochastic Grammar Theories, and Functionalist Grammars, plus many other sub-categories.

I can see in my mind's eye the eggheaded comedian Andy Parsons listing these types of grammar and then asking "and what's the bloody point of them all"? I can imagine that the old-fashioned activity called parsing or syntactical analysis should suffice for all but the most intellectually gifted scholars.

Most people are not good at sophisticated mathematics and model-making (in the non-Airfix sense). We just want to write sentences that make sense, and we may need some help to achieve that. We need practical, not theoretical, guidance. We need a small number of basic terms to cope with initially, e.g. noun, adjective, verb, adverb, conjunction, preposition, and a few more, plus sub-categories. And if we learn an inflected language, we get many of these terms for free, with plenty of examples. We do not need to be showered with loads of conflicting and slightly differing terms, which in a Humpty Dumpty fashion mean what the particular linguist using them wants them to mean.

Once we have grasped those basics, we can move on to syntax, i.e. the way sentences are constructed, and a few more terms such as subordinate clause will be added to the list. But I feel that many modern linguists have turned linguistic description into a narcissistic and arcane activity that doesn't help the average author, report-writer, or journalist one jot in their daily work.

beelzebubbles

20-Sep-2009, 16:33

I remember my philosophy professor complaining that his students could no longer follow the meaning in a specific sentence in Plato's Republic due to inadequate training in English Grammar. Sorry, I can not remember the sentence but I doubt things have changed.

My favorite part of Roth's I Married a Communist is the scene in which an English teacher presents his class with a long and complex sentence penned by Abraham Lincoln and they begin to learn to parse it. This activity is portrayed as both rigorous and manly. Only Roth

ferns_dad

20-Sep-2009, 17:01

one syntax
one spelling
one set of rules for correct art
ein volk?

hdw

20-Sep-2009, 17:32

one syntax
one spelling
one set of rules for correct art
ein volk?

Writers who innovate interestingly and successfully in terms of grammar, syntax, spelling etc. start off from a good grounding in the conventional forms of writing, and know exactly what they are doing when they innovate.

That's not the same thing as a school or college student writing non-standard English (or whatever the mother-tongue is) because they haven't acquired competence in the standard language.

Let's get clear what we mean by "rules" in terms of language. In my understanding, having done lots of linguistics in my mis-spent youth, it's not a printed sheet pinned up on the wall saying if you don't speak and write like I tell you to, you will be severely punished. Rather, it's a description of how the language actually works and what is commonly regarded as normal usage. Kids should be given the best possible grounding in their own language at the learning stage, then they can do what the hell they want with it and innovate to their heart's content.

Harry

Clarissa

20-Sep-2009, 17:34

Rules are made to be broken - so long as one knows the rules first...
Be it James Joyce, Beckett, the nouveau roman authors or any other experimental writing. You have to know the basics first to be able to conquer new ground
Your (ferns Dad)

one syntax
one spelling
one set of rules for correct art
ein volk? implies that rules, spelling, syntax etc are fascistic. I beg to differ. They are a basis from which to build on.

phoenix press

20-Sep-2009, 18:17

Re: Is syntax important? Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix press http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/20358-syntax-important-post36216.html#post36216)

Let them ask themselves if they want their approach to be the one aircraft maintenance technicians use, or whether the paramilitary rule of only driving on only one side of the road should be relaxed for the poor dears who don't feel up to concentration and a bit of effort. This is all about caring. The non-carers have had their fifteen minutes.

Rrrright. Two examples, both about professions or situations where lives are at stake. Because both aircraft and driving (mostly) depend on rules being followed to properly work at all. Language is about communication and you'll find people like Saliotthomas or me, despite making occasional mistakes, can make ourselves perfectly understood. Language just doesn't work that way, I'm sorry. But I AM glad you clarified the opinion that quite a few here harbor, I think: those who don't use language the way we do, GET OUT of the debate. Yeah. Well. In that light, Saliotthomas' reply was excellent and, as usual, commendable.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

I didn't say get out of the debate. I said I find your 'communication' tedious and contemptuous of your reader, which means you aren't publishable. Anyone who writes with disdain for being published isn't in the business of communication. The reason this thread strayed into Nazism is because of Saliotthomas' dreadful 'communication' - dredging up 'paramiliary' to serve as a simile for the rigour I'm advocating a return to.
It's your judgment that you and this other fellow make yourselves perfectly understood. It's mine that you don't. Words are bullets, so the comparison of good writing with good aircraft maintenance and road rules still applies. Your 'argument' didn't dislodge it. Is that what you mean by good communication?

There are two types of contributor in a writer's blog. There are those who want to communicate by being published and are prepared to do what that requires, and those who say they're 'into literature, expression, creativity et al' and just leeeeeerv gas-bagging about it. It may well be that the latter are content to just waffle, but I can assure you the former aren't. They've paid their dues to become writers, and to them syntax is as important as the blood in their veins.

This means that there are really two conversations going on here. I'm not interested in the second one. I find a big element of fascism in the practice of dumbing-down and 'read my lousy text' that's being advocated in the second conversation here. A good understanding of syntax prevents misunderstandings and the rows generated by them. That fact in itself should settle the matter being enquired into here: Is syntax important? The point has been proven in the affirmative, so may it rest in peace. Let the other conversation be continued indefinitely in a new thread called 'Is gas-bagging and phoney skill all they purport to be?'

saliotthomas

20-Sep-2009, 18:46

One thing about this forum is the literature part,books,interest in books and so on.
To be perfectly honest ,my use of Paramilitary was not a very happy,i do agree about necessity of the rules.(even if i tend to forget a lot about them)
My real point was mostly about the forum and it's people.
We hear a lot about those obviously important rules(is eating important?) but we should also keep this place friendly to poeple who will come from various place around the globe.
Where English is maybe not their first language and even if they don't speak it fluently ,i sure would love to hear what they have to say about their local literature or their impressions on ours.
Much more than a debat chewed and rechewed about the need for good education ,and the politeness of good spelling and so on and so on.
There is plenty of places who love those endless debat,the originality of world lit is the love for books worldwide.

By the way phoenixpress,we heard you a lot about syntax but your interest for books,appart for yours of course,is still a mystery.Instead of playing sherif straight away,you might want to consider adding some of your knowledge to some of the authors or books thread.
Talking about manners,communication and respect.

PS,and please do something about your avatar,try zygomatics exercises.

Eric

20-Sep-2009, 20:15

Beelzebubbles: sentence analysis could explain the potential for two meanings, even of the title "I Married a Communist" (priest or spouses)because to use a bit of the basic jargon I was talking about, the verb "to marry"' can be transitive or intransitive in English. Now, if we've got to the stage where people yell "stop using complicated terms!" then obviously the basics of grammar are no longer clear in everyone's mind. This is the sort of thing that should be taught at school level to people who will use words in life, but are not going to write a thesis on linguistics. (Like me.)

I think Fern's Dad could expand on his poem and explain the meaning. Hinting at totalitarianism using the German language is insulting to Germans, as Clarissa already suggests. The war ended almost sixty-five years ago, so we need no longer treat the German language as a pariah patois, in the same way as Afrikaans should not eternally remain the language of apartheid, or Russian the language of Communism and the GULag.

Clarissa also makes a very important point that you can't be innovative, shocking, etc., unless you are breaking rules - which have to be there to break in the first place.

As Harry suggests, if you're going to be a writer, rather than a ranter, you need to hone the tools of your trade - words and grammar. They're just the basics, but you don't try playing a musical instrument if you can't read (musical) notes. I started this thread, not to join the Blackshirts and march with Mosley (Oswald, not Masochist Max). But to point out that you need to be able to analyse complex sentences. This is not dictatorial. I have no hang-ups about the creeping "fascism" of actually knowing to do something properly.

Phoenix press says:

I said I find your 'communication' tedious and contemptuous of your reader, which means you aren't publishable.

Which sinner are you addressing? Your contribution is a bit rantacious. We're not running a military academy here where naughty cadets have to be caned and expelled. You don't "get out" of a debate, you either participate or don't, leaving the others to muddle along as they think fit. I too write things when I'm pissed (in the sense of inebriated, not sulking), but have learnt to think twice before publishing them online.

Few of us here will ever write books, but we all read them. To understand subtleties, you have to know at least one language well, and that is your mother-tongue. When you are confronted with a complex sentence, and the author is writing in an involved way to be witty, you have to be able to sus that he has not just written it in a muddled way because he didn't know any better.

For me fascism is Mussolini and, by extension, Hitler. Plus the secret police rounding up people in the night, torturing, and murdering them. The term "fascism" should not be used lightly to imply "something I don't like because I can't be bothered to learn the rules".

This Chat section of this website is the take-it-or-leave-it part. It's not strictly about books, but often about the building bricks of books - words. Or about lighter things like cats and cookery. No one should dictate which threads are boring by definition. I personally think a lot of improvised jazz is boring, but I don't deliberately find jazz threads on some chatsite and then lecture the others about how I think their music is crap. I simply go elsewhere for my kicks, and stay away from the jam sessions.

ferns_dad

20-Sep-2009, 21:33

the determination of what is "correct" in the arts is the facistic problem. if you feel that free jazz is bad music, you should certainly instruct the practitioners in the correct music, as you should instruct the creators of decadent art in the errors of their ways. an in the same fashion as you express your rigid didacticism here.

Eric

20-Sep-2009, 21:57

There is nothing wrong with didacticism. I know some things better than others, and don't mind lecturing others on those things. If you think my "fascist lectures" are boring, don't feel personally provoked, ignore the thread, and join one on, say, fine art. But mostly I try to encourage people to think for themselves and seek information.

More later, I'm going to watch telly.

ferns_dad

20-Sep-2009, 23:09

holy crap, what an arrogant twit

Liam

20-Sep-2009, 23:31

holy crap, what an arrogant twit
Why is it, that time and time again these arguments end up turning into testosterone contests? I don't mean to discriminate on the basis of gender, but I've yet to see two or more FEmale members of this forum engage in a cat-fight such as this one.

Relax people, this is a literature forum, not a colonoscopy exam.

:p,
L.

Mirabell

20-Sep-2009, 23:34

I've yet to see two or more FEmale members of this forum engage in a cat-fight such as this one.

dude I've been weathering multiple of them through pms all the time. Basically half of my facebook female friends detests the other half. I see stuff like this almost on a daily basis, just less direct.

As for forums I'm learning to say nothing, most of the time. I've deleted like ten posts this week. Hah.

Liam

20-Sep-2009, 23:38

As for forums I'm learning to say nothing, most of the time. I've deleted like ten posts this week. Hah.
Self-censorship, huh? Tsk, tsk. What happened to "Express Yourself"? "To thine own self be true?" :(:(:(

L.

Mirabell

20-Sep-2009, 23:55

Self-censorship, huh? Tsk, tsk. What happened to "Express Yourself"? "To thine own self be true?" :(:(:(

L.

I'm cantankerous and quarrelsome but I have so much on my plate these days that I don't have the time to engage in idiotic discussions. People mistaking waffling for argument. Misrepresenting linguistics. Shit like that. That just costs lots and lots of time.

But you're the one to talk. You barely show your beautiful face here and leave us pining for your sweet words. Cruel, that's what I call that.

beelzebubbles

21-Sep-2009, 02:49

I don't mean to discriminate on the basis of gender, but I've yet to see two or more FEmale members of this forum engage in a cat-fight such as this one.

Bring her on. Let me at her. Rowrrrr!

Clarissa

04-Oct-2009, 15:46

Think this belongs here too

Overseas students are better at English than the British - Education News, Education - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/overseas-students-are-better-at-english-than-the-british-1797470.html)

Eric

04-Oct-2009, 16:24

Yes, Clarissa, I do believe it does. And it doesn't surprise me in the least. But between you and me, not all our foreign posters here would score as highly as the Singaporeans and Chinese... Employment is a greater source of motivation than the desire to shine brightly on a mere hobby chatsite.

As for punctuation, there are rules, such as a space after a comma, plus the difference between the semicolon and the colon, and the use of apostrophes, as mentioned in that Independent article. Non-sequiturs are some of the funniest syntactical mistakes, like the one about sex not being present in males.

Clarissa

04-Oct-2009, 16:49

I have a friend in London who sent her two kids to St. Paul's.
One year two Japanese boys arrived in their respective classes. At the beginning of the year, they had no English at all. At the end of their first school year, they were both top of the class - in English!

Eric

29-Dec-2009, 13:41

Well, Clarissa (her comment on 4th October), obviously the online proofreader at the Daily Telegraph today (29th December 2009) wasn't Japanese:

Technical hurdles importing energy from fellow EU states problematic.

But as Spain's prime minister, Jos? Luis Rodr?guez Zapatero, Van Rompuy and the head of the EU commission Jos? Manuel Barroso jostle for position at the bloc's top table, critics say that the situation is risks becoming more hydra than hybrid.

And all I was doing was trying to read the news, not look for typos.

nnyhav

30-Dec-2009, 00:03

FT.com / Books / Essays - To boldly grow (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e74e1832-e9c9-11de-ae43-00144feab49a.html)

Eric

30-Dec-2009, 12:07

All grammar and syntax is "backward-looking" to nick a phrase from one of the reviews Nnyhav points us to. Culture and tradition are "backward-looking" by definition.

All languages need an amount of prescription mixed in with a certain tolerance regarding new words and forms. But if you move too quickly towards the new, you get an oscillation between revolution and reaction, resulting in a huge mess, where no one any longer knows what good English is.

A standardised neutral national language is necessary to foster equality of communication.

sheryland jesus

30-Dec-2009, 22:28

I wish I was smart enough to carry on a conversation on this thread. But alas I can't.

Sheryl

sheryland jesus

30-Dec-2009, 23:05

hdw

31-Dec-2009, 00:16

Smart, or not, I guess I do have a few things to say. First off I am still not understanding what syntax is. Maybe if I would have read the entire thread I would know. Also I do not know the proper use of punctuation, and if you find me using a comma wrong please let me know. My daughter and I got in to a discussion about whether it was okay to begin a sentence with the word "and". She says it's not proper English and I argue back that even the Bible starts sentences with "and". I found out yesterday that we both are right. Back when the Bible was being written they started sentences with "and" because they didn't have commas, and nor did they have words like "but". Now that the Bible has been translated to English though we are able to add commas and the word "but", and other such words.

I do not know about syntax but my feeling is if what a person is writing sounds good, flows good, and is easily translated to others that is what is important. I really wish I had the gift of picking a piece of writing apart and analyzing it but I don't. That's what scares me about the world literature class I am getting ready to take in a couple of weeks.

Sheryl

P.S. Please let me know if I have made any grammatical errors. Seriously! I want to know.

The question "is syntax important" is nonsensical, because syntax means the way in which words are strung together to make meaningful sentences, and if we didn't have the rules of syntax, we would just have a lot of words and no way to put them together to express meaning. So syntax isn't just important, it's vital for communication.

But people get frightened by the word "rules", and think that there must be just one RIGHT way to say/write something. If that was true, there would be no such thing as literary style, and Ernest Hemingway would sound exactly like Henry James (who is in my mind at the moment, as I have just watched a very good TV adaptation of The Turn of the Screw).

Syntax varies from language to language. In Latin, if you want to say that the bull (taurus) chased (fugavit) the boy (puerum), you can say taurus puerum fugavit, taurus fugavit puerum, puerum fugavit taurus or puerum taurus fugavit depending on which word you want to highlight.

In English, if the bull is the subject and the boy is the object of the sentence, you MUST say the bull chased the boy. That's a rule of English syntax - the subject must precede the verb, and the object must come after it. The only way to get round this syntactic restriction is to change from the active to the passive voice, and say the boy was chased by the bull.

So, really, syntax is just a way of describing how a particular language actually works - nothing to be frightened of!

Harry

Eric

31-Dec-2009, 00:44

Harry hits the nail on the head: syntax is nothing to be frightened of. Nor should you always listen to those pedants with inferiority complexes who say that you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, or use the phrase "all of a sudden" because it is hackneyed. And I believe that some oracle of style says we mustn't start a sentence with "and", "but", "so", "then" or "because". But that's style.

The thing is, that if you read books by decent, thoughtful authors you automatically soak up vocabulary and syntax simply by reading. Then, when you yourself write, you do it correctly.

Sheryland Jesus writes perfectly normal, neutral English. The only thing I noticed that jarred was when you wrote "...but my feeling is if what a person is writing sounds good, flows good,...". "Flows well" is what most people write because "sounds good" is really short for "sounds [like something] good", while "flows well" means "flows in a good manner". Adjective versus adverb. Don't be afraid of the terms; look them up in a dictionary or grammar book, or ask a friend.

Most of us don't analyse everything we write once it becomes second nature. But you have to get into good habits first, before they come automatically.

sheryland jesus

31-Dec-2009, 00:53

Thanks HDW for clearing it up a little. Guess I am one of those who are afraid of rules and don't like to be bound by them. I guess that is one reason I have not bothered to learn a lot of them. I am afraid that a lot of rules will "cramp my style". I would probably be better off if I did learn the rules, but so far I haven't.

Sheryl

saliotthomas

31-Dec-2009, 00:59

I though Syntax was a condom brand :confused:

sheryland jesus

31-Dec-2009, 01:07

Thanks for your advise Eric. It is hard trying to speak proper English, when I was raised by a dad from the hills of Kentucky. My mom is from Indiana, and that is where I was born and raised, but my speech is a combination of both cultures.

One thing that has always confused me (ever since I started taking English classes) is that one teacher would say one thing, and the next year a teacher would say something else. It seems like much of writing is subjective. And whether a piece of writing is good or bad, or gets a good grade or a failing grade is so often dependent on the person grading it. That frustrates me!

Sheryl

P.S. Any further grammatical corrections would be appreciated.

Loki

31-Dec-2009, 07:13

I agree with who says that we shouldn't be afraid of rules. In fact languages are in continuous evolution, so the rule that says we shouldn't end a sentence with a proposition it's becoming useless, since I read this kind of sentences all the time.
Then I guess the basics of syntax of a language will not change that easily. For instance English, as Italian, is a SVO (Subject-Verb-Object), as in I met John. But then again, it is not an absolute rule, as there are such things as inversion.

When you're speaking, an important role is played by emphasis: you would want to emphasise a word instead of another, and the word order changes. For example you may want to say Lui ? intelligente (He is smart) or E' intelligente lui! (He is smart), depending on what you want to emphasis more.

hdw

31-Dec-2009, 11:47

Then I guess the basics of syntax of a language will not change that easily. For instance English, as Italian, is a SVO (Subject-Verb-Object), as in I met John. But then again, it is not an absolute rule, as there are such things as inversion.

Talking of SVO languages, when I was an English Language student in the 1960s, Noam Chomsky was the great guru of linguistic studies. That was before he took on the role of political commentator.

Chomsky tried to get right into the guts of language and figure out how it worked. He claimed that human beings are hard-wired for language, and have an innate sense of grammaticality. "Grammar" is another word that scares the pants off people, but really it's just a way of describing how language functions, with a jargon of its own (noun, verb, adjective, sentence, clause, etc.).

Chomsky conceived the notion of grammatical meaning, i.e. even when a sentence looks like nonsense, semantically (meaning-wise), there is grammatical nonsense and ungrammatical nonsense.

The famous sentence he concocted to demonstrate his theory was "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously". How can something that's colourless be green? How can an idea sleep? And how can it sleep furiously?

Total rubbish semantically, but compare it to "Ideas furiously colourless green sleep". That's even worse gibberish, because the rules of Subject/Verb/Object, as they operate in English (but not in many other languages) have been violated. The first sentence doesn't sound quite so crazy because the normal SVO order of English sentences has been observed. I think he was trying to show how fundamental and vital the grammatical rules of particular languages are.

Oh boy, talking about all this makes me feel 19 again (a very puzzled 19-year-old!).

Harry

lionel

31-Dec-2009, 12:37

My daughter and I got in to a discussion about whether it was okay to begin a sentence with the word "and". She says it's not proper English

Does Bone Boatwright in Bastard out of Carolina write 'proper English'? If not, might that suggest that all narrators of fiction ? even omniscient ones ? don't write 'proper English'? So should we look to only non-fiction to see who writes 'proper English'? The truth is that using 'And' at the beginning of a sentence is a very effective way of writing, and also very 'proper': pick up any book by any any writer, including those generally considered to be great writers of English, and you'll find a great number of uses of 'And' at the beginning of sentences, paragraphs, and even chapters. It's a powerful way of emphasizing a point.

lionel

31-Dec-2009, 12:43

When you're speaking, an important role is played by emphasis: you would want to emphasise a word instead of another, and the word order changes. For example you may want to say Lui ? intelligente (He is smart) or E' intelligente lui! (He is smart), depending on what you want to emphasis more.

I'm not too certain I like the colloquial use of 'smart' as a translation, :) but anyway doesn't 'He is intelligent!' render your second example in a more emphatic way?

Loki

31-Dec-2009, 13:03

It's just that I've found that word with that particular meaning so I used it.
Anyway, I was talking about emphasis in Italian, to be sure I got it right; I left the sentence in English unchanged as I was concentrating on the Italian one.
I don't know if I've answered you correctly!

Eric

31-Dec-2009, 13:41

We all come from different backgrounds and levels of parental education. So it's handy to have a standard for the national language, in my case English, which is my mother-tongue. I've seen, at close quarters, what happens when someone moves country and does not make much effort to learn the finesses of the new language. My own mother was Dutch, while my father was an English schoolmaster ("schoolteacher" to those under the age of forty). As I grew up in England, it was obvious which language would ultimately dominate my everyday life.

The difficulty when learning the standard language of any country is what Sheryland Jesus mentions: teachers who want to play one-upmanship games and have staffroom spats with colleagues. So part of their "fun" is contradicting their colleagues to different classes at school. This is a disaster for kids growing up and trying to learn the accepted forms of the written language. (What you speak is something else.)

