Search results for 'tag:Word order tag:Inflections' matching tags 'Word order' 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: "Many a", Joining two subjects with "And" and MS Word.

Cool Breeze — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:13:15 GMT

Welcome to EF, Zhuk

There is no unanimous "correct" reply to your last question. As a rule, English is very flexible and in many cases liberal grammarians accept more than one alternative while some others insist on only one that they think is right. I would go for has, like you.

"Our teacher of English and friend are Mr. Bruce.â
As for the above sentence, in English the word order is extremely fixed because there are so few inflections. "Mary loves John" and "John loves Mary" mean completely different things. In my language the word order is free. Since the word order is so rigid in English, MS Word doesn't understand that Mr. Bruce is the subject as the subject is rarely the last word in an English sentence.

If you changed the sentence a little, MS Word would be right in demanding are: Our teacher and friend are coming this way. (Provided of course that there were two people coming.)

I don't have my grammar checked by MS Word when I write English texts but I have a vague recollection from years back that it didn't have a very good grasp of relative clauses. I think it considered sentences like

This is the book which I bought yesterday

to be wrong. After that I realized that Mr. Gates could take some lessons in elementary grammar and quit using it. (I had only tried it for fun anyway. )

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: What does seperating the subject from the verb mean?

Cool Breeze — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:56:48 GMT

I think you have got your terms mixed up, Anon. Separating a subject from its verb is in no way exceptional in English, as Clive has already shown you. What I think you mean is separating a verb from its object, which does happen in some cases but is often objectionable. In English one should say:

I met him yesterday. (Not: I met yesterday him.)

This word order is preferable because there are no inflections for nouns used as objects. You may often place an indirect object between the verb and the object:

I gave him money.

If the object is long, it is often possible to put something between the verb and its object:

I heard there the language of my childhood.

Cheers
CB

Re: comma

Cool Breeze — Sun, 20 May 2007 09:03:00 GMT

Peaceblinkfriend wrote:

I think the more common statement is 'making the impossible possible'.

Good point, Peaceblinkfriend. The reason is the fact that in English the object (the impossible) is preferably immediately after the verb. This is because there are no inflections for nouns and adjectives used as objects of verbs and consequently ambiguity may result if the rigid word order is not adhered to.

In my native language it is possible to say John loves Mary or Mary loves John and the meaning is unchanged if the same inflected forms are used in both sentences.

CB

English influence on other languages

Cool Breeze — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:56:36 GMT

Hi all

It would be interesting to hear from nonnative speakers of English in particular what influence English exerts on other languages nowadays. What English words and expressions are used in your language? Does English grammar or syntax have an influence on your native language? Where is this influence seen or heard? Books? Journalese? Advertising? Conversation?

Are Anglicisms frowned upon in your language or generally accepted? Of course I welcome replies from native speakers as well, anything you think worth mentioning.

English and Finnish are not related and thus the idea of English grammar exercising an influence on Finnish grammar is all but inconceivable. In advertising, some English expressions are commonly used, for example happy hour is often seen in bars and pubs and some people use it even when they speak Finnish.

CafÃ© is the word often seen outside coffee houses or cafeterias, but no one uses the word when they speak Finnish. Finnish is a highly inflected language and cafÃ© just doesn't lend itself easily to our inflection patterns, which may be the reason people never use the word in conversation.

Some yongsters have adopted the non-Finnish way to read decimals: two point five. I don't mean they say it in English, they just use the Finnish word for point, which is incorrect in Finnish. We don't have a decimal point, we have a decimal comma (2,5). Pocket calculators and computer programmes are probably chiefly to blame for this phenomenon.

There is at least one Finnish Eurosport tennis commentator who uses the English word order when he says thirty all. In Finnish the numeral should come last.

If I realise I have forgotten something important, I'll write another post later. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to your contributions.
Thank you.

CB

Re: what's an "object of the verb"?

Cool Breeze — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:45:01 GMT

Hi Kooyeen

"Don't put an adverb between a verb and its object" is a good rule even though there are exceptions to it. Since inflections have practically disappeared from English over time, it is customary to place the object after the verb to facilitate communication. However, if the object is long, the rule is often discarded. Compare these sentences:

1. I heard it there.
2. I heard there the language of my childhood.

There are no rules that say how long the object has to be to warrant separation from the verb. In fact, no misunderstanding would arise from the 'wrong' word order in sentence No. 1: I heard there it. People just don't say so because this word order can cause ambiguity in sentences that have a short object.

Word order is very inflexible in all languages with few inflected grammatical forms; it must be, otherwise communication wouldn't be possible.

Cheers
CB

Re: before

Cool Breeze — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:58:57 GMT

Hi Incho

I agree with the previous posters completely; I would just like to elaborate a little from a non-native speaker's standpoint to a non-native speaker. We're both foreigners, right?

Since there are hardly any inflections in English, the word order is very rigid and certain phrases and expressions are often placed wherever they are placed for no apparent reason. I'd like to suggest you get a good grammar book written with non-native speakers in mind and take a look at the chapter entitled Word Order in it. Grammars written by non-native speakers tend to be better for this.

I don't have enough time to deal with word order in detail here, but here are some basics.

Think twice before you place anything between the main verb and the object. It is often possible to put an indirect object between the two, and if the object is long, you may put something short between it and the verb. Examples:

I saw him there. OK
I saw there him. WRONG

I heard there the language of my childhood. OK
I gave him a book. OK

There are three safe places for adverbs and the like in a clause (A, B and C):

(A) He is (B) reading a book (C).

Some words can be placed in all these positions without any real change in meaning:
Now he is reading a book.
He is now reading a book.
He is reading a book now.

Position A:
Usually more emphatic than the other positions. Adverbs denoting time or place are often placed in initial position:
Yesterday I met an old friend.
In Dar es Salaam it rained all week.
On the table lay a book that had been there for quite a while.

Position B:
There are seven rules that govern the placing of expressions in position B, and that's a little too much for this post, so look them up in a good grammar book, please.
In brief, the most common words to appear in position B are adverbs of indefinite time: often, usually, always, never, ever, seldom etc. Words like also, again, now and many adverbs ending in ly can be placed in this position:

I have never been there.
He also likes our proposal.
I slowly realized what he had done.

Position C:
All manner of expressions can be placed at the end of a clause. The word empty helps you remember the right order: manner, place, time. If there are two expressions of place or time, the smaller place or the more exact time comes first:

He sang beautifully on his balcony at nine last night.

In your native language and mine, word order is much freer. In fact, I can put the words spring has come again in any order in Finnish and the meaning remains the same. Some alternatives are poetic and unusual, but they are all correct. In English, if you change the word order, you have a question: Has spring come again? Asking questions is not that easy in Hungarian, I assume.

Cheers
CB

Re: English Inflection possible to invent?

julielai — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:35:39 GMT

English has evolved in a way that makes it rely more on word order and less on inflection (I think). So I don't see English turning back and becoming a highly inflected language any time soon...

phrasal verbs decoded. The placement of the object.

Kvinchuca — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 02:04:16 GMT

The various forms of phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs can be transitive or intransitive, separable or inseparable.
The object or accusative can in the cases of separable phrasal verbs be placed before or after the particle.
With inseparable phrases, the object/accusative is fixed and its position either before or after the particle cannot be changed by the speaker.
Our analysis has shown that the position of the object/accusative assigns an importance, diminished importance, or a complete lack of importance from the speakers point of view.
If the particle is followed by the object/accusative then the importance is clearly shown.
If the object/accusative precedes the particle it has a diminished or lack of importance.
If the object/accusative can go before or after the particle, as is the case in separable phrases, then the importance assigned to it is decided by position the speaker places it.
The separable phrases are commonly described as having the same meaning, no matter where the object/accusative is placed, either before or after the particle and in general this may be true, however there is a difference, so small as to be unnoticed.
There nevertheless occasions when the object/accusative sounds to be misplaced to the ears of a native speaker.
There are in many phrases a word order that is generally accepted to be the norm, and a diversion from this order would immediately be noticed by a native speaker and not necessarily by a non-native.
For example, the colours of the Union Jack (the British national flag), are red, white and blue. If somebody described them as blue red and white, they are technically correct, but the native speaker would sense an uncomfortable feeling that the speaker was not quite right, or had spoken incorrectly.

There are many example of this: bacon and eggs (correct) eggs and bacon (uncomfortable). Black and white films (correct) white and black films (uncomfortable). Cup and saucer (correct) saucer and cup (uncomfortable).
There is nothing in English grammar that rules the order of these words and to a non-native speaker the fact that all the information is there, is all that matters, but the uncomfortable sensation felt by the native demonstrates that something very subtle is going on.
The same applies to the separable phrasal verbs. In most instances the subtle difference is unnoticed even by the native, yet in speaking the word order used demonstrates a particular importance or diminished importance that has subconsciously been attached by the speaker.
For example. âthat man is chatting my girl-friend upâ, in this phrase, I have given a diminished importance to my âgirl-friendâ and there is a subtle sense of indifference to the situation. Whereas âthat man is chatting up my girl-friendâ, in this phrase âmy girl-friendâ is after the particle and is subtly stressed. âMy girl-friendâ is shown to have more importance in this phrase and there is an implied sense of indignation as opposed to indifference.

When we use a pronoun instead of naming the object/accusative, the pronoun always goes before the particle. The reason being that once the object has been named the attached importance to the person or thing is slightly diminished, but the importance can be restated by the repetition of the name.
For example, âIs your girl-friend called Sarah?â âYes why?â âWell, that man is chatting her up â. âBloody hell, youâre right, heâs chatting up my Sarahâ.
Here the indignation is obvious because of the naming of the girl a second time. If the phrase was âyes heâs chatting her upâ the indignation felt by the speaker and heard by the listener would depend on the inflection of the voice, whereas in âmy Sarahâ, there is no doubt how the speaker feels.