The first or the second forms (averagely)
I tend to use the first forms naturally above the second
12.5%
5
I can read and and use the first forms if I have to but tend to use the second
55.0%
22
I can read the first forms, but couldn't form them myself
17.5%
7
I can read the first forms, but they sound unnatural to me
15.0%
6
I cannot read the first forms
0.0%
0
40 votes
| English has a lot of grammatical forms which just have gotten into it via the King James which translated it from Latin a lot too literally, essentially English' higher registers now have grammatical forms which flow some-what naturally in the language but really are not germanic in origin and most romance languages have lost them as they are kind of strange without a case system. As I'm neither a native or English nor low educated and mainly learnt my English from discovery channel and have grown up with plural forms like vortices and those grammatical forms, they are kind of natural for me and I only relatively recently found out the absurdity of them historically. So, I'm wondering how many people find these sentences natural flowing as opposed to the second: 'The sun having risen, I wake and proceed to work.' / 'The sun has risen thus I wake and proceed to work.' (absolute ablative, often jokingly called the absolute nominative as English as no ablative case) 'I believe her to tell the truth.' / 'I believe that she tells the truth' (accusative and infinitive) 'To exist is to err' / 'Existing is erring' (infinitive noun) 'To die is of life' / 'Life dies' (genitive and infinitive) 'To the angels are wings' / 'The angels have wings' (possessive dative) 'To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' (auctorial dative) 'I think, therefore I am' / 'I think, therefore I exist' (existential copula) 'My driving the car is excellent' / 'My car driving is excellent' (possessive attribute) 'A man alone' / 'A lonely man' (zero-copula-praedicate) 'His killing of self' / 'His killing of himself' (reflexive pronoun that doesn't congruent) 'In name of the queen..' / 'in the name of the queen' (latin has no articles) Also, discuss if it's stupid or not, remember these grammatical forms essentially came into the higher register because of too literal a translation of the bible. |
| The first forms are easy enough to understand. I wouldn't use them though because I don't want to sound like a pompous twit. |
 |
| Obviously your sense of style is flawed. The interesting part though is that this is normal Latin grammar and though sounding extremely posh, pompous and dramatic in English really aren't like that in Latin and often have no real alternative and the original bible sounds a lot less dramatic in Latin. You just say 'subject verbs object infinitive' and not 'subject verb "that" subject verb' in Latin, I think you to lie.', I think that you lie', the original bible maybe wasn't that LotR-esque after all. |
| Please add the option: I can read and use the first forms, but may or may not use them depending on circumstance or particular phrase. I think that "I can read and and use the first forms if I have to but tend to use the second," isn't necessarily the same, as my option allows for a greater flexibility between phrases. If I thought to exist is to err (I don't) and decided to speak of this concept, I would certainly not say "existing is erring," as that sounds dumb. I may, however, say "a lonely man," much more frequently than "a man alone," yet I would not exclude this option if the occasion called for it. :/ Also, u sux. |
| Well, I don't and wouldn't want to base my style of speech on grammar rules, because grammar rules just attempt to explain the normal use of a language. If they have become outdated and the "grammar" or syntax that people use has changed, using said grammar just makes me harder to understand. Language is a tool for communication, so effective communication is what I aim for. |
| i have no problem with either, but if you talk to anyone in a university, i doubt they think about following grammar. seems like a moot point to me |
 |
khorven said: 'In name of the queen..' / 'in the name of the queen' (latin has no articles) If latin had no articles, shouldn't the corrected form be "In name of queen"? |
  |
accela said: 'In reginae nomine' was never a Latin expression, Latin just used 'In nomine' a lot meaning 'in the name' for instance 'In Iesu nomine' 'In name of Jesus', conservative English grammar holds that nouns that are definite (can refer to only one thing) on their own take no definite article as that would be double. The definite article in Old English was to make a noun definite that wasn't in the first place, and old English had no indefinite article. Nowadays people are more perceiving the word 'the' as simply to be before all definite things which traditional grammar holds it to be a modifier which can make things definite. So not before things that are already definite. One can say 'a queen' so 'the queen' has a definite article. 'The Queen' is a proper noun phrase on its own thus in English referring to the monarch of England. 'the queen' is simply one phrase. Latin inferred this from context.khorven said: 'In name of the queen..' / 'in the name of the queen' (latin has no articles) If latin had no articles, shouldn't the corrected form be "In name of queen"? This is also why in higher register one tends to encounter 'in last page we had..' and not 'the last page', of course there is only one last page, 'in a last page' makes no sense. |
| The first forms seem natural to me. The second forms seem like... street slang. I tend to use both mixed, but I believe I tend to the first forms. Just because their construction is similar to my own language. However there are many things (Kaiser, come out and talk) that I would never imagine. In English I try to be as direct as possible, as most of it's native speakers can't really understand most of the things I try to tell them in a verbose way. Nothing against you, native speakers, it's just that English is very limited. |
 Waratte Oemashou Sore ha Chiisana Inori |
| I don't see the point in talking like an intellectual when so much of the world is rot with the... not so intellectual; so while I can read the first form and use such a style when I wrote English exams in the past, I would never ever use them in any other situation. |
 NOTE: I am a legitimate (meaning usually on-topic and polite) hit-and-run poster. Do not expect me to reply to your reply to my reply. |
| Neither form looks strange to me. In writing I can and do use both since they each have their own literary qualities. When speaking I rarely use the "first form." At least I don't recognize it when I do. I'm also not sure that English is any more or less limited than any other language. I think the issue is that the general public is generally poorly educated. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've used the word juxtaposition (which any university-level student should know) and the person I was talking to just gave me a blank stare. |
 |
| Apart from the obvious syntactical differences, I do not find them to any great degree different. Second form sounds more stupid, 'sall. I think about them the same way, I read them with equal (dis)facility, and I use both. No idea which more often. I tend to adapt as per what sounds the least monotone and most topically pertinent. I will now consume your superfluous amounts of grammatical knowledge for the sake of my intellectual nourishment. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
| I see no problem with any of the structures here, although certain ones sound as if a second language student is attempting them. |
khorven said: 'The sun having risen, I wake and proceed to work.' / 'The sun has risen thus I wake and proceed to work.' (absolute ablative, often jokingly called the absolute nominative as English as no ablative case) 'I believe her to tell the truth.' / 'I believe that she tells the truth' (accusative and infinitive) 'To exist is to err' / 'Existing is erring' (infinitive noun) 'To die is of life' / 'Life dies' (genitive and infinitive) 'To the angels are wings' / 'The angels have wings' (possessive dative) 'To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' (auctorial dative) 'I think, therefore I am' / 'I think, therefore I exist' (existential copula) 'My driving the car is excellent' / 'My car driving is excellent' (possessive attribute) 'A man alone' / 'A lonely man' (zero-copula-praedicate) 'His killing of self' / 'His killing of himself' (reflexive pronoun that doesn't congruent) 'In name of the queen..' / 'in the name of the queen' (latin has no articles) (if neither are bolded than both sound acceptable to me) Looks like I have a slight preference for the second forms. For most native english speakers, I'm sure the second forms are more natural. It's what I hear spoken more often, certainly. |
khorven said: 'The sun having risen, I wake and proceed to work.' / 'The sun has risen thus I wake and proceed to work.' (absolute ablative, often jokingly called the absolute nominative as English as no ablative case) 'I believe her to tell the truth.' / 'I believe that she tells the truth' (accusative and infinitive) 'To exist is to err' / 'Existing is erring' (infinitive noun) 'To die is of life' / 'Life dies' (genitive and infinitive) 'To the angels are wings' / 'The angels have wings' (possessive dative) To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' (auctorial dative) 'I think, therefore I am' / 'I think, therefore I exist' (existential copula) 'My driving the car is excellent' / 'My car driving is excellent' (possessive attribute) 'A man alone' / 'A lonely man' (zero-copula-praedicate) 'His killing of self' / 'His killing of himself' (reflexive pronoun that doesn't congruent) 'In name of the queen..' / 'in the name of the queen' (latin has no articles) Also, discuss if it's stupid or not, remember these grammatical forms essentially came into the higher register because of too literal a translation of the bible. I bolded the ones I would more commonly use, but that doesn't necessarily mean I dislike the other option. For example, I prefer "his killing of self", but saying it that way has never occurred to me. Both ones about the car sound unnatural to me, too, so I didn't know what to do about that one. |
DeusExMachina said: That's because we don't typically say "car driving". Around here it's usually shortened to just "driving".Both ones about the car sound unnatural to me, too, so I didn't know what to do about that one. |
To not believe the world we live and breathe in to be evolved per sheer chance and chaos from that it appears as too perfect to a human eye is naïve and reversing cause and effect. To not believe there to be a higher purpose or thought behind the world we live and breathe in because there is no reason to believe it is an argument from ignorance. The best of both worlds would be to answer neither—and ultimately none—to this question. Not because of what’s on the surface, but because it acknowledges man to be evolved, and thereto narcissist to the end of self-sustainance and having the courage from that to acknowledge man to be far more ignorant than he might like to hold himself to be. The majority of all religious scriptures turned out wrong; clearly religious doctrine cannot be held as reliable to ascertain truth. Equally, the majority of all scientific discoveries turned out incorrect; thereto nonaxiomatic scientific investigation seems as equally unrealable a tool to said end. Obviously that is grammatically orgasmic English. |
| *getting dizzy* |
 |
| I care not for this The english lanuage has slowly deteriated from its orginal form and other gramtical words have over taken the older ones. Old English is the proper form. Usualy these days, people who are taught english, actually speak it better than the common people who have spoken it since birth. Anyways, I find them both fine, except for: 'To the angels are wings' and 'To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' - "Are" in both of them, I think, is incorrent, lost should either be changed to lossing or "are" to be changed to have. x |
tiamat21 said: That would change the meaning of the sentence.'To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' - "Are" in both of them, I think, is incorrent, lost should either be changed to lossing or "are" to be changed to have. x If you are lost, then you don't know your current location. If you have lost, or are losing, then you have just failed in a competition. |
naikou said: tiamat21 said: That would change the meaning of the sentence.'To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' - "Are" in both of them, I think, is incorrent, lost should either be changed to lossing or "are" to be changed to have. x If you are lost, then you don't know your current location. If you have lost, or are losing, then you have just failed in a competition. looks like a sixth option needs to be added: "I cannot read either of the two forms" |
 |
tiamat21 said: Old English, to English speakers is a language that has to be taught to them as a second language, it's the difference between Latin and Spanish. Old English was spoken from 500-1100 CE approximately, an example:I care not for this The english lanuage has slowly deteriated from its orginal form and other gramtical words have over taken the older ones. Old English is the proper form. Usualy these days, people who are taught english, actually speak it better than the common people who have spoken it since birth. Anyways, I find them both fine, except for: 'To the angels are wings' and 'To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' - "Are" in both of them, I think, is incorrent, lost should either be changed to lossing or "are" to be changed to have. x Hēafodsīde Englisc Wicipǣdia Sēo frēo wīsdōmbōc þe ǣnig mæg ādihtan I can read Old English and interpret it's vastly more complicated grammar than modern English as I've studied it, it's easier to read to speakers of German than to English. Five grammatical cases, three genders, two numbers, 9-14 classes of verbs depending on interpretation. Two adjectival declensions, five noun declensions. |
khorven said: I can read Old English and interpret it's vastly more complicated grammar than modern English as I've studied it, it's easier to read to speakers of German than to English. Five grammatical cases, three genders, two numbers, 9-14 classes of verbs depending on interpretation. Two adjectival declensions, five noun declensions. Reminds me of a Russian a bit. Especially the three genders thing. |
 |
| I never see people today who write or say things like the first form; hell, it's rare enough to see someone who actually speaks and writes the language fluently. |
Esley said: That's more standard Indo-European languages.khorven said: I can read Old English and interpret it's vastly more complicated grammar than modern English as I've studied it, it's easier to read to speakers of German than to English. Five grammatical cases, three genders, two numbers, 9-14 classes of verbs depending on interpretation. Two adjectival declensions, five noun declensions. Reminds me of a Russian a bit. Especially the three genders thing. Russian, English, Latin, German, Sanskrit, Hindi, Persian (what they speak in Iran), Pashto (what they speak in Afghanistan) are ultimately descended from the same language spoken approximately 3000 years ago near current day Iran. A standard IE language and all the older varients like Latin, Sanskrit, Old Slavic and Old Persian share these trades: Three gender system three numbers, singular, plural and dual Eight cases adjectival congruence pronoun congruence verbal agreement with person and number of the subject (but not the gender) Many people like to assume that Persian or Pashto are related to Arabian because they're both Muslim but nothing could be further from the truth. Persian is in the end related to English and clear cognates are visible. English is also related to Latin, though it may not be obvious, English 'head' (old English heafod) is related to Latin stem 'capit-' which means the same. Latin k sounds tend to be h sounds in English and p sounds in Latin tend to correspond to f sounds in English. Like Latin pisc- and English Fish. Latin cornu to English horn. Turkish and Persian have nothing to do with Arabian and it's annoying that people tend to think that way on suggestion because both people tend to be Muslim. The three languages sound nothing alike and you'd have more basis linking Turkish to Japanese, which is actually done by serious comparative linguists. |
Saito-sama said: naikou said: tiamat21 said: That would change the meaning of the sentence.'To me you are already lost' / in my eyes you are already lost' - "Are" in both of them, I think, is incorrent, lost should either be changed to lossing or "are" to be changed to have. x If you are lost, then you don't know your current location. If you have lost, or are losing, then you have just failed in a competition. looks like a sixth option needs to be added: "I cannot read either of the two forms" Ohh? Am sorry I read the thing in its wrong context... *yawn*..... I'm getting sick of MAL forums due to the people it in.... x |
| Eh. Languages evolve. I'm not surprised that Old English is almost entirely different from Modern English. Some people even have a hard time reading Shakespeare; it's likely that English will continue to evolve and perhaps in a couple hundred years our Modern English might look a bit odd to the their English. |
Gin-iro said: The reason English' spelling makes no sense is because it's actually frozen in time though. Shakespeare more or less spoke English as it's written, no silent letters or any of that stuffEh. Languages evolve. I'm not surprised that Old English is almost entirely different from Modern English. Some people even have a hard time reading Shakespeare; it's likely that English will continue to evolve and perhaps in a couple hundred years our Modern English might look a bit odd to the their English. |
khorven said: Gin-iro said: The reason English' spelling makes no sense is because it's actually frozen in time though. Shakespeare more or less spoke English as it's written, no silent letters or any of that stuffEh. Languages evolve. I'm not surprised that Old English is almost entirely different from Modern English. Some people even have a hard time reading Shakespeare; it's likely that English will continue to evolve and perhaps in a couple hundred years our Modern English might look a bit odd to the their English. I see. So I guess it's more the grammar changing than the actual words? Of course, some Shakespearean words are extinct as well... According to Wikipedia, English is about 80% phonetic, which is pretty reliable, but still not good. It also doesn't help that English tries to adopt new words from other languages which can confuse people if they don't know what language it came from and how English tries to phonetically make it coherent. Edit: And how could I forget letters with more than one pronunciation? That confused me the most as a kid. Why is it spelled "phone" when "fone" could work? :/ |
Gin-iroMay 9, 2009 2:27 PM
Gin-iro said: It's the etymology. Phone comes from greek 'phonos' which means 'sound', the idea is that the 'ph' you see there used to be pronounced in Greek just like you see it, a p and a h sound, like a p that pops. Point is that Greek pronunciation changes you and the popping p is now pronounced like an f in Greek. But the standard for transcribing the Greek letter 'phi' for the popping p and now the f was already set in ancient Rome when it was still a popping p, so the 'ph' spelling made sense back then. Same happened in English by the way. Compare German 'leben' to English 'live' and general things of German 'b' corresponding to English 'v' in similar words. Haben / to have, Rabe / raven. Again, olddated spelling standards.khorven said: Gin-iro said: The reason English' spelling makes no sense is because it's actually frozen in time though. Shakespeare more or less spoke English as it's written, no silent letters or any of that stuffEh. Languages evolve. I'm not surprised that Old English is almost entirely different from Modern English. Some people even have a hard time reading Shakespeare; it's likely that English will continue to evolve and perhaps in a couple hundred years our Modern English might look a bit odd to the their English. I see. So I guess it's more the grammar changing than the actual words? Of course, some Shakespearean words are extinct as well... According to Wikipedia, English is about 80% phonetic, which is pretty reliable, but still not good. It also doesn't help that English tries to adopt new words from other languages which can confuse people if they don't know what language it came from and how English tries to phonetically make it coherent. Edit: And how could I forget letters with more than one pronunciation? That confused me the most as a kid. Why is it spelled "phone" when "fone" could work? :/ |
khorven said: It's the etymology. Phone comes from greek 'phonos' which means 'sound', the idea is that the 'ph' you see there used to be pronounced in Greek just like you see it, a p and a h sound, like a p that pops. Point is that Greek pronunciation changes you and the popping p is now pronounced like an f in Greek. But the standard for transcribing the Greek letter 'phi' for the popping p and now the f was already set in ancient Rome when it was still a popping p, so the 'ph' spelling made sense back then. Same happened in English by the way. Compare German 'leben' to English 'live' and general things of German 'b' corresponding to English 'v' in similar words. Haben / to have, Rabe / raven. Again, olddated spelling standards. Ah, that makes sense. |
| Essentially most if not all spelling absurdities arise from sounds changing but spelling staying. The moment orthographies are first invented, they tend to make sense a lot. Most older languages had scripts created especially for those languages too, so... |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |