Grammar is... strange

[The Second]

While attempting (with little success) to conjugate the polite and plain forms of Japanese verbs, i began thinking about English verbs. Specifically those that change their form depending on how you conjugate them.


To eat, for instance.

I will eat.

I have eaten.

I am eating.

I ate.


Compare with say... to bounce.

It will bounce.

It is bouncing.

It has bounced.


I have no real problem with English grammar, I use it just fine every day without even thinking about it. However, when I think back to when I learned grammar in school, I don't remember anyone ever saying why it is that some verbs change form when you use them while some do not.

Would anyone be able to enlighten me?

[Anarion]

Would anyone be able to enlighten me?

They're irregular verbs. English has a long set of them, generally with a unique past tense. Drink drank drunk is fun, and go/went, which amusingly is mirrored in Japanese by the fact that 来る is irregular. Basically, almost ever language in the world had people get tired of saying where they were going and muck around with the verb forms for convenience in the distant past.

[The Second]

I drank the wine until it was drunk. Then I was drunk too. :yuk:

But I guess it makes a certain kind of sense to make language easier on yourself while making it harder for your descendants to learn.

[nedz]

Languages developed naturally — they were not planned, well usually.

There have, occasionally, been attempts to rationalise them. This doesn't always turn out too well — English was rationalised at a couple of points in the past, though not in ways that are obvious now because the way we pronounce words changes.

In your first example ate and eat were æte, which is why some people say et instead of ate to this day.

[The Second]

Ah yes, I knew I forgot a couple (not a copula, different thing all together).


Just to make things complete(ly insane):

He eats.

They eat.


And

It bounces.

They bounce.

[factotum]

In the case of English, it probably depends to a large extent which language the verb in question was originally derived from. To give an unrelated example, English uses different words to refer to common animals and the meat that comes from that animal--a cow provides beef, pig provides pork, etc. This is because the name of the animal comes from the old Saxon word for the beast, whereas the name of the meat comes from the Norman invaders, because they were the only people who could afford to eat it!

"Eat" and its cognates are derived from Old English and go back to the 9th century or even earlier, whereas "bounce" didn't appear until the 12th century and is thus a more recent addition to the language--that might explain the differences there.

[Xuc Xac]

The irregular verbs are the old Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. Words imported from French and Latin after the Normal conquest are regular. Many of the old irregular verbs have also become regular over time.

Some of the old irregular forms remain in use as "passive verb" adjectives even though the verbs are now regular. For example, the past participle of "work" is now "worked" but it used to be "wrought" which we still use in phrases like "wrought iron". In a similar way, the past participle of "melt" used to be "molten".

[ForzaFiori]

Yea, I think it's just that irregular verbs are a part of every language. The most common one I can thing of is "to be". It's irregular in English (am, is, are, and was are all forms of the verb) Spanish (both ser and estar are irregular) and italian (sono, sei, e, siamo, siete, sono). In fact, I've never studied a language that to be WASN'T irregular in.

I do know that the vast majority of irregular verbs are found in the most commonly used verbs of the language. You rarely see verbs like "to defenestrate" or "to perambulate" be irregular in a language - it's usually ones like "to be", "to do" or "to eat". Words used so often that you can easily learn the irregularities if your raised in the language.

[Kneenibble]

Most of these verbs aren't irregular, exactly. As many have noted, they come of Anglo-Saxon -- but so do a lot of the so-called regular verbs with unchanging stems and -ed past participles and such.

The funky ones are called strong verbs and the rest are called weak verbs. The strong verbs used to obey somewhat regular patterns in the way their vowels inflected, but it's all skewed now.

Because weak verbs have a stem that usually doesn't change and they inflect at the end, loanwords came to be incorporated roughly after their model. But we still have a rich vocabulary of funky strong verbs to confuse learners.

[Telonius]

The good news is that it makes learning German verbs quite a bit easier.

[invinible]

And here I wanted to add a new word to the English language: kqywzholxnacftepmsijrgudbv.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Language is evolution. It's driven by mutations, and the bad ones are selected out by human intellect. That's really why there's weirdnesses in it. Not every group is going to think the same, and so different sorts of mutations will arise...and when they converge back, some of them win out over others, for various reasons.

[Kneenibble]

And here I wanted to add a new word to the English language: kqywzholxnacftepmsijrgudbv.

Sir, I'd like to buy your word.

[Jay R]

The life of a language is not logic; it is history.

English is a language built over centuries by many peoples, mostly illiterate, on a land invaded by everyone from Norway to Rome, and even (in popular folklore) Troy. If you can find a rule for our tongue that has no exceptions, we'll expunge it immediately.

English is a mixture of German, French, and Latin, pronounced incorrectly.
G. Molenaar

Our English language is, after all, the end product of an informal committee made up of several hundred people over the course of several centuries, and it shows.
Evan Morris, The Word Detective

Not only does the English language borrow words from other languages, it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and goes through their pockets.
Eddy Peters

[nedz]

And here I wanted to add a new word to the English language: kqywzholxnacftepmsijrgudbv.

I'll forward this reference to the OED at once. It might be useful though to use it again in some context where it's meaning can be deduced.

[Ravens_cry]

English is a bastard in both senses of the word.
-Me:smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

English is a bastard in both senses of the word.
-Me:smallbiggrin:

"English is the result of Norman knights trying to make dates with Saxon barmaids, and is no more legitimate than any other result."

[Yora]

which amusingly is mirrored in Japanese by the fact that 来る is irregular.
I hate this word. :smallbiggrin: The only thing that is regular about it is the first letter k.
Thankfully 来る and する are the only ones that are that bad and する means to do, so you get to use so often that you memorize it very quickly. I'ts been a year since my last Japanese classes and I think I couldn't form any form of 来る right now.

Is kimasu a form of kuru? Usually you just remove the -ru and change it for -su, and that's all. But with kuru, the ku- becomes kima- for no reason at all. :smallamused:

"English is the result of Norman knights trying to make dates with Saxon barmaids, and is no more legitimate than any other result."
Keep in mind that the Normans were Danes speaking French and Saxony was in Germany.

[Killer Angel]

All I have to say (regarding the strangeness of english grammar), is Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buffalo_buffalo_WikiWorld.png)

[Mono Vertigo]

You find that form change drastic?
Here's some French.

- Aller
- Je vais
- J'allais
- J'irai

And that's one of the most common verbs, translating as "to go - I go - I was going - I will go".
I'd mention être/to be but it seems to be a constant in most languages for such a basic verb to change dramatically, as mentioned above.

[A Rainy Knight]

Drink drank drunk is fun, and go/went, which amusingly is mirrored in Japanese by the fact that 来る is irregular.

In addition to the obviously irregular 来る, the irregularity of "to go" strikes again in Japanese in that 行く goes to いって in the te-form where you would expect いいて. So you can't escape the irregular "to go" verb anywhere, it seems. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

Keep in mind that the Normans were Danes speaking French and Saxony was in Germany.

Well Saxon just means a man carrying a particular type of sword, and the English were Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Dane-Celts, but his joke was funny.:smallsmile:

[Anarion]

Is kimasu a form of kuru? Usually you just remove the -ru and change it for -su, and that's all. But with kuru, the ku- becomes kima- for no reason at all. :smallamused:

Keep in mind that the Normans were Danes speaking French and Saxony was in Germany.

Yep, kimasu is the polite form of kuru. And don't forget that irasshaimasu is the keigo form of both kuru and iku. Because when you're that polite, nobody really needs to know if you're coming or going. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: I should mention that irasshaimasu also is for imasu. Basically, keigo is just terrible.


In addition to the obviously irregular 来る, the irregularity of "to go" strikes again in Japanese in that 行く goes to いって in the te-form where you would expect いいて. So you can't escape the irregular "to go" verb anywhere, it seems. :smalltongue:

This too. It's so easy to mess yourself up with it too.


Well Saxon just means a man carrying a particular type of sword, and the English were Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Dane-Celts, but his joke was funny.:smallsmile:

That one just rolls off the tongue.

[CurlyKitGirl]

In the case of English, it probably depends to a large extent which language the verb in question was originally derived from. To give an unrelated example, English uses different words to refer to common animals and the meat that comes from that animal--a cow provides beef, pig provides pork, etc. This is because the name of the animal comes from the old Saxon word for the beast, whereas the name of the meat comes from the Norman invaders, because they were the only people who could afford to eat it!

That bit's easy to explain.
There's a (socio)linguistic term - register - something loosely analogous to 'politeness', but is basically appropriateness (or not) of language for a given setting; so you talk differently in a job interview than with friends for instance.
And with English there's a distinct correlation between the number of syllables a word has and its formality.
To ask - low register - O. E. āscian (to demand, to enquire, to ask)
To question - middle register - O. F. questionner (c. 13th), although as a noun it dates from Ang. Fr. 'questiun'.
To interrogate - high register - L. as a back formation from 'interrogation' or from L. interrogare.

Different tiers of society/employment lead to distinct levels in language. Latin was the language of higher learning and law courts and the Church so it was best. It was also a lingua franca in areas where French wasn't spoken. French was the language of the nobility, their courts, and those artisans who had regular(ish) work with them. Anglo-Saxon was for the common folk and servants.
And thus after a few generations there was Anglo-French. Nannies and mothers were culled from local stock.


"Eat" and its cognates are derived from Old English and go back to the 9th century or even earlier, whereas "bounce" didn't appear until the 12th century and is thus a more recent addition to the language--that might
explain the differences there.

Kneen pretty much has it:


Most of these verbs aren't irregular, exactly. As many have noted, they come of Anglo-Saxon -- but so do a lot of the so-called regular verbs with unchanging stems and -ed past participles and such.

The funky ones are called strong verbs and the rest are called weak verbs. The strong verbs used to obey somewhat regular patterns in the way their vowels inflected, but it's all skewed now.

Because weak verbs have a stem that usually doesn't change and they inflect at the end, loanwords came to be incorporated roughly after their model. But we still have a rich vocabulary of funky strong verbs to confuse learners.

If I remember right, weak verbs had end dental inflection (love -> loved), and strong verbs changed their root vowel (drink -> drank -> drunk), and those verb classes (strong and weak) still hang around.
Regular verbs are 'weak' and irregular ones are 'strong'. More or less.
That's what you get when your language steals from every language it so much as looks at.

[Ravens_cry]

"English is the result of Norman knights trying to make dates with Saxon barmaids, and is no more legitimate than any other result."
And a whole lot of sowing of etymological wild oats before and since.:smallbiggrin:

[Xuc Xac]

The most common one I can thing of is "to be". It's irregular in English (am, is, are, and was are all forms of the verb) Spanish (both ser and estar are irregular) and italian (sono, sei, e, siamo, siete, sono). In fact, I've never studied a language that to be WASN'T irregular in.


That similarity is hardly surprising. You've studied a tiny and closely related subset of the world's languages. It's like saying "I've eaten chicken, turkey, and duck; all food animals have wings." There are many languages that don't conjugate verbs at all so every verb has only one form, but you just haven't studied any of those languages.

[ForzaFiori]

That similarity is hardly surprising. You've studied a tiny and closely related subset of the world's languages. It's like saying "I've eaten chicken, turkey, and duck; all food animals have wings." There are many languages that don't conjugate verbs at all so every verb has only one form, but you just haven't studied any of those languages.

How do languages without conjugations express things in the future and past?

[Xuc Xac]

How do languages without conjugations express things in the future and past?

They use context or tense markers. For an example of context:
"I went to school yesterday." If you are explicitly saying "yesterday", using "went" instead of "go" is redundant. "Went" tells you it's in the past, but "yesterday" tells you much more specifically when in the past. "Yesterday, I go to school" tells you everything you need to know.

For an example of tense markers, Vietnamese uses grammatical particles to indicate time in the absence of specific words like "yesterday" or "this morning":
Tôi ăn cơm. = "I eat rice."
Tôi đã ăn cơm. = simple past "I ate rice."
Tôi đang ăn cơm. = present continuous "I am eating rice."
Tôi sẽ ăn cơm. = simple future "I will eat rice."
Tôi mới ăn cơm. = recent past "I have just eaten rice."
Tôi vừa ăn cơm vừa đọc sách. = simultaneous action "I eat rice while reading a book."
Tôi ăn cơm uống trà liền. = immediately consecutive action "I eat rice then wash it down with tea."
Tôi ăn cơm đã. = continuing for a while into the future. "I'm going to keep eating rice for a while."
Tôi mãi ăn cơm. = action continues indefinitely "I eat rice now and forever."
Tôi vẫn ăn cơm. = action is continuing from a past time "I'm still eating rice."
Tôi còn ăn cơm. = action is taking place despite conditions that would have been expected to stop it "And yet, I still eat rice."
Thế nào tôi cũng ăn cơm. = action will definitely happen despite anything else "come hell or high water, I eat rice no matter what happens."

The same thing happens in many Chinese languages, Thai, Indonesian, Malaysian, and probably most of the Austronesian family.

And English! The future tenses in English are just the present tenses with "will" added in front of them.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Language is evolution. It's driven by mutations, and the bad ones are selected out by human intellect.

A passing glance at historical linguistics reveals that, whatever it is that drives linguistic change, it has nothing to do with intellect.

[Anarion]

How do languages without conjugations express things in the future and past?

Tenses, as well as distinguishing the singular and the plural, are strictly optional as far as grammatical forms. You don't need them because there are other ways to do what they do.

The post above mine mentions using "yesterday" to indicate time, which is an easy way to do it. You can also use words like "complete" or "finish" to indicate whether something is in the past. Compared "I ate the cookie" and "I finish eat cookie." Granted, the second one has a certain cave-man dialect to it, but it's comprehensible and contains basically the same meaning as the first.

[Prime32]

Yep, kimasu is the polite form of kuru. And don't forget that irasshaimasu is the keigo form of both kuru and iku. Because when you're that polite, nobody really needs to know if you're coming or going. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: I should mention that irasshaimasu also is for imasu. Basically, keigo is just terrible.Odd, I thought formal language was usually more precise than casual.

[Jay R]

Keep in mind that the Normans were Danes speaking French and Saxony was in Germany.

No, Normans were originally Danes speaking French, and the original Saxons were from Saxony.

Etymology is not definition, or digital computing would mean counting on your fingers.

[Anarion]

Odd, I thought formal language was usually more precise than casual.

It's typical of the fact that Japanese is used contextually. You know what the word means in different settings because it's part of a broader formalized way of speaking using set phrases. It's exceedingly rare for people to just have a conversation with that level of formality.



Etymology is not definition, or digital computing would mean counting on your fingers.

I can well remember times when that is exactly what it meant. :smalltongue:

[Seatbelt]

The nice thing about language is that if the person you are communicating with understood what you were trying to get across, you have successfully communicated, and thus win at language (and grammar?).

[Jay R]

The nice thing about language is that if the person you are communicating with understood what you were trying to get across, you have successfully communicated, and thus win at language (and grammar?).

I father once corrected me on some abstruse point of grammar. I grimaced and said, "Communication was did."

[Anarion]

I father once corrected me on some abstruse point of grammar. I grimaced and said, "Communication was did."

My English teacher in sophomore year of high school dared the whole class to someday tell their boy/girlfriend "You are loved by me." Haven't had the opportunity yet, but we shall see.

[Lady Tialait]

The nice thing about language is that if the person you are communicating with understood what you were trying to get across, you have successfully communicated, and thus win at language (and grammar?).

A couple of points here. Seatbelt was pointing out that at the end of the day, as long as grammar serves the ideas that are trying to be pushed forward. It is technically proper grammar. Communication being the ultimate goal, who cares if you use the completely correct grammar, down to punctuation, tense, and so on.


I father once corrected me on some abstruse point of grammar. I grimaced and said, "Communication was did."

I'm sure you wanted to demonstrate that grammar is important here. The fact that I am sure of that proves something. If you used the proper grammar here. Your bit of communication would have failed to show him what you wanted. Only by using technically improper grammar could you send the message you are trying to give him. That being that proper grammar allows for the comfortable, and easy understanding of others.


Either that or I'm misinterpreting you, because this is the internet....and having way too much faith in humanity.

[snoopy13a]

The nice thing about language is that if the person you are communicating with understood what you were trying to get across, you have successfully communicated, and thus win at language (and grammar?).

It depends on the context. In some fields, poor grammar reflects poorly on one's reputation. A lawyer who submits a brief riddled with grammatical errors will be mocked in chambers by the law clerks, for example. And a grammatical error on a cover letter can be fatal.

That's why I think that high school English teachers who do not stress grammar are harming their students. Writing clearly, concisely, and without any grammatical errors is far superior than knowing how to identify the major themes in a John Donne poem*.

*The major themes in John Donne poems are:

1) In his early works: carpe diem
2) In his later works: God is great

[Anarion]

It depends on the context. In some fields, poor grammar reflects poorly on one's reputation. A lawyer who submits a brief riddled with grammatical errors will be mocked in chambers by the law clerks, for example.

Gospel truth, this.

[Kneenibble]

The nice thing about language is that if the person you are communicating with understood what you were trying to get across, you have successfully communicated, and thus win at language (and grammar?).

Dreadfully, you have implied that style is not as important as the message: when indeed style is inseparably part of the message. For the same reason, I don't bottle the beer I brew in leftover Dasani.

Please picture me in some self-parodying smoking jacket as I say this: I don't mean to sound so bitchy. Although I mean what I say.

[Rockphed]

Style does send less than subtle clues to that bit of your hindbrain that tells you to BOW, Mortal. Any break in the chain of impeccable style breaks the effect.

[Lady Tialait]

Just remember...

http://media-cache-lt0.pinterest.com/upload/161496336607664233_BecCPB9h_b.jpg