tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 10 09:03:55 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: borrowed grammar
- From: "Lawrence Schoen" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: borrowed grammar
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:59:04 -0700
ghItlh lay'tel SIvten:
>this is an example of english grammar borrowed from latin (or
>simply made up) and it's not really true in english, despite the
>decades (centuries?) of pedants teaching otherwise.
net Sov.
That's right, but it is nonetheless a prescriptive rule of English grammar. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
Historically, the first written grammars of English were all based upon similar written grammars of other languages, most typically Latin. Alas, English is a Germanic language (despite having some 70% of its vocabulary drawn from Romance languages) and the rules didn't often fit. But the important point at the time was to have a rulebook in hand.
School teachers focus on prescriptive grammar (in English, they're also the ones who tell you not to use the contraction "ain't")
Linguists on the other hand (at least of the sort who gravitate toward Klingon) are generally more concerned with descriptive grammar, how the language is used by its speakers.
Over the years, some truly fascinating bits of micro-descriptive grammar have emerged as members of the linguistic community have evolved certain patterns and preferences of speaking. Some of these have even emerged and then vanished again (e.g., the brief spike in -ghach usage).
Fascinating stuff.
Lawrence