This is purely off-topic.
In the posts, it is quite often seen that "It's" is used instead of "Its"
and vice versa. While "Its" is a possessive determiner, "It's" is a
contraction of "It is" or "It has".
The examples given below may help to clarify the point.
A device RESET forces the CMCON register to it's RESET state. - Incorrect
A device RESET forces the CMCON register to its RESET state. - Correct
The shift register obtains it's data from the read/write transmit buffer. -
Incorrect
The shift register obtains its data from the read/write transmit buffer. -
Correct
The Watchdog Timer runs off it's own RC oscillator for added reliability. -
Incorrect
The Watchdog Timer runs off its own RC oscillator for added reliability. -
Correct
Its our intention to provide you with the best documentation possible. -
Incorrect It's our intention to provide you with the best documentation possible. -
Correct
The TSR is not mapped in data memory; so its not available to the user. -
Incorrect
The TSR is not mapped in data memory; so it's not available to the user. -
Correct
I certainly don't mean to be pedantic. The only intention is to help better
communication.
One of my favourite Usenet newsgroup names is
alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe
Gotta love it.
Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
-Douglas Adams
.....Bala.ChandarKILLspam@spam@AVENTIS.COM wrote:
> In the posts, it is quite often seen that "It's" is used instead of "Its"
> and vice versa. While "Its" is a possessive determiner, "It's" is a
> contraction of "It is" or "It has".
On 2003-12-12 at 15:31:34 [+1100], you wrote:
> This is purely off-topic.
>
> In the posts, it is quite often seen that "It's" is used instead of "Its"
> and vice versa. While "Its" is a possessive determiner, "It's" is a
> contraction of "It is" or "It has".
That's one rule I don't agree with. An apostrophe is meant to be used for
contraction and possession. If the sentance "Michael's dog ate some cheese"
is correct, why shouldn't "It's dog ate some cheese". (Okay poor example, but
you get my drift). It seems silly for the term "it" to have rules apart from
the rest of the English language.
" 2. (Gram.) The contraction of a word by the omission of a
letter or letters, which omission is marked by the
character ['] placed where the letter or letters would
have been; as, call'd for called.
3. The mark ['] used to denote that a word is contracted (as
in ne'er for never, can't for can not), and as a sign of
the possessive, singular and plural; as, a boy's hat,
boys' hats. In the latter use it originally marked the
omission of the letter e.
" -- web1913 "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
--
Michael Davidson
Fortune:
Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon.
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
> In the posts, it is quite often seen that "It's" is used
> instead of "Its" and vice versa.
> While "Its" is a possessive determiner, "It's" is a
> contraction of "It is" or "It has".
Michael Davidson <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTBONG.COM.AU> wrote:
> That's one rule I don't agree with. An apostrophe is meant to be used for
> contraction and possession. If the sentance "Michael's dog ate some cheese"
> is correct, why shouldn't "It's dog ate some cheese". (Okay poor example,
> but you get my drift). It seems silly for the term "it" to have rules
> apart from the rest of the English language.
So what do you want to do with the other possessive pronouns that also
happen to end in "s"?
ours his hers yours theirs
What about the ones that don't?
my mine our your her their
The point is that you use "'s" to create the possessive form of a noun,
but all pronouns have possessive forms that do not contain apostrophes.
Your proposal is actually less consistent than the existing situation.
>That's one rule I don't agree with. An apostrophe is meant to be used for
>contraction and possession. If the sentance "Michael's dog ate some cheese"
>is correct, why shouldn't "It's dog ate some cheese". (Okay poor example,
>but
>you get my drift). It seems silly for the term "it" to have rules apart
>from
>the rest of the English language.
>
>" 2. (Gram.) The contraction of a word by the omission of a
> letter or letters, which omission is marked by the
> character ['] placed where the letter or letters would
> have been; as, call'd for called.
>
> 3. The mark ['] used to denote that a word is contracted (as
> in ne'er for never, can't for can not), and as a sign of
> the possessive, singular and plural; as, a boy's hat,
> boys' hats. In the latter use it originally marked the
> omission of the letter e.
>" -- web1913 "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
>
>
>--
>Michael Davidson
>Fortune:
>Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon.
> -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu
_________________________________________________________________
Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer? Find out. Run the
FREE McAfee online computer scan! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
for more grammar than you've seen since grade school! :-)
My favorite is use of adjectives where adverbs are called for.
eg.
"The Habs played good last night." should actually be
"played well",
But this sort of thing happens so often that I figure that the
language must be changing.
In any case I have given up worrying about it.
DOC
And my favorite is what I call the
At 10:01 AM 12/12/2003 +0530, you wrote:
>This is purely off-topic.
>
>In the posts, it is quite often seen that "It's" is used instead of "Its"
>and vice versa. While "Its" is a possessive determiner, "It's" is a
>contraction of "It is" or "It has".
On Friday, Dec 12, 2003, at 06:19 US/Pacific, D. Jay Newman wrote:
> How can you *not* agree with a spelling rule? Yes, it doesn't follow
> along with the pattern, but it's ingrained in English grammer.
>
What pattern? All the pronouns are weird (and that's the excuse for
the missing apostrophe - posessive pronouns don't get apostrophes.)
he -> his
she -> her
it -> its
they -> their (topic for a whole new rant. there, their, they're)
> On Friday, Dec 12, 2003, at 06:19 US/Pacific, D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
> > How can you *not* agree with a spelling rule? Yes, it doesn't follow
> > along with the pattern, but it's ingrained in English grammer.
> >
> What pattern? All the pronouns are weird (and that's the excuse for
> the missing apostrophe - posessive pronouns don't get apostrophes.)
> On 2003-12-12 at 15:31:34 [+1100], you wrote:
> This is purely off-topic.
> >
> > In the posts, it is quite often seen that "It's" is used instead of "Its"
> > and vice versa. While "Its" is a possessive determiner, "It's" is a
> > contraction of "It is" or "It has".
>
> That's one rule I don't agree with. An apostrophe is meant to be used for
> contraction and possession. If the sentance "Michael's dog ate some cheese"
> is correct, why shouldn't "It's dog ate some cheese". (Okay poor example, but
> you get my drift). It seems silly for the term "it" to have rules apart from
> the rest of the English language.
First, rules aren't to be agreed with or otherwise - try telling the Police you don't agree with the speed
limit when you're stopped, and see if you get away with it... :-)
Secondly, the apostrophe means that something has been omitted, and in the case of "isn't" for example it's
the "o" of "not". In the case of "Michael's dog" it comes from the old way that English indicated posessive -
it would have been "Michael, his dog" because there was no grammatical way to do it. The "his" was shortened
to become "'s", and remains with us. I know the feminine form would have been "Michelle, her dog", so really
it should be "Michelle'r dog" but that's the thing about English - it isn't *that* consistent! :-)
"Its", as people have pointed out, is already posessive, so there's no omission to be indicated by an
apostrophe. So it's "Michael's dog ate some cheese", but "Michael's dog ate its cheese".
Then there's the "whose" / "who's" question, which works the same way as "its" / "it's"... so is left as an
exercise for the reader... (I've always wanted to be able to say that! :-)
The thing that really annoys me is where an apostrophe is wrongly added when a word is just plural: English
market stalls seem to be a prime offender: "Potatoe's", "Pineapple's", "Banana's" and so on... but I'll stop
before I get into a rant...
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
"The trick with spelling Banana is knowing when to stop..."
> First, rules aren't to be agreed with or otherwise - try telling the Police
> you don't agree with the speed
> limit when you're stopped, and see if you get away with it... :-)
Hrm, "agreed" may not have been the best term. Maybe "liked" :)
Someone else pointed out the "his" example, and in that context, I can
understand and "agree" with "its" being possessive. I guess I'd never thought
about it in that light before.
--
Michael Davidson
Fortune:
You are a very redundant person, that's what kind of person you are.
> > First, rules aren't to be agreed with or otherwise - try telling the
Police
> > you don't agree with the speed
> > limit when you're stopped, and see if you get away with it... :-)
Agreeing or disagreeing and getting away with it are independent. I noted
previously that I disagree with the law of gravity. I never get away with
it! But I still disagree. I'm looking forward to someone discovering some
other law which explains why we are allowed to move mass off planet(s) more
easily than Sir Isaac's law currently allows.
Russell McMahon
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
I was taught that it's is a shorthand form for 'it is a/an' and used to
get bad marks if not using it as such ... English is many good things, as
a language, excepting being straightforward and coherent in grammar imho.
Peter
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> I was taught that it's is a shorthand form for 'it is a/an' and used to
> get bad marks if not using it as such ... English is many good things, as
> a language, excepting being straightforward and coherent in grammar imho.
>
> Peter
I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
"straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
> Agreeing or disagreeing and getting away with it are independent. I noted
> previously that I disagree with the law of gravity. I never get away with
> it! But I still disagree. I'm looking forward to someone discovering some
> other law which explains why we are allowed to move mass off planet(s) more
> easily than Sir Isaac's law currently allows.
>
> Russell McMahon
Yes, but discovering a new law would merely make the current "law of gravity"
a special case (or an approximation that holds under certain conditions),
just as Newton's "laws" are merely a good approximation which holds
under conditions much lower than the speed of light under general relativity.
--
D. Jay Newman ! spamBeGonejaySTOPspamEraseMEsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> > I was taught that it's is a shorthand form for 'it is a/an' and used to
> > get bad marks if not using it as such ... English is many good
> things, as
> > a language, excepting being straightforward and coherent in
> grammar imho.
> >
> > Peter
>
> I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
> "straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
True, but you've got to admit, English is one of the most ANNOYING when it
comes to "tricks", and this coming from a person whose FIRST language is
English. There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all,
and I really feel sorry for students trying to learn the language sometimes.
TTYL
> > I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
> > "straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
>
> True, but you've got to admit, English is one of the most ANNOYING when it
> comes to "tricks", and this coming from a person whose FIRST language is
> English. There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all,
> and I really feel sorry for students trying to learn the language sometimes.
> TTYL
I've heard that a great deal, but only coming from native English speakers.
Most people think that their own native language is the most difficult
and nonsensical language to learn. My take on it is that most native
speakers never had to really learn the rules of their own language, so
they don't believe it really has these rules.
--
D. Jay Newman ! KILLspamjayspamBeGonesprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
On Saturday, Dec 13, 2003, at 12:17 US/Pacific, Herbert Graf wrote:
> There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all
A lot of that is because english shameless steals interesting words
from any other language where they happen to occur. Whether or not
they obey the rules from the original language. So after you've
imported both rule-following and exceptional words from a dozen
languages, and applied some fraction of english rules to the results,
it's not surprising that the result is a mess.
BillW
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> > True, but you've got to admit, English is one of the
> most ANNOYING when it
> > comes to "tricks", and this coming from a person whose FIRST language is
> > English. There are just some things in English that make NO
> sense at all,
> > and I really feel sorry for students trying to learn the
> language sometimes.
> > TTYL
>
> I've heard that a great deal, but only coming from native English
> speakers.
Actually, I've heard that far more from non native English speakers then
native speakers. TTYL
> On Saturday, Dec 13, 2003, at 12:17 US/Pacific, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all
>
> A lot of that is because english shameless steals interesting words
> from any other language where they happen to occur. Whether or not
> they obey the rules from the original language. So after you've
> imported both rule-following and exceptional words from a dozen
> languages, and applied some fraction of english rules to the results,
> it's not surprising that the result is a mess.
Most human languages are like this. For example, Japanese has borrowed
so much from Chinese (including their writing system) that many words
have two sets of prononciations and rules depending on where it fits.
English is a fairly basic Germanic language with a *lot* of French loan-
words. The grammer is relatively simple, though the spelling could use
a bit of revision. Where there are both French and Germanic words for
the same meaning, the French words have (generally) come to mean the
higher-status version ("mansion" vs "house", "chadelier" vs "light",
"pork" vs "swine"). Of course, there are many other languages that
English has borrowed from.
--
D. Jay Newman ! EraseMEjayEraseMEsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Most people I know that are fluent in English or have English as their
native language do not understand the structure and development of the
language. Many people who say there are no rules, say so because they don't
know the rules.
> > > I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
> > > "straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
Karkar-Yuri is pretty good.
1,300 odd speakers. No known relationships to any other language (!)
It helps to evolve the language with no written rules at all (indeed, no
writing of any sort) first, and then create an alphabet, grammar and all the
accoutrements to match what you find.
> > There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all
>
> A lot of that is because english shameless steals interesting words
> from any other language where they happen to occur. Whether or not
> they obey the rules from the original language. So after you've
> imported both rule-following and exceptional words from a dozen
> languages, and applied some fraction of english rules to the results,
> it's not surprising that the result is a mess.
It can even import words from "its own" languages and have them as
exceptions to the rules which subsequently develop.
eg pronounce "Celtic".
The *proper* pronunciation is NOT "seltic" although numerous people say it
that way. (Closer top CalTech :-) ). The Celts were unarguably "British" but
the language has moved on and left this word behind.
There is one other english word that I have met that sounds "ce" at the
start of a word in this manner (hard C) and I can't presently think of the
other one. But it was probably a Celtic word too :-)
FWIW / Interesting: Englanders & Scottspeopleare genetically
indistinguishable from the Frenchpeople. The Welsh are genetically
discernibly different. A look at British history will tell you why but its
interesting to know that it can still be measured.
We camped above the Severn with a majestic view of the two bridges. I asked
a lady there if she used the bridges often. She said "No - I don't care to
have to pay to come back into my own country". History dies hard :-). The
annually celebrated hundreds of years old Battle of the Boyne (those
Frenchpersons at work again), and the still strongly remembered and felt
outcome of the battle of Kosovo (now only about 800 years ago) are two other
grand and sadly pitiful examples.
Russell McMahon
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> > > > I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
> > > > "straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
>
> Karkar-Yuri is pretty good.
> 1,300 odd speakers. No known relationships to any other language (!)
I was thinking of a similar situation. A "pure" language, with no
outside interference might be more self-consistent.
> It helps to evolve the language with no written rules at all (indeed, no
> writing of any sort) first, and then create an alphabet, grammar and all the
> accoutrements to match what you find.
Like Welsh? An English monk created the written form of the language,
putting the Welsh sounds to the roman alphabet. It was not a good match.
--
D. Jay Newman ! @spam@jay@spam@spam_OUTsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> > Agreeing or disagreeing and getting away with it are independent. I
noted
> > previously that I disagree with the law of gravity. I never get away
with
> > it! But I still disagree. I'm looking forward to someone discovering
some
> > other law which explains why we are allowed to move mass off planet(s)
more
> > easily than Sir Isaac's law currently allows.
> Yes, but discovering a new law would merely make the current "law of
gravity"
> a special case (or an approximation that holds under certain conditions),
> just as Newton's "laws" are merely a good approximation which holds
> under conditions much lower than the speed of light under general
relativity.
I'm aware of all that, but my point is that I DISAGREE with it. It's not
that I disbelieve it (although it may in fact be or not be entirely true),
feel it's only a special case (hopefully it is) or have any better ideas
that actually work. I just DISAGREE with it. It's rude and arrogant, it
insists that we have to spend more energy than I want us to getting things
off planet, and I don't like its face. It's still a law. ie it specifies how
things are; like it or not (I don't). It does have the advantage of being
quite important for holding things together. If the inverse square law were
to vary by the minutest skerrick all planetary systems (and no doubt much
else besides) would be in deep trouble - decay inwards or outwards. Inverse
Square Law is not gravity per se but they seem intimately tied together. If
anything in nature joins with me in disagreeing with gravity it must do it
in a very circumspect and orderly manner- if such disagreement ever got out
into the minds of average matter the universe would be a troubled place.
Doesn't lead me to having too much hope that my disagreement will spawn any
sort of revolution any time soon. One would be more liable to success in
disagreeing with road rules :-)
RM
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> > > > > I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
> > > > > "straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
> >
> > Karkar-Yuri is pretty good.
> > 1,300 odd speakers. No known relationships to any other language (!)
>
> I was thinking of a similar situation. A "pure" language, with no
> outside interference might be more self-consistent.
>
> > It helps to evolve the language with no written rules at all (indeed, no
> > writing of any sort) first, and then create an alphabet, grammar and all
> > accoutrements to match what you find.
>
> Like Welsh? An English monk created the written form of the language,
> putting the Welsh sounds to the roman alphabet. It was not a good match.
> --
> D. Jay Newman !
> TakeThisOuTjay.....TakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
> http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
All matter and energy must make a deliberate attempt to obey the laws
of nature under everyday circumstances. These laws may only be broken
under most peculiar circumstances that have nothing to do with everyday
life except possibly for the functioning of mysterious devices no one
understands properly (except Strange People in lab coats). Under these
circumstances matter and energy may do whatever odd thing they feel like
as long as they file a petition first.*
* All petitions must be filed during normal business hours. Petitions
may not be granted when the official stamp is being cleaned. Please do
not phone the official stamp keeper at home.
>>Yes, but discovering a new law would merely make the current "law of
> gravity"
>>a special case (or an approximation that holds under certain conditions),
>>just as Newton's "laws" are merely a good approximation which holds
>>under conditions much lower than the speed of light under general
> relativity.
>
> I'm aware of all that, but my point is that I DISAGREE with it. It's not
> that I disbelieve it (although it may in fact be or not be entirely true),
> feel it's only a special case (hopefully it is) or have any better ideas
> that actually work. I just DISAGREE with it. It's rude and arrogant, it
> insists that we have to spend more energy than I want us to getting things
> off planet, and I don't like its face. It's still a law. ie it specifies how
> things are; like it or not (I don't). It does have the advantage of being
> quite important for holding things together. If the inverse square law were
> to vary by the minutest skerrick all planetary systems (and no doubt much
> else besides) would be in deep trouble - decay inwards or outwards. Inverse
> Square Law is not gravity per se but they seem intimately tied together. If
> anything in nature joins with me in disagreeing with gravity it must do it
> in a very circumspect and orderly manner- if such disagreement ever got out
> into the minds of average matter the universe would be a troubled place.
> Doesn't lead me to having too much hope that my disagreement will spawn any
> sort of revolution any time soon. One would be more liable to success in
> disagreeing with road rules :-)
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
On Saturday, Dec 13, 2003, at 14:07 US/Pacific, D. Jay Newman wrote:
> My take on it is that most native
> speakers never had to really learn the rules of their own language, so
> they don't believe it really has these rules.
When I took German in Jr and Sr High school, we had a native German
in our class. It was fascinating - she SPOKE fluent German, and
scored great on all the vocabulary and pronunciation tests, but
she was only average with the rest of the class on the grammer
exams. I learned an awful lot about english (well, about language
in general) taking German.
My final year in german, we read (tried to read) a mystery novel
written in german. It was awful. We discovered how little of
the vocabulary we actually knew, and just how painful it was to
try to make sense of a storyline when it was a chore just figuring
out what the WORDS were. sigh. If I ever learn another language,
I think I'll start out with children's books. (and I recomend
that to you younger folk too...)
BillW
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>> True, but you've got to admit, English is one of the most ANNOYING when it
>> comes to "tricks", and this coming from a person whose FIRST language is
>> English. There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all,
>> and I really feel sorry for students trying to learn the language sometimes.
>> TTYL
>
> I've heard that a great deal, but only coming from native English speakers.
>
> Most people think that their own native language is the most difficult
> and nonsensical language to learn. My take on it is that most native
> speakers never had to really learn the rules of their own language, so
> they don't believe it really has these rules.
Not quite 12 languages, but I speak tree fluently and know some others a
bit, and that's also my experience. Especially people who never learned
another language seem to think that their own is incomprehensive beyond
measure.
And -- I know almost none of the rules that people learn when they learn my
native language :) I also know that I don't have a clue whether it is
difficult to learn or not.
>>> I was taught that it's is a shorthand form for 'it is a/an' and used to
>>> get bad marks if not using it as such ... English is many good things, as
>>> a language, excepting being straightforward and coherent in grammar imho.
>> I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
>> "straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
> True, but you've got to admit, English is one of the most ANNOYING when it
> comes to "tricks", and this coming from a person whose FIRST language is
> English. There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all,
> and I really feel sorry for students trying to learn the language sometimes.
I learned English (and others), and I found English rather easy to learn.
It's a practical language. But what really is a mystery (even after many,
many years) is the pronunciation of words I've never heard before. But then
again, people seem to be willing to accept all kinds of pronunciations...
so it's not really a problem most of the time :)
> > True, but you've got to admit, English is one of the most
> ANNOYING when it
> > comes to "tricks", and this coming from a person whose FIRST language is
> > English. There are just some things in English that make NO
> sense at all,
> > and I really feel sorry for students trying to learn the
> language sometimes.
>
> I learned English (and others), and I found English rather easy to learn.
> It's a practical language. But what really is a mystery (even after many,
> many years) is the pronunciation of words I've never heard
> before. But then
> again, people seem to be willing to accept all kinds of pronunciations...
> so it's not really a problem most of the time :)
That's very true in many of the cases I've seen. In many other languages
the way it is spelt is how it sounds. In English this can get from "close"
to WAY off. My favorite example is Colonel. In NA most people pronounce it
as kernel. I think the English pronounce it the way it is actually spelt.
TTYL
> > Most people think that their own native language is the most difficult
> > and nonsensical language to learn. My take on it is that most native
> > speakers never had to really learn the rules of their own language, so
> > they don't believe it really has these rules.
>
> Not quite 12 languages, but I speak tree fluently and know some others a
> bit, and that's also my experience. Especially people who never learned
> another language seem to think that their own is incomprehensive beyond
> measure.
Well, I've *studied* about 12; I'm only fluent in 2 at the present
time. With a bit of practice I could get to be fluent in 4, but it's
been a *long* while since I've spoken these. For one thing, how often
does one get a chance to speak classical Latin?
> And -- I know almost none of the rules that people learn when they learn my
> native language :) I also know that I don't have a clue whether it is
> difficult to learn or not.
Mainly I know the English rules from comparison with the other languages
I studied. German, for example, is quite close to English in some
respects, and it is interesting to note which rules apply to both and
which rules apply only to one.
--
D. Jay Newman ! TakeThisOuTjayKILLspamspamsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
>
> That's very true in many of the cases I've seen. In many other languages
>the way it is spelt is how it sounds. In English this can get from "close"
>to WAY off. My favorite example is Colonel. In NA most people pronounce it
>as kernel. I think the English pronounce it the way it is actually spelt.
>TTYL
Then there's Lieutenant.. "Left ennant", and Draftsman "drohtsman"
>>><snip>
>>>
>
> That's very true in many of the cases I've seen. In many other languages
>the way it is spelt is how it sounds. In English this can get from "close"
>to WAY off. My favorite example is Colonel. In NA most people pronounce it
>as kernel. I think the English pronounce it the way it is actually spelt.
>TTYL
>
>----------------------------------
>Herbert's PIC Stuff:
>http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
>(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics
>
Odd, I've never heard anyone pronounce it "co-lon-el" before. ;-)
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:26:19 -0500, David VanHorn wrote:
> >Odd, I've never heard anyone pronounce it "co-lon-el" before. ;-)
>
> LeBeau, on Hogan's Heroes!
Ah yes, a good old English name, LeBeau! :-)
The thing is, there really is no way to tell how to pronounce a word you haven't heard before. "Gloucester,
Leicester, Worcester" miss out all but the first and last syllables, to be pronounced "Gloster, Lester,
Wooster", but "Cirencester" is pronounced pretty-much as it's written "siren-sester".
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England (where we pronounce "colonel" as "kernal" :-)
> > That's very true in many of the cases I've seen. In many
> other languages
> >the way it is spelt is how it sounds. In English this can get
> from "close"
> >to WAY off. My favorite example is Colonel. In NA most people
> pronounce it
> >as kernel. I think the English pronounce it the way it is actually spelt.
> >TTYL
>
> Then there's Lieutenant.. "Left ennant",
>I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
>"straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
>
>The closest I've found is Japanese, and there are *many* quirks there,
>also.
> > I was thinking of a similar situation. A "pure" language, with no
> > outside interference might be more self-consistent.
>
> Aiee. Esperanto pure enough ? (professionally purified to be sure)
>
> Peter
From everything I've heard, Esperanto is the language with the ultimate
outside interference.
--
D. Jay Newman ! .....jayRemoveMEsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
> >I've studied over 12 human languages, and found *none* of them
> >"straightforward and coherent" in grammer.
> >
> >The closest I've found is Japanese, and there are *many* quirks there,
> >also.
>
> Latin ? <duck>
> > >The closest I've found is Japanese, and there are *many* quirks there,
> > >also.
> >
> > Latin ? <duck>
>
> Not even classical Latin comes close. At least it's more consistant in
> spelling.
I know two latin pronunciations, ie, water: aqua (roman) or aqva
(v=f)(restituta).
Is funny to hear anglosaxon speakers speaking in latin. I don't say anything
about some english or german words origin. In fact I see similar grammar
structurs in german (declinations) and a lot of words in english,... but is
funny to hear their pronunciation. ou ou ou ou :)
Ask Fr. Thomas McGahee, :)
Dennis Crawley
Argentina
PS:
1.- When somebody brings you something, that person says: "here you are".
The literal translation into Spanish is "you are here". Anybody knows why?
2.- Another one with apostrophe: o'clock,... (on clock? syncronized?)
> > Not even classical Latin comes close. At least it's more consistant in
> > spelling.
>
> I know two latin pronunciations, ie, water: aqua (roman) or aqva
> (v=f)(restituta).
I think that it's more of a spelling thing. The romans didn't have the "u"
as a letter during the "classical" period. Actually, we can only guess
at the "correct" pronounciation of classical latin, though I think they've
come pretty close.
Vulgar Latin, on the other hand, is pronounced differently (closer to spanish).
And there is Church Latin, which is yet a third beast.
Luckily Latin is usually read rather than conversed in.
> Is funny to hear anglosaxon speakers speaking in latin. I don't say anything
> about some english or german words origin. In fact I see similar grammar
> structurs in german (declinations) and a lot of words in english,... but is
> funny to hear their pronunciation. ou ou ou ou :)
Yes, the romance languages and the germanic languages do share a lot. I've
been away from college too long to remember, but I *think* it is do to
cultural sharing.
--
D. Jay Newman ! spamBeGonejay@spam@spam_OUTsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
Traditional reverence to the very first watchmakers, who were Irish
=============================
Someone here mentioned this sort of thing the other day. I saw a
sign on TV today in a story about a fire down on the Christchuch
grasslands affecting local residents
" Evacuee's 2 police bus "
Give it 20 years of texting and no one will be able to spell anything
longer than a few letters anyway
> That's very true in many of the cases I've seen. In many other languages
> the way it is spelt is how it sounds. In English this can get from "close"
> to WAY off. My favorite example is Colonel. In NA most people pronounce it
> as kernel. I think the English pronounce it the way it is actually spelt.
> TTYL
Cholmondelly
Worcestershire
Pall Mall
The Mall
Ghoti* :-) (Google may help here)
Of course, les yankees are not immune either
Ask them how to pronounce "Tuolumne meadows" (paradise on earth in High
Sierras in Yellowstone National Park).
> > draftsman is definitely pronounced as spelt in england :
> > drafts-man
>
> BUT that's not how it's spelt in England.
> In ye olde home country it's spelt draughtsman :-)
Draftsman was the more common spelling in bygone days,
but alternate spellings are used now, -aft or -aught. It's the
same word regionalized
Which, BTW, is another issue. Brits seem to get in a huff
because -ize looks like an Americanism, but if you look
in a 50-yo English (for the English) dictionary, many many
words, eg recognise (todays UK spelling), end in -ize. The
ending can be -ise or ize, depending on for example if the
root is French (which can also result in -ice eg service) or
Latin. For some reason though it appears the US prefers
-ize, the UK prefers -ise, and both are happy about -ice
> > > There are just some things in English that make NO sense at all,
>
> eg "dust" - put dust on (icing sugar, fingerprinting), or take it off
>
> eg "fairly" - imprecisely (fairly good) or precisely (punched fairly
> on the nose)
>
> Does this happen in other languages to make life interesting ?
Yes. Almost any real language (one that is growing) tends to create
things like this. Words get used for their opposite meaning. Words
get multiple meanings; I've been told there at 18 meanings for "fast"
(a fast runner, tied fast, a person on a fast, a fast woman...; the first
two meanings seem opposite).
> > eg "dust" - put dust on (icing sugar, fingerprinting), or take it
> > off
> >
> > eg "fairly" - imprecisely (fairly good) or precisely (punched fairly
> > on the nose)
> ....
> And then of course there is "cleave". One can cleave together, or be
> cleaved asunder.
=== Andrew Warren -- RemoveMEaiwEraseMEspam_OUTcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Of course, les yankees are not immune either
> Ask them how to pronounce "Tuolumne meadows" (paradise on
> earth in High
> Sierras in Yellowstone National Park).
After graduation, I took a liking for French language and did a short course
in Alliance Francaise. What sounded odd to me was that there is no neuter
gender in French. Everything - living or non-living - is either masculine or
feminine. For example, a pen is of masculine gender and an eraser belongs to
feminine gender! There is no logic; you merely have to memorise the gender
for each object.
But what impressed me was the standardisation in pronunciation. With very few
exceptions, you can pronounce the words correctly, based on the spelling. In
English, there is no such rule. For example, consider the following four
words.
Your
Hour
Tour
Four
Even though the vowels are the same in all the four words, the pronunciation
of each is distinctly different from the others.
>After graduation, I took a liking for French language and did a short
>course
>in Alliance Francaise. What sounded odd to me was that there is no neuter
>gender in French. Everything - living or non-living - is either masculine
>or
>feminine. For example, a pen is of masculine gender and an eraser belongs
>to
>feminine gender! There is no logic; you merely have to memorise the gender
>for each object.
>
I commented on this to my German teacher, and she told me that for
someone who grows up speaking German, forgetting that Misthaufen is
masculine and requires a "der", "ein", "den", "dem", etc., would be akin
to an American forgetting that McDonald's begins with "Mc". When they
learn it, they learn it as a part of the word; the gender is an element in
the same way as the part of speech: we all just know that "cow" is a noun,
while "bovine" is (usually) an adjective.
It's only really an issue for those of us coming from a gender-lacking
language.
> >feminine. For example, a pen is of masculine gender and an eraser belongs
> >to
> >feminine gender! There is no logic; you merely have to memorise the gender
> >for each object.
> >
> I commented on this to my German teacher, and she told me that for
> someone who grows up speaking German, forgetting that Misthaufen is
> masculine and requires a "der", "ein", "den", "dem", etc., would be akin
> to an American forgetting that McDonald's begins with "Mc". When they
Yes. This is true, but for those of us who learned German as a second
language, it comes slowly. Though there are *some* general rules. The
main one is that adult woman are feminine, adult males are masculine,
and young (unmarried) women are neuter.
Mark Twain said it best:
Where is the radish?
She is in the kitchen.
Where is the beautiful and accomplished English madaine?
It has gone to the opera.
> It's only really an issue for those of us coming from a gender-lacking
> language.
There are actually fewer gender-lacking languages than one thinks. Even
English has some remnents of this (boats are feminine).
Japanese may not have specific gramatical gender, but men and women speak
differently enough that when reading you can tell if a man or a woman is
talking.
--
D. Jay Newman ! @spam@jayspam_OUT.....sprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > Of course, les yankees are not immune either
> > Ask them how to pronounce "Tuolumne meadows" (paradise on
> > earth in High
> > Sierras in Yellowstone National Park).
>
> After graduation, I took a liking for French language and did a
> short course
> in Alliance Francaise. What sounded odd to me was that there is no neuter
> gender in French. Everything - living or non-living - is either
> masculine or
> feminine. For example, a pen is of masculine gender and an eraser
> belongs to
> feminine gender! There is no logic; you merely have to memorise the gender
> for each object.
Hehe, reminds me of a conversation I had with a French teacher once. I
asked her: how do you tell whether a word is feminine or masculine. Simple
question? She answered with a few "rules" to follow. Then I came up with a
motherload of examples that violated those rules. After more discussion she
just admitted that there weren't really any rules and that you just had to
memorize it!??!?
That's one thing I REALLY LOVE about English, no messy masculine, feminine
crap, everything is neuter. TTYL
> Japanese may not have specific gramatical gender, but men and
> women speak differently enough that when reading you can tell
> if a man or a woman is talking.
