Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Dialects' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Dialects'

lINGUISTICS as a conversation

noel gomez — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:39:42 GMT

Good day! Hi there! i just would like to know if Lingustics can be used as a tool for everyday's conversations, public speaking and many more; how does it benefit us and what are its effects to us. Thankyou. I just would like to sahre something i've read about linguistics - its history and unique characteristics. Correct me if i'm wrong. The article goes like this:

Wikipedia

Main article: Arabic grammar

Due to the rapid expansion of Islam in the 8th century, many people learned Arabic as a lingua franca. For this reason, the earliest grammatical treatises on Arabic are often written by non-native speakers.

The earliest grammarian who is known to us is Ê¿Abd AllÄh ibn AbÄ« Isá¸¥Äq al-á¸¤aá¸ramÄ« (d. 735-736 AD, 117 AH). The efforts of three generations of grammarians culminated in the book of the Persian linguist SibÄwayhi (c. 760-793).

Sibawayh made a detailed and professional description of Arabic in 760 in his monumental work, Al-kitab fi al-nahw (Ø§ÙÙØªØ§Ø¨ ÙÙ Ø§ÙÙØÙ, The Book on Grammar), bringing many linguistic aspects of language to light. In his book he distinguished phonetics from phonology.

Traditionally, the Arabic grammatical sciences are divided into five branches:

al-luÄ¡ah (lexicon) concerned with collecting and explaining vocabulary

at-taá¹£rÄ«f (morphology) determining the form of the individual words

an-naá¸¥w (syntax) primarily concerned with inflection (irÄb) which had already been lost in dialects.

al-iÅ¡tiqÄq (derivation) examining the origin of the words

al-balÄÄ¡ah (rhetoric) which elucidates construct quality

Thanks!

Re: Legitimising dialect discrimination

Jon Salt — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:18:59 GMT

Yes, indeed sir, but there's hardly any proving such, for there be few souls who be able to legislate well on what we must and must not be doing in such and such an accent. It be one of the ways in which the talk of gentlefolk is different than that of us country lads. We surely have no conversations upon the rightness of our syntaxes down at the old Green Man, Lord Micawber! Well,I don't expect your lordships to agree.You knows from book-learning that a dialect speaker is no worse than another fella, and I'm sure that in a few years when my manner of silly thinking has a'died out, the courts of law will be a'full of law folk using all kinds of grammars and local wordings, and not only those high-falutin fellas who can a'muster up standard sentences.

Re: Legitimising dialect discrimination

Jon Salt — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:19:49 GMT

Hello, sirs. I be applying to join in your conversations. I have noticed that those around me what tend to stick with dialect do tend to be those fellows who consciously reject the education what is provided by the centre. I humbly submit, sirs, that those who uses dialects do in fact tend to be duller of mind and spirit than those who don't. Now, don't be getting me wrongly, there ain't no reasons why the dialect of the centre is better than the dialect of the regions sirs. It is just that there do exist a tendency for the educated country folk to lose their dialect and retain but a mild accent. If you gentlefolk are honest with youselfs, you will find that you don't expect much by talk from a fella with a very strong local flavour to his chat. He will be found to be a fella with very strong local thoughts.

Re: quick or quickly

Mr Wordy — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:06:10 GMT

In "proper" conversational and written English, the first three should all be "quickly" (though some dialects might use "quick"). In #3 more people of all persuasions might say "quick" in conversation, or even in informal writing (though never in formal writing). I might myself.

Given the way you've punctuated #4, this, again should be "quickly" in "proper" English in my opinion. "Quickly" qualifies "call" adverbially in the usual way, but there's a slight pause before the "quickly" sentiment is expressed (kind of like "You need to call her ... and quickly.") It is possible for "quick" to be an exclamation that urges the person to hurry up, rather than an adverb qualifying "call". I think that's what you're getting at, but to me an exclamation mark is required, and I'd probably write it as two sentences: "You need to call her. Quick!".

Re: What language has more everyday words?

Kooyeen — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:58:14 GMT

Maybe you are referring to words used in everyday conversations.
Well, there are not many in English. Less than in Italian, at least, I guess.
In my dialect there are very little, anyway. There are no formal words, only informal ones (my dialect is never used in formal situations).

Re: Is American English lazy English?

Marvin A. — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:38:52 GMT

>> I got what you meant MrP ... When i make a conversation , i use them (um, er..etc) involuntary. For example if we were talking face to face , i would say 'i use them ,umm,invotuntary.' . Because i would think to find a fit word...

In my opinion , i have not found that kind of expressions necessasy so far. I will use them frequently from now on. <<

I hope you know that he was being droll (at least I hope). I would ask that you not attempt to overuse such words. He was pointing out how unclear some English dialects can be.

Re: what is an english dialogue

Grammar Geek — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:42:07 GMT

Do you mean dialect perhaps, instead of dialogue?

A dialogue is a conversation. I'm sure there are more linguisticly formal ways to describe a dialect, but it's basically the way a group of people use grammar, and their vocabulary and pronunciation.

Re: Modal verbs

milky — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:08:29 GMT

That's all very well, but we ARE analysing language use here. We need to do that in order to learn.

In which context and which use of the modal?

MUST

1. Deontic "must": I must take these pills with food. (Deontic modals are those which talk about: commands, orders, instructing, obliging, etc.)

2. Epistemic "must": I must take these pills with food. (Epistemic modals are "concerned with the speakerâs judgement of the truth of the proposition embedded in the statement" (see link))

So, deontic use expanded into a wider context could be:

I must take these pills with food, as the doctor ordered.

Epistemic context could be:

I must take these pills with food as they make me feel sick when I take them without.

-----------

HAVE TO

At the link I posted, it was stated that epistemically "there seems to be little difference between have to and must". So, we normally say "his light is on, he has to/must be home" without too much thought about which to use.

Deontically speaking, it is said that have to does not have a strong role*, i.e. we don't use it a lot in that way. Must, on the other hand, does have a strong deontic role, which is why we more commonly hear things such as:

You must be home by seven.

You must not smoke in this room!

...............

So, it's not a question of putting "have to" and "must" into one bag, but more a need to understand the different uses in context.

* "In dialects where must is rarely used deontically (such as many American dialects) the form for obliging someone to do something is often the imperative." (See link)

Re: contraction

Likeguslee — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:19:31 GMT

b is correct. He isn't a good boy

Here are the rules for contractions:

Apostrophes with Verb Contractions

Apostrophes generally show missing letters in contractions. In most formal writing such contractions should be avoided.

The most common contractions involve verbs in five situations.

1. Verbs with not contracted, or shortened.

Examples: aren't don't isn't wasn't can't weren't weren't wouldn't doesn't hasn't haven't couldn't

Note: The word won't is a contraction of will not--in older dialects will was often spelled with an o. The word shan't for shall not is seldom used in the United States. The word ain't is considered nonstandard.

2. Pronouns with will.

Examples: I'll you'll he'll she'll they'll

Note: In conversation the word will is often slurred and may show up in dialogue as 'll after most nouns, e.g., "John'll come home soon."

3. Pronouns and nouns with the verb to be.

Examples: I'm you're who's (i.e., who is) he's she's it's we're they're

Note: In conversation the word is is often contracted with nouns, e.g. "Martha's here."

Please note four confusing contractions:

who's it's you're they're

Remember, the apostrophe indicates that letters have been left out.

who's = who is or who has you're = you are it's = it is or it has they're = they are

The possessive of who is whose.

Correct: Who's coming with me? (Contraction)

Correct: Whose book is this? (Possessive)

4. Pronouns with the verb to have.

Examples: I've he's you've we've they've

(Note that the 's could stand for is or has.)

Note: Sometimes the word have is slurred, especially after verbs like would, could, and should. In dialogue this can be shown as 've, but never as of.

Incorrect: We would of like to have gone.

Correct: We would've liked to have gone.

(To show contraction in speaking)

Correct: We would have liked to have gone.

(In more formal writing)

5. Pronouns with would or had contracted.

Examples: I'd he'd she'd you'd we'd they'd

I'd better go.

(I had better go.)

He'd want to go.

(He would want to go.)

In everyday conversation the word would is often slurred and may be shown as 'd following a noun in dialogue, e.g. "John'd be upset if he found out."

Re: Russia

Ruslana — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:02:17 GMT

Here I am, Hep!

Hey, you scare me with your intention to ask lots of questions...

But I'll try my best, after all! So let's start!

Hepburngeng wrote:
1.What are the top-10 Russian family names nowadays?

Hm, it is difficult to say, really... I don't have such statistics, but the first 10 which has come to mind are Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov, Yakovlev, Leonov, Borodin, Arkhipov, Pavlov, Fedotov, Fadeev. Lay stress on the bold letters.

Hepburngeng wrote:
2.I heard that married women in Russia will change their family names to their husbands',and their changed family names are a bit different from their husbands'.Is that right?Give me some examples please

Yes, that is right. For example, if a girl's family (maiden) name is Arkhipova, but her boyfriend's family name is Sokolov, then, if she marries him, she will be Sokolova.

Hepburngeng wrote:
3.Is the Locomotive Stadium the biggest one in Moscow?If not,what is it?

As far as I know, the biggest one is Luzhniki.

Hepburngeng wrote:
4.How many kinds of dialects in Russian language?When two Russian people,who speak very different Russian dialects,have a conversation,can they understand each other easily?

Generally, we have three dialects: North-Russian, South-Russian, and Middle-Russian. But the difference between them is really little (almost none), and we can understand one another very easily. For instance, there is a girl from Siberia at my University (in my group), and I understand her without any difficulties, as if she was from Moscow too.

Hepburngeng wrote:
5.How many kids does a typical Russian family have?

I guess two.