The Language (and travel) Thread

[Hikari]

23 hours ago, cavaradossi said:

Umm, it strikes me, Carol, that I've not seen or heard the word "garret" used in American English in decades. I can't imagine why since it's a perfectly fine word describing a floor found in many a house. I've even got one in mine, though I never go up there or even refer to it. If it ever crosses my mind, it's to worry about the possibility of wasps or bats taking up residence there.  Thankfully, that's never happened!

 

 

Garrets are so uncomfortable in the summertime, too.

Well, it's good to see that you are still alive! 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Good heavens, my last post got messed up!  Except for the first quote, all of what you can see is my replies to things (not visible) that Cav said -- hope that helps you make sense of it.

Dunno if it was something I did, or another bright idea by the new software.  I sure miss plain-text mode!  Used to be able to repair all sorts of messes with that.

[J.P.]

Re garrets: Yes, they are. That's why I have slept in my garden few times already.

[Sheerluck]

16 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I agree, that would be really, really, really progressive:  

Re: Multiple adverbs

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Back then when I watched a Korean TV show, (the only Korean show that I watch, it's brilliant, called The Genius), I relied on the subtitle to understand what they were saying. There were a lot of games using dice, those cube with numbers of dots on its sides, but the translation almost always says 'die' instead of 'dice'.

So I just brushed it off as bad translation, to me die means dead. Jumping off the roof, reichenbach fall, fake dead, fake die. Die, die, DIE! Not alive. (although I wasn't convinced, because it was a very good quality translation, including proper grammar). However, more often lately, I saw that 'die' is indeed used to mention that cube thingy in multiple other shows that I watched (although can't remember which, but it's more than once).

So is it true that the cube is also called die? But why??

[Carol the Dabbler]

One numbered cube is a die (singular)  Two or more are dice (plural).

Good ol' English strikes again! 

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Sweet fancy moses! That is embarrassing!  Is there a hole that I can hide into?

But.. but... lice! Mice! Why they have to be like that???

[J.P.]

Because people who invented English were dyslectic? Or just sadistic.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I go for the latter and it’s not necessarily so much invented the spoken language as is invented the written language. Someone somewhere decided to call the items die/dice when written and the spoken part may have come based on the written. We have many English words thanks to William Tyndale and Thomas More having word wars in their written works followed not many years later by Shakespeare adding to that. Then there was a guy (forget his name) who decided how modern English would be spelled and we end up with Rogue instead of Roge.

[Arcadia]

I suspect different word origins are a factor too. English borrows from everywhere. For example, I see (according to Bing) that mice and lice are Old English, borrowed from Proto-Germanic, while dice is Middle English, borrowed from Old French. So blame the Germans and the French for not coordinating their languages. The English did the best they could with the mess they had to work with.  

[Van Buren Supernova]

On 7/7/2018 at 5:04 AM, Arcadia said:

I suspect different word origins are a factor too. English borrows from everywhere. For example, I see (according to Bing) that mice and lice are Old English, borrowed from Proto-Germanic, while dice is Middle English, borrowed from Old French. So blame the Germans and the French for not coordinating their languages. The English did the best they could with the mess they had to work with.  

Why work with mess and not create their own? Gibberish is the way to go!

Anyway I checked Oxford, it seems like dice is also acceptable as singular form? Or is it because they are as confused as me

Same thing with fish and fishes. I used fishes a lot back then in a leisure writing forum and was told that the plural form of fish is fish, not fishes, then another user jumped and told the other that fishes is also acceptable. I let them fight. Because I don't know which one is correct. I throw popcorn. It's nice to have excuse that it's not my language.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The really cool thing about English is that, technically speaking, nobody is correct.  Some languages (e.g., French and German) have official committees that decide what is proper and what is not.  Whereas English is more of a free-form language.  (My spell-checker wanted to make it "free-for-all" -- yeah, that too!)

[Arcadia]

Maybe nobody is "correct", but there are standards! From someone who attended … (*does math, yuk! this is hard!*) … uh, no less than 8 different school systems, including overseas, I can't recall any time one contradicted the grammatical teachings of another. (Then you go to college and everything is questioned.  )

So based on that: fish is the plural of fish, but "fishes" can be used when referring to many types of fish. So, "I saw four fish" means that you, er, saw four fish. But "I saw four fishes" is supposed to mean that you saw any number of fish … but they were of four different species.

Die and dice … die is the "correct" singular, but it's not uncommon, in casual text or conversation, for people to use all kinds of "incorrect" terms, and we all understand each other, so not many people complain. But in "professional" writing you're supposed to know better, and it drives me crazy to spend money for a text and find grammatical errors in it. How dare they!  Although "dice", meaning "one die", is so common now that I probably wouldn't notice.

The one I do notice every time and causes me to froth at the mouth is using "loose" to mean "lose." Everyone is doing it now!!!!!! They're not even the same parts of speech! It's a plot to drive me crazy, I just know it! Aaaaaaaghh!

[Carol the Dabbler]

11 hours ago, Arcadia said:

The one I do notice every time and causes me to froth at the mouth is using "loose" to mean "lose." Everyone is doing it now!!!!!! They're not even the same parts of speech! It's a plot to drive me crazy, I just know it! Aaaaaaaghh!

I'm reasonably sure that the lose/loose confusion is neither a grammatical error nor a vocabulary error, but rather a simple spelling error.  Most one-syllable words ending in -ose are pronounced like -oze (hose, nose, rose, etc.), whereas "lose" is pronounced like "looze."  So l-o-s-e simply doesn't look right -- the spelling suggests both the wrong vowel sound and the wrong consonant sound.  Whereas l-o-o-s-e at least suggests the desired vowel sound, plus it looks familiar.

The reason I'm pretty sure about this is that I don't recall ever hearing anyone say, for example, "please don't loose it" (do you?).  People tend to *say* "lose" in that context; they simply don't know how to spell it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

From someone who attended [...] no less than 8 different school systems, including overseas, I can't recall any time one contradicted the grammatical teachings of another.

That's true, the teachers tend to be in cahoots, thus constituting an "official committee" of sorts.  So OK, maybe English isn't that much different (in that regard) from French and German.  But just like those languages, there are different standards in different countries (most notably we have British vs American, and they have French vs Canadian).

And then there are multitudes of dialects, most of which are considered merely "wrong" by teachers, but which are how large numbers of native speakers actually talk.  It would be nice if they were given some respect -- if teachers would acknowledge that what they are teaching is one specific dialect (because it's the one most commonly used in academic circles).  It seems to me that a kid who lapses into the local English dialect in English class is no more "wrong" in an absolute sense than a kid who lapses into Spanish.  They're merely speaking the wrong language under the circumstances.

To those of you who live in non-English-speaking countries:  is there a similar situation in your language?  What attitude do the language teachers have toward local non-standard dialects?

[Caya]

Here in Austria, there's a certain pride involved in dialect matters (mostly because we're envious of trying to set ourselves apart from the Big Neighbour, Germany) and there are efforts to conserve local variants (the big equalizer, German TV channels and movies, have brought a marked reduction thereof over the decades, here as in Switzerland, and in Germany's Bavaria too for that matter I'd guess). Nevertheless, it's understood that German lessons are held in *standard* German, the so-called Hochsprache ("high language"), unless there's a text being discussed that's written in dialect form or something. If a student uses a non-standard expression in a test, it's usually not marked (or counted) wrong, but underlined and denoted as "dialect". So, no, it's not considered wrong per se, just for that situation (like, dunno, using the familiar mode of speech when addressing a stranger).

[Carol the Dabbler]

9 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... fish is the plural of fish, but "fishes" can be used when referring to many types of fish. So, "I saw four fish" means that you, er, saw four fish. But "I saw four fishes" is supposed to mean that you saw any number of fish … but they were of four different species.

That sounds like one of those logic-based rules that are so popular with the same folks who'll tell you that it's wrong to split an infinitive or to use more than one negative.  Problem is, language works the way it works, not necessarily the way we think it should.

If real-life people use "fishes" in that context, they've certainly never done it around me.  What I do hear with that meaning is something like "four species of fish," which is perfectly non-ambiguous  When I do hear "fishes" it seems to be simply the plural of "fish," generally intended to sound archaic and/or whimsical.

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Caya said:

... If a student uses a non-standard expression in a test, it's usually not marked (or counted) wrong, but underlined and denoted as "dialect". So, no, it's not considered wrong per se, just for that situation ....

I like that attitude very much -- likewise the local-pride movement that you mentioned.

Around here, there doesn't seem to *be* any concept of local dialects (other than among hard-core linguists, who are most certainly not teaching high-school English).  What must surely be the local dialect (because so many people talk that way, especially those from old farming families) is considered "substandard" and "illierate" and just plain "wrong," not only by local teachers, but also by dictionaries.

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

My experience with with dialects when I moved to another places ranged between fascination and being made fun of, although it was not meant to be cruel, just for fun. Of course I laughed back at them to, they were speaking funny!  However, in term of meaning or writing there is no/not much difference so it's not wrong, just different.

