# Decline of English Grammar



## the wickerman

Why is it that while most the grammatical rules of English have deteriorated so much over the past few centuries when compared to other European languages? For example, English used to respect the t-v distinction (having thou/thee and ye/you). The subjective and objective cases almost seem to be merged when hardly anyone uses the word "whom" any more (except in very formal communication).

To give a more extreme example, my school French teacher was teaching us the subjunctive mood in class last year and started off by claiming that the subjunctive "doesn't exist in English"! Of course it does, but so few people ever use it any more that even this well-educated linguist didn't realise it.

There are countless other examples of how English grammar has decayed that are too trivial to list here. When I read French written at the time of Shakespeare it is in some cases only slightly more difficult to understand than English written at this time, such is the extent to which English has changed over the years. Even though all languages evolve over time, is there any reason why English should change so much compared to other languages?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Hi,

I think "decline" and "deterioration" are rather negative ways of looking at it. If you said English has become "more simple" I think you would be saying the same thing in a more neutral fashion.

How many English speakers lament that English lacks grammatical gender? How many English speakers wish their verb forms were as complex as they are in French, Spanish and Italian? How many English speakers wish nouns could be put in the acusative, nominative, ablative or dative? I don't think that many do.

I don't think the English subjunctive, however, is gone. It just looks just like the indicative. I believe that when one says "I hope he comes" it's in the subjunctive except that "comes" in the subjunctive looks just like "comes" in the indicative. It's just like "cut", "put" and "hit" which look in the present just like they do in the past. I wouldn't say the past of "cut" doesn't exist just because it looks just like the present. And by the same token, we wouldn't say that the imperative in English is gone because  one says "You open the door." and "You, open the door!" The latter is clearly in the imperative even if the verbal form is identical to the present indicative.

Linguists call this _polysemy _and English has a great deal of it. Of course, some verbs have different forms in the subjunctive like "He is here." and "I wish he were here."


There is some debate about why English got rid of a lot of the grammar it used to have. Some say that English is a creole, that it's the product of a pidgin language, and that's why it's so simple. Others say that English is heavily creolized and other say that English is not a creole at all. 

There does seems to be a relationship between language complexity and number of speakers (the less people speak a language the more complex it tends to be).

There are tons of good books out there about the subject. If you are interested in some recommendations, let me know.

Ciao for now!


----------



## Moogey

I agree with many of the things you said Residente Calle 13.

I can tell you the #1 reason I think we've declined gramatically. In the US, they've stopped teaching grammar in public schools. That makes up more than half  (perhaps 3/4 -- a guess?) of the students in the US. And, I'm in a private school and they don't teach it there now either! People will speak improperly if they don't know how to speak properly. If they can speak the way they do and people understand them, why would they take the time to find out how to speak properly? (<-- their logic). If they were taught how to speak English properly, they probably would.

I think the fact that the US alone doesn't teach much English grammar can affect other English-speaking countries in our communications (regular/business) and sharing of the arts (such as books, movies, music, etc.).

There are many things in English grammar that are confusing but don't have to be-- people just have to be taught proper English and before it's too late and talking improperly is second nature!

-M


----------



## cuchuflete

> There does seems to be a relationship between language complexity a_nd number of speakers (the less people speak a language the more complex it tends to be)._


_

_Either this is a strange logical deduction, or you mean_ fewer_, rather than _less_.

Henry Fowler would be chuckling heartily.


----------



## jimreilly

I'm not sure anyone having to learn English (such as a West African friend of mine) would think English simple compared to other languages, including French. 

I think the best way to describe at least some of what has happened is just to say the language has changed, not that it has deteriorated or gotten more simple. Languages change for many reasons, and English is not the only language to have experience rapid change in the last 100 years (take a look at Norwegian, for example). 

I, like many people, find some of the changes disconcerting, but I can bring myself down to earth a bit by asking some questions. Would I really miss "whom" if it had never existed? No. Would I really miss the subjunctive? No. I wouldn't miss it if it were to cease to exist in French, either, and speakers of French sometimes neglect to use it when they "should". Yes, even native French speakers make mistakes when they use or do not use the subjunctive!

For that matter, if English verbs didn't even change endings depending on the person of the subject (e.g. I am, you are, he is, etc.) and were like Norwegian (jeg er, du er, han er, etc.) or some other languages, would I mind? Of course I would, but only because I'm used to English as it is. Norwegians don't seem to mind at all.

It's a mistake to think of a language at a certain point in history as a logical, good system, one that would be ruined if it were to "deteriorate".

Change is one sign of vitality and creativity, too. Or, at least, sometimes it is. Some of my friends who speak with far from standard grammar nevertheless have and use a language filled with vitality and creativity. They rarely fail to communicate what they mean to say, and they sometimes do it far more vividly than I do. 

Change is also hard to accept. Or, at least, sometimes it is.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

jimreilly said:
			
		

> I'm not sure anyone having to learn English (such as a West African friend of mine) would think English simple compared to other languages, including French.



First, I want to say that I agree with just about everything you said. I would like, only, to clarify what I mean when I say English has "gotten simpler" or "is relatively simple." 

If your West African friend speaks Fula he might think English is very hard. But as an English speaker, the fact that Fula has *sixteen *genders, each marked by a different article, is mind-boggling. Chances are if your friend started to explain how his language works you would wonder how it's even possible that it's managed to be spoken.  There are many factors, I think, that make Fula harder for an English speaker to learn than the other way around. 

By the same token, I have a Kenyan friend who says that the language of his village is much more complex than Swahili which is already complicated as heck to me and which is child's play to him.

If you take a look a Finnish grammar, I think you will come to the conclusion
that's it's a very hard to learn language compared to English.

I think some languages are "simpler" than others. This does not mean that 
the people in my Kenyan's friend village are more sophisticated than Swahili
speakers or that Finns are more intelligent than Englishmen. It's independant of intellect and I don't think Fula children or Finns take longer
to learn how to talk. Pidgins are the simplest of all languages but that does not mean that people who speak pidgins are simple. In any case, vary few people have been recorded to be monolingual pidgin speakers.

But English is, says Steven Pinker, all things being equal, relatively easy to learn; conjugations are  simple, there are no grammatical genders and very few inflections overall  (127).

And the inflections have gotten "simpler" since the days of Old English.

      OLD ENGLISH       ENGLISH

1st   sing*e*             I sing
2nd   sing*est*           you sing
3rd   sing*eþ *           he/she/it sing*s*

PLURAL
1st   sing*aþ*            we sing
2nd   sing*aþ*            you sing
3rd   sing*aþ*            they sing


There aren't any genders or cases in today's English, except for 
pronouns (in Old English there were) so that's "simpler."

Now I don't mean to say that the language is being "dumbed
down", it's just getting simpler in it's inflections. But that 
also implies word order, articles, and prepositions become 
more important so in that sense, you can argue, it gets
harder to learn for some speakers whose language don't have
those features.

*Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New  York: Harper, 1994. *


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Moogey said:
			
		

> I can tell you the #1 reason I think we've declined gramatically. In the US, they've stopped teaching grammar in public schools.



What do you mean when you say that we've _*declined *_grammatically?


----------



## fenixpollo

Moogey said:
			
		

> In the US, they've stopped teaching grammar in public schools.


 I find myself agreeing with this gross overgeneralization.  There was a sea change in the American and British school systems that occurred in the 1960's, which you can simply intuit if you talk to people who went to elementary school in the 50's and compare their experience with those who went to elementary school in the 70's.  Hell, they even stopped calling elementary school "grammar school"!  Hel*lo*!

Empirically, if you compare the curriculum and the texts from the 50's with those from the 70's and 80's, there are stark differences in which grammar is covered, how deeply, and at what age.

I blame the hippies.


----------



## danielfranco

I think there are two different but related topics going on in this thread. One is the apparent "decline" of English grammar, and the other is the direct relationship this apparent decline has with the shortcomings of elementary education.
As far as the apparent "decline" of grammar, it would be fair to point out that English as a language didn't get around to standarize many of its finer grammatical features until the 18th century. So I'd like to propose that for all intent and purposes we might still be going through the last stages of adjustments to this standarization process.
I have no further comments about elementary education in the USA, except that I have two children and almost weekly I have to fine tune some aspect or other about their use of the English language. Just imagine that: me, a foreigner, having to pick up the slack...


----------



## Outsider

the wickerman said:
			
		

> Why is it that while most the grammatical rules of English have deteriorated so much over the past few centuries when compared to other European languages? For example, English used to respect the t-v distinction (having thou/thee and ye/you). The subjective and objective cases almost seem to be merged when hardly anyone uses the word "whom" any more (except in very formal communication).
> 
> To give a more extreme example, my school French teacher was teaching us the subjunctive mood in class last year and started off by claiming that the subjunctive "doesn't exist in English"! Of course it does, but so few people ever use it any more that even this well-educated linguist didn't realise it.
> 
> There are countless other examples of how English grammar has decayed that are too trivial to list here. When I read French written at the time of Shakespeare it is in some cases only slightly more difficult to understand than English written at this time, such is the extent to which English has changed over the years. Even though all languages evolve over time, is there any reason why English should change so much compared to other languages?


This is an interesting question. I don't really know the answer, but here are a few ideas:

- It's not just English. There's a general trend in Indo-European languages towards becoming "less grammatical" -- the linguistic term is becoming more analytic. For example, most Romance languages also stripped themselves of the declensions of Latin.

- English was forged mostly in the Middle Ages. Shakespeare, who wrote in the Renaissance, is fairly readable to modern English speakers. But the British Isles had a very complicated history in the Middle Ages. They were invaded/settled by several different peoples in succession: West Germans (Angles, Saxons and Jutes), then Norsemen (the Vikings, mostly from Denmark and Norway), then the Normans (of Norse descent, but they spoke French). I've often wondered whether all these motions of peoples and cultures back and forth forced English to simplify itself.

Note, however, that defining what is a "simplification" in linguistics is not as straightforward as one might think.


----------



## la reine victoria

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I find myself agreeing with this gross overgeneralization.  There was a sea change in the American and British school systems that occurred in the 1960's, which you can simply intuit if you talk to people who went to elementary school in the 50's and compare their experience with those who went to elementary school in the 70's. Hell, they even stopped calling elementary school "grammar school"! Hel*lo*!
> 
> Empirically, if you compare the curriculum and the texts from the 50's with those from the 70's and 80's, there are stark differences in which grammar is covered, how deeply, and at what age.
> 
> I blame the hippies.


 

First of all, Fenix, please don't knock the hippies. When I lived as a 'hippy' in the 60s I was in the company of the crème de la crème of hippy society. They were my voluntary archaeological assistants, mostly university students who had benefited from the 1950s' education standards which you rightly praise.

I was educated in the 1950s, at a top rate grammar school, taught exclusively by university graduates. Correct English grammar was de rigeur - woe betide any girl whose written and spoken work wasn't up to standard, punishments were dire!

Today, in Britain, scant attention is paid by teachers to correcting grammatical errors. In fact, scant attention is paid to the quality of teaching staff employed. I heard recently that such is the shortage of teachers (who refuse to try controlling a noisy, disobedient bunch of 'yobs' *and* who genuinely wish to spend their time teaching instead of filling in reams of government paperwork) that people with no qualifications or teaching skills are being recruited. Some desperate head teachers are even luring in parents, who are unpaid, to help with teaching. I did a four year stint myself when my own sons were at state primary school. They were fortunate in attending a well-disciplined school employing quality teaching staff. Parental help was required for teaching 'slow learners' on a one-to-one basis - it was very rewarding to see the progress made by my little charges, who were barely able to read at age 7.

Every year we hear of 'even better exam results than last year'. The reason is obvious - the exams are getting easier! Back in my school days I recall, in particular, my English Literature 'O' Level exam. For five years we studied several of Shakespeare's plays, classical novels by Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Goldsmith and the like, together with in depth studies of Chaucer and the major classical poets. The exam required us to show that we had interpreted and understood the different styles of each writer using quotations to illustrate our answers. Five years of study crammed into a 3 hour exam - that's what I call 'rather a challenge'. Nowadays candidates are given a couple of pieces of unseen prose and asked certain questions about it. All the answers are there for them to see. I suppose one would call that an exercise in comprehension. Certainly not an English Literature exam. Presumably their knowledge of English grammar is revealed in their written answers.

Summing up I would say that English grammar has declined rapidly over the last half century due to ever declining standards in teaching.

As for the changes mentioned at the start of this thread. It is obvious that since all current languages are 'living languages' then they are constantly changing, just as we who are living beings are changing. Also, since English is the most widely spoken language, in many different countries, then its usage will naturally change in accordance with the culture of those countries. Australia and the USA are prime examples of where these changes are taking place. Many USA terms are completely alien to me and I've heard some very challenging Australian English.

The decline in grammar could be regarded as 'regrettable' but let us rejoice in the fact that we are still able to read and enjoy English 'as she was spoke and punctuated' thanks to the vast collection of books available to us.


LRV


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Either this is a strange logical deduction, or you mean_ fewer_, rather than _less_.


Ah, "fewer" and "less"! And people say English is simple...


----------



## the wickerman

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Every year we hear of 'even better exam results than last year'. The reason is obvious - the exams are getting easier! Back in my school days I recall, in particular, my English Literature 'O' Level exam. For five years we studied several of Shakespeare's plays, classical novels by Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Goldsmith and the like, together with in depth studies of Chaucer and the major classical poets. The exam required us to show that we had interpreted and understood the different styles of each writer using quotations to illustrate our answers. Five years of study crammed into a 3 hour exam - that's what I call 'rather a challenge'. Nowadays candidates are given a couple of pieces of unseen prose and asked certain questions about it. All the answers are there for them to see. I suppose one would call that an exercise in comprehension. Certainly not an English Literature exam. Presumably their knowledge of English grammar is revealed in their written answers.
> 
> LRV


 
Firstly let me say that I agree that higher exam pass rates are not entirely down to higher standards, although I would not say that exams are necessarily getting easier. Having taken GCSE English two years ago I can guarantee that it is barely worth the paper it is written on, and is a weird mish-mash of media studies and common sense. This does not mean that it is necessarily easier, but it was quite clear when I sat it very little knowledge of spelling, punctuation and grammar (SPAG in the modern exam lingo) was required. My father attended Technical School in the 1960s and looking through his first year English books I can see that he had a vastly superior knowledge of grammar than I do (and I attend a Grammar School!).

It seems clear that there are many people who (perhaps rightly) see the regimented teaching of precise punctuation and complicated grammar as pedantry, and who prefer to see more useful skills replace those which are hardly ever used. Even the well-educated linguists on this board see the _development _of English grammar as the natural evolution of the language. Of course we must all be ready to accept change, as all languages change at that is part of their beauty, tracing the developments over the centuries. The problem comes when change is so rapid and incoherent that people have trouble making themselves understood. I am sure we have all read official documents from time to time where the punctuation is so bad that it is difficult to understand the precise meaning. There is much written about the poor spelling of the youth, but at least on most occasions a poorly spelt word can be understood, at its worst, poor grammar makes the written word barely comprehensible.

On a related note, as for the reading of Shakespeare and poetry, that was covered in the English Literature exam which was much more challenging. Without this turning into a rant about how bad education is nowadays and how much better it was in my day etc., teaching methods and exam structures have changed (in some cases for the better, in some cases for the worse) and it is not helpful to turn this thread into a complaint about Govt education policy.


----------



## maxiogee

The purpose of language is to allow us to express our thoughts to ohters. They need to be able to understand us.
Language and grammar allow us to do this with an ease we sometimes do not even think about.
If grammar falls into disuse, or if the spoken language changes then all to the good, if, and only if, the primary purpose of langauge is maintained - that is, if A speaks to B and B understands what A is saying. A language is a living thing, it grows to meet the demands placed on it by successive generations of its native speakers. Words are "borrowed" from other languages (why do we not say "stolen", we never give these borrowings back?), jargon and slang creep into the mainstream language as their users bring them into everyday speech. This is good and natural.

Too often I watch television 'debates' or late-night forums where people speak badly constructed sentences and then have to retract, saying "What I meant to say was....." or "What I'm trying to say is...."

One of my favourite ways of teasing my elder brother and sister (and other sloppy speakers) is to state "I know what you _meant_, but I heard what you _said_!"

So instead of the thread's title of "Decline of English Grammar", I would offer a kinder and broader reading of the situation - "Transformation of English", as it is not just grammar which is changing, but the vocabulary and the formatting of the language also.

While I welcome the changes, I acknowledge that it is vitally important that the rules learned long ago are not shed wilfully, but are modified only as needed so that precision and clarity can be maintained.

(On the topic-related subject of examinations, I would just say that when I went through school I was educated, and I had examinations at the end of the process. Nowadays pupils go through school and are educated to pass examinations which are the endof the process.)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> While I welcome the changes, I acknowledge that it is vitally important that the rules learned long ago are not shed wilfully, but are modified only as needed so that precision and clarity can be maintained.


Shed willfully? Modified for precision and clarity?

_*Whom, *_for example, is disappearing in the US. It might be that whom is more precise but we didn't get together and decide to get rid of it. Words go out of fashion. What was once "correct" today sounds "pedantic" and gets thrown into the dustbin of History. The grammar books, and grammar teachers, and even grammar pundtis, can try to conserve what they want. Language use, is very democratic. People vote with their mouths.

Is asking "Who do you want to go with?" sloppy? According to some it is. But I would rather sound sloppy to some egghead intellectual than like a dork to most of the people I talk to. And I think that, in the end, is what drives our choices for words and for grammar.

May the American _*whom, *_for who I'm lighting a candle at this moment, rest in peace.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Originally posted by *The Wickerman*
> Without this turning into a rant about how bad education is nowadays and how much better it was in my day etc., teaching methods and exam structures have changed (in some cases for the better, in some cases for the worse) and it is not helpful to turn this thread into a complaint about Govt education policy.


 
I shall make allowances for your youth Wickerman. You have already said how much better your father's knowledge of English grammar was at Technical College in the 60s than yours is in the year 2006 at Grammar School.

What conclusion do you draw from that? Standards have fallen rapidly (as other foreros have pointed out). 

It is very presumptuous of you to say that I am turning this thread into a complaint about government education policy. That was not my intention but if we are seeking for reasons as to why correct English grammar is in decline then we must look to the source of this decline, which is education. 

Every child is precious and to reach his/her full potential deserves the best possible education. For my children this began at home. I was in the fortunate position of not having to go out and work to earn a crust. Instead I devoted most of my time to teaching my sons in their formative pre-school years. I made it such fun that they probably didn't realise that they were being 'educated'. At the age of 5 my elder son was eagerly reading 'The Observer's Book of Birds' which he had specifically requested as a birthday present. At the same age at school he filled six exercise books with his account of Roald Dahl's 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. His younger brother was equally gifted. On their own merit they both won scholarships to a leading Public School. My elder son was invited to sit for a scholarship to Eton but we declined the offer.

Call me 'boastful' if you wish. It is the duty of every parent to assist their offspring in the learning process but these days it is happening less and less, due largely to socio-economic factors. Badly educated teenage girls are giving birth to babies and bringing them up without the support of the father. What chance is there for such infants?

I reserve my right to criticise government education policy - it's at 'The Heart of the Matter' (to quote a TV documentary series hosted by Joan Bakewell).

But in no way am I *turning this thread* into a criticism of government policy. I am merely stating the obvious - it is very relevant to the topic. Why do you think T Blair is now running scared and talking of handing over many schools into the care of the private sector. Why do he and his cronies pay for their children to be educated outside the state system? Because he has 'failed, failed, failed,' on his 1997 victory speech pledge 'education, education, education.'


