100
Do Germans have a long convoluted word for when somebody asks something and you first say "What?" but then immediately answer their question anyway as if your mouth was quicker than your brain? (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 6 days ago (5 children)

I'm talking about orthography because the thread is about how language (German originally) is written - i.e. orthography. You didn't mention anything about grammar until this latest comment; your previous comment mentioned orthography and vocabulary. All I did was continue talking about what I was already talking about.

The rules are so convoluted and nonsensical (the adjective order is a great example)

The adjective order is an old, overblown meme. The meme came with a ready-made exception ("big bad wolf") which is no less of an exception for the fact that it came with ready-made excuse ("ablaut reduplication").

Did you notice that "old, overblown meme" violates the order (opinion follows age)? That's because it's overblown.

Did you know that other languages have adjective orders of various specificity and rigidity?

Yes, it's a fascinating topic, and yes, there are many markers of non-native English speaking which are impractical to teach. But it sounds like you're trying to steer the conversation somewhere I don't want to go, and I'm not going down there. As soon as you start categorising languages as "real" or "not real" you're on your own. Your misunderstanding of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, likewise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 days ago* (4 children)

    Did you notice that “old, overblown meme” violates the order (opinion follows age)? That’s because it’s overblown.

    Did I notice how all the nonsensical rules have nonsensical exceptions...

    Yes, that's why I said:

    You can’t teach a non native speaker all the rules, it’s too much to remember. They need that whole “immersion” thing everyone says but never understands. They need to figure it out thru trial and error and learn it subconsciously otherwise they’ll always be focused on translating into English and abiding every rule and remembering each exception.

    If someone said "the bad big wolf" would you as a native English speaker react?

    You would...

    You wouldn't be able to explain why, you wouldn't understand why thats an exception and couldn't explain it to someone else, you just know that's an exception, we all do.

    Your subconscious would just flag it as off, because people not conforming means they may be from another tribe...

    You're literally proving my point, the only way to learn "big bad wolf" is exposure and letting the subconscious handle that.

    But it sounds like you’re trying to steer the conversation somewhere I don’t want to go, and I’m not going down there.

    Then just dont reply?

    It's literally that easy, buddy, if you can't manage that I'll just block you now that way you can always chime in not getting the point and then I won't "force" you into a conversation trying to help you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    In case anyone is interested now this "helpful" character has departed:

    The conventional explanation for "bad big wolf" sounding "wrong" is that "big bad" is an example of ablaut reduplication, which has a fixed sequence of vowels.

    This is a weak explanation for two reasons: a good example of ablaut reduplication is for example "bish bash bosh" where only the vowel changes. This is a weaker example, and so ablaut reduplication is a weaker predictor of the pattern, because the final consonant is not the same between "big" and "bad". Secondly, "big bad wolf" is a phrase from a folk tale and hence deeply embedded in the language in its own right. It's hard to disentangle whether "bad big wolf" sounds strange to native ears because it's a violation of the pattern of ablaut reduplication, or because it's a violation of the specific example, "big bad wolf," that all native speakers heard many times as children.

    Remember, this is all a tangent from whether English has a rigid adjective order. A stronger example to consider is A1: "big beautiful house" versus A2: "beautiful big house", and B1: "little beautiful house" versus B2: "beautiful little house". As a native speaker, I strongly prefer A1 but B2. The adjective order adherents say it should be A2 and B2.

    So, I don't think the supposed rule of adjective order really exists.

    I think if the helper were still around, they would say that actually this just proves their point. Even though they complained about the "rule" of adjective order, actually the fact that there is no rule is even worse! (how convenient, if true), and you just have to learn each example - B2 not B1, A1 not A2 - one by one, and their real point is that English is particularly bad because of this.

    Unfortunately, because they are apparently not any kind of linguist, they never presented any comparative examples. Tagalog has a strong preference for adjective order, for example. Languages with flexible word order in general, such as Finnish, nevertheless have a preferred default word order and if you don't learn it you will sound weird. Languages which use prepositions pair certain verbs with certain prepositions (so in English you sit in your seat, watch the performance in English, and in the end the good guys win) but this pairing is arbitrary and if you pick the wrong one you'll generally be understood but sound wrong (in German you sit im Sitz, watch auf Deutsch, and am Ende the good guys win).

    Languages - all languages - abound with aspects that mark out non-native speakers. That's because they're complex things that incorporate huge aspects of culture, not merely a means of communication. That's not something that anyone needs to "defend" and it's not something that makes a language cease to be "real". Is it the same degree in all languages? I'm sure it isn't, but that's not the point either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent