Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 26 Mar 96 8:33:12 MET
From:      Greg Lehey <lehey.pad@sni.de>
To:        mrami@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Cc:        lehey.pad@sni.de, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/bpatch/pkg COMMENT
Message-ID:  <199603260736.IAA02239@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960325084108.1609O-100000@mramirez.sy.yale.edu>; from "Marc Ramirez" at Mar 25, 96 8:06 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>>> English has only 4 noun forms, compared to German's 7
>>
>> I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  German still has a
>> dative, which has all but completely disappeared in modern English.
>> Apart from that, they're the same.
>
> My point was that nouns in English inflect for less than in German, and
> since there's no need for article-noun aggreement, this adds up to less
> rules to learn.  Of course, English just shifts the complexity... (Hmmm, I
> need to express future tense; should I use 'about to', 'fixing to', 'going
> to', or 'will'?) So it's easier to get yourself understood, but harder to
> express shades of meaning.

That makes more sense.  But it's a moot point whether it's easier to
learn endings or auxiliary verbs and prepositions.

>>> If I wanted to, I could get into the ten declination types in
>>> German, but I don't. :)
>>
>> I don't understand this, either.
>
> Umlauting rules left over from Proto-Germanic.  Analogous to English drink
> umlauting to drank and drunk and sing to sang, sung but think (same vowel)
> umlauting to thought, thought.  And work, a different vowel from think,
> umlauting to wrought, wrought.  Of course, in Old English the verbs were
> singan, drincan, thencan, and wercan... there the umlauting was regular.

Hmm.  Aren't we talking about a different kind of Umlaut here, the
so-called i-Umlaut which hit German in the 13th century?  It hit
English, too, but they didn't bother to introduce a symbolism to
indicate it--that's one of the reasons why English vowels are so
difficult to guess.  How do you pronounce the 'a' in 'tomato'?  With
or without i-Umlaut.

> English has few such rules (work, for example, has already been
> regularized), which is the only point I was trying to make.  And as time
> goes on, such irregularities will go away.  

I don't know if I'd call that an irregularity.  The word has been
weakened.

> If you listen on the streets of the US, in many places the third
> person singuar inflection has disappeared, and 'to be' has been
> regularized in conjugation as well 'I be, you be, he be, we be, I
> was, you was, we was, etc.)  The times, they are a-changin'.

It'll be interesting to see what influence street language has on the
mainstream language.  I think it's fair to assume that it's not doing
anything towards unifying the language, though.  I would imagine that
the developments in street language in Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Miami,
New York, London and Sydney would have little in common.

Greg



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603260736.IAA02239>