[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 269 KB, 500x279, 1613724963250.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386030 No.18386030 [Reply] [Original]

Let me give you an example with regards to the words: "anyone", and: "noone":

One says "anyone"; thereby it would then be correct to say "noone".

This is because the word: "anyone" is not spelled as: "any one".

Thusly, writing "no one" instead of: "noone" is rather ridiculous.

There are more examples; please come up with more if you can, so we can encourage talk regarding the missing spots that the English language possesses.

>> No.18386190

Pronunciation rules are fucking weird and require memory more than logic.

>> No.18386324

>>18386030
More words for love.

I love chocolate, I love my dog, and I love my wife.

What?

>> No.18386335

>>18386030
Native french speaker here, english pronunciation is my worst nightmare

>> No.18386337

though is the most retarded word

>> No.18386470

>>18386337
it does some work, though

>> No.18386475

Missing (or rather, lost) noun gender and singular/plural second person.
A clear way to apply possessive to multiple people. Jane and my dog? Jane's and my dog? Jane and I's dog? I know there is a standard for this, but it's still awkward for most native speakers.
>>18386190
Love me weakly phonetic spelling.

>> No.18386548

>>18386030
>write 'banana'
say 'banana'
>write 'bad'
say 'bäd'
>write 'internet'
>say 'internet'
>write 'dirt'
>say 'dört'

>> No.18386563

>>18386030
"Noone" looks awkward that's why it's separated.

>> No.18386572

>>18386548
Americans say "innernet"

>> No.18386598

>>18386572
No, in-(glottal stop)-net

>> No.18386646

>>18386324
The verb "to adore" can also work, but it's stronger.

>>18386563
The deal is that using two words for such a simolicity is rather illogical; it should be:
>anyone
>noone

Not: "anyone, no one", "any one, no one", nor "any one, noone".

>> No.18386658

>>18386646
None?

>> No.18386675

>>18386646
I remember when I was a bored teenager looking for any discrepancy to be contentious about, no matter how pedantic.

>> No.18386701

>>18386030
Your fucking language is missing direct form of refering to a person. I write 'you', but it may mean a singular person or many. Who the fuck thought it's okay. Or possesivness of something, you guys just add 's. A Fucking 's.

Not to mention a, an, the. Learning these three fuckers is like gazing into the abyss.

>> No.18386723

>>18386701
>but it may mean a singular person or many

I NEVER understood why they teach the plural form just with the pronoun "you", rather than "you guys", or "you all".

>>18386675
It is rather strange, though, to have "anyone" all together, but not its antonym.

>> No.18387080

Scots language > power gap > nuclear waste > English

>> No.18387108

>>18386335
Finally a taste of your own medicine

>>18386030
I don't think negatives exist. There are lots of missing parts of speech (like some mathematical functions for natural language) but I hate the word no or any variant of it. It literally has no meaning. It's the inverse of yes which can mean anything. I'd like to learn a language with no negative variants (chinese is closest).

>> No.18387148

>>18386030
>One says "anyone"; thereby it would then be correct to say "noone".
This doesn't follow. Spaces or no spaces, it's entirely random convention and partly personal or stylistic choice. In my opinion any compound should be put together without spaces and hyphens should not be used at all except as disambiguators.

People are averse to it simply because 'no one' and not 'noone' is what they learnt and what they use. But there are also two other things that might be at play. Firstly English orthography is averse to putting vowels together like that in general and 'oo' is an actual digraph that's fairly regular so it may be misinterpreted. Secondly there is a totally different word originally formed from the same elements 'none', which to avoid the 'oo' digraph 'no one' would readily ambiguously become.

>> No.18387162

>>18387108
A language isn't a logical system. It achieves the same end result in totally different forms. Whether there is a negative or not is irrelevant. It's just one useful and fairly consistent means of derivation.

>> No.18387190

>>18386723
>I NEVER understood why they teach the plural form just with the pronoun "you", rather than "you guys", or "you all".
Because the 2nd person pronoun does not have a plural form, it is numberless. Essentially number does not apply unless an additional word is added by the speaker's choice. The closest is you + s in some speakers but this is heavily stigmatised. 'You guys' and 'you all' are not used as plurals in the grammatical sense, they are the speaker deciding to add number for purposes of contrast, clarification, or simply style. They are not grammatical plurals, not required, and do not function in the same way.

>> No.18387215

>>18387162
Sure but languages are as broad as they're realistically expressive. There's technically no no in chinese. You say I will not verb if asked. We added y'all and yous guys so there's some demand for realism in natlangs.

>> No.18387235

>>18386701
There used to be the variations of thou for referring to singular people but people don't use it anymore. It should make a comeback.

>> No.18387245

>>18386324
Most languages only have one word for English 'like' and 'love'. It's not needed. That doesn't mean you can't use more specific verbs in English or any other language. Or derive specificity from the same word. For example 'fell in love'.

Also, in past English 'love' was a much rarer and stronger word limited to very specific things. You could not use it for it brotherly love, things you like a lot, etc. Could be that the French word for like/love has influenced this semantic development.

>> No.18387260

>>18387215
>There's technically no no in chinese. You say I will not verb if asked.
I know. It's similar in Irish and many languages. This doesn't mean anything, it's simply how you communicate the same thing. There's nothing exactly precisely the same as the meaning and usages of the various negative words in English either. There is no language-independent 'no' you're drawing from here.

>> No.18387270

>>18387235
Some British dialects still have it. More had it until recently. It died out because the upperclasses didn't use it and once forgotten became stigmatised in the majority.

>> No.18388349

In conclusion: the English language lacks a proper syntax.

>> No.18388357

>>18386030
Removing semantics and words with multiple meanings

>> No.18388373

>>18388357
Forgot to add: Remove idioms they are an uneccessary language barrier

>> No.18388390

Imflammable means that something is very flammable.
Impatient means that someone is not patient.

>> No.18388416

>>18388357
No.

>> No.18388506

>>18386030
You didn't explain what English is missing, all you did was point out an inconsistency in spelling of which there are known to be many.

>> No.18389258

>>18388390
it's "inflammable" not "imflammable"
however, it is very irritating that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.

>> No.18389476
File: 22 KB, 511x340, 1405194364380.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18389476

Idiosyncrasies make languages fun.

Autistic wannabe linguists who think languages need to be "logical" should consider taking up programming instead of bothering the rest of us with their petty little grievances.

>> No.18389477

>>18386337
Why though?

>> No.18389604

>>18386598
>Doesn't know what an r-colored vowel is

Anon, your phonetics reps

>> No.18389814

>>18386190
spelling is a represantation of language and has nothing to do with the language itself. Proncunciation is not inconsistent, the spelling is, and language is spoken not written.

>> No.18389830

>>18386335
Good. That's what everyone trying to learn your faggot language has to deal with.

>> No.18389850

>>18387260
Well it would just be what they are, no? It'd be more accurate to.
"Do you want to get something to eat?"
"I would prefer to play."

I'd love to make my own natlang from my logic.

>> No.18389871

>>18388373
Why are you on /lit/?

>> No.18390828

>>18389258
No, it's iMflammable. Go check it out in a dictionary. I'm not saying that there might not also exist a word iNflammable with a different meaning.

>> No.18390860

>>18390828
I'd double check imflammable

>> No.18390872

We and we. My boys gonna beat your boys. We are going to fight. We will crush your skulls. See that? We in first plural person as opposed to we with first and second plural combined. Kinda stupid.

>> No.18390879

>>18390872
Should it be mə?

>> No.18390889

>>18390879
What is that?

>> No.18390897

>>18386030
the problem of english is its lack of grammar, that is, structure. everything feels too fluid and flat when i speak english.

>> No.18390904

>>18390889
The opposite of it to signify the accusative case being opposite the nominative

>> No.18390914

>>18390872
I don't understand what you're getting at.

>> No.18390941

>>18386701
>Not to mention a, an, the.
How do people have trouble with this? "A" goes before words beginning with consonant sounds and "an" goes before words beginning with vowel sounds. Note that it's sound of the word that matters, not whether it actually begins with a consonant or vowel.

>> No.18390965

>>18390872
Welcome to 'context'

>> No.18390996

>>18390941
Ekenames and nadders say hello from the lexical graveyard.

>> No.18391008

>>18386030
you can put them together but you just use a hyphen such as no-one so that it doesn't look like aids to the reader

>> No.18391014

>>18389258
what the fuck are you saying

>> No.18391062
File: 40 KB, 505x558, flammable-inflammable.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18391062

>>18391014

>> No.18391065

>>18389258
>>18391062
By the way "inflammable" makes sense as a synonym if you think of "inflame."

>> No.18391174

>>18386030
"Anyone" is like "everyday." Whether you put a space determines what the word means.
>"I do this every day."
>"This is an everyday occurrence."
>"Anyone will do."
>"Any one of these would work."
Each one is different and requires the correct term.

>> No.18391250

>>18386030
>"noone"
Newn. Nothanks

>> No.18391583

>>18390872
what fucking language has plural 1st and 2nd person combined?

>> No.18391785

'can' has no infinitive, we can't say 'to can', we have to work around it with 'to be able to'
it's crazy that no native speaker ever notices how screwed up this is

>> No.18392482

>>18390828
you are too precious :3 did you go look up "imflammable"?

>> No.18392491

>>18391065
that does make sense but is no less frustrating

>> No.18392502

>>18392482
Not me :3

>> No.18392510

Newfoundland English has surpassed both standard and Zoomer pseudo-Southern slang.

>Ye is the plural form of you (singular) instead of you (plural), similar to how you guys is often used to replace you (plural) in Standard Canadian English. For example, when addressing two or more people, or when addressing one person but referring to everyone that person is with, a speaker of Newfoundland English would ask "What do ye think?" instead of "What do you guys think?" "What do you think?" would still be used when referring to a single person alone, and only refers to the single person alone, avoiding the confusion present in other English dialects in which a group of people would not know whether the speaker is inquiring about the opinion of the person they are directly speaking to or the various opinions of the entire group.

>> No.18392607

>>18386190
I think this is also the reason why native English speakers butcher absolutely every foreign word and stumble when pronouncing even short words as soon as the combination of letters is foreign to them. I'm not even talking about Slavic shit with endless chains of consonants but very simple words.
I honestly believe that if you grow up with English, you simply memorize the sound of letter combinations instead of chaining individual sounds together. Pretty much like East Asians learning kanji is based on memorization rather than sounding things out.

>> No.18392614

>>18389830
Kraut here. French pronounciation is still rather easy imo. It still follows basic phonetic rules. You just have to remember that the final letter in each word is merely decoration.

>> No.18392677

>>18386190
native pronunciation is more based on repeating what you've heard other people say.
raise your hand if you mispronounced "epitome" the first time you said it because you'd only ever read the word and never heard it, or at least never put the two together