# The English Language Discussion Thread



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

as a linguist and an English learner I oftne wonder about the logic in which some words seem to be spelt or written.
I am a keen mathematician and see a language as continuity from Maths.
By that I mean the only way I can learn languages quickly is when there is coherency continuity  and logic in the way words and letters are presented otherwise it is chaos.
you might not agree, and might well see language is what it is and just has to be accepted but there is no harm in discussing what is to me 'ambiguities' that I seem to discover in during my  conquest of the English language.

for example

the two verbs

*To Choose *and *To Lose*
they are both pronounced the same but spelt differently.
two *OO i*n the first and only one* O* in the second?

is there a reason why that is?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 20, 2011)

There is no logic, English is a mongrel language. Over 2,000 years it has absorbed elements of every other language if has come into contact with; unlike France, England was not at all snotty about correctness; if there was a French word or expression which perfectly defined that word or phrase, we took a _laissez faire_ attitude to its use and it was absorbed into English. The British colonised India where there were shaded projections on the front of houses where people could sit and have _tiffin_, it was called a _veranda_, so we now use veranda to describe such a construction. In this manner English grew, constantly aware of the z_eitgeist_, English constantly adopted and adapted and the language grew. It is the most adaptable language in the world, constantly renewing itself, so don't look for logic in its construction, just use it in its infinite variety...


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> the only way I can learn languages quickly is when there is coherency continuity and logic in the way words and letters are presented otherwise it is chaos.



If that’s *the only way* you can learn a language, you might as well move to Mogadishu or Teheran or Timbuktu, and learn whatever it is they speak there, as you will *never* master English.:-\"

Bloggs put it perfectly when he said we have a mongrel language. There is *no *coherency, continuity or logic to English. 

Never mind lose and choose, how about Jews blues booze news poos ‘roos (Australian) shoes ruse views and zoos?

Then there’s cough through thorough hiccough enough although bough and wash-trough.

Need I go on?


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

there is a fine line between those too words  they are far too similar to be dissimilar.
the examples you gave are veery different to each other ..so I would not dispute them as I would not know where to begin.
a question  is there for me to ask so I will indeed indulge in questioning obvious dissimilarities  because they stand out.
I would loved to have had an account on how these words have been put together especially whne it comes CHOOSE and LOSE.
I have had battles with thme because my instinct was to spell LOOSE like this and hence annoys me greatly not to knwo why it is not so.
I am guessing because you are not in my position you are very easily dismissive of the point I am raising.
in the same way I amnot sure why the word* RECIPE i*s missing another *E.
*for me it should be because of pronunciation purposes should be spelt* RECIPEE*.
like the word *TOUPEE*.
these words simply do not make sense.
I think after a while I get annoyed because it is one way this way and another way this way.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Bow and arrow; bow to the Queen. How do you pronounce 'bow'?

A female pig is a sow; you sow seeds in a garden. How do you pronounce 'sow'? You sew a button on a shirt. How do you pronounce 'sew'?

The last syllable of 'recipe' is not pronounced the same way as the last syllable of 'toupee'. That's one of the reasons for the different spellings.

You'll never win. We have 2000 years' worth of semantics on our side.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> The last syllable of 'recipe' is not pronounced the same way as the last syllable of 'toupee'. That's one of the reasons for the different spellings.
> 
> You'll never win. We have 2000 years of word development on our side.



the last syllable of each of the word are pronounced the same as in Pee for P as in how it is pronounced in the alphabet.
here is another a PEA.
how baffling:???:



The Backward OX said:


> Bow and arrow; bow to the Queen. How do you pronounce 'bow'?
> 
> A female pig is a sow; you sow seeds in a garden. How do you pronounce 'sow'? You sew a button on a shirt. How do you pronounce 'sew'?



haha....I shall study them carefully now I  really need to understand why you crossed the word ducks and left like that.
I do not get the significance of it OX.:???:


----------



## Baron (Oct 20, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> If that’s *the only way* you can learn a language, you might as well move to Mogadishu or Teheran or Timbuktu, and learn whatever it is they speak there, as you will *never* master English.:-\"
> 
> Bloggs put it perfectly when he said we have a mongrel language. There is *no *coherency, continuity or *nor* logic to English.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Sorry, Baron, it's not that simple:

*When to Use “Or” Instead of “Nor”*
“Neither” and “nor” are bosom buddies. They require balance.
In all our examples so far, we’ve used “nor” to indicate a negative state that continues after something else negative happens. However, when the second negative item is a noun, adjective, or adverb phrase (4), you should use “or” to continue the negative thought because according to Bryan Garner “the initial negative carries through to all the enumerated elements” (5). For example, when you use the word “not,” the structure “not A or B” is correct. You’d have to say, “He is not interested in math or science”; “He is not interested in math nor science” won’t work. Likewise, “She didn’t speak slowly or clearly” has a better ring to it than “She didn’t speak slowly nor clearly.”
*When to Use Either “Nor” or “Or”*
If, on the other hand, the second part of the negative is a verb phrase—not a verb clause—then you can choose to use “nor” or “or” (6). Both of the following sentences will work: “Santa will not permit naughty behavior or even consider bringing presents.” “Santa will not permit naughty behavior nor even consider bringing presents.” You as the writer get to decide which one sounds better. If you’re unsure which word to use, or if you want to avoid the problem, you can try saying, “and no” for the second part of the negative (7): “I have no time and no money.” The phrase “and not” will also work: “Santa will not permit naughty behavior and will not even consider bringing presents.”
*Warning*
You do need to be careful about keeping your “neither” and “nor” parallel. For example, it would be wrong to write, “He will study neither his lesson nor do his chores.” The part that follows “neither” is a noun (“his lessons”), and the part that follows “nor” is a verb phrase (“do his chores”). You want those two parts to match. You can fix it by moving the “neither” so it comes before the word “study.” Then both parts are verb phrases: neither study his lessons, nor do his chores.
*Summary*
To summarize, “nor” often pairs up with “neither,” but not always. When it comes to other negative words, use “or” if the second part of the negative is a noun, adjective, or adverb phrase. If it’s a verb phrase, choose either “nor” or “or.” If you’re unsure which one to use, consider saying, “and no” or “and not” for the second part.



Nacian said:


> the last syllable of each of the word are pronounced the same as in Pee for P as in how it is pronounced in the alphabet.
> here is another a PEA.
> how baffling:???:



'Toupee' is pronounced 'two-pay'. 'Recipe' is pronounced 'ressa-pee'. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word 'syllable'?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian,

English is made up of Irish, Welsh, Scottish (both vernacular and Gaelic), Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German (Ancient & Modern), Polish, Russian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek (Both ancient & modern), Turkish, Arabic, Latin, Hindi, Gutjerati, Tamil, Ceylonese, Malay, Burmese, Chinse (Both Mandarin & Cantonese), Japanese, Polynesean, Aborigine, Maori, Apache, Navaho, Souix..... Shall I go on Nacian? To learn English you have to learn the whole of English with all its idiosyncrasies , one by one...


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> I really need to understand why you crossed the word ducks and left like that.
> I do not get the significance of it OX.:???:



Would it make you happier if I deleted the crossed-out ducks? It's an English-language slang joke, don't worry about it.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Would it make you happier if I deleted the crossed-out ducks? It's an English-language slang joke, don't worry about it.


it would make me happier if you actually explained what it actually means.
slang canbe masterd too you  know.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> Nacian,
> 
> English is made up of Irish, Welsh, Scottish (both vernacular and Gaelic), Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German (Ancient & Modern), Polish, Russian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek (Both ancient & modern), Turkish, Arabic, Latin, Hindi, Gutjerati, Tamil, Ceylonese, Malay, Burmese, Chinse (Both Mandarin & Cantonese), Japanese, Polynesean, Aborigine, Maori, Apache, Navaho, Souix..... Shall I go on Nacian? To learn English you have to learn the whole of English with all its idiosyncrasies , one by one...



You forgot Irish Gaelic, Icelandic and Mississippian.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> 'Toupee' is pronounced 'two-pay'. 'Recipe' is pronounced 'ressa-pee'. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word 'syllable'?



okay maybe Toupee was the wrong for it although if spelt with two EE it should be pronounced TOUPEE .
the whole point of adding another E is to stress the pronunciation of the E.
here is another word
RUPEE
and 
RECIPEE makes more sense to me.



Bloggsworth said:


> Nacian,
> 
> English is made up of Irish, Welsh, Scottish (both vernacular and Gaelic), Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German (Ancient & Modern), Polish, Russian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek (Both ancient & modern), Turkish, Arabic, Latin, Hindi, Gutjerati, Tamil, Ceylonese, Malay, Burmese, Chinse (Both Mandarin & Cantonese), Japanese, Polynesean, Aborigine, Maori, Apache, Navaho, Souix..... Shall I go on Nacian? To learn English you have to learn the whole of English with all its idiosyncrasies , one by one...



no no need to go on I see exactly what you  mean but as I said it is the little details in words that gets to  me plus where is the fun in learning if questions are not asked.
in the same way that I wonder why French is a sexist language.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> it would make me happier if you actually explained what it actually means.
> slang canbe masterd too you know.



Look up the word 'turkey' in a thesaurus or dictionary.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

well OX I have and it does prioritise meat over country from the look.
there is another word I am totally at loss with which came first turkey or the tukey? and I would say the bird did according to the thesausrus as its entry indicate.
still why on earth would you call a bird a country..
anyway I did ..was I suppose to notice something?


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> I wonder why French is a sexist language.


Do you mean all that 'le' and 'la' stuff, or something more profound?

