Reasons why the English language is so hard to learn
So, you thought you were tough enough to try to learn English? This little treatise on the lovely language we share is only for the brave. It was passed on by a linguist, original author unknown.
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 though 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. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13. They were too close to the door to close it.
14. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18. After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend? Let's face it....English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant or ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France.
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.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don'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? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend. If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by car 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 and in which, an alarm goes off by going on. English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
The English Language - Too Funny...So True!!
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
southerngale
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 27418
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:27 am
- Location: Southeast Texas (Beaumont area)
The English Language - Too Funny...So True!!
0 likes
Please support Storm2k by making a donation today. It is greatly appreciated! Click here: 
my Cowboys my Rockets my Astros
my Cowboys my Rockets my Astros-
GulfBreezer
- Category 5
- Posts: 2230
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 8:58 pm
- Location: Gulf Breeze Fl
- Contact:
Tongue Twister city!
-
WidreMann
Well, this is a nice piece by somebody who obviously isn't a linguist, otherwise he wouldn't make huge mistakes such as the following:
1) The first section is all about orthography, which really has nothing to do with the way the language works itself.
2)
Anybody who has actually studied the history of language would know the answer to this: inflectional classes. Tooth was an i-stem noun, which meant that, at least in Germanic, the plural inflections all began with an 'i'. And that 'i' caused umlaut in the root vowel of the noun in the proto-English period and then later disappeared (in English: o > e unlike German with o > ö; but u > y > i similar to German u > ü where ü and y are pronounced the same, but in English, the y was later unrounded to i). Booth was not in that class. Booth was borrowed later in the history of Enlish (from Scandinavian in fact, and is related to the verb "build"). And the key here is also that it was borrowed. Borrowed words nearly always use regular inflection. In English, this means 's' in the plural. There are exceptions, like "strive", which, although borrowed from French, instead of adopting the regular "ed" ending for the past tense, became a class I strong verb (strive - strove - striven). Nevertheless, it isn't at all surprising that booth didn't go over to the irregular pattern.
3)
Well, if you make no consideration for the possible meanings of "quick", then yes, this does seem to be a paradox. However, it happens that "quick" originally meant "alive" (with all its connotations of moving, etc.) as in the phrase "the quick and the dead".
4)
No it doesn't. This guy also doesn't seem to understand the concept of idiomatic expressions. They don't make any sense. They just don't. At one point they did. At one point in the history of the language, you could have analyzed the expression into its constituent parts such that it made sense. But it doesn't any more and expression becomes its own singular element. Specifically in this case he is drawing attention to the fact that amends is plural. There are many nouns like this, and they are called pluralia tantum: pants, glasses, etc. They are always plural. There is always a reason. For glasses, it is simple to see how the fact that there were always two pieces of glass in the pair (also why we say "a pair of glasses") meant that the noun would always be plural. For others it isn't so clear. But that doesn't mean it's completely ridiculous.
It is important, though, to realize that whether or not the noun is plural in form, its meaning is clearly singular or, in the case of making amends, not present at all as a separable element of meaning. That is to say, amends only means anything at all in the presence of the verb to make. It isn't worthwhile to spend time analyzing form in an attempt to glean meaning from elements in these expressions as there is none to be found but that is exactly what the author is doing.
5)
I'll refer you to my comment about tooth/teeth.
6)
Did it cross this guy's mind that verbs can have many different meanings? Yes, smell can mean to use your olfactory organs to detect odors, but it can also mean to produce such odors. One could conceivably make the case that there should be a separate verb, but it's not necessary because context makes it quite clear. Only a person or animal can smell in the sense of using olfactory organs. Since feet don't have those, it's obvious that the other meaning is intended. The language would be absolutely huge and unnecessarily complex if we really had a separate word for every meaning. And it happens that all languages have such overlaps.
7)
Sarcasm. Consider: a fat chance would by its real meaning imply a good chance. But in a sarcastic reference frame, it actually implies the opposite, like someone saying "good luck" to someone who is about to do something that isn't likely to work out.
1) The first section is all about orthography, which really has nothing to do with the way the language works itself.
2)
If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese?
Anybody who has actually studied the history of language would know the answer to this: inflectional classes. Tooth was an i-stem noun, which meant that, at least in Germanic, the plural inflections all began with an 'i'. And that 'i' caused umlaut in the root vowel of the noun in the proto-English period and then later disappeared (in English: o > e unlike German with o > ö; but u > y > i similar to German u > ü where ü and y are pronounced the same, but in English, the y was later unrounded to i). Booth was not in that class. Booth was borrowed later in the history of Enlish (from Scandinavian in fact, and is related to the verb "build"). And the key here is also that it was borrowed. Borrowed words nearly always use regular inflection. In English, this means 's' in the plural. There are exceptions, like "strive", which, although borrowed from French, instead of adopting the regular "ed" ending for the past tense, became a class I strong verb (strive - strove - striven). Nevertheless, it isn't at all surprising that booth didn't go over to the irregular pattern.
3)
we find that quicksand can work slowly
Well, if you make no consideration for the possible meanings of "quick", then yes, this does seem to be a paradox. However, it happens that "quick" originally meant "alive" (with all its connotations of moving, etc.) as in the phrase "the quick and the dead".
4)
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend.
No it doesn't. This guy also doesn't seem to understand the concept of idiomatic expressions. They don't make any sense. They just don't. At one point they did. At one point in the history of the language, you could have analyzed the expression into its constituent parts such that it made sense. But it doesn't any more and expression becomes its own singular element. Specifically in this case he is drawing attention to the fact that amends is plural. There are many nouns like this, and they are called pluralia tantum: pants, glasses, etc. They are always plural. There is always a reason. For glasses, it is simple to see how the fact that there were always two pieces of glass in the pair (also why we say "a pair of glasses") meant that the noun would always be plural. For others it isn't so clear. But that doesn't mean it's completely ridiculous.
It is important, though, to realize that whether or not the noun is plural in form, its meaning is clearly singular or, in the case of making amends, not present at all as a separable element of meaning. That is to say, amends only means anything at all in the presence of the verb to make. It isn't worthwhile to spend time analyzing form in an attempt to glean meaning from elements in these expressions as there is none to be found but that is exactly what the author is doing.
5)
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
I'll refer you to my comment about tooth/teeth.
6)
Have noses that run and feet that smell?
Did it cross this guy's mind that verbs can have many different meanings? Yes, smell can mean to use your olfactory organs to detect odors, but it can also mean to produce such odors. One could conceivably make the case that there should be a separate verb, but it's not necessary because context makes it quite clear. Only a person or animal can smell in the sense of using olfactory organs. Since feet don't have those, it's obvious that the other meaning is intended. The language would be absolutely huge and unnecessarily complex if we really had a separate word for every meaning. And it happens that all languages have such overlaps.
7)
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
Sarcasm. Consider: a fat chance would by its real meaning imply a good chance. But in a sarcastic reference frame, it actually implies the opposite, like someone saying "good luck" to someone who is about to do something that isn't likely to work out.
0 likes
-
GulfBreezer
- Category 5
- Posts: 2230
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 8:58 pm
- Location: Gulf Breeze Fl
- Contact:
-
southerngale
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 27418
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:27 am
- Location: Southeast Texas (Beaumont area)
-
WidreMann
Well, it's just one of my pet peeves. Interestingly enough, my fascination with languages moved from a very passive interest to a very active one after reading a book with stuff like that in it. I was captivated by all these different quirks. Moreover, I wanted to understand them and find out "why?". Well, I did for a great many of these quirks and I've also found out that they aren't really quirks at all, but make perfect sense. So now it's become a pet peeve.
There are real quirks, though, like why many languages (including English and every Indo-European languages among others) use the same form for the subject of an intransitive verb as for the subject of a transitive verb. It just doesn't make sense. To me, an ergative system makes much more sense. For transitive verbs, you have a fairly normal ergative subject (the actor) and an absolutive object (the patient). But for intransitive verbs, the subject is instead an absolutive (the "experiencer").
Or what was the rule for determining which vowel of the original preterite of strong verbs was carried through to Modern English (there were originally two vowels for the past, e.g. writan - wrat - writon - writen vs. Modern English write - wrote - written). We have write - wrote - written but bite - bit - bitten.
But more than likely, I'm just conceited.
There are real quirks, though, like why many languages (including English and every Indo-European languages among others) use the same form for the subject of an intransitive verb as for the subject of a transitive verb. It just doesn't make sense. To me, an ergative system makes much more sense. For transitive verbs, you have a fairly normal ergative subject (the actor) and an absolutive object (the patient). But for intransitive verbs, the subject is instead an absolutive (the "experiencer").
Or what was the rule for determining which vowel of the original preterite of strong verbs was carried through to Modern English (there were originally two vowels for the past, e.g. writan - wrat - writon - writen vs. Modern English write - wrote - written). We have write - wrote - written but bite - bit - bitten.
But more than likely, I'm just conceited.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests