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

Back in post number 4161 I said: << Language is a living tool that responds and adapts to the way it is used>> which got me hunting through some old floppies for something... and instead I found this, a piece I typed up for a friend of a friend who was came here from Chile to learn English...

It's not really in keeping with the split infinitive theme...
but I thought what the heck....

<quote>

21 Reasons why the English language is so hard to learn.

1. The bandage was wound around the wound.
2. The farm was used to produce produce.
3. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4. We must polish the Polish furniture.
5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10. I did not object to the object.
11. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
12. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
13. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
14. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
15. They were too close to the door to close it.
16. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
17. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
18. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
19. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
20. After a number of injections my jaw got number.
21. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.

English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France.

Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.

We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

Why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don&#8217;t ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes I** think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out, in which an alarm goes off by going on and trees are chopped down then chopped up into firewood.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't a race at all).

That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.



six7's

**not me...

Plenty to talk about here. How do English learners cope with all this chaos? Advice shop

Of the paired words in the list of 21, *none* are of the same word class (usually verb vs noun - this is a familiar 'rule' of stress). They are therefore less likely to be confused in context.

There's no egg in aubergine , and Hamburg is not known for its ham.

The 'broken' nature of the vocabulary (e.g. finger-fang-no verb anymore) is certainly a difficulty, but this is true to a lesser extent for nearly all languages.

English is half French - in every way. As soon as learners realise this, they may be able to appreciate pairs like nose-nasal and king-royal.

The problem with plurals is exaggerated. Nearly all words can take a normal plural, e.g. indexes (non-mathematical).

Phrasal verbs are a complete nightmare, until you accept that the particle (in, out etc) does not necessarily have any logical meaning at all.

And of course, most of all
Don't Panic!

"...indexes (non-mathematical)."

Oh, is that the rule? Indices are mathematical, indexes are non-mathematical?

I'll admit to having always thought this a USA vs British english thing.

Oh well, you live and learn

<>

I thought indices are the old-fashioned way of saying it, and indexes is a more modern, more rational, form that's gradually being adopted, like "you" instead of "thee". Still, perhaps I'm wrong in this supposition?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

A sub-ed brought up a point about something I wrote

"Initially all channels are formed below the water table, are therefore flooded, and since their entire surface is in contact with the water, solution tends to result in a rounded channel cross-section."

The problem they had was with the "..., are therefore flooded..." section. As far as I can see, what I wrote is somewhat analogous to the case of a list "I ate chicken and potatoes and carrots for lunch"
being reduced to "I ate chicken, potatoes, and carrots for lunch", where the first comma carries an implicit 'and'.

I'm unsure if I was gramattically correct in what I wrote or not - any ideas?

I have no idea if it is correct, but it does sound somewhat stilted. personally I'd replace the comma with '. They...' but that's probably just me!

Sounds fine to me, but then I was always getting hassle for constricting sentences too much.

If I was a sub-editor (applied, not heard back yet), I'd say no. What can and can't be omitted in reiteration seems is quite strictly controlled, although, as usual, decisions are somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps it's just that it's unclear what the second 'are' refers to, as has been mentioned.

You're always better keeping away from long sentences with loads of subclauses, even if they are grammatically correct. It is possible to write long sentences and make them easy to read; it is done by using a huge variety of different connecting phrases such as "in as much as" and so on. Look at the writings of Mark Moxon for examples.

In this case, you are better to split the sentence up into two. It will make it much clearer.

I think it depends how much of a pause one interprets the first comma as representing.

Actually, since I tend to write essentially the same way I speak, without much formal training in grammar (at least that I can remember), possibly my greatest uncertainty in writing is the issue of when (or if) to use a semicolon. I end up sticking with commas for anything that isn't a really long pause, and either colons, dashes, or both for a more serious split in a sentence.

Are there any strict rules for semicolons, or is their use largely a matter of interpretation.?

In general, commas are used to separate sections of sentences where pauses are required but where the sections cannot stand on their own as complete sentences. If the parts can stand on their own, then a semicolon or colon is required. For example, in the last sentence, the section "If the parts can stand on their own" could not stand on its own, so a comma was required after it.

"Many people like Queen, they are a great band". In this, the two parts can stand on their own. This should be written with a semicolon, or as two separate sentences, like this:

Many people like Queen; they are a great band.
Many people like Queen. They are a great band.

It's a question of taste which of these you use; the semicolon connects the two sentences together indicating that they are related.

Long ago, a colon was used as another sentence connector, somewhere between a semicolon and a full stop. This usage is very rare nowadays. The more common use for the colon is to indicate that an explanation or detailed list is about to follow. You can see this earlier in this posting after "like this". In the old days this was written with a dash after it like this:- but now the dash is omitted.

The use of dashes in sentences is very much a matter of taste. They can used - like this - instead of brackets to introduce a parenthesis (an aside). They can also be used as a sentence connector - this is very similar to using a semicolon.

Advertisers don't use semicolons. They love periods. That's full stops in the UK. They prefer short sentences. Very short. Verb? Optional!

This sentence no verb.

Advertising posters intended to be viewed as you drive past in your car use very short sentences. They have to. Those on bus shelters, on the other hand, tend to be much wordier, because people may be standing for minutes waiting for the bus and have time to read them.

<>

Excellent!

"Initially all channels are formed below the water table, are therefore flooded, and since their entire surface is in contact with the water, solution tends to result in a rounded channel cross-section."

I'm with the majority on this one - I don't like it much. Sorry. Break it up somehow - several useful suggestions have already been made. The more I use them, the more I'm coming to like these dashes: as parentheses, and as sentence separators.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

It's OK - it's been replaced by an alternative, and I was only looking for opinions. It seems I was in a minority.

Possibly it's a matter of how strongly one retains the subject (object?) of the whole sentence, and since I was writing about channel formation, maybe I was focussing on channels more than the average reader might, and implictly carried that across to the second part of the sentence.

"Initially all channels are formed below the water table, [the channels] are therefore flooded..."

However, I'm moderately wary of repeating words when unless it seems unavoidable. Maybe too wary. Wariness (waryness?) should be something I try and moderate. And long sentences. *Especially* long sentences.

Bad Potholer. Naughty Potholer. They'll make you a tabloid journalist yet. Nooooooooo!

* I should probably stay out of this but...*

What does 'initially' refer to? The forming of channels or the being flooded? And is the flooding a part of the forming or a result (due to being bleow the water table)?

You say:
""Initially all channels are formed below the water table, [the channels] are therefore flooded...""

How about:
Formed below the water table, the channels are initially flooded.
Or:
Initially formed below the water table the channels flood.

And 'flooded' doesn't sound passive. It sounds like it was done to the channels. Do channels initially flood, or form and then flood, or are they flooded as they are formed, or formed by the flooding?

*I knew I shoulda kept quiet.. forget I spoke.*

peace
jwf

Nooo! Adverb position again! You people are virtually forcing me to write an entry on it! Er...no. But I will, and that's a promise - when I get round to it (limited net access at the moment).

Dashes - I actually have to stop myself from using too many. I used to be the same with bracket, but dashes are so much more authoritative.

<>

This reminded me of something I read a while ago, that I just managed to find again. It's by Michael McIntyre of Cambridge University. His area of expertise in English is 'lucidity'. Here is an extract from his work:

< LR). Gratuitous variation - the pointless use of different words for the same thing - is what H. W. Fowler ironically called "elegant" variation, an "incurable vice" of "the minor novelists and the reporters".

Lucid repetition is the opposite, the consistent use of the same word or phrase for the same thing. It often provides the invariant element within organic change. In addition, it is a powerful way to create or strengthen links between sentences and paragraphs, helping everything to hang together.

A simple example is the repetition of the word "serious" in "We will be serious if you are serious." Notice the relatively weak and muddy effect of a gratuitously-varied version, such as "We will be serious if you are not frivolous". The change is no longer organic.>>

If you want more, type "Michael McIntyre" and "lucidity principles in brief" (i.e. type the two phrases, including the double quotes, but not the "and" in between them) into Google. I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed reading what he had to say. He isn't an English professor, by the way. If memory serves, he's something to do with climate or physics.

If anyone pursues the link, will they let me know what they think, please? Thanks.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Pattern-chaser's link is:

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/papers/LHCE/lucidity-principles-in-brief.html

Ooooh, I didn't think that was allowed, hence my circumlocution.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"