Able to tell gender of written Japanese? Spoken yes, because they use very
different colloqial conjugations of the words, but I can't see how that
would appear in writing since written Japanese (at least in newspaper and
books is pretty 'textbook'. This however is akin to the dialect differences
too. Learning textbook Japanese (Tokyo dialect) will not prepare you for a
trip to Osaka other distinct different parts of Japan. Heck, when living in
Japan there was even a TV show that made questions for a game show based on
dialectic differences of the language. They'd show a short clip of someone
saying a word (usually really funny sounding) and then ask them based on
context what they thought the word was... usually the contestants were way
off. It was a riot.
But back to the point... I can't say as reading Japanese you could see
whether the author was male or female, unless you are talking a personal
letter. This also doesn't point to gender in the language, cause a pencil
isn't male... and an eraser isn't female... though it's not an eraser
either. It's a 'rubber' when translated... a good american GRiN on that
one.
> > Japanese may not have specific gramatical gender, but men and
> > women speak differently enough that when reading you can tell
> > if a man or a woman is talking.
>
> Able to tell gender of written Japanese? Spoken yes, because they use very
> different colloqial conjugations of the words, but I can't see how that
> would appear in writing since written Japanese (at least in newspaper and
> books is pretty 'textbook'. This however is akin to the dialect differences
You are most likely correct. "Standard" Japanese is the masculine dialect
of Tokyo. And formal language of any sort tends to use the standards.
Textbook English won't prepare a Japanese person for parts of America,
either.
> But back to the point... I can't say as reading Japanese you could see
> whether the author was male or female, unless you are talking a personal
> letter. This also doesn't point to gender in the language, cause a pencil
I'm not saying anything about the gender of the author, but that of the
character. I should have stated that I study languages to read fiction.
In Japanese my goal is manga, where the gender differences in language
tend to be a bit exagerated.
Though, even in English I can usually tell the gender of the author of
a piece of fiction if I read enough of it. Unfortunately in English I
don't know exactly how I do it, because English is my native tongue.
--
D. Jay Newman ! .....jayRemoveMEsprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
Agreed, manga definitely exagerates the gender and colloqialism of the
language. If you want to learn to truly sound native, read them... but
watch for the cursing/swearing. Might want to learn what some of that stuff
means from a real close friend that won't mind you asking instead of
blurting something out in public and finding out you've just offended
everyone. Especially if you are using the adult manga.
> Agreed, manga definitely exagerates the gender and colloqialism of the
> language. If you want to learn to truly sound native, read them... but
> watch for the cursing/swearing. Might want to learn what some of that stuff
> means from a real close friend that won't mind you asking instead of
> blurting something out in public and finding out you've just offended
> everyone. Especially if you are using the adult manga.
I know those pitfalls. Generally I stick to younger Manga at this time,
though I do enjoy some more mature manga. Dragon Ball is excellent for
learning to read.
I do know to watch out for the gender differences; learning from manga
can lead to speaking as the wrong gender. On the other hand, Japanese
people seem so amazed that *any* American can speak Japanese at all that
it isn't so bad (though what would be said behind my back, I don't know).
Luckily I don't have to learn it for business use, because that is an
entirely different can of worms. Though I think that a few top execs
from any business doing business with Japan should learn the language.
It might help them succeed there, as the business culture is extremely
strange to an American.
--
D. Jay Newman ! RemoveMEjayspamBeGonesprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
>There are actually fewer gender-lacking languages than one thinks. Even
>English has some remnents of this (boats are feminine).
A good point. Humourously, although English is usually considered a
"Germanic" language, in German, boat is a neuter noun! (das Boot).
Mike h.
_________________________________________________________________
Shop online for kids toys by age group, price range, and toy category at
MSN Shopping. No waiting for a clerk to help you! http://shopping.msn.com
> >There are actually fewer gender-lacking languages than one thinks. Even
> >English has some remnents of this (boats are feminine).
>
> A good point. Humourously, although English is usually considered a
> "Germanic" language, in German, boat is a neuter noun! (das Boot).
> Textbook English won't prepare a Japanese person for parts of America,
> either.
Textbook English won't prepare any foreigner for an part of the USA :-).
For most of the US textbook American MAy suffice.
Genuine conversation (repeated with slightly different words on numerous
occasions over two weeks).
Antipodean Tourist (aka me) speaking REALLY slowly and REALLY clearly.
"Do you sell Ice"
Random Sales-person
"Sell what?"
AT: EYE-SSS! (closest phonetic like spelling I can think of)
RS: ACE????????
AT: EYE-SSS - you know, to make drinks cold
RS: Oh! You mean EYE-SSS. (sounds identical to what I thought I was saying).
Strangely, I , and the two others with me, had no trouble understanding
American (too much US TV perhaps) but yer average USer had vast trouble
understanding me. This even when I spoke very slowly and clearly - not,
James will tell you, my normal style.
mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