LRV


----------



## cuchuflete

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> _*Whom, *_for example, *is disappearing in the US*. It might be that whom is more precise but  [precision in communication matters more to some people than to others.]
> 
> But I would rather sound sloppy to some egghead intellectual than like a dork to most of the people I talk to.  [There is no known grammatical rule against sounding sloppy. Anyone is welcome to dumb down their speech to avoid possible offense to dorks.]
> May the American _*whom, *_for who I'm lighting a candle at this moment, rest in peace.




The oft-reported demise of _whom_, as that of the novel, is a bit premature.



> In talk, _who_ is constantly used for the objective case...This colloquialism is indeed so common that it is invading printed matter.



That was written by an intellectual egghead named Henry Fowler, in 1926. A few years prior, H.L. Mencken, on the other side of the puddle, noted...



> ...and in ordinary discourse the great majority of Americans avoid _whom_ diligently...



When one is Donne braying boastfully about helping to despatch this much maligned word, one may re-issue Papa Hemingway's novel, with an updated title:

For _who_ the bell tolls.

That rolls off the tongue like cold molasses.  Then again, it's
not apt to offend the dorks who wouldn't know the difference.

​ 

​


----------



## panjandrum

My impression is that what we are seeing, and remarking on, is caused by a combination of factors: the ongoing evolution of English over many centuries, a significant increase from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century in the number of people effectively taught to use English, and a rapid decline in that teaching over the past 30-40 years.

We discussed a Sunday Times feature on the latter phenomenon a few weeks ago in The writing's on the wall.


----------



## fenixpollo

I think another reason that we have the impression that there is a "decline" in the language in general is that the rules that we learned in grammar school went and changed on us. Whom is now optional, only half of the people know from posessive apostrophes, and... 





			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> That rolls off the tongue like cold molasses. Then again, it's not apt to offend the dorks who wouldn't know the difference.


 I mean, didn't "dork" used to be a curse word that meant "penis"?  Who changed it to mean "oaf" or "fool"?  What's wrong with the world today?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> For _who_ the bell tolls.
> 
> ​ ​


Not many people I know talk about bells tolling. Most people I know say things like "Who you wanna talk to?", "Who you going with?" and "You're marrying who!?"

I think most Americans are in that scruffy category. We're not a people who derives its identity from language. We're not English we talk it. And we talk it they way we wanna talk it. 

Kids start saying _*diss *_and pundits start repeating it no time. As a matter of fact, the kids have to keep churning out new slang all the time because the adults keep _biting it_. "Lousy" used to be slang and rather vulgar. I know people who *still *object to it's use. Today, you can hear Senators say "that was a lousy decision" on TV.

We're the culture that says "Say it ain't so, Joe.", "Where you at?", and "Got Milk?"

Do we have the Canadians saying "You ain't seen nothin' yet" and the Brits saying they "Can't Get No Satisfaction" ???  Maybe. I think that's a good thing. I'm glad that what's driving the public use of the language these days, at least here, is the people who work for a living rather than mental midgets like Robert Lowth et al.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

panjandrum said:
			
		

> My impression is that what we are seeing, and remarking on, is caused by a combination of factors: the ongoing evolution of English over many centuries, a significant increase from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century in the number of people effectively taught to use English, and _a rapid decline in that teaching over the past 30-40 years._ (Could this be applied to other languages and countries?  I know it is applied to Spanish in México.)
> 
> We discussed a Sunday Times feature on the latter phenomenon a few weeks ago in The writing's on the wall.


 
I know for a fact that the way I was taught English grammar at a private Catholic school in the States during the '70s is very different from the way students at the same school are being taught right now.  I think today's students are losing out on education.  

In México, our SEP is trying to make ammends on drastic choices made during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Steps have been taken up to university level, but the wrong has been done and many of the people who currently hold teaching positions are the students of education reform of those years previously stated.  Let's hope everything turns out for the best.


----------



## rsweet

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Kids start saying _*diss *_and pundits start repeating it no time. As a matter of fact, the kids have to keep churning out new slang all the time because the adults keep _biting it_. "Lousy" used to be slang and rather vulgar. I know people who *still *object to it's use. Today, you can hear Senators say "that was a lousy decision" on TV.
> 
> We're the culture that says "Say it ain't so, Joe.", "Where you at?", and "Got Milk?"



I think Residente Calle has hit upon two things that are really key here: 1) The speech of young people--not classical literature or established grammar rules--is driving the evolution of language. 2) Marketing is driving everything.


----------



## jimreilly

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> First, I want to say that I agree with just about everything you said....
> 
> I think some languages are "simpler" than others. This does not mean that the people in my Kenyan's friend village are more sophisticated than Swahili speakers or that Finns are more intelligent than Englishmen. It's independant of intellect and I don't think Fula children or Finns take longer
> to learn how to talk. ]
> 
> Thank you for your interesting answer, which I'm only quoting one little part of here (I love the part about aggreeing with me, so I couldn't cut it).  I do joke with my Finnish friends that their children must be awfully intelligent to learn such a complicated language, and I have declined the opportunity to study Finnish grammar even though it's a language I occasionally sing in. But while it requires a certain amount of intelligence to learn any language, it is independent of intellect in other ways,  at least when one is young enough.
> 
> So perhaps one interesting point here might be to distinguish what one learns about language by hearing it and speaking it as a child, and what one learns later in school, even about the same language. The second kind of learning is likely to be more consciously rule driven. Teachers might even be very concerned to "correct" many things that were learned the first way, even if those things were learned accurately, i.e. if the child accurately replicated the speech, vocabulary, and grammar patterns he/she was exposed to.
> 
> Even makes me think of kids whose maternal language is completely subject to repression in school, e.g. in old schools for Native-Americans, missionary schools in some places, or in cases of political repression of one group by another. These are more extreme, and emotionally violent, examples.
> 
> I imagine many of us have had friends who could switch back and forth from their orginal learned speech (e.g. a dialect) to "standard" English, like some of my African-American friends.
> One dear friend, now unfortunately gone from the earth, would amaze her friends by (deliberately) switching back to her Georgia dialect at parties after a drink or two, as a sort of joke. It always made me think more than it made me laugh.
> 
> There are powerful emotional issues involved in changing language someone has accurately learned because someone else thinks it is not correct or acceptable. In some cases this may account for some of the strong opinions expressed in some of the posts. I suppose scientists who study language development can find ways to divorce their emotions and cultural values from all this? Can they?


----------



## cuchuflete

anti-egghead said:
			
		

> Not many people I know talk about bells tolling. Most people I know say things like "Who you wanna talk to?", "Who you going with?" and "You're marrying who!?"


Do they read, when they are done talking, and energizing the language? Ask not for who the bell rings...
Don't ask who the damn bell rings for, it's callin you. We be done now?  You don't need to persuade me that language grows from the bottom up. Still, I'm not ready to throw out literature as an inspiration and a source for those who want to nurture their brains with something beyond what's on offer on the streets.

Part of what's so strong about For Whom The Bell Tolls is that the writer had an incredible ear for street talk.  He also learned to write by reading! That book title was no accident.
It assumed that readers would catch the reference.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

It is a sad truth that we have become too complaisant about our speech, be it English, Spanish, and from what I've read here, any other language.  

Instead of achieving greatness as a race through the betterment of language, we have limited ourselves to follow, adapt and hinder the evolution of formal speech.  We must remember that language is what binds society together.  

If you need an example, just look at how many of us have expressed our opinions and we have been understood by all.  Had we been using substandard language, some of us would have been understood and others would have been utterly ignored.  Following the rules, albeit some if not all, is what allows that the differences in AE and BE, or for that matter Spanish as it is spoken in Spain, or in the Americas, can be surpassed and communication be achieved.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Hi Cuchu, here is my response to some of your points.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Do they read, when they are done talking, and energizing the language? Ask not for who the bell rings...
> 
> No. Most people I know don't read books. They read the Sports section.
> 
> Don't ask who the damn bell rings for, it's callin you. We be done now?  You don't need to persuade me that language grows from the bottom up. Still, I'm not ready to throw out literature as an inspiration and a source for those who want to nurture their brains with something beyond what's on offer on the streets.
> 
> Don't throw literature out! Who's asking you do that? Let it inspire you. I think you have that right and it's probably even a good thing. But most people don't. There is nothing "streetsy" about not reading. There are people in the suburbs and even rural areas who chose not to read. Just as long as nobody is forcing them not to, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's a free country.
> 
> Part of what's so strong about For Whom The Bell Tolls is that the writer had an incredible ear for street talk.  He also learned to write by reading! That book title was no accident.
> It assumed that readers would catch the reference.
> 
> I didn't. I don't read that much.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Don't knock reading out yet.  The world would be very different if everyone read a little bit more.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> If you need an example, just look at how many of us have expressed our opinions and we have been understood by all.  Had we been using substandard language, some of us would have been understood and others would have been utterly ignored.



But if we *ALL *had been using substandard language we would have *ALL *understood. So in that sense, it doesn't matter how we talk as long as we all talk the same? I think that's logical. But I think it's more important that we are all able to communicate sometimes. We can do that without speaking only in a way that everybody can understand. 

Who cares if somebody speaks substandard, say Appalachian, English at home as long as he can speak standard English with those who do?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> Don't knock reading out yet.  The world would be very different if everyone read a little bit more.



I don't think I'm strong enough to knock out reading if I wanted to. I think reading is a good thing but I think it can sometimes be bad (just like everything else in life). While some illiterate societies have done some bad things _*v*_*ery *literate societies have done very terrible things. I don't want to get into details. It's no panacea.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Who cares if somebody speaks substandard, say Appalachian, English at home _as long as he can speak standard English with those who do_?[/quote]

See?  We must all learn at some point in our lives to conform to society in order to be part of it.  Otherwise, we will always be on the sidelines.

I still think you have a very interesting way of presenting your views.  It tells me that you've read a book once in a while.


----------



## cuchuflete

Street talk is a great source of innovation and vitality.  
The energy of invented and redefined words is beyond doubt.
That's some of the good news.

There is other news about street talk.

It usually employs a miniscule vocabulary. It allows for clear, simple communication, but not much nuance. It often, due to the lack of vocabulary, lacks precision. 

You read books as technical manuals to help you understand how languages work, and how they have, and are likely to, develop. I read a Chilton's manual to work on my car. This sort of reading is interesting and useful. It will not help me appreciate the aethetics of a language, just the moving parts and how they fit together or don't. 

I like to enjoy language in more than just utilitarian ways, so I find pleasure in listening to street talk, and savoring the art and craft of writers who use language as a fine instrument.

It's not about being at ease with dorks and eggheads...I'm comfortable with both, and --were it not for my reading 'vice'-- I'd probably be tagged as a dork. Language is about communication. The street version, by itself, is about limited communication with a limited range of conversationalists. Call me greedy; I won't settle for those limitations.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

To me, it's a matter of social justice. I don't think any accent or any dialect of English is inherently better than another. I've heard some really dumb things said in "Standard" English and some really brilliant things said in "Substandard" English.

But if "Standard English" is gonna get you out the ghetto, then learn it. Ain't notin' but a language. I learned programming languages in order to get out. Didn't have a jump shot. Oh well. We all do what we can.

But I admit I have a problem with calling a dialect "substandard". Who decides what's _*sub*_? The way the middle class speaks seems to be the "right way" and they way the poor and racial minorities speak seems to be the "wrong way." I don't agree with that assesment.


----------



## cuchuflete

> To me, it's a matter of social justice. I don't think any accent or any dialect of English is inherently better than another. I've heard some really dumb things said in "Standard" English and some really brilliant things said in "Substandard" English.


 Except for the aside about
social justice, we fully agree.  No language form is inherently 'better' than another, but some open more doors than others.

I don't know to who(m) you are directing that straw man comment about 'substandard'.  I didn't use it, don't agree with it, and don't recall seeing it used in this conversation.
But I'll be happy to join you in knocking it down.  Dialects are not better and worse, they're just plain different.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Street talk is a great source of innovation and vitality.
> The energy of invented and redefined words is beyond doubt.
> That's some of the good news.
> 
> There is other news about street talk.
> 
> It usually employs a miniscule vocabulary. It allows for clear, simple communication, but not much nuance. It often, due to the lack of vocabulary, lacks precision.
> 
> You read books as technical manuals to help you understand how languages work, and how they have, and are likely to, develop. I read a Chilton's manual to work on my car. This sort of reading is interesting and useful. It will not help me appreciate the aethetics of a language, just the moving parts and how they fit together or don't.
> 
> *I like to enjoy language in more than just utilitarian ways, so I find pleasure in listening to street talk, and savoring the art and craft of writers who use language as a fine instrument*.
> 
> It's not about being at ease with dorks and eggheads...I'm comfortable with both, and --were it not for my reading 'vice'-- I'd probably be tagged as a dork. Language is about communication. The street version, by itself, is about limited communication with a limited range of conversationalists. *Call me greedy; I won't settle for those limitations*.


 
Chuchu,

Hats off to you!


----------



## zebedee

I think there are two issues under discussion here.

The first issue is the timeless lament over how modern education (or lack of the same) is teaching young people less grammar than was taugnt to their elders, resulting in the use of said language going to the dogs. I say this is a timeless lament because it's not limited to the English language nor to the here and now. You can go back in history and find Ancient Roman grammarians lamenting the same of Latin.

The second issue is what The Wickerman expounds in his original post:


			
				the wickerman said:
			
		

> Why is it that while most the grammatical rules of English have deteriorated so much over the past few centuries *when compared to other European languages?*





			
				the wickerman said:
			
		

> my school French teacher was teaching us the subjunctive mood in class last year and started off by claiming that* the subjunctive "doesn't exist in English"! Of course it does, but so few people ever use it any more* that even this well-educated linguist didn't realise it.


 
In other words, when comparing English to other European languages English is a language that's a lot less formal in grammatical structure _even when used correctly. _The mixed origins of English make it impossible to compare it directly with other European languages which still decline their verbs and nouns. So its evolution is bound to be different from theirs.

A simple example: the word "put". It's present, past, past participle, imperative, indicative & subjunctive forms of the verb. What other European language can boast the same?

And here's where I'd like to introduce a new slant on the matter. 

English's apparent simplicity is actually what makes it one of the most difficult languages to master at an advanced level. Ever looked up "get" in a dictionary and seen how many pages are dedicated to just one word? Learners of English find it deceptively easy to master the verb forms at a basic level but as they go deeper into the language they find added levels of wordplay and imagery that are just not feasible in a more structured language.
"Eats shoots and leaves". John Wayne or a panda?
"Wet paint - that's an order."
are just 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head. And let's not even go into the mind-stretching world of phrasal verbs.



			
				the wickerman said:
			
		

> There are countless other examples of how English grammar *has decayed* that are too trivial to list here.



Decay? It all depends on the prism through which you look at the language. Yes, "whom" will probably go the same way as "wherefore", it's only natural but I don't view English grammar's destructurization when compared to Romance or Germanic languages as decay but rather as evolution and enrichment.


----------



## Magmod

Grammar is man-made. How come that all verbs in French and Spanish have only  4 endings -ar, -ir, -oir etc. The imperfect tense is simple whether in English or most languages because it came late in the day in language development and the grammar rules were man-made simple. 

Therefore the idea of simplicity is there except no one knows how to do it. Only foreigners know how. Nowadays Indians and Pakistanis who work in Saudi Arabia do not differentiate between masculine and feminine Arabic genders and the Arabs start speaking to them without differentiating the genders! England had many European invaders since the Romans and this had simplified English and made it the best language on earth.  

 If grammar is not serving a purpose, then to hell with it. Why should the moon have feminine gender? Some will say due to Greek mythology. But why should grammar become complicated? 

 It is the job of the new generations to simplify the language and its grammar to what is necessary and logical. I'm certain that the European Union will soon adopt a new language for all, probably based on the English grammar. Like many have said on this thread foreigners evolved English and its grammar. So it is OK for the rest of the Europeans. They can now have back what they gave the English. It is easy for the human brain to develop a new language. 

 There is nothing that is said in any language on this earth that cannot be expressed exactly in English. This shows the strength of English and its grammar  
Regards


----------



## Outsider

zebedee said:
			
		

> The mixed origins of English make it impossible to compare it directly with other European languages which still decline their verbs and nouns. So its evolution is bound to be different from theirs.


All languages have mixed origins to some extent, though. I think there's some tendency to overstate the originality of English in that respect.


----------



## cuchuflete

Magmod said:
			
		

> There is nothing that is said in any language on this earth that cannot be expressed exactly in English.


I like your panegyric to simplicity, but you may have overextended here. I haven't yet learned all the languages on this earth well enough to judge the exactitude with which they can be translated to English.

In other words, I think this statement is arrogant and wrong.
Try translating saudade from Português to English in less than a paragraph. Then use it in a short sentence, as it's often used in PT speech and songs!

Carefully watch the crestfallen looks on the faces of your listeners, as they edge towards the exit doors.

Your main points are good, but pushing things to extremes for the sake of argument doesn't work very well.

PS- There is an intriguing logical anomaly in the statement I'm shooting at: If anything in any language can be "expressed exactly in English", then there is an implication of bi-directionality.  This would tell us that there is no need for languages to borrow from one another.  Gargling with hemlock.....
cuchu


----------



## Pivra

this is why i love english ^^.....


----------



## Alxmrphi

I never thought, before I started learning Italian, that I would ever love learning language (English too)

I am English, born and grew up here, ask me a year ago about descriptive adjectives, and the rules in verb conjugation and to explain the pluperfect tense, the absolute superlative forms of adjectives and I wouldnt've been able to say a thing.

Yes it was second nature, but I forgot the rules, I didn't use grammar at all, it was such a shock when I was getting moaned at on these boards about my language, because I always thought it was better than most peoples, I NEVER used an apostrophe, for about 5/6 years, seriously.

English is dumbing down, whether you want to admit it or not, I can still see people fighting the corner for English and it's reasons but IMHO it's someone who doesn't want to admit it, who will have an opposite view to mine.

The arrogance of people in English speaking countries about "Everyone learn English, and we'll never learn another language, there is no point" is why, I believe, that language is failing because they haven't looked at how fundamental, propper use of language is.

That's my two pence


----------



## Magmod

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Try translating saudade from Português to English in less than a paragraph.
> This would tell us that there is no need for languages to borrow from one another


Hi
 According to the WR dictionary saudade = nostalgia. If due to its usage there is a necessity to borrow saudade into English, then it will be incorporated in the next issue of the Oxford Dictionary  

 There is no human idea that can’t be incorporated exactly, one way or another into English. This includes saudade. This is because English is the newest of the European languages and most advanced in its grammar and form. 

 How long will it take for the German, French, and Spanish etc. to get rid officially of their illogical grammar and complicated structures? This defines the period of how far these languages are behind English. People’s resistance to change is unimaginable  

Complexity in grammar is like foam in a river. It is produced by obstacles, which break the smoothly flowing current  

Regards


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Magmod,
There is a borrowing from French that fits your point labelled with the green arrow.  Naïveté 

Many dictionaries give short and direct translations. And, they are wrong. The word in question means something rather different. The brief EN translations miss most of the nuance. The translations are not exact. 

Your optimism that EN can express any and all ideas, from whaterver language, may, in fact, be correct. Maybe not.
I can only go by the languages I know. In any event, the relative newness of EN is an illogical explanation for the claim you make. Spanglish is newer, as is Portuñol. Thus, by your reasoning, they are more apt to accommodate any and all ideas, regardless of source language. 