Same thing with when I first communicated in English, there are ways to read alphabets differently and you should see the way they looked at me when I pronounced things. Most were nice and quickly to pick up, or at least had good fun with it, there were one or two close-minded morons who were annoying wait until you try to speak other languages ahole and see how you do.

@Arcadia @Carol 

Regarding fish and fishes (You can't ready quote after there is some text in reply box yes?).

Is it possible that it's originated from settings or the conditions they are found? It is very unlikely to see just one species of fish in the ocean, or even river and quarry, unless it's specific condition targeted viewing like activity done in open water; swimming with whaleshark, whale watching, sharkcage etc. Even so, it's almost always referred as specific name of the species. I swam with six whale sharks! I saw five manta rays etc etc. However, when we saw a significant collective of one species, I heard it referenced as fish, however, same thing applies, it's more likely to be identified or followed up by the name. For example, I saw a school of fish, big-eye Trevally, or I saw a school of Yellow-tail Barracuda.

On the other hand, like in the wet market, we mostly see fish categorized properly according to what they are, so the scenario of referring to one species is much more likely.

So I'm wondering if the setting helps in originating the type of plural used. Natural and market, maybe? 

Not sure it's proper example, same thing with farther and further. It means the same thing, but on different condition. One is for physical distance, the other is metaphorical (?).

GAH

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

You can't ready quote after there is some text in reply box yes?)

You can't use multiquote then, but you can use the partial-quote feature (when it's working).  If you've already got stuff in your reply box, you should first make sure that your cursor is located where you want the quote to go.  Then you highlight whatever part of a post that you want to quote (even all of it, I suppose), and you should get a teeny little box that says "Quote selection."  Click on the little box, and the quote will appear in your reply box.  You can put more than one quote in the same post in this way, so it will do everything that multiquote can do, and more.  I think it's really great, except that sometimes I highlight what I want to quote -- and no little box pops up.

3 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

same thing with farther and further. It means the same thing, but on different condition. One is for physical distance, the other is metaphorical (?).

So I've heard, but I don't think I make any consistent distinction between them.  Maybe other people do?

[J.P.]

Oh, please, don't make me more scared of English!

Loose and lose - I still need to check those, because my brain refuses to remember what is what. Good there are online dictionaries.

Dialects are very common here and sometimes they vary from village to village They are also very present in everyday life, but it's more the way people pronounce words. At work, in our room we lovingly mock each other about it.

[Arcadia]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 2:35 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

the teachers tend to be in cahoots

"cahoots"   Those teachers, sneaking around and standardizing English when we're not looking... 🤣

So, people who write "loose" for "lose" … how do they write it when they actually mean loose?

[Van Buren Supernova]

19 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

So I've heard, but I don't think I make any consistent distinction between them.  Maybe other people do?

Hey, the quote suggestion works well!  

I actually use further and farther specifically since I found out what they mean, and this is something that I think make sense and easy enough to apply.

16 hours ago, J.P. said:

Oh, please, don't make me more scared of English!

Loose and lose - I still need to check those, because my brain refuses to remember what is what. Good there are online dictionaries.

Yah, I'm wondering how many time Arcadia etc cringes at what I write and the mess I make. But at the same time, it's indescribable  cure of boredom to know how much it annoys her. It's Christmas!  

I think the worst of trying to communicate in English is not automatically detecting what I'm doing wrong because grammar detection doesn't really come naturally. Only after that, reading back in higher alert mode I would find horrible mistakes. Also most time, I absentmindedly write something that sound similar instead of actual word.

[Carol the Dabbler]

9 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

So, people who write "loose" for "lose" … how do they write it when they actually mean loose?

Damn good question!  I don't recall ever seeing someone write "lose" when it should have been "loose" -- so I expect they'd write "loose" for either.

And yeah, gotta watch out for those sneaky teachers!

[Arcadia]

2 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

Hey, the quote suggestion works well!  

Yes it certainly does, and I'm wondering why the frickety-frack I didn't know about it until now! Well, I sort of know the reason but it's a long story and this is the wrong thread, but blame it on Microsoft.

Quote

Yah, I'm wondering how many time Arcadia etc cringes at what I write and the mess I make. But at the same time, it's indescribable  cure of boredom to know how much it annoys her. It's Christmas!  

So glad to be of service. 

Seriously … I just automatically make a distinction between "formal" writing (or speaking), where I expect everything to be "correct", and casual writing, where I don't give a flying fig if it's correct. Plus I make allowances for people for whom English is not their first language, since I can barely manage five words in any other language. Unless it's "loose" when it should be "lose." Then, as I may have mentioned before, I go berserk.