MrPedantic  +  72706 Mon, 07 Feb 05 08:11 PM Isn't that rather unscientific? By this I meant: 'to use the word scientific as a term of approval for the articles in question is itself surely unscientific'. It's true that the word is also inaccurate, in this context. I'm not sure how these specimens of someone else's polemic add to the discussion, but maybe JTT will explain when he next logs on. MrP MrPedantic Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004 Veteran Member 12,592 ...opella forensis / adducit febris... Grammar, Articles

	Su Cheng Zhong  +  72722 Mon, 07 Feb 05 10:41 PM Thank you Julielai for answer my question. But I'd like to introduce myself a little. My interesting in linguistics is perhaps different with the current grammatical idea. I like to analyze grammar mathematical way. What is a mathematical way? For instance, as grammar is the rule of connecting or governing arrangement of meaning carriers (either words or terms), so, if the time of oral expressing of a certain meaning changed (shorter or longer), then the grammar have to change too. A morphologic example may be from the words about 'goose', such as gosling, gander, gaggle, geese etc. Why will we keep so many words in mind? The only reason is to make our oral expressing shorter. Supposing there is no words like gaggle, then every time, when we want to express this idea, we have to us 'flock of geese' obviously, it is longer than 'gaggle' in oral expressing. That means to say we increasing the memory in our mind to exchange a faster expressing in mouth. Another limit for language is that from psychology that only in the short-term memory we can use our language fluently. Form above, we know that once the oral expressing time changed, then the grammar have to change too. On this point of view, the English grammar or even Chinese grammar needs to be improved. Su Cheng Zhong Joined on Mon, Feb 7 2005 New Member 29 Grammar, English Grammar

	MrPedantic  +  72728 Mon, 07 Feb 05 10:58 PM Hello Su Cheng Zhong, In answer to your earlier comment: please don't be deterred by the exuberant tone of some of the posts on this thread. To some extent, the subject matter has been carried over from other threads; any inexplicably robust responses may well relate to those previous conversations! I am interested in your comment that 'only in the short-term memory we can use our language fluently'. Would this be a subject you would be willing to expand on? (You may find it easier to start a new thread, since it seems like a new subject.) MrP MrPedantic Grammar, Conversations

	Su Cheng Zhong  +  72730 Mon, 07 Feb 05 11:04 PM Thank you, CalifJim. I think our difference is that I want find the weakness of English grammar, then improve it. Making the language an unbeatable, scientific and final international language. While you seemed concern how to teach this language. Obviously, under your concern, you are right. But it doesn't solve my question. Greek, Latin and French had been the international language in their times. I wonder if the current English speakers hope this language follow their examples, or improve this language, to make it universal language? Su Cheng Zhong Grammar, English Grammar

	julielai  +  72733 Mon, 07 Feb 05 11:16 PM English is universal because it keeps borrowing words from other langs. to adapt to cultural changes. It's highly flexible, though the neverending changes make the system "messy". Chinese is not capable of such borrowing (because of the way characters are formed). In a way, our writing systems reflect our cultural differences. (But that's neither here nor there.) uhmmm, for English to be as universal and systematic as you wish it to be, we have to adopt a universal culture. That way we can iron out all the subtle differences. Is it possible? No se. Any conformation to a worldwide standard will entail sacrificing subtleties in each dialect (to reflect regional differences in language and culture), which I'm not sure we are ready for. That would be like saying that shrimp dumplings all over the word have to be made with the same recipe...... julielai Joined on Sun, Oct 24 2004 Senior Member 3,829 Just another blogger (http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/julie-lai) Grammar, Dialects

	Su Cheng Zhong  +  72735 Mon, 07 Feb 05 11:33 PM Thank you MrPedantic. My interesting is finding a final international intellectual language for the world. It is not an artificial language like Esperanto. It is a language that improved by a certain nature language. I have found a linguistic law for all languages. The process is that once people understand the 'law' they may improve their own language automatically. The most hopeful two languages are Chinese and English. The funny thing is that when I talk my theory in the forum of Beijing University, they blocked my access. While on the other hand, when I talking this in forum 'conlang' of Yahoo, some patriotic hacker blocked me too. So, in this forum, I try to explain it gradually, in order not to stimulate too many people. Su Cheng Zhong Universities, Grammar

	CalifJim  +  72782 Tue, 08 Feb 05 06:22 AM So, in this forum, I try to explain it gradually, in order not to stimulate too many people. That's probably a good idea. It sounds like a very controversial linguistic law you have there. CalifJim Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004 California Veteran Member 22,465 "There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche Grammar

	CalifJim  +  72789 Tue, 08 Feb 05 07:08 AM I think Monkey's can communicate, just not at our level. Let me clarify. I was drawing a distinction between the ability to communicate (just not at our level) -- an ability that nearly every multi-cellular species possesses -- and the ability to acquire (and use) language -- an ability unique to our own species (with the possible exception of Koko and other experimental oddities of that kind). I was also drawing a distinction between learning a language and acquiring it. While watching and listening may not be enough, I don't think we should underestimate its importance for acquiring language, either. Youngsters do a lot of watching and listening (and interacting, I certainly agree there). Otherwise they would never be able to work out the grammar of their own language well enough to use it without being taught! And we all know that we don't teach three-year olds grammar ("This is a noun. That's a double negative. This is a complementizer. ...") -- we let them acquire it (work it out) on their own. The question is whether adults still have the ability to acquire language, given that we know they can learn one. Cases of language-deprived children suggest not, but I wonder if this draws a false inference from a pathological case. The same might not be true for a normal adult who has already successfully acquired his own language. Something to think about. CJ CalifJim Nouns, Grammar, Negatives

	Casi  +  72857 Tue, 08 Feb 05 01:45 PM Friendly reminder: Please stick to the topic of this thread. And please, if you are going to communicate in another language, please provide the English translations for those of us non-Japanese speakers who are following or interested in the contents of this thread. For example, JTT wrote: Chigaimasu, Juri san. Kanadajin desu. English Translation: JTT wrote: No, Julie. I am Canadian. Gee, JTT. I didn't know you were Japanese-Canadian. Cool! Casi Joined on Sat, Sep 25 2004 Regular Member 547 Grammar, Translation