http://www.englishforums.com/English/LinguisticsDiscussionForum/Forum35.htmGet into the nitty-gritty of the language.enXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/10/xgpm/Post.htm#460503Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:460503Alienvoord0http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/10/xgpm/Post.htm#460503http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-460503.xmlCalifJim wrote: Re: emotionally involved Especially in Bailey's case, when it comes to the "subjunctive". I think he had some sort of trauma involving the subjunctive earlier in his life, and it's affected him adversely forever. Strange that in modern spoken French the subjunctive is essentially tenseless (does not follow the sequence of tenses 'rules' that Bailey requires of a 'true' subjunctive), but Bailey never mentions this fact (far as I remember), even though he draws French-English connections in at other points in his writing. I think he makes a good point: it behaves like an infinitive in that it doesn't take do-support. OTOH, the French subjunctive is clearly finite and has two inflected tenses.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#460447Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:460447Tou_che1http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#460447http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-460447.xmlAs for me,this idea is too skeptic .I am not native speaker of english but ELT student.We are here to learn english not to be confused.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#75645Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75645MrPedantic2http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#75645http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75645.xmlJT, you were going to provide some information about the (C11) Norman-French connection. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73744Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73744MrPedantic3http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73744http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73744.xmlI was going to get back to you on this French connection Did you have any further thoughts about this, JT? As I mentioned before, my question relates to C11 Norman-French pronoun pairs, rather than their modern equivalents. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73619Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73619CalifJim4http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73619http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73619.xmlI meant to emphasize the ugliness of terms like "processual" and "throwback" more than to emphasize the beauty (?!) of terms like "imperative" and "subjunctive"!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73578Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73578julielai5http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73578http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73578.xmlIn what ways are the traditional names aesthetically pleasing? Just curious. Most disagreements over academic research are squabbles over definitions. e.g. A researcher would say: The English standard in Place A has declined because of factors A, B, and C. (the erosion of elitist standards, etc etc.) Another researcher would beg to differ: The English standard in Place A has not declined if you take into account factos A, B, and C. (like how we provide education now to students other than elites)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73572Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73572CalifJim6http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73572http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73572.xmlRe: emotionally involved Especially in Bailey's case, when it comes to the "subjunctive". I think he had some sort of trauma involving the subjunctive earlier in his life, and it's affected him adversely forever. Strange that in modern spoken French the subjunctive is essentially tenseless (does not follow the sequence of tenses 'rules' that Bailey requires of a 'true' subjunctive), but Bailey never mentions this fact (far as I remember), even though he draws French-English connections in at other points in his writing. I think Bailey has got an interesting way of reframing a lot of the traditional ways of approaching grammar, and it might even be useful in teaching some of the concepts. But it seems to me that he has just given...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73537Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73537MrPedantic7http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73537http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73537.xmlmost assumptions in social science research have inherent cultural bias That's what intrigues me about the works that have been cited in this thread, such as Bailey's essay and Pinker's Language Instinct. A mathematician can stand back from his Xs and Ys and Zs. And I can imagine a style of linguistics that stood back from coordinated pronouns and 'split infinitives', and simply regarded them as part of the squeaks and puffs and grunts of the human animal. But Pinker and Bailey seem to be quite emotionally involved in their various polemics. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73522Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73522Casi8http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73522http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73522.xmlJulie wrote: . . . most assumptions in social science research have inherent cultural bias Fantastic point, Julie. It's not really a matter of the sciences, per se, though, . . . or is it?("Scientists" used to think the world was flat.) Maybe science, soft or hard, and learning and acquisition are more about navigating our way through the variablity to find that constant that works more efficiently.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73508Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73508julielai9http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/9/xgpm/Post.htm#73508http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73508.xmlMay I add my two cents? From my experience, most assumptions in social science research have inherent cultural bias. e.g. Back in the 70s, psychologists all rushed to the conclusion about how having a good self-esteem is oh-so-vital to our learning process. Now they go to the other side of the spectrum and say "maybe self-esteem isn't so important after all". Yet, human nature hasn't changed in the past 30 years.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73490Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73490Casi10http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73490http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73490.xmlIf these problems are unresolved, is it premature to call linguistics a science? It depends on your definition of "science", I guess. Linguistics is a science. A "soft" science, a social science. (speech pathology is considered a "hard" science.) Hey, hold on. Don't these apply to scientists in general (e.g., biologists, doctors)? a) How to stand outside the system they're studying. b) How to extract predictive rules. 3) How to ensure that their hypotheses are falsifiable.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73459Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73459MrPedantic11http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73459http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73459.xmlIf I am speeding down Highway 101, I am violating the laws of California; I am not violating the laws of physics. That seems like a good analogy to me. There are some interesting problems for linguistic scientists: a) How to stand outside the system they're studying. b) How to extract predictive rules. 3) How to ensure that their hypotheses are falsifiable. If these problems are unresolved, is it premature to call linguistics a science? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73404Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73404MrPedantic12http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73404http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73404.xmlI tend to agree that things are a little more complicated than the title of this thread would suggest. Two hypotheses and a bit of burble: How D-ism affects the system it describes: 1. The Ds collect data and extract rules. The data and rules are tabulated and made public. 2. The D-data/rules influence grammars such as the CGEL. 3. People begin to cite the CGEL. 4. The CGEL begins to influence usage. 5. The next generation of Ds collects data influenced by the previous generation of Ds and extracts rules. The data and rules are tabulated...{loop} How P-ism affects the system it prescribes: 1. The Ps collect data and extract rules. 2. The P-data/rules are collected in books such as Fowler's MEU. 3. People begin to cite...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73394Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73394Casi13http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73394http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73394.xmlI'd like to comment to all, and sorry MrP for using your post, but it offers great insight. MrP wrote: One odd thing: I don't notice many split infinitives in my limited reading of pre-C18 texts. I would have thought they'd be everywhere, if C18 prescriptive grammars had had the dramatic effect Pinker mentions on language. Yet I see surprisingly few. Why is this, do you think? Possibly, who wrote the texts, who edited the texts, and who published the texts? (What's actually printed isn't necessarily a good or valid indication of what's actually spoken by the mutitudes.) I like Jim's take on it, too. Mind you, in my humble opinion, there's a prescriptivist in all of us, and not just in our use of grammar, whatever the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73385Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73385CalifJim14http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73385http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73385.xmlOne odd thing: I don't notice many split infinitives in my limited reading of pre-C18 texts. I would have thought they'd be everywhere, if C18 prescriptive grammars had had the dramatic effect Pinker mentions on language. Yet I see surprisingly few. Why is this, do you think? It's because, CJ butted in, the language is going to the dogs these days. (I hear murmurs and tongue-clucking.) Prescriptivists want to save the language by encouraging people to use it correctly, effectively, and beautifully. Descriptivists want to save it by redefining what is correct. (They have no interest in the effective or the beautiful. They literally don't care how people communicate nor how well, and they say so quite shamelessly! They just sit...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73379Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73379MrPedantic15http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73379http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73379.xmlWonderful, JT. Thank you. But I am still a little perplexed. Those look like quite recent publications. I was hoping for examples of passages from C18 prescriptive grammars, as you sound as if you have some personal knowledge of these things. Are you able to cite some passages for us? One odd thing: I don't notice many split infinitives in my limited reading of pre-C18 texts. I would have thought they'd be everywhere, if C18 prescriptive grammars had had the dramatic effect Pinker mentions on language. Yet I see surprisingly few. Why is this, do you think? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73374Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73374just the truth16http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73374http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73374.xmlDone Mr P. History of PG: Bryson, 1990; Crystal, 1987; Lakoff, 1990; McCrum, Cran & MacNeil, 1986; Nunberg, 1992. Now, could you please post those 'other forums' that you have so often mentioned but failed to provide links as asked?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73371Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73371MrPedantic17http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73371http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73371.xmlMost of the hobgoblins of contemporary prescriptive grammar (don't split infinitives, don't end a sentence with a preposition) can be traced back to these 18th Century fads. I don't have the book to hand, JT, and my memory isn't what it was. (At least, I assume it isn't what it was.) Pinker presumably follows this rhetorical flourish with a lengthy and scholarly list of references: 'in this C18 prescriptive grammar, we find the origins of this erroneous rule; in that C18 prescriptive grammar, we find the origins of that erroneous rule'. Would you be able to remind us what these references are? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73364Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73364just the truth18http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/8/xgpm/Post.htm#73364http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73364.xmlmountainhiker: If it were that simple, then all native English speakers would be highly proficient in speaking, reading, and writing. Unfortunately, they ain't. Moreover, listening is trivial. Monkey's can listen to English all day, but I am not sure you want to have a long conversation with a monkey. Corresponding with an English speaking person by talking and writing will get the synapses firing. But in order to communicate, you have to know some ground rules. All native speakers are highly proficient in the grammar they use for their dialect, MH. You're confusing grammatical structure, which all ENLs know exceedingly well, with knowledge of vocabulary and the ability to give speeches and the ability to write, etc. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73252Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73252MrPedantic19http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73252http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73252.xmlThanks, Casi. Your point is very similar to the one I was making. It's buried somewhere in the first page of this thread. (I didn't say it was an interesting post; so don't feel obliged to hunt it down.) MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73247Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73247Casi20http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73247http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73247.xmlMrP wrote: I find the 'for you and I/me and you are' duo quite interesting. (cited) bartleby.com : Lounsbury, following Dean Alford, says came into English in imitation of the French c’est moi, and defends it as at least as good as “it is I.” There's more here: Source:http://www.bartleby.com/185/41.html As for the French connection: "moi" is called a stress pronoun, or rather pronom toniques (e.g., lui, eux), and it's used only in certain grammatical contexts: When no verb is implied: Qui est à la porte?