Search results for 'tag:Prepositions tag:Word order' matching tags 'Prepositions' and 'Word order'

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:30:34 GMT

As a native English speaker (well perhaps not entirely native, I was born in Russia and immigrated to the U.S. at the tender age of 7) I would have to say that apart from the obviously difficult aspects of the English language such as tenses, an unorthodox phonetic system employed in the language and infuriating exceptions for just about every single rule, the two most puzzling features are the Verb+Participle+Preposition combinations and the sheer vastness of the vocabulary. Observe the former...

come+up+with

come+down+with

come+foward+with

come+out+for

come+down+to

Five different constructions which would be clear as day to any native speaker, are nevertheless mind-boggling to someone who is learning the language. Notice how they all start with "come", and then imagine that sort of illogical word-scrambling applied to every verb. Daunting, isn't it? Don't know how to break it to you folks, but I haven't even scratched the surface.

Now as to the latter, I am more than happy to have dictionary.com present proof of this phenomenon in my stead. Let's take a look at the word "jump". I mean, how many possible synonyms could there be for this word? Well, one simple search can help us find out. Here's the link:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/jump

40 entries for the first definition alone. FORTY. Forty different ways to say jump. But when you break it down, do all 40 words have the same meaning? Of course not! Nosedive means to jump into something headfirst, as in a pool of water or (if you're very unfortunate) onto a hardwood floor. To spring is to jump up energetically, with an almost almighty "lurch" (another word for jump right there :P) whereas to "bob" means to make jumping motions without every actually taking your feet off the ground. The list goes on and on. No other language I'm familiar with has such variety when it comes to synonyms, be it for seemingly uncomplicated actions or deep philosophical concepts.

Although English is my native language, I am also a nearly native speaker of Russian (I give credit to my parents for preserving the language of the "motherland" and passing it on to me) and fluent in German. I find Russian to be an incredibly expressive language with just as many (if not more) nuances as English, and its ability to convey feelings of dislike, anger or downright hateful fervor (i.e. swearing) is, in my experience, unmatched. German is an incredibly logical language, and once grammar constructs are mastered, relatively straightforward in its application. Mastering German grammar is a challenge however, and word order is an utter nuisance in some situations.

Just my two cents.

Re: sell out vs sell out of

Yankee — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:49:43 GMT

Hi Hoa Thai

There were a number of details that I considered in my last post. These included the following:

- Sold out used strictly as a verb vs sold out used like an adjective
- Verb tense
- Using sold vs sold out (particularly in combination with the word 'all')
- Word order (i.e. Does the sentence begin with that which was sold, or does it begin with the person who did the selling?)
- If the word 'all' was used, how exactly? (i.e. as a noun? pronoun? adjective? adverb?)

To me, there is more that needs to be considered than just the question of whether 'all' or 'all of' is better or more typical.

She then commented that 'sell out all our stocks of T-shirts' wasevent more awkward. But for this example, she made a slightchange in the sentence by adding 'of' - 'sell out all ofour stocks of T-shirts', then said that one should not to use both 'out'and 'all of' together because of redundancy. (NOTE: Right there, I completelymissed the connection. Why did she add the preposition âofâ then went on aboutredundancy?)

There are a couple of problems in that quote:

- Neither you nor I used the word 'stocks' (i.e. plural)
- You have ignored the beginning of the sentence, but I didn't.
Though I did indeed prefer 'all of' in the phrase "all of our stock of T-shirts", the focus of my comment about the sentence as a whole. I was not focused on whether 'all' or 'all of' was better. My comment focused on whether 'all' (or 'all of') should be used at all in combination with the way 'sold out' was used.

Re: About the meaning of "where"

Velimir — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:11:58 GMT

I'll try to give some information on this as a non-professional.This is how it looks like in the serbian language,and I suppose,it is very similar in all other slavic languages and also the latin language.

For indicating a location the locative case of a noun is used.If the english language had similar declension of nouns then the nouns following the prepositions "in" and "at" would be in the locative case.The presence of the preceding preposition is obligatory when the noun is in the locative case.

But,if the verb indicates motion,or in plain english,if you are :
going to, flying to, traveling to..

like in the question given in the opening post,then the noun will be in the dative case.This case you can connect with the nouns following the preposition "to" although the preposition is not necessarily present.The word "dative" derives from latin "dare" which means "to give" and the usage is most obvious on the example of that verb:

I gave my girlfriend a flower.

If you translated this in serbian,"girlfriend" would be in the dative case.Indirect object is in the dative case.The direct object ("a flower") is in the accusative case.

"Cases play a major part in determining a noun's syntactic role in the sentence, so word order is not as important in Latin as it is in other languages, such as English. Because of noun cases, words can often be moved around in a sentence without significantly altering its meaning, though the emphasis will have altered" (from a Wikipedia article on the latin language)
Btw,changing nouns,adjectives,pronouns and numbers to different cases is pretty tough area of the language with more cases,and is often lifelong mistery for many natives,and I know that well.Luckily,english is not a case-sensitive language.

Best regards

Could you please enlighten me... (followed by what?)

Loojka — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:03:55 GMT

Hi everyone!

I got stuck with this one... If I begin with "Can you please enlighten me...", what's the preposition that follows? I suppose that it depends on what you are asking. If I wanted to ask about the registration process on a website, for example, should it be:
Can you please enlighten me on how....? (and what's the word order after the preposition? Is it supposed to be followed by an affirmative sentence word order or...?)

Thank you very much!

Re: Grammatical Cases and the English Language

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:46:43 GMT

There are precious few relics of the Dative case remaining in Modern English. The word whom is currently in its death throes and has been for 100 years or so; and in serious (and possibly fatal) decline during the last fifty.

But it must be remembered that whom is not a resident purely of the Dative domain; rather it is (or has become over several hundred years) an indicator to a large extent of any of the non-nominative cases.

All that said, English now relies heavily on word order and prepositions to express the different cases. Along with common sense, of course: "The rose gives the boy a girl"--a cannonical Latin example--makes no sense in English and causes us to abandon our automatic mechanisms of language comprehension in favor of more conscious, more forensic dissection of the phrase in an attempt to understand what is being said. Naturally, with no native dative case in English, and without the aid of prepositions, this sentence will languish in ambiguity and we will never be certain who is giving the rose to whom.

That is, until the Latin is given: Rosam pueri puella dat.

...well that clever little girl!

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: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Forbes — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:39:45 GMT

Hi Cool Breeze

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 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

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

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult

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

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off!

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

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?

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.

Re: preposition at the end

Grammar Geek — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:19:26 GMT

From which university you did graduation?
From which university you have done graduation?

Anon, there are two problems here:

1) Word order - although you can use your tone of voice to make a question out of this, usually in a question, you invert the verb-subject. Did you graduate?

2) We don't (at least in AmE, and perhaps it is different elsewhere) refer to "doing graduation." Your "graduation" is the ceremony when you graduate, walking in your cap and gown, etc. You have or hold a graduation (ceremony) but generaly don't do a graduation. So you would simply say "did you graduate?"

Re: Differ between a preposition and an adverb in a phrasal verb.

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:15:17 GMT

They set a riot off seems acceptable, even though our preference seems to be for They set off a riot. (Note the article.) Here it is the selectional criteria that may be interfering. Substitute bomb for riot, and both They set off a bomb and They set a bomb off are fine, neither seeming to be necessarily much preferred over the other. In many cases, however, there is a preferred word order even when two different possibilities are present.

It is almost the mark of a truly phrasal verb (transitive) that it is separable.
It is almost the mark of a truly prepositional verb that it is inseparable.

Yet, there are indeterminate, shadowy cases - cases where the verb seems more phrasal (and idiomatic) than prepositional and yet is inseparable and acts in some ways like a prepositional verb.

How did he come by that fortune? How did he come by it? *How did he come it by?

There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which should make us very suspicious that we are dealing with a separable phrasal verb, and a number of them (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which almost certainly indicate a prepositional verb. But there are some strange cases!

CJ

Re: Differ between a preposition and an adverb in a phrasal verb.

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:12:59 GMT

Search results for 'tag:Prepositions tag:Word order' matching tags 'Prepositions' and 'Word order'

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Re: sell out vs sell out of

Re: About the meaning of &quot;where&quot;

Could you please enlighten me... (followed by what?)

Re: Grammatical Cases and the English Language

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Re: preposition at the end

Re: Differ between a preposition and an adverb in a phrasal verb.

Re: Differ between a preposition and an adverb in a phrasal verb.

Re: About the meaning of "where"