Does Silver Slimer means thief?

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:11:34 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:43:59 -0500, felmon wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 07:04:14 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 04:33:37 +0100, John wrote:

English *has* all of the genders, declensions and other syntactical
and grammatical tools of other languages,


Not true. There are *many* such things in other languages that
English doesn't have.

you are right, I refrained from responding to John's comment but you
did a great job. just a couple of comments though:

Here are just a few that come to mind:

1. English pronouns have gender, but nouns don't.

2. English nouns have only one declension,

no: the plural of 'ox' is 'oxen' (not 'oxes'), the plural of 'sheep' is
'sheep' (not 'sheeps'), etc.


Those are irregular nouns, not separate full declensions.

I'm not sure what this distinction means to you. I did a quick look-
around (not much time for research) and gained confirmation of my
impression that 'oxen' is quite understandable as a regular form of an
old declension (in Old English) which we no longer have. it was
originally something like 'oxa' (singular), thus 'oxen' (plural). we have
lost this whole declension!

doubtless there were always 'irregularities' at any stage of a language's
development but sometimes a present 'irregularity' is offspring of a past
'regular form'.

Latin has five
separate declensions, and each noun falls into one of them. Over and
above its five declensions, Latin also has irregular nouns. But English
has only a single declension.

nonetheless I agree with this as a statement about modern English.

so as not to destroy context I'll leave stuff below that I'm not going to
comment on but I have some further reactions further along.

note for now:

a) I'd say the same about your comments about 'irregular' verbs.

b) I accept the distinction 'morphological'/'syntactical' for present
purposes; it clarifies matters.

maybe these should just be considered 'remnants' of past declensions
lost.


Perhaps, but I don't think so.


3. In many languages whether a word is subject or object (or
something else) defends upon morphology, the word's case. In English
it usually depends on syntax (the positions of the words): "Sam loves
Charlie" means something different from "Charlie loves Sam" in
English. In Latin, for example, a change in a word's position doesn't
change meaning.

4. English verbs have only one conjugation.

'teach'/'taught'
'go'/'went'/'gone'
'bring'/'brought'/'brought' (German: 'bringen', 'brachte', 'gebracht')
'sink'/'sank'/'sunk'


As I said above regarding nouns. those are irregularities, not full
conjugations. To take Latin as another example, it has four
conjugations, and also has irregular verbs. English has only one
conjugation.

In English, irregular verbs are usually called strong verbs.




5. Some languages have tenses that English doesn't have.

and German (and some others) lacks the progressive, "I teach' vs. "I am
teaching".


Yes.


6. Russian has a property of verbs called "aspect." English doesn't
have it.

by this I think you mean there isn't a syntactical change in the verb
to express 'aspect';


Substitute the word "morphological" for "syntactical" in that sentence,
and yes, that's what I mean.



English expresses 'aspect' through phrases (see 'progressive' above).





7. English has two types of number (singular and plural), but some
languages have three (for example singular, dual, and plural


There are lots of other things, but it would take me a little thought
and research to come up with them.

English has almost lost the 'subjunctive voice': "if I were (vs was) a
carpenter...."


Granted that it's much less commonly used than it used to be, it isn't
gone yet. As far as I'm concerned, "if I was a carpenter" is completely
wrong,

all of this is way off-topic so perhaps we shouldn't pursue it too much
longer but I'm perplexed how you reach the judgment that this form is
"completely wrong."

suppose in two decades all respected authors write (and speak) this way,
that is, abandon the subjunctive form. would that make a difference?

we seldom use the subjunctive present expressing doubt, "if that be true"
is a bit archaic or forced. it lives on in "however that may be" however.

do you also refuse to 'split infinitives' ("to boldly go where no one has
gone before")? (I've long ago abandoned this fight.)

and I hope I never say it (although I am prone to making errors
now and then, because I wasn't careful enough in what I was saying).

I am going to delete the Latin lesson for brevity's sake.

[...]

(I hope I got the Latin right. I studied Latin *many* years ago, was a
poor student, and have forgotten an enormous amount. It's certainly
possible that I got some of the details wrong. But you get the idea, I
hope.

your Latin corresponds to my sense of it having had four yrs of Latin in
high school and having been a Classics major for two years in college
with an emphasis on Roman authors many many yrs ago with bouts of parsing
some of the stuff since then.




yours was great post!



Thanks very much.

In closing, let me add this grammatical story:

A man was standing on a subway platform in New York City, waiting for
his train for a long time. He asked another man on the platform,
"Where's the train at?"

The second man replied gruffly, "Didn't you ever go to school? Don't you
know enough to never end a sentence with a preposition?"

So the first man rephrased his question and asked it again, "Where's the
train at, asshole?"

I knew a different variant where the two are a black freshman and a white
upperclassman at Harvard, the question is about the location of the
library and the black student's reply ends with "m*th*rf*ckah" (in
suitable black english).

I see winston has another variant.

F.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:55:39 -0500, felmon
wrote:


longer but I'm perplexed how you reach the judgment that this form is
"completely wrong."

suppose in two decades all respected authors write (and speak) this way,
that is, abandon the subjunctive form. would that make a difference?


Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language
and of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what
you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't know
when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't happened
yet, and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is completely
wrong." It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

And let me add that in these days of radio and television, language
changes more rapidly than it ever did before, because the new
locutions get propagated to everyone much more quickly. That's a
shame, and I resist that rapid change as much as I can, even though I
know I will lose all the battles.



we seldom use the subjunctive present expressing doubt, "if that be true"
is a bit archaic or forced.


g Even an old fussbudget like me wouldn't say that. (I also never
use the second person singular of verbs (thou art wrong if you think I
would ever use a sentence like this one g).



do you also refuse to 'split infinitives' ("to boldly go where no one has
gone before")? (I've long ago abandoned this fight.)



I haven't abandoned the fight because I *never* refused to split
infinitives. As far as I'm concerned, it's a fake rule to not split
infinitives, and there's never been a good reason to not do so. See,
for example,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...it-infinitives



your Latin corresponds to my sense of it having had four yrs of Latin in
high school


I only had two years of Latin in High School, so you must know much
more than I do. As I said, I was a poor Latin student and remember
very little of it today. But I am still very thankful for having taken
it, mostly because the great majority of what I know about English
grammar I learned in Latin class.

On 9/15/14 10:38 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:55:39 -0500, felmon
wrote:

snip

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language
and of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what
you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't know
when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't happened
yet, and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is completely
wrong." It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

If you were a carpenter, you probably wouldn't be here. LOL

Sorry, I just saw such a wide open barn door... VBG


snip


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:02:57 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 9/15/14 10:38 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:55:39 -0500, felmon
wrote:

snip

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language
and of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what
you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't know
when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't happened
yet, and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is completely
wrong." It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

If you were a carpenter, you probably wouldn't be here. LOL

Sorry, I just saw such a wide open barn door... VBG


g That's OK. No need to apologize.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:38:10 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:55:39 -0500, felmon wrote:


longer but I'm perplexed how you reach the judgment that this form is
"completely wrong."

suppose in two decades all respected authors write (and speak) this
way, that is, abandon the subjunctive form. would that make a
difference?


Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language and
of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what you
suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't know when.
But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't happened yet,
and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is completely wrong."
It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70% of
competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive. would you
still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your judgment not based
on something other than actual usage?

And let me add that in these days of radio and television, language
changes more rapidly than it ever did before, because the new locutions
get propagated to everyone much more quickly. That's a shame, and I
resist that rapid change as much as I can, even though I know I will
lose all the battles.

yes, I think King Olaf got pretty wet in the end.


[...]

do you also refuse to 'split infinitives' ("to boldly go where no one
has gone before")? (I've long ago abandoned this fight.)

I haven't abandoned the fight because I *never* refused to split
infinitives. As far as I'm concerned, it's a fake rule to not split
infinitives, and there's never been a good reason to not do so. See, for
example,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...it-infinitives

I know this history but your citing it suggests you believe actual usage
is the standard of correctness. but maybe some other factor is at work in
relation to the status of the subjunctive.

(I tend to think other factors are involved.)

your Latin corresponds to my sense of it having had four yrs of Latin
in high school


I only had two years of Latin in High School, so you must know much more
than I do. As I said, I was a poor Latin student

I loved it!

and remember very little of it today.

I remember a lot of it. very, very occasionally I must use it.

But I am still very thankful for having taken it,
mostly because the great majority of what I know about English grammar I
learned in Latin class.

that is a great benefit of it though one one can gain through learning
any foreign language, especially one that's to some degree distant from
one's own. (this includes, however, Old English!)

F.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:02:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

On 9/15/14 10:38 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:55:39 -0500, felmon
wrote:

snip

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language and
of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what you
suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't know
when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't happened
yet, and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is completely
wrong." It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

If you were a carpenter, you probably wouldn't be here. LOL

though if he _was_ a carpenter, he might be here.


Sorry, I just saw such a wide open barn door... VBG


snip

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:02:48 -0500, felmon
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:38:10 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:55:39 -0500, felmon wrote:


longer but I'm perplexed how you reach the judgment that this form is
"completely wrong."

suppose in two decades all respected authors write (and speak) this
way, that is, abandon the subjunctive form. would that make a
difference?


Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language and
of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what you
suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't know when.
But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't happened yet,
and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is completely wrong."
It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70% of
competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive. would you
still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your judgment not based
on something other than actual usage?

And let me add that in these days of radio and television, language
changes more rapidly than it ever did before, because the new locutions
get propagated to everyone much more quickly. That's a shame, and I
resist that rapid change as much as I can, even though I know I will
lose all the battles.

yes, I think King Olaf got pretty wet in the end.


[...]

do you also refuse to 'split infinitives' ("to boldly go where no one
has gone before")? (I've long ago abandoned this fight.)

I haven't abandoned the fight because I *never* refused to split
infinitives. As far as I'm concerned, it's a fake rule to not split
infinitives, and there's never been a good reason to not do so. See, for
example,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...it-infinitives

I know this history but your citing it suggests you believe actual usage
is the standard of correctness. but maybe some other factor is at work in
relation to the status of the subjunctive.

(I tend to think other factors are involved.)

your Latin corresponds to my sense of it having had four yrs of Latin
in high school


I only had two years of Latin in High School, so you must know much more
than I do. As I said, I was a poor Latin student

I loved it!

and remember very little of it today.

I remember a lot of it. very, very occasionally I must use it.

But I am still very thankful for having taken it,
mostly because the great majority of what I know about English grammar I
learned in Latin class.

that is a great benefit of it though one one can gain through learning
any foreign language, especially one that's to some degree distant from
one's own. (this includes, however, Old English!)

F.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:02:48 -0500, felmon
wrote:

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language and
of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what you
suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't know when.
But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't happened yet,
and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is completely wrong."
It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70% of
competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive. would you
still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your judgment not based
on something other than actual usage?


My judgment is based primarily on what the experts (Fowler, Strunk,
etc.) who write the highly respected grammar and usage books say.


Yes, I know the examples I used are people who wrote many years ago,
and they are those who argue that their views are so old that they are
outmoded. But I grew up with them, so their "rules" are what I go by
(at least those that I *try* to go by; unfortunately I am not perfect,
and I do make some mistakes).

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

I only had two years of Latin in High School, so you must know much
more than I do. As I said, I was a poor Latin student and remember
very little of it today. But I am still very thankful for having taken
it, mostly because the great majority of what I know about English
grammar I learned in Latin class.


I attended a parochial high school where 4 yrs of Latin was required. It
was fun the first two years and I did well all four, though I enjoyed my
two years of French much more since it proved to be more useful on those
uniformed schoolgirls.

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:17:25 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

I only had two years of Latin in High School, so you must know much
more than I do. As I said, I was a poor Latin student and remember
very little of it today. But I am still very thankful for having taken
it, mostly because the great majority of what I know about English
grammar I learned in Latin class.


I attended a parochial high school where 4 yrs of Latin was required. It
was fun the first two years and I did well all four, though I enjoyed my
two years of French much more since it proved to be more useful on those
uniformed schoolgirls.


The strange thing is that even though I was a poor Latin student, I
didn't hate the Latin classes. Maybe is was because of the beautiful
girl that sat in front of me! ;-)

My high school wasn't parochial; I *chose* to take Latin. Don't ask me
why.

I took two years of German in college, and today I know much more
German than I do Latin. I chose German for a crazy reason: many
excellent chess books were in German in those days.

On 16/09/2014 11:19 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:17:25 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

I only had two years of Latin in High School, so you must know much
more than I do. As I said, I was a poor Latin student and remember
very little of it today. But I am still very thankful for having taken
it, mostly because the great majority of what I know about English
grammar I learned in Latin class.


I attended a parochial high school where 4 yrs of Latin was required. It
was fun the first two years and I did well all four, though I enjoyed my
two years of French much more since it proved to be more useful on those
uniformed schoolgirls.


The strange thing is that even though I was a poor Latin student, I
didn't hate the Latin classes. Maybe is was because of the beautiful
girl that sat in front of me! ;-)

My high school wasn't parochial; I *chose* to take Latin. Don't ask me
why.

I took two years of German in college, and today I know much more
German than I do Latin. I chose German for a crazy reason: many
excellent chess books were in German in those days.

I assume that you also wanted to be well-versed in German for when the
next German dictator declared war on the world.

Unlike French and Latin, you probably weren't learning the language to
communicate with the attractive native speakers.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
Proud member of chrisv's imaginary killfile

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:21:18 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 11:19 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

I took two years of German in college, and today I know much more
German than I do Latin. I chose German for a crazy reason: many
excellent chess books were in German in those days.

I assume that you also wanted to be well-versed in German for when the
next German dictator declared war on the world.


LOL! Nope!


Unlike French and Latin, you probably weren't learning the language to
communicate with the attractive native speakers.


No, I wasn't. g And back in those days (the 1950s) there were very
few female chess players, and most of them were old and ugly. And very
few of them played well. There were *many* American men who played
much better than I did, but I was approximately the same strength as
all the best American woman players.

On 16/09/2014 12:12 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

No, I wasn't. g And back in those days (the 1950s) there were very
few female chess players, and most of them were old and ugly. And very
few of them played well. There were *many* American men who played
much better than I did, but I was approximately the same strength as
all the best American woman players.

In my case, I'm probably the worst chess player you would ever play
with. I would assume that the best players are the ones who are
generally good at planning ahead in their own lives. I'm not one of
those people.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
Proud member of chrisv's imaginary killfile

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:24:27 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 12:12 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

No, I wasn't. g And back in those days (the 1950s) there were very
few female chess players, and most of them were old and ugly. And very
few of them played well. There were *many* American men who played
much better than I did, but I was approximately the same strength as
all the best American woman players.

In my case, I'm probably the worst chess player you would ever play
with. I would assume that the best players are the ones who are
generally good at planning ahead in their own lives. I'm not one of
those people.


Those days are well behind me, but I was a very active tournament
players in those days. I worked very hard at it, and hoped to become
world's champion one day. The reason I was a poor Latin student (and
other subjects too) was because I spent much more time studying chess
than what I should've g been studying.

I got better at chess and was a fairly highly-rated player in those
days, but I never got anywhere near world champion strength.

On 16/09/2014 12:47 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:24:27 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 12:12 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

No, I wasn't. g And back in those days (the 1950s) there were very
few female chess players, and most of them were old and ugly. And very
few of them played well. There were *many* American men who played
much better than I did, but I was approximately the same strength as
all the best American woman players.

In my case, I'm probably the worst chess player you would ever play
with. I would assume that the best players are the ones who are
generally good at planning ahead in their own lives. I'm not one of
those people.


Those days are well behind me, but I was a very active tournament
players in those days. I worked very hard at it, and hoped to become
world's champion one day. The reason I was a poor Latin student (and
other subjects too) was because I spent much more time studying chess
than what I should've g been studying.

I got better at chess and was a fairly highly-rated player in those
days, but I never got anywhere near world champion strength.

In my case, the moment puberty hit and girls became triply appealing to
me, my brain's resources were allocated to admiring the fairer sex
rather than advancing my mathematical and scientific knowledge. I did
pretty well for myself considering everything but not as well as I could
have.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
Proud member of chrisv's imaginary killfile