— C'est moi , Hubert. ( C'est *je ; subject pronoun) Who is at the door?—It's me, Hubert. (Note, it's been argued, and I don't have the source handy at the 'mo, that 'est' doesn't function as a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73210Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73210phalder7921http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73210http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73210.xmlDear Sir/Madam, I am Mr. Pradipta Halder from India. My English Forums user id is phalder79. I have written a letter of motivation for a masters programme. I want to get it edited by you. But I don't know how to post my letter. Do I paste my letter on this box ? Please help me. My formal email id is phalder79@rediffmail.com. You can send your suggestion there. The last date of application is 28 th Feb 2005. Please reply at the earliest. Thanks Pradiptahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73163Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73163Su Cheng Zhong22http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73163http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73163.xmlI always wonder some thing in English grammar. For instance, the sentence: I drive him. 'I' is the subject. 'Him' is the object. Yet their position have told us this too. Is that means the English grammar is sort of double expressing? For if the sentences of: I him drive. drive I him. drive him I. him drive I. him I drive. never happened in our printing material, the position will tell us what they are. Another example is this: I carried him, before. It is also double expressing. The past tense 'ed' tells us the action happened in the past, while the word 'before' tells this too. So the question would be; why should we express a certain meaning in a sentence twice, while other meaning only once? Is there any meaning that need to be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73101Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73101MrPedantic23http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73101http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73101.xmlHello Casi I find the 'for you and I/me and you are' duo quite interesting. In fact I think you and I ('me-and-you') have discussed it before. To my mind, the CGEL explanation involves a lapse of logic, while the Bailey explanation is short on historical evidence (in the article JTT mentions, at least). Pinker discusses it somewhere too, but I can't remember what he says (though I do remember it was mostly conjectural). I expect I've misunderstood Bailey's explanation. I am easily confused. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73091Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73091just the truth24http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73091http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73091.xmlMr P: To return to the original posting: it would be interesting to know whether Professor Bailey could defend his seemingly inaccurate analysis of the links between English and French. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Mr P, I was going to get back to you on this French connection but it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Before you rush off tilting at windmills, you should be certain that you fully understand just what it is Prof Bailey is saying about the connection between French and English. Could you please let me know some of those other sites you've located, Sire? Just to clear up another thing. No, Casi, I'm not Japanese-Canadian. I'm a mixed boat, to be sure, but as far as I know, there are no Japanese ancestors in...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73048Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73048Casi25http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73048http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73048.xmlYou're welcome, Mr P. You'd be surprised how busy he actually is. Try him. His ideas are not that radical, or are they? You've me intrigued with the French connection. Do tell. What do you see that I don't see, or haven't yet picked up on?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73021Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73021MrPedantic26http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73021http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73021.xmlThanks, Casi! I expect he's a very busy man, but with luck a rebuttal already exists for the points I've raised. That's assuming I make it through his firewall. He must be overwhelmed with queries, to judge by the other forums that cite his findings – sometimes in surprisingly similar terms. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73019Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73019Casi27http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/7/xgpm/Post.htm#73019http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73019.xmlMr Pedantic wrote: If anyone knows e-mail address, please feel free to let me know... MH has it. It's the correct address, and the N. stands for Nice. His bio is here: http://www.orlapubs.com/A/A2.html (He wrote it) It's fairly lengthy, and most of it is about his mother, but if you intend to contact him, it'll give you an idea of where he's been, what he's done, and so on.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#73002Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73002CalifJim28http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#73002http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73002.xmlLet's start at the beginning. What's the difference between "prescriptive" and "descriptive"? If I am speeding down Highway 101, I am violating the laws of California; I am not violating the laws of physics. In this sentence the word "laws" occurs twice - first, meaning "prescriptive laws" - and second, meaning "descriptive laws". Laws or rules created by societies in order to govern behavior are prescriptive. Laws or rules "discovered" by scientists from observations of nature are descriptive. I place "discovered" in scare quotes because in fact descriptive rules are not so much discovered as they are invented. The scientist cannot dictate to nature how to behave; he cannot make a prescriptive rule. He must 'reverse engineer'...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72966Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72966just the truth29http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72966http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72966.xmlCould you provide some links, Mr P? Feel free to delete this posting.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72960Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72960anon130http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72960http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72960.xmlMrP, Maybe just start it for him? He might not be logged on or paying attention. Simply remove his stuff, place a link to the new thread and delete our posts here. MHhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72956Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72956MrPedantic31http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72956http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72956.xmlHello Su Would it be possible for you to start a new thread for this subject? It will require some careful thought, and JTT's original subject matter is already quite complex! If you start a new thread, I'll delete your last post. Many thanks! MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72954Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72954Su Cheng Zhong32http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72954http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72954.xmlPlease click here for Su Cheng Zhong's post about the vocabulary problem in modern English. Post:73175 Moved to its own thread by MrPedantic.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72950Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72950MrPedantic33http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72950http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72950.xmlJust the thing. Many thanks, MH! There's quite a lot of discussion of this document on other forums too. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72948Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72948anon134http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72948http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72948.xmlMrP, With just a few mouse clicks, I think I might have found your answer: http://www.lsadc.org/members/index.php?aaa=b.htm You will have to search for Bailey on the page. It's pretty easy. I am having you go and look at the page to make sure that I have the correct person. Otherwise, I would just provide the email here. MountainHikerhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72934Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72934MrPedantic35http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72934http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72934.xmlPlease stick to the topic of this thread. To return to the original posting: it would be interesting to know whether Professor Bailey could defend his seemingly inaccurate analysis of the links between English and French. If anyone knows his e-mail address, please feel free to let me know... MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72902Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72902anon136http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/6/xgpm/Post.htm#72902http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72902.xmlCJ, Something to think about. I am going to let those with greater interests and better backgrounds solve that mystery. I am going to slink back into lurking mode on this thread. MountainHikerhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72857Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72857Casi37http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72857http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72857.xmlFriendly 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!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72789Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72789CalifJim38http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72789http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72789.xmlI 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72782Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72782CalifJim39http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72782http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72782.xmlSo, 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.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72735Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72735Su Cheng Zhong40http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72735http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72735.xmlThank 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.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72733Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72733julielai41http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72733http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72733.xmlEnglish 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72730Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72730Su Cheng Zhong42http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72730http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72730.xmlThank 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?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72728Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72728MrPedantic43http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72728http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72728.xmlHello 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.) MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72722Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72722Su Cheng Zhong44http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72722http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72722.xmlThank 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,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72706Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72706MrPedantic45http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/5/xgpm/Post.htm#72706http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72706.xmlIsn'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. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72703Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72703julielai46http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72703http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72703.xmlI'm glad we're on the same page! Seriously, I think those of us who have a basic command of a second language more or less go through the same learning process.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72697Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72697anon147http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72697http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72697.xmlCJ, As seen from my comments to Julielai, we're on the same page, I think. ...monkeys don't have the necessary brain power to acquire language, so I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. I think Monkey's can communicate, just not at our level. I think they'd be stuck if you "stuck" them in a cage with a TV and expected them to learn anything. They's probably just smash the TV and hurt themselves. So even "watching and listening" isn't enough. I think the key is interaction (exposure). And that is what our friend julielai was refering to. Monkey Communication Back to the zoo. MountainHikerhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72695Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72695anon148http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72695http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72695.xmljulielai, I see CJ already commented. I agree with your comments and CJ's comments. I just took issue with "listening" only. Agreed, exposure is required. But the best exposure is where you are forced to communicate. When I studied a foreign language I tended to study more of the textbook and didn't actively seek out opportunities to practice communicating as much as I should have. Many of my classmates who went to the bar and chatted up the locals learned the language better than I did. I might have known more of some of the subtleties, but they could function better in the environment. So I think we're saying the same thing, essentially. MountainHikerhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72688Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72688julielai49http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammar/4/xgpm/Post.htm#72688http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-72688.xmlCalifJim: Oops, sorry! I got carried away! Don't worry. I assume that was also hyperbole.