h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The language before Babalon? If you believe that is.

If that is spelt wrong, I don't care I have only just woke up.

What is the etymological/historical relationship between Babylon and Babel?

The interest in eggs was prompted when I was asked to prove my contention that the chicken came first

Babylonia and Babel are essentially one and the same. The city of Babylon was known as Bab-ilim and later Bab-ilu by the locals (i.e. Babylonians). Hebrew got Bab-el from this, and Greek got Babylon. The city got its name from from one of its temples (the name means 'gate of God' in both Babylonian and Hebrew) which took the form of a tall tower, presumed to be the original Tower of Babel.

Your own logic defeates you. Connexion loses its connection to the word connect...

Not at all.

Spelling most "-ction" words "-xion" is actually pretty common. American English generally recongnises "crucifixion".

The -x- to -ct- change goes back to Latin.

I might agree with you, Uberphreak, if there were a word that might cause confusion with "connexion" -- "connex" or somesuch. As there isn't, and as the -ct- to -x- doesn't affect meaning, there's no reason to exclude "connexion".

--Cooper

Note that by, "The -x- to -ct- change goes back to Latin," I mean that many Latin verbs conjugate into -x- and -ct-.

A common verb conjugation in Latin is -eo, -ere, -exi, -ectus (present tense first person, infinitive, perfect past tense first person, whatever the word is for "having done [whatever the verb is]")

Taking this example, we arrive at a pattern in English as follows:
connect is the verb
connexion is the noun for the event
connector is the noun for the actor

--Cooper

In "The Picture of Dorian Gray", Oscar Wilde spells it 'connexion'.

That would be a past participle.

How relevant is Latin grammar to English? Many of the "rules" of English grammar derive from an attempt to apply the forms of Latin to a language which does not come exlusively from Latin roots (and the Latin rules themselves were invented in part by British grammarians).

Do we really need something we have labelled the "subjunctive" ("If I were you") which only applies to one verb in one construction?

If you borrow a word from Latin or Greek - phenomenon/phenomena, medium/media, datum/data - isn't it asking for trouble to try and incorporate some of that language's grammar just for that word? French has phénomène, with a plural ending in s, though they just adopt "mass media" from English. German has daten for data, which follows German rules (though Altavista's Babelfish also says daten is used for datum, which I have not encountered).

The definitely/difinitely thing is only because I can't spell. I wasn't trying to make a point. I am willing to agree that correct spelling makes the world go round (though I refuse to believe that most of the ridiculous spellings of English make much sense, etymologically (go on, you know what I mean) or otherwise).

I would, however, defend the rights of people to get jiggy with spelling in situations like 'kwik save' and 'I want 2 b with you' (yes, I know I am hopelessly unhip, you know what I mean here too). But when I spell badly, it is just a manifestation of my bad spelling. There is no wider world view at work.

I teach English to foreign students (as I think I've said). I teach them 'use' not 'idealized and not-adhered-to rules', though they do have to make less 'creative' mistakes in order for people not to mistake them for ordinary mistakes (and assume that my students are less than competent). Their spelling, for example, is much better than mine.

The point is you will be pleased to hear that on the topic of "If I were..." and "If I was..." every textbook and accompanying grammar reference gives both as interchangeable.

And on the subject of prepositions at the end of sentences. We actually teach this as correct (slightly less formal than not putting a prep at the end, but nevertheless correct). Usually I have to go to great lengths, in fact, break the students of their ingrained habit of saying "To whom are you writing?" etc etc. My justification is that if I don't, they really do sound like they learnt their English in the 1950s. Because the language has moved on...

I even thought of a convincing argument as to why (not why it is 'right', but why the rigidity of the rule has changed). But...

I agree, by the way, about the Latinisation of a language that was never entirely Latin in the first place. Up until the 1950s or there abouts most (European) languages were regarded as bastardizations of this pure language form (linguists were only just beginning to take into account such bizarre languages as, well, anything not from Europe). This was how all languages (English and 'foreign' languages) in Britain and America were taught too.

Interesting, yes?

I would like you to know that in the interests of harmony, I have run the above through a spell checker. Any mistakes are entirely the machine's fault.

Solnushka,

I think you asked about your attempt. Pretty good for the sense:

A povre wydwe, somdeel stape in age Was whilom dwellyng in a narwe cotage
A poor widow, somewhat advanced in age, Once lived in a small cottage

Cheers.

Personally, I get a headache from all those 'v's and 'f's and funny 's's you get in older printing. Chaucer looks a step too far to me. But I bet it is fun out loud.

I seem to remember that there's a page somewhere with audio files of the pronunciation. I would go and look for it for you, but it would be removed. I think it was at Harvard.

BTW, nothing to do with the internet but if you're interested in language, you may be interested in my entry on solving the Times Crossword (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A563690).

Solnushka, there are many thousands of words in English which have lost their etymological links to their antecedents - in the case of de-/di- prefixes, for example, 'defer' should be 'difer' and 'dilettante' should be 'delettante' - so spelling 'definitely' as 'difinitely' isn't exactly a hanging offence. The only people who have any right to get upset about this sort of thing are diachronic linguists, and in the unlikely event that one of them should chastise you for it, feel free to point out that they'd be out of a job if it didn't happen .

lol!
^. .^
= ' =

Mycroft: thanks. I always seem to forget the terms for grammatical concepts. I understand and can use the concept; the word eludes me.

Mund:

I'm not saying that we should adopt Latin grammar wholly. Many of our combining forms come from Latin, as do several conjugations and declensions.

The point was that "connexion" isn't entirely unfounded.

re (a Latin term!): the subjunctive

In Shakespeare's day, the subjunctive was used more than once:
present tense "be" if you BE man enough, if she BE true, if I BE
past tense "be" if she WERE approved, if I WERE approved, &c.

The subjunctive can also be used to show irony, as when in Much Ado about Nothing, Don Pedro says of Beatrice, "She were a good wife for Benedick."

--Cooper

I think that's one of the reasons I like Chaucer so much. When we were studying the Prologue, our teacher brought in this tape with (what they thought) was the correct pronunciation. Now I go round annoying everyone by reading it in the same manner.