- #71
Mark44
Mentor
- 37,618
- 9,847
pinball1970 said:
You have to be 1) of a certain age, and 2) a fan of old movies to get the play on words that V50 posted.geordief said:
pinball1970 said:I did not get that. Ok
You have to be 1) of a certain age, and 2) a fan of old movies to get the play on words that V50 posted.geordief said:I didn't get it either,although I did look up the cast of Casablanca for clues.
Ticks both boxes but you forgot to add "adequately quick on the uptake"Mark44 said:You have to be 1) of a certain age, and 2) a fan of old movies to get the play on words that V50 posted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg3gw9v7jnvoA Sanskrit grammatical problem which has perplexed scholars since the 5th Century BC has been solved by a University of Cambridge PhD student.
Rishi Rajpopat, 27, decoded a rule taught by Panini, a master of the ancient Sanskrit language who lived around 2,500 years ago.
Panini's grammar, known as the Astadhyayi, relied on a system that functioned like an algorithm to turn the base and suffix of a word into grammatically correct words and sentences.
However, two or more of Panini's rules often apply simultaneously, resulting in conflicts.
Panini taught a "metarule", which is traditionally interpreted by scholars as meaning "in the event of a conflict between two rules of equal strength, the rule that comes later in the grammar's serial order wins".
However, this often led to grammatically incorrect results.
Mr Rajpopat rejected the traditional interpretation of the metarule. Instead, he argued that Panini meant that between rules applicable to the left and right sides of a word respectively, Panini wanted us to choose the rule applicable to the right side.
Employing this interpretation, he found the Panini's "language machine" produced grammatically correct words with almost no exceptions.
I want that kind of job. I think my management would have an issue of not accomplishing anything for 9 months. I have to continually produce something (some result).Mr Rajpopat said he had "a eureka moment in Cambridge" after spending nine months "getting nowhere".
And what would that be? The only questionable point I can recall was using "Scotch" for what would now be "Scots" or "Scottish", but that's probably in keeping with the relevant times.pinball1970 said:I noticed a mistake by master of pronunciation Henry Higgins.
That's the one. I was reprimanded by a Scottish neighbour in the 1980s who explained what the difference was.Jonathan Scott said:And what would that be? The only questionable point I can recall was using "Scotch" for what would now be "Scots" or "Scottish", but that's probably in keeping with the relevant times.
Probably not, but the English took some time to learn that, and apart from that it's set in 1912. I see that some sources for the lyrics have changed it to "Scots".pinball1970 said:'Scotch' was an acceptable term to refer to a Scot in the 60s?
I posted a link but it did not work.Jonathan Scott said:Probably not, but the English took some time to learn that, and apart from that it's set in 1912. I see that some sources for the lyrics have changed it to "Scots".
English largely lost gender before the Norman invasions as a result of shifts in pronunciation. These changes in pronunciation caused the word endings that carried gender to become indistinct and thus both gender and case were lost.PeroK said:My understanding is that English was simplified for the masses during a time when French was the language of the English Court. The genders, articles, adjectives and verb forms were all simplified
256bits said:so he is the kin of Tol, son perhaps. Or belongs to the Tol family from way back when nobody had last names.
Since he is from S. Africa, rather born there, it could be the name comes from the boer ( Dutch )
Are there many Tolkien's in England, and would they all be related in some fashion?
Much more common, majority of Indo-European languages have grammatical genders.Astronuc said:Roman influence/interference perhaps
Yep, absolutely no idea. Place names will be among the trickiest just because they are very old in the UK. Throw in some Celt and I need a resident to give me the correct pronunciation.Astronuc said:Pronunciation of Tartaraghan - a location in County Armagh, Ireland. I was wondering about the pronunciation, so I looked up examples of pronunciation, and I found at least 6 different pronunciations, but I didn't find one from Armagh, Ireland. Not even 'English' speakers agree on pronunciation.
And speaking of foul, "awful" and "offal".Vanadium 50 said:The other pair I thought of is "foul" and "fowl".. That might be even better.
The Indonesians weren't big on invading anyone but nevertheless have plenty of borrowed words. Many things came from other nations and the names of those things came with them. It seems to me that English is the same.Nik_2213 said:Can we simply say that English is just an inherently 'Acquisitive' language ?? Something to do with sundry invasions, then ocean-spanning shipping and Empire...
English doesn't have a particularly high borrowing rate when compared to languages globally. There are languages like Armenian for which the borrowing rate is much, much higher.Nik_2213 said:Can we simply say that English is just an inherently 'Acquisitive' language ?? Something to do with sundry invasions, then ocean-spanning shipping and Empire...
I'm not really sure what you mean. English accepts words into its vocabulary like other languages. I'm not sure what "returning" a word would be. It's no different from any other language.Vanadium 50 said:"Borrow" implies "return". English "borrows" like the mafia "borrows".
I don't follow. Loanword or borrowing are the common terms in linguistics.Vanadium 50 said:The point is that "borrowing" is not really what happens.
Clone seems more logical but I am not a linguist.Vanadium 50 said:The point is that "borrowing" is not really what happens.
I read the word "read" that was in red.jedishrfu said:Please write after me that right makes wright.
That may be so, but English has "borrowed" words from many different sources. A partial list might include Norman French (pork, beef, garage), Italian (stucco, alto, adagio), German (strafe, angst, alpenglow), Russian (taiga, steppe), Persian (kiosk, bazaar, carafe), Hindi or Urdu (jungle, bandana, dinghy), Malay (amok, bamboo), Hawaiian (luau, lanai), Eskimo/Aleut (kayak, anorak), various U.S. Indian tribes (raccoon, opossum, chinook).LittleSchwinger said:English doesn't have a particularly high borrowing rate when compared to languages globally.
More "taking" rather than "borrowing." That was V50's point.LittleSchwinger said:borrowing are the common terms in linguistics.
Certainly. So have many languages. It's not that different from other languages in that regard. A similar list as the one you produced can be given for languages from Welsh to Chinese.Mark44 said:That may be so, but English has "borrowed" words from many different sources
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you mean some of the words originally come from languages in areas that Anglophones colonised, that's only a small proportion of borrowings in English. Many other languages have such "taken" words, again English isn't unusual in that regard. In fact there are languages where such "taken" words are a larger portion of their vocabulary.Mark44 said:More "taking" rather than "borrowing." That was V50's point.
V50's point about "borrowed" was that when you borrow something, the implication is that you're going to give it back. Words that were "borrowed" by English aren't usually returned. That's all that was meant.LittleSchwinger said:I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you mean some of the words originally come from languages in areas that Anglophones colonised, that's only a small proportion of borrowings in English.
But that's true for every borrowing in every language. What would "returning a word" even mean?Mark44 said:V50's point about "borrowed" was that when you borrow something, the implication is that you're going to give it back. Words that were "borrowed" by English aren't usually returned. That's all that was meant.
Again, V50's only point is that "borrow" is not the appropriate word.LittleSchwinger said:But that's true for every borrowing in every language. What would "returning a word" even mean?
Borrow also means "to adapt or use as one's own". Like "to borrow a metaphor". That's the meaning when it's used as a technical term in linguistics. Seems fine to me.Mark44 said:Again, V50's only point is that "borrow" is not the appropriate word.
I'm not sure that's true. How many Algonquin words are there in either Welsh or Mandarin? How many Malay words are there in Portuguese? How many Swahili words are in Mongolian? English has Algonquin (and many other North American Indian words), plus Malay words as well as Swahili.LittleSchwinger said:A similar list as the one you produced can be given for languages from Welsh to Chinese.
Are you asking if the specific ratio of borrowings from various languages are the same in other languages as they are in English? That won't be true between any two languages. However most languages have a similarly broad source of borrowings, English is not unusual in that regard.Mark44 said:I'm not sure that's true. How many Algonquin words are there in either Welsh or Mandarin? How many Malay words are there in Portuguese? How many Swahili words are in Mongolian? English has Algonquin (and many other North American Indian words), plus Malay words as well as Swahili.
What I'm saying is that I believe the list is longer in English than in many or most other languages, in part because of the expanse of the British Empire (on which it was said that "the sun never sets"), but also words from Arabic by way of the Spaniards who came to the New World, not to mention the waves of European immigrants who came here from the 18th Century to the early 20th Century. Your example of Ukrainian lists words from peoples from more-or-less nearby areas, such as the Mongols who swept through the plains of Ukraine and beyond. There are hardly any world languages that haven't contributed at least a few words to English.LittleSchwinger said:Are you asking if the specific ratio of borrowings from various languages are the same in other languages as they are in English? That won't be true between any two languages. However most languages have a similarly broad source of borrowings, English is not unusual in that regard.