|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 7, 2020 1:22:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 8, 2020 0:27:37 GMT
One of the “language laws” which I have never understood is why we might say, “a big red bus” but not “a red big bus”.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 8, 2020 5:28:19 GMT
One of the “language laws” which I have never understood is why we might say, “a big red bus” but not “a red big bus”. The why remains a mystery to me: it simply is. None of my readily accessible references addresses the matter, but this entry in Cambridge covers the mechanics of it. Adjectives that describe opinions or attitudes (e.g. amazing) usually come first, before more neutral, factual ones (e.g. red): >> She was wearing an amazing red coat.
>> Not: She was wearing a red amazing coat.
I accept that we do order our adjectives as above – not an issue. But why? And does it matter if the only why is "because"? If we don’t want to emphasise any one of the adjectives, the most usual sequence of adjectives is: order relating to examples
1 opinion unusual, lovely, beautiful 2 size big, small, tall 3 physical quality thin, rough, untidy 4 shape round, square, rectangular 5 age young, old, youthful 6 colour blue, red, pink 7 origin Dutch, Japanese, Turkish 8 material metal, wood, plastic 9 type general-purpose, four-sided, U-shaped 10 purpose cleaning, hammering, cooking
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 8, 2020 7:41:22 GMT
It's just as well that the order of those adjectives is ingrained or instinctive. If we had to learn it at school and think about it before we used it each time, we'd be in real trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 8, 2020 10:18:11 GMT
It’s apparently much more complicated than I thought. I recall moderate despair when trying to learn German at school and being taught the time-manner-place rule where one had to say, for example, I am going tomorrow by bus to London. I learned that nothing else was acceptable. I wonder how on Earth we English speakers learn our much more complicated version without being taught — and, I suppose, being taught by people who didn’t know and who didn’t know we needed to know. As children, were we ever “corrected”?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 9, 2020 9:58:27 GMT
Sandi Toksvig: As an aside, note her comment @ 1:40 about the Trumpanzee. Also @ 7:57.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 10, 2020 22:50:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 11, 2020 7:02:51 GMT
An unfortunate lexical choice: In explaining the next level of wound-back restrictions re COVID interruptus, the NSW Premier said:
"Up to 20 guests will be permitted on top of the people who already live in the house".
I should imagine that to be a tad uncomfortable, as well as contrary to distancing rules.
"Up to 20 guests will be permitted additional to the people who already live in the house" doesn't paint quite the same awkward picture.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 11, 2020 9:11:37 GMT
Julie Street’s article would have been more interesting had she cited any authorities for her assertions. As it is, it seems more speculative than authoritative. And I think that "... civilisation did very nicely without it [alphabetical order] ... “ is dubious. I speculate that humanity’s moving to alphabetical order is precisely because we were not doing very well without it. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jun 11, 2020 13:02:25 GMT
I, too, found Julie Street's article a bit shallow. It tells us lots about not having alphabetical order at one time, and perhaps in the future, but doesn't much touch on its own title: the history of alphabetical order!
I was left bemused by this part: "Sharing no mother tongue, sharing no writing systems, they developed this kind of shorthand," Flanders says. "The alphabet is, in effect, a shorthand. The T, for example, is the shorthand for the sound 'tuh'. They created this sort of hybrid in order to be able to communicate with each other."
So, er, if you can't understand what someone means when they say "tuh", quite why does it help that you now have a way of writing down what it was that you didn't understand?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 12, 2020 11:53:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 12, 2020 18:19:09 GMT
Poor guy. Even more difficult for folk who share their names with famous people. Suppose you are actually called Donald Trump but are not president of the USA. If you have nothing better to do try searching on line for “ordinary people with famous names”.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 12, 2020 21:46:47 GMT
LJH: This was the first hit on my search. Amongst other things I learned that Taylor Swift (who?) is the world's biggest pop star. My ignorance of pop culture is mildly countered, though I'll not be making a habit of that. When I was a youngster I knew two Donald Campbells, neither of those being a racing driver. One was my local Boys' Brigade leader and the other was a bank manager. A good friend of mine is James Brown – no musician – and another is John Howard – not the former AU prime minister.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jun 12, 2020 23:23:03 GMT
Think about the reaction when the cop asks your name and you have to say, “Donald Trump”. In some places that shall be nameless you’d likely get shot for resisting arrest!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jun 13, 2020 5:25:31 GMT
I wonder how many people there still are called Trump - not because of Donald, but because of the temptation to change your name when it means fart.
|
|