If the first - 'le' and 'la' - French nouns have gender because Latin words had gender, and French developed from Latin. 

If the second - something more profound - why do they call Paris the city of love?



Nacian said:


> well OX I have and it does prioritise meat over country from the look.
> there is another word I am totally at loss with which came first turkey or the tukey? and I would say the bird did according to the thesausrus as its entry indicate.
> still why on earth would you call a bird a country..
> anyway I did ..was I suppose to notice something?



Sheeesh! Look up the _*slang*_ meaning.


----------



## garza (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian - English is an extreme example, but in fact you will find that no language, not even the most logical such as Spanish or Koine Greek, can be reduced to mathematical precision. When you speak of maths you speak of the constants of the universe, immutable laws not of man's devising and not subject to man's revision. There's an interesting article on one attempt to revise nature *here*.

For many of us our first lessons in pure logic occur in geometry class. A textbook on geometry written a thousand years ago would be valid today, except that the language would have to be translated into modern speech. The principles regarding circles, angles, and such would, however, need no translation. They are unchanging, immutable.

Languages do change. Languages mutate, evolve, blossom in unexpected ways to meet the needs of every new generation. Only a language that is no longer in daily use will remain the same, year after year. Even in such a case, underlying meaning will shift with the passage of time. I can translate Caesar's words easily enough, but can I translate Caesar's thoughts? I am not of his age. I do not know the street value of every word and every combination of words as Caesar knew them. So even if you consider the language of Caesar to have a mathematical precision, you cannot apply the logic of mathematics to the words he left us. 

People create languages. People change languages. When I was a child I often heard my grandmother fondly recall the 'gay nineties', a decade when she was a young woman. 'We were all so gay in those days', was the kind of comment she would make. Such an expression would have an altogether different meaning today. The meaning of a word has been changed. But the relationship of the circumference of a circle to its diameter has not changed, has never changed, will never change. 

To understand language you must forget mathematics and study people.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Do you mean all that 'le' and 'la' stuff, or something more profound?
> 
> If the first - 'le' and 'la' - French nouns have gender because Latin words had gender, and French developed from Latin.
> 
> If the second - something more profound - why do they call Paris the city of love?




no OX I meant this.
in  French we use il for masculin and elle for feminin as you know.
now you would refer to a group of women as ELLES in the plural
you would refer to a group of men as ILS
but
if one men joined that group of women then the whole word changes to ILS to refer to the group.
but if one women joined that group of men the word will still stand as ILS
bascially it takes one masculin to turn a feminin into a masculin.
does that make sense?



The Backward OX said:


> Sheeesh! Look up the _*slang*_ meaning.


LOL
that is not fair OX..I am only trying to understand my enviroment in order to fit in better.
so off I go lookingit up again and in SLANG this time:?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 20, 2011)

I may be meeting an old school friend this evening, the Professor of Linguistics at one of the London Universities - I don't think I will show him this thread, he might explode before he has had time to buy his round....


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Sheeesh! Look up the _*slang*_ meaning.



not having any luck...so I still do not the meaning of crossing a word and leaving there:?



garza said:


> Nacian - English is an extreme example, but in fact you will find that no language, not even the most logical such as Spanish or Koine Greek, can be reduced to mathematical precision. When you speak of maths you speak of the constants of the universe, immutable laws not of man's devising and not subject to man's revision. There's an interesting article on one attempt to revise nature *here*.
> 
> For many of us our first lessons in pure logic occur in geometry class. A textbook on geometry written a thousand years ago would be valid today, except that the language would have to be translated into modern speech. The principles regarding circles, angles, and such would, however, need no translation. They are unchanging, immutable.
> 
> ...



thank you garza I shall attempt to understand the article...it already looks like a challlenge.haha.
yes I agree that languages evolve however just because it does does itmean the spelling  must evolve too?
after all the alphabet does not  change so why should spelling?


----------



## candid petunia (Oct 20, 2011)

*Eye have a spelling chequer*

Eye have a spelling chequer,
It came with my Pea Sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss Steaks I can knot sea.

Eye strike the quays and type a whirred
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am write oar wrong
It tells me straight a weigh.

Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your shore real glad two no.
Its vary polished in its weigh.
My chequer tolled me sew.

A chequer is a bless thing,
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right all stiles of righting,
And aides me when eye rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The chequer pours o'er every word
Two cheque sum spelling rule.

-Jerrold H. Zar


----------



## Nacian (Oct 20, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> I may be meeting an old school friend this evening, the Professor of Linguistics at one of the London Universities - I don't think I will show him this thread, he might explode before he has had time to buy his round....


linguistics is accoridng just another branch of studies such as Maths.
I am merely pointing out logic and or the lack  of it and my reasons for such questions is that if the English language is to survive then surely it should make sense to those who speak and those who wish to learn it.
if you a learner of English and you are presented with too similar sounding words and the write them differently might just set insecurities and confusion amongst learners.
one does  not want to put off people who wants to speak English if incongruity persists in the way words or letters come across.
it is fine for you to say oh well this is crayz but you are a native speaker and therefore exempt or may be not, but believe me when it comes to spelling/writing a language it is better to have words that make sense .
 for me it would have been miles better to have spelt both CHOOSE and LOOSE in this way as it flows better.
it might be something very little but remember ''the devil is in the details'' or so they say so do not be quick to dismiss it.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 20, 2011)

If logic had anything to do with language we would all talk the same one. Linquistics is a study, not a science, most of its conclusions are agreed opinion, like psychiatry and psychology.


----------



## Sam (Oct 20, 2011)

There's a reason why English is the hardest language in the world to learn. OX and Bloggsworth have just demonstrated why.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Oct 20, 2011)

> there is another word I am totally at loss with which came first turkey or the tukey? and I would say the bird did according to the thesausrus as its entry indicate.
> still why on earth would you call a bird a country..



From the Latin _Turchia, _through the Greek _Tourkia_, and arriving at the English _Turkey.



_-ey: meaning "owner", "land of", or "related to". In this instance let's say "land of".

So, Turkey equals "land of the turks".

First use of the name "Turk" can be traced back to the 8th century, with the Gokturks of central Asia.

Guinea fowl were first imported to central Europe through Turkey, and thus were given the name Turkey fowl, eventually shortened to Turkey.

There; that only took five minutes.

I love Wikipedia!


----------



## Zootalaws (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> the last syllable of each of the word are pronounced the same as in Pee for P as in how it is pronounced in the alphabet.
> here is another a PEA.



Toupee is pronounced too pay
Recipe is pronounced ress ip pee

Very different last syllables.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 20, 2011)

garza said:


> Nacian - English is an extreme example, but in fact you will find that no language, not even the most logical such as Spanish or Koine Greek, can be reduced to mathematical precision. When you speak of maths you speak of the constants of the universe, immutable laws not of man's devising and not subject to man's revision.



And to the best of my knowledge, the only exception to this rule are constructed languages like Lojban.  Everything else is and will always be a tossup.


----------



## yingguoren (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> linguistics is accoridng just another branch of studies such as Maths.
> I am merely pointing out logic and or the lack  of it and my reasons for such questions is that if the English language is to survive then surely it should make sense to those who speak and those who wish to learn it.
> if you a learner of English and you are presented with too similar sounding words and the write them differently might just set insecurities and confusion amongst learners.
> one does  not want to put off people who wants to speak English if incongruity persists in the way words or letters come across.
> ...



It might seem logical to change lo(o)se to make it similar to choose, but once you get started on reformation then you would have to reform the entire language. Which is no small feat considering the amount of first and second English language speakers in the world.

Once you change lo(o)se then you have to find another spelling for loose, which means something completely different and is pronounced differently as well from lose and choose. Language reformation has been attempted many times in the past, including introducing new letters into the alphabet, and it has never been successful.

Language is an unpredictable, chaotic process, which is why language studies is an art rather than a science, and why writing is a creative skill.


----------



## garza (Oct 20, 2011)

BB - As usual, Wikipedia has it half right. Also as usual, the problem for anyone relying on Wikipedia is to figure out which part of the information is correct, and which is wrong.

Guinea fowl and turkeys are two different birds. Guinea fowl, as the name implies, originated in Africa. Turkeys were first domesticated in southern Mexico.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> for me it would have been miles better to have spelt both CHOOSE and LOOSE in this way as it flows better.
> it might be something very little but remember ''the devil is in the details'' or so they say so do not be quick to dismiss it.



Okay, M'lle Raisonné, let's do it your way. Let's spell LOSE LOOSE. 

But LOOSE is already a word in the English language. It has a great variety (huge number) of meanings, none of which have much to do with losing anything. 

When people immigrate, and if they wish to assimilate, they have to take on the ways of their adopted country. This includes the language. We have two millenia of spelling the way we do, and are not about to change it all willy-nilly just because one voice is raised in protest. It might take outsiders thirty or forty or fifty years' exposure to English in all its forms before they can handle it, before they can use it the way the natives do. Until then, keep some Valium handy (nearby). :bi_polo:


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 20, 2011)

Nacian said:


> not having any luck...so I still do not the meaning of crossing a word and leaving there:?



Okay, I wasn’t doing anything important today; I might as well waste some more time here.

First, soaring with the eagles, in this context, is a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is? If not, do some research. It’ll help with your study of English.

Second, the original quote, using the word ‘ducks’, was not mine; I copied it.

Third, I subsequently decided, in my tiny mind, that _if_ *I* wanted to soar with the eagles, _then_ I needed to distance myself from those who didn’t. ‘Ducks’ wasn’t the appropriate word to describe those from whom I should seek to distance myself; the word ‘turkeys’ (*slang use*) however, fits perfectly.

