barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (12/27/85)
Michael Ellis's recent article attempted to establish objective criteria for easy languages. I think this is like trying to establish criteria for "transparent" computer languages. A language seems easy (or transparent) if it's like the one you first learned. As I undertand it, there IS a pattern that all creole languages (languages formed by a cross between two different languages) tend to fall into. You could probably claim this pattern was objectively easy for human beings. I forget what the creole pattern is though. Perhaps someone out there remembers. In any case, the logically unnecessary features Ellis mentions (gender, etc.) are part of the necessary redundancy of a spoken language. English's pattern of adding -s to the third person singular is a redundant pattern too. One of my Linguistics professors claimed that ALL languages ended up having the same degree of redundancy; apparently humans need it to decode voice input. Anyway, Ellis seems to be confusing spoken and written English in a number of his points. Written English indeed uses a standard -s for most of its plurals. Spoken English, however, uses -s, -z, or -uz (schwa z) for plurals, depending on the word. (The plural of "cat" is "cats"; the plural of "form" is "formz"; the plural of "dish" is "dishuz".) English nouns are divided (in a distinction no native speaer ever notices, but poor foreigners have to learn) into mass nouns and count nouns. Mass nouns are counted with counters; count nouns are counted with numbers. Dish, glass, computer are count nouns. However, you don't count one bread, two breads, three breads. You count bread (or toast) with slices, milk with glasses, scissors (and shoes) with pairs, etc. One aspect of English that those whose native langauge lacks it find VERY hard to learn is the article. When does a noun take no article, the definite article (the), or the indefinite article (a)? I never got around to taking Teaching English as a Second Language or I could probably write a book on the difficulties of English, both spoken and written, instead of merely the few paragraphs above. English spelling is NOT abominable. It was, of course, rather more phonetic when it was set, back in the days that the distinction between the open and closed e had not disappeared and so was preserved by spelling one "ie" or "ee" and the other as "ea" (or so claimed my Linguistic professors). However, English is best regarded as a morphonetically spelled languaged. Its spelling shows you the origin of a word and its relation to other words. For instance, "sign" and "signify" are related in spelling though totally unrelated in pronunciation. Moreover, consider the horror of an English spelled phonetically. According to whose pronunciation? British (Oxcam? Yorkshire? Devon?), American (Virginian? Bostonian? Californian?), Australian? I had an Australian friend phone me once to tell me (seemingly) that he wouldn't be writing me for awhile because the mile was on strike. I asked how the kilometer was working, then realized he meant the mailmen were striking. I shudder at the thought of reading letters written in phonetic Australian. --Lee Gold
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (12/28/85)
In article <2544@sdcrdcf.UUCP> barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) writes: >In any case, the logically unnecessary features Ellis mentions >(gender, etc.) are part of the necessary redundancy of a spoken language. >English's pattern of adding -s to the third person singular is a redundant >pattern too. However, this feature is totally regular (modulo modal auxiliaries; even 3s of to be => `iS', probably the source of 3s -S, BTW). If this be a difficult qulaity of English, it is a particularly easy one to learn, alternating as it does between `cat meowS' and `catS meow'.. >Anyway, Ellis seems to be confusing spoken and written English in a number >of his points. Written English indeed uses a standard -s for most of its >plurals. Spoken English, however, uses -s, -z, or -uz (schwa z) for >plurals, depending on the word. (The plural of "cat" is "cats"; the plural >of "form" is "formz"; the plural of "dish" is "dishuz".) Phonetically, English plurals are easer to form than written: X => X + 0z / X = sybilant {s, z, sh, zh, ch, j} => X + s / X = unvoiced {p, f, t, th, k} => X + z / otherwise Wherever -s is the proper ending, this rule admits practically no exceptions, and recurs for, plurals, 3rd person singular verbs and nominal possessives. Spoken English is clearly more regular than written, especially regarding the rules for verbal inflections -- why is `exitting/exitted' incorrect vs `subitting/submitted'? The phonetics is easy, the orthography difficult.. >English nouns are divided (in a distinction no native speaer ever notices, >but poor foreigners have to learn) into mass nouns and count nouns. >Mass nouns are counted with counters; count nouns are counted with >numbers. Dish, glass, computer are count nouns. However, you don't >count one bread, two breads, three breads. You count bread (or toast) with >slices, milk with glasses, scissors (and shoes) with pairs, etc. >One aspect of English that those whose native langauge lacks it find VERY >hard to learn is the article. When does a noun take no article, the >definite article (the), or the indefinite article (a)? This difference (definite vs. indefinite) is not common to all languages, but it is nonetheless common enough that I'd hesitate to call it `unusual'. And it is deeper than just mass nouns vs count nouns; given our fixedness on singular vs plural, we treat plurals somewhat like (singular) nouns of quality or actions {I like (cats, scissors, salt, silliness)}. There are many other features in common among those cases where we'd say `an X' vs `the X', and they tend to be as categorizable as cases where most languages would disallow or allow the introduction of a new referent or compel anaphoric pronoun reference (eg: "There goes (John, A person). Isn't (he, THE person) quite visible?"). Regardless of the rules of English regarding article usage, I believe that they are quite organized according to semantics. Admittedly, English rules are different from, say, French (which prefers definite articles before abstract nouns, for instance, where we do not). >I never got around to taking Teaching English as a Second Language or I >could probably write a book on the difficulties of English, both spoken >and written, instead of merely the few paragraphs above. > >English spelling is NOT abominable. It was, of course, rather more phonetic >when it was set, back in the days that the distinction between the open >and closed e had not disappeared and so was preserved by spelling one >"ie" or "ee" and the other as "ea" (or so claimed my Linguistic professors). OK. It is our pronunciation that is insane. Repeat after me.. cause COW - seh preserve preh - SAIR - veh annihilate ah - NEE - he - LAH - teh etcetera et - KEH - teh - ra - michael MEE - kha - el
lambert@boring.UUCP (Lambert Meertens) (01/01/86)
Expires: References: <1791@uwmacc.UUCP> <839@h-sc1.UUCP> <1809@uwmacc.UUCP> <842@h-sc1.UUCP> <418@bcsaic.UUCP> <718@spar.UUCP> <2544@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Sender: lambert@boring.UUCP (Lambert Meertens) Reply-To: lambert@boring.UUCP (Lambert Meertens) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam Keywords: > As I undertand it, there IS a pattern that all creole languages (languages > formed by a cross between two different languages) tend to fall into. You > could probably claim this pattern was objectively easy for human beings. > I forget what the creole pattern is though. Perhaps someone out there > remembers. The basic pattern of a creole sentence is SUBJECT + [ANT] + [IRR] + [DUR] + VERB in which there are three optional markers (particles), making eight combinations. Although the particles (actual words) used as markers are different for all creoles, the pattern is the same across languages. As a first approximation, think of ANT (for anterior tense) as marking the past. The marker IRR (for irreal mode) is roughly the future. Finally, DUR (for durative, also known as nonpunctual) indicates ongoing activity and is often not marked in English or corresponds to "to be ...ing"; the unmarked version is usually marked in English with the perfect tense. In Sranan Tongo (spoken in Suriname): MI WROKO I have worked MI E WROKO I am working MI SA WROKO I will work (or: I would work, if ...) MI SA E WROKO I will be working (or: I would ...) MI BEN WROKO I had worked MI BEN E WROKO I was (or: had been) working MI BEN SA WROKO I would have worked MI BEN SA E WROKO I would have been working Some verbs do double duty through the use of the DUR marker where English needs two verbs: MI WERI KROSI I wear clothes MI E WERI KROSI I don clothes MI SIDON I sit (am seated) MI E SIDON I sit down (am seating myself) A complication is that some verbs are durative in meaning by themselves (also known as stative) and do not admit of the DUR marker. So MI LOBI I love (not: have loved) MI BEN LOBI I loved (or: have loved) Adjectives can be used as verbs: MI BIGI I am big It would seem that as a verb this is durative, but MI E BIGI I am getting big (One would expect *MI E LOBI to mean: I am falling in love, but not so; it is ungrammatical.) Finally, where English uses "to be" as copula for a predicate that is a noun phrase, Sranan uses a copula particle (A) that I would not consider a verb: POTI A NO SJEN Poverty is no shame > In any case, the logically unnecessary features Ellis mentions > (gender, etc.) are part of the necessary redundancy of a spoken language. > English's pattern of adding -s to the third person singular is a redundant > pattern too. One of my Linguistics professors claimed that ALL languages > ended up having the same degree of redundancy; apparently humans need it > to decode voice input. Speakers of creoles manage without such redundant features. All words are indeclinable; they do not get changed by their syntactic position or by tense, number, gender, or anything else. Also, the word order is invariable. In Sranan: WAN MAN E TAKI One man is talking DRI MAN E TAKI Three men are talking A PASA ESREDE It happened yesterday FA A PASA? How did it happen? -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam