tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 18 10:55:15 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Aw: Re: adverbials



> >  > the tkd terminology says "you can't say this, because you can't." or
> >>  "you can't say this because 7 is greater than 6." that's no
> >>  explanation. i would like to have an explanation that explains
> >>  instead of saying "correct" and "incorrect". i want to understand the
> >>  grammar, not just immitate it.
> >
> >Can you explain to me why [i] comes before [e] except after 
> >[c]... except in weird words like... "weird"?
> >
> >Why is [ph] pronounced [f]?
> >
> >Well, for that matter, why is english Subject-Verb-Object?
> >
> >Can you ever really explain why a language is the way it is?
> 
> why i don't want to know it? i'm interested only in the "living" part 
> of the grammar. the s-v-o structure in english is fixed in english, 
> it's not changeable for one speaker (but for generations of 
> speakers). so even if we can describe the developement in history of 
> languages that certainly follow some rules, they are out of 
> grammatical context. i'm interested only in the grammar that a single 
> speaker can be conscious of. and a single speaker cannot remember why 
> some generations ago the writing of "weird" was fixed, as he cannot 
> remember why many generations ago the s-v-o structure was fixed.
> 
> this consideration would have to force me to introduce a new word to 
> describe the rules that a language undergoes during generations, in 
> order to distinguish it from the grammar that a single speaker can 
> apply in order to form sentences (i repeat: a single speaker doesn't 
> change the writing of "weird", because such things occur over 
> centuries, don't they?).


Your own response can be given to your original inquiry:

> >  > the tkd terminology says "you can't say this, because you can't." or
> >>  "you can't say this because 7 is greater than 6." that's no
> >>  explanation. i would like to have an explanation that explains
> >>  instead of saying "correct" and "incorrect". i want to understand the
> >>  grammar, not just immitate it.

It was set this way generations ago.


DloraH, BG



Back to archive top level