What yardstick did you apply before coming up with this bit of arrogance?   " how far these languages are behind English
"


			
				Magmod said:
			
		

> Hi
> According to the WR dictionary saudade = nostalgia. If due to its usage there is a necessity to borrow saudade into English, then it will be incorporated in the next issue of the Oxford Dictionary
> 
> There is no human idea that can’t be incorporated exactly, one way or another into English. This includes saudade. This is because English is the newest of the European languages and most advanced in its grammar and form.


----------



## nycphotography

the wickerman said:
			
		

> When I read French written at the time of Shakespeare it is in some cases only slightly more difficult to understand than English written at this time, such is the extent to which English has changed over the years.


 
At the time when it was written, wasn't Shakespeare considered rather racy, somewhat slangy, and not all that proper?

One thing I have determined from seeing the questions asked in the English Only forum is that, while English has been streadily simplifying over time grammatically, it has also been building layer on layer of subtle *nuance* of meaning depending on the tone, the word sequences, and the subtle meanings of words in combination and in context.

Maybe Humpty Dumpty should be the poster child for the new English language??


----------



## TimeHP

> There is nothing that is said in any language on this earth that cannot be expressed exactly in English. This shows the strength of English and its grammar




What you say it's true for all the languages I know and it shows nothing.  
If I'm not wrong in English doesn't exist a real future tense, does it? You had to create it by adding a modal verb...



> How long will it take for the German, French, and Spanish etc. to get rid officially of their illogical grammar and complicated structures?



Well, never, I hope.
English grammar is complicated as well. (Don't forget you have sentences like this:
_John's wife had been taught to behave in such a way that her parents would have as quiet a life as possible...)_
And sometimes rules of English grammar are more strict than those of other languages. In Italian we can omit the subject of the sentence, we can change the structure of the clause, we don't need to change the structure of the sentence if we ask a question...

Grammar rules help us to be more accurate and clear and to develop the ability to reason in an abstract way. 

Ciao


----------



## Fernando

I agree with TimeHP. No "Western" language is more difficult than English. For students from abroad, there are so many rules that our impression is that there are no rules at all. We have to learn all in a one-by-one basis.

Meanwhile, English have two or three inflexible, dictatorial laws that seems like a corset for Romanic language speakers: the adjective always goes before the name and the subject with the verb. Anyway we would like a few more rules. Learning English is a pain in the ****.

Said this, if it fits so many people I assume it has some advantages. Certainly it is true that you can express almost all in English ,which is very confortable to us and its word economy is fantastic (except when achieved by phrasal verbs).


----------



## Magmod

Hi
  English developed from Latin, Greek, French, German etc and got rid of 500 pages of illogical verb conjugations, 5,000 pages of stupid noun genders and probably 50,000 pages of grammar rules, if you were to consider every grammar case. Will that not make it superior to lesser developed languages? Eventhough English is new and made all these basic simplifications, there is no human thought that can’t be expressed precisely in English. It is not a case of being naïve as cuchuflete said  
 
  If a grammarian were to try to explain every case of the use of say "se" in Spanish and to avoid all its ambiguities, he will need at least 10 chapters. He will also need a chapter to explain the difference in meaning of putting an adjective before or after a noun plus learning all their “****” illogical conjugations   
 
 For the world domination of English one has to especially thank the Americans who again came to the rescue of English and made further simplifications.

Regards
 

 Complexity in grammar is like foam in a river. It is produced by obstacles, which break the smoothly flowing current


----------



## Fernando

Magmod, since I assume you are an English speaker I understand how you can think English is a "logical" (!!!!!!!!) language. Believe me if I say that no language is further from logic than English.

There is one motivation for English to be the present dominant language: the hegemony of UK in, say, 1850-1950 and US in 1950 to the present. It is OK to me, English is fair enough to me to communicate, but please, do not dare to say that English is "logic" or "more developed".


----------



## TimeHP

> English developed from Latin, Greek, French, German etc and got rid of 500 pages of illogical verb conjugations, 5,000 pages of stupid noun genders and probably 50,000 pages of grammar rules, if you were to consider every grammar case. Will that not make it superior to lesser developed languages?


 
I admit you're good at telling jokes.
I didn't know we were talking nonsense.  
If so you could like this link: http://www.egreeley.com/messages/335.html
Ciao


----------



## Aupick

People are confusing a lot of things in this thread, Magmod most of all, and it's really quite frustrating.

Grammar consists of a lot more than just morphology. Just because English has no genders, no adjectival agreements, and very few conjugations does not mean it doesn't have much grammar, or has simple grammar. When English ceased making the distinction between subject and object case, for example, it acquired a whole set of rules about word order. Other languages can put the object before the verb and the subject after if they want. English can't. (Except after 'hardly', 'rarely', 'seldom', etc., where inversion is required.) Where's the simplicity in that?

Languages are a bit like balloons: you squeeze in one place and they bulge elsewhere. English expresses through syntax and word order what lots of languages express through word endings, just as it expresses tenses through modals instead of through conjugations. Magmod might claim that modals are simpler than verb conjugations, but that's because he's English and the linguistic patterns that his brain learnt as a child have an easy time with modals and a hard time with conjugations. Our native language defines how we understand all languages. Speakers of other languages have a hard time with modals, and rightly so: they're a mess! If 'will' is supposed to be a marker of the future, why do we say things like 'Boys will be boys', which is a comment on the eternal nature of masculinity? If the future is supposed to be formed using 'will', how come 'I'm going to see a film tonight', 'I'm seeing a film tonight', 'tonight's film starts at 8 o'clock' and 'Eastwood is to make another film about boxing' are all forms of the future?! That's five ways to form the future. Where's the simplicity in that?

And to claim that English can express any idea in perfect clarity (with the implication that other languages can't) is pitifully naive and horrendously arrogant. Every now and then someone asks in the French forum how to translate 'fuite en avant'. The thread usually spawns a few dozen posts with great suggestions that are mostly inadequate. Yes, it's possible to work around these problems and eventually get one's point across, but what makes you think that's not true of other languages?

And, since you address English as a whole, why do you fail to recognise that English has one of the most challenging (ie irregular) systems of pronunciation? You seem not to have counted the thousands of 'stupid pages' of phonetic rules that exist for English where other languages can be summarised in a dozen.

Rant about Magmod aside, I still take issue with the notion of 'decline' in English grammar, which is such a loaded word. The language has changed because it's alive, as much for the good as for the bad, but it's harder to be aware of what's new that of what's disappeared. Did you know, for example, that passive forms of continuous tenses (eg 'a meeting is being held tonight...') are a nineteenth-century invention? So the number of tenses has actually increased over the years.

Another criticism I have is that 'decline' suggests there was a golden age of English grammar which has been lost, but such an age simply didn't exist. Some might say Shakespeare's English is a golden age, but people didn't speak like Shakespeare, even in the sixteenth century. At that time spelling was random (and therefore confusing), and grammatical rules such as forbidding double negatives had not yet been established, and all that led to a lot of confusion. That is after all why characters such as Lowth and Murray decided to 'clean up' the language with all their pedantic rules. But even in the nineteenth century, when these rules were taught, people didn't follow them. Certainly those who went to _grammar_ schools did, but that was only a small minority. The language surviving from that period is overwhelmingly 'standard' because the published word was dominated by a small minority, while the vast majority of English speakers had no outlet for their language, many not being able to write and most not being publishable. These days anyone can write and be published, as this forum proves. Speakers of non-standard English have a voice that they never had in the past, and we're finding that we make mistakes and follow deviant, non-standard patterns of grammar.

In the end, though, can't we just be happy that we have so many choices at our disposal. 'Whom' hasn't really been replaced by 'who'. It still exists in the language. But if in the past it had a grammatical role (marking the object case) these days it has a stylistic role. We can choose whether to say 'Who did you buy that book for?' or 'For whom the bell tolls' depending on what we want to express. Aren't such possibilities a bonus? If 'whom' was obligatory in all object cases, 'For whom the bell tolls' wouldn't sound nearly as awe-inspiring.


----------



## jimreilly

Well said, Aupick, and the variety available to us is a great treasure, altough sometimes as confusing as one of those giant supermarkets with too many choices! And it is a struggle for my friends who are learning English to deal with pronunciation, modals, and quite a few other things....


----------



## cuchuflete

Bravo Aupick!  You have debunked more than a few false premises and conclusions free of logic.

I just enjoyed a short tract by Henry Fowler, in which he adeptly skewered the enemies of the split infinitive. He praised--or was he condemning?--American preservation of grammatical forms which had, in the early twentieth century, become obsolete in BE. Was this _saudade_? I doubt it.
Nor was it nostalgia, which is a rather different matter.


----------



## felicia

jimreilly said:
			
		

> I'm not sure anyone having to learn English (such as a West African friend of mine) would think English simple compared to other languages, including French.
> 
> I think the best way to describe at least some of what has happened is just to say the language has changed, not that it has deteriorated or gotten more simple. Languages change for many reasons, and English is not the only language to have experience rapid change in the last 100 years (take a look at Norwegian, for example).
> 
> I, like many people, find some of the changes disconcerting, but I can bring myself down to earth a bit by asking some questions. Would I really miss "whom" if it had never existed? No. Would I really miss the subjunctive? No. I wouldn't miss it if it were to cease to exist in French, either, and speakers of French sometimes neglect to use it when they "should". Yes, even native French speakers make mistakes when they use or do not use the subjunctive!
> 
> For that matter, if English verbs didn't even change endings depending on the person of the subject (e.g. I am, you are, he is, etc.) and were like Norwegian (jeg er, du er, han er, etc.) or some other languages, would I mind? Of course I would, but only because I'm used to English as it is. Norwegians don't seem to mind at all.
> 
> It's a mistake to think of a language at a certain point in history as a logical, good system, one that would be ruined if it were to "deteriorate".
> 
> Change is one sign of vitality and creativity, too. Or, at least, sometimes it is. Some of my friends who speak with far from standard grammar nevertheless have and use a language filled with vitality and creativity. They rarely fail to communicate what they mean to say, and they sometimes do it far more vividly than I do.
> 
> Change is also hard to accept. Or, at least, sometimes it is.


We  Norwegians get something of a shock when we discover that verbs which are simply conjugated in Norsk like jeg er, du er, han er, etc. (I am, you are, etc) have to be conjugated in first, second and third persons, both singular and plural, in most of the European languages.  But we learn...!


----------



## Residente Calle 13

OMG! It's happening in France too! Pretty soon, we will reduced to moans and grunts! The End is near!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1235401.stm


----------



## felicia

Magmod said:
			
		

> Hi
> English developed from Latin, Greek, French, German etc and got rid of 500 pages of illogical verb conjugations, 5,000 pages of stupid noun genders and probably 50,000 pages of grammar rules, if you were to consider every grammar case. Will that not make it superior to lesser developed languages? Eventhough English is new and made all these basic simplifications, there is no human thought that can’t be expressed precisely in English. It is not a case of being naïve as cuchuflete said
> 
> If a grammarian were to try to explain every case of the use of say "se" in Spanish and to avoid all its ambiguities, he will need at least 10 chapters. He will also need a chapter to explain the difference in meaning of putting an adjective before or after a noun plus learning all their “****” illogical conjugations
> 
> For the world domination of English one has to especially thank the Americans who again came to the rescue of English and made further simplifications.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Complexity in grammar is like foam in a river. It is produced by obstacles, which break the smoothly flowing current


Oh dear, oh DEAR!!! "To the rescue...!!!? And (some of) the English deplore the use of Americanisms in British English that seem (according to them) to foul up the language!  Aand here we are not talking of grammar.The infiltration of American English into British English started with the onset of US films, and some of todays underthirty British don't even know what is British-or American English!.   Brits write "honour, colour, night" but I have seen Britishers write "honor, color, nite"...in the belief that this is British English.  But regarding the history of the American English it's a wonder that the English language survived at all.  I'm thinking of all the foreign tongues that immigrants from all over the world brought with them,including my countrymen,  and made the American language what it is today.   In Norway we are taught both British and American English, and both languages are regarded as equal.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Here's in interesting article which (or that?) addresses the issue of American English fouling up the English language:

http://www.pbs.org/speak/ahead/change/ruining/


----------



## la reine victoria

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> OMG! It's happening in France too! Pretty soon, we will reduced to moans and grunts! The End is near!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1235401.stm


 


Isn't it shocking, Residente?  It's up to us to see that high standards are maintained, otherwise the whole world is doomed.

LET OUR GRAMMAR NOT DECLINE!


LRV


----------



## maxiogee

Magmod said:
			
		

> There is nothing that is said in any language on this earth that cannot be expressed exactly in English



Oh come on! 
Isn't that a rather arrogant statement for an English-speaker to make?

Can the nuances of double-meanings in other languages be expressed in English? Can a German pun be translated… or a French crossword clue… or an Irish allegorical poem?


----------



## comsci

I second Maxi and those who hold the same idea.  If you happen to know any other languages(put aside Western ones for a moment), and I DO wish, you would know that it's nearly impossible(if ever) to translate(maybe to transliterate) or express EXACTLY the words of say Confucius or any other figures that you guys are not that accustomed to.  So please or at least try not to be SO arrogant or cocky or should I say competent in your speech when you're diving for the extreme or the impeccable absolute, which I doubt if any.  By doing this, you're also paying tribute and respect for other cultures that may have survived much longer than the existence of the English language itself.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Isn't it shocking, Residente?  It's up to us to see that high standards are maintained, otherwise the whole world is doomed.
> 
> LET OUR GRAMMAR NOT DECLINE!
> 
> 
> LRV


Yes! It's quite shocking! The sky is most definitely falling! In a few years, we shall all become deaf and mute! The end of all language on Earth! Oh my!


----------



## panjandrum

Sorry to interrupt, but working from the original (ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee),
... the alternative to:
*For whom the bell tolls,*
... wouldn't be:
_*For who the bell tolls,*_
... but:
*Who's that bell ringing for.*

Here is the complete version.
_*Who's that bell ringing for?  *_
_*Don't ask.  *_
_*It's you!!*_


----------



## maxiogee

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Sorry to interrupt, but working from the original (ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee),


I think the correct expression is "Homer nods"  

"and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."


----------



## cuchuflete

If a clod be washed away...

Been there, Donne that.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If a clod be washed away...
> 
> Been there, Donne that.



 It'll take more than washing to get rid of _this_ clod!


----------



## Magmod

> Just because English has no genders, no adjectival agreements, and very few conjugations does not mean it doesn't have much grammar, or has simple grammar. When English ceased making the distinction between subject and object case, for example, it acquired a whole set of rules about word order. Other languages can put the object before the verb and the subject after if they want. English can't. (Except after 'hardly', 'rarely', 'seldom', etc., where inversion is required.) Where's the simplicity in that?


Hi Aupick
These are some of the simplifications that make English a great language, and in my objective way of thinking superior to others.
One accent in Spanish and the whole Spanish speakers are in disarray and that is a simplification on the numerous French accents 
You mentioned some adverbs and I like to give a simple example on the strength of English with adverbs:
 I gave this advice to you.
Only I gave this advice to you.
I only gave this advice to you.
I gave only this advice to you.
I gave this only advice to you.
I gave this advice only to you.
I gave this advice to only you.
I gave this advice to you only.
 Thus only emphasised the word after it with such simplicity and gave different shades of meaning to a simple sentence.



> Languages are a bit like balloons: you squeeze in one place and they bulge elsewhere. English expresses through syntax and word order what lots of languages express through word endings, just as it expresses tenses through modals instead of through conjugations. Magmod might claim that modals are simpler than verb conjugations, but that's because he's English and the linguistic patterns that his brain learnt as a child have an easy time with modals and a hard time with conjugations. Our native language defines how we understand all languages. Speakers of other languages have a hard time with modals, and rightly so: they're a mess! ?


 
English has pricked your balloon with a big bang  
My mother tongue is not English, but I am objective  I was brought up with silly grammar rules, conjugations, such rules that will make you go mad etc. My mother tongue is a major world language spoken by over 200 million people in over 20 countries i.e. not like Spangish spoken by a few as a mother tongue in some corner near Mexico.



> If 'will' is supposed to be a marker of the future, why do we say things like 'Boys will be boys', which is a comment on the eternal nature of masculinity? ?


Boys will be boys = juvenile behaviour must be tolerated. It is not a comment on bla bla bla  



> If the future is supposed to be formed using 'will', how come 'I'm going to see a film tonight', 'I'm seeing a film tonight', 'tonight's film starts at 8 o'clock' and 'Eastwood is to make another film about boxing' are all forms of the future?! That's five ways to form the future. Where's the simplicity in that? ?


Your supposition about will is only partially correct.


> And to claim that English can express any idea in perfect clarity (with the implication that other languages can't) is pitifully naive and horrendously arrogant. Every now and then someone asks in the French forum how to translate


With its massive simplication in grammar, there is no human thought that can't be expressed in English.



> 'fuite en avant'. The thread usually spawns a few dozen posts with great suggestions that are mostly inadequate. Yes, it's possible to work around these problems and eventually get one's point across, but what makes you think that's not true of other languages? ?


With that big bang to your balloon, English has got rid of 50,000 pages of stupid grammar rules.
If I assume that you are French, please tell me why can’t your language find a word for eighty or ninety  



> And, since you address English as a whole, why do you fail to recognise that English has one of the most challenging (ie irregular) systems of pronunciation? You seem not to have counted the thousands of 'stupid pages' of phonetic rules that exist for English where other languages can be summarised in a dozen ?


Pronunciation is not part of grammar rules. The Americans have simplified pronunciation  

Regards


----------



## Korena

I also think that English grammar is becoming more simplified over the years, but that doesn't mean it's a simple language to learn! I've had many people tell me that English is actually a very confusing and difficult language!

-Korena


----------



## Aupick

Magmod said:
			
		

> You mentioned some adverbs and I like to give a simple example on the strength of English with adverbs:
> I gave this advice to you.
> Only I gave this advice to you.
> I only gave this advice to you.
> I gave only this advice to you.
> I gave this only advice to you.
> I gave this advice only to you.
> I gave this advice to only you.
> I gave this advice to you only.
> Thus only emphasised the word after it with such simplicity and gave different shades of meaning to a simple sentence.




I like your diagram of the adverb only. It's pretty and tidy, and the orange diagonal is very dynamic, but I hope you don't think this is how _only_ functions in normal English. You would be doing a big disservice to any learners of English you handed this to. I'm not sure I can explain the rules governing the placement of _only_ myself, and there wouldn't be space here if I could, so please bear with me as I try to use your example to show that English grammar -- in this case and generally -- is a lot more complicated than you seem to imagine.

Problem 1: You say that _only_ “emphasises the word after it” (“with such simplicity”), yet in the last sentence you give, there is no word after it. The sentence is valid, so what does _only_ qualify?  It sounds like there are exceptions to your rule that you need to justify.

Problem 2: In the third to last sentence, _only_ is followed by "to". Do you really believe it qualifies "to"? In other words, do you understand the sentence to mean "I didn't give this advice _from_ you or _with_ you or _under_ you, but only _to_ you"? I don't, and I suspect I'm not alone. To me, _only_ qualifies _you_, which comes _two_ words later.

Funnily enough, in the last sentence _only_ also qualifies _you_ even though it comes before it. In fact _only_ qualifies _you_ in all of the last three sentences. But the only one in which _only_ precedes _you_, thereby following your rule, is a sentence that I wouldn't say myself because it sounds ungrammatical. I think you need to add a few pages back into your English grammar to explain all these exceptions.

Problem 3: One of the sentences you wrote is incorrect ("...this only advice..."). Why? It follows your rule perfectly, but there are other rules, no doubt included in those 50,000 pages you’ve thrown out, that prevent you from saying this. And at that point how _do_ you emphasise “advice”?

Problem 4: Sentence 2, “I only gave this advice to you”, can mean exactly the same as any one of the other sentences except the first. This is what the majority of English speakers would say, and many would write, whatever they want to qualify with _only_. In fact it’s unlikely that _only_ would ever qualify “gave”, as your rule would state. So how do we know what _only_ is referring to? In spoken English we use intonation to direct _only_ to its target, saying either “I only gave _this_ advice to you” or “I only gave this advice to _you_” or whatever else, according what we want to say -- which goes to show that, despite your claims to the contrary, pronunciation _is_ sometimes part of grammar rules. Intonation is even enough to change _only_’s part of speech: in the first sentence we would presumably raise our voices when pronouncing the following _I_ (“Only *I* gave this advice to you”). If you don’t raise your voice when pronouncing the _I_, _only_ becomes a conjunction and the sentence comes to mean “Except that I gave you this advice to you”, “It’s just that I gave this advice to you” (along the lines of “I would have a coffee with you, only I’m running late today”). This time, we’re squeezing the word order part of the balloon, and the intonation end of it bulges.

It’s not that your rule is wrong and should be discarded. There’s a lot of truth to it, but a lot of exceptions too, and describing these would require several pages. When it comes down to it, there are two systems for determining the meaning of _only_ in a sentence (word order and intonation), each with its set of rules and exceptions. Having two systems is definitely not simple. And all this is just for the one adverb _only_. It’s pretty clear that other adverbs have their rules, too, as the different behaviour of the near synonyms _also_, _too_, and _as well_ shows. The following are valid positions for each of them. Borderline cases are in parentheses:

Also, I gave this advice to you. > also refers to the whole sentence
I also gave this advice to you. > also refers to _I_ or to _this advice_ or to _you_
I gave this advice also to you. > also refers to _this advice_ or to _you_
I gave this advice to you also. > also refers to _you_

I,too, gave this advice to you. > too refers to _I_
(I gave this advice, too, to you.) > too refers to _this advice_
I gave this advice to you too. > too refers to _you_

(I gave this advice as well to you.) > as well refers to _this advice_
I gave this advice to you as well. > as well refers to _I_ or _this advice_ or _you_

What are the rules that you infer from these patterns? Why can _also_ appear in four different positions in the sentence, _too_ in two and a half positions, and _as well_ in one and a half? Why is the referent of _also_ ambiguous in two cases but not all four? Why is the referent of _as well_ ambiguous? Why, in contrast, is the referent of _too_ perfectly clear? Why is _also_ followed by a comma in the first example but not in the other? Why is _too_ surrounded by commas in the first two cases but not the third? Why are there no commas around _as well_? And what intonation patterns would you use to pronounce each sentence?

I hate to be this boring, but demonstrating that grammar is finicky and complicated is a little more tedious that “demonstrating” that it’s simple.


----------



## Aupick

Magmod said:
			
		

> Your supposition about will is only partially correct.


That was my point entirely.  

Will has many more functions than simply indicating the future, and each one requires pages and pages to describe fully. Here are just a few examples:
- I will buy a new car next year. > will = future
- Boys will be boys. > will = eternal characteristic
- Their plane will be landing right now > will = supposition
- Will you marry me? > will = want, be willing



			
				Magmod said:
			
		

> If I assume that you are French, please tell me why can't your language find a word for eighty or ninety


Don’t worry, I’m not going to defend French numbers.  Suffice it to say that French people have no more difficulty at maths than people from anywhere else. (I’m not French, as the top right corner of this post shows.) 

Basically, what you say about English (“there is no human thought that can't be expressed in English”) is applicable to all languages. I don’t know why you assume that other languages are incapable of the same “human thoughts”. Each language has different ways of expressing things and in the end they’re as good as each other, although we might have individual preferences because of our native language, because of our background, and because our brains work differently. What seems simple to one person might be massively complicated to someone from another culture. I find Polish incredibly difficult because so much is expressed by word endings, which I’m not used to, but my extended family includes several people from Poland who, despite living in the US for a couple of decades, cannot master English articles, because there are no articles in Polish. Polish is a lot simpler for them because of this. But not for me. But nor do I claim that English is simpler or better than Polish just because it's easier for me. Trying to teach or explain English to other people has taught me that much.


			
				Magmod said:
			
		

> Pronunciation is not part of grammar rules. The Americans have simplified pronunciation


Er... I’ll look forward to your demonstration of this in another thread.


----------



## Markus

Magmod said:
			
		

> These are some of the simplifications that make English a great language, and in my objective way of thinking superior to others.



Is it really possible to declare oneself objective? Anyway, I totally disagree with your conclusions, but that's my subjective point of view.


----------



## maxiogee

Markus said:
			
		

> Is it really possible to declare oneself objective?



Good Question!!
A local newspaper in a part of Northern Ireland is called "*The Impartial Reporter*", and has been for over 200 years.
You may be assured that its impartiality was, for many years, more imagined than actual.


----------



## cuchuflete

magmod said:
			
		

> One accent in Spanish and the whole Spanish speakers are in disarray


The writer of this claim needs a few pages of grammar to explain it, linguistically.  It is a false statement, but that is a matter of logic, rather than grammar.


----------



## fenixpollo

Magmod said:
			
		

> My mother tongue is not English, but I am objective.


 If your mother tongue is not English, why do you show English as your native language at the top of your posts?


			
				Magmod said:
			
		

> I was brought up with silly grammar rules, conjugations, such rules that will make you go mad etc.My mother tongue is a major world language spoken by over 200 million people in over 20 countries i.e. not like Spangish spoken by a few as a mother tongue in some corner near Mexico.


 It sounds like you are confusing "lack of conjugation charts" for "simplicity". English makes up for its lack of conjugation complexity with lots of other "silly grammar rules".

Who are you trying to insult with that crack about Spanglish being spoken "in some corner near Mexico"?

I'm not trying to gang up on you, but elitism tends to elicit a strong response:





			
				Magmod said:
			
		

> ... that make English a great language, and in my objective way of thinking superior to others.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Originally Posted by *Magmod*
> _... that make English a great language, and in my objective way of thinking superior to others_


 

Yes. I agree with Fenixpollo. What makes you think that English is superior to other languages? Which language would you consider to be the most inferior in the world?

Any language is precious to its native speakers. Language is the channel by which we communicate. The reason for English being so widely spoken goes back to the days of Empire and Colonialism.  That doesn't make it a superior language.


LRV


----------



## maxiogee

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Which language would you consider to be the most inferior in the world?



I think Cornish is feeling pretty sorry for itself!


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> If your mother tongue is not English, why do you show English as your native language at the top of your posts?


I think some forum users write down the language they're learning in their profile.

P.S. Or perhaps, in this case, the language they use the most often in their everyday life.


----------



## Magmod

> Is it really possible to declare oneself objective? Anyway, I totally disagree with your conclusions, but that's my subjective point of view.


If you think objectively i.e. without your subjective point of view, what language is superior to others?  
You are objective if you have a scientific mind. The happy man is the man who lives objectively, who has free affections and wide interests.

It had been a shock that: 
(a) The earth revolves round the sun and the whole universe does not revolve round our infinitely insignificant planet.
(b) Every one of us 100,000 years ago had a chimpanzee ancestor in Africa
(c) English is best…The list is infinite. 

 Only the scientific objective brain uncovered the truth
 Admit to yourself every day at least one painful truth. If that is difficult, as is the case with those people who disagree with me, then let us know what is the next superior language after say your mother tongue? Please don’t declare that crab that there is no such thing as one language better than another   

 Without comparing your mother tongue with English, what conclusions do you disagree with?  

Regards


----------



## Fernando

Scientific fact: You have derailed this thread. 

Anyway, you are right. English have been flexible enough to adapt words from other languages (specially, French). OBVIOUS and CHAUVINISM are good examples.


----------



## Magmod

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> What makes you think that English is superior to other languages?


Hi Your Majesty
 Not long ago, people in Rome used to think their precious city was the centre of the earth  
If only they admitted to themselves one painful truth by thinking objectively.
Regards


----------



## cuchuflete

Whether or not English grammar has improved or declined, logic seems to follow old rules:  Making an assertion, and then repeating it over and over again, does not constitute proof of anything but stubbornness.

If someone has knowledge of a few languages, and knows little or nothing about thousands of others, and makes sweeping assertions about the superiority of one over all others, that is "proof" that the proximity of the chimp in some lineages is greater than in others.


----------



## Outsider

Magmod said:
			
		

> Not along ago, people in Rome used to think their precious city was the centre of the earth
> If only they admitted to themselves one painful truth by thinking objectively.


So it was London all along, instead?


----------



## GenJen54

Hmmm....

Objective = Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Subjective = The best.

"English is the best language" is NOT an OBJECTIVE statement. 

Please hang up and try your call again.


----------



## Fernando

Am I the only one that thinks that this (well-aimed) thread have derailed?

Could any mod open the following threads:

- Is English the best language? It is a legitimate discussion.
- Is Magmodcity the center of the world?  (Kidding, no offense intended)


----------



## Magmod

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Hmmm....
> 
> Objective = Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
> 
> Subjective = The best.
> 
> "English is the best language" is NOT an OBJECTIVE statement.
> 
> Please hang up and try your call again.


Hi
 You need a scientific mind to be objective. From the data available one makes an objective conclusion. 

 For example, a famous scientist concluded that smoking is harmful 

Regards


----------



## cuchuflete

*Enough!* Following Fernando's fine advice, any further posts that do not address the original thread topic will be deleted, even if offered with total and absolute objectivity.

This is a Moderator notice.  
Thanks to all.
Cuchuflete


----------



## yojan

Like all languages, ever eixisted, they evolve. English in paricular, resulting from its globality due to the american and british influences, undergo constant evolution. 

The title ''Decline of English Grammar'' is therefore in my opinion innacurate. Language is not invented and is ever present as a major part of human culture. And grammar, is present only to CONTAIN this language instead of creating it. 

Grammar changes as language does in order to tell what is ''gramtically correct'' so that it can be used in literature, speaking etc.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

yojan said:
			
		

> Like all languages, ever eixisted, they evolve. English in paricular, resulting from its globality due to the american and british influences, undergo constant evolution.
> 
> The title ''Decline of English Grammar'' is therefore in my opinion innacurate. Language is not invented and is ever present as a major part of human culture. And grammar, is present only to CONTAIN this language instead of creating it.
> 
> Grammar changes as language does in order to tell what is ''gramtically correct'' so that it can be used in literature, speaking etc.



It used to be that *"My house is being painted."* was considered horrible English. The correct version of that sentence was *"My house is painting."* which to English speakers today sounds like somebody who had a stroke said it. I forget the justification. It might be as retarded as the silly aversion to splitting infinitives or double negatives.

But people said and wrote *"My house is being painted."* much to the horror and dismay of the purists who said English was...I think I just ran out of metaphors for "English Grammar is in decline."

But if English Grammar is in decline, so be it. I can only wish it a quick and painless death. Better sooner than later. Why let this thing drag on forever?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Here's more stuff on how English is being torn to pieces by lazy and illogical speakers. It's been happening since...

Well, you read and make up your own mind. I can't stay in this room for very long; it's painting.

http://www.bartleby.com/224/1504.html


----------



## Dr. Fumbles

the wickerman said:


> Why is it that while most the grammatical rules of English have deteriorated so much over the past few centuries when compared to other European languages? For example, English used to respect the t-v distinction (having thou/thee and ye/you). The subjective and objective cases almost seem to be merged when hardly anyone uses the word "whom" any more (except in very formal communication).
> 
> To give a more extreme example, my school French teacher was teaching us the subjunctive mood in class last year and started off by claiming that the subjunctive "doesn't exist in English"! Of course it does, but so few people ever use it any more that even this well-educated linguist didn't realise it.
> 
> There are countless other examples of how English grammar has decayed that are too trivial to list here. When I read French written at the time of Shakespeare it is in some cases only slightly more difficult to understand than English written at this time, such is the extent to which English has changed over the years. Even though all languages evolve over time, is there any reason why English should change so much compared to other languages?



Creole answers the whole change issue.  i see way too many french grammatical elements to not say that english aint a creole.  Aenglisc was English, it mixed with francien (french) and produce a pidgin, which then evolved into the creole known as middle english, then continued to evolve and solidify into modern english.  Yes old english was in a state of simplification, but no where near the simplification of middle english.

it's my beliefe that there was an unrecorded pidgin between old and middle english:


Prolonged, regular contact between the different language communities (french takin over england)
A need to communicate between them (french soldiers marring english women)
An absence of (or absence of widespread proficiency in) a widespread, accessible interlanguage(children had to communicate somehow, think of how spanglish is, code switching or severly mixing both lnaguages)
Then again, middle english could be that pidgin.
At least thats how i look at it, draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Frank06

Dr. Fumbles said:


> Creole answers the whole change issue.


We have a thread called "Is English a creole?". It's certainly not the mainstream view among Anglicists. See, for example, excellent posts on the issue here, here and here, all summarising the problmes surrounding the alleged "English, the creole".

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Dr. Fumbles

Frank06 said:


> We have a thread called "Is English a creole?". It's certainly not the mainstream view among Anglicists. See, for example, excellent posts on the issue here, here and here, all summarising the problmes surrounding the alleged "English, the creole".
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank




Thanks i'll look into it.

It's just, to me, it seems like a lot of things tell me that English is a creole, but i'm open to evidence saying otherwise but as for now, that's what the evidence shows me.  I say at the very least, it's a mixed language.


----------



## Δημήτρης

I didn't know that the whole "Our language is in decline" thing existed in other language communities (we have lots of people here saying stuff like "Finis Graeciae" when even the smallest language change goes mainstream).

English inevitably changes, as all living languages do. That's actually something to be happy about. If no changes occur, it would mean that English is a dead language.
English verbs and nouns might lost most of their inflectional endings but it seems to me that new ways to express the same thing as before were developed at the same time. I don't thing anything can go wrong when you leave the language evolve on it's own. There are some universal rules, limits that made an utterance non-sense if violated, and these rules are far more broad that prescriptive grammar rules.

I am actually a bit envious of English. It generally accepts new words and syntax patterns more easily than Greek (the English speaking population is more diverse than Greek's, I think that's the main reason).


----------



## jimreilly

I wonder what languages _don't _have the "our language is in decline" thing!


----------



## Frank06

jimreilly said:


> I wonder what languages _don't _have the "our language is in decline" thing!


Language decline, which I do understand as "people complaining that language X declines" rather than a language actually "declining", is probably one generation younger than language itself.

By the way, I always wondered what "decline" in this context could mean. And when a language manages to be in a "state of decline" for a few thousands of years, then I do think something else is going on . 

Frank


----------



## irinet

Wow! I am a non-native English speaker and I want to assure you that teaching English in my country has become serious in private rather than in public schools. Many people consider that they can learn English from the Internet (which has a bad influence on English nowadays). It's maybe the same with the English speakers. There is a tendency (esp. with the younger generation) to mix everything: text messaging with oral communication, industries blend: phones-Iphones, IPODS tunes (music industry), marketing, car industry, banking system, people communicate faster, not necessarily better. Under these circumstances, words and rules of using them are continuosly changing. 

I can see complaints about not learning enough grammar in schools. In my country, we  have had too much of it (I mean Romanian grammar)! I don't agree to leave it aside, but I think that these generations need to understand the basics of present events occurring in any language, for instance, the presence of so many English words in my mother tongue. It's like living under a permanent 'linguistic' storm due to the birth and extremely fast growth of the new technologies in all domains. In my country, there is
 a gross difference in covering grammar of the 70's up to now. It was taught simpler. And English was taught better than now.


----------



## Ironicus

There are 3 components to any language: the sound system, the grammatical patterns, and the stock of words. For a language to exist and persist, these may be allowed to vary, but within limits. As soon as the variations start to interfere with meaning, we can say the language has deteriorated. This will be an objective statement, because it is now less fit for purpose than it used to be.
The components of the language should be taught to everyone using it: you can't simply wish that everyone starting in first grade knows all he needs to know about it. So you need to teach the sound system, the grammar, and the vocabulary.
Now, taking American English, we find a marked deterioration in the sound system over the last two decades or so. This came about because of the influence of CNN, at first, where they decided deliberately to use a Midwest accent to be comprehensible, as they thought, to the majority of Americans. The result is a marked decline particularly in the vowel sounds of AE.
Also in AE, as has been noted, schools no longer teach grammar, so students are left to make it up as they go along, with predictably awful results. And imagine trying to teach a child who has absolutely no concept of grammar a foreign language!
Vocabulary has suffered too. While we have many more nouns for concrete things - because we have many more concrete things - we have added only a handful of verbs, while dropping almost the whole class of adverbs and retaining only two adjectives -_ cool _and _gross_. Or so it seems to a detached observer! And we have lost many abstract nouns, in parallel with the loss of the power of abstraction.
If you think this is a harsh evaluation, just get yourself an old Hitchcock movie - without subtitles - and compare it with a modern piece of trash from Hollywood. You would be forgiven for thinking that Americans of 50 years ago did not speak AE. 
Language is much more than a tool of  communication, and it communicates much more than can be put into pictures. It informs, controls, and directs thought. It is the one art form instantly available to everyone. It should be something we nurture and cherish and delight in, instead of something we want to reduce to the simplest sequence of grunts necessary to convey our desire to get an iPad and log on to Facebook. 
I think it can be demonstrated that the utter banality of American public discourse, where the clowns running for election would have been laughed off the platform a generation or two ago, is the result of the dumbing down of the American people and the American language. The only solution is to set up an academy to preserve (without pickling) the language, and appoint evangelists to go into all the schools to teach people how to speak, and therefore how to think, and how to conduct themselves in a civilized world. Perhaps there is still time!


----------



## RM1(SS)

Moogey said:


> In the US, they've stopped teaching grammar in public schools.





fenixpollo said:


> I find myself agreeing with this gross overgeneralization.  There was a sea change in the American and British school systems that occurred in the 1960's, which you can simply intuit if you talk to people who went to elementary school in the 50's and compare their experience with those who went to elementary school in the 70's.  Hell, they even stopped calling elementary school "grammar school"!  Hel*lo*!
> 
> Empirically, if you compare the curriculum and the texts from the 50's with those from the 70's and 80's, there are stark differences in which grammar is covered, how deeply, and at what age.



My daughter, who is currently in high school, has often complained about not having been taught grammar in school.  She has actually bought a couple of grammar books, and borrowed others from the library, so she could study the subject hrself.


----------



## Icetrance

RM1(SS) said:


> My daughter, who is currently in high school, has often complained about not having been taught grammar in school.  She has actually bought a couple of grammar books, and borrowed others from the library, so she could study the subject hrself.



^ a crying shame 

Grammar and punctuation are forms of heavy-duty glue for stringing our thoughts together (coherency + word significance) . It is very important, despite what you often here out of the mouths of "New Age" learning.  Just imagine reading a text with with no grammar and punctuation rules applied? 

At university, you will be expected to have mastered English grammar, apart from a few loose ends (maybe not in a community college). High school teachers are truly doing their students a great disservice, I'm afraid, in not pushing grammar down their little throats.

What are kids learning in high school and junior high these days?  How to make posts on Facebook in the most creative of ways?


----------



## Sepia

Residente Calle 13 said:


> It used to be that *"My house is being painted."* was considered horrible English. The correct version of that sentence was *"My house is painting."* which to English speakers today sounds like somebody who had a stroke said it. I forget the justification. It might be as retarded as the silly aversion to splitting infinitives or double negatives.
> 
> But people said and wrote *"My house is being painted."* much to the horror and dismay of the purists who said English was...I think I just ran out of metaphors for "English Grammar is in decline."
> 
> But if English Grammar is in decline, so be it. I can only wish it a quick and painless death. Better sooner than later. Why let this thing drag on forever?



Ich cannot really understand how anybody could understand the verb in "my house is painting"  as passive tense. Is that something that has "survived" since the times when there was a "real" passive tense in English - I mean without having to use the auxiliary verb "to be"? In Icelandic which has a lot of similarity with OE, verbs have active and passive tenses. Even Danish, which has had its grammar simplified in a similar way as English has, includes a passive tense not always needing any auxiliary verb.


----------



## Sepia

Frank06 said:


> Language decline, which I do understand as "people complaining that language X declines" rather than a language actually "declining", is probably one generation younger than language itself.
> 
> By the way, I always wondered what "decline" in this context could mean. And when a language manages to be in a "state of decline" for a few thousands of years, then I do think something else is going on .
> 
> Frank



I'll give you a hint as to what it could mean: I could mean a decline in the ability to express complex matters in that language. I think that English has compensated a lot by adding more vocabulary. When you translate High German into Danish or English you'll discover that advantage. Something may be expressed in a way that exploits the possibilities that a complex grammar - and higher freedom to make compound words - offers you and it may still be easy to express exactly the same in English because you have a larger vocabulary. And in Danish? You often have to choose between making very odd phrases. Or try to spread the same info in several phrases (which again alters the style of the text). Or you have to throw some of the info in the source text overboard and try to maintain the style and the flow of the original.


----------



## Ёж!

Hi,


Sepia said:


> Ich cannot really understand how anybody could understand the verb in "my house is painting"  as passive tense.


Why do you mean the passive tense here? In my view, this is pretty similar to the modern 'I closed the door' vs 'the door closed'. Not exactly the passive tense, rather the latter phrase points that there was some closing, and so we infer the rest (that somebody closed the door, or maybe that it closed by itself). Why not?


> I could mean a decline in the ability to express complex matters in that language.


And simple matters as well.


----------



## Sepia

Ёж! said:


> Hi,
> 
> Why do you mean the passive tense here? In my view, this is pretty similar to the modern 'I closed the door' vs 'the door closed'. Not exactly the passive tense, rather the latter phrase points that there was some closing, and so we infer the rest (that somebody closed the door, or maybe that it closed by itself). Why not?
> 
> And simple matters as well.



Well, doors actually do seem to close by themselves - being moved by the wind or by mechanical devices. So "the door closed" surely is not passive. Not even visually. You actually see the door moving, while it happens.

 Houses don't paint themselves, do they? Neither do they paint anything else. So when I want to put the focus on the fact something is happening to my house and not on the fact that somebody is actually doing something, I need a passive tense.
Like "my house is being painted". In Danish I would have two possibilities. One basically like the modern English construcition and one using the main verb in a passive tense (which does not exist any more in English). But "the house is painting"! Would YOU understand that as a passive tense. I surely would not and therfore I am asking if, or rather when the ending marking it as passive tense, was lost?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I heard an example of this only a few days ago on a US TV show discussing the situation in Oklahoma after the huge tornado that ripped through there causing all that damage. It was reported that "The city is rebuilding" or here is another example after Hurricane Katrina. There are still vestiges of the usage you're talking about but it is no longer normal at all, but it's extremely well written about in books on the history of English and it's often toted as one of the more recent syntactic changes to take place in English (only been a couple of centuries old).

"My house is being built" used to be ridiculed and nearly all the major contemporaries writing about proper English uses basically spat on it as an unworthy horrible innovation. Then it took hold and became standard. I don't know what you mean about the 'ending' but it's just an interpretation of the tense. Basically, it had an unaccusative (i.e. subject undergoes action of verb) reading before a switch to only accepting an agentive reading was possible (when people started adding reflexive pronouns to correctly add in a correct object as well).

You might want to check this paper out.
If you're more like me and prefer podcasts then you can access one from this page, which details the history of the construction and all sorts of interesting details that relate to it.


----------



## Judica

yojan said:


> Like all languages, ever eixisted, they evolve. English in paricular, resulting from its globality due to the american and british influences, undergo constant evolution.
> 
> The title ''Decline of English Grammar'' is therefore in my opinion innacurate. Language is not invented and is ever present as a major part of human culture. And grammar, is present only to CONTAIN this language instead of creating it.
> 
> Grammar changes as language does in order to tell what is ''gramtically correct'' so that it can be used in literature, speaking etc.



I agree. No language remains the same or else all English speakers would still be using Norse. Also, young people tend to take a language and 'make it their own'; so to speak. Grammar is only the *agreed upon* confines for a particular language.  

US (AE) English grammar constantly evolves due to the addition of words, phrases, and colloquialisms from it's many citizens who are from all over the world.


----------



## funnyhat

It's been noted here and elsewhere that there seems to be a tendency in languages to "simplify" to become more analytic.  For me this raises the question: why were ancient languages so complex?  Did Classical Latin, in turn, derive from a language with even more declensions and such?


----------



## Nino83

As far as I know Middle English and Vulgar Latin lost declensions because the pronunciation changed. 
ME reduced all final vowels to [ə] and lost final /n/ so all weak nouns, neuter and feminine strong nouns had a lot of similar or identical terminations and the masculine strong nouns declesion became the general declesion. 
Vulgar Latin lost the difference between long and short vowels and lost the final /m/ and /s/ (in noun declesion). 
Other languages (as Slavic but also Icelandic) didn't have these changes and retained the case system.


----------



## olaszinho

I suppose you are referring to English morphology, which is rather simplified compared with other Indo-European languages, maybe apart from the Scandinavian languages (obviously I'm not including Icelandic and Faroese). On the other hand, English syntax is quite complicated, with a lot of nuances and intricacies ( use of articles, verb tenses, prepositions, phrasal verbs and so on).  In my humble opinion, as far as languages are concerned,  the easier morphology is, the harder the structure....As a consequence, English grammar is not declining, it is just changing into a deeply analytic tongue. Chinese, an isolating language, has no "grammar", but its syntax is so unpredictable.


----------



## Ёж!

funnyhat said:


> It's been noted here and elsewhere that there seems to be a tendency in languages to "simplify" to become more analytic.  For me this raises the question: why were ancient languages so complex?  Did Classical Latin, in turn, derive from a language with even more declensions and such?


  I think you need to conduct a really tough investigation to make such conclusions... For example, modern Chinese acquired the habit of using many polysyllabic words, which Ancient Chinese lacked (as far as I know); and some of the syllables are used like morphemes for various abstractions (scientific, common-life, institutional, etc). Is this about becoming more analytic?


----------



## More od Solzi

Alxmrphi said:


> I heard an example of this only a few days ago on a US TV show discussing the situation in Oklahoma after the huge tornado that ripped through there causing all that damage. It was reported that "The city is rebuilding" or here is another example after Hurricane Katrina. There are still vestiges of the usage you're talking about but it is no longer normal at all, but it's extremely well written about in books on the history of English and it's often toted as one of the more recent syntactic changes to take place in English (only been a couple of centuries old)..



_The city is rebulding, the house is renovating_ (19th century usage) is still present is some expressions_:  The film is releasing next Monday. _(instead o_f The film is being released next Monday; They are releasing the film next Monday_).
In Indian English, the current usage is>_ The film is releasing..._


----------



## franknagy

The English grammar is simple only at the first glance. Later you arrive at the stage that you understand the words one by one but you do not understand the sentence. The missing commas between subordinate clauses are awful, too. There is no visual aid to separate them.


----------



## merquiades

More od Solzi said:


> _The city is rebulding, the house is renovating_ (19th century usage) is still present is some expressions_:  The film is releasing next Monday. _(instead o_f The film is being released next Monday; They are releasing the film next Monday_).
> In Indian English, the current usage is>_ The film is releasing..._



I don't believe these structures are necessarily archaic.  "The city is rebuilding after the earthquake" is perfect.  It makes it sound more active, like a metaphor for everyone is coming together to rebuild.  It just depends on the context and what message you wish to convey.


----------



## Mishe

The whole debate about some languages being simpler than others is a silly one, in my opinion. It all really depends on the perspective. Slovenian, for instance, has 6 cases for nouns and adjectives, 3 grammatical genders, and 3 grammatical numbers (singular, dual, plural). It also has a bunch of declinations and conjugations. However, it only has 3 tenses (past, present, future), doesn't have the subjunctive mood, barely uses the passive voice and has a considerably more relaxed word order. Would I say that either of them is simpler/more complicated? No. Would I say either of them is "richer" or "richer in expression" then the other one? No, but sometimes it's easier to express some things in English, because it has a larger vocabulary. Otherwise, no, all languages have their "easy" bits and extremely difficult ones as well.


----------



## PaulQ

To return to the original post:





the wickerman said:


> Why is it that while most the grammatical rules of English have deteriorated so much over the past few centuries when compared to other European languages?


This seems to be an illogical statement: it presupposes that there is (or was) an ‘ideal grammar’ – there is not.

This is the mistakes of comparing an evolving language with some vague earlier form. I have yet to hear someone say, “I wish we still spoke the English that was current in Bolton Road, Manchester on 15th of June 1809. It was perfect! And here is a short paper on why it was perfect…”

It seems remarkably like a person saying, “Why has this forest changed for the worst? When I was here 50 years ago, this part was all beautiful saplings. The rule is that there should be saplings”

Observers of language do just that, they observe the past performance, which is all they can do. They do not police the language; they are permanently one step behind the language trying, perhaps to record, or build an explanation for, a recent neologism, construction or phrase. As soon as a grammar book is written, it is out of date. Horses may be led to water…

I remind myself that I am 66 years old, and that I was 9 when grammar seriously reared its head. The person who taught me then was about 45. He was born near the turn of the century, and he must have been taught by someone who probably learned their English in the 1880s and that had the effect on him that his teaching had on me... opinions were formed, stances were taken.

Yes, the language and grammar of the 17th – to 19th century is pleasing, but I suggest that it is pleasing because we can read it and not only understand it, but understand why it is like that. And then we smugly think to ourselves, “I can understand all that but I bet 80% of English speakers cannot! I must be somewhat superior.”

In 300 years time, the same complaint will be made. Someone will find WRF and remark: “Look at this topic in WRF! Look at the language and the use of nouns and verbs: it is beautiful! Why has English deteriorated so badly?” And the sentiment of most of the posts here will be repeated.

If there were any truth in the charge that language/grammar is deteriorating, by now we would be communicating in grunts and no word would be longer than five letters.


----------



## lettore

Hello,

A couple of remarks from an outsider, since you pose the question in a more general way…


PaulQ said:


> As soon as a grammar book is written, it is out of date.


Strange, I don't have this impression in Russian. 


PaulQ said:


> In 300 years time, the same complaint will be made. Someone will find WRF and remark: “Look at this topic in WRF! Look at the language and the use of nouns and verbs: it is beautiful! Why has English deteriorated so badly?” And the sentiment of most of the posts here will be repeated.


I don't think so. One thing is when we read pieces of brilliant prose in Latin, the other thing is when we read casual observations of that time written in Latin (I think). We never read the latter, because we have no reason to do it. (With the exception for historians, but even they don't read everything). The same with English; hardly any posts here will look any better in the future than they look now. We are so used to masterpieces, written in the past, that many think that a) it is proper for a masterpiece to be written in past times; b) it is proper for a masterpiece to be written in a special language, mystically different from the language we know; c) therefore, it is proper for a masterpiece to be written in a special language of old; d) therefore, it is proper for _the_ language of old to be a language of masterpieces. As you see, this reasoning is not exactly fine.

I think what we actually complain for is the change of the topics; the change of the languages is secondary. In the already second-to-previous century many people would complain that, let us say, railroads act badly on nerves; that they, as a means, interfere with a human's proper consideration, finding out what is the purpose; and so on. They were right; but the railroads and other inventions (enhanced hygiene, most importantly) brought some quality into life; and even whether the previous clause is correct or not, our life had changed anyway, because we are so made, because it could not evade having changed. And so we complain about it. And so we complain about the fact that languages had changed. Even those features of the languages, that changed but were not probably connected with such changes of topics, even such terms could remind of the past topics and be understood in their context, and so receive their attractive charm.

Best luck!


----------



## PaulQ

Hi, lettore,

I think you are arguing a point that I did not make: sure, there are masterpieces of language, but these appear every century. They do not depend on the grammar of the day, they depend on the skill of the writer _in that grammar_. This would indicate that, whatever the grammar, the masterpiece would exist.

I like your second paragraph. Yes, the fact is "People do not like things to change." Everything was better in the old days, even the weather!

If humans do not like change, they will not like changes in language and grammar. But the generation who grows up with the new language/grammar think that it is normal and cannot understand the older generation... until they become old themselves.


----------



## lettore

Hi, Paul,

Sorry, I was not clear. My point in the first paragraph was that the reason why we love languages of old must be partly that we get acquainted only with their best realisations, but we don't read, e.g. second-class newspapers of those times, which may have been written in no less awful language than modern newspapers of this class, and so on. I.e. our love is partly an illusion, a result of partial knowledge; it is not an automatic consequence of the fact of the change. After 300 years, if people will still read this conversation and other conversations in these fora (hello, by the way!), they probably will not love their language very much. It is different with masterpieces that might or might not be written in the closest fututre.

In my second paragraph, I was intending, that even if we accept that we love some features of a language that we now perceive as old (whether this perception is correct from the point of view of reason is another question; my opinion is that many such features are indeed modern, only maybe special in use) without having them associated with mastepieces of past times (by the way, I am not so optimistic as you are  ; rather, I am agnostic, I don't know where people will want to excel in the future), still, there is another reason why we do, that is not connected just with the fact of the change and that does not force me to guess automatically that in 300 years time the English posts here will be seen with admiration: maybe we love it because of a _very specific_ change of topics. With the cultural revolution after the Industrial Revolution, and with its effects on our thinking and on our history (effects of historical events included), we won something, but we lost something as well. People use what they won without giving it a second thought, but they feel the loss and could not evade complaining about it. Humanity probably will not have a second revolution so profound; the techniques will change of course, but the world of technology as such will not be invented again. So there will not be the same reason for nostalgy. The cutting line (for now) is 1914. (Although of course, if the civilisation will live for another 10 thousand years, it probably will pay no more attention to this date than we do to the Greco-Persian wars, and after another 50 thousand years there will not be enough people to know everything important about the past ages; but this is a different subject).

I am writing from the background of a different language, but I think that the same nostalgy must have been the guiding idea behind the creation of this thread about English as well.


----------



## Icetrance

PaulQ said:


> Hi, lettore,
> 
> I think you are arguing a point that I did not make: sure, there are masterpieces of language, but these appear every century. They do not depend on the grammar of the day, they depend on the skill of the writer _in that grammar_. This would indicate that, whatever the grammar, the masterpiece would exist.
> 
> I like your second paragraph. Yes, the fact is "People do not like things to change." Everything was better in the old days, even the weather!
> 
> If humans do not like change, they will not like changes in language and grammar. But the generation who grows up with the new language/grammar think that it is normal and cannot understand the older generation... until they become old themselves.




I am very much enjoying this conservation. Great intellectual entertainment here!

People tend to be lazy with language in everyday life. 

We want linguistic simplicity without grammar rules, though "verbosely" impatient styles of everyday American English grossly hamper the strong attempt for a clear message.

Grammar plays a vital role in language, even if we think it's unimportant in everyday talk. Grammar and punctuation constitute linguistic glue - without it, language can still functions well, though native speakers of a same language can expect to get "broken messages" from each other, particularly in more complicated language structure situations.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

PaulQ said:


> If there were any truth in the charge that language/grammar is deteriorating, by now we would be communicating in grunts and no word would be longer than five letters.



It's worth noting too that people in the 16th and 17th century were bemoaning how English was a ''rough'' and ''unsophisticated'' tounge in comparison with Latin, Ancient Greek or even French. Now a great many of us see that same period as the high point of English literature.

As you say, plus ça change....


----------



## funnyhat

the wickerman said:


> To give a more extreme example, my school French teacher was teaching us the subjunctive mood in class last year and started off by claiming that the subjunctive "doesn't exist in English"! Of course it does, but so few people ever use it any more that even this well-educated linguist didn't realise it.



This is actually a noteworthy difference between British and American English.  Americans still use the subjunctive on a fairly regular basis.  For example, we might say "It is important that he* be* on time."


----------



## mexerica feliz

Alxmrphi said:


> I heard an example of this only a few days ago on a US TV show discussing the situation in Oklahoma after the huge tornado that ripped through there causing all that damage. It was reported that "The city is rebuilding" or here is another example after Hurricane Katrina. There are still vestiges of the usage you're talking about but it is no longer normal at all, but it's extremely well written about in books on the history of English and it's often toted as one of the more recent syntactic changes to take place in English (only been a couple of centuries old).
> 
> "My house is being built" used to be ridiculed and nearly all the major contemporaries writing about proper English uses basically spat on it as an unworthy horrible innovation. Then it took hold and became standard. I don't know what you mean about the 'ending' but it's just an interpretation of the tense. Basically, it had an unaccusative (i.e. subject undergoes action of verb) reading before a switch to only accepting an agentive reading was possible (when people started adding reflexive pronouns to correctly add in a correct object as well).
> 
> You might want to check this paper out.
> If you're more like me and prefer podcasts then you can access one from this page, which details the history of the construction and all sorts of interesting details that relate to it.



you can hear
_The house is renovating _and
_The film is releasing next week._

in commonwealth English.
it sounds quaint


----------



## Sepia

@why is it that while most the grammatical rules of English have deteriorated so much over the past few centuries when compared to other European languages?

I could mention at least three other European languages that went down the same path. If you count the non national languages probably a lot more.

I think it is odd, too theoretical and very short sighted, when someone thinks these changes in a language just happen, all by themselves. Most people neglect that lots of historical - political - changes also influence the circumstances under which a language is used.

If the language is used for purposes where a wide spectrum of possibiliies of describing situations, circumstances, emotions etc. it will probably maintain the functions with which you can do that. If not, it will eventually lose them. It is as simple as that.

That could be all the complex flexions. In other languages it could be something else. In North Western Europe it was the flexions.


----------



## Einstein

I've just come across this thread, so excuse me for ignoring the more recent discussions. In post #38, back in 2006, cuchuflete said,


cuchuflete said:


> Try translating saudade from Português to English in less than a paragraph.


The word "saudade" is known to lovers of Brazilian music... and lovers of Afro-American music know its exact equivalent; I think "tenho saudade" and "I got the blues" mean the same thing.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings

I come late to this discussion, and have only skim-read the thread, so forgive me if I have missed something important or am duplicating others' observations.


Nino83 said:


> As far as I know Middle English and Vulgar Latin lost declensions because the pronunciation changed.


This does not ring true. In the case of English, it was because in the Middle Ages the need for mutual comprehension between (chiefly) Norman French (already only scantily observant of inflexion because of its own mixed parentage) and Anglo-Saxon outstripped the need for strict adherence to the rules of accidence in either.
As for "Vulgar Latin", there never was a uniformly declined system. Inscriptions from e.g. Pompeii (for example) display a marked inconformity with the "rules" of classical Latin, and given the geographical extent of the Roman empire, and its kaleidoscopic demography, the contrary would surprise.
Σ


----------



## Nino83

Scholiast said:


> As for "Vulgar Latin", there never was a uniformly declined system. Inscriptions from e.g. Pompeii (for example) display a marked inconformity with the "rules" of classical Latin, and given the geographical extent of the Roman empire, and its kaleidoscopic demography, the contrary would surprise.



The loss of genitive and dative case was also due to the analytic forms (_de + ablativo_ and _ad + accusativo_), but the merger of these two cases in one single oblique case was due to the loss of the contrastive vowel length, _rosā/a, murō/o _and_ sermonē/e_.
And the fact that these changes are equal from Portugal to Italy, it means that they were just present before the fall of the Roman Empire.


----------



## Copperknickers

funnyhat said:


> It's been noted here and elsewhere that there seems to be a tendency in languages to "simplify" to become more analytic.  For me this raises the question: why were ancient languages so complex?  Did Classical Latin, in turn, derive from a language with even more declensions and such?



Firstly, ancient languages were not as complex as they might seem. Latin as it was used by ordinary people may still have had all the complex voices and moods and cases, but when you look at simpler texts you start to see that people often didn't bother with the kind of impenetrable syntax you might find in Cicero or Virgil. The average Roman slave would probably have struggled to understand Ovid or Lucretius.

Secondly, yes, Classical Latin did derive from a language with even more declensions: it derived from PIE (proto-Indo European) which had 9 cases. But one of the reasons Latin is so difficult is that it has lost cases: the roles of some cases have merged, so it's often impossible to tell what the ablative signifies without semantic context. Compare this to PIE, where the roles of the ablative were separated out into distinct cases which have a narrower and more transparent range of meaning, and you'll see that multiple cases can make things easier rather than harder.

Thirdly, you need to look at things on a longer timescale. If I remember correctly, there's a common trend in morphology shift: languages often move from fusional (e.g. Latin) to partially analytic (e.g. English) to full on isolating (e.g. Mandarin). But then, they can develop into agglutinative languages, and from there they will often develop into fusional languages again. A proper linguist can explain why this is better than me, iirc it is because agglutinative languages often make for very long words and are prone to simplification and other processes which lead to fusional inflection. So it's not a linear process, but rather a cycle: perhaps in due course English will become agglutinative.


----------



## luitzen

Copperknickers said:


> Thirdly, you need to look at things on a longer timescale. If I remember correctly, there's a common trend in morphology shift: languages often move from fusional (e.g. Latin) to partially analytic (e.g. English) to full on isolating (e.g. Mandarin). But then, they can develop into agglutinative languages, and from there they will often develop into fusional languages again. A proper linguist can explain why this is better than me, iirc it is because agglutinative languages often make for very long words and are prone to simplification and other processes which lead to fusional inflection. So it's not a linear process, but rather a cycle: perhaps in due course English will become agglutinative.


I think it is interesting that you mention this. West-Frisian has a more complex grammar (or at least aspects of it) than Dutch. While Dutch does not really change much, West-Frisian is loosing some of this complexity at a very rapid pace up to the point that new grammatical structures start to arise.

For example, in Dutch, there are (in general) three different forms of the present indicative of verbs (1st person singular, 2nd and 3rd person singular, and plural). In West-Frisian there are four different forms (1st person singular, 2nd person singular, 3rd person singular, and plural). These four forms see to be rapidly decreasing to one single, uninflected, form.

There are also nine different subject pronouns in Dutch as well as in West-Frisian (one 1st person singular and one 2nd person singular, three 3rd person singular, three plural and one second person informal). In West-Frisian they now often get reduced to one syllable, one letter or even nothing at all.
In questions and some other clauses with a verb first construction, they seem to form one single unit with the verb. For the 2nd person singular this process has already completed. Now if West-Frisian changed word order (and this seems to be the hard part), it would probably lose its pronouns and gain a more complex system of verb conjugation in a very short time. And who is to say that it wouldn't reinvent the wheel and come up with new pronouns again?

If speakers of English would decide to mix up word order I can imagine that English pronouns would merge with verbs and that they would invent new pronouns.


----------



## mexerica feliz

New verbal patterns are emerging:
with either

irregular forms, such as:   _sneak, snuck, snuck_
or
regular forms like:  _slay, slayed, slayed_


----------



## anahiseri

Residente Calle 13 said:


> Now I don't mean to say that the language is being "dumbed
> down", it's just getting simpler in it's inflections.


it's just a little typo, but it feels so good correcting Steven Pinker  !


----------



## uchi.m

Stating that English has decayed is an overstatement. All languages "decayed" in some sense or another, otherwise we would still be speaking Proto-Indo European.

Spanish has lost future of subjunctive. Portuguese has gained gerundism from English, but used to have an equivalent construction before. Japanese has lost some syllables that were present during WW2.



Magmod said:


> Hi
> According to the WR dictionary saudade = nostalgia. If due to its usage there is a necessity to borrow saudade into English, then it will be incorporated in the next issue of the Oxford Dictionary
> 
> There is no human idea that can’t be incorporated exactly, one way or another into English. This includes saudade. This is because English is the newest of the European languages and most advanced in its grammar and form.


Saudade conveys the meaning of homesickness, but not only for home, since I could have saudade de macarrão and those few words would bring about all the sensory flashbacks related to pasta and be imparted on my conscient mind. Besides, telling someone that you have _nostalgia of pasta_ wouldn't be of much help.



cuchuflete said:


> Many dictionaries give short and direct translations. And, they are wrong. The word in question means something rather different. The brief EN translations miss most of the nuance. The translations are not exact.


Dictionaries are meant to be a first-time rescue to the poor language learner. Besides, it has to be handy enough to fit in a pocket, so any attempt to be verbose would be limited by this desired feature.



cuchuflete said:


> What yardstick did you apply before coming up with this bit of arrogance?   " how far these languages are behind English"


This isn't exactly arrogance, in my point of view. Just lack of mindfulness to other languages, and just Magmod playing the troll. Moderators are a unique sort of trolls because they feel empowered within their forum section(s), and may take for granted what others struggle to understand, so they seldom dumb down to the poor learner's level of understanding.


----------



## Sepia

@Stating that English has decayed is an overstatement. All languages "decayed" in some sense or another, otherwise we would still be speaking Proto-Indo European.

Actually, English reached the point where it could be called an English language through gradual changes in grammar and vocabulary. So the word "decay" is totally useless to describe that neverending process.
What could be a cause of concern, though, is when people on a large scale ignore grammatical rules and thus limit the possbilities of communication with the language, and that they often do not understand what is being said in what should be "their language". But that is not only a problem in the English language.


----------



## Icetrance

Sepia said:


> @Stating that English has decayed is an overstatement. All languages "decayed" in some sense or another, otherwise we would still be speaking Proto-Indo European.
> 
> Actually, English reached the point where it could be called an English language through gradual changes in grammar and vocabulary. So the word "decay" is totally useless to describe that neverending process.
> What could be a cause of concern, though, is when people on a large scale ignore grammatical rules and thus limit the possbilities of communication with the language, and that they often do not understand what is being said in what should be "their language". But that is not only a problem in the English language.




I agree totally.

Language rules are there to help "perfect" communication. They are glue for stringing words together in sequence of logic and clarity.

There is so much miscommunication in English because of poor grammar, misspellings, etc.

I cringe while reading newspapers and online publications.  Sometimes I cannot get my head around what is being said in an article, etc. And it's not because I have bad reading comprehension skills.


----------



## ewie

Icetrance said:


> Language rules are there to help "perfect" communication. They are glue for stringing words together in sequence of logic and clarity.


Well, that's _one_ way of looking at it.
Another is that rules are formulated in the hope of bringing order to – or imposing order on – the chaos of natural language, which is, of course, _spoken._
The Rules of Written English, in particular the Rules of Fine Prose (to call it that), are there to there to create a 'perfect' and, in relation to spoken English, entirely _artificial_ construct


----------



## Icetrance

ewie said:


> Well, that's _one_ way of looking at it.
> Another is that rules are formulated in the hope of bringing order to – or imposing order on – the chaos of natural language, which is, of course, _spoken._
> The Rules of Written English, in particular the Rules of Fine Prose (to call it that), are there to there to create a 'perfect' and, in relation to spoken English, entirely _artificial_ construct



Absolutely! 

Standardization is key to promoting "almost" perfect understanding among different dialects of one language.


----------



## Kevin Beach

If people stuck to the "best" form of their language, then, for example, Latin would never have devolved into the Romance languages, because it is by far the most efficient tongue of them all. But all languages move on and evolve.

I think English suffered from an attempt to fossilise it in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Teachers taught rules for the sake of having rules, and classicists added to the trend by trying to assimilate English grammar to Latin and ancient Greek grammar. The myth began, that there is a proper form of English and that everything else is wrong. But the sheer force of human ingenuity in the face of necessity has forced changes that are making old rules obsolete.

For example, some delightful forms of expression have come from the Caribbean and India, which are changing the English norms in Britain, even modifying regional accents. The generation just being born now will have a quite different idea of how British English should be spoken, because their parents (generations X and Y) have lived through a transition and are passing on new models.

English is changing so much, that I predict that language historians in centuries to come will add a new era to the history of English. We have Old English from c. 600 to c. 1100.  Middle English from c. 1100 to c. 1500, and Modern English thereafter. The new era, which we can only call "Post-modern English" at the moment, will be reckoned to have started in about 2000, but in truth its first shoots were appearing as long ago as 1945, when so much began to change.

The movinge finger writeth and, having writ, moves on, innit?


----------



## Olaszinhok

Kevin Beach said:


> Latin would never have devolved into the Romance languages, because it is by far the most efficient tongue of them all. But all languages move on and evolve.



Could you please elaborate the above statement? Why is Latin such an efficient Language compared to the Romance languages? I beg your pardon but, in my opinion, your statement doesn't make any sense from a linguistic point of view.


----------



## Kevin Beach

It expresses concepts in fewer words.


----------



## Red Arrow

I find it a bit absurd that you think languages get less efficient over time. Try to translate a scientific text into Classical Latin, using actual Latin words the Romans would have understood. It will be a lot longer (less "efficient") than the French version.

I am not at all surprised that Latin is more "efficient" than Modern French when it comes to talking about war, slavery, gladiators, superstition or amphitheaters. As if modern Frenchmen want to talk about that.


Kevin Beach said:


> English is changing so much, that I predict that language historians in centuries to come will add a new era to the history of English. We have Old English from c. 600 to c. 1100.  Middle English from c. 1100 to c. 1500, and Modern English thereafter. The new era, which we can only call "Post-modern English" at the moment, will be reckoned to have started in about 2000, but in truth its first shoots were appearing as long ago as 1945, when so much began to change.


The difference between Old English and Middle English (or between Middle English and Modern English) is way bigger than between 1917 and 2017. There has been no drastic grammatical changes as of late. In other words: English isn't changing any quicker than it used to.


----------



## Olaszinhok

I dare say that "efficient" is not a  linguistic term, languages can be more or less synthetic or analytic and obviously both are quite "efficient"! 

Synthetic ones  can also be divided into agglutinative, fusional and polysinthetic. All these languages can be "efficient".


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Walter Bagehot's _The English Constitution _was written in the late 1860s but, excluding the obvious references to that era, is an entirely 'modern' read with regard to its language.

If anything, advances in technology have levelled different English dialects. I see no reason to assume why this should not continue.


----------



## rightnow

Just the first (subjective and pejorative) word "Decline" begs the question, _*petitio principii.*_


----------



## Doraemon-

This happens in every language and since the dawn of time. Take a look on Saussure and evolutionary linguistics


----------



## L'irlandais

A couple points worth bearing in mind when replying to this discussion.
The OP was 14 or 15 years of age, so it seems to me more of a teenage strop about schooling than a serious thesis on the present state of grammatical English.
Early Modern English had fewer rules, so the present day version must be seen as an evolution.  And if English is still evolving, then the continuing simplification of its grammar, must be seen as an improvement, rather than a decline.
Post-modern English, is an International language, which is shedding all its regional quirks, picked up in the post Middle English period.


----------



## Icetrance

Doesn't older versions of English have a lot in common with Icelandic, especially in terms of syntax?  Not sure why I think that.

I had no clue that Middle and Early English had less grammatical rules. That I never knew.


----------



## L'irlandais

Perhaps you are right Icetrance, my point is the OP, didn’t give much thought to aspects such as these.  My thinking was as follows:  since Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, predates any of the grammatical elements brought by the Normans.  I feel we can safely say, it had less grammatical rules than present day English.  Middle English, saw sweeping changes in Shakespearien times, not just in spelling and pronunciation, but as in simplifying Anglo Saxon word ending and Norman conjugation.  If there were more grammatical rules at the time, I would be surprised.  But happy to be corrected on this.  Pamphlets published on the subject in the 1500s were not met with unanimous acceptance.  Even in the 1700s much ironing out was still to be done, to arrive at the present day situation of widespread agreement. 

Present day books on grammar, were practically unheard of back then, and certainly not widely available to commoners, like myself.  Writers back then took far more liberties with the language, without fear of being told they were most certainly wrong, about some trifling point or other.


----------



## Olaszinhok

L'irlandais said:


> it had less grammatical rules



I would have said _it had fewer grammatical rules_, it might be true that English grammar is decling relentlessly... Just kidding.


----------



## L'irlandais

Jokes aside, the mere fact we have the luxury of having the free time to reflect on such things proves my point.  (For Old English anyway) Anglo Saxon was a spoken language, contemporary with the dialects still spoken here in DriEckland.  These dialects differ from one village to the next, as they would have done in Saxon England.  I will spare you the academic links, supporting my point of view, but I do have several valid sources.  The average Saxon had far more pressing things to worry about, than musing about whether the word table would be better conjugated in masculin, feminine or neutral.  Pressing things, like subsistence, I mean.

In Shakespearien times, the common man’s situation may have improved, but after a hard day’s work he was more likely to come home and put his feet up to a hot toddy than to sit over a study table and burn the midnight oil, worrying about some grammatical error he overheard during his working day.

So, in conclusion, and to repeat what others have said above, far from being in decline, as suggested in the OP, English grammar has never been healthier.  The existence of WR online dictionary is proof positive of that.  It is the very simplification bemoaned by the OP, which is in fact the strength of the English language.  That which has allowed it to become one of the lingua franca used when French and Germans (for example) meet and cannot communicate because their pristine grammatical systems are not mutually intelligible.  It is in fact, the beloved French, which he so highly regards, which is in decline.  Precisely because La vieille dame du quai conti refuses to relax her grip on the accepted rules of usage.  His comparison of French and English written in the 1600s shows the very opposite of what he claims.


----------



## killerbee256

Icetrance said:


> Doesn't older versions of English have a lot in common with Icelandic, especially in terms of syntax?  Not sure why I think that.
> 
> I had no clue that Middle and Early English had less grammatical rules. That I never knew.


Old English is closer to German grammar wise. Written Icelandic is almost the same as old Norse and old Norse already dropped a lot of declensions that old English retained.


----------



## Icetrance

killerbee256 said:


> Old English is closer to German grammar wise. Written Icelandic is almost the same as old Norse and old Norse already dropped a lot of declensions that old English retained.



Thank you very much. 

Syntactically? Did English ever put all verbs at the end in complex sentences like in Luther's German?  In Low German, I am not sure if verbs always went to the end in subordinating clauses, etc.


----------



## Red Arrow

Icetrance said:


> Thank you very much.
> 
> Syntactically? Did English ever put all verbs at the end in complex sentences like in Luther's German?  In Low German, I am not sure if verbs always went to the end in subordinating clauses, etc.


Low German is SOV in subordinate clauses just like Dutch and German.

Wikipedia says this about Old English' word order, but no sources are given:


> Main clauses in Old English tend to have a verb-second (V2) order, where the verb is the second constituent in a sentence, regardless of what comes first. There are echoes of this in modern English: "Hardly did he arrive when ...", "Never can it be said that ...", "Over went the boat", "Ever onward marched the weary soldiers ...", "Then came a loud sound from the sky above". In Old English, however, it was much more extensive, like the word order in modern German. If the subject appears first, there is an SVO order, but it can also yield orders such as OVS and others. In questions VSO was common, see below.
> 
> In subordinate clauses, however, the word order is completely different, with verb-final constructions the norm, again as in German. Furthermore, in poetry, all the rules were frequently broken. In Beoƿulf, for example, main clauses frequently have verb-initial or verb-final order, and subordinate clauses often have verb-second order. (However, in clauses introduced by _þā_, which can mean either "when" or "then", and where word order is crucial for telling the difference, the normal word order is nearly always followed.)


----------



## Icetrance

Thank you, Red Arrow!


----------



## killerbee256

Sorry about the double post my phone did something odd.


----------



## Hulalessar

Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer has a section on worder order. The text can be found here: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/34316/pg34316.txt Do <Control F> and type in <order> and you will find the section at the fourth appearance of "order".


----------



## Kevin Beach

Red Arrow :D said:


> I find it a bit absurd that you think languages get less efficient over time. Try to translate a scientific text into Classical Latin, using actual Latin words the Romans would have understood. It will be a lot longer (less "efficient") than the French version.


The Vatican has no problems. It has invented much new Latin vocabulary to cope with science. Contrary to the myths propagated since the so-called "Age of Enlightenment", much of science came from within the Catholic Church and was written about in Latin.


----------



## Icetrance

I think modern American English lacks clarity. I cannot really put my finger on it - perhaps too many words/slang, too many chances for falling awkward sentences structures, even in more formal writing. Surely, someone will shoot this generalization down but it's just how I see things.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me.  There are times where I cannot follow newspaper articles/blogs/etc, and it is not due to my inability to comprehend, but rather a lack of clear, concise style.


----------



## franknagy

The common joke about Latin: "How does the Pope ask is butter, bring me my motorbike" ?


----------



## Icetrance

franknagy said:


> The common joke about Latin: "How does the Pope ask is butter, bring me my motorbike" ?



Hi there! 

Could you elaborate a bit on this? I am not sure I follow.


----------



## franknagy

The common joke about Latin: "How does the Pope ask is butler, bring me my motorbike" ?

The Latin is a dead language. How do new inventions get their names in it?


----------



## Icetrance

franknagy said:


> The common joke about Latin: "How does the Pope ask is butler, bring me my motorbike" ?
> 
> The Latin is a dead language. How do new inventions get their names in it?



Thank you. I now get it! That's very true.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Vatican Introduces Latin to 21st Century With New Dictionary


----------



## ewie

Kevin Beach said:


> Vatican Introduces Latin to 21st Century With New Dictionary


Good to see the Vatican keeping so up-to-date, concocting a translation* for _disco_ ~ approximately 29 years after the term was last used in English.

*_orbium phonographicorum theca_, a mere 11 syllables


----------



## Kevin Beach

ewie said:


> Good to see the Vatican keeping so up-to-date, concocting a translation* for _disco_ ~ approximately 29 years after the term was last used in English.
> 
> *_orbium phonographicorum theca_, a mere 11 syllables


As has often been said: "The Vatican thinks in centuries, not decades".

That said, most of the entries will have been around for a long time. I remember reading in the 1960s that the Vatican Latin term for a bicycle was "birota", although I'm not sure how they managed to use "rota" as a plural.


----------



## Einstein

Kevin Beach said:


> I remember reading in the 1960s that the Vatican Latin term for a bicycle was "birota", although I'm not sure how they managed to use "rota" as a plural.


"Cycle" comes from the Greek κύκλος*,* meaning "wheel". All the Vatican has done is transform a word for something that didn't exist in Ancient Greece into a word for something that didn't exist in Ancient Rome. I'm not sure that the "rota" part needs to be plural; we don't call a bicycle a "bicycles" because it has two wheels. Also the Italian for tricycle is triciclo, not tricicli, unless we're talking about more than one complete machine.

(but the modern Greek term for a bicycle is ποδήλατο (podílato)).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Icetrance said:


> I think modern American English lacks clarity. I cannot really put my finger on it - perhaps too many words/slang, too many chances for falling awkward sentences structures, even in more formal writing. Surely, someone will shoot this generalization down but it's just how I see things.
> 
> Clarity is of utmost importance to me.  There are times where I cannot follow newspaper articles/blogs/etc, and it is not due to my inability to comprehend, but rather a lack of clear, concise style.



I don't see how American English differs from any other variety of English in this regard (the grammatical differences between different national varieties of English are very slight). English seems no more or less clear to me than French (which I also speak, and which has a self-proclaimed reputation for pinpoint clarity).


----------



## Icetrance

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I don't see how American English differs from any other variety of English in this regard (the grammatical differences between different national varieties of English standards are very slight). English seems no more or less clear to me than French (which I also speak, and which has a self-proclaimed reputation for pinpoint clarity).



Fair point about American English, I suppose. 

I think German is clearer than both French and English (my perception, and whatever I mean by "clearer.").  

I think French is very abstract, whereas English is more clear-cut. I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head. But, for native French speakers, the language is not abstract - just their natural tongue. Just my perception based on having studied French and German intensely.

Again, I am getting lost in sweeping generalizations.  I am now feeling that I am betraying intellectual standards. lol.


----------



## suzi br

ewie said:


> Good to see the Vatican keeping so up-to-date, concocting a translation* for _disco_ ~ approximately 29 years after the term was last used in English.
> 
> *_orbium phonographicorum theca_, a mere 11 syllables





That’s quality. Gotta love a dead-dead language.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Einstein said:


> I'm not sure that the "rota" part needs to be plural; we don't call a bicycle a "bicycles" because it has two wheels. Also the Italian for tricycle is triciclo, not tricicli, unless we're talking about more than one complete machine.


But I'm pretty sure, that there is no need to use plural here. I can't recall any word in English (and neither in any other language I'm familiar with) that combines a number and a noun in plural.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Kevin Beach said:


> The Vatican has no problems. It has invented much new Latin vocabulary to cope with science. Contrary to the myths propagated since the so-called "Age of Enlightenment", much of science came from within the Catholic Church and was written about in Latin.


Like Galileo for example?
By the way, Latin was used as an international language of  secular science into the XIX century.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Ben Jamin said:


> Like Galileo for example?
> By the way, Latin was used as an international language of  secular science into the XIX century.


Read Rodney Stark: "Bearing False Witness"


----------



## Forero

Ben Jamin said:


> But I'm pretty sure, that there is no need to use plural here. I can't recall any word in English (and neither in any other language I'm familiar with) that combines a number and a noun in plural.


_Cat-o'-nine-tails_?


----------



## Doraemon-

It's all about diachronic linguistics, which have some "laws". The case of English is not very different to what happened to Low Latin and how declinations almost disappeared. In a few centuries Latin became much more different than modern English in relation with Shakespeare's English. Similar changes have probably happened in every human language at some point of its history. Are there particular conditions which force languages to evolve? Probably, but they can be many, many causes, not just a single one. Deterioration and evolution are just a different point of view. I'm sure latin speakers where horrified about how it evolved to Romance.


----------



## Red Arrow

Icetrance said:


> I think French is very abstract, whereas English is more clear-cut. I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head. But, for native French speakers, the language is not abstract - just their natural tongue. Just my perception based on having studied French and German intensely.


Having studied French for 8 years, I always felt like it was less clear than English, Dutch and perhaps German. French seems to be more "basic". Whereas Dutch loves to use Germanic, Greek and Romance vocabulary (aanvaarden/accepteren, bioscoop/cinema/theater etc.), French often has only ONE frequently used word for a concept, and sometimes not even that. I am excluding some concepts like "vomiting", "having sex" and "shit" (there are lots of French words for those, like in many languages, I guess).

Heck, French has so little words, it even uses the same word for basic concepts.
sentir = to feel, to smell
pédé = gay, pedophile
son = his, her
sa = his, her

The French language is a lot of things, but "clear" (Dutch: klaar, duidelijk, helder, ondubbelzinnig etc.) is not on that list.

It always baffles me when Francophones think French is the language of culture. Well, maybe... if that's the only language you know. To me it looks more like a minimalistic / Buddhist language 

I do feel like being less clear or strict _is_ part of their culture. Or maybe that's just a stereotype? The Flemish and Walloons are essentially the same.


----------



## Icetrance

Red Arrow said:


> Having studied French for 8 years, I always felt like it was less clear than English, Dutch and perhaps German.



I have studied French since the age of 10 or 11.  

Yes, French is just more abstract than English. They like to word things in ways that are not as clear-cut as we do in English.

_un petit kilo_ =  barely a kilo

_il ne faut pas_ = one must not/one doesn't have to (depending on context)

_aimer _vs _aimer bien =_ to love vs. to like


And French has a fondness for_ "la petitesse des choses" 
_
I may not have given that good of examples for showcasing the abstraction of French vs. the clear-cut mentality of English.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Sorry, but the idea that French is ''less clear'' than English or Dutch is complete nonsense. I can't believe that apparently educated people would even entertain such an obvious absurdity.

French has different ways of expressing ideas. That doesn't mean that it's more or less clear than any other language (a wholly subjective notion in any event), it just means that it's *different*. English has no native word to express the idea of a ''terroir''. If required to do so, English speakers will explain the concept in a different manner. It'd be just as absurd to state that given this, French is therefore clearer or more concise than English.


----------



## Red Arrow

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Sorry, but the idea that French is ''less clear'' than English or Dutch is complete nonsense. I can't believe that apparently educated people would even entertain such an obvious absurdity.
> 
> French has different ways of expressing ideas. That doesn't mean that it's more or less clear than any other language (a wholly subjective notion in any event), it just means that it's *different*. English has no native word to express the idea of a ''terroir''. If required to do so, English speakers will explain the concept in a different manner. It'd be just as absurd to state that given this, French is therefore clearer or more concise than English.


What we are trying to say is that French depends more on context than English and Dutch. I don't see what's so absurd about that. We could be wrong, of course, but do you really believe that every language is just as clear as the other?!

Doesn't "terroir" simply mean local? If not, is it some kind of cultural word, like Dutch "gezellig"? Every language has words like that.

I should have added, though, that I love the French "oui - non - si" distinction. Dutch has the same distinction (ja - nee - jawel), but people are too lazy to use it, which sometimes leads to misunderstandings.


----------



## Hulalessar

In considering whether a language is “clear” context cannot be left out because language never lacks a context.

We do though have to be clear about what we mean by “clear”. When you say something like: “French is less clear than English” what you probably mean is something like: “French does not make distinctions which English does”. That is true, but: “English does not make distinctions which French does” is also true. From the perpsective of an English speaker French may be considered defective because it does not make distinctions English does, but the fact French makes distinctions English does not may be overlooked; indeed, the English speaker may go further and insist that where French makes distinctions English does not that French is too fussy. What it comes down to is that one’s mother tongue seems natural and by comparison other languages odd.

If you ask: “Is every language just as clear as any other?” the answer has to be “yes” if you mean: “Apart from the odd occasion, can the native speakers of every language regularly communicate to each other what they want to get over without misunderstanding?” Ignoring philosophical questions, all languages have to be considered perfectly adequate vehicles of communication for their native speakers. The only proper question is: “What can and must this language express?”


----------



## L'irlandais

Red Arrow said:


> ... Doesn't "terroir" simply mean local?


In a word, No.  The French for local is du terroir.
https://www.wordreference.com/fren/terroir
All languages depend on context, I fail to see how English depends less on context than French.  Since English has more words which mean different things depending on context, surely it’s the reverse.  According to this study: Context-Dependent Interpretation Of Words: Evidence For Interactive Neural Processes
- most English words are ambiguous ( context dependent) many examples are cited.


While Pedro’s use of absurd is possibly too strong a word, your opinion about French is still very subjective.  Partly, that is down to the level of command you had after 8 years of study.  If less than B2, then it’s not sufficient to allow you compare to your native language.  You are not comparing like with like.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Red Arrow said:


> What we are trying to say is that French depends more on context than English and Dutch. I don't see what's so absurd about that. We could be wrong, of course, but do you really believe that every language is just as clear as the other?!



What is "depends more on context" supposed to mean? You claim that a language having more words apparently leads to its being "more clear". As evidence of this, you say that "pédé" (among other examples) can mean homosexual or peadophile. Whatever the origins of the term, _pédé_ is a pejorative term for a gay man, not a peadophile. And French has dozens and dozens of words like it. Presumably you therefore believe that this makes homophobia "clearer" in French than in another language which has a less voluminous amount of homophobic insults.



Red Arrow said:


> Doesn't "terroir" simply mean local? If not, is it some kind of cultural word, like Dutch "gezellig"? Every language has words like that.



No, terroir has multiple concepts bound up in its meaning. English has no single translation for it. But every language has words like this. It proves nothing other than to say that every language is as fit as any other for communication. English is no clearer than any other language. In the past (and perhaps still today), some people  advanced the idea that Classical Latin or Ancient Greek or Sanskrit or Quranic-era Arabic were uniquely pristine vehicles for communication. But this is simply nonsense.


----------



## Red Arrow

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Whatever the origins of the term, _pédé_ is a pejorative term for a gay man, not a peadophile.


Maybe my French teachers simply weren't good enough. We definitely learned that in class. And I had both a Walloon and Swiss classmate then. They said it's always clear from context.

Pédé ultimately comes from the Greek word for child / boy.
Wiktionary says that pédé comes from pédérast, a man who has a relationship with an adolescent boy, so a gay pedophile.


Pedro y La Torre said:


> And French has dozens and dozens of words like it. Presumably you therefore believe that this makes homophobia "clearer" in French than in another language which has a less voluminous amount of homophobic insults.


I never said anything like that whatsoever 


Pedro y La Torre said:


> In considering whether a language is “clear” context cannot be left out because language never lacks a context.


Very true. I never said otherwise!


L'irlandais said:


> All languages depend on context, I fail to see how English depends less on context than French.  Since English has more words which mean different things depending on context, surely it’s the reverse.  According to this study: Context-Dependent Interpretation Of Words: Evidence For Interactive Neural Processes
> - most English words are ambiguous ( context dependent) many examples are cited.


That article doesn't mention French anywhere, just English. Maybe I underestimate the amount of ambiguous words in English. I tend to think of homophones as separate words, but they can just as much ambiguity in the spoken language.

I wonder why all candidates were right-handed.


Pedro y La Torre said:


> In the past (and perhaps still today), some people  advanced the idea that Classical Latin or Ancient Greek or Sanskrit or Quranic-era Arabic were uniquely pristine vehicles for communication. But this is simply nonsense.


You make it look like I implied that minimalism is bad, but my previous posts on this forum (and many discussions with Eno2) should have made it clear that I prefer minimalism.

Every living language is a uniquely pristine vehicle for communication.


----------



## L'irlandais

Red Arrow said:


> ...
> 
> That article doesn't mention French anywhere, just English. Maybe I underestimate the amount of ambiguous words in English. I tend to think of homophones as separate words, but they can just as much ambiguity in the spoken language.


I believe you are underestimating the amount of words in English period.  French has around 150,000 words, while English has well over three times that number, for historical reasons.

What you did do, is you compared French to English and Dutch saying it was less clear as a language.  As a English native speaker I merely pointed out that this assertion is completely and utterly incorrect.  The linked article in my earlier post, shows that most English words have a degree of ambiguity, some are much more ambiguous and context dependent than others.  This is not the case for the French language, in my own experience.  My spoken French is near native, apart from a pronounced accent, I rarely encounter problems in making myself clear. When I did it is invariably that the listener struggles with a mispronunciation of mine.
Why would French native speakers have any difficulties getting their meaning across clearly?

You have given an outline of an answer to this, in laying the blame on your French teachers.  If your French isn’t very good that is entirely down to a lack of personal investment in the learning process, on your behalf.  The French pride themselves on having  the language of clarity.  Source: La beauté de la langue française | Académie française


> Les spécialistes des langues décrivent de manière générale les langues par des caractères généraux. L’espagnol est considéré comme une langue noble, l’italien comme une langue harmonieuse, l’allemand comme une langue précise, l’anglais comme une langue naturelle et pour le français on met généralement en avant la qualité de la clarté.


Odd that you should think the opposite.

As for Dutch, I won’t presume to know if it is clearer than French. However I can imagine your perception is biased, since obviously things are clearer for you in your Native tongue, than they might be in a second or third language. You haven’t yet indicated your CEFR level in French, (is or was) that would help our understanding of where you are coming from.


----------



## Red Arrow

L'irlandais said:


> Why would French native speakers have any difficulties getting their meaning across clearly?


They don't because of context.

My post was just a reaction on what Icetrance said. He finds French "abstract", but all languages are just as abstract. I suggested the word "clear". I now wish I hadn't, I should have tried "context-depended", maybe then I wouldn't have gotten so many angry responses.

You guys are all reading between the lines. While in reality, between my lines, there is nothing but blank space.



L'irlandais said:


> I believe you are underestimating the amount of words in English period.  French has around 150,000 words, while English has well over three times that number, for historical reasons.


Relatively, of course. As in: the amount of ambigous words that pop up in a random text/conversation.
(ambiguous English words)/(total of English words) < (ambigous French words)/(total of French words)

If (total of English words) >> (total of French Words) and (ambiguous English words) and (ambigous French words) have the same order of magnitude.


L'irlandais said:


> You have given an outline of an answer to this, in laying the blame on your French teachers.  If your French isn’t very good that is entirely down to a lack of personal investment in the learning process, on your behalf.  The French pride themselves on having  the language of clarity.  Source: La beauté de la langue française | Académie française
> Odd that you should think the opposite.


And as we all know, l'Académie française is an organization with lots of mulitlingual people that are totally capable of comparing French with other languages  But then again, neither am I, apparently. Fair enough.


L'irlandais said:


> You have given an outline of an answer to this, in laying the blame on your French teachers.  If your French isn’t very good that is entirely down to a lack of personal investment in the learning process, on your behalf.


 A personal attack, how nice of you. So my French is bad, I lack personal investment to learn the language, and I blame my teachers for it. I must have been such a bad student! (but what if... I actually had good grades?)


----------



## L'irlandais

Red Arrow said:


> Maybe my French teachers simply weren't good enough. ...


In what way is it a personal attack?  I am responding to your post above.  If my use of Gaelic is less than the B2 level required from school leavers in Ireland, I cannot lay the blame for that on my teachers, each of us must take responsibility for his own failings.  You fail to see that French is far, far less ambiguous than English (this is not a subjective opinion), this must be linked to your command of both languages.  Since you won’t share you level of French, I am bowing of of this discussion.  Like many threads here on WR folks confuse personal opinion for facts.


----------



## Red Arrow

You took the sentence out of context. I don't blame my teachers for my level of French. I do "blame" them for giving me the wrong information, if that is the case at all, which I doubt.

I simply don't know what level of French I have. We never used these letters/numbers at school. I understand Walloon TV without subtitles. My French got rusty after high school, but I still understand it. I can still say and write basic stuff, but I can't conversate about politics etc. I knew all grammar by hard, but I have forgotten some of it. My accent is pretty good. I know IPA, and our local accent here is influenced by French. I am planning to take a summer course in French once I graduate from university, to refresh everything I forgot.


----------



## cherine

Dear all,

I would like to remind you that the topic of this thread is not the discussion of one particular word, or the comparing the degree of clarity of different languages, but a discussion of what the OP perceived as the decline of English grammar.

Please stay on topic, and you can always open a new thread whenever you want to.

Thanks,

Cherine
Moderator


----------



## Icetrance

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Sorry, but the idea that French is ''less clear'' than English or Dutch is complete nonsense. I can't believe that apparently educated people would even entertain such an obvious absurdity.



I quote a well-regarded French > English translation professor (PhD):  _French is abstract in a way that English just can't stomach._

To French natives, nothing is abstract, anymore than English is abstract to native English speakers.  That wasn't the point.

Language doesn't exist outside of context- we all know that!


----------



## Icetrance

If we want to continue the discussion above, we will have to open a new thread.

Now let's get back on track.


----------



## Awwal12

Decline of inflectional morphology doesn't equal to decline of grammar. Just a friendly reminder.


----------



## Icetrance

Awwal12 said:


> Decline of inflectional morphology doesn't equal to decline of grammar. Just a friendly reminder.



You are correct in what you say.

Hasn't Bulgarian lost a lot of its inflections? 

And since this is wordreference.com, may I kindly add a few corrections to your English sentence above?

* A *_decline *in* inflectional morphology doesn't* equate *to *any* decline* in *grammar. _


----------



## Awwal12

Icetrance said:


> And since this is wordreference.com, may I kindly add a few corrections to your English sentence above?
> 
> * A *_decline *in* inflectional morphology doesn't* equate *to *any* decline* in *grammar. _


Thanks, that was helpful (even though the half of the problem was that I simply got stuck between the verb "equal" and the adjective "equal", producing some mutated inbred construction as a result ). Sadly, the English system of articles seems nearly impossible to master.


----------



## velisarius

_Decline of inflectional morphology doesn't equal/equate to decline of grammar. _

With a slight adjustment, I prefer Awwal's original, more taut and snappy sentence myself - since we're into nitpicking other members' posts.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Awwal12 said:


> Sadly, the English system of articles seems nearly impossible to master.



_Nearly _is a (why not _the_ ) wrong word there if you're talking about non-native speakers: it's _absolutely_ impossible to master for them.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

velisarius said:


> _Decline of inflectional morphology doesn't equal/equate to decline of grammar. _
> 
> With a slight adjustment, I prefer Awwal's original, more taut and snappy sentence myself - since we're into nitpicking other members' posts.



Agreed!


----------



## Icetrance

Awwal12 said:


> Thanks, that was helpful (even though the half of the problem was that I simply got stuck between the verb "equal" and the adjective "equal", producing some mutated inbred construction as a result ). Sadly, the English system of articles seems nearly impossible to master.



You are welcome.  

You'd be correcting my Russian for hours.


----------



## anahiseri

It's a common mistake to say that a language "has no grammar" or only "little grammar" when what is meant is that the language has few morphological changes, that is, few verb endings, no declension of nouns and  adjectives, almost no changes concerning gender etc. as is the case in English, and even more so for example in Chinese o Indonesian. But grammar shows up in different ways: English grammar shows up mostly  in Word order (very very strict compared for ex. with Spanish) and subtleties with modal verbs, use of articles, etc. 
All languages have more or less the same "amount" of grammar, but they're different kinds of grammar; on basic distinction is between synthetic languages with a lot of inflections (endings) and analytical languages that instead of inflections use separate words like prepositions, particles and so on. English is somewhere in between and moving towards a more analytical kind of grammar. it used to have DECLENSIONS, now it hasn't , but that DOES NOT MEAN THE LANGUAGES HAS DECLINED. It's getting more simple in some aspects and mor complex in others.


----------



## anahiseri

And then the other topic, the *clarity* of French. Frankly, it seems absurd to me to apply such  words to a language, especially if you don't have a perfect command of it. Only somebody who knew at least 2 languages perfectly, one of them French, would be in a position to compare these two languages regarding *clarity". And he or she would probably not be able to decide. - Well, in this forum there must be people who are bilingual in French /English. Hi there!


----------



## Red Arrow

We are talking about a language where "plus de" can mean "more of" and "no more of". People who say that English and French have equal clarity are either in denial or use a different meaning of clarity. Of course if you think of clarity as a binary concept (Is it clear, yes or no?) then French and English are equally clear (both yes). But such a question would be worthless.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

anahiseri said:


> And then the other topic, the *clarity* of French. Frankly, it seems absurd to me to apply such  words to a language, especially if you don't have a perfect command of it. Only somebody who knew at least 2 languages perfectly, one of them French, would be in a position to compare these two languages regarding *clarity". And he or she would probably not be able to decide. - Well, in this forum there must be people who are bilingual in French /English. Hi there!


The idea that French is clearer than any other language is, of course, absurd.


----------



## Hulalessar

Red Arrow said:


> We are talking about a language where "plus de" can mean "more of" and "no more of". People who say that English and French have equal clarity are either in denial or use a different meaning of clarity. Of course if you think of clarity as a binary concept (Is it clear, yes or no?) then French and English are equally clear (both yes). But such a question would be worthless.



As you suggest, you need to define what you mean by "clear".  Occasional misunderstandings notwithstanding, we can say that for every language its speakers can say what they want to say and other speakers will understand them. However, different languages may require you to say the same thing in different ways. You may be required to say how you feel about what you are saying by using, say, the subjunctive. If you make a statement you may be required to say on what basis you make it. You may be required to specify the definiteness of nouns. You may not be able to use a noun without saying something about it. Your language may have ergative rather than accusative alignment. You may be required to emphasise whether an action is complete rather than when it happened. No language has very possible mode of expression. If a language lacks a mode of expression which yours has you may consider it lacking in clarity. On the other hand a speaker of that language may consider that mode of expression surplus to requirements.


----------



## Yendred

Hulalessar said:


> you need to define what you mean by "clear"



I guess it means not ambiguous. Then French is a model of ambiguity, as stated by Red Arrow and Pedro.
I think no living language can avoid some ambiguity, since the context and non verbal expression help resolving ambiguities.

I once read that the most precise language was Latin, and this is why it was used so long after the last natives disappeared, in such domains as science and philosophy.


----------



## Terio

French is not clearer than any other language. That idea is part of an old-fashoned chauvinism. Clarity is in the speech or in the text, not in the code. French was dominant for a time, like English is now. Many people think that what makes languages dominant is a kind of superiority in the language itself, while the reason is merely in economical and political domination.

In Quebec, many people repeat, like parrots, that English is so simple, so efficient, so practical, that it's grammar is so easy, etc. But they refer to "globish", more than to English. When you say them that English spelling is a total mess and ask them to prononce written words they have never heard before, they realize that every coin has two sides.


----------



## Red Arrow

Terio said:


> French is not clearer than any other language. That idea is part of an old-fashoned chauvinism. Clarity is in the speech or in the text, not in the code. French was dominant for a time, like English is now. Many people think that what makes languages dominant is a kind of superiority in the language itself, while the reason is merely in economical and political domination.
> 
> In Quebec, many people repeat, like parrots, that English is so simple, so efficient, so practical, that it's grammar is so easy, etc. But they refer to "globish", more than to English. When you say them that English spelling is a total mess and ask them to prononce written words they have never heard before, they realize that every coin has two sides.


I think it also has something to do with the fact that modern science is now mostly in (very clear) English. The things I do in English mostly require clarity and the things I do in French don't. Of course I try to take that into account when comparing the languages, but ultimately that is very likely to be impossible.


Hulalessar said:


> As you suggest, you need to define what you mean by "clear".  Occasional misunderstandings notwithstanding, we can say that for every language its speakers can say what they want to say and other speakers will understand them. However, different languages may require you to say the same thing in different ways. You may be required to say how you feel about what you are saying by using, say, the subjunctive. If you make a statement you may be required to say on what basis you make it. You may be required to specify the definiteness of nouns. You may not be able to use a noun without saying something about it. Your language may have ergative rather than accusative alignment. You may be required to emphasise whether an action is complete rather than when it happened. No language has very possible mode of expression. If a language lacks a mode of expression which yours has you may consider it lacking in clarity. On the other hand a speaker of that language may consider that mode of expression surplus to requirements.


Yeah, I don't think of grammar when I talk about clarity. Despite what the title of this thread says, I trust every language's grammar to be equally precise. Let's say there is a language with a grammar that causes too much ambiguity, then in no time the language will evolve into something more clear.

Many grammar rules also don't really change the level of ambiguity that much. For instance, in languages like Dutch, German and Polish, the expression for "there is" (il y a) cannot be used for objects. So you can say "there is a problem" (Er is een probleem), but you cannot say "there is a tree" or "there is a book on the table". You have to be more specific: "there stands a tree", "there lies a tree", "there lies a book on the table". It might look like this reduces ambiguity, but it barely does. It doesn't really solve any problems, it is simply how native speakers speak and certain nouns are always accompanied by certain verbs (to stand, to lie, to sit).

The same thing can be said about the subjunctive in French. Certain conjunctions always take a subjunctive and others don't. So that makes the entire tense redundant. The same thing can be said about the past tense and the future tense. Languages only need aspect, not tense. The same thing can be said about plural forms as well. You don't need them. "Yesterday I buy book", "one book, two book, multiple book...".

The "lack" of grammar can be remedied by more vocabulary. Vocabulary is what I think about when I think of clarity, not grammar. Languages work perfectly fine without a past tense, but languages without a word or phrase for "yesterday" on the other hand... I doubt they exist.

I hope this made any sense at all.


----------



## Sepia

Red Arrow said:


> Yeah, I don't think of grammar when I talk about clarity. Despite what the title of this thread says, I trust every language's grammar to be equally precise. Let's say there is a language with a grammar that causes too much ambiguity, then in no time the language will evolve into something more clear.



Or the opposite: When the language either is not used any more for complex communication where clarity and variation is crucial - or simply used by by less educated cultural groups, the clarity goes down the drain.



Red Arrow said:


> The same thing can be said about the subjunctive in French. Certain conjunctions always take a subjunctive and others don't. So that makes the entire tense redundant. The same thing can be said about the past tense and the future tense. Languages only need aspect, not tense. The same thing can be said about plural forms as well. You don't need them. "Yesterday I buy book", "one book, two book, multiple book...".



I don't quite see why that would make the sujunctive redundant. What makes you think that?


----------



## Red Arrow

The subjunctive always follows certain conjunctions, and never follows other conjunctions. (in English and French, at least) It is as redundant as using the past tense in a sentence that starts with "yesterday", or using a plural form of a noun after a number or words like "multiple", "several"...


----------



## Hulalessar

Red Arrow said:


> The subjunctive always follows certain conjunctions, and never follows other conjunctions. (in English and French, at least) It is as redundant as using the past tense in a sentence that starts with "yesterday", or using a plural form of a noun after a number or words like "multiple", "several"...


Redundancy is a feature of language. It is supplying more information than is necessary. Does it apply to making distinctions which are unnecessary? If it does then you have to ask what amounts to an unnecessary distinction. That takes us to the points I made in post 195.

I do though see your point about the subjunctive in French. In Standard English English the subjunctive can at best be described as a vestigial feature; in Standard American English it fares a little better. In French it has reached the point where it is something required (like using a past tense when talking about the past) but which does not convey anything which the indicative does not. That contrasts significantly with Spanish where the indicative and subjunctive tell you different things about how the speaker feels about what he is saying.


----------



## Red Arrow

Yes, redundancy is indeed a feature of language.

I don't know Spanish, so I cannot comment on it.


----------



## Forero

In English, subjunctive always follows some verbs and adjectives, sometimes follows other verbs and adjectives, sometimes replaces or follows certain conjunctions, and only sometimes expresses tense. It usually carries meaning, but not always.

Present perfect and past tense in English have different objective meanings that make one or the other incompatible with certain constructs. These objective meanings are always related in the same way to the time being reported on, but when syntax permits both verb forms, many speakers perceive subjective differences in terms of hints or suggestions that some even insist are crystal clear implications.

English modal verbs are defective, though some are more defective than others, and this creates lots of ambiguity. Some English verbs are only sometimes modal, reflecting multiple meanings that are sometimes subtle enough to be missed by many speakers and difficult to explain because of the defects (missing forms) and ever-present ambiguities.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Red Arrow said:


> We are talking about a language where "plus de" can mean "more of" and "no more of". People who say that English and French have equal clarity are either in denial or use a different meaning of clarity. Of course if you think of clarity as a binary concept (Is it clear, yes or no?) then French and English are equally clear (both yes). But such a question would be worthless.


Both English and French are unclear in spoken form because they have so many homophones. In English there is a giant amount of words that have tens of meanings, and you have to understand the topic very well to guess which meaning is intended. English can turn any word into a verb, adjective or adverb. In long sentences it is often a huge task to establish which word has which function. It makes the reading process much slower than necessary. Neither of these two languages is suited to be a lingua franca.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Red Arrow said:


> The subjunctive always follows certain conjunctions, and never follows other conjunctions. (in English and French, at least) It is as redundant as using the past tense in a sentence that starts with "yesterday", or using a plural form of a noun after a number or words like "multiple", "several"...


Nope! The subjunctive helps to distnguish between the kinds of the action: actual vs intended or supposed.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Yendred said:


> I guess it means not ambiguous. Then French is a model of ambiguity, as stated by Red Arrow and Pedro.
> I think no living language can avoid some ambiguity, since the context and non verbal expression help resolving ambiguities.
> 
> I once read that the most precise language was Latin, and this is why it was used so long after the last natives disappeared, in such domains as science and philosophy.


Using a dead language had a great advantage in science and scholarship, as the meaning of the words was stable, and not subject to whimsical changes coming from the mob.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> Nope! The subjunctive helps to distnguish between the kinds of the action: actual vs intended or supposed.


I am not a native French speaker, but I do not feel it has that function in (modern) French. It comes across as a form you are required to use in certain cases but which does not have anything about it which conveys something the indicative does not. It is not vestigial but is heading that way. It lacks any force. I once annoyed a few French speakers by suggesting that you can speak French for a week without using the subjunctive.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> Both English and French are unclear in spoken form because they have so many homophones. In English there is a giant amount of words that have tens of meanings, and you have to understand the topic very well to guess which meaning is intended. English can turn any word into a verb, adjective or adverb. In long sentences it is often a huge task to establish which word has which function. It makes the reading process much slower than necessary. Neither of these two languages is suited to be a lingua franca.


Just because a language has lots of homophones does not mean it runs a high risk of lots of ambiguity arising. Languages develop so that people can say things without being misunderstood. Homophones will tend to be distributed so that context makes it clear which meaning is intended. I doubt any language has the same word for cat and dog.

English has fairly strong isolating tendencies and the paucity of inflections no doubt makes it tricky for learners to pick out the functions of words.

Neither the homophones nor isolating tendencies are a problem for native English speakers, though I am not saying that misunderstandings do not sometimes arise. It is though by no means the case that native English speakers are constantly looking puzzled trying to work out what others are saying.

When people talk about clarity in language I am not sure they are talking about ambiguities, but rather about the ways in which a language insists on being precise. If you speak a language which has more than one verb form to talk about the past you may consider a language with only one such form imprecise. However, the speakers of languages with only one form do not find the lack of more than one form an impediment to communication about events in the past.


----------



## Sepia

Red Arrow said:


> The subjunctive always follows certain conjunctions, and never follows other conjunctions. (in English and French, at least) It is as redundant as using the past tense in a sentence that starts with "yesterday", or using a plural form of a noun after a number or words like "multiple", "several"...



If that were true it would be redundant. There could be other ways of seeing this.


----------



## Terio

Sometimes, there is a slight difference in the meaning :

Nous cherchons une personne qui traduit du swahili. (We are confident to find that person.) / We are looking for a person who translates (or is translating) from swahili.

Nous cherchons une personne qui traduise du swahili. (We hope we can find somebody, but its looks more or less unlikely.) / We are looking for a person who might translate from swahili.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> Neither the homophones nor isolating tendencies are a problem for native English speakers, though I am not saying that misunderstandings do not sometimes arise. It is though by no means the case that native English speakers are constantly looking puzzled trying to work out what others are saying.


I commented on French and English as means of international communication, both used in communication between native speakers of these langauges and non natives, or between non natives only.
Seen from this perspective French has a great disadvantage in oral use, as one syllable (often consisting only of one vowel alone) can have tens of meanings. English comes to short both in oral use because of many homophones, and in writing because of the multitude of meanings for every word. I am aware that native speakers and non native speakers with a very high degree of foreign language command can usually deal with those features, but the picture is different for all others. I have been working in an international environment, and I know the problems from my own experience.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> I commented on French and English as means of international communication, both used in communication between native speakers of these langauges and non natives, or between non natives only.
> Seen from this perspective French has a great disadvantage in oral use, as one syllable (often consisting only of one vowel alone) can have tens of meanings. English comes to short both in oral use because of many homophones, and in writing because of the multitude of meanings for every word. I am aware that native speakers and non native speakers with a very high degree of foreign language command can usually deal with those features, but the picture is different for all others. I have been working in an international environment, and I know the problems from my own experience.


All languages have some difficulties for foreigners. I have though never heard of homophones in French or English presenting special problems for foreign learners.

As to French: When I was 14, having formally studied French for two years at school, I spent a month with a French family speaking only French. I never had any misunderstanding involving homophones and have not had any since. I have never thought of French as having a significant number of homophones, though that may be because I always learned a new word seeing it written down. It is only recently in connection with another thread that it occurred to me that _eaux _and _hauts _were homophones.

As to English: What you say surprises me. My own experience over more than 50 years of speaking with non-native English speakers from many different parts of the world and with varying abilities is that homophones have never been a source of misunderstanding. I did though once have a Spaniard say she found English confusing because so many words were similar. She gave as an example: _pupil_, _people _and _pepper_.

Spanish itself though is not devoid of homophones with more of them in South American than Peninsular Spanish because of _seseo_. I expect someone has counted the homophones in some languages and announced which has the most. However, one needs to be wary of such lists as uncommon words may be included.


----------



## Yendred

Hulalessar said:


> _pupil_, _people _and _pepper_.


They don't sound similar to me.


----------



## anahiseri

Terio said:


> Sometimes, there is a slight difference in the meaning :
> 
> Nous cherchons une personne qui traduit du swahili. (We are confident to find that person.) / We are looking for a person who translates (or is translating) from swahili.
> 
> Nous cherchons une personne qui traduise du swahili. (We hope we can find somebody, but its looks more or less unlikely.) / We are looking for a person who might translate from swahili.


In Spanish, which also has subjunctives, there would also be a difference, but a different one 
INDICATIVE Buscamos a una persona que traduce del swahili. Se llama  Pepa.  Es amiga mía, pero no sé dónde está. 
(We are looking for this friend of mine who translates from swahili)
SUBJUNCTIVE Buscamos a una persona que traduzca del swahili
(we are looking for someone who translates  from swahili) We don't know anybody. We may find or not find a person who meets our requirement.
I speak French, but I had never realized that  the French subjunctive  could be different from the Spanish one.


----------



## Terio

anahiseri said:


> In Spanish, which also has subjunctives, there would also be a difference, but a different one
> INDICATIVE Buscamos a una persona que traduce del swahili. Se llama  Pepa.  Es amiga mía, pero no sé dónde está.
> (We are looking for this friend of mine who translates from swahili)
> SUBJUNCTIVE Buscamos a una persona que traduzca del swahili
> (we are looking for someone who translates  from swahili) We don't know anybody. We may find or not find a person who meets our requirement.
> I speak French, but I had never realized that  the French subjunctive  could be different from the Spanish one.


It is not really different. You just found better examples and explained it better. In French, though, the difference is somewhat blurred, because many forms are similar, while they are clearly different in Spanish.

Spanish :
canto / cante
cantas / cantes
canta / cante
cantamos / cantemos
cantáis / cantéis
cantan / canten

French :

je chante / chante
tu chantes / chantes
il chante / chante
nous chantons / chantions
vous chantez / chantiez
ils chantent / chantent.

Note that the two persons that are different are the less frequent and that nous chanton / nous chantions are often replaced by on chante / on chante.


----------



## Yendred

Terio said:


> In French, though, the difference is somewhat blurred, because many forms are similar,


This is true for 1st group verbs (-er), but not for 2nd (-ir) and 3rd group (all others + irregular verbs in -er/-ir).
The 10 most used French verbs belong to the 3rd group (_être, avoir, faire, dire, aller, voir, savoir, pouvoir, falloir, vouloir), _and as such, have different forms for indicative and subjunctive.


----------



## anahiseri

Terio said:


> In French, though, the difference is somewhat blurred, because many forms are similar, while they are clearly different in Spanish.


in their written form,  Spanish verbs seem to me about as difficult as French ones, but when speaking,
in French ist's easier because there are so many verb endings that are pronounced very similarly.
je travaill tu travail il travail  je dorm tu dorms il dor ????
No idea how to spell them, but when speaking  it won't sound wrong


----------



## anahiseri

_pupil_, _people _and _pepper_.


Yendred said:


> They don't sound similar to me.


No, they sound very different if you pronounce them correctly, but Spanish people are, alas, how can I phrase it, somewhat pronunciation - challenged concerning English phonetics  . . . . . . 
Also, take into account, in Spanish there are only 5 vowels!


----------



## Terio

anahiseri said:


> in their written form,  Spanish verbs seem to me about as difficult as French ones, but when speaking,
> in French ist's easier because there are so many verb endings that are pronounced very similarly.
> je travaill tu travail il travail  je dorm tu dorms il dor ????
> No idea how to spell them, but when speaking  it won't sound wrong


One of the advantages of French etymological spelling is that it often gives you hints when you study other romance langages:

tu travaille*s */trabaja*s*
ils travaille*nt* / trabaja*n*

(It's : je dors, tu dors, il dort, all pronounced the same)


----------



## Hulalessar

Terio said:


> In French, though, the difference is somewhat blurred, because many forms are similar, while they are clearly different in Spanish.


I think that that is a telling point. Comparing English, French and Spanish, the use of the subjunctive can be said to be proportional to its distinctiveness from the indicative. Apart from the verb "to be", as a form the subjunctive in English only exists in the third person singular present and then simply by dropping the inflection making it the same as the other persons in the indicative. In the verb "to be" it has two forms: "be" and "were" which also have other functions. In Spanish the subjunctive is quite distinctive for every verb and every person. In French, for most verbs the distinction is, as shown in post 215, only made in two persons.

In English the subjunctive is moribund because it barely has a distinctive form.

In French the subjunctive is an endangered species. It is only the distinctive forms of the non _-er_ conjugations and the very distinctive forms of verbs like _être_, _faire_, _savoir _etc which keep it going.

The widespread use of the subjunctive in Spanish, even in everyday speech, can be attributed (at least in part) to its distinct forms.


----------



## jekoh

Subjonctive is also widespread in everyday speech in French. 
_Faut qu'j'aille faire une course
J'attends qu'il parte
Dommage qu'i soit pu là
J'veux pas qu'il vienne_
etc.


----------



## Terio

jekoh said:


> Subjonctive is also widespread in everyday speech in French.
> _Faut qu'j'aille faire une course
> J'attends qu'il parte
> Dommage qu'i soit pu là
> J'veux pas qu'il vienne_
> etc.


Right. And even if the form is the same as indicative in regular -er verbs in several persons, if you ask even a child to change:  *je veux que tu manges* to plural, he or she will answer _je veux que vous mang*iez*, _not_ je veux que vous mang*ez*.

_


----------



## anahiseri

jekoh said:


> Subjonctive is also widespread in everyday speech in French.
> _Faut qu'j'aille faire une course
> J'attends qu'il parte
> Dommage qu'i soit pu là
> J'veux pas qu'il vienne_
> etc.


The same in Spanish. People do make grammar mistakes in their native language, but seldom related to the use of the subjunctive. It's not considered difficult


----------