And originally I left the word ‘ducks’ in place simply on a whim. Or should that be ‘wim’?

à bientôt.

Nacian, tell me this. Why do the French pronounce 'à bientôt' as 'a bee-en-toe'? Why don't they say 'ah by-en-tot'?


----------



## Zootalaws (Oct 21, 2011)

Bilston Blue said:


> Guinea fowl were first imported to central Europe through Turkey, and thus were given the name Turkey fowl, eventually shortened to Turkey.





garza said:


> Guinea fowl and turkeys are two different birds. Guinea fowl, as the name implies, originated in Africa. Turkeys were first domesticated in southern Mexico.



You are both partly right 

The birds we currently recognise as 'domestic turkeys' are Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, exactly the same, genetically, as the Wild Turkey of northern USA and Canada. The southern Mexico bird is Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo, which was taken by the Spanish back to Europe. 

As to the etymology:



> Two Theories.
> 
> 
> First, in the 1500s when the American bird first arrived in Great Britain, it was shipped in by merchants in the East, mostly from Constantinople (who'd brought the bird over from America).
> ...



The Spanish for Turkey is 'pavo'


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 21, 2011)

Zootalaws said:


> The Spanish for Turkey is 'pavo'


In that case, a pavlova must be someone who loves turkeys.


----------



## garza (Oct 21, 2011)

Zootalaws - I stand one hundred percent behind my post. If there is a flaw, please point it out. From where did the etymological theories come?

Nacian - I believe you are continuing to see the study of language as a precise science on a level with mathematics, and my personal belief is that you cannot approach linguistics the same way you approach calculus.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 21, 2011)

garza -

Not to split hairs, but I believe the truth of the matter to be that Nacian would prefer to treat linguistics as a precise science and is highly peeved that the subject is not complying with her wishes. Which is not quite the same as what you said.


----------



## garza (Oct 21, 2011)

xO - You have no doubt hit on the truth, and thus no further discussion along that line can be profitable.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 21, 2011)

garza said:


> ... and my personal belief is that you cannot approach linguistics the same way you approach calculus.



Unless you are stoned...


----------



## Zootalaws (Oct 21, 2011)

garza said:


> Zootalaws - I stand one hundred percent behind my post. If there is a flaw, please point it out. From where did the etymological theories come?



No flaw... the question was where did the name come from, wasn't it? Turkeys were domesticated in Mexico, they were then taken to Europe by Spaniards... who called them 'pavo' from 'gallo*pavo*'. When I said you were both part-right, I didn't mean you were wrong, but that you both had part of the whole. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The etymological theories were from an article I read by a Spanish biologist. 'Turkey' was a name applied by the British - Turkey Fowl, shortened to Turkey.


----------



## garza (Oct 21, 2011)

Bloggsworth - In which case Simpson's Rule can be used to correct spelling.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Oct 22, 2011)

_A Note from Staff: Please try to keep conversations in line with the topic the the thread starter. Thank you._


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 22, 2011)

garza said:


> my personal belief is that you cannot approach linguistics the same way you approach calculus.





Bloggsworth said:


> Unless you are stoned...



Did anyone else see the pun?

What? No one? And this a writers' forum? Shame. Although, having said that, it'd make the Original Poster tear her hair, were she here to do so.

*waves*


----------



## Courtjester (Oct 22, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> ... To learn English you have to learn the whole of English with all its idiosyncrasies , one by one...


I couldn't agree more!​


----------



## Nacian (Oct 24, 2011)

> Okay, M'lle Raisonné, let's do it your way. Let's spell LOSE LOOSE.


OX lol thank you for letting me having it my way!!
I totally agree that we have to embrace the language and culture we chose to go to.
and thank you for the explanation of the metaphor.
I do understand metaphor but I was trying to ask about why leave a word that you have crossed on your page is what I was refering to.


> I believe you are continuing to see the study of language as a precise science on a level with mathematics, and my personal belief is that you cannot approach linguistics the same way you approach calculus.


Garza I think I would have liked it if language made sense somewhere and spelling could have been one area where it would have been made. 
it is a new approach to writing and spelling and why not mention it.
anyhting is a study and a study for me is reaching perfection or else it is not.



The Backward OX said:


> garza -
> 
> Not to split hairs, but I believe the truth of the matter to be that Nacian would prefer to treat linguistics as a precise science and is highly peeved that the subject is not complying with her wishes. Which is not quite the same as what you said.



Haha...I merely on my quest to conquer English and make it one the best if not la creme de la creme of a language to ever exist.
and so you can understand my disaray when I come across words that simply have no logic in my little head of mine.
I mean thinking Turkey was one...
then I come Jordan the country then all of sudden there a Jordan as name for a person.
Paris  a capital to Paris Hilton
and then 
Porsche the car to kid called porcha I use to teach..oh dear:-&
I am sure I will find some more..


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 24, 2011)

Nacian said:


> Haha...I merely on my quest to conquer English and make it one the best if not la creme de la creme of a language to ever exist.



If you try you will drown.... or go mad, neither of which we wish to happen.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 24, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> If you try you will drown.... or go mad, neither of which we wish to happen.


not at all I am sure....it is all for the best that I clear the air with whatever seems odd to me and normal to you.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 24, 2011)

here is another one
*supper *or *dinner*?
and do you *have* breakfast/lunch/dinner

or
*eat* dinners/lunch etc...?
I personally think that to say eat your dinner/lunch.. is very wrong because it is almost like you are implying you are to consume the word(dinner/lunch...)
I would say have your dinner/lunch/breakast..


----------



## Robdemanc (Oct 24, 2011)

I would say English is an easy language to learn but a hard one to master.   Most native English speakers do not use it too well.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 24, 2011)

Nacian said:


> here is another one
> *supper *or *dinner*?
> and do you *have* breakfast/lunch/dinner
> 
> ...



Dinner used to be a synonym for lunch, I believe, but these days it's more commonly used instead of supper.

Also, I use "had/ate" interchangeably when talking about meals.  Saying "I ate breakfast" is no more wrong than saying "I ate steak and eggs," because what's breakfast but another word for the steak and eggs?


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 24, 2011)

Americans say “take” where others say “have”. Taking a nap, having a nap, taking a sh*t, having a sh*t, and so on.

Look, a discussion about (the misuse of) English could go on forever, and nothing will change. Why not drop it? _Just_ use what you feel comfortable with.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 25, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Americans say “take” where others say “have”. Taking a nap, having a nap, taking a sh*t, having a sh*t, and so on.
> 
> Look, a discussion about (the misuse of) English could go on forever, and nothing will change. Why not drop it? _Just_ use what you feel comfortable with.



a discussion is well worth taking if it means I get more insight into the English language.
the Internet and forums such as this, is make out of a wide variety of English speakers from across the globe and so I get the opportunity to study and learn what goes in this rich language.
I wont drop for the only reason that Yes we can afford to speak it all we want and the way we want, but I do not think it is CORRECT not to try write it the SAME way.
if we are going to understand each other, then at least we should keep the English WRITTEN language, uniform or standard.
 I think  it is very important that we are of aware of our differences in order to  understand each other and therefore endeveour to *write English *in the same way at least in order to make sense.
this will avoid misunderstanding and ambiguities in the long term and can only be beneficial to us if we are to indulge in writing books and expressions.
I hope you understand what I am getting at.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Oct 25, 2011)

Nacian said:


> not at all I am sure....it is all for the best that I clear the air with whatever seems odd to me and normal to you.



Sorry, but I just can't resist. If a certain thing is normal to a majority, but odd to one person, and while this logic may be unsound, if taken to pure form, could it mean that the one person is the odd thing and not the thing itself? Or we can take the other possibility and theorize that the majority is the oddity, and the one person is normal. Unless the latter argument is proven, the former one takes precedence and there won't be any sense to argue otherwise for the sake of entertaining the _possibility_ of the oddity.


----------



## candid petunia (Oct 25, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Look, a discussion about (the misuse of) English could go on forever, and nothing will change. Why not drop it? _Just_ use what you feel comfortable with.


Ah, wise words. Took some time to come, though. :icon_compress:


----------



## Nacian (Oct 25, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> Sorry, but I just can't resist. If a certain thing is normal to a majority, but odd to one person, and while this logic may be unsound, if taken to pure form, could it mean that the one person is the odd thing and not the thing itself? Or we can take the other possibility and theorize that the majority is the oddity, and the one person is normal. Unless the latter argument is proven, the former one takes precedence and there won't be no sense to argue otherwise for the sake of entertaining the possibility or the oddity.



so accroding to you, theory numero uno is
 the person is odd and not the thing itself.
theroy number two
the majority is the oddity, and one is normality.

ther is no catch 22 here I do not think because
one cannot be without the actual thing, the it, the non entitiy or entity, that makes us and therefore I would conclude the precedent being the oddity and not the person.
we say and then we are. I am sure of it.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Oct 25, 2011)

Nacian said:


> so accroding to you, theory numero uno is
> the person is odd and not the thing itself.
> theroy number two
> the majority is the oddity, and one is normality.



No. That's a fourth term / ambiguous term fallacy. We can only have three terms, and the middle term cannot be part of a conclusion, lest the fallacy I stated.

To be clear:

(1) X person states that N object is wrong
(2) but Y majority states the N object is correct
(3) Ergo, ?

Theory one: N object is correct and X person is wrong.
Theory two: N object is wrong and Y majority is wrong.

There is no "we say and we are" division here. It's simple syllogism. To have a division would create a fallacy. The only solution here is to find out which statement is the correct one, either (1) or (2). Needless to say, (1) has the burden of proof. If the X person in (1) cannot prove the statement, then (2) is correct and the theory one conclusion will be established.

At this point where (1) cannot be proven, though (2) is not established as fact, only a norm, then I return to my argument that we have to consider theory one is fact for now, and there won't be any sense arguing otherwise due to the _possibility_ alone.

This is the pure logical syllogism explanation of what Mr. Ox is trying to say, btw.

Oh, and another famous line pretty much captures this syllogism: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."


----------



## Nacian (Oct 25, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> No. That's a fourth term / ambiguous term fallacy. We can only have three terms, and the middle term cannot be part of a conclusion, lest the fallacy I stated.
> 
> To be clear:
> 
> ...



oh well I take interest in what I do and say,
'and If I speak it then I'll take it, back, forth, anytime, anywhere''.
back to your saying:
''if ain't broke don't fix''
who says it is broke?
''if it there is a question  then I will put a mark to it'' that is me.
The Furher I will come back to your reasoning..


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 25, 2011)

Nacian said:


> so accroding to you, theory numero uno is
> the person is odd and not the thing itself.
> theroy number two
> the majority is the oddity, and one is normality.
> ...



I find it ironic that, in a thread pertaining to the use (and misuse) of the English language, your post is littered with abhorrent spelling, grammatical errors, a lack of punctuation, and a total disregard for capitilization.

This is by no means an attack on you personally, I just find it incredibly amusing. : )


----------



## Nacian (Oct 25, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> I find it ironic that, in a thread pertaining to the use (and misuse) of the English language, your post is littered with abhorrent spelling, grammatical errors, a lack of punctuation, and a total disregard for capitilization.
> 
> This is by no means an attack on you personally, I just find it incredibly amusing. : )



hey Kyle I understand your despair on my spelling , punctuation and lack of capitals.
my spelling errors are too often due my lack of typing.
I can't type andI am always in a rush to finish what I want to say and so this gets the best of me.
the punctuation is there and the lack of capitals is done on purpose.
I shall endeveour to pay attention to my dreadful spellings.:acne:


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 25, 2011)

Yes, your writing does have a "rushed" appearance to it, giving me the impression that you are someone who thinks faster than her fingers can type. I wish I had that problem. Story-writing would be a breeze. I, instead, go for long periods of time staring at the spaces after my words, wondering what to say next.

Anywho, it's not my intention to side-track the debate. Carry on!


----------



## Nacian (Oct 25, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> Yes, your writing does have a "rushed" appearance to it, giving me the impression that you are someone who thinks faster than her fingers can type. I wish I had that problem. Story-writing would be a breeze. I, instead, go for long periods of time staring at the spaces after my words, wondering what to say next.
> 
> Anywho, it's not my intention to side-track the debate. Carry on!




lol...that is exactly what I mean... sidetracking aside, I think what you have brought up is quite interesting.
I never thought about it that way and so maybe it is just a question of exercising both thinking and writing and getting the balance right.
this could make an interesting thread Kyle:cocksure:


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 25, 2011)

candid petunia said:


> The Backward OX said:
> 
> 
> > Look, a discussion about (the misuse of) English could go on forever, and nothing will change. Why not drop it? _Just_ use what you feel comfortable with.
> ...



Not wise words at all.  Language problems happen solely because people use what they're comfortable with, rather than what's correct.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 25, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Not wise words at all.  Language problems happen solely because people use what they're comfortable with, rather than what's correct.



Gamer I could not agree more hence this discussion...I think at least the written language  has got to be correct.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 25, 2011)

Nacian - No-one is preventing you from reading through your own work and both editing it and correcting it; I rather think that we would have a lot more respect for your point of view if you didn't try to tell us what is wrong with our language when you can't be bothered to use it properly anyway.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 25, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> Nacian - No-one is preventing you from reading through your own work and both editing it and correcting it; I rather think that we would have a lot more respect for your point of view if you didn't try to tell us what is wrong with our language when you can't be bothered to use it properly anyway.


I did not think I was sayingthere was anything wrong with it, I was mainly interested in having a discussion regarding the English and how it appears to me.
I am bound to make mistakes and unless I make them I am not able to learn. 
I try and absorb as much as Ican and I think that I have come a long way from when I first started.
I see your reaction is of criticism and if you think I could not be bothered with it I would not be sitting here talking about it.
:?


----------



## Cran (Oct 25, 2011)

Nacian said:


> if we are going to understand each other, then at least we should keep the English WRITTEN language, uniform or standard.
> I think  it is very important that we are of aware of our differences in order to  understand each other and therefore endeveour to *write English *in the same way at least in order to make sense.



Isn't that what the Brits said to the Americans? 

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned to *Nacian* that it is not one version of written English, but two. 

Recently, there have been examples of blending or overlapping between British English and American English in spelling and grammar, but many distinctions remain.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 25, 2011)

I give you Panglish...


----------



## candid petunia (Oct 25, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> I give you Panglish...


There's also Hinglish in the spoken form. I didn't get what Panglish means, though.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 25, 2011)

candid petunia said:


> There's also Hinglish in the spoken form. I didn't get what Panglish means, though.



Google it...


----------



## yingguoren (Oct 25, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> I give you Panglish...



'Pan' as in pantheon? As in a whole multitude of English based dialects? Indian English, Australian English, etc.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 25, 2011)

From The Telegraph, 12:01AM GMT 27 Mar 2008:
"Panglish - a single English that would have dialects... or scores of wildly varying Englishes, many or most of them heading toward mutual unintelligibility." 

:rofl:

If some of the stuff I see on this site is a guide, I think we're well on the way to that goal.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 25, 2011)

I tend to blame the erratic spelling (and grammar somewhat) of English on people who speak French. Who spoke it, rather. Also Latin. During the time (those who we've come to call) the Anglo-Saxons governed the area (we've come to call) England and developed the language (we've come to call) English and also during the first part of the time England was governed by the conquering Normans, literacy was for the most part imported from the continent in the form of churchmen who acted as scribes and teachers. These people would have training to write in Latin and French but would be often called on to record English from various forms of testimony and to translate proclaimations and lessons into it. They would be trying to record speech sounds they couldn't pronounce and would feel compelled by their Latin grammar to provide verb tenses and such which weren't really part of the vernacular language. And individuals would be more or less on their own doing this work. So you end up with Latinized written forms competing with forms spoken by persons who don't read; with the latter tending to prevail, except in the ruling classes who learn from the texts and scribes. This would have continued from perhaps the seventh century to perhaps as late as the thirteenth; this starts very early for any non-Latinate language to be set down in writing and plenty long enough for confusion to become hopelessly entrenched. This early, long and totally non-systematic developement of written English may be unique in linguistic history. Perhaps we should be glad of that.


----------



## Cran (Oct 25, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> I give you Panglish...



Does Panglish alter the spelling of existing words (the point of this thread), or is it more about word usage and the infusion of new words from non-English cultures?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 26, 2011)

Cran said:


> Does Panglish alter the spelling of existing words (the point of this thread), or is it more about word usage and the infusion of new words from non-English cultures?



All of the above.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 26, 2011)

Cran said:


> Does Panglish alter the spelling of existing words (the point of this thread), or is it more about word usage and the infusion of new words from non-English cultures?



I think by posting this thread I kind of was hoping to see if there was a way around getting to write  in the same way because speaking is varied and cannot be helped.
I think because English is international the importance of using exact as its aim when it comes to writing it would facilitate understanding and avoid confusions.


----------



## Robdemanc (Oct 26, 2011)

In response to more recent posts it would be wise for someone learning English to select which version they should learn.  American or English, but try to stick to one.  There's little difference of course, but you would need to keep an eye out for phrases that are American, or Australian.    Being a Brit I would recomment our English.


----------



## Nacian (Oct 26, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> In response to more recent posts it would be wise for someone learning English to select which version they should learn.  American or English, but try to stick to one.  There's little difference of course, but you would need to keep an eye out for phrases that are American, or Australian.    Being a Brit I would recomment our English.



that goes without saying, and yes English started in England so that would make sense to me.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 26, 2011)

Nacian said:


> that goes without saying, and yes English started in England so that would make sense to me.



Oh no it didn't, it started in several different places and came together in this sceptred isle, this jewel set in a silver sea....


----------



## Cran (Oct 26, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> All of the above.



OK, then it's two traditional forms, and one which is heading more in the direction *Nacian* would prefer - 
a globalised and presumably simplified (perhaps even phonetic?) written form - yes?


----------



## Nacian (Oct 30, 2011)

another expression another intrigue
''let's get to the bottom of it'' does not that visually implies let's finish it rather solve it?
the bottom of something usually indicates either empty and nothingness?
and why not
''let's get to the center of i''?


----------



## Robdemanc (Oct 30, 2011)

Nacian said:


> another expression another intrigue
> ''let's get to the bottom of it'' does not that visually implies let's finish it rather solve it?
> the bottom of something usually indicates either empty and nothingness?
> and why not
> ''let's get to the center of i''?



"Lets get to the bottom of it" - this usually means lets figure out what the essence of the problem/issue is.   It is often said as a prompt to solving a problem, in that it is the first step, finding out the nature of the issue. 

So saying "Lets get to the centre of it"  may be more correct (centre is more like essence than bottom), but I suppose bottom implies the foundation.


----------



## Cran (Oct 30, 2011)

Nacian said:


> another expression another intrigue
> ''let's get to the bottom of it'' does not that visually implies let's finish it rather solve it?
> the bottom of something usually indicates either empty and nothingness?
> and why not
> ''let's get to the center of i''?



in which case, you can use _get to the heart - _or _get to the core - of it_


----------



## Courtjester (Oct 30, 2011)

Nacian said:


> as a linguist and an English learner I oftne wonder about the logic in which some words seem to be spelt or written.




The Courtjester’s latest presentation for the Madazine thread is ‘Whither Language’. If one wants an appraisal of the current and likely future state of English usage, how does one get it? By turning the matter over to Sir Bertram Utterside, of course. He gives us an interesting opinion. Read all about it here: 
http://www.writingforums.com/humour/121245-madazine-5.html#post1479829​


----------



## QDOS (Oct 30, 2011)

Hi 
  I have trouble with Silent Letters 

_The ‘*b*’ of debt, the ‘*h*’ of honour,_
_Is the ‘*gh*’ of night a misdemeanour,  _
_Then knowledge with a ’*k*’ as such,_
_And ‘*g*’ of gnome is that too much,_
_Confusing though silent letters be,_
_Where they come from is the key,_
_Understanding of their formation,_
_Actually helps with pronunciation,  _
_To leave them out may be an option,_
_But looses their origins of adoption,_
_Recognising from whence they came,_
_Gives you a better chance at this game. _
  [FONT=&Verdana]
QDOS[/FONT] :???:


----------



## Nacian (Oct 30, 2011)

QDOS said:


> Hi
> I have trouble with Silent Letters
> 
> _The ‘*b*’ of debt, the ‘*h*’ of honour,_
> ...


QDOS you are a genius lol...:chuncky:
I like the fact that you called it a game..indeed it is:chuncky:


----------



## Nacian (Oct 31, 2011)

*AD* and*  BC *abbreviations
one in latin and one in English?
how is that possible?
how do I say
Before Christ in latin?


----------



## Cran (Oct 31, 2011)

Nacian said:


> *AD* and*  BC *abbreviations
> one in latin and one in English?
> how is that possible?





> "The Anno Domini era became dominant in Western Europe only after it was  used by the Venerable Bede to date the events in his _Ecclesiastical  History of the English People_, completed in 731" CE. [SUB] *1*[/SUB]
> 
> "Even though _Anno Domini_ was in widespread use by the *ninth  century* [CE] _Before Christ_ (or its equivalent) did not become  widespread until the late *fifteenth century*._..._In 1422 [CE], Portugal  became the last country of western Europe to adopt the Anno Domini_..._"  notation. [SUB]*3
> *[/SUB]


- History of the use of BCE/CE and AD/BC to identify dates



The reason why it's difficult to know between R* and AD which came first in English usage:


> In the 9th century Wessex became dominant over the other English kingdoms under Egbert, who conquered Kent and Sussex from Mercia in 825. Alfred the Great and his son Edward the Elder used the title "King of the Anglo-Saxons". After Athelstan conquered Northumbria in 927, he adopted the title _Rex Anglorum_. Starting with Henry II in 1154, the title became _Rex Angliae_ (King of England).


- List of English monarchs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may be that R(Rex) was known or used before this by the English, but it would have had to have been in reference to Roman or Continental monarchs, if used at all.

_*from the other (Abbreviations) discussion_


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 31, 2011)

Nacian said:


> *AD* and*  BC *abbreviations
> one in latin and one in English?
> how is that possible?
> how do I say
> Before Christ in latin?




You still don't get it do you Nacian - It is English, that's all you need to know. You'll drive yourself mad if you keep this up! Oh, and _*Pro Sarcalogos*_ if you want it literally.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 1, 2011)

Cran said:


> - History of the use of BCE/CE and AD/BC to identify dates
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thank you for this Cran this is very helpful..however I personally would not call OneLetterOnly an abbreviation.
it has tohave two or  more to be called abbreviation.
single letters are just that. Letters.




> You still don't get it do you Nacian - It is English, that's all you need to know. You'll drive yourself mad if you keep this up! Oh, and _*Pro Sarcalogos*_ if you want it literally.


*Bloggsworth
*
no I won't ...lol..stubborn as I am I will always find something to debate.
*P.S *and thank you for bringing to  my attention this 
*pro sarcalogos*.. god knows what that means it sounds like sacrilege tom...off to look it up.:adoration:


----------



## Cran (Nov 1, 2011)

Nacian said:


> thank you for this Cran this is very helpful..however I personally would not call OneLetterOnly an abbreviation.
> it has tohave two or  more to be called abbreviation.
> single letters are just that. Letters.



Keep in mind that R for _Rex/Regina_ is not used in isolation, but with the name or initial of the monarch - Elizabeth R, or *ER*, for the current Queen of England, for instance.


ETA: However, some single letter abbreviations are in use; and are still called abbreviations.



> In Latin, and continuing to the derivative forms in European  languages as well as English, single-letter abbreviations had the plural  being a doubling of the letter for note-taking. Most of these deal with  writing and publishing. A few longer abbreviations use this as well.
> 
>  d.didotdd.didotstypographyf.following line or pageff.following lines or pagesnotesF.folioFf.foliosliteratureh.handhh.handshorse heightl.linell.linesnotesMSmanuscriptMSSmanuscriptsnotesop.opusopp.operanotesp.pagepp.pagesnotesP.popePP.popesQ.quartoQq.quartosliteratures. (or §)sectionss. (or §§)sectionsnotesv.volumevv.volumesnotes
> 
> Singular abbreviation Singular Word Plural abbreviation Plural Word Discipline


 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviation


----------



## Nacian (Nov 2, 2011)

Cran thank you for your valuable time...this is very helpful...I shall study it very carefully.
here is another that really gets me going for no reason other than I don't get
F*A*THER
M*O*THER

A and O? why spelt differently and yet sound exactly the same?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 2, 2011)

Nacian said:


> Cran thank you for your valuable time...this is very helpful...I shall study it very carefully.
> here is another that really gets me going for no reason other than I don't get
> F*A*THER
> M*O*THER
> ...



They don't, at least not the way I say them.  I pronounce "mother" as muh-thur, while I pronounce "father" as fah-ther.  "Mother" begins like "mud," while "father" begins like "fox."


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 2, 2011)

They don't sound the same, Nacian. Father is pronounced Far-tha, and mother sounds like mu-tha. At least that's how they sound in the 'art o' the black country. In more civilised areas they may pronounce the endings as -er instead of -a. In that case they still don't sound the same. 

There are many instances where dissimilar looking words sound the same, though: Court, caught, fought, sort, torte, haute; some of which I know are French but in widespread use in the English language.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 2, 2011)

Bilston Blue said:


> They don't sound the same, Nacian. Father is pronounced Far-tha, and mother sounds like mu-tha. At least that's how they sound in the 'art o' the black country. In more civilised areas they may pronounce the endings as -er instead of -a. In that case they still don't sound the same.
> 
> There are many instances where dissimilar looking words sound the same, though: Court, caught, fought, sort, torte, haute; some of which I know are French but in widespread use in the English language.




I don't quite how they are different in sounds still?
doesn't all depends on regional accents?
why is it called ''the black country''?


----------



## Nacian (Nov 2, 2011)

another question

the expression 
to father a child?
isn't this a bit chauvinistic because it is the mother that carries the child?
shouldn't they be two way expression that involves mother and father together?
plus how can you I fathered a child if then the child never sees his father?
how does fatherhood enter into this equation?

so
_I mothered a child_..is as equal as_ I fathered a child _ONLY  if  both are present throughout the child's life.
is anothe expression along these lines?


----------



## yingguoren (Nov 2, 2011)

Nacian said:


> another question
> 
> the expression
> to father a child?
> ...



I believe that the expression to _father a child_ only refers to the actual impregnation of the baby's mother. The relevant expressions for the mother would be to _become pregnant_, to _carry a child_ and to _give birth to a child_. None of the latter can be used to describe the male's role in having a child, which is probably why the term to _father a child_ was conceived.

As you say, the terms fatherhood and motherhood can only be used to describe the parent's relationship when they have actually been part of the child's life and raised the child to an adult.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 2, 2011)

> why is it called ''the black country''?


It stems from the time of the industrial revolution, when much of the area between Wolverhampton and Birmingham was home to heavy industry (coal mining and coke smelting, iron and steel works) and the area was quite literally black. The air was constantly thick with a heavy, choking, black smog. Buildings would be covered with grime and soot, and even the soil was darker than your average soil. 

There is a legend that Queen Victoria rode through the area on a train on her way to Scotland and was so displeased at the sight of the blackness in the area that she ordered the blinds in her carriage to be drawn. 

The black country dialect is one of the oldest in the country to still maintain many of its original features. Here are some examples. Please, don't ask why they are like they are; it's simply the way some people speak here.

Fizzog = Face
Jiffy = Moment
Kay = Key
Noggin = Head
Oss = Horse
Cum a purler = fall down
Ow bis thee = How are you

The sign below translates to: "If you're soft enough to come down here on your way home, your tea will be spoilt."


----------



## Nacian (Nov 2, 2011)

Bilston Blue said:


> It stems from the time of the industrial revolution, when much of the area between Wolverhampton and Birmingham was home to heavy industry (coal mining and coke smelting, iron and steel works) and the area was quite literally black. The air was constantly thick with a heavy, choking, black smog. Buildings would be covered with grime and soot, and even the soil was darker than your average soil.
> 
> There is a legend that Queen Victoria rode through the area on a train on her way to Scotland and was so displeased at the sight of the blackness in the area that she ordered the blinds in her carriage to be drawn.
> 
> ...



how interesting is this all...fascinating. thank very much Bilston..appreciated.
it is strange that they used ''country'' to refer to a place.
and haha...no I won't ask...I am more interested in what it says at the bottom of the sign
_''made in Scotland by Dee- organ with the aid of a  black country dictionary''.
_is that supposed to be a pun/joke? I am a bit slow sorry:sneakiness:
I don't understand this sorry...



> "If you're soft enough to come down here on your way home, your tea will be spoilt."


----------



## Nacian (Nov 2, 2011)

yingguoren said:


> I believe that the expression to _father a child_ only refers to the actual impregnation of the baby's mother. The relevant expressions for the mother would be to _become pregnant_, to _carry a child_ and to _give birth to a child_. None of the latter can be used to describe the male's role in having a child, which is probably why the term to _father a child_ was conceived.
> 
> As you say, the terms fatherhood and motherhood can only be used to describe the parent's relationship when they have actually been part of the child's life and raised the child to an adult.


so you do agree to ''father a child'' can ONLY mean if the father had actually fulfilled his role as a father otherwise the expression is flaud.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't know what the notice below the sign might mean other than that which it seems. It is simply telling its readers who made it, and where.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 3, 2011)

Bilston Blue said:


> I don't know what the notice below the sign might mean other than that which it seems. It is simply telling its readers who made it, and where.


hey thank you Bilston that was fun to know..at first I thought this sign post was not real..like a joke..haha...what do  I know!!



Gamer_2k4 said:


> They don't, at least not the way I say them.  I pronounce "mother" as muh-thur, while I pronounce "father" as fah-ther.  "Mother" begins like "mud," while "father" begins like "fox."



thank you Gamer...I never thought about it this way...because both written exactly the same, a six letter word..in fact f/ather just reminded of the pronuciation of Black Adder and M/other as in 'other'.
interesting language is who needs pirates irate:and treasure:distracted: when you can have a language to discover.:smile2:


----------



## yingguoren (Nov 3, 2011)

Nacian said:


> so you do agree to ''father a child'' can ONLY mean if the father had actually fulfilled his role as a father otherwise the expression is flaud.



No. If a man has a child and then splits up with the mother, never having any involvement in the child's life, then he will still technically be their father. Of course, that's just semantics. Whether the child will consider such a person to be worthy of the title of father is another matter entirely.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 6, 2011)

Iwas looking up the word IMMINENT, then the entry gave me IMPENDING which I have never heard of because I only
pending as is in suspended, so I cliked  on IMPENDING and IMPENDING DOOM came up, so I cliked and this came up
Christian metal
"Gorship" - a portmanteau of gore and worship.
Sleeping Giant
_Nailed. Dead. Risen_
_The Serpent Servant_

it is quite a journey of words and concepts that you come across as you look one word and you end up in afield of else?
it is interesting to see that Christianity is linked to Gorship.
I also find quite chilling the word portmanteay, it is a french word but used alongside English is quite another meaning all together.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 6, 2011)

Nacian, your journey through English is, to say the least, mind-bogglingly full of red herrings. I have never heard *Father* pronounced *Fother*, not even by the poshest of butlers; and as for a father not being a father when he is absent, would that mean, that were a man to successfully inseminate a women and die within seconds of the consumation, that there would have been an immaculate conception? I think you are confusing fatherhood with parenthood.

Portmanteau (A new word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings, or a a large travelling bag made of stiff leather; one or other of which I assume you mean) as far as I know does not exist in French; it is an English invention which ought to, but does not, mean _Carry coa_t or _Harbour coat, _and probably arose from a mistranslation/misunderstanding of the instruction to _Porter mon manteau_, or "_Carry my coat_" - But hey! This is English, and there are no rules; but then, we've been telling you that for weeks.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 6, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> Nacian, your journey through English is, to say the least, mind-bogglingly full of red herrings. I have never heard *Father* pronounced *Fother*, not even by the poshest of butlers; and as for a father not being a father when he is absent, would that mean, that were a man to successfully inseminate a women and die within seconds of the consumation, that there would have been an immaculate conception? I think you are confusing fatherhood with parenthood.
> 
> Portmanteau (A new word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings, or a a large travelling bag made of stiff leather; one or other of which I assume you mean) as far as I know does not exist in French; it is an English invention which ought to, but does not, mean _Carry coa_t or _Harbour coat, _and probably arose from a mistranslation/misunderstanding of the instruction to _Porter mon manteau_, or "_Carry my coat_" - But hey! This is English, and there are no rules; but then, we've been telling you that for weeks.


''Portmanteau'' existe in French and it is spelt with an E. like this *PORTEMANTEAU* and means coat hanger.
check (le petit Robert) if you like.
*porter mon manteau *means wear my coat.


about *tofather a child*, it is not a correct always a correct phrasing, because you may be refered to as you fathered a child, but if you have never actually met this child then this phrasing does not apply because you if you have not carried your duty as a father how can you say
Ifathered this child. the clue in the word* FATHER *and it  is not appropriate in this very case I have just highlighted.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 6, 2011)

As I said, portmanteau doesn't exist in French, and I did say misunderstanding/mistranslation of a French phrase. Numerous English words/phrases/placenames originated from misunderstandings/mistranslations of foreign words or phrases. The pub name "_The Case is Altered_" derived from the Spanish name brought back by soldiers from the Peninsular Wars, "_Casa Alta_" or in English "High House", being mispronounced and Anglicised .


----------



## Cran (Nov 6, 2011)

Nacian said:


> about *tofather a child*, it is not a correct always a correct phrasing, because you may be refered to as you fathered a child, but if you have never actually met this child then this phrasing does not apply because you if you have not carried your duty as a father how can you say
> Ifathered this child. the clue in the word* FATHER *and it  is not appropriate in this very case I have just highlighted.



_Necessity is the mother of invention_ 

If you are having trouble with the idea that one word can have more than one meaning or definition, then you will always struggle with English where a single word can have multiple meanings, either indirectly related or completely unrelated. 

If you wish to distinguish between the act of impregnation and the role in raising the offspring, you might prefer to use _sire_ (as a noun or a verb) for the act.

ETA: Law and society recognise that the one who sires a child is the child's biological father with many rights applicable, including the right to inheritance. We have a very long history of war widows raising children whose fathers died in battle without ever seeing their offspring. Law and society also recognise that another male taking on the responsibilities of raising a child not his own acts _in loco parentis_ regardless of whether the male has officially or legally adopted the child, and in addition to any other relationship between them (uncle, grandparent, mother's spouse, etc). In such cases, the adopting male is determined to be the child's father as it pertains to the Law; otherwise, the responsible male is deemed to be the child's guardian.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 6, 2011)

Cran said:


> _Necessity is the mother of invention_
> 
> 
> If you wish to distinguish between the act of impregnation and the role in raising the offspring, you might prefer to use _sire_ (as a noun or a verb) for the act.



Cran - Don't confuse the poor girl any further, or should that be farther. Next we'll have to explain that_ snow_ doesn't only mean cocaine....


----------



## Cran (Nov 6, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> Cran - Don't confuse the poor girl any further, or should that be farther. Next we'll have to explain that_ snow_ doesn't only mean cocaine....



Ah, but if we didn't, then our student would wonder why some snow blowers are mechanical ...


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 6, 2011)

Isnt it your bed-time Cran - And why name yourself after a large basket of fresh herring?


----------



## Cran (Nov 6, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> Isnt it your bed-time Cran - And why name yourself after a large basket of fresh herring?


No ... and I didn't; my mother did on the day I was born because she decided that _Sean_ was too Irish ...


----------



## Nacian (Nov 6, 2011)

Cran said:


> _Necessity is the mother of invention_
> 
> If you are having trouble with the idea that one word can have more than one meaning or definition, then you will always struggle with English where a single word can have multiple meanings, either indirectly related or completely unrelated.
> 
> ...



ah.
here is one you said ealier

necessity is the mother on invention!!
a minute ago I thought it was the father, the is the impregnator which goes along with inventor if we want to consider fertility.
which is which?
don't forget wihout thy mother thy shall be no father nor child, so in this case I would put the mother first, as she provides the mean as well as the carrying and the feeding, if we really want to push.
just a thought.:smile:


----------



## Nacian (Nov 6, 2011)

'the tables have turned' 
could the imagery of this expression be that of the roulettte, since in gambling one gives the russina roulette a turning flip?
the tables are to be round to turn right?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 6, 2011)

It comes from the same root a _"The game is not worth the candle..."_


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 6, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> I have never heard *Father* pronounced *Fother*, not even by the poshest of butlers



Unless your short o sounds different than mine, how the heck would you pronounce it then?

(For reference, my pronunciation is identical to the sound clip here.  Same with mother.)


----------



## Nacian (Nov 6, 2011)

Bloggsworth said:


> It comes from the same root a _"The game is not worth the candle..."_


humm...there is a saying I have never heard of..



> Ah, but if we didn't, then our student would wonder why some snow blowers are mechanical



Cran
not if you are a skier like me..I can appreciate the need for fake powder..although much prefer fresh snow because it is safer.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 6, 2011)

> I have never heard Father pronounced Fother



Here's a man who would say Fother...

[video=youtube;ozahjxwEmjg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozahjxwEmjg&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 6, 2011)

Nacian said:


> humm...there is a saying I have never heard of...



Both originate from card playing. To turn the table was to deal from the other side in the hope of better luck. In the days before electricity, card tables used to have a circular indent at each corner in which to stand a candle; if your cards were so bad that it wasn't worth playing them, the player would extinguish said candle as _"The game was not worth the candle"_, i.e. it wasn't worth sitting there and wasting a candle.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 7, 2011)

what is the difference between:

NOVEL
NOVELLA
STORY
A BOOK

*then the definition of NARRATIVE*:
isn't
to NARRATE a story is the act of telling/writing a story through inner memory and it is usually linked to the writer, hence the narrator

*as OPPOSE*
to RECITE  something is the act of learning something by heart then rewriting it in which ever way you can remember or not.
grammatically speaking,
_NOVEL 
_ indicate masculin hence the narrator is a man,
and
_NOVELLA_
indicate feminin and the narrator is a woman
hence the book/NOVELLA
*BREAKFAST at TIPHANY's
*
and un _ROMAN/ROMANCE _as 

means a story of both man and a woman together.
examples *Mills and Boon *are ROMANCe and not novel.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 7, 2011)

Nacian said:


> this really gets to me
> the difference between
> a
> NOVEL - A book of fiction.
> ...


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 7, 2011)

Nacian said:


> what is the difference between:
> NOVEL
> NOVELLA
> STORY
> A BOOK



A novel is a long fictional story written in prose (as opposed to, say, a script).  A novella is a shorter version of a novel with a tighter plot (40,000 words is the usual limit, I think).  A story is simply a fictional tale that's being told.  A book is a bound collection of pages with writing on them.

And Bloggsworth, "novella" DOES have Italian roots (which is a language that does have gender).


----------



## SixPence (Nov 7, 2011)

Nacian said:


> there is a fine line between those too words  they are far too similar to be dissimilar.
> the examples you gave are veery different to each other ..so I would not dispute them as I would not know where to begin.
> a question  is there for me to ask so I will indeed indulge in questioning obvious dissimilarities  because they stand out.
> I would loved to have had an account on how these words have been put together especially whne it comes CHOOSE and LOSE.
> ...



Recipe and Toupee aren't pronounced the same way.  Recipe is pronounced with the ending "-pee" whilst Toupee is pronounced with the ending "-pey".  You could take a mathematical approach to learning language, but I very much doubt it would work as the formulas needed to fully understand the language would be too comprehensive.  If you actually discovered a fully functional formula to learn languages like English I know a handful of programmers who would be very interested in them, because some of the most brilliant minds on earth have yet to develop such a formula.  (For use in creating fully functional AI's)

My best advice in learning English is to not complicate things too much, keep an open attitude and don't consider yourself better then others trying to learn the same language.  (Don't use too complicated words)  And spend time using the language in everyday conversation on chat rooms, skype and IRL.  Learning a new language isn't about learning the words, but about learning the way of communication.  Every language has a different structure to communication, which can only properly be learned through culture, which in turn is learned through everyday conversation.  That's also why language is so different depending on region and social class.  Don't be afraid you'll seem dumb by using simple forms of communications and simple sentences, it's much more likely you will come across as dumb if you use complicated words and sentences as it's much more likely you misuse them.  It's a classic mistake academics and the like make when attempting to learn new languages, they just get a little too cocky.

EDIT:  Oh, and Gamer, a story doesn't have to be fictional


----------



## yingguoren (Nov 7, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> A novel is a long fictional story written in prose (as opposed to, say, a script).  A novella is a shorter version of a novel with a tighter plot (40,000 words is the usual limit, I think).  A story is simply a fictional tale that's being told.  A book is a bound collection of pages with writing on them.
> 
> And Bloggsworth, "novella" DOES have Italian roots (which is a language that does have gender).



True. Novella translates as 'short story', which is where we get the word from. But it has nothing to do with gender.

Nacian - the narrator in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' is actually a man, who becomes the love interest of Holly Golightly.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

my next question is this:

* X Factor   
*then 
*Ex/man/boyriend/husband

*One with *E *and one without ???
*

MR= MISTER*
*MRS= MISSIS*
where does the *R* come from?

a FULL STOP or NOT for ??

MRS or MRS.
MR or MR.?


----------



## seyelint (Nov 8, 2011)

One can question the working of words in any language as they develop over time, many reasons for their changes may be forgotten.

X-Factor / X-ray  - X is a symbol of unknown/unseen is my guess

Mr. / Mrs  - This might be a possession tag from days when the possession was associated to the male side of the marriage, before rights. The maybe like its. 

But I am guessing.


----------



## Cran (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> my next question is this:
> 
> * X Factor
> *then
> ...



*X* = in such examples means an unknown (but not zero) quantity or value; although the actual symbols vary over time, the concept is as old as algebra (therefore older than Greek or Roman civilisations)._ X_ is simply the most popular modern choice in general use; _N_ is another used almost exclusively to represent an unknown number.

*ex* = passed on to the English via the French but traveled previously through Greek and Roman from any one of the earliest Indo-European languages; by the time the Greeks and Romans got hold of _ex_, its uses and meanings had grown to include: _from; out of; without_; and _once of_ - the last easily led to _former (but still living)_, and then to simply _former_ (best exampled by Monty Python - "it is an ex-parrot!").

*Mrs* and *Miss* = originally from the honorific _Mistress_. The use of periods (.) in acronyms and abbreviations has been declining over the past century, and is now quite rare in parts of the English-speaking world, although less rare in the USA.

NB - when referring to more than one Mister (or Master) in the abbreviated form, we use _Messrs_ to avoid confusion.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

Cran said:


> *X* = in such examples means an unknown (but not zero) quantity or value; although the actual symbols vary over time, the concept is as old as algebra (therefore older than Greek or Roman civilisations)._ X_ is simply the most popular modern choice in general use; _N_ is another used almost exclusively to represent an unknown number.
> 
> *ex* = passed on to the English via the French but traveled previously through Greek and Roman from any one of the earliest Indo-European languages; by the time the Greeks and Romans got hold of _ex_, its uses and meanings had grown to include: _from; out of; without_; and _once of_ - the last easily led to _former (but still living)_, and then to simply _former_ (best exampled by Monty Python - "it is an ex-parrot!").
> 
> ...


hey thank you Cran this is great.
so X meaning infinitium....
I did not know about the N ..thanks for that.:razz:
but then EX from EXEMPT or Ex cluded/In cluded?
so a husband then  anm *EX *Husband as in* exempt from husband*?
it is interesting to notice that there is  no other different word to suggest from husband like we have
HUSBAND WIFE  DIVORCEE WIDOW WIDOWER  but we have not got a concrete word to refer to Ex husband or ex boyfriend? we just have EX??
which is quite strange because everything else has its opposite word.
WIDOW 
to accentuate the masculin now we add an ER to it WIDOWER which I have never seen in any other English word.
so EX coudl almost be associated wiht ER meaning adding two letters to a same to express opposite or past.

Messiers for MRS then we have MIS as in MIZ that  I am not aware to its root? because we have MISS as opposed to MIS what is the difference?

*sorry just one more
*
why is mixed race refered to as *HALF CAST
*does CAST comes *CASTUDIAL*? does that mean half responsibility/custody?


*CAUCASIAN*? whu is there ASIAN In cauc/asian
and then WHITE CAUCASIAN? is there BLACK CAUCASIAN?


----------



## Cran (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> hey thank you Cran this is great.
> so X meaning infinitium....
> I did not know about the N ..thanks for that.:razz:
> but then EX from EXEMPT or Ex cluded/In cluded?
> ...



infinitium or _to infinity_ is a different concept. 

the ex in exclude or exempt means _out of_ or _without_; 
the ex in ex-partner or ex-husband means _once of _or _former_ 

_Messiers_ was a French Astronomer; a bunch of Misters is _Messrs_. 

Ms (Miz) is a relatively modern form of feminine honorific which does not depend upon, nor disclose, whether the woman is married (Mrs) or single (Miss).  

_Half caste_, or _half breed_, are now widely considered to be offensive ways of referring to someone of mixed race. 
_Caste_ is another word which traces back to the earliest Indo-European languages via the Latin _castus_ meaning _pure_, _separated_ (and from which we also get _chaste_ and _castrated_); in 16th century Portugal, _caste_ was used to mean _pure race_ or _pure breed_, a definition they took to India who then developed their _Caste System_.

None of the above should be confused with _cast_, a word with dozens of distinct meanings and origins including old Norse. 

_Caste_ has nothing to do with custody; _custody _comes from the Latin _custos_ (with _custodis _and _custodia_) generally meaning to _keep_ or _protect_, from which we also get _custodian_*.

*but not custard.

_Caucasian_ means _of the Caucasus_, a mountainous region bordering the Black and Caspian Seas and geopolitically placed on the boundary between Europe and Asia; thought to be the ancestral site of (white) northern and upper western Europeans, although not those of the Arctic. The use of _white Caucasian_ is to distinguish from _brown Caucasian _(found in the upper Middle East and southeastern Europe).


----------



## Nacian (Nov 9, 2011)

Cran;1482362]infinitium or _to infinity_ is a different concept. 



> the ex in exclude or exempt means _out of_ or _without_;
> the ex in ex-partner or ex-husband means _once of _or _former_


 Thank you very much again Cran for your time patience and understanding.
You explain everthing so well it is easier for me to understand.:redface:
 I was thinking about the word exempt/without and it seems to apply to *Exhusband* because you can she is *without husband *hence the EX or exempted from husband.




> _Messiers_ was a French Astronomer; a bunch of Misters is _Messrs_


. 

messiers I have heard somewhere that it was the way slaves use to say refer to their ''masters'' and woudl say messiers because of their accents.


> s (Miz) is a relatively modern form of feminine honorific which does not depend upon, nor disclose, whether the woman is married
> (Mrs) or single (Miss).


why honorific? 
do you mean the feminist movement in the same way that act/ESS was no longe acceptable and everyone has to refer to both as act/OR??



> _Half caste_, or _half breed_, are now widely considered to be offensive ways of referring to someone of mixed race.
> _Caste_ is another word which traces back to the earliest Indo-European languages via the Latin _castus_ meaning _pure_, _separated_ (and from which we also get _chaste_ and _castrated_); in 16th century Portugal, _caste_ was used to mean _pure race_ or _pure breed_, a definition they took to India who then developed their _Caste System_.
> 
> None of the above should be confused with _cast_, a word with dozens of distinct meanings and origins including old Norse.
> ...



hehe.....shame about the custord which reminds me of the word cust/cussing
and cast  the word CASTOR or Fidel Castro spring to mind.
also casting as in fishing  or casting a spell.
interestint imagery there...and then if we push we could always rearrange CASTRO/CASTOR/ as to ACTORS.
I love words they are just infinite...could not help myself there sorry:lol:




> _Caucasian_ means _of the Caucasus_, a mountainous region bordering the Black and Caspian Seas and geopolitically placed on the boundary between Europe and Asia; thought to be the ancestral site of (white) northern and upper western Europeans, although not those of the Arctic. The use of _white Caucasian_ is to distinguish from _brown Caucasian _(found in the upper Middle East and southeastern Europe).


never in my life  have I heard of brown cauca/sian.
 from a linguist  point of view ,cauca reminds me of coca/ cocaine the plant that grows in South America.
 if you look at the word CAUCASIAN and remove the *S* it becomes CAUCAINA. again I am playing WORD SCRABLLE.
again another  word  that springs to  mind is COCA COLA which is the drink as we know it.
COLA in Spanish means QUEUE GLUE OR TAIL.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 9, 2011)

there is another fascinating subject of mine I came across as a I am a royalist and I simply could not help but notice this:
there is an expression that  says;
things that jump at you and this one did just that.

word like/bike/ in other words all words that end with KE and so if you put them into the present continous they suddenly for one single outstanding WORD and that is of KING. how funny:sunny:

liK*ING
*Bi*KING*
Crac*KING
*Pluc*KING
linKING
BLINKING
*  and so this leads me to conclude is it obligatory to use the present continous if it formating another same word which is KING?

another question 

 the word like QUEEN which refers to royalty
why is it refered to and in linked wih QUEER/GAY scene?
and does the true meaning of QUEER means strange?
(Please note that this is not in any way to offend the gay community)


----------



## Cran (Nov 9, 2011)

> never in my life  have I heard of brown cauca/sian.


More common descriptions are _Middle Eastern_ or _Mediterranean_, although both tend to be a bit misleading because each includes other racial influences (Arabic and Moorish). 



> why *honorific*?
> do you mean the feminist movement in the same way that act/RESS was no  longer acceptable and everyone has to refer to both as act/OR??



_honorific_ simply means _title of respect_ - Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Prof, Sir, Hon, etc... 

Ms was originally used at the same time as Mr and Mrs began to be used in the 17th century. It fell out of use during the the Victorian era, until revived by the women's suffrage movement (or suffragettes) in the early 20th century. It again lapsed during the Depression, War years, and Golden to Baby Boomer years, until revived once more by the modern feminist movement. However, it was never completely lost during the 20th century as it was in the 19th, because it was  often the preferred honorific of divorcees.   



> is it obligatory to use the present [continuous] if it [formatting] another same word which is KING?


No. Finding words inside words, or words that "look like" (homographs) or "sound like" (homophones), or rearranging letters to make other words (anagrams), are simply _word games_ - they might improve your vocabulary, but rarely (if ever) contain any deeper meaning or alliance. 



> the word like QUEEN which refers to royalty
> why is it [referred] to and in linked [with] QUEER/GAY scene?


The use of queen has extended beyond simply referring to female sovereigns, although is usually disparaging when applied to people - Queen Bee, welfare queen, drama queen, drag queen - the last term applied to men who dressed and over-acted like women (female caricatures, many of whom were homosexual). Over time, the term _queen_ was applied to any male homosexual who behaved in an effeminate manner. 

Not all homosexual men were/are effeminate, so not all were/are labelled as _queens_ - the term _queer_ (meaning odd, different, strange) came to be applied to any homosexual male, and then to any who fall outside of the heterosexual mainstream, or _straights_ - therefore any homosexual, bisexual, trans~, fetishist, etc.

Whether or not the terms are considered insulting depends upon who is using the term and in what context.


----------



## Courtjester (Nov 12, 2011)

Dear Niacan – I wonder whether my latest Madazine offering ‘It’s, You Know, Sort Of Tautological’ could be of interest to support you in your studies of our language. It is a note from a lady with much to say about how other people say things. It’s quite a rant but maybe you’ll agree with some of the writer’s points. See what you make of it by following this link:

http://www.writingforums.com/humour/121245-madazine-6.html#post1483176​


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 13, 2011)

This thread has been educational, and very funny. I salute you all.

Wasn't there a language made up specially for the entire world to learn. Esperanto, I think. That would be the most logical thing to learn, but no, we are all trying English. 

Even most of the English speaking natives I know wouldn't know an asterisk from a asterix. 

(I can make up percentages). 60% of the English speaking world is not speaking English as a first language. So grammarians beware, you are out numbered.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 13, 2011)

bazz cargo said:


> This thread has been educational, and very funny. I salute you all.
> 
> Wasn't there a language made up specially for the entire world to learn. Esperanto, I think. That would be the most logical thing to learn, but no, we are all trying English.
> 
> ...



Of course we can, asterix was a Gaul....


----------



## Nacian (Nov 18, 2011)

bazz cargo said:


> This thread has been educational, and very funny. I salute you all.
> 
> Wasn't there a language made up specially for the entire world to learn. Esperanto, I think. That would be the most logical thing to learn, but no, we are all trying English.
> 
> ...


 hi bazz what is the difference between asterisk and asterix?
why beware of non natuve speakers?
au contraire!!, be aware and tell it all how it should spoken is my attitude:razz: 



Bloggsworth said:


> Of course we can, asterix was a Gaul....


and..... aubelix as a gore!!? lol


----------



## Kevin (Nov 18, 2011)

I don't know what you call it, but I learn language like a parrot. Once I've heard a phrase or a word enough times, it sticks in my head. I'm then able to recall it and use it. I've verbally communicated with whole sentences(in a forreign language) without knowing what the seperate words were or meant. I simply repeated something I'd heard, knowing that it would the convey the desired message. It's like music, sometimes you just know it without having studied it. It's not reading and studying, it's hearing it and storing it (in memory). Later on you can look it up to see how it's written.


p.s.-whudidjoodoo?wanholweek!..igesbgbrutherzbnwahtchinu.gistkidnu.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 21, 2011)

Kevin said:


> I don't know what you call it, but I learn language like a parrot. Once I've heard a phrase or a word enough times, it sticks in my head. I'm then able to recall it and use it. I've verbally communicated with whole sentences(in a forreign language) without knowing what the seperate words were or meant. I simply repeated something I'd heard, knowing that it would the convey the desired message. It's like music, sometimes you just know it without having studied it. It's not reading and studying, it's hearing it and storing it (in memory). Later on you can look it up to see how it's written.
> 
> 
> p.s.-whudidjoodoo?wanholweek!..igesbgbrutherzbnwahtchinu.gistkidnu.


I am not understanding what you mean here Kevin?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 21, 2011)

Kevin said:


> I don't know what you call it, but I learn language like a parrot. Once I've heard a phrase or a word enough times, it sticks in my head. I'm then able to recall it and use it. I've verbally communicated with whole sentences(in a forreign language) without knowing what the seperate words were or meant. I simply repeated something I'd heard, knowing that it would the convey the desired message.



Unless you're taking formal classes, that's how everyone learns language.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 21, 2011)

the expression* private and confidential*
how do you define private?
if confidential comes from 'confidente' 





> a woman to whom secrets are confided or with whom private matters and problems are discussed


 it is nothighlighted as a trustee woman
and also confidence also means positive and strong.
presumably if you are strong and confident then you do usually need to confide with anyone.
I am trying to understand the word confidential as oppose to private.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 21, 2011)

Definition of "private."
Definition of "confidential."

If you don't understand a word, look it up.  If you still don't understand it, THEN ask for help.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 21, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Definition of "private."
> Definition of "confidential."
> 
> If you don't understand a word, look it up.  If you still don't understand it, THEN ask for help.



I did.
never mind.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 22, 2011)

Gmr; yes, formal  vs.  uh...but is there a name for it? Seems many people lack the ability to... been here 20 years and still can't...did they grow out of it?

N.- the p.s. is a puzzle(however weak) Clue: say it outloud. It's all about pronunciation. 
Here's an ancient esoteric message that was given to me many years ago:

owah tagu siam  -simply repeat it over and over till the "secret" message is revealed.:glee:   got it? okay, don't get mad.  Point is that writing in english is simply a repressentation of sounds, however you spell it. Like music, you have to develope an ear for it. We learn to hear before we do anything else. Then we immitate. Much later we learn how it's written.  For some reason when learning a new language, so many seem to go straight to writing, without learning to hear or immitate.


----------



## The Backward OX (Nov 23, 2011)

Kevin said:


> I've verbally communicated with whole sentences(in a forreign language) without knowing what the seperate words were or meant. I simply repeated something I'd heard, knowing that it would convey the desired message.



It's remarks like this that give the internet a bad name.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 24, 2011)

Eh, what're you trying to say?


----------

