William Jones was a hyperpolyglot to have learned Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, and basic Chinese. By the end of his life he knew thirteen languages thoroughly and another twenty-eight reasonably well, says Wikipedia.
If we believe Wikipedia, William Jones had an at least reasonably good acquaintance with 41 tongues altogether. Such an acquaintance should encompass the words woman, man, child, andhouse. Let us compare these words in Latin, Greek, English, Russian, Polish, German, and French.
The words have been present on this Earth since the human started to speak, yet they do not have common, Proto-Indo-European stems. Vir or andros, child or rebionok, woman or kobieta ― have nothing to do one with another, whatever way to look at them. Progress in building shelters and dwelling has resulted in local linguistic influence, domus, do, and dom looking and sounding similar, house and Haus, or maison also to show geographic affinity.
The Proto-Indo-European proponents went into making a religion too, undeterred by the lack of a PIE root for our planet.
Finally, how do you even get to have a deity, if there is no stem in common to “him” or “her”? Well, it has to be the science-fiction Space 1999 to show reading Sanskrit accurately … ;)
I would not fit the picture of the “trained philologist” in the Space 1999 video. I got schooled in reading texts, not the people round. The holocaust in the clip is not the Holocaust.
Here is another idea for “fluency”. :)
Evidently, there was a pie, but that pie was India. The colonial era began about 1500, and there was much competition. Gaelic lands continue opposing inclusion into the Commonwealth: it is honest to have an own piece of a pie. ;)
Disclaimer: the adjacent — and colored meaningfully yellow — graphic piffle is not intended to mean the Union Jack proper. It is the British grammar nazis logo on Facebook.
The logo dubious pulchritude may be seen in its full form on the right. Now, without going into matters of the meaning of life, or the spoken lore on WWII and British losses — invaluable for those hard of reading — let me focus on the statistics and implications.
Much has been written about WWII. Evidently, mere gathering orthography and other detail does not make one capable of text interpretation.
The site has about 50 K ‘likes’. Taking the British population alone, that would make about 50 thousand functionally illiterate among about 63 million people. Some might say it is not so bad, it is not even one percent. Still, you’d better ‘think literacy’, going to the UK.
Try for a plain passport photo, that is, without brooches, scarves, ties, anything you do not always carry; the piffle shows the guys’ attention to picture specifics. ;)
Remember to wave your hand, getting a taxi; it is a simple, therefore legible gesture. Try to get a map with statues and other tourist attractions in large icons. It is better to take a walk from the National Museum than end up the Piccadilly, owing to small print. ;)
In hotels, always tick the boxes. At best, you ask for those straight, should you be provided with a form without boxes to tick. ;)
When it comes to mailing letters, get the recorded: they have ID strips. Seeking directions, approach people with newspapers: there are odds they can read them. Never ever leave your books or papers, especially open: they might be taken for other utilities. ;)
It is not only to me that Hitler figures and grammar study do not get along, I believe. I do not associate grammar with humiliation and abuse — I’ve hardly had problems; teachers happened to be strict, yet never insulting.
The most important feature to make grammar nazis incongruous yet remains in intellection. I have grammar for a conceptual framework, not a disaster. Hitler, who spoke like and was a madman, wreaked havoc wherever he turned.
Feel welcome to try some of my concepts. Form Relativity is a new idea to try conciliation on the Conditional and Unreal Past. Dynamic mapping can boost language economy on the tenses. :)
It turns out that when it comes to progressive tenses, English is divided into two groups of verbs: dynamic and stative.
The issue at hand is whether verbs like “to love” can be conjugated in a progressive tense, which you use to indicate that something is happening at the moment and is continuing around the time to which you refer.
Let us think about language altogether. The French, for example, however they might be right next to the Casanova bad fame for superficiality, would never ever honestly tell you not to say love round the time you feel it. Well, the emotional difference is American? ;)
Mignon Fogarty says, Dynamic verbs relate an action or a process. Common dynamic verbs are “to walk,” “to yell,” and “to read.” These verbs can be conjugated in progressive tenses, so it’s fine to say, “I will be walking all day” and “He was yelling at me”.
To quit has to be a stative verb owing to an American habit: one walks in, yells, and then reads something to work as the riot act; then another, at the moment and continuing around the time, says I quit. I saw such things in the moving pictures and could believe, but well … grammar would be plenty of a movie thing to remember …;)
‘That said, it’s still probably best for ESL teachers to continue to advise their students not to say, I’m loving it or to use other potentially incorrect stative verbs in progressive tenses. ESL teachers should point out, though, that students will hear native speakers using stative verbs in progressive tenses when the moment seems right.’
