Search results for 'tag:Inflections tag:Numbers' matching tags 'Inflections' and 'Numbers'

Re: Which language is most difficult language for people to learn?

Forbes — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:40:52 GMT

When you say that English morphology is simple, I assume you are referring to the comparative lack of grammatical inflection. English employs a wide range of prefixes and suffixes to form new words. So, while English is highly analytic, it is by no means totally isolating, though it has isolating tendencies.

I think we have some difficulty with the word "grammar". "Grammar" includes not only morphology, but also syntax. When a student says "Latin has a lot of grammar" he means that he has had to memorise conjugations and declensions. Equally, a student of English, when he declares "English has no grammar" means he has not had the chore of memorising lots of paradigms. But clearly English has syntax - if it did not it would be soup.

In the introduction to my copy of Teach Yourself Malay the author says:

Malay is an easy language. Bafflingly easy. At the end of ten weeks you feel that you know all that there is to be known. At the end of ten years, you know you never will.

and

Malay words change their function according to context. Be prepared for this, and do not attempt to force the language into a set mould. It will escape.

Similar (but perhaps a little less extreme) observations may be made about English. It does not lack complexity; its complications are just different from other languages. The point is that some of the complications may not be perceived by native speakers or those who have learned it slowly over a number of years or live in a society where English is prevalent. Assertions that English is simple compared to other languages are purely subjective.

Re: some/a few; regarding/regarding to

Avangi — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:15:01 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

What is different between "some" and "a few" when referring to countable nouns? Nothing.  Both mean "a small number of", although only "few" = "small" by definition. (some can be used for both countable & uncountable   -   I guess you knew that!)

e.g. I have stopped taking the pills for some days./ I have stopped taking the pills for a few days. In this example, voice inflection could be used to make some a bit more than a few.
Is there any other word carrying similar senses, both formal and informal, that we can use to make our writing and speaking more natural? I have several pills left. There is/are only a handful left. This is figurative. You can actually say, "There are only a handful of cars left in the lot." (Don't use is here   -   is makes it less figurative.)

How do you use "regarding" and "regarding to"? Any difference? haven't heard "regarding to"   maybe you've heard "according to" or "in regard to"

Thanks for your help.

Have you heard anything about/regarding/in regard to my job application?

According to the weather report, we're in for some snow.

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

Feathers — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:11:39 GMT

Thanks, anon. Without your post, I would have missed this thread.

Goodman wrote:

Hi CJ,

What an impressive thread you have posted. You have slowly made me a fan of yours.

Yep!

CalifJim wrote:

In any case, the struggle for the learner is always making the conversion from 'computing' utterances (assembling them by applying grammatical rules) to generating meaningful utterances spontaneously. The more role models the learners have, whether in terms of number of speakers they have contact with or in terms of the number of written and spoken resources they have available, the smoother the transition. At the extreme, if the learner is thrown into a sink-or-swim situation -- immersion -- it may be possible to shortcut the 'computational' period considerably. The final goal is the same in any case: meaningful language that is automatically produced and instinctively felt without any further consciousness of or need for the 'computational' (grammatical) aspects which were so prominent and necessary in the learning stages.

How true.

I'm reminded of Prof. Stern's comment (University of Connecticut), as an additional tip for us learners.
_______________________________________________________________________________

when people are really acclimating themselves with American English, I think one of the first things that makes native English speakers more comfortable with a non-native speaker is not necessarily even the pronunciation of the individual vowels and consonants, but whether the inflections are moving in the direction that the listeners are used to hearing. Whether the rhythm of the language - some languages that are in a totally different rhythm, and if a speaker of that accent simply starts to elongate the syllables and change the pitch some, then a native speaking listener is going to become much more comfortable with that speech pattern.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:17:26 GMT

Milky wrote:
<To my mind, the articles are the trickiest part of English grammar>

And modals?

They are similar to other Germanic languages in structure and as there are only two infinitives in English (and in Swedish, for that matter), the modals or defective auxiliaries are very easy and simple to learn. They have no inflections for different grammatical persons, which is also helpful.

Like many other words in many languages, these words have a number of meanings and uses, and regional differences exist. The average user need not devote a lot of his time to subtleties that rarely present themselves in real life. He may never have to face a situation where a Scot uses shall or will in a sense that is unfamiliar even to most native speakers of English.

Disagreement regarding the use and meanings of some of the defective auxiliaries is widespread even in standard English. That doesn't make learning them more difficult for nonnatives. It's easy to learn the fact that people disagree on something, that some people think that certain verbs should or should not be used in some situations.

A learner might as well focus his efforts on more useful things to improve his English.

CB

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:24 GMT

Hi Forbes

Thank you for your long reply. I do appreciate it. I would just like to say that I my opinion is based on the knowledge I have of the Germanic and Romance languages and it is of course very subjective. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me and what I consider easy may be difficult for some others as I have already said. However, I have given my honest opinion and I don't think you or anybody else would want me to lie on this forum? I'll add some comments.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I agree. I was talking about morphology only. To my mind I made no mistake. I do know what is difficult about English.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

There are only about 15 cases in Finnish - I don't actually remember the exact number and didn't bother to check, but we always
have a different form for the plural and that explains the 30. It is true that Finnish has fewer prepositions than English. In my opinion the number of changes made to words and the number of inflections cause far more difficulties for nonnative learners than the number of English prepositions, though..

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases Correct.

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular Correct again. Someone has said that there are ten rules in English grammar and 10,000 exceptions and 10,000 rules in Finnish grammar and ten exceptions. That's not quite true, though.

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it That is a matter of opinion and dispute. Quite a few nonnatives have said it is very difficult. They say it is hopeless to try and master the grammar from books. There may or may not be some truth in this. The number of "rules" must seem endless to some and people say it's a better idea not to worry too much about all the inflections and changes in the middle of the words but just go where people talk and learn the grammatical complexities by ear.

I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have also met some "Swedish Finnish" (I am not sure what the correct term is) and they all tell me that they are bilingual in Swedish and Finnish. They will of course have been helped in acquiring Finnish because either they live in a bilingual community or started to learn the language at an early age (I am not sure how it works) so they would not have been prejudiced by any concept of "difficulty". I expect that your idea that Finnish is difficult is confirmed by the fact that you do not know many foreigners living in Finland who have mastered it. This will be because:

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult That is true about all languages.

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language That is true about all languages.

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish There is a lot of truth in this. However, there are lots of people who have come to Finland for good and want to learn the language.

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off! I have spoken to Brits in Finland who say the opposite. They say they get encouraged in their efforts to speak Finnish. I don't think we are any better or worse than other people in this respect.

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

You think that English is "simple". I venture to suggest that this is because you started to learn it at an early age and were introduced to it gradually so that you did not perceive its difficulties; you acquired your mastery over a long period. Also, I suspect that Finns are "subjected" to English in a way that the English are not subjected to foreign languages. A lot can be learned without realising it.

No. I have perceived its difficulties all right. They are the spelling and the idioms and the exceptions, for me anyway. The grammar, as I understand it, and structure are the easiest of the languages I am familiar with. Mind you, I don't pretend to be perfect in English. Actually, I don't think I deserve the icon, or whatever is the right word, that says I have a good grasp of the language. I would say I have a good grasp of the grammar but my vocabulary isn't at all on a par with native speakers. My knowledge of idioms and colloquialisms could also be much better.

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

True. And a third way: Who came? What happened?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

I am familiar with these things and I admit I make mistakes using expressions and tenses. However, I was referring to the fact that English words have only a handful of forms and the fewer inflections there are the easier it is to learn them. Using them correctly is indeed another thing, I agree with you there. Other languages have their "difficulties" too. I admit that English is difficult, at least for me, in this respect. No language is easy in every respect, or if there is one, then it is impossible to express nuances in that language.

As I said in my previous post, what is easy for some may be difficult for others. My views are based solely on my experience and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Cheers

Re: Gerund VS Present Participle

Cool Breeze — Thu, 04 May 2006 09:44:32 GMT

Owing to the fact that there are so few inflections in English, the few inflected forms that there are are used in a number of ways. An ing-form, for example, can be

1. a present participle: a walking man
2. a noun: the beginning as easy
3. an adjective: I was willing to learn it
4. a preposition: I'll contact him concerning his salary
5. a gerund: Seeing is believing
6. a verbal noun: the correct speaking of English is easy
7. an adverb: it was biting cold

And so on. What makes grammatical matters more complicated is the fact that grammarians don't always use the same terms to refer to the same things. For instance, in the above examples, many would call number six (verbal noun) a gerund as well.

In my opinion a gerund is not a noun, nor is it a verb, but a little bit of both. The verbal aspect of the gerund is seen in this sentence, in which a gerund is followed by an object:

Speaking English is easy.

Nouns can't take an object, at least not in traditional grammar, so in my opinion speaking is not a noun in the sentence above. Furthermore, nouns can normally be preceded by adjectival attributes, but slow speaking English is easy would probably be regarded as incorrect by all.

Please don't get me wrong: I don't want to argue or even really disagree with anybody. I just want to make a point.

Re: The proper plural form for status is... stati? statii? statuses? Thanks

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:56:52 GMT

Krish,
It's "declines". The form you usally encounter is "declension", which is defined by dictionary.com as (partial):

Linguistics.
1. In certain languages, the inflection of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives in categories such as case, number, and gender.
2. A class of words of one language with the same or a similar system of inflections, such as the first declension in Latin.

Trouble with "form of the verb phrases" *-)

eigil — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:55:18 GMT

For my home grammar assignment I am to "describe the form of the verb phrases in the following sentences (:finiteness, tense, modality, aspect, voice):

1. The house had been painted a bright red before it was sold.
2. Pigeons will be nesting on the statue's head.
3. It is good to have seen them again.
4. To drive like that must be dangerous.
5. To be followed all dat would make anyone suspicious.
6. Having signed the letter, she mailed it.

I have some trouble understanding what to do with sentence nr. 4. I believe there are two verb phrases; "to drive" and "must be". How do I describe the tense of these forms? i could also look upon "To drive like that" as the subject of the sentence and treat "must be" as the only predicator. It's rahter confusing to me. What tense is the infinite "to drive" in this context? Would someone please help me describe sentence number 4 and 5? Here are my notes to the three former sentences. Are they OK?

Op aux head/lexical verb head/lexical verb
[The house had been painted a bright red before it was sold]
In this sentence we find two verb phrases which I have underlined.
In the first verb phrase we have two auxiliaries and one head. The first phrase is past tense, carries the perfective aspect and the passive voice, has the indicative mood and is non-finite. The second verb phrase consists of the grammatical word âbeâ used as a lexical verb in the simple past tense making it a finite phrase. The phrase carries the passive voice and the perfective aspect.

Op aux head
[Pigeons will be nesting on the statueâs head.]
There are two auxiliaries and one main verb/head in this non-finite verb phrase. Here we have the future tense, progressive aspect, active voice, and the indicative mood.

[It is good to have seen them again.]
There are two auxiliaries and one main verb/head in this non-finite verb phrase. The operator âisâ (present tense singular inflection of âto beâ), the infinitive auxiliary âto haveâ and the head âseenâ. This verb phrase carries the present perfect form (past participle), the indicative mood, and the passive voice.

[To drive like that must be dangerous.]
There are two verb phrases in this finite sentence; âTo driveâ and âmust beâ. In the first phrase we have the present tense (?), passive voice and the indicative mood, .

Re: How would you define "native speaker of english"

aeon — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:35:47 GMT

Many Singaporeans do speak very good English, but the reason many western native English speakers don't consider that Singaporeans in general speak 'native English' is because of the predominance of the Singlish dialect.

Singlish in it's most extreme forms lacks inflection for tense and plural forms, the verb 'to be' is optional, particles and sentence structures borrowed from Chinese (usually Hokkien) are used, and local idioms which are not comprehensible to western English speakers are used frequently. Many Singlish speakers are incapable of speaking standard English, and are thus incomprehensible to someone who hasn't spent time there getting used to the dialect.

That said, many native speakers in the UK, Oz and the US speak dialects which are very non-standard too. Perhaps rather than quibbling over what constitutes a native speaker, the real test should be whether someone can speak and write English which is widely comprehensible? In which case many Cockneys, Scousers, Outback Aussies, Gangsta Rappers and Singlish speakers would fail the test, but a large number of English speakers who would consider even themselves to be non-native would pass with flying colours...

Re: Grammar

Casi — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:18:44 GMT

1) Derivation often changes the word's lexical category, but not always:

great (adjective) => great+ly => greatly (adverb)
dog (noun) => dog + house => doghouse (noun)

2) Inflection doesn't change the word's lexical category. It adds meaning: number, person, tense:

Number: dog (singular noun) => dog + s => dogs (plural noun)
Person: walk (present verb) => walk +s => walks (3rd person present verb)
Tense: walk (present verb) => walk + ed => walked (past tense verb)

3) Derivation occurs close to the word, whereas inflection occurs outside the derivation:

Derivation: dog (noun) => dog + house => doghouse
Inflection: doghouse (singular noun) => doghouse + s => doghouses (plural noun)

Ungrammatical: dogs + houses => *dogshouses

Above, inflectional -s is added to a noun, and then another noun "houses" is added to that. The result is ungrammatical. First, derivation, and then inflection:

Derivation: dog + house => Inflection: doghouse + s => doghouses

I hope that helps. If not, please let us know.

Search results for 'tag:Inflections tag:Numbers' matching tags 'Inflections' and 'Numbers'

Re: Which language is most difficult language for people to learn?

Re: some/a few; regarding/regarding to

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Re: Gerund VS Present Participle

Re: The proper plural form for status is... stati? statii? statuses? Thanks

Trouble with &quot;form of the verb phrases&quot; *-)

Re: How would you define "native speaker of english"

Re: Grammar

Trouble with "form of the verb phrases" *-)