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

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: Morphology help! Urgent

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:31:26 GMT

a. I don't know what they're getting at with this one. It should be because of his poetry. Or maybe booed by his students of poetry, which is some kind of word order problem, but check your textbook for the specifics. Maybe someone else can help.
b. Possibly that adjuncts like "with pie charts" can only occur after complements like "of the economic situation". That is, the analysis of the economic situation with pie charts is the correct form, because it puts the complement before the adjunct.
c. criticize is a verb that requires an object complement. (It cannot be used "absolutely".) This complement is missing in the example. Your teacher may want you to explain it in terms of arguments of the verb or in terms of transitivity.

CJ

Please help me check these two thesis abstracts on linguistics about Hakka

Nightstalker — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:36:53 GMT

My high school Chinese teacher asked me to help her translate these two abstracts from Chinese into English. I have finished, but I need to correct them into better English. Please help me. I have to give my teacher the translation. She helped me quite a lot while I encountered the most unfortunate fate in high school days, so I wish I could help her in return. Please help me check one of these two if you have time.

1. Abstract

This study aimed at the morphological comparison of Hai-Lu Hakka and Southern Min including speech sounds, morphology, grammar and culture. The following is the content of this study:

Chapter One Introduction: Presenting the research motive and research method, etc.

Chapter Two Literature Review: Revealing the importance of research in bi-dialects.

Chapter Three The Relationship of Hakka and Southern Min: This chapter presented the overview of historical background, geographical distribution and social contact of the Hakka and the Southern Min.

Chapter Four Phonological Comparison of Hakka and Southern Min: This chapter examined the rules of code-switching and the history of the phonological evolution of both dialects.

Chapter Five and Chapter Six were the morphological comparison of the classification, number of syllables, the composition and the word order regarding Hakka and Southern Min lexical words. It was the hope to find the unique feature words of Hakka and Southern Min as well as those that revealed the linkage of the two dialects.

Chapter Seven Syntax Comparisons: This chapter discussed the dynamic aspect of words as they turned into sentences, including discussions on aspectuality and sentence structure.

In addition, Chapter Eight probed further into lexical items in terms of culture, focusing on the classical words, words with âmaâ, the forbidden words and the borrowed words and the way they reflected the culture.

Chapter Nine Conclusion: this chapter presents the conclusion of this study and suggestion for future research.

This study looks forward to a more rising research attention regarding the languages of Taiwan enabling the development of Hakka and Southern Min to move from the state of co-existence to the common good in this new century.

Key words: Hai-Lu Hakka, the comparison of Hakka and Southern Min, bi-dialects, the languages of Taiwan, morphology

2. The Morphology of Hakka Gender Word âmaâ and the Cultural Interpretation

Abstract:

Language is the symbol of culture. When a dialect has a word that is rare or even unfound in others, this word is considered precious for it often reflects the unique culture of this dialect. Such a word was found in Hakka. It was the gender word âmaâ, which was unusual in other dialects but was habitually used in Hakka as a feature word. On the basis of the research of this study, âmaâ was used with at least eighty Hakka lexical words. This study examined the usage of the lexical words with âmaâ; first, the semantic relationship and morphology of the word âmaâ was discussed before probing into the cultural implication for its extensive use in Hakka. The goal was to uncover the various complicated semantic relationships. This study discovered that âmaâ had as many as 15 lexical combinations and at least 9 extended meanings. It should be noted that in some combinations âmaâ were considered affixes while in others they were only quasi-affixes. In addition to âmaâ, discussions of other gender words in Hakka such as âkungâ, âkuâ and âpoâ were also included in this study.

The conclusion of this study was that Hakka had a particularly rich gender affixes and it was highly likely to be the results of general personification or deification of the Hakka. Based on the word âmaâ, the unique characteristics of Hakka culture was also revealed to a certain degree.

Key words: Hakka lexical words, feature words, affixes, gender, ma

Note: âma(old lady or granny)â, âkung(elder man)â and âpo(old lady or old woman)â can be shown using the original character and transliteration such as "ma(å«²)". They are the gender affixes for words in Hakka or Southern Min such as âgingerâ, âThunder Godâ and ârocksâ, etc.