LL-L "Language learning" 2008.04.21 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L  - 21 April 2008 - Volume 04
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page.
=========================================================================

From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language learning" 2008.04.20 (08) [E]

Sandy wrote: So what do you mean by "traceable historical descent"? Isn't
brought > bought traceable? If it persists then in the future it will also
have
the necessary historical descent? How old does it have to be before your
"school of thought" finds it venerable enough to be right rather than
wrong?

Traceable history = back into the mists of time

new development = we have evidence of this starting or finishing from a
specific date onwards : since when it has become the norm

Very different concepts and brought/bought comes under the second heading
and - if so wanted by the people who speak that language, it may then become
part of the language but as a "new development" But it will be traceable
back to a misunderstadning / mishearing / misapplying    Bring/brought is
historical      bring / bought is a new development

Bring/brought   buy/bought  can be traced back  as can an uncertainity about
certain verb patterns: it's nothing new that people aren't sure what they
are hearing the most.

dive   dove or dived?   drag  / drug or dragged ????? Does American English
hold hard to the 'old' form with dove/drug  or have non English speaking
immigrants developed the form through over generalisation.

Just as a child can mix up patterns and say I ranned  I eated or ated,
 so too do new speakers to a language make errors. If the error becomes
established, it becomes accepted standard but it does not make it
historically accurate. In groups where none of the participants are native
speakers, errors can engrain themselves. I remember years ago hearing an MEP
who used to a modern languages inspector saying that the English spoken in
the corridors of Brussells and Strasbourg can bear little relation (
especially in meaning) to UK English. I believe it is becoming accepted that
within a short space of time the global English lingua franca will be
mutually unintelligible, so much do native langauges affect its structure
and meaning. That's fine and only to be expected ....... but historically
what they develop will be able to be traced back to a point where structure
or meaning will have diverged from the accepted norm.

Whom did you see last night ?   has historical grounds

Who did you see last night? written evidence going back......???? 50 years -
perhaps a little more.

My favourite change/no change is 'lighted' which you will find in
practically all books since WW2 and even some before, but if you listen to
people speaking - or even reading a book aloud - they will say 'lit'    he
'lit' a cigarette   rather than he lighted a cigarette. Over the last two
decades I have been listening to people on the radio stumbling over the
word; they want to say 'lit' but are foxed by what they are reading from the
script. Those that prepare themselves well, make the point by saying
'lighted' but you can hear the clash of sound upsetting them and them being
thrown off the rhythym of speaking.

In the same way : creeped and sleeped  are over taking crept and slept  but
I have yet to hear 'fighted' instead of fought  or 'thinked' instead of
'thought'. Perhaps when Estuary English prevails throughout the UK, these
last two will become one and future English lessons will teach  fink fought
fought     fight fought fought  !

Heather

----------

From: Mike Morgan <mwmosaka at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language learning" 2008.04.20 (08) [E]

Okay, this is a bit off topic, but connected with what R/R says about
learning language as system (what I have ALWAYS done, naturally I guess) ...
and also too cute to NOT pass on.

Here at Ishara Foundation we do, among other things, basic English Literacy
Course for the Deaf where English is the target language but all explanation
etc is in Indian Sign language.

My job is not actually teaching the classes (but rather training the
teachers and designing curriculum ... as well as "managing directors" or
"directing managers" as my son puts it), BUT I DO on occasion observe
classes (and also -- because teaching is just too darn fun to pass up also
teach a class or two now and then).

Well, one of the Level A (basics of basic) classes was asked to write
sentences for each of a list of verbs on the board in the 3rd person, simple
"present" tense. So it came to the verb "cook" and one student went to the
board and wrote his sentence:

"Every evening my mother ceek dinner."

After about half a second I was rolling on the floor laughing -- inside
anyway. What a CLEVER student. He had internalized the system rule: BOTH 3rd
person singular simple "present" tense of verbs and plurals of nouns are
formed in the same way. So normally:
Noun: kite > plural kites
Verb: write > 3rd sing writes

But then why not:
Noun: tooth > plural teeth
Verb: cook > 3rd sing ceek
?

YES, it was a mistake, but, to MY mind, a VERY good one. Would that more
students get it "wrong"!

MWM || マイク || Мика || माईक || માઈક || ਮਾਈਕ
================
Dr Michael W Morgan
Managing Director
Ishara Foundation
Mumbai (Bombay), India
++++++++++++++++
माईकल मोर्गन (पी.एच.डी.)
मेनेजिंग डॉयरेक्टर
ईशारा फॉउंडेशन (मुंबई )
++++++++++++++++
茂流岸マイク(言語学博士)
イシャラ基金の専務理事・事務局長
ムンバイ(ボンベイ)、インド
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080421/a4e8c7f0/attachment.htm>