When I learn a foreign language, I want to learn the version that doesn't stand out. If you learn a regional version or dialect, you soon find out, once you leave the area where it is spoken, that people regard you as an odd foreigner or hick. Standard English means that even when an educated Brit travels to the USA or Australia, they can communicate - because they are aware which words are dialect and would not be understood widely. If you get a Brit (especially one speaking Geordie or Doric), an American, and an Aussie, all speaking dialect in the same room, they may fail to understand all but the basics of what the others have to say.

Harry's comments on the linguist guru Chomsky show rather well why I was once interested in linguistics, but then ran a mile from this peculiar academic pursuit. I want to learn languages to use them. Either to speak to people or, more especially, to read books and newspapers. Linguists are often from American and British universities and wallow knee-deep in all the most obscure or nit-picking aspects of language, often without learning any foreign language properly themselves. For linguists, language is often the equivalent of pinning dead butterflies in glass-topped boxes, instead of watching them flutter onto buddleia flowers - while still alive. Or reading books on "The Theory of Pedalling, Braking, and Gear-Change" instead of riding a bicycle.

First you've got to get a good grip on your own language. This is especially important if you want to learn other languages. If you feel secure in your English, you can take on board other people's languages. This is vital in Europe where, if you travel a few hours by train or plane, you can often be in another country with another language.

lionel

31-Dec-2009, 14:54

I don't know if I've answered you correctly!

I wasn't trying to come across as pedantic. It just seems logical to me that if you mention two sentences in one language, then you translate them accordingly in the other, even if - apart from the question of emphasis, which after all is what we're talking about - they're in effect saying the same thing.

Hey, that makes my 500th post!

blog (http://tonyshaw3.blogspot.com)

Loki

31-Dec-2009, 15:09

I know but as English is not my L1 I wasn't sure of traslating them in the right way, that's all. I know I should've, but I didn't want to make a mistake.

lionel

31-Dec-2009, 15:19

I know but as English is not my L1 I wasn't sure of traslating them in the right way, that's all. I know I should've, but I didn't want to make a mistake.

Now I understand. Don't worry about it: you should see an example of my written Italian. No, you really shouldn't! Bad isn't the word!

blog (http://tonyshaw.blogspot.com)

Loki

31-Dec-2009, 15:42

Now I'm curious! I bet it's better than what you think.

Anyway, how should the two sentences be in English to show the different emphasis?

lionel

31-Dec-2009, 17:44

Now I'm curious! I bet it's better than what you think.

Umm. Thanks, but I won't give any examples!

Anyway, how should the two sentences be in English to show the different emphasis?

As I suggested above, the best way to emphasize in English is simply to italiciize the relevant word(s), so in this instance the best translation is just 'He is intelligent!'. There are more familiar, spoken possibilities, such as 'He's intelligent, he is', which approach the more repetitive and slightly more wordy emphatic formal usages of Latin languages, but I wouldn't recommend trying them.

blog (http://tonyshaw3.blogspot.com)

sheryland jesus

31-Dec-2009, 19:28

Does Bone Boatwright in Bastard out of Carolina write 'proper English'? If not, might that suggest that all narrators of fiction – even omniscient ones – don't write 'proper English'? So should we look to only non-fiction to see who writes 'proper English'? The truth is that using 'And' at the beginning of a sentence is a very effective way of writing, and also very 'proper': pick up any book by any any writer, including those generally considered to be great writers of English, and you'll find a great number of uses of 'And' at the beginning of sentences, paragraphs, and even chapters. It's a powerful way of emphasizing a point.

You are so right Lionel! I have never really thought of it like that. Bone's story would not be nearly as effective if the author had her speak in proper English. The language she was speaking was "proper" for the environment she was in.

Also, considering the use of "and" I agree with you on that note too. I can see how starting a chapter with the word "and" would be effective. It would cause a person to consider what had gone on in the previous chapter. Even ending a chapter with the word "And..." would entice a person to want to continue reading to see where the author was leading. Although I don't know if ending a chapter in that manner would be proper.

I liked what Harry said several posts back. It made me laugh. To quote him very loosely he said that students ought to be taught the rules, but then once they know the proper technique of writing they can do whatever the hell they want. I loved that!

Sheryl

lionel

01-Jan-2010, 13:30

You are so right Lionel! I have never really thought of it like that. Bone's story would not be nearly as effective if the author had her speak in proper English. The language she was speaking was "proper" for the environment she was in.

Exactly!

Also, considering the use of "and" I agree with you on that note too. I can see how starting a chapter with the word "and" would be effective.

And then there was light! That sentence, without the 'And', just wouldn't make the grade. Or how about 'Sheryl. And Jesus.'

It would cause a person to consider what had gone on in the previous chapter. Even ending a chapter with the word "And..." would entice a person to want to continue reading to see where the author was leading. Although I don't know if ending a chapter in that manner would be proper.

Right! Great thought, but who cares about 'proper' anyway? Let's leave that talk to pedants.

I liked what Harry said several posts back. It made me laugh. To quote him very loosely he said that students ought to be taught the rules, but then once they know the proper technique of writing they can do whatever the hell they want. I loved that!

Sheryl

Again, too true.

Cheers

Tony

blog (http://tonyshaw3.blogspot.com)

Eric

01-Jan-2010, 13:42

lionel

01-Jan-2010, 14:28

Lionel, how, in your opinion, did your namesake cope with the exigencies of syntax? He wrote at least one novel, including the one that I will finish one day, and seems to have stuck to conventional syntax.
As we say in the slogan department: "Britton needs syntax!". (Or should that be: "Britain needs syntax"?) Spelling is also important, if you want to vie with the bourgeoisie for the position of top dog.

Eric, I assume you read Bertrand Russell's Introduction to Lionel Britton's Hunger and Love, but you may not remember his speaking of the novel's 'head-line abbreviation'. He quotes: 'Judges, dishonest. Not a criminal in Christendom makes steady ?5000; send prison for stealing less than stealing self'.' This kind of ellipsis, in which verbs, articles, pronouns, etc, are left out is a hallmark of Britton's style, and is often used when he's in insulting mode.

Sometimes whole paragraphs are taken up by single word sentences, and then there's one huge sentence which is a breathless, largely unpunctuated list of all the stages, tools, and products that go into making a book.

The first time I went to the Lionel Britton Collection at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, I was allowed to photocopy the earliest existing state of Hunger and Love, which contained a great many manual alterations to the typescript, and back home I spent several months noting the way he'd changed the book over the years - it took him about eight years to complete. There were several thousands of examples of him changing complete sentences from 'proper English' to this abbreviated style. It was a fascinating experience to be able to analyse the changes with no time constraints, and I again thank SIU for giving me the opportunity to do so, and the Open University for financing the project.

The main details of what Lionel Britton was up to are here (http://tonyshaw3.blogspot.com/2009/02/chapter-2-what-lionel-britton-is-up-to.html).

blog (http://tonyshaw3.blogspot.com/)

Eric

03-Jan-2010, 04:35

Thanks, Lionel, I'll have a look at what Dr Tony Shaw had to say in Chapter 2.

Loki

03-Jan-2010, 07:30

I agree with heidiadonis: for non native speakers such things as prepositions aren't that easy (you may have realised it from my posts). I would also add phrasal verbs (they drive me crazy/bananas[!]) and lexic. I'm preparing the CPE examination, and I'm realising that English has loads of words we don't have in Italian (e.g. to jackknife). I think the best thing we can do is to read books and talk with native speakers.

Anyway, we were talking about syntax, which is just a part of grammar.

Eric

03-Jan-2010, 13:14

Non-native-speakers are mostly less capable of getting the grammar of a foreign language right when compared to educated native-speakers, simply because they have had less experience of the language in many different situations (formal reports, quarrels, novels, newspapers, theatre, pub chat, job applications, TV, etc., etc., etc.). But there is no point in comparing the English of, say, a university-educated foreigner with a native-speaker foundry worker or lorry driver. As they say, you can't compare chalk and cheese.

As far as I'm concerned, the term "grammar" means the whole lot, everything from getting the right words to getting the sentence structure right, including the correct conjugation of the verb, declension of the noun, and the tricky matter of prepositions. Syntax is just the way you build up a sentence, getting the links between clauses and sub-clauses right.

So Hediadonis adopts the sensible strategy of looking at what a native-speaker, in this case Harry, does. I too vacillate sometimes between "on" and "about". Ultimately, I usually write what feels right. This is more easily done in the case of a native-speaker with years of experience of their mother-tongue. When writing a letter in Dutch or Swedish, neither of which my native tongue, I Google for the expression, first with the one, then the other preposition and look at the number of entries. I then go with the majority.

*

Choosing between "which" or "that" is also a tricky problem. They can sometimes, in British English at least, have the identical meaning. But there is a difference between these two sentences:

1) The box which/that was lying on the table was green. No commas; "that" or "which" fit; or it can be reduced to "The box lying on the table was green".

2) The box, which was lying on the table, was green. Commas, in order to separate off the sub-clause, which can be removed without damaging the structure of the basic sentence: "The box was green. It was lying on the table." But only "which" will do here.)

It's a question of logic. Sentence 1) means: "that particular box, the one lying on the table, not the one on the floor or the shelf, was green". Whilst Sentence 2) means: "the box, comma, it happened to be lying on the table, comma, was green. The commas are the clue in writing. In speech we make the appropriate pauses to show the difference. In the first sentence you can leave out "which was" or "that was", but not in the second. You have to make up more sentences for yourself and think out the logic of this, till it becomes second nature.

hdw

03-Jan-2010, 13:54

I agree with heidiadonis: for non native speakers such things as prepositions aren't that easy (you may have realised it from my posts).

If you're talking about English, believe me, prepositions aren't that easy for native speakers either these days. Partly it's a generational thing. Language is always changing and evolving, and when you get old and crusty and grumpy like me, you shake your head at the things the younger generation come out with. I am sick of hearing (mainly younger) people say what they are doing "on the weekend", when "at the weekend" has sufficed for generations of English-speakers ever since the concept of the weekend was invented. And another one that irritates me is "bored of ...", where I would say "bored with ..."

I suppose a linguist would say that the English prepositional system is in a state of flux and certain usages are currently unstable.

Is this happening in other languages too? How about German, anybody? I spent precious years of my life learning when to say an, auf, zu, etc. Do I have to do it all over again?

Harry

Loki

03-Jan-2010, 14:15

What?? I hope I'll never hear "on the weekend", it will confuse me.
A lot of students find it difficult to learn the difference between Past Simple and Present Perfect, too. But I guess that people from other countries will find it easier, as I think it depends on your L1.

Eric

03-Jan-2010, 15:18

Prepositions are only little words, often monosyllabic, so they get shunted around more easily than other things.

I'm sure that we used to say "I've not been there for ages" when I was young. Now the more American "I've not been there in ages" seems to be getting a foothold.

And "in school" and "at school" used to have the different nuance in that the former could mean physically, in the school building as opposed to on the street, while the second was more abstract, but could double up for both meanings.

Once again, I appeal to a standardised British English language which remains fairly static, whatever people do in dialects, and whatever influence there is from the USA and Caribbean. The word "while" usually means more or less "during" in standard English, whilst it can mean various things in dialect, rendered in standard English by "until", "not until", "by" and so on.

A foreigner learning English, like a foreigner learning German, French, or any other language, benefits from the sureness and firmness of having a norm. If you tell a beginner that there are a dozen choices, he'll soon stop learning the language, as it becomes too confusing. You can only appreciate deviations from the norm, especially in literature, if you know what the norm is. This is very important for people who might one day become translators.

Loki

03-Jan-2010, 15:44

A foreigner learning English, like a foreigner learning German, French, or any other language, benefits from the sureness and firmness of having a norm. If you tell a beginner that there are a dozen choices, he'll soon stop learning the language, as it becomes too confusing. You can only appreciate deviations from the norm, especially in literature, if you know what the norm is. This is very important for people who might one day become translators.

That's me then.
Anyway, it's really confusing learning a language. I remember that years ago, when I started reading the lyrics of songs, I was surprised of (or is it at?:confused:) finding "he don't" and so on. I remember myself complaining about the fact that I had always been told that you say "doesn't" for the third person singular, and then I found "he don't":eek:.

Anyway, I hope I'll continue studying standard British English, hoping also that it won't be too much influenced by AmE.

Talking about the continuos change of languages, some days ago I was told by an English lecturer that in Italian grammar books for foreigners you can find that "a me mi" (a typical error a lot of people make) is considered to be right. Now, I know that in conversation everybody says it, but it's a mistake. They shouldn't teach non-native speakers in this way, should they? I was quite disappointed, also because I've always been told not to say it, that it was wrong; but now they accept it. Why? :(

hdw

03-Jan-2010, 21:24

That's me then.
Anyway, it's really confusing learning a language. I remember that years ago, when I started reading the lyrics of songs, I was surprised of (or is it at?:confused:) finding "he don't" and so on. I remember myself complaining about the fact that I had always been told that you say "doesn't" for the third person singular, and then I found "he don't":eek:.
(

I was surprised to find, I would say (and I hope others would too).

It used to be the case, and probably still is, that foreigners would learn a very stereotyped and old-fashioned kind of English in their own countries, then when they came to Britain they found they couldn't understand native speakers. It's not just us Brits - I understand that most people in Italy don't speak standard Italian (?). And the French and German I learned at school didn't help me all that much when I first visited those countries. Although at least I had a grounding in the grammar.

Harry

Loki

03-Jan-2010, 22:06

I was surprised to find, I would say (and I hope others would too).

Thank you very much.

It used to be the case, and probably still is, that foreigners would learn a very stereotyped and old-fashioned kind of English in their own countries, then when they came to Britain they found they couldn't understand native speakers. It's not just us Brits - I understand that most people in Italy don't speak standard Italian (?). And the French and German I learned at school didn't help me all that much when I first visited those countries. Although at least I had a grounding in the grammar.

I think you're right. But I think it's inevitable. When you study a language, you study the standard form of the language, with a definite grammar. Then of course there variations to the general rules, especially in conversation, but they can't provide you, student, with, say, four different variations of the same rule. It would be impossible to study a language. They try to simplify things for a foreigner. Of course, if you really want to learn a language, you should spend some time in the country where it's spoken as L1. I think it's impossible to study the language just on books.

In Italy a lot of people unfortunately don't speak Italian, but their dialect, which at times is not even similar to Italian! These dialects have a different grammar, too, and so when they try to speak in Italian they make some mistakes.
But that it's not always the case. I put it down partly to the educational system, which doesn't provide children the basis to speak Italian correctly. Italian has quite a difficult grammar, so they should teach us better than they do now.

Loki

06-Jan-2010, 09:29

Loki, "He don't" is grammatically wrong, but I hear it a lot from gangster-like teenagers, regardless of their race. They also say often, "He don't know nothing."

Yes I know it's wrong, but I was always told to say he doesn't, and when I first found it I was a little surprised. The important thing is to be aware that it is a mistake, then it don't (!!) matter if I find it in lyrics.

I was in France for 6 months as a teen. I go to France every 4 years or so to visit close relatives ever since. Even then, it does not seem enough to maintain the language. There is French Connection in the Houston area. They meet once a week to go out for dinner. You may want to find a group of Americans or English people in your area to learn their language. Just a suggestion.

It's a good suggestion, but I don't think I can follow it. It's a bit difficult to find some English or American people here.
Anyway, I don't think that going to France every four years is enough, but that's definitively something. Then depends on how much time you stay there.
When I went to Wales or to England for two weeks I was talking English all the time. I remember when I was in England that I spend one hour or so talking with an English man, then I went back to my Italian friends and I was close to speak to them in English.
So staying in the country where the language is spoken as L1 is really important I think, but that should be constant.

Loki

07-Jan-2010, 07:38

We loved Lucca and the city wall where we hiked and I still remember gelato at the piazza near Puccini's house (I think it was Lucca?)

The place is called Torre del Lago. If you were in Italy you would hear it every day at the news since there's serious danger of flood there. Anyway yes, it's near Lucca. Lucca is quite picturesque, isn't it?

Near the border with France, we met some Italians who speak French but farther away none. Do you speak French? Italian and French are both Latin-based, but they are quite different. French people would rather read in English than in Italian in museums. We could have met in Pisa if we had known each other then!! Italian highways are well-designed much better than French ones. After all, Romans invented highways, didn't they?

Just a bit, I studied it at school but I'm not very good. Anyway, I think that the French can understand a simple text in Italian without knowing it, and the same is for Spanish, I imagine.
I can understand you had a nice stay in Tuscany. Next time you come you must go to Garfagnana!

hdw

07-Jan-2010, 09:35

Yes I know it's wrong, but I was always told to say he doesn't, and when I first found it I was a little surprised. The important thing is to be aware that it is a mistake, then it don't (!!) matter if I find it in lyrics.

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, "It don't matter anyhow".

Harry

hdw

08-Jan-2010, 19:46

I looked up Torre del Lago, but I do not think I was there. I was talking about Lucca which has the outer wall - it is not exactly a wall, rather a bank with hiking trails and parks on it - and the inner wall, a part of old amphitheater. (Did you see I used dashes? Yes! I hope I used them correctly.) We parked our car outside of the bank and we walked to the city center where the Piazza dell'Anfiteatro, a trace of the amphitheater, is. Along the way, there was a cafe where we had gelato and noticed the statue of Puccini next to, maybe then, one of his houses.

Did you gaze upon the Holy Face of Lucca in the cathedral? I did. There was an English king - I forget which one - whose favourite oath was "By the Holy Face of Lucca!"

Harry

lenz

10-Jan-2010, 17:50

My turn to rant:

Wow! This thread has astonished me. I've been feeling guilty for not having read enough translated fiction and envied many of you for your knowledge of such a wide range of international writing. But (nothing wrong with starting a sentence with but in a conversational tone), that a discussion of syntax should devolve into hot-headed arguments about which fascists knew what when makes me think very little has been learned here from the lessons in humanity to be found in the very fictions we all apparently care so much about. If you want lessons in syntax you have only to read 1984 or any of George Orwell's essays on hypocrisy in the English language and then take a look back at the speeches of almost any politician you can name (George Bush I and II and Tony Blair come to mind): compare and contrast. After that, try Pirandello, Brecht, Lewis Carroll, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Stoppard, Austen, Dickinson. . . etc. for lessons in how to think before you write or speak. I need to read great writers to keep myself from being lazy with language - they keep me on my toes, but not like fascist dictators - rather like teachers who don't teach or preach but who just hate lies and suffer in their art to tell the truth. The trick to good writing, I believe, is always to ask yourself "Is that true?" and "Have I made myself clear?" whenever you feel too sure of yourself. The answers are up to you.

lenz

10-Jan-2010, 18:01

Another tip: see film "Stop Making Sense" - Talking Heads concert.

lionel

10-Jan-2010, 18:41

Another tip: see film "Stop Making Sense" - Talking Heads concert.

Trouble is, lenz, not enough people have seen that film. Glad you made the point, though.

lenz

11-Jan-2010, 03:19

I said you should see the film "Stop Making Sense" - Talking Heads Concert

Trouble is, lenz, not enough people have seen that film. Glad you made the point, though.

Thanks, Lionel. Here's something funny. I just got home from a store where they sell computer printers but not the usb printer cable I need. They assume people already have them! That doesn't make sense. I wish some people would start making sense.

Being Canadian, I feel I should apologise for having raised my voice earlier but, I think it might be better to summon the ghost of Henry James, who I'm sure would defend me by invoking "the madness of art!"

Yours syntactically,
lenz

hdw

11-Jan-2010, 10:02

Just now I could not decide whether to write an article "on" or "over" or "about" Orhan Pamuk. I had to look up what Harry used. The use of prepositions are not at all obvious for non-native speakers. The other day I had to ask someone, "Is it a bird in a tree or on a tree?" Now I know that an elephant sits on a tree, while a blue jay sings in a tree.

I would buy a ticket to see an elephant sitting on a tree, especially if there was a blue jay singing in it at the same time.

I've just started reading the historians Roy & Lesley Adkins' new book Jack Tar. The extraordinary lives of ordinary seamen in Nelson's navy, and in the opening sentence of the introduction they write:

"Anyone making the mistake of referring to a sailor as being on a ship is often told that the term is in a ship, not on it - the same as saying in a house rather than on a house."

However, I travel on buses all the time, as I don't drive, and I often hear people talking into their mobile phones and saying "I'm on the bus". I've never heard anyone say "I'm in the bus."

In the same way, we talk about getting off the bus, not getting out of the bus.

I'm sorry, heidiadonis, but there isn't much logic about English prepositions!

Harry

lionel

11-Jan-2010, 14:32

Thanks, Lionel. Here's something funny. I just got home from a store where they sell computer printers but not the usb printer cable I need. They assume people already have them! That doesn't make sense. I wish some people would start making sense.

I'd assumed that this sort of madness was just in England, but obviously not.

Don't worry about the (very minor) rant, lenz, and of course we're all guilty: there's often a vast difference between forum posts and carefully considered writing. Several years ago, on another forum, an American university professor (in the British English sense of the word) enthusiastically exclaimed that he saw such posts, and emails too, as a kind of written id. He'd obviously not thought that idea through, and most of all not considered the possible consequences if this were the case, but I can see that there's something in the idea.

miercuri

12-Jan-2010, 19:21

I'm sorry, heidiadonis, but there isn't much logic about English prepositions!

That's very true, it makes English all the more lovable. The same applies for Russian. I took an exam today and managed to write the Russian equivalent of 'he sat on the table' instead of 'he sat at the table'. They use certain prepositions in some many different contexts and it gets me all confused.
Tomorrow I'm taking a syntax exam in English, I am not at all excited about it though.

hdw

12-Jan-2010, 20:37

I shamefully did not. We spent too much time on the beach of Viareggio and we went Lucca only to walk on the city wall and see the Piazza dell'Anfiteatro and we were in hurry to reach our destination, Firenze. We regretted not to say in Lucca, our favorite town, afterwards.

:D I was thinking of the flying Dumbo or a hot-air balloon elephant.

You gave good examples, though. I will take Eric's advice and google the common phrases. Imagine, how odd it sounded when I heard the first time "picking up someone" or "dropping off somebody." Back then, I was translating them in my head into Korean. Do you pick up someone with a fork or chopsticks? Since you are dropping off someone, you might as well kick them out of the car literally.

How could anyone be ranting about Professor Higgins, unless she is My Fair Lady? Even she came around in the end.

We stayed in Fiesole, in the hills above Florence, and visited Florence, Siena, Pisa and Lucca. I think it was in Lucca that we were looking for an amphitheatre, couldn't find it, sat instead in a dark alleyway to have an indifferent lunch, saw an archway and wondered what was on the other side, went through it after lunch, and ... doh! ... it was the amphitheatre!

I think it was the English king William II "Rufus" who swore by the Holy Face of Lucca, but I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Talking of dropping people off, there's a fine old Scottish song which originated in Glasgow, about the ethics of pushing your grandmother off the bus. It goes:

"Ye cannae shove yer granny aff the bus!
Oh, ye cannae shove yer granny aff the bus.
No, ye cannae shove yer granny, for she's yer mammy's mammy,
Ye cannae shove yer granny aff the bus."

I suppose it would be OK if she was your daddy's mammy.

Harry

learna

12-Jan-2010, 20:43

[QUOTE]That's very true, it makes English all the more lovable.[QUOTE] The same applies for Russian. I took an exam today and managed to write the Russian equivalent of 'he sat on the table' instead of 'he sat at the table'. They use certain prepositions in some many different contexts and it gets me all confused.That's true.

Tomorrow I'm taking a syntax exam in English, I am not at all excited about it though. Good luck, Miercuri! :)

lenz

12-Jan-2010, 20:45

I'd assumed that this sort of madness was just in England, but obviously not.

Don't worry about the (very minor) rant, lenz, and of course we're all guilty: there's often a vast difference between forum posts and carefully considered writing. Several years ago, on another forum, an American university professor (in the British English sense of the word) enthusiastically exclaimed that he saw such posts, and emails too, as a kind of written id. He'd obviously not thought that idea through, and most of all not considered the possible consequences if this were the case, but I can see that there's something in the idea.

I suppose the internet is, for many, a big playground for the id.
I can see that the id seeks some kind of gratification from having its expressions, childish or mature, presented to the world for everyone to see but, what one expresses and how that expression is written (syntax!) is shaped by the ego (experience) and the superego (moral judgement - if I remember Freud correctly). In all this blogging, posting, emailing, twittering, etc., while a large percentage of it is a cry or a laugh from the id, there are real ideas, opinions, useful information passed along or through or around just as there are in printed written matter. If that professor writes, by hand, on paper, an ill-considered complaint to a colleague about university politics, is that an example of "written id"?

About fifteen years ago, I attended a lecture by the critic George Steiner, who used the opportunity, since he was speaking at a university that was beginning to specialise in computer technology, to give a sort of refined luddite rant against computers and modern technology, in general.

He was adamant that visual art could not be created on a computer, since the artist couldn't have complete control of the medium. Even then, that was highly arguable.
He stated, rather sentimentally, I thought, that a simple drawing by an artist with pencil and paper would be artistically superior to anything created with a machine - especially one that he apparently didn't know anything about.
I sympathised in an aesthetic sort of way, but felt that he was denying the ability of artists to find their own tools and methods.

Since then, of course, everyone has become an artist and even computers can make their own art. We posters (I wish there was a better word for us), bloggers and tweeters can give our ids or our egos free play in cyberspace, which can be gratifying or disappointing and might occasionally be important.
Well, that's my id satisfied for now. Post you later.

Eric

12-Jan-2010, 22:27

Within each nation state (Canada, Italy, the UK, Turkey, you name it) there are many differences of class, age, region, and education - and also the language involved. That is why I personally think it best for a foreigner to learn the standard[ised] language. Then you don't say (too many) stupid, embarrassing, laughable, or incomprehensible things, and are accepted as a neutral foreigner. If you speak with a strong regional accent, that will get in the way of communication when speaking to everyone else not from that region.

Loki and Harry have mentioned the Italian situation. As a foreigner, I would feel I'd achieved a great deal by just having mastered the standard language, let alone trying to "feel at home" in a particular region of Italy by imperfectly aping the accent and vocabulary. (I can only read the most basic Italian newspaper text, and have no idea whether regional words are in any text; I'm just glad I understand a little of the content.)

I know that class is something Lionel thinks a lot about. If you speak like an ancient lord of the manor in a pub in a working class district, or like a Cockney cabbie at a party of effete literati in Chipping Campden, you would probably get frozen out in due course, or be regarded behind your back as the clown of the evening. So if you are open, speak the standard version, implying "look, I don't come from here, but I'm not an idiot", you may get a lot further than trying to pretend to be local.

All the above considerations are incredibly important for a literary translator. It's the same in a book as it is in the pub. Otherwise the versions of books we get from different parts and classes of countries become a joke.

When we read Pamuk, Strindberg, Abdolah, or Kafka, we would hope that the translation closely echoes the original, so that we are not fooled by a bland, anodyne text.

miercuri

12-Jan-2010, 23:58

Harry's comments on the linguist guru Chomsky show rather well why I was once interested in linguistics, but then ran a mile from this peculiar academic pursuit. I want to learn languages to use them. Either to speak to people or, more especially, to read books and newspapers. Linguists are often from American and British universities and wallow knee-deep in all the most obscure or nit-picking aspects of language, often without learning any foreign language properly themselves. For linguists, language is often the equivalent of pinning dead butterflies in glass-topped boxes, instead of watching them flutter onto buddleia flowers - while still alive. Or reading books on "The Theory of Pedalling, Braking, and Gear-Change" instead of riding a bicycle.
I must have overlooked this post before, otherwise I would have told you how much I agree with these words. And the butterflies simile, very fitting.
Personally, I regard linguists as scientists or engeneers of language. Computer techonology is afterall about the only field where their work can actually be applied. I have great consideration for their accomplishments but I am not exactly fond of the study of linguistics.
My memories of Chomsky are more fresh than I would want them to be. The course I had to take last year, 'Concepts of Modern Grammar', was very interesting for the first few lectures. Learning about universal grammar and language aquisition in theory seemed very exciting and made a lot of sense. Then we started doing derivitational trees, I could grasp their meaning but failed to see their point! Countless seminar hours spent branching out 'Jane gave the book to Tom.' on the blackboard. Why? This course is taught by the dean of our faculty who did her PhD at the MIT in the 70's and it would be an understatement to say that she adores Chomsky. Rumour has it that everynight she stays up until 3am doing syntax, her life-long passion. The irony is that now, in my sophomore year, I am taking an English syntax course taught by one of the dean's acolytes and it is basically the same thing all over again, without the misleading introduction, just countless derviational trees.
Sorry for the rant, but as I've mentioned, I have that exam tomorrow. I've been doing my best to avoid studying since 7pm.
On a side note, when linguists try to make a joke, they come up with something this :p -> Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo)

Eric

13-Jan-2010, 00:23

Good luck with the exam. There is an expression in English that someone can't see the wood for the trees. I wonder if this applied to the bifurcations of Chomsky.

I have a certain amount of scepticism regarding linguists in Eastern & Central Europe that taught this arcane subject during the 1970s, during food shortages, censorship, labour camps and so on.

miercuri

13-Jan-2010, 00:33

I have a certain amount of scepticism regarding linguists in Eastern & Central Europe that taught this arcane subject during the 1970s, during food shortages, censorship, labour camps and so on.
You would be surprised to find out, but if you played along nicely in those times (that implied being a party member), you could benefit a lot from it. And our megalomainiac dictator was extremely proud of petty academic achievers, as long as they behaved.

lenz

13-Jan-2010, 05:49

What do you think about this site (http://writing-program.uchicago.edu/toys/randomsentence/write-sentence.htm) that composes sentences for you?

I do not know whether to laugh or to take it serious.

The sentence construction machine is funny. The lessons in how to construct logical sentences are logical.

Loki

13-Jan-2010, 08:09

Last year I followed some university lectures on linguistics, and found them really interesting. I studied Chomsky too, and the only thing I seem to remember is that in his opinion language is innate. I also remember that an American linguist made an experiment with a chimpanzee on language acquisition, with which he wanted to demonstrate that Chomsky was wrong. Tha name of the chimpanzee was Chimsky, an obvoius pun with the name Chomsky.

Then we started doing derivitational trees, I could grasp their meaning but failed to see their point! Countless seminar hours spent branching out 'Jane gave the book to Tom.' on the blackboard. Why?I hate that sort of things. I could understand them right, but they didn't seem to be really useful.

On a side note, when linguists try to make a joke, they come up with something this :p -> Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo)
I've read the page, and was like:eek:. They really have not anything better to do!:D Out of curiosity, I've found this one too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_h ad_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

I hope the exam goes well.

hdw

13-Jan-2010, 09:51

I must have overlooked this post before, otherwise I would have told you how much I agree with these words. And the butterflies simile, very fitting.
Personally, I regard linguists as scientists or engeneers of language. Computer techonology is afterall about the only field where their work can actually be applied. I have great consideration for their accomplishments but I am not exactly fond of the study of linguistics.
My memories of Chomsky are more fresh than I would want them to be. The course I had to take last year, 'Concepts of Modern Grammar', was very interesting for the first few lectures. Learning about universal grammar and language aquisition in theory seemed very exciting and made a lot of sense. Then we started doing derivitational trees, I could grasp their meaning but failed to see their point! Countless seminar hours spent branching out 'Jane gave the book to Tom.' on the blackboard. Why? This course is taught by the dean of our faculty who did her PhD at the MIT in the 70's and it would be an understatement to say that she adores Chomsky. Rumour has it that everynight she stays up until 3am doing syntax, her life-long passion. The irony is that now, in my sophomore year, I am taking an English syntax course taught by one of the dean's acolytes and it is basically the same thing all over again, without the misleading introduction, just countless derviational trees.
Sorry for the rant, but as I've mentioned, I have that exam tomorrow. I've been doing my best to avoid studying since 7pm.
On a side note, when linguists try to make a joke, they come up with something this :p -> Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo)

I studied English Language at Edinburgh University in the 60s when it was one of the best Eng. Lang. depts. anywhere. Our lecturers not only were disciples of Chomsky, Fodor, Katz, Postal & co., they actually knew them. I remember going along to a seminar once and there was a handwritten notice on the lecturer's door saying he was off to Chicago, see you next week.

The same man once got a manuscript of Chomsky's to peruse, pre-publication, and was he ever excited. He was standing on a little sort of dais or raised platform on the floor, waving this wad of papers about, and in his excitement he fell off. The only part of the lecture I remember now.

I don't regret having been exposed to this cutting-edge linguistic research, but I wasn't cut out for it myself and always found it hard to get my head round, and so by choosing to specialise in English Language rather than Literature I came out with a mediocre degree at the end of the day.

Harry

learna

13-Jan-2010, 11:11

Eric

13-Jan-2010, 12:08

Russia may well be a country where you can get executed if you put the comma in the right place. I also think that Russia has employed the comma as a weapon in the post-Czarist era.

My biggest complaint about linguistics is that it fetishises language. When I learn a language, I want to use it to read things, and maybe also to converse. I find it ironic that linguistics is a big thing in countries that have huge hubristic illusions about the supremacy of their language and hence don't really want to learn anyone else's to actually use (e.g. ex-imperialist nations the UK and Russia).

Russians only learn English because the USA is now top dog in our world, and certain peoples like kowtowing to the strongest on Earth. If the Russians had won the Cold War, we'd all be learning their not unbeautiful language now. But Russia lost, so English reigns supreme. The sun never sets on the English language, whilst in Western Europe we don't really need Russian - or Chinese - to live pleasant and productive lives. German however, despite being associated with the murder of six million Jews, is making a comeback as a strongish language in Europe.

What Chomsky's bifurcations can tell us about all these fascinating meta-linguistic phenomena I do not know. He's still crawling around at sentence level, when it is obvious to anyone who has ever learnt and used a language, that there is so much more superstructure balanced like an inverted pyramid on that narrow sentence base. Why not examine how language and languages fit into society, instead of doing conjuror's tricks with syntax?

learna

13-Jan-2010, 14:14

You have reminded me the Russian expression, the famous example of an amphibology:" Казнить нельзя помиловать". The meaning of the sentence depends on the missing comma. We can have two variants with the contrary meaning.
"Казнить, нельзя помиловать" means: " Put to the death, do not pardon."
"Казнить нельзя, помиловать" means: "Do not put to death, pardon."
This expressin ascribed to different tzars ( from Peter I ).
Is syntax important? Maybe, if sombody's life can depend on it.

Russia may well be a country where you can get executed if you put the comma in the right place. I also think that Russia has employed the comma as a weapon in the post-Czarist era.

My biggest complaint about linguistics is that it fetishises language. When I learn a language, I want to use it to read things, and maybe also to converse. I find it ironic that linguistics is a big thing in countries that have huge hubristic illusions about the supremacy of their language and hence don't really want to learn anyone else's to actually use (e.g. ex-imperialist nations the UK and Russia).

Russians only learn English because the USA is now top dog in our world, and certain peoples like kowtowing to the strongest on Earth. If the Russians had won the Cold War, we'd all be learning their not unbeautiful language now. But Russia lost, so English reigns supreme. The sun never sets on the English language, whilst in Western Europe we don't really need Russian - or Chinese - to live pleasant and productive lives. German however, despite being associated with the murder of six million Jews, is making a comeback as a strongish language in Europe.

What Chomsky's bifurcations can tell us about all these fascinating meta-linguistic phenomena I do not know. He's still crawling around at sentence level, when it is obvious to anyone who has ever learnt and used a language, that there is so much more superstructure balanced like an inverted pyramid on that narrow sentence base. Why not examine how language and languages fit into society, instead of doing conjuror's tricks with syntax?

Eric, you have perceived the meaning of the example too litterary ( I was not so serious when was writing about the importance of the syntax) :).These words are used to exagerate the meaning to show the importance of the comma in particular. The syntax is weighty in Russian because we do not have an English word oder.
I do not want you learn "unbeautiful language" and read Russian literature if you don't like it.
As for German, you have mentioned only one tragedy but I have a big reason to add burning children, women and old people alive in whole villages, experimentations on the people in the concentration camps and how many million people were killed during World War II that related to almost all Russian, Ukranian, Belarussian...( 15 republics only in USSR) families. But I think it is not a good idea to write about it.
I agree with you that examination "how language and languages fit into society" is more connected with life but if people like to play with "meta-linguistic phenomena" - it is up to them.
Eric, I will not lay aside "Menuet" because it has interested me. :)

P.S.
Russians only learn English because the USA is now top dog in our world, and certain peoples like kowtowing to the strongest on Earth.
I am Russian and I do not kowtow.
I received the impression that that you want to court a war.

Loki

13-Jan-2010, 14:45

What Chomsky's bifurcations can tell us about all these fascinating meta-linguistic phenomena I do not know. He's still crawling around at sentence level, when it is obvious to anyone who has ever learnt and used a language, that there is so much more superstructure balanced like an inverted pyramid on that narrow sentence base. Why not examine how language and languages fit into society, instead of doing conjuror's tricks with syntax?

Linguists study how the language (and the various languages) works, and if it is not interesting to you, this does not mean they shouldn't study the language. Everyone should study what they want, and I think every aspect of a language is being studied nowadays.
Why should he not study sentence structure?

miercuri

13-Jan-2010, 16:37

From what I knew, Chomsky has moved on in the mean time and now teaches pilosophy of language at the MIT. It might be more to Eric's liking.

Polly Parrot

13-Jan-2010, 23:30

Overseas students, or any other person learning the English language as a second language, sometimes are better at English grammar and syntax because they have to learn the rules by heart; native speakers, on the other hand, do not usually have to learn the entire rulebook like that which results in the native speakers using their own language in a more 'natural' way without minding the grammar rules because it's an automatic sort of thing. I've noticed the same thing happening to foreign people from, for example, Russia, who learnt the Dutch language and could recite the Dutch grammar rules much better than I can.

Having said that, the language used some papers is so bad grammatically and syntactically I sometimes wonder whether they've just written something in 10 minutes and published it right away instead of looking at it another times to see if there are any mistakes to correct, it's never a good idea to publish something that should be a draft.

Liam

14-Jan-2010, 01:12

I am Russian and I do not kowtow.And yet, and yet, you're using the medium of English to say this! :(

I received the impression that that you want to court a war.Bring it on, bitches. The good ol' US of A will take all of you down, :p.

I do not want you to learn "unbeautiful language" and read Russian literature if you don't like it.
Не обращай на него внимания; его послушать, Америка тоже дыра потому что здесь никто не знает эстонского, :p.

Эрик не такой плохой парень как может показаться. Он всех пропускает через один и тот же пресс; если будешь расстраиваться каждый раз от его слов, заработаешь себе болезнь сердца.

Плюс, его теория насчет нежелания иностранцев изучать русский язык неверна, и Лиам прямое доказательство обратного, ;).

...

(Eric: please remember, everything I say about you, I say with love, :rolleyes:; you're still my # 1!!!)

A huge hug to EVERYONE here,
Liam.

Liam

14-Jan-2010, 01:46

The sun never sets on the English languageSpeaking of "not unbeautiful languages": Is oth liom a r?: n?l m?r?n Gaeilge agam.

A sad state of affairs, I'm afraid :(, which needs to be rectified soon.

What would happen if the Emerald Isle had beaten back the Normans and gone on to colonize the northern parts of the great American continent? Not a bad question to ask. We would all be wearing kilts now, drink to St. Paddy's health, and put leprechauns on our stamps.

[And no, Liam is NOT a redhead!!! :p].

Eric is right. The English got lucky.

L.

miercuri

14-Jan-2010, 20:13

Liam, seriously, you are always such a darling. :)

hdw

15-Jan-2010, 21:27

Speaking of "not unbeautiful languages": Is oth liom a r?: n?l m?r?n Gaeilge agam.

A sad state of affairs, I'm afraid :(, which needs to be rectified soon.

What would happen if the Emerald Isle had beaten back the Normans and gone on to colonize the northern parts of the great American continent? Not a bad question to ask. We would all be wearing kilts now, drink to St. Paddy's health, and put leprechauns on our stamps.

[And no, Liam is NOT a redhead!!! :p].

Eric is right. The English got lucky.

L.

The Gaelic language in the wider sense is not absent from the North American continent. Scottish Gaelic lives on, along with many Highland traditions lost or moribund over here, in the Atlantic provinces of Canada - Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland - and many of the settlers there were Catholics who have maintained their religion as well as their language. I believe St. Francis Xavier University may owe its existence to Highland Scots settlers.

The November 2009 edition of the Scots Magazine carried a heartwarming article about a pilgrimage - it's not too strong a word - of an extended family of MacArthurs from the Codroy Valley in Newfoundland to the Inner Hebridean island of Canna, which their ancestors left 200 years ago. Some members of this family - Catholics like their Scottish ancestors - are professional musicians and tradition-bearers.

An extract from the article -

"Spirits were high in the lounge [of the ferry] where fiddle and accordion cases were soon opened and the MacArthur magic entertained fellow passengers before they went ashore at the first port of call, the neighbouring island of Rum. Half an hour to go before the ferry would dock in the deep natural harbour of Canna. I felt a mood shift, as instruments were packed away and raincoats and anoraks were claimed from the pile of wet-weather paraphernalia stacked in the corner. This was the moment they had all been waiting for, the moment Sears [MacArthur] had dreamed of all his life.

When he reached the end of the gangplank, he immediately sank to his knees and kissed the ground, crossing himself as he murmured his own quiet prayer; the Gaelic traditions were not the only aspect of Canna life that had been honoured over the centuries. Canna was staunchly Catholic and the MacArthurs had taken their faith with them. I was moved, and I felt humbled."

Harry

Eric

20-Jan-2010, 08:59

Nice story about the Gaels in North America. Is that like when Miss Jean Brodie talked about "My Gaels"?

What I was thinking about today was when an adjective follows the noun. Examples:

The sum outstanding (i.e. the money still to be paid)
An outstanding scholar (i.e. an exceptional / very good scholar)

China proper (i.e. China itself, as opposed to Tibet, etc.)
Proper maintenance (i.e. competent / good maintenance)

For me there is a clear difference when the word order changes. Can you think of more examples?

In the case of "outstanding", nearly every journalist nowadays puts the word before the noun. This is a pity, as word order is another tool to show difference in meaning.

Loki

25-Jan-2010, 22:04

Then we started doing derivitational trees, I could grasp their meaning but failed to see their point! Countless seminar hours spent branching out 'Jane gave the book to Tom.' on the blackboard. Why?

I'm getting back at this post because I'm studying Syntax: An Introduction, by Talmy Giv?n.
In Chapter 3(2.1) it says: What the formalism [phrase-structure (PS) tree diagrams] is good for and he gives four points, which are the following:

Constituency: A clause is not made out of a linear sequence of words, but it has a more complex, hierarchic constituent structure. The clause is in fact divided into major parts, which in turn are sub-divided into sub-parts.
Hierarchy: in a hierarchic structure the whole- the clause (S)- is the top of the hierarchy, dominating all constituents. Its proper parts are then directly dominated by it, and their proper sub-parts are in turn directly modified by them.
Nodes and their category labels: in this PS tree-diagram formalism, each constituent is a node. Each node is labeled according to its syntactic category- S (clause), NP (noun phrase), VP (verb phrase), Adj (adjective) and so on.
Serial order: "[I]one happy consequence of the PS tree-diagram formalism is that it automatically assigns a strict serial order to nodes at all levels of the hierarchy. The left-to-right order in our paper bound formalism is isophormic to the temporal order of spoken words and morphemes. Its two dimensions thus represent, simultaneously, temporal order from left to right, and hierarchic constituency from bottom to top".

This is therefore, according to Giv?n, what formalism is good for, and what tree-diagrams can show us.

miercuri

26-Jan-2010, 12:36

Without wanting to sound superficial, those uses are hardly of any interest to me. They certainly make sense but I couldn't imagine why in the world I would concern myself with these matters.
I am quite amazed I got an 8 (out of 10) in my syntax exam. But there's always next semester. :p I m however looking forward to pragmatics and semantics next year.

miercuri

18-Feb-2010, 14:41

I take back almost every nasty thing I said about syntax in this thread. I just attended a lecture on the syntax of complement clauses (it is actually called that way :p) and the professor is a miracle-worker. She had us all paying attention for two hours, actually following her and everything made sense and seemed sort of interesting! After my previous experience, I never thought I would be saying this. I guess all it takes is a charming professor!
I'm also taking a course in comparative linguistics this semester and it also seems very exciting!

Eric

18-Feb-2010, 16:58

Loki, I do get the feeling that if every writer were to be required to go on a university course to learn all about constituency, hierarchy, nodes and serial killing, there would be no novels, poems, plays or their translations.

I get the feeling that for the practitioner of writing or translating, the tree diagrams only have one use: for monkeys to climb in with their typewriters, so they can rewrite the complete works of Shakespeare by the randomicity of Brownian motion.

Thirty years ago, I used to be thrilled (though not to the point of orgasm) with semantics, pragmatics, and the like. I now realise that in a language area (the English language one) where ludicrously little gets translated, those scholars of all that stuff would do better doing a bit of real-life writing or translation, instead of listing things in a different order for a different tutor every term.

Bottle Rocket

18-Feb-2010, 18:21

[And no, Liam is NOT a redhead!!! :p].

L.

Not collar AND cuffs, anyway

:p BRocket :p

Bottle Rocket

18-Feb-2010, 18:24

Nice story about the Gaels in North America. Is that like when Miss Jean Brodie talked about "My Gaels"?

Now it's Liam: "Give me a Gael at an impressionable age and he will be mine forever!"

:D Brocket :D

Loki

18-Feb-2010, 18:29

Loki, I do get the feeling that if every writer were to be required to go on a university course to learn all about constituency, hierarchy, nodes and serial killing, there would be no novels, poems, plays or their translations.

In fact they do not have to know these things to write novels, poems, plays or their translations.

I get the feeling that for the practitioner of writing or translating, the tree diagrams only have one use: for monkeys to climb in with their typewriters, so they can rewrite the complete works of Shakespeare by the randomicity of Brownian motion.

Nobody claims that these are prerequisites for good writing. I can't see where you've read that the tree diagrams are so important to writers. Some people study the structure of the clause, of the sentence, the phrase, the head noun and so forth; you can do without it, so I can't really see your point.

Thirty years ago, I used to be thrilled (though not to the point of orgasm) with semantics, pragmatics, and the like. I now realise that in a language area (the English language one) where ludicrously little gets translated, those scholars of all that stuff would do better doing a bit of real-life writing or translation, instead of listing things in a different order for a different tutor every term.

Why? That's their field, why can't they study the structure of the language? There are still lots of things we don't know about the language we use, and they're simply trying to figure these things out.

Bottle Rocket

18-Feb-2010, 19:04

What I was thinking about today was when an adjective follows the noun. Examples:

The sum outstanding (i.e. the money still to be paid)
An outstanding scholar (i.e. an exceptional / very good scholar)

China proper (i.e. China itself, as opposed to Tibet, etc.)
Proper maintenance (i.e. competent / good maintenance)

For me there is a clear difference when the word order changes. Can you think of more examples?This is harder than you might think (than I thought it would be, anyhow) but finally I got one:

The left wing (i.e. political liberal/radicals or a football position) as opposed to "the wing left" (i.e. the flying surface not struck by flak or the football front-liner not ejected from the game, whether his actual position is "left wing" or "right wing")

Or what about "happy medium" as opposed to "medium happy" ?

But as interesting as this is (and I am very much of your opinion about being alert to such nuances) the real problem is so basic as to fly beneath the radar of language-aware people. For a while I taught law-school aspirants how to take the LSAT (US legal-aptitude test), of which the hardest element for the majority are the "logic problems." It takes practice to figure out what method to apply to any given problem, but in one class they found it completely impossible; in the end I went back to first principles and asked "Who here can define the difference between 'many' and 'most'?"

Not one person in a class of twenty-some knew. As discouraging as it was amazing.

:( BRocket :(

Eric

19-Feb-2010, 09:44

Loki, of course anyone can study the structure of language, but quite a bit of research involving literature seems to tend towards an analysis of the language, syntax, register, etc., at the expense of the content. Stylistics is OK as far as the micro-level goes, but I feel that there is a danger of burying oneself in a mass of close detail, dissecting a novel or poem, and not necessarily reaching any profound conclusions regarding the linkeage between micro- and macro-level.

As Loki suggests, writers don't have necessarily to know things - they intuit them, or have a feel for them. For me analysis should have practical dimension. If it can show why two authors writing about the same subject differ in quality by examining the structure of paragraphs and chapters, points of view, etc., then I'll read the analysis. But if it's just an exercise in listing examples at sentence level without drawing significant conclusions, then it becomes tedious.

Of course syntax is important. Picking up on Bottle Rocket's "happy medium" point, I always wonder why so many journalists cannot distinguish between the use of "outstanding" when it precedes the noun or comes after it. Ditto, the word "proper".

As for "many" and "most", that isn't a question of syntax, but of conventional usage. "Many" involves a grey and fairly subjective number but more than "a few" or "several"; while "most" implies 51% or more, the majority, again subjectively, depending on what you are setting out to prove. But neither word is clear in terms of strict logic. It's all a question of relative amounts, contrasts, and expectations.

Clarissa

19-Feb-2010, 10:33

Loki

19-Feb-2010, 10:58

Bottle Rocket

19-Feb-2010, 11:00

Bottle Rocket

19-Feb-2010, 11:17

As for "many" and "most", that isn't a question of syntax, but of conventional usage. "Many" involves a grey and fairly subjective number but more than "a few" or "several"; while "most" implies 51% or more, the majority, again subjectively, depending on what you are setting out to prove. But neither word is clear in terms of strict logic. It's all a question of relative amounts, contrasts, and expectations.Point taken ... your parse is precisely what I would have hoped/expected someone in my class to have come up with -- I mentioned it because this is an example of a kind of sloppiness or illiteracy that no amount of syntactical expertise can cure.

I do, however, think that you err when you call it "conventional usage;" syntax it is not, but there is an ABSOLUTE difference in kind -- "many" is an indeterminate relating to number, while "most" is an indeterminate relating to proportion. Even allowing for their non-specificity, the entire point is that they are clear when compared to one another, which is why such distinctions are critical ... word problems simply highlight the necessity of being aware of them.

:) BRocket :)

lenz

19-Feb-2010, 11:58

I find most irritating the placing of 'not' as has now become the accepted usage as in

to not know, to not understand

instead of

not to know, not to understand.

I know language evolves but can this now be considered gramatically correct? Every time I come across this, it worries me.
http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=54515)

It is certainly an awkward way of saying "not to know" and is used too much, but is it necessarily ungrammatical? Couldn't it be a matter of emphasising the state of "not knowing"? The trouble, I think, is that children are not corrected when they make these errors because it seems enough that they make themselves understood at all.
What irritates me is the misuse of the relative pronoun which; as in, "They make you read books, which, that stuff bores me." It seems that which sounds more correct than simple and or but. Here's an example of two errors that really crush my love of humanity: "I liked this book which, there was lots of vampires in it." Saying "which" sounds correct (speaker trying to be good) but "in which" too formal (speaker trying to be cool). Were is almost never used any more since it is merely an unnecessary formality and therefore takes too much energy to say. Vampire lovers may now sharpen their canines.

Bottle Rocket

19-Feb-2010, 12:18

The real distinction is between "which" and "that" ... "the puppy which bit me" or "the puppy that bit me."

"They make you read books, which, that stuff bores me." is just plain wrong, although in spoken usage it is both common and comprehensible. But in this example, which and that are not even used as the same part of speech. The next one: "I liked this book which, there was lots of vampires in it." is like a mash-up of about three different sentences, all DOA syntactically but easily understood in conversation.

These are like "I could care less" used to mean "I could NOT care less."

:) BRocket :)

hdw

19-Feb-2010, 12:56

miercuri

19-Feb-2010, 13:38

The real distinction is between "which" and "that" ... "the puppy which bit me" or "the puppy that bit me."

In this case there is no distiction between which and that, syntactically they have the exact same value.

hdw

19-Feb-2010, 16:03

Well, I do not think that syntax is studied in order to be applied to literature, at least I don't think this is its first aim. They are two separate fields of interest: linguistics and literature. Then. if you apply the "rules" or thoeries of syntax to the analysis of literary texts it will be even better.

Don't get me wrong, I too think that studying what a text is about or translating a book is more interesting and useful, but also studying the syntax has its importance. So we need both of these approaches, each of one has its own scholars(?).

I studied English Language and Literature at Edinburgh University in the 1960s. Both the literature and language depts. enjoyed a good reputation in academic circles, but there was no love lost between them and not much inter-departmental co-operation. But the single course I found most interesting was one that by its very nature crossed departmental boundaries - a course on literary stylistics, taught by the English Language dept., with no input whatever from the so-called literary experts on the next floor. We looked at Hemingway's prose and worked out the grammatical and syntactic idiosyncrasies that made up his "style", and we were given e.e. cummings and John Crowe Ransom poems to analyse for "poeticalness".

One of our lecturers, J.P. Thorne, later to become professor and head of dept. and founder of the School of Epistemics at the university, was a theoretical linguist, a major league intellectual and a personal friend of Chomsky, Katz, Fodor, Postal, all those guys at MIT and Chicago, but he told us he always kept a volume of Raymond Chandler stories by his bedside and on at least one occasion read and analysed the great man's prose with us.

This all seemed very radical and revolutionary compared to the dreary "lit.crit." approach of the Eng. Lit. dept.

Harry

Bottle Rocket

19-Feb-2010, 16:13

Whatever.

HarryLOL ... the latest usage, I hear, is "whatev-AH" or "whevs"

:) BRocket :)

Bottle Rocket

19-Feb-2010, 16:23

In this case there is no distinction between which and that, syntactically they have the exact same value.Well, some copy-editors are very sticky about the order of precedence; they maintain that "which" should always be used in preference to "that" and that "that" should properly only appear as a subordinate of "which"

eg: "The puppy which barked at the car that came down the street" is (according to these purists) better usage than "The puppy that barked at the car which came down the street"

... and woe be to anyone so ignorant as to stick to just one: "The puppy that barked at the car that came down the street" or "The puppy which barked at the car which came down the street" give such people the vapors.

:) BRocket :)

Clarissa

19-Feb-2010, 16:27

miercuri

19-Feb-2010, 18:06

Well, some copy-editors are very sticky about the order of precedence; they maintain that "which" should always be used in preference to "that" and that "that" should properly only appear as a subordinate of "which"

eg: "The puppy which barked at the car that came down the street" is (according to these purists) better usage than "The puppy that barked at the car which came down the street"

... and woe be to anyone so ignorant as to stick to just one: "The puppy that barked at the car that came down the street" or "The puppy which barked at the car which came down the street" give such people the vapors.

:) BRocket :)
I find this absurd, I see why they wouldn't encourage using the same one twice in the same sentance, repetition is annoying. But why would their order matter if one uses them in alternation? Both elements can introduce relative clauses and that's exactly what they do. Well, I'm not a native speaker, but I'm not sure I would stand corrected if I used "that" first. :p

hdw

27-Feb-2010, 18:27

Eric

12-Apr-2010, 11:18

I hadn't heard that one before, Harry.

In this morning's online Times, a headline:

Foreign workers to forced to speak English

No comment

hdw

12-Apr-2010, 21:20

Here's another voice-from-the-back-of-the room apocryphal story -

A firm has decided that its staff need to improve their language skills, so they lay on an after-hours French class. At the beginning of the first lesson, the teacher asks "Is there anyone here who has studied French before?"

Voice from the back of the room: "Je!"

Harry

Eric

12-Apr-2010, 22:27

I had heard the "Je" joke before. In fact, my father told it me, perhaps as early as when I was a teenager in the 1960s. I remember it because my father told few jokes.

Bottle Rocket

13-Apr-2010, 01:06

You've probably heard this one before:-

A linguistics professor is lecturing to his class. "In English, a double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language in which a double positive can form a negative."

Voice from the back of the room: "Yeah, right!"

HarryI believe this quote originates with Sidney Morgenbesser, a professor of philosophy at Columbia who was famously quick on the uptake. In another of his classroom zingers, one of his students asked whether he agreed with Chairman Mao's assertion that a statement could be true and false at the same time. "Well," said Morgenbesser, "I do and I don't."

:) BRocket :)

Eric

22-Apr-2010, 10:35

Syntax means the way words are stuck together in sentences to make sense. Here is a demonstration how syntax can make the difference between sense and nonsense. A headline, in the Swedish language, from today's Upsala Nya Tidning:

Unga f?r ov?ntat l?ga pensioner

The alternative meanings of the individual words:

Unga = young people; young (as adjective)

f?r = gets; sheep (singular or plural)

ov?ntat = unexpected (adjective); unexpectedly (adverb)

l?ga = low; flame

pensioner = pensions; guest houses

*

As you can see, a machine translation, with no feeling for syntax, could come up with:

Young sheep unexpected flame guest-houses

Maybe lambs suddenly set fire to a small hotel? When the intended meaning is, literally:

Young-people get unexpectedly low pensions

A native-speaker of Swedish will automatically pick the right meaning from experience, logic, etc.

Loki

05-Mar-2011, 10:23

Reading an essay about Restoration theatre, I came across this sentence:
Incidentally, during this dissection of Jonson's play [Catiline], Dryden introduces the grammatical 'myth' that a preposition is not something one should end a sentence with.

I think we discussed about this, but I couldn't find it. Anyway, I thought that this "myth" was far more recent.

Eric

05-Mar-2011, 23:40

Is a preposition something you should not end a sentence with?

Well, it is indeed more elegant in formal writing to say (note that I use the word "say" which is idiomatic, though illogical):

"Is a preposition something with which you should not end a sentence?"

But in real life speech, as opposed to writing, a "with which" construction sounds stilted. That's just how it is. If you listen to House of Commons debates, you will get a different syntax to what you hear in the pub (...to that which one hears in the public house).

Pedants, who have little else to do, will wallow in such trivia. If you have been adequately educated, you tend to know automatically where a formal phrase differs from standard speech. Pedants are usually half-educated people who do not possess the flexibility of knowing what differs between speech and formal writing, and will tend to stick to cast iron rules out of sheer insecurity. Obvious, non-native-speakers have good reason to stick to a kind of norm as they don't have the intuitive grasp of the language that a native speaker enjoys.

There are also stupid pedants' rules saying you must not start a sentence with and, but, so, then, because. Sometimes these are required in writing and translation as markers for various things.

Another Procrustean tendency among the half-educated is to say that "all of a sudden" must never be used as it is a cliché. The control freaks will only allow "suddenly".

Loki

06-Mar-2011, 09:50

Being well educated, linguistically speaking, means just that: knowing all the various constructions, phrases to say one thing, and most importantly knowing when to use one and when to use another (formal/informal context etc...). If, for instance, ending a sentence with a preposition is considered informal, then one shouldn't use that construction in a very formal text (be it written or oral).

The all-of-a-sudden "rule" I wasn't aware of.
In a very formal piece of writing (say, a degree thesis) should one avoid starting a sentence with "and", "but"...?

Remora

06-Mar-2011, 15:06

... and woe be to anyone so ignorant as to stick to just one: "The puppy that barked at the car that came down the street" or "The puppy which barked at the car which came down the street" give such people the vapors.

:) BRocket :)

I suppose I'd be roasted alive if I wrote "What it is is a play on the word... " or "He slept in in the hope of..."

Eric

07-Mar-2011, 11:00

Remora, you can always shove a comma in between. When translating, I have found myself confronted with the double-in and the double-that on a number of occasions.

He slept in, in the mornings... What it is, is a play on words... and so on.

But you can't do much with "I think that that one is the best", except leave out the first "that". In speech we do, or course, say "I think thöt thát one is the best".

Eric

03-Apr-2011, 20:14

Notice the correct word order for the words "matters outstanding". "Outstanding matters" are fabulous or remarkable ones.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he could not say what would result from the questioning of Mr Koussa over Lockerbie, but added: "Suffice to say the Scottish government will give the full support to our police and prosecuting authorities in whatever steps and whatever actions they take."

He told BBC News: "There are matters outstanding that cause a great deal of grief, not simply to relatives in the United States but to relatives here.

hdw

03-Apr-2011, 21:24

hdw

03-Apr-2011, 21:28

Notice the correct word order for the words "matters outstanding". "Outstanding matters" are fabulous or remarkable ones.

MacAskill's brain isn't always connected to his mouth. If you have quoted him correctly, I would chastise him for saying "Suffice to say the Scottish government ..." instead of "Suffice it to say that ..."

Harry

Rybuk

04-Apr-2011, 08:47

I saw this thread and the first thing I thought of was E.E. Cummings

since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;
wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world

my blood approves,
and kisses are a better fate
than wisdom
lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry
—the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids' flutter which says

we are for each other: then
laugh, leaning back in my arms
for life's not a paragraph

And death i think is no parenthesis

...Maybe I shouldn't have made a Charles Bukowski Quotes (http://www.charlesbukowskiquotes.com) site, after all!

Eric

04-Apr-2011, 10:51

Whatever crap this journalist writes otherwise, I was only focusing on the one thing and that is that "matters outstanding" is correct because it clearly signals that the matters have not yet been resolved. In certain circumstances, you can reverse normal word order for syntactical effect. While "said he" has long been archaïc after pieces of dialogue, you can still write "said John" and get away with it, as opposed to "John said".

whatever e e cummings says, you have to observe quite a few rules of syntax if your writings are not to be regarded as badly written. there seems to be a tendency nowadays to think that grammar and syntax are luxuries, as opposed to a way of expressing things more clearly. notice how essemessy it looks when you ignore the convention of starting sentences with capital letters. they don't do so in arabic, hebrew, etc., but we are writing english. some conventions are there to be helpful.

As for "slept in", that's a good point. But the Oxford dictionary does give it as meaning "had a lie in" i.e. staying in bed longer in the morning.

Eric

01-May-2011, 16:19

The Independent about the French actor Gérard Depardieu:

He's also seen through a poverty-ravished childhood, a short spell in jail for theft and a 26-year marriage.
I didn't know that poverty could ravish, nor did I know you could be put in prison for having a 26-year marriage... The correct English word is "ravage". "Ravish" means "rape".

hdw

01-May-2011, 19:26

The Independent about the French actor Gérard Depardieu:

I didn't know that poverty could ravish, nor did I know you could be put in prison for having a 26-year marriage... The correct English word is "ravage". "Ravish" means "rape".

I remember the kerfuffle some years ago when it leaked out that Depardieu had admitted raping a girl when he was younger. Bad translation. It transpired that he had said he had assisté à a rape - i.e. been present - when he was too young to understand what the older boys were doing.

Harry

Eric

02-May-2011, 11:17

Yes, that deserves a place on the faux amis thread. Some half-educated dumbo had been given the task of translation, as usual.

Eric

17-Aug-2011, 09:03

From the Telegraph this morning. Me speak English:

Germany and France looked fail to calm feverish financial markets despite
unveiling raft of economic agreements at summit in Paris.

Loki

18-Aug-2011, 23:10

Here's something that I've been noticing recently in contemporary writers (in writers of thrillers specifically, but I think we can extend it to all types of writers). I've come across sentences in which the relative clause is separated by a full stop from the main clause, while generally we find a comma or nothing ar all: for instance we can write I saw George, who was smoking a cigarette. Now the latest fashion would seem to be writing sentences like I saw George. Who was smoking a cigarette (of course the sentence would be a bit longer than this one). I've never found this thing in older writers, neither in English nor in Italian (it would be the same: Ho visto Giorgio. Che fumava una sigaretta), and now that I'm reading John Grisham's The Broker I've seen two examples of this phenomenon. Now, I don't know if that's something older than I think it is. Anyway, I can't really see why one should want to separate the relative clause from the main one: considering that a relative clause is a subordinate clause, it's absurd to separate the two clauses, as the relative one would stop being a subordinate at all (a convoluted reasoning, I know, I hope I've expressed myself).
While using this kind of sentences does not compromise the understanding, I see the whole thing as useless and illogic from a syntactic point of view.

Eric

19-Aug-2011, 00:04

I would say that the contruction "I saw George. Who was smoking a cigarette." is perfectly acceptable in small doses, for rhythmic effect. But if authors start to dream of writing hard-boiled syntax, they will end up writing half-baked bullshit.

All the perfectly sensible reasoning in the world won't stop an obsessive editor. Who wants to "spice up" or otherwise make more exciting what is yet another boring crime novel. Written to make lots of money.

Maybe Hemingway did it. Ask someone who's read a lot of him.

Loki

19-Aug-2011, 07:51

I don't think people (like me) reading boring crime novels, as you call them, will care much for style, or at least whether the writer separates the relative clause or not.
I remember that I'd already found this thing in Graham Swift's Waterland; I'll write an example, to show that in this case it's different and much better stylistically speaking:

And by the Leem lived a lock-keeper. Who was my father. Who was a phlegmatic yet sentimental man. Who told me, [...]. Who was wounded at the third battle of Ypres. [...] Who when asked about his memories of the war, would invariably reply that he remembered nothing. Yet who when he was not asked would sometimes recount bizarre anectodes...

And so on and so forth for another page, with every paragraph starting with "Who".

Eric

19-Aug-2011, 09:49

The who-who-who author must have been trying for stylistic effect. I don't think he "forgot" about all those whos. But if you do that sort of thing too much you will simply irritate the reader.

When, in "The Death of Vergil", Hermann Broch wrote a sentence that was six-and-half pages long, he knew what he was doing. But now all manner of postmodernist authors try to write whole books in one paragraph, or even one sentence. All these things can be tried once, just like the novel "Finnegans Wake" was an experiment in multi-meaning and portmanteau words. But once again, the trendies have come along and done the same thing so often that it has become a tiring and somewhat narcissistic cliché. If they've got a good story to tell, they don't need to distract the reader's attention with supersyntax and weird words on every page.

Ultimately, syntax should help the reader understand the story, not be foregrounded so that it becomes the story. Because that gets boring very quickly.