Xref: utzoo comp.edu:3909 sci.edu:1128 misc.education:1286
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think.com!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.edu,misc.education
Subject: Re: Against educational fads (was: math credit)
Message-ID: <9237:Dec1315:28:3190@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 90 15:28:31 GMT
References: <1805@blackbird.afit.af.mil> <1990Dec11.152706.467@darwin.ntu.edu.au> <1811@blackbird.afit.af.mil>
Organization: IR
Lines: 68

In article <1811@blackbird.afit.af.mil> dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) writes:
> The widespread irregularity of English verbs makes learning any underlying
> structure difficult -- more difficult, I'd contend, than in other Western
> languages.

Hardly. In fact, verb structure is simpler in English than in any other
language I know of. The verb ``catch'' has just five forms: infinitive
(to catch), present third person singular (he catches), past (I caught),
perfect (I have caught), and participle (I am catching).

catch/catches/caught/caught/catching is a *complete* conjugation. What
other language is so simple? To learn a verb in English you must learn
just five words. There is only one standard exception: ``to be.'' And a
small set of spelling hints will almost always let you get away with a
single form. In French there are at least 200 different verb types, each
with its own peculiarities. Even Latin has five basic types and lots of
variations.

> In addition, it is difficult to tell gerunds from participles,

A gerund is a noun. A participle is not. That's about as simple as a
language rule can get.

> and because of the lack of any real declension mechanism, it is also
> more difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect objects (etc.)

People are *good* at language. They parse generatively: they only read
``catching'' in ``John is catching the bus'' after they've begun to
expect a participle. By the time they read ``the bus'' they expect a
direct object. It's easy to read something if it matches your
expectations, word for word.

You say that it's difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect
objects---people ``get on'' the same ``bus'' that they ``catch.'' So
what? After someone reads ``get on'' he expects, consciously or not, an
indirect object. After someone reads ``catch'' he expects a direct
object. ``Get on the bus'' and ``catch the bus'' are trivial to
understand.

You're talking about these ``problems'' of English as if the subject
line were ``How to program a natural-language parser.'' Sure, it's not
easy to teach generative parsing to a computer. Sure, linguists have
only been somewhat successful at formal models of natural languages.
But people will continue to read. And when I write

   Hofstadter's works are amazing! They cannot help but make the
   intelligent man reevaluate his thoughts and morals. Damn good
   writing!

or

   I am sick of the regard in which modern English professors hold
   James Joyce. ``It's good writing,'' they say. ``The best, in fact.''
   But when I flip through Ulysses I find nothing but a morass of
   incomprehensible sentences obviously designed to drive any man
   insane. That's good writing for you! Just imagine: millions of
   students suffering through this drivel, trying to make some sense of
   the nonsense that we call good writing. It's an outrage, I say. Damn
   good writing!

people will understand me perfectly in each case.

> In any case, study of a foreign language is IMHO a good thing because
> one can compare and contrast.

True.

---Dan