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

Re: SUPERATIVE?

Cool Breeze — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:30:56 GMT

Avangi
Perhaps I should learn what "absolute" implies in this context - not relative? That is, not compared to anything else? I guess that would fit.

Your guess is correct, Avangi. The term "relative superlative" is rarely used even in Finland, but it does exist here. I suppose European grammarians think it's enough to distinguish the two superlatives if one of them has a modifier (absolute).

I think the development of the absolute superlative would have been different if there had been a Language Academy in England about 600 years ago. (There isn't one even now.) No doubt the members of the academy would have realized what a mess the absolute superlative was in English and would at least have tried to make some amendments. Nowadays the usage is too settled for anyone to do anything about it. The British have a dislike for such an academy, which just results from the fact that there never was one. Had there been one centuries ago, the British would embrace it today the way they go for other traditions. In France the equivalent academy did a good job of standardizing French spelling in the early days of the printing press.

Usage is interesting sometimes. People say: He was most kind. However, I don't think native speakers very often say: The performance was most great. Yet there is absolutely nothing ungrammatical in the sentence. We have "most" + a monosyllabic adjective in each sentence. In fact, the performance was most great is a sentence I might say because I am a kind of nonconformist who dislikes the idea that I should be restricted to the generally accepted phrases used by native speakers.

It is understandable that one can't change the rigid word order of English as there are hardly any inflections. One can play with some other features of the language, though.

Re: Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

CalifJim — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:07:21 GMT

All the rules for adding S are the same for plurals as for third-person singular present tense verbs, including the words that end in y.

That said, there are a few exceptions that you will encounter from time to time, for example, words that end in f or fe. There are so few that you can just make a mental note of them when you encounter them.

Noun: loaf, loaves
Verb: loaf, loafs
Noun: knife, knives
Verb: knife, knifes

CJ

Re: Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

Loojka — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:42:06 GMT

Digger36 wrote:

But what about the SPECIAL cases of the inflection on the 3-rd person singular;
      it seems less obvious, as in these cases ..
    he destroys / ~~destroies~~         sand dunes
    he ~~trys~~ / tries                  jumping high
    he ~~carrys~~ / carries            the load
    he ~~emptys~~ / empties        the glass of milk
    he ~~finishs~~ / finishes         the task
    he ~~flys~~ / flies                  the airplane
    he loafs / loaves                on the couch
would appreciate reasoned choices in the above and some rule(s).

Thanks,,

Change y into ie only when it ("y") is preceded by a consonant.
Add es when a word ends in s, sh, ch, x or o.

Re: Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

Marius Hancu — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:38:07 GMT

See (for nouns)
Special cases
on this page at this grammar site:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm

Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

Digger36 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:20:16 GMT

Hello:

The USUAL rule for forming plural nouns is to add an "S".
There are reasonably well-established rules for forming plural nouns in special cases.

The USUAL rule for 3-rd Pers Sing verbs is to add an "S".
Q. What, if any, are the rules for forming 3-rd Pers Sinig verbs in special cases.
     Are they the same as for the plural noun?
This is of especial concern when the same word may be either a noun or a verb.

My question deals with the Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

The USUAL plural ...
   one book         two bookS
   one lift            two liftS
The USUAL inflection on the 3-rd person singular..
    I        lift      We   lift
    You    lift      You lift
    He     liftS     They lift

The SPECIAL cases of plurals may be exemplified as .
   one try          two tries (as with attempts)
   one carry       two carries (as with tooth cavities)
   one empty     two empties (as with bottles)
   one finish      two finishes (as with paints)
   one fly          two flies    (as with insects)
   one loaf         two loaves   (as with bread)

But what about the SPECIAL cases of the inflection on the 3-rd person singular;
      it seems less obvious, as in these cases ..
    he destroys / destroies         sand dunes
    he trys / tries                  jumping high
    he carrys / carries            the load
    he emptys / empties        the glass of milk
    he finishs / finishes         the task
    he flys / flies                  the airplane
    he loafs / ???                  on the couch
would appreciate reasoned choices in the above and some rule(s).

Thanks,,

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: Native-speaker intuition.

Cool Breeze — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:36:44 GMT

Englishuser wrote:
A non-native speaker who has immersed himself or herself with highbrow literature written in a foreign language could very well have a more vivid vocabulary and a better knowledge of the grammar of the language than the average native speaker. At least as far as the 'standard version' of the language is concerned.

Englishuser

Hi Englishuser

I agree, learning the grammar of a language can be relatively easy for a person who is familiar with the grammatical structures of his native language. As far as I am concerned, English grammar was a piece of cake for me even though it differs considerably from Finnish grammar. It was easy because there is so little of it; an English word has very few forms: write, writes, writing, wrote, written. That's all there is written as single words. Of course has written, having written etc. exist in addition to the five basic forms.

However, in Finnish, for instance, you need six forms just to say something affirmative in the present tense, a different inflection for every person (I, you, he, we, you, they). You need another six forms to ask a question etc. Nouns have more than a hundred forms and an adjective has hundreds of inflected forms. Some English people have said to me they don't belive me when I say that. That's because they think the languages they may have some knowledge of, usually German or French, are as complicated in structure as a language can be. They know of nothing else.

What is difficult about English are the countless idioms and spelling.

By the way, when I am abroad I try not to sound British or American even though I have been told that I am able to mimic the American accent quite well. Finland was never a major country in world politics or colonization and I often get good service just because people don't really know anything about my country. They have no preconceived notions.

I was once having a drink in a hotel bar in New Orleans. The man sitting next to me asked me: "Where do you come from?" I said: "Finland." He said: "Which state is it in?" So I got wise and a couple of days later when a fiftyish woman asked me the same question, I said: "I'm from Europe." Her face lit up: "That's marvelous! I've got relatives in the same country."

Cheers
CB

Re: The Seven Deadly Sins of Grammar

Cool Breeze — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 07:37:15 GMT

Drewauerbach wrote:
Here is another stylistic sin that you can and should avoid:

9) in order to + conjugated verb vs. to + conjugated verb
     Simply put, there is never a reason to insert "in order" before an infinitive. It's verbose, and should always be dropped. Example:
     WRONG: In order to have a nice meal, add tomato. RIGHT: To have a nice meal, add tomato.
      Learn it. Appreciate it. Fix it.

These forums have lots of learners who may take the grammatical terms used here seriously. I would like to say to them that the infinitive to have is not a conjugated verb form. There is precious little conjugation in English, according to my definition of the term, there is none.

In grammatically complicated languages verbs are sometimes divided into groups by the inflections they have in the tenses, but in English all regular verbs take the ed-inflection: ask, asked, asked; want, wanted, wanted; follow, followed, followed. If the spelling weren't always the same, which is the case in another Germanic language, Swedish, for example, we would say that a certain verb represents Conjugation Three, for instance.

Cheers
CB

Re: Are you a proponent or opponent to English spelling change?

Cool Breeze — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:51:41 GMT

Unfortunately for you, a spelling change in English is inconceivable. It would call for a unanimous decision in the major English-speaking countries. Moreover, even if it happened, it wouldn't make things easier: instead of just one way to spell a word, people would have to learn two ways to be able to understand pre-spelling reform texts. Texts written in English over hundreds of years wouldn't cease to exist overnight and all public signs and notices put on the walls all over the world wouldn't disappear. In other words, the language has been around for too long.

Also, if spelling reflected pronunciation more closely, there would be be at least three spellings for garage and eight for Byzantine. Spelling differences between the various varieties of English would increase dramatically, there would be general confusion at newspapers and publishing houses and writing and reading English would slow down considerably. English is mixed up enough as it is without total anarchy in spelling.

A much better idea might be to simply start accepting some spellings that are usually considered wrong: recieve, beleive, indite to mean 'indict' etc. Even that is unlikely to happen. English spelling has not undergone major changes in 300 years. In the days of Old English, before the printing press was invented, a person could spell a word in two ways without paying much attention to it. No more.

Tuanle says English is difficult for him (her?). The difficulty arises from the fact that his/her native language isn't related to the Germanic languages. English is very easy for a German because German is one of the languages English is derived from. In fact Old English is syntactically essentially the same as modern German. From this point of view, all languages can be said to be either easy or difficult for some.

Learning my native language would also be difficult for Tuanle although it is very easy for an Estonian. Finnish and Estonian are both Finno-Ugric languages and thus very closely related. The grammar would present you with some difficulties. Just to give you an example, I'll write some English sentences and the Finnish equivalent of the word new in those sentences. As these are illustrative examples, they don't necessarily make much sense.

    This is a new box.                              uusi
    These are new boxes.                        uusia
    These are the new boxes.                  uudet
    I need a new box.                              uuden
    What's the color of the new boxes?   uusien
    What's in the new box?                     uudessa
    What's in the new boxes?                  uusissa
    It came out of the new box.               uudesta
    They came out of the new boxes.      uusista
    It ran into the new box.                     uuteen
    They ran into the new boxes.            uusiin
    It's sitting on the new box.                  uudella
    They are sitting on the new boxes.   uusilla
    I don't expect much of the new box.   uudelta
    I don't expect much of the new boxes. uusilta
    Don't say it to the new box.               uudelle
    Don't say it to the new boxes.         uusille
    I'll change it into a new box.            uudeksi
    I'll change them into new boxes.      uusiksi

Of course you need a different inflection of the word in all the above cases if you use the comparative (newer) or the superlative (the newest). Aren't you glad you have never had to learn a grammatically complicated language?

Cheers
CB

what is grammar?

Inchoateknowledge — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:16:14 GMT

I have come across a statement: Peter has good grammar, but his spelling is awful.
For me grammar includes syntax, semantics(lexicology), and inflections.
Where does spelling belong to?
Why differentiates the writer between grammar and spelling; is spelling not a subset of grammar?