tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 20 12:30:48 2002
[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.
again, i'm not interested in the parts of the language that were set
generations ago. (i'm not interested why you write "weird" this way.
the writing of words was set generations ago, and the alphabet was
set still earlier.
the formation of sentences is not set yet. if it were, we would have
to say the same sentences all over again. but we have the freedom to
invent our own sentences (but not our own words, they are fixed (and
even more fixed is the alphabet we are using)). i would like to call
the part of the grammar that allows us to be creative in a different
way than the part that has been set centuries ago, but not i don't
come up with a word (i want to say "i don't know what word shall i
use).
that's my point. i want to express my freedom. :)
tulwI',
sts.