Minding my ESL hours, minutes, and seconds — whenever the moment seems right ;) — I have to deny. My story is here, with Travelers in Grammar.
If we tell people to mind to say I love, we tell them to mind to say I hate, too. See Feelings.
To varied extents, all grammar books are stories. Their definitions and rules gain efficiency only when people get to know them and work with them. This story does not have rules: it has concepts and ideas. The story does not promise to tell the truth, with an important regard: there is not even one method in the world to work always and for all minds. However, we can say after Mark Twain, whose writings are of reference in our grammar venture: If the story is good for you, it can be your true friend. Our learner strategies have already worked (the Introduction). :)
The grammar guidance is purposely more relaxed than that of most resources. The course is to present American English as it actually happens to be written or spoken. The work aspires to draw conclusions from natural language learning and use, not formalized definitions or rules only. I am an English philology M.A. specialized in language psychology with own, successful learning and teaching experience. I am absolutely opposed to behaviorism. :)
The New Scientist of May 5th, 2012 provides an article by Catherine de Lange, ‘Mon espirit paratage – My two minds’.
Speaking a second language can change everything from problem-solving skills to personality. It is almost as if you are two people, the author quotes an experiment to compare the cognitive progression in monolingual and bilingual children.
Both monolinguals and bilinguals could see the mistake in phrases such as ‘apples growed on trees’, but differences arose when they considered nonsensical sentences such as ‘apples grow on noses’. The monolinguals, flummoxed by the silliness of the phrase, incorrectly reported an error, whereas the bilinguals gave the right answer, says Ms. de Lange.
Well, monolingual kids usually get fairy tales. If you tell a monolingual kid that a long, long time ago, there was a kingdom where apples grew on noses, the child gets it easy. Not only bilingual kids operate abstract notions, and no kids have their vocabularies for lexicons of empty items.
For example, a kid speaking English and French will not have pain for bread, whatever to say about his or her syntax. More, any attempts at negotiation could look only sick. Seriously sick. Mal a l’oreille.
Children naturally use invented, virtual words. See the Gumption set.
To appreciate children’s syntactic abilities, we need to use empty lexical items. For example, Phimos bimoes, right or wrong? Kids knowing the singular, Phimo, and the infinitive, to bimo, would not be likely to show differences, monolingual or bilingual. Bilingualism is not a dissociative disorder.
Having earned a legal badge with EzineArticles should not make one overconfident, I realize. The legal profession is a depth of recondite detail the Supreme Court has the right firmly to deliberate. The linguist I am, I yet can venture a few observations — and this has been quoting freedom of speech to invalidate prohibitions on desecrating the American flag.
United States versus Eichman, United States versus Haggerty, Texas versus Johnson: all cases argued violation of free speech under the First Amendment. Haggerty’s case would have the implication to make the Flag necessarily your piece of cloth before burning. It is when the Flag belongs to an institution like Seattle’s Capitol Hill Post Office that you get fined. ;)
Let me think. I imagine a person burns something. Is there a speech sound produced, should the human just silently sit by a campfire, warming his or her hands? Is there any written or printed stretch of language to emerge from the flame? Should one try to interpret the wood or coal crackling and hissing as stanzas, quatrains, epodes? Could we hear the anacrusis?
I could not, and there is nothing wrong with my hearing. Things do not produce language. Facts remain similar with hammers, saws, wrenches, screwdrivers, and whatever a handyman’s bag might contain: there is no speech produced with the use, unless the guy is eloquent, interesting, and whatsoever handsome — however noisy the job. ;)
Non-verbal acts cannot convey speech and language. The Flag itself – the many the people, the many the answers; ask someone what the Flag looks like and what it symbolizes: no description will be identical, owing to language specifics.
The Supreme Court decided the Flag could be burned under the First Amendment. It does not allow abridgment of free speech. If a burning object could be legally a speech act, what do you do if you see the Flag burning on a barrel saying ‘TNT’ – would putting it out be against the law? ;)
I do honestly believe that flags are for people and, naturally, their use should not be forbidden. I have put an image of the American flag on my grammar book covers. For one thing, I like it: I think the flag is visually attractive. More, the grammar is not a temporary idea. :)