I had this argument before, uncountable Vs countable isn't always so clear cut.
Even with countables though Magda, you don't need 'a' at all. I'd say it was incorrect.
This type of screen, this type of problem, this type of configuration etc etc.
It is like a collective noun. You are listing a type. So, is it 'this type of a bike?'. 'A' we use more to count or to show that it exists. Look, it's a polar bear. There's a polar bear over there (one).
I think you are getting confused with a type of screen, rather than 'this type of a screen'. Sorry, you just have to trust me on this one.
Let me test you later. I'll name a countable noun and you can tell me if it's 'this type of a dog' or 'this type of dog' for example. I've got hundreds of words waiting in the wings.
Let me test you later. I'll name a countable noun and you can tell me if it's 'this type of a dog' or 'this type of dog' for example. I've got hundreds of words waiting in the wings.
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I understand - and know - exactly what you're driving at. On the other hand, there are people out there who seem to be taking up the "this type of *a whatnot" form, because, most probably, they seem to feel that "this type of whatnot" is not exactly the same - for whatever reason. Or they are getting confused with "a type of whatnot". Who knows. But they're native speakers of English
Whatever the reason, it's not just me - the non-native - it's them (the natives) as well, which brings us nicely back to the question of default competence - or lack of it.
I wouldn't be letting you in on (like the double preposition?) a secret if I told you that I've found native speakers work to be nothing short of appalling. It doesn't matter if it's Brits or Americans.
I completely revamped parts of a project in my undergrad days, done in concert with 3 others. What they had written/what they wrote was diabolical, shameful. So, regardless of 'rights' to changing a language, that fact remains.
They can take up that form if they wish. Language tends to change either because a sufficient number of people use it for a sufficient length of time OR because certain powers can effectuate changes. To say otherwise would undermine, even negate, the concept of something become obsolete (obsolescence). I know this is recognised in law (duesuetude).
I can't see the above form, to use a phrasal verb, taking off.
I can't see the above form, to use a phrasal verb, taking off.
Well, I don't think it will replace the "correct" form; but it's out there, and has to be taken into account. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have used it yesterday, because I generally don't use it at all, but I thought "why not?" - because it is in the air, somehow. It kinda grows on you ;-)
I tend to read a lot, including tabloids, you see. I also spend a lot of time googling phrases and stuff to check for context / existence / non-existence of same. Some of the findings are really surprising (to me) - like the "a deceit" I mentioned earlier. Would you have said "this is a deceit"? It sounds really weird to me.
Actually, I'd agree with that one. English IS changing very rapidly, not because it's such a special language per se, but because it has spread into so many different channels. I think a Victorian reader of Dickens would have a dickens of a problem reading Hemingway - and that's mid-20th century. Don't get me started on anything more modern! ;-)
As for the languages, a revolution in language can be only a metaphor. If changes were too quick then people would simply by unable to understand one another. There may be some drastic changes on some formal level (eg. spelling, like they did did Russia-USSR transition) but not in everyday speech. In case you are thinking about various "great consonant shifts", these took centuries to complete. Hardy a revolution.
I have been out of Poland for over 20 years, and I went back only twice, for very brief visits. I read Polish newspapers and I can't believe some of the linguistic creations. What used to be considered vulgar, lowly or imply bad style now seems to be a norm. I am still a proficient speaker of this language and the changes so I think I'm looking at an evolution rather than a revolution.
I'd agree with that one. English IS changing very rapidly, not because it's such a special language per se, but because it has spread into so many different channels
Ever thought about how English changes other languages faster than it changes itself?
I think a Victorian reader of Dickens would have a dickens of a problem reading Hemingway
Slowacki and Mickiewicz would have similar problems with Wojaczek or Stachura.
Well Darius, I thought it was you who were kidding. I was bluffing.
How can you say that English isn't evolving quicker than most other languages? Look at the exposure English has to many influences. Yes, English may change other languages but it rather borrows more. Look at French for example.
Well Magda, you could say 'what kind of a man are you?'. There is some limited application. This type does change it though.
By what temerity do you or, for that matter any non-native English speaker (regardless of how good - -:)), dare to declare a perfectly accepted, stylistically attractive word to be "deader than a doornail"??
'Blandish'/'Blandishments' are the type of higher-level vocabulary which separate cultivated English from 'Globish' speakers!
Perhaps this wasn't exactly your point, but to me at least, anyone, especially a non-native speaker such as yourself, who can use words such as 'blandish', 'emolluments', 'reliquent' and the like and sound absolutely natural doing so, has earned my respect as a wordsmith rather than a faker. How about a young, contemporary Pole using words straight out of Orzeszkowa or Sienkiewicz? Just 'cuz a word is old, doesn't mean it still isn't good.
How can you say that English isn't evolving quicker than most other languages?
Evolving or undergoing a revolution?
Look at the exposure English has to many influences. Yes, English may change other languages but it rather borrows more. Look at French for example.
French is an old story. The French now fight (a little lees eagerly now) to stop the influence of English on the French language.
What about exposure of other languages to English? Just within my area of employment - there is hardly any Polish computer terminology. It's all English with Polish inflections.
These words are often situation specific. It may be that some non-native speakers can use them with some aplomb! The problem is feeling and knowing the nuance of said words.
For example, I gave the example of the meaning of certain idioms to my students. Translations just don't work in that case, unless it's identical to the other language. I gave one example and said what it meant. When asked to produce sentences with those idioms, they weren't applied correctly, e.g to get on like a house on fire. I have the list of idioms in a book in my bag if anyone is interested.
I also did cat idioms and I really had to labour on their application. It's not as straightforward as giving rough translations as they are often situation specific.
Darius, certain Anglicisms are admitted into other languages through exposure to them. Certain people reject them, certain people embrace them, e.g sory instead of przepraszam. English is evolving, you are discussing adaptation or incorporation (even modification), a tangential issue.
The point can also be made that there are no true owners of the English language. Therefore, users (mixed and varied) can shape it differently. Slang plays its part too. Accepted borrowing too. The number of words that have been passed as being English, and accepted as being so, is staggering. Kiosk for example. I could quote hundreds more.
Slowacki and Mickiewicz would have similar problems with Wojaczek or Stachura.
That is why I chose Hemingway as my "modern" writer. His prose is actually quite lucid and clear - to us. Think more along the lines of Konopnicka reading Nałkowska or Wańkowicz.
Perhaps this wasn't exactly your point,
My point was - nobody seems to be actually using this word. If this is does not point at a word's demise, then I don't know what does.
especially a non-native speaker such as yourself, who can use words such as 'blandish', 'emolluments', 'reliquent' and the like and sound absolutely natural doing so, has earned my respect as a wordsmith rather than a faker.
To me, a person speaking this way would sound more pretentious than anything else.
Just 'cuz a word is old, doesn't mean it still isn't good.
Sure. Words like love, bread, home, mother, sky, sun have not changed for centuries and centuries. Because we use them, and they are meaningful to us. On the other hand, if we no longer find a word useful, it slowly drops out of use, and then dies. That's what those little crosses in the dictionary stand for = archaic / obsolete. I don't claim "blandish" is archaic, I just couldn't find a single example of it being in real, everyday use. Therefore, to me at this point it is technically dead.
The point can also be made that there are no true owners of the English language. Therefore, users (mixed and varied) can shape it differently. Slang plays its part too. Accepted borrowing too. The number of words that have been passed as being English, and accepted as being so, is staggering. Kiosk for example. I could quote hundreds more.
That's all true but do you have any stats as to how acceptance of foreign words into English compares to other languages today?
The question is not really 'word death', as much as usage needs. Find a more aesthetically suitable 'replacement' for 'blandishment' etc.. and I'm sure I would gladly use it. Admittedly, I'm being totally subjective here, but expressions such as 'archaic', 'demise' etc. are in fact more politically than linguistically motivated, in my opinion.
Is the overused 'awesome' (wspaniały, świetnie, doskonały) in the US really a more 21st century replacement of earlier 'splendid' or 'marvellous'? What's wrong with soudning a little bit "pretentious" every now and then?? Has the world economy so stifled and killed our sensibilities?? Is this really "time marching forward" or simply marching off the proverbial cliff, hte last words from the TV series 'Friends' on our lips? Furthermore, what the hell's wrong with being a snob from time to time? I've always found that the so-called snobs we hate when we're young, but come to respect their sense of standard the older we become.
But people still use wonderful, splendid, marvellous etc. It's not a question of replacing all words with one modern, popular synonym.
It's just that certain words are not used any more. Period. And if you do use them, you either immediately give away your age (in case of obsolete slang, for example), or you risk being seen as a woolly rhinoceros of the vocabulary ;-)
And some words are just old, and have aged beautifully, and everyone still uses them. And that's the absolute majority of words we use today :-)
Is such an issue statistically verifiable? Perhaps. I prefer to look at trends and patterns rather than out-and-out figures.
So trends and patterns in what other languages did you analyze? How would you compare Polish of the 1960's to the same language spoken today? What's your analysis of the changes in pronunciation or vocabulary?
Have you looked into Brazilian Portuguese? Argentinian version of Spanish? The almost (relatively) brand new language called Afrikaans? Modern Greek? All IE languages which borrow heavily from English? (the US "cultural" and scientific influence).
Seanus, you cannot claim there are trends and patterns unless you have data to support it. Without that there are no trends or patterns. There is your gut feeling :)
You make a strong argument for the 'death', say in English, of 'thee' and 'thou', that is, in contemporary standard English (not dialectal) usage. Again though, much so-called linguistic demise, take my two examples above, is more politically/societally, than purely linguistically, motivated. 'Thee' once existed in English up until the end of the 18th century. But English society was infinitely more hierarchical than today, correct? Well then, the leveling out of society called for an end to the rigid formalities of a 'thee'/'thou' vs. 'ye' relationship.
There are trends and patterns that English is evolving in different parts. There is Japlish, Chinglish, Spanglish and Poglish and all manner of other developments.
Read a guy called Ilan Stavans, he has a few interesting things to say.
What other fledgling language is developing faster?
'The English language is changing so rapidly one can hardly keep up with the changes', this is from Bob Frank, a very experienced teacher from Detroit. He's so right.
Indeed not, Seanus. If it's a bloody litany, don't want to start bloody weepin' there Dude, do I--:):)!! Think I'll stop now (....'less the ol' trigger finger here don't start gittin' itchy agin!)
There are trends and patterns that English is evolving in different parts. There is Japlish, Chinglish, Spanglish and Poglish and all manner of other developments.
These are not pattern of English evolving. These are incorrect incarnations of English, and the reason get classified as various types if "ish" is due to the relative consistency of errors in grammar and pronunciation typical of certain speakers. These are not languages, nor are these even dialects of English. There is plenty of evidence you agree with that, right here on PF :)
A great thing about english is the noun verbs like...
"i floored him because he was eyeing her and mouthing off", "i couldnt be arsed and i framed him, then he wolfed his dinner down and loafed me in the nose", im bolloxed now...
I didn't say they were new languages, just sources which could potentially contribute to the evolution of English, in the impure form.
Maybe we should stop bickering and test this out, a thread where sb suggests a language and we have to find an English word that was taken from that language. That'd be interesting and would surely rack the brains. This thread may do the trick.
OK, an English word borrowed from French? Easy start. Any takers?
