Grammar Post

[llangatwgnedd]

Can I post jokes in this thread just to spoil it?

 

[John Brown]

Language, the blessing and bane of life!
English is a technical language and very precise with words exactly describing form or function. Dutch on the other hand is a particularly earthy language. English 'binocular' describes the function of the device - the Dutch word translates to a more basic 'far-looker'. And an all time favourite, those baggy horse riding trousers, jodhpurs which I think is a word of Indian origin is translated from the Dutch name as 'sh*t catchers'. And I remember my M-I-L cooing over someone's baby in a pram and saying 'mooi kleine scheetje'. And rolling around the floor laughing when I asked the wife what she said and wife replied that it was a common phrase for cute little babies and translated as 'a beautiful little fart.'
But if English is technical and Dutch is earthy, Irish is way out there in oddball land.
I would stress that I don't really speak Irish, I just study the language in an effort to stop my brain turning to mush.
And I read that Ireland has just penned a new phrase for a black man - 'duine de dhath.' - a person of colour
As to why this was necessary, dubh=black, fear=man. So 'dubh fear' is a black man, right? Well, no. A black man is, or was, a 'gorm fear' which translates as a 'blue man'. The reason was that the Irish 'black man' referred to the devil which would of course be insulting so since ages past a back man was a blue man, until recently with the latest iteration.
And as far as I can understand the entire Irish language is littered with these idiosyncrasies whereby word meanings and phrases change entirely depending on the sentence and the sentiment being expressed and further complicated by quite significant regional differences. I can translate the words 'thank you' directly into Irish and it would engender bewilderment in the recipient. The Irish thank you translates for some reason to 'may there be goodness at you.' I remember an Irish shipmate saying to me once that you could go into any pub in the world, and if there happened to be two irishmen at the bar they would end up fighting. I understand that now, it's because I suspect they don't know what the other is talking about...
English has some odd rules, but it's not so bad.

Disclaimer: 25% Irish so allowed to poke a bit of fun..

I came across this recently, after encountering the word "palinka" in a book I was reading.


"The most alcoholic pálinkas are (informally) referred to as kerítésszaggató in Hungarian, which literally means "fence-ripper" (referring to a drunkard's loss of balance) or "guggolós" ("squatter"), referring to the action required while walking near the windows of the houses of non-professional distillers to avoid getting invited (again) to taste their home-made pálinka. These potent, homemade, házi (home-made) pálinkas are commercially available in small portions and are very common in the countryside."

 

[glenfield2]

Messrs Holland and Anderson had a new sign painted, but complained to the artist that he had left too much space between Holl and and and and and and and and and And and And and derson.

How great to hear that one. My old dad entertained me with it as a kid way back in the ‘50s. I suspect it was one of the many bits of trivia he picked up as a PoW in Germany.
As was this: what does it spell?
o o o o o o o o

 

[John Brown]

How great to hear that one. My old dad entertained me with it as a kid way back in the ‘50s. I suspect it was one of the many bits of trivia he picked up as a PoW in Germany.
As was this: what does it spell?
o o o o o o o o

Tomatoes.
I have to say, that's a strange looking cat.

 

[Agent_zed]

I think Phil was specifically talking about the use of "mis" in a compound word.

exactly you 'think'. This is because you have enough prior knowledge and intelect to adapt an incomplete rule or idea.

To blame people for 'not bothering to learn' english because they are lazy or can't be bothered on the basis that is 'isn't difficult' or ' they just need to remember X', as some people have stated, fails to take into account their requirement of lateral thinking and prior knowledge of other constructs.

We learn them from custom and practice from the day we are born

In vastly different ways and levels of understanding. As I've already pointed out in previous posts some people are not given the opportunity to learn and others may be unable to learn as quickly as others for a huge variety of reasons.

99% of us would understand

and 1% may not (let's ignore that this is a complete guess as we have no idea what % of people would understand this).

If you are allowing interpretation it could also be argued that 99% of people can still read and understand a sentence missing a comma or 'mispelling' a word. So why does one matter and the other not?

But this again goes back to the point I was making, which is being missed. Something that is deemed not difficult by one person can be seen and interpreted in an entirely different way by someone else. Whether it be this off the cuff general rule or another.

When we comment on another persons grasp of english we assume a lot about them. Consider this - you walk into an art gallery and you see a load of paintings in a display called 'Square boxes'. All of the paintings are shakey lines and not one of them is perfectly square. You loudly exclaim, on your way out, 'I could have done better than that, It's not difficult to paint a square, they should learn to draw better!'. By the door is a sign saying 'Exhibition by the residents of the local disabilities home'.

 

[John Brown]

exactly you 'think'. This is because you have enough prior knowledge and intelect to adapt an incomplete rule or idea.

To blame people for 'not bothering to learn' english because they are lazy or can't be bothered on the basis that is 'isn't difficult' or ' they just need to remember X', as some people have stated, fails to take into account their requirement of lateral thinking and prior knowledge of other constructs.

In vastly different ways and levels of understanding. As I've already pointed out in previous posts some people are not given the opportunity to learn and others may be unable to learn as quickly as others for a huge variety of reasons.

and 1% may not (let's ignore that this is a complete guess as we have no idea what % of people would understand this).

