Intricacies of the English Language

Discussions on behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, neurology, endocrinology, game theory, etc.

Intricacies of the English Language

Postby vivian maxine on August 19th, 2016, 8:18 am 

As I promised Dandelion in Numbers and Linguistics:


FOUR ALL WHO REED AND RIGHT:

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes; but the plural of ox became oxen not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese, yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice; yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men, why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and three would be those, yet hat in the plural would never be hose, and the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren, but though we say mother, we never say methren.

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his, and him, but imagine the feminine as being she, shis, and shim.

Some other reasons to be grateful if you grew up speaking English:
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) At the Army base, a bass was painted on the head of a bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) After a number of Novocain injections, my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
22) I spent last evening evening out a pile of dirt.

Screwy pronunciations can mess up your mind!
For example...If you have a rough cough, climbing can be tough when going through the bough on a tree!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.

English muffins weren't invented in England.

We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce, and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends, but cannot make one amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends, and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it -- one odd and one end?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?
Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the
same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and in which an alarm goes off by going on.

-- AUTHOR UNKNOWN -- or is it KNOT KNOWN
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
PositorDragonFlyDave_Oblad and 2 more users liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby dandelion on August 19th, 2016, 8:59 am 

Ha! That is great, Vivian, :)
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Eclogite on August 19th, 2016, 9:33 am 

There is a story of a foreign student in London who was learning English. He has spent the day struggling with the range of pronunciations of "ough" in words such as through, cough, bough, though, thorough and so on. As he was walking through central London he saw a poster outside a theatre - "Hamlet - Pronounced Success". So he went home and shot himself.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about
dandelionDave_ObladBraininvat liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby vivian maxine on August 19th, 2016, 9:42 am 

Eclogite » August 19th, 2016, 8:33 am wrote:There is a story of a foreign student in London who was learning English. He has spent the day struggling with the range of pronunciations of "ough" in words such as through, cough, bough, though, thorough and so on. As he was walking through central London he saw a poster outside a theatre - "Hamlet - Pronounced Success". So he went home and shot himself.


Oh! :-(

I'm sure you know Sir Winston's quote about American and British English. I had a friend who was stationed in Germany for a while. He thought he'd visit England while he had a chance. He went into a restaurant in London and ordered his meal. He asked the waitress for a napkin. (For the benefit of my American siblings, "napkin" in British is a baby diaper.) The waitress got huffy and gave him a lecture ending with "If you Americans are going to come to our country, you should first learn our language.

My friend, a very non-controversial sort of person, said "thank you", got up and left and caught a train to Edinburgh. As he liked to tell it: "Those Scots don't care how I talk as long as I spend my money."
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Serpent on August 19th, 2016, 11:18 am 

I read a book review recently wherein the American reader upbraided the Canadian writer for bad spelling. Which is to say, correct spelling. The editor-bot monitoring this box underlines in wavy red my every mention of labour or valour; oddly, not light, though it also accepts lite.

And yet, small children are able to learn it in either form, plus two dozen other dialects. And not just the children of native English-speaking parents, but all kinds of children, immigrant and foreign, here and elsewhere, even when their native tongue is as different as Korean. For adults, the pronunciation is harder and the spelling can be insurmountable. My best ESL student was a young music teacher: good ear.

I'm glad you reminded me http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/story-of-english/I missed a couple of episodes when PBS was running this show. The book is worth having, too.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
dandelion liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby vivian maxine on August 19th, 2016, 11:41 am 

Serpent » August 19th, 2016, 10:18 am wrote:I read a book review recently wherein the American reader upbraided the Canadian writer for bad spelling. Which is to say, correct spelling. The editor-bot monitoring this box underlines in wavy red my every mention of labour or valour; oddly, not light, though it also accepts lite.

And yet, small children are able to learn it in either form, plus two dozen other dialects. And not just the children of native English-speaking parents, but all kinds of children, immigrant and foreign, here and elsewhere, even when their native tongue is as different as Korean. For adults, the pronunciation is harder and the spelling can be insurmountable. My best ESL student was a young music teacher: good ear.

I'm glad you reminded me http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/story-of-english/I missed a couple of episodes when PBS was running this show. The book is worth having, too.


And not just small children. In high school, we had an English (grammar) teacher from London. She taught us both ways of spelling many such words and stressed heavily that both are correct. I've always enjoyed tossing in a British spelling once in a while. theatre, neighbour. Then there are American spellings that have changed: tomato(e); potato(e). When Dan Quayle was taken to task over tamatoe, I wrote to Webster Dictionary company and confirmed. That used to be an accepted spelling.

Canadian. There is an author whose many books I had read. I'd have to dig out his name now but he was a Scot who moved to Canada. When he was continuing his series, using - I assume - Canadian spellings, he was told that he would have to have them edited into American before they could sell here. It surprised me. I've never noticed a lot of difference.

The only problem I have with books from foreign countries is that they change titles when they start publishing in USA. I've bought a few such books only to find I'd already read them.

Languages are interesting. Yes?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Braininvat on August 19th, 2016, 12:36 pm 

I remember marveling at English's convolutions when I learned that "oversight" can mean either supervision, or what comes of lack of supervision.

I sometimes see "number" as one of those deceptive NYT crossword puzzles clues (i.e. hint is not for, say, "seven," but rather something like "liquour")

English is one of the world's greatest playgrounds for wordplay, thanks to its many quirks. Now and then, I enjoy something I call a "false compound" word, one which breaks down into a phrase, e.g.

manslaughter -- man's laughter
conspiracy -- con's piracy
pantheist -- pant heist
therapist -- the rapist (probably the best known example)
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
dandelionvivian maxine liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby vivian maxine on August 19th, 2016, 12:44 pm 

Braininvat wrote:English is one of the world's greatest playgrounds for wordplay, thanks to its many quirks. Now and then, I enjoy something I call a "false compound" word, one which breaks down into a phrase, e.g.

manslaughter -- man's laughter
conspiracy -- con's piracy
pantheist -- pant heist
therapist -- the rapist (probably the best known example)


Oh, those are wonderful. Had a good laugh. Thank you.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Serpent on August 19th, 2016, 3:31 pm 

It's great for puns and double entendres, as well as cryptic messages, farcical miscommunication, whimsical expression and, of course, poetry. It's the biggest language in the world, because it's a patchwork of so many languages - which is also the reason for its many inconsistencies and eccentricities.
I learned it as a child of 10 and have loved it ever since.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby vivian maxine on August 19th, 2016, 4:20 pm 

Serpent » August 19th, 2016, 2:31 pm wrote:It's great for puns and double entendres, as well as cryptic messages, farcical miscommunication, whimsical expression and, of course, poetry. It's the biggest language in the world, because it's a patchwork of so many languages - which is also the reason for its many inconsistencies and eccentricities.
I learned it as a child of 10 and have loved it ever since.



Robert Frost? Langston Hughes? Philip Levine?

But I like Neruda because his Spanish poems translate so well into English. That is a hard thing to do, translate a poem from one language to another. His Odes to Common Things are humbling. What an insight he had!
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Serpent on August 19th, 2016, 5:25 pm 

That's another huge advantage. Everything translates into English with relative ease (barring national in-jokes and puns), because there are so many words to choose from; whereas, a nuanced English text is difficult to translate into a language with a more compact and monocultural vocabulary.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Braininvat on August 19th, 2016, 7:07 pm 

Serpent, wouldn't have guessed English was your 2nd tongue. Tu es Quebecois?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Serpent on August 19th, 2016, 7:58 pm 

Non - worse, I've forgotten most of my high-school French. Can just about manage road-signs and menus, but not the spoken word.
In Grade 4, a new language is pretty easy to pick up, especially as we had some quite good New Canadians classes at my school, and kids from all over, so none of us felt out of place. Good education, good public libraries, even in the poor districts, where most immigrants start out. Toronto was a very good city when I lived there (1958-84). I have no idea what it's like now - certainly a lot more contentious and intimidating.

My mother learned from books at first, because the English spoken in a nursing home (low-paid, entry-level work for immigrant women) by the mothers of all my classmates was unreliable. Later, she asked me to choose television programs where they spoke properly - not slang. She spoke properly, but never lost her charming accent. My father spoke as well as he needed to, but roughly, having picked up his vernacular at building sites, and never lost his horrible accent. So that's why I was a sympathetic ESL tutor.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Eclogite on August 20th, 2016, 10:21 am 

Serpent » Fri Aug 19, 2016 7:31 pm wrote:It's great for puns and double entendres
I like the example about the woman who walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the bartender gave her one.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about
dandelion liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby jocular on August 20th, 2016, 1:55 pm 

I don't get it






























very often :)
jocular
Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: 29 Feb 2016
dandelion liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Serpent on August 20th, 2016, 3:44 pm 

If you want to hear English abused, listen to the commentators on the Rio games. Their profound insight is matched only by their extensive vocabulary, shrill delivery and grating cadence.
Except the football - it's always announced by a Brit who's actually had some voice training and keeps an ice-cube down his pants the whole game.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Serpent on August 20th, 2016, 7:13 pm 

Update. Men's soccer final between Brasil and Germany - the announcer totally lost his cube at the climax.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Positor on August 20th, 2016, 9:58 pm 

vivian maxine » August 19th, 2016, 1:18 pm wrote: We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes; but the plural of ox became oxen not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese, yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice; yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men, why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and three would be those, yet hat in the plural would never be hose, and the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren, but though we say mother, we never say methren.

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his, and him, but imagine the feminine as being she, shis, and shim.

Here is a poem about English plurals that I wrote on another site:

The plurals of most English nouns
Just take an S, like kings and crowns.
Some, to avoid phonetic clashes,
Add an E, as in eyelashes.
Children and oxen are a pair
In which the Saxon N's still there.
A few change vowel sounds, like mice;
Some interpose a letter (dice).
Quite often Y becomes IE,
While F may change (or not) to V.
Scissors and clothes are plural only;
People is unique and lonely.
In the case of sheep and deer,
A plural form does not appear;
Likewise, when humans are disdained,
The singular may be retained:
The Hun, the Turk, the infidel,
Whom hostile tribes desire to quell.
In deference to Latin form,
Cacti and algae are the norm,
Bacteria and referenda,
Magi, radii, corrigenda.
Saints' stigmata are a freak,
Which, like schemata, comes from Greek.
From Hebrew, as in many a hymn,
Are cherubim and seraphim.
Italian endings are profuse
(Not pluralized in English use),
Like macaroni and spaghetti,
Tagliatelle and confetti.
Adjectives may serve as nouns,
And many a foreign learner frowns
Because the dead, the old, the young
Have plurals in his native tongue,
While family names like the Malones
Are singular to Francophones.
No matter: when all's said and done,
These strange anomalies are fun;
Our language has a high degree
Of heterogeneity.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
dandelionDragonFlyvivian maxine liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby DragonFly on August 20th, 2016, 11:23 pm 

To solve the lack of epicene, gender neutral pronouns the letter ‘e’ could be used to mean ‘he or she’ (which still puts the ‘he’ first), especially in speaking, when s/he doesn’t work, as it would in writing, plus ‘e’ sounds like ‘he’ or ‘she’, plus, the other vowels are kind of taken, ‘i’ as ‘I’, ‘u’ as ‘you’, ‘o’ as ‘oh’, ‘y’ as ‘why’, ‘a’ as the article ‘a’.

“Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t e?" (They sure do.)

To continue the pattern of starting with the letter ‘e’, ‘eir’ could become the singular of ‘their’, as we even seem forced to use ‘their’ in the singular sometimes anyway.

“One must watch eir language.”

Then, likewise, ‘erm’ could be used to mean ‘him or her’, but it’s not as close as the others.

“Let everyone ask ermself to consider the implications of the lack of the epicene pronoun.”

“Either John or Mary should bring a schedule with erm.”

I have a chart somewhere in which I invented all kinds of cases, which became ridiculous, including such as ‘Shey’ or ‘Shem’ as indicating that ‘they’ or ‘them’ were all female, as well as ‘sheir’ and such.

What about “She gave her jewels.” Which case of ‘her’ is it?

What about “That’s the house whose roof caught fire.” A house is not a ‘who’. The pronoun ‘which’ is still without a possessive case, and therefore English is still a language whose missing words need attention.

Another problem is the gap left by corrupted feminine nouns. For example, ‘bachelor’ is a respectable term for an unmarried male, but the feminine counterparts of bachelor all had bad connotations (spinster, divorcee, maiden, old maid, widow), so much so that females had to adopt ‘bachelorette’, but this is still a male derived word and is also diminutive. Fortunately, this problem has been solved with the introduction of female single, or ‘femgle’. Not really. The word ‘female’ even contains ‘male’, which I suppose is the biblical ‘of the male’, or else it was meant to be ‘fee-male’, for taking a woman out usually means there is a fee involved (just a joke), and ‘woman’ embraces ‘man’ in it. So, let us try to turn Manglish back into English, but then we’d have to reprint all the books!

Thank yous for yur interest in this subject.

Language advice:

Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
Be more or less specific.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Avoid clichés like the plague—they’re old hat.
Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
Like, don’t use the word ‘like’, a lot, like in this sentence.
Foreign words are not apropos.
Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used.
And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
No sentence fragments.
Also, too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
Its important to be careful about it—about it’s meaning.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
dandelionvivian maxine liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby jocular on August 21st, 2016, 3:59 am 

That is great fun (both posts) but I feel like I am back at school ;(
jocular
Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: 29 Feb 2016


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby BadgerJelly on August 22nd, 2016, 4:15 am 

This reminds a little of ... oh crap! My memory is so bad ... Android sheep thingy made into movie. I could google it but refuse to!! Harrison Ford ...

Anyway! In the movie they speak "Mush" a combination of English and Mandarin I think? With the reference to "hamburger" I think thhus shows the importance of etymology and how meaning can be lost and then mere centuries, or decades, later misconstrued.

English is a complete bastard language. So much French and Latin is intertwined in our language that we no longer notice. Constant attempts to "standardise" actual create a loss of connection to the original meaning intended. Outside of mathematics I do not think there can ever be a langauge based on universal terms. If there is then I imagine that language would be compromised of emotional terms only.

I teach English and it is without a doubt the best way to understand English. So many questions I have been asked about English are left unturned by the native speaker. Just the other week the word "landscape" came up. After a quicm seaech I found out that the suffix -scape is the same as -ship!? So bizarre! I was speaking to a German/Swiss? guy and he said in German "landscape" made more sense to him than is does in English. This points to how far removed some common words are from there original meaning. This may seem of little significance to us today but if you pick up a novel written a century ago what you read now is not read in the same sense it was written for many terms. Just think of how Latin was required in schools not so long ago. Now most students using English words cannot connect the meaning behind them to Latin origins. The can be said in English history with the Norman conquest and the bilingual period in Enlish history where French became pretty much a second language for educated high society and bled into our language, eg., "prime minister". Thebleader of Britain is refered to in French!! Haha!

Anyway ... "Time to die." ... Now I remember! "Blade Runner". :)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby doogles on August 22nd, 2016, 7:16 am 

Here's another lot, just to add to the list:

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and there would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
Neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England.

We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
We find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write, but fingers don't fing,
Grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them,
What do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
Should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?

We ship by truck but send cargo by ship...
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
While a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
In which your house can burn up as it burns down,
In which you fill in a form by filling it out,
And in which an alarm goes off by going on.
And in closing..........

If Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop.???
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE
dandelion liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby doogles on August 22nd, 2016, 7:20 am 

Why worry about spelling anyhow.

Most of us can read this:

Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.



i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby doogles on August 22nd, 2016, 7:23 am 

Why worry about correct spelling anyhow?

Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.



i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
if you can raed tihs forwrad it
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby doogles on August 22nd, 2016, 7:49 am 

Just to prove that I didn't have double vision earlier, I'll add this one too

Words are so significant...and so very remarkable.... Especially small words, they seem to have so much more to declare than most perceive! This is very good!

The most confusing two letter word

Now this is very interesting, wonder who came up with this..........................



No wonder we English speaking people are so confused.


This two-letter word in English has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that word
is 'UP.' It is listed in the
dictionary as an [adv], [prep], [adj], [n] or [v].

It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky
or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning,
why do we wake UP?

At a meeting, why does a topic come UP? Why do
we speak UP, and why are the
officers UP for
election and why is it UP to the secretary to
write UP a
report? We call UP our friends,
brighten UP a room, polish UP the
silver, warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen.. We
lock UP the house and
fix UP the old
car.

At other times this little word has real special
meaning. People stir UP trouble,
line UP for
tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.

To be dressed is one
thing but to be dressed UP is
special.
And this UP is confusing: A
drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP.

We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at
night. We seem to be pretty mixed
UP about UP !

To be
knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look UP the word UP in the dictionary.. In a desk-sized
dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4 of the page and can add UP to about
thirty definitions

If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may
wind UP with a hundred or
more.

When it threatens to rain, we say it is
clouding UP . When the sun comes out
we say it is clearing UP. When it rains, it
soaks UP the
earth. When it does not rain for awhile, things dry UP. One could go on & on, but I'll wrap
it UP, for now .........my time is UP !

Oh.....one more thing:
What is the first thing you
do in the morning & the last thing you do at
Night?

U
P !
Did that one crack you UP?


Now I'll shut UP
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE
dandelion liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby Eclogite on August 22nd, 2016, 8:38 am 

Doogles, you are becoming far too uppity.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about
dandelion liked this post


Re: Intricacies of the English Language

Postby BadgerJelly on August 22nd, 2016, 11:17 am 

Doogles -

The way I see it the sophists noticed what you have. The idiocy of language rather than establishing rigid rules to it and making it out to be above and beyond all based on mathematical logic.

I think it is easy to forget the magic of language. I recall in my youth wanting to move up to the next year so I could have several different coloured books (one colour for each subject). The idea of filling these books with knowledge was magical to me.

I think we are too easily inclined to say there is nothing magical left in life and nothing science cannot uncover. Personally I find it is the most mundane things in life we take for granted that are truly amazing. The simple ability to write down thoughts and refer back to them, or for them to be read years later, is quite extraordinary. Writing has become such a taken for granted fact of life that we even base our idea of "history" on it as if it possessesesssessess more reality than personal experience.

Anyway, I don't know what I am saying any more. I have the undercurrent of something running through my being that seemingly cannot burst forth into the world of words.

"We burn so hard. Yet shed so little light." - Clive Barker, Galilee.

That is how I feel in putting words together. They are like mutant beings that vaguely outline the notion of the emotions I wish to express and the need I feel to express them.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: 14 Mar 2012



Return to Behavioral Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests