Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Which really explains most of the weird things with English...
English isn't a "real" language, it's a hodgepodge peasant language that was completely unsupervised by any sort of written down words let alone rules. Like, shit just wasn't even really written in English, everyone educated enough to know how to write, knew "proper" languages and used them. It's why English words are used for animals rich people ate (pig, cow, deer) and French was used for what rich people ate (pork, beef, venison). English just didn't need a word for eating them as food, because no one who spoke only English could afford it. Meanwhile the simple chicken was called chicken regardless of if it was in a coop or in soup.
It was only standardized with the early use of the printing press by Dutch workers who didn't know English, but still felt the need to edit what they were printing. That was like 1470ish, and written old German has been traced back to like late 700s with a consistent usage. So even though English is standardized now, it's built on an absolutely nonsensical foundation. While other European language had educated people building logical systems.
It just seems weird to people who only know English and assume it's actually normal because they learned as a baby how to speak it.
Also the reason any random American can make decent money teaching English to foreigners, it's almost impossible to learn all the random shit intentionally.
The reason English speakers can make decent money is that English is a high-demmand language and people naively value native speakers.
Untrained native speakers of any langauge are fucking horrible teachers because they can't explain anything to you. All they can say is, "I would say this in this situation, but can't tell you why I'd say that in that situation."
Please, don't pay an untrained native speaker for anything but conversation practice.
The idea that English's orthography is crazy because it came into written use late doesn't really hold water. The ancestors of Modern English have all been written down for many centuries, even though post-1066 no-one was using it for a good while at court.
It's more that English as a whole is split between a Germanic and Romance ancestry, with the orthography of both sources being represented, while standardisation took place right around the time of a huge shift in pronunciation - the great vowel shift - fossilising an orthography that represented a bygone pronunciation.
In fact I think more can be blamed on English writing being standardised early than late, and then not keeping up with changes in pronunciation: the infamous cluster used to represent a pronounced /x/ sound - compare English night with German Nacht, or knight with Knecht, or freight with Fracht. All these spellings were standardised from a language that pronounced this consonant! If English really standardised late, then the likelihood would be that these words would not have a (written) consonant where the pronunciation doesn't have one.
It's way more than those two...
That has absolutely nothing to do with grammar, just spelling...
Like, you seem to be solely focused on spelling.
And that's my entire point, you don't notice the other shit because it's "normal" to you. That's why you'd be paid money to "teach" English...
The rules are so convoluted and nonsensical (the adjective order is a great example) that even native speakers are often unaware of the rules, we just follow them without understanding them.
You can't teach a non native speaker all the rules, it's too much to remember. They need that whole "immersion" thing everyone says but never understands. They need to figure it out thru trial and error and learn it subconsciously otherwise they'll always be focused on translating into English and abiding every rule and remembering each exception.
That's also why you see internet comments of absolutely perfect classroom English, where the writer constantly apologized for their poor English. Textbook can be learned, but authentic English speakers rarely speak/write how we were taught, and that is what wealthy foreigners want their kids to learn, how the language is actually used.
That is nowhere near as big of an issue with any other language.
Because English isn't consistent or logical. There's a shit ton of exceptions to every "rule" and users constantly change things.
Getting deeper into how language influences our thoughts, and the rise of English could explain "the Americanization" of the world just because of how disorganized it can be leaving room for cheating and the importance it puts on the individual and capitalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_and_thought#Studies_concerning_the_Sapir%E2%80%93Whorf_hypothesis
It's a fascinating topic, but I fully expect it to be one of those things no one's heard of before, so people with no idea what is going on will reflexively defend English as a language.
Which ironically enough, they likely wouldn't experience that response if their native language wasn't English, even if someone was critizing their hypothetical native language.
I'm talking about orthography because the thread is about how language (German originally) is written - i.e. orthography. You didn't mention anything about grammar until this latest comment; your previous comment mentioned orthography and vocabulary. All I did was continue talking about what I was already talking about.
The adjective order is an old, overblown meme. The meme came with a ready-made exception ("big bad wolf") which is no less of an exception for the fact that it came with ready-made excuse ("ablaut reduplication").
Did you notice that "old, overblown meme" violates the order (opinion follows age)? That's because it's overblown.
Did you know that other languages have adjective orders of various specificity and rigidity?
Yes, it's a fascinating topic, and yes, there are many markers of non-native English speaking which are impractical to teach. But it sounds like you're trying to steer the conversation somewhere I don't want to go, and I'm not going down there. As soon as you start categorising languages as "real" or "not real" you're on your own. Your misunderstanding of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, likewise.
Did I notice how all the nonsensical rules have nonsensical exceptions...
Yes, that's why I said:
If someone said "the bad big wolf" would you as a native English speaker react?
You would...
You wouldn't be able to explain why, you wouldn't understand why thats an exception and couldn't explain it to someone else, you just know that's an exception, we all do.
Your subconscious would just flag it as off, because people not conforming means they may be from another tribe...
You're literally proving my point, the only way to learn "big bad wolf" is exposure and letting the subconscious handle that.
Then just dont reply?
It's literally that easy, buddy, if you can't manage that I'll just block you now that way you can always chime in not getting the point and then I won't "force" you into a conversation trying to help you.
In case anyone is interested now this "helpful" character has departed:
The conventional explanation for "bad big wolf" sounding "wrong" is that "big bad" is an example of ablaut reduplication, which has a fixed sequence of vowels.
This is a weak explanation for two reasons: a good example of ablaut reduplication is for example "bish bash bosh" where only the vowel changes. This is a weaker example, and so ablaut reduplication is a weaker predictor of the pattern, because the final consonant is not the same between "big" and "bad". Secondly, "big bad wolf" is a phrase from a folk tale and hence deeply embedded in the language in its own right. It's hard to disentangle whether "bad big wolf" sounds strange to native ears because it's a violation of the pattern of ablaut reduplication, or because it's a violation of the specific example, "big bad wolf," that all native speakers heard many times as children.
Remember, this is all a tangent from whether English has a rigid adjective order. A stronger example to consider is A1: "big beautiful house" versus A2: "beautiful big house", and B1: "little beautiful house" versus B2: "beautiful little house". As a native speaker, I strongly prefer A1 but B2. The adjective order adherents say it should be A2 and B2.
So, I don't think the supposed rule of adjective order really exists.
I think if the helper were still around, they would say that actually this just proves their point. Even though they complained about the "rule" of adjective order, actually the fact that there is no rule is even worse! (how convenient, if true), and you just have to learn each example - B2 not B1, A1 not A2 - one by one, and their real point is that English is particularly bad because of this.
Unfortunately, because they are apparently not any kind of linguist, they never presented any comparative examples. Tagalog has a strong preference for adjective order, for example. Languages with flexible word order in general, such as Finnish, nevertheless have a preferred default word order and if you don't learn it you will sound weird. Languages which use prepositions pair certain verbs with certain prepositions (so in English you sit in your seat, watch the performance in English, and in the end the good guys win) but this pairing is arbitrary and if you pick the wrong one you'll generally be understood but sound wrong (in German you sit im Sitz, watch auf Deutsch, and am Ende the good guys win).
Languages - all languages - abound with aspects that mark out non-native speakers. That's because they're complex things that incorporate huge aspects of culture, not merely a means of communication. That's not something that anyone needs to "defend" and it's not something that makes a language cease to be "real". Is it the same degree in all languages? I'm sure it isn't, but that's not the point either.
What exactly are you trying to "help" me with?
Welp, nothing now.
Best of luck
lmao.