If you are allowing interpretation it could also be argued that 99% of people can still read and understand a sentence missing a comma or 'mispelling' a word. So why does one matter and the other not?

But this again goes back to the point I was making, which is being missed. Something that is deemed not difficult by one person can be seen and interpreted in an entirely different way by someone else. Whether it be this off the cuff general rule or another.

When we comment on another persons grasp of english we assume a lot about them. Consider this - you walk into an art gallery and you see a load of paintings in a display called 'Square boxes'. All of the paintings are shakey lines and not one of them is perfectly square. You loudly exclaim, on your way out, 'I could have done better than that, It's not difficult to paint a square, they should learn to draw better!'. By the door is a sign saying 'Exhibition by the residents of the local disabilities home'.

Sorry. I wasn't intending to upset anyone.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Kittyhawk - no, not Gaelic.

 

[Agent_zed]

Sorry. I wasn't intending to upset anyone.

I'm certainly not upset. I'm finding it an interesting discussion and I hope I in turn have not offended anyone. I like sharing ideas and thoughts on a subject as it may also change the way I percieve something.

 

[dzj]

I came across this recently, after encountering the word "palinka" in a book I was reading.


"The most alcoholic pálinkas are (informally) referred to as kerítésszaggató in Hungarian, which literally means "fence-ripper" (referring to a drunkard's loss of balance) or "guggolós" ("squatter"), referring to the action required while walking near the windows of the houses of non-professional distillers to avoid getting invited (again) to taste their home-made pálinka. These potent, homemade, házi (home-made) pálinkas are commercially available in small portions and are very common in the countryside."

When someone has an unhealthy penchant for the stuff, they are sometimes referred to here
as a Palinkashevich.

Spirit, another word with a multitude of meanings.

 

[spanner48]

There's another one with multiple hads. I can't remember it, however.

John where Jane had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval.

 

[Thingybob]

Tomatoes.
I have to say, that's a strange looking cat.

Potatoes

 

[John Brown]

Potatoes

You say potatoes, I say tomatoes.

 

[paulrbarnard]

John where Jane had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval.

I’ve seen a number of these posts, can some one please explain to the poor dyslexic what it means or is trying to show?

 

[John Brown]

John where Jane had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval.

Thanks a lot!
It's taken me years to forget that, and now I have to start all over again...

 

[niall Y]

I’ve seen a number of these posts, can some one please explain to the poor dyslexic what it means or is trying to show?

OK, I'll do my best - It does my head in as well. It makes use of the past perfect - 'had had' and' had' ,which is past tense. If you string them together in a certain way, you can thoroughly confuse the meaning of a sentence. This is also helped by leaving out punctuation.

So, here goes -
John, ( where Jane had had, "had") had had, "had had". "Had had", had the teachers approval.

To lay it out in a better way -
Where Jane had had, "had", John had had, "had had" . "Had had", had the teachers approval.

Well, there's a few minutes of my life i won't get back.

 

[paulrbarnard]

OK, I'll do my best - It does my head in as well. It makes use of the past perfect - 'had had' and' had' ,which is past tense. If you string them together in a certain way, you can thoroughly confuse the meaning of a sentence. This is also helped by leaving out punctuation.

So, here goes -
John, ( where Jane had had, "had") had had, "had had". "Had had", had the teachers approval.

To lay it out in a better way -
Where Jane had had, "had", John had had, "had had" . "Had had", had the teachers approval.

Well, there's a few minutes of my life i won't get back.

Thanks for trying! Unfortunately there was a loud whooshing noise and I distinctly saw something fly over my head. I’m sure that was what distracted me from understanding it.

 

[Geoff_S]

OK, I'll do my best - It does my head in as well. It makes use of the past perfect - 'had had' and' had' ,which is past tense. If you string them together in a certain way, you can thoroughly confuse the meaning of a sentence. This is also helped by leaving out punctuation.

So, here goes -
John, ( where Jane had had, "had") had had, "had had". "Had had", had the teachers approval.

To lay it out in a better way -
Where Jane had had, "had", John had had, "had had" . "Had had", had the teachers approval.

Well, there's a few minutes of my life i won't get back.

Why oh why oh why just why why why why why why?

 

[niall Y]

Oh dear. I'm sure I'm also somewhere along that spectrum as well - but not to the extent you are.

My final go at explaining the meaning, would be to use different words.
So, here goes.................

Where Jane had used the word " had", John had instead, used "had had". "Had had" was the one approved of, by the teacher.

 

[Cozzer]

I'm certainly not upset. I'm finding it an interesting discussion and I hope I in turn have not offended anyone. I like sharing ideas and thoughts on a subject as it may also change the way I percieve something.

....erm...... "perceive"......



Meant to add that I suspect you did that deliberately?!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Oh dear. I'm sure I'm also somewhere along that spectrum as well - but not to the extent you are.

My final go at explaining the meaning, would be to use different words.
So, here goes.................

Where Jane had used the word " had", John had instead, used "had had". "Had had" was the one approved of, by the teacher.

Now that makes sense. I’m sure my dyslexia was playing a role here. Quite likely I was either reading more, or less, ‘had’ in the original sentence.