Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Spoken English as an "Easy Language"
Message-ID: <723@spar.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Dec-85 09:14:55 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.723
Posted: Sat Dec 28 09:14:55 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Dec-85 03:22:11 EST
References: <1791@uwmacc.UUCP> <839@h-sc1.UUCP> <1809@uwmacc.UUCP> <842@h-sc1.UