The Curious Case of the English Language

[fatalrendezvous]

@Brovo the sexy/beautiful/pretty thing is actually quite simple. There are certain qualities that I equate with each descriptor, which are not always the same.

 

[Jorick]

For the use of "check" as referring to the bill for a meal at a restaurant, it's not certain but there's a plausible argument to be made that it came not from the same meaning of check as in the now largely outdated method of paying for something, but rather from the same place as the meaning of "check that out" or "check your hat at the door." For the former, it might have evolved from a call from whoever was paying the bill to get a copy in order to check that it was correct and that they weren't being overcharged or charged for things they did not receive. For the latter, it might have evolved from asking the waiter to have your checked items (hats, coats, canes, etc.) made ready because you were preparing to leave, and at that point one would also be paying the bill. It very well may have been one of those phrases that meant a certain thing at one point but was misused or associated with something else enough that the common understanding (and thus definition) of the term changed.

 

[Kestrel]

Ahaha.

Try Dutch.

Silly 'mericans.

 

[Asuras]

Having taken two vastly different language courses, I've come to realize that every language on Earth does stupid shit with itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language

There is no such thing as a spoken language that is not natural (unless you're a nerd who likes to speak in fictional languages), and natural languages, by default,

[development] has been through use rather than by prescription

meaning there will be weird shit going on in all of them because the rules were developed around use, rather than purposefully with logical thinking involved.

 

[Peter Feels]

Ahaha.

Try Dutch.

Silly 'mericans.

Dutch sucks.

 

[Kestrel]

Dutch sucks.

Worst Germanic language to learn. English has a couple silly things, but it's far, far more consistent.

As for people thinking English pronunciations are weird. Try Mandarin. You'll love it.

Spoilers: No you won't.

 

[anonymph]

As for people thinking English pronunciations are weird. Try Mandarin. You'll love it.

Spoilers: No you won't.

That's why you learn Cantonese instead *cough* biased native speaker *cough*

I went through the whole being an ESL student thing at a wonderfully young age so I never had a problem with learning English, but let's be honest here. English could be way more complicated.

Things English could have had but doesn't:

• Tone
• Do you think I'm joking, TONE
• At least saying "Pass me the lighter" (rough translation) can't be confused for "LET'S BEAT UP THE WAITER" because you fucked around with tone
• Gendered nouns and adjectives
• Seriously, French that wasn't necessary
• Weird adjective placement (sometimes in front of the noun, most times behind)
• FUCK YOU FRENCH
• Whatever the fuck's going on with Welsh and its keysmash-looking business (sorry Welsh speakers! I am an ignorant American)
• Accent marks and weird sticky letters
• Again, thank you for your contribution French
• The language basically forcing you to say "ah" at the end of most of your sentences
• I might be a biased native speaker, but listening to myself saying "Hey, pass me the lighter-ah" and "Let's beat up the waiter-ah" and sounding so cutesy grates on my nerves when I monologue too
• English's alphabet is 26 letters. Not so much with Chinese/Japanese/Korean/etc.
• Probably more but this list is already getting too long and I'm getting too belligerent about this

Anyway, the best way to consider English and the way it's evolved is: in its troubled years, English beat up other languages in dark alleys and rifled through their pockets for loose grammar and spare vocabulary. - somewhere on the internet I can't remember

And also synonyms are great. You could say something's green, but what if you said minty? lime? olive? chartreuse? emerald? teal perhaps? Every word has a different connotation, no matter how slight. You could say gorgeous, but mega foxy super awesome hot breathtaking sounds good too.

 

[Hellis]

Dear Englishmen and Americans. Try to learn Swedish. Your language is a fucking cakewalk, grammar wise. It makes so much sense. Swedish grammar is a nightmare. Also, Sweden have to many words with 2-3 different meanings to them.

 

[Dervish]

Dear Englishmen and Americans. Try to learn Swedish. Your language is a fucking cakewalk, grammar wise. It makes so much sense. Swedish grammar is a nightmare. Also, Sweden have to many words with 2-3 different meanings to them.

If I wanted to learn Swedish, your ancestors would have brought their A game to conquering most of the world, you underachieving jerks.

Now everyone loves you guys but nobody can talk to you. Bad tradeoff brooooo.

 

[Hellis]

WE GAVE YOU SMORGÅS BORD AND OMBUDSMAN. THAT OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH TO START LEARNING OUR LANGUAGE:

 

[Dervish]

Oh god the language is just like Ikea furniture, it never fits together properly and the instructions end up summoning Jormungand.

 

[Yatagarasu]

Oh god the language is just like Ikea furniture, it never fits together properly and the instructions end up summoning Jormungand.

Irrelevant to topic but one time my dad spent 2 days trying to put together a shelf from Ikea because he couldn't understand the instructions.

• FUCK YOU FRENCH

I don't learn French but now I think I know why I don't wanna learn French.

They be like: SIXTY-NINE, SIXTY-TEN, SIXTY-ELEVEN, SIXTY-TWELVE, SIXTY-THIRTEEN, SIXTY-FOURTEEN ETC ETC.

Just glad that they have a word for a 'Hundred' instead of being something like 'Sixty-Forty'.

 

[Brovo]

If I had to pick one thing to dislike in this otherwise marvelous language, it'd probably be the fascination with having multiple words that sound the same spoken verbally, but which are spelled differently. Which witch? To, too, two? Which write is right? Et cetera. Not because it confuses me--it doesn't--but because it's apparently incredibly confusing for ESL students.

Also, Sweden have to many

Although I seriously do respect ESL students. Especially the ones learning our language from a native perspective of a language from the orient, or slavic.

Also, English isn't quite toneless or free of word modification. You can modify the meaning of a word based on juxtaposition, sarcasm, et cetera. Although it's present in every language on Earth so far as I'm aware. The one thing I'm definitely going to have to say irritates me about English as a language, however, is the way we teach it. We teach it to be boring and we often teach the likes of Shakespeare in English LA classes--which is entirely pointless for the modern language, because you're constantly translating his damn plays. The guy made up words. Do we teach business speak? No. Do we teach how to write a resumé? No. Do we teach basic language construction, like IC:DC*, or how to wield intonation in text? No. What do we teach?

The books of a four hundred year old dead author, as though there's nothing more modern and equally interesting to study. Grr.

IC:DC

*IC:DC is Independent Clause & Dependent Clause. It informs you of when you should use a comma--and when you should use a period--in writing, though especially in formal writing. An independent clause is a statement which stands on its own. "Sally ran down to the store." A dependent clause is a statement which requires a parent statement to make sense. "To buy apples." You separate an independent clause to a dependent clause with a comma. Note: That in most instances, you can put the two in either order--IC:DC, or DC:IC. Example: "Sally ran down to the store, to buy apples." "To buy apples, Sally ran down to the store."

The more you know!

 

[Hellis]

Welcome to swedish:

Får får får? Nej, Får får lamm.

That is a fucking sentence.

 

[Brovo]

Får får får? Nej, Får får lamm.

Google Translate: Sheep Sheep Sheep? No, Sheep, lambs.

 

[Hellis]

See. The thing here is that Får means sheep and "have". But if you place it before a word in a question, It is no longer Have, but "Does or Do".

So correctly translated it is "DOes sheep have sheep, no sheeps have lambs. As in you dont call it a sheep when it is born.


SWEDISH YO!

There is also something called "Särskrivning"

Basicly. When we make words, sometimes we just smash words together.

En brunhårig sjuksköterska = A brownhaired Nurse.

However. If we split up into component words

En brun hårig sjuk sköterska = A brown hairy sick caretaker.

 

[Asmodeus]

I like the idea that spoken language came about after shamans began tripping balls on ayahuasca roots.

Then alchemists came along and deliberately confused the language in order to conceal hermetic secrets.

:|

 

[Jorick]

IC:DC

*IC:DC is Independent Clause & Dependent Clause. It informs you of when you should use a comma--and when you should use a period--in writing, though especially in formal writing. An independent clause is a statement which stands on its own. "Sally ran down to the store." A dependent clause is a statement which requires a parent statement to make sense. "To buy apples." You separate an independent clause to a dependent clause with a comma. Note: That in most instances, you can put the two in either order--IC:DC, or DC:IC. Example: "Sally ran down to the store, to buy apples." "To buy apples, Sally ran down to the store."

The more you know!

You still haven't overcome your shitty schooling, young padawan. In the vast majority of sentences you don't separate the dependent clause from the independent clause with a comma unless it comes before the main clause (called introductory clauses), it is meant to provide strong contrast to the independent clause, it's a piece of non-essential information you're adding in just for extra detail, or if it falls under the catch-all category of 'not adding the comma would cause confusion.' Your example of an IC:DC sentence is actually misusing a comma and should have gone without it: "Sally ran down to the store to buy apples." The phrase "to buy apples" in this sentence is acting as an adverbial clause that is modifying the independent clause of "Sally ran down to the store" to indicate purpose, and you don't separate adverbial clauses (or single word adverbs for that matter) unless they fall under one of those comma-necessitating categories I listed a couple sentences ago. Alternatively, since it starts with the infinitive form of the verb, you could look at the rules for infinitive phrases being used as adverbs and also get the same sort of rules saying only separate with a comma if the infinitive phrase is introductory or interrupts, not when it concludes an independent main clause.

The DC:IC sentence needs the comma because "to buy apples" is acting as an introductory clause. Also, starting sentences with infinitive phrases is gross, don't do that shit. :P

Just as with all other attempts at universal rules for the English language (I before C except after E my ass), the rule of "separate independent clauses and dependent clauses with a comma" is horribly broken and often seems to have more exceptions than applicable uses.

 

[Izurich]

IC:DC

*IC:DC is Independent Clause & Dependent Clause. It informs you of when you should use a comma--and when you should use a period--in writing, though especially in formal writing. An independent clause is a statement which stands on its own. "Sally ran down to the store." A dependent clause is a statement which requires a parent statement to make sense. "To buy apples." You separate an independent clause to a dependent clause with a comma. Note: That in most instances, you can put the two in either order--IC:DC, or DC:IC. Example: "Sally ran down to the store, to buy apples." "To buy apples, Sally ran down to the store."

The more you know!

Is IC DC anyway related to these guys?

 

[Brovo]

Is IC DC anyway related to these guys?

No, but it was promptly corrected by @Jorick to what it should have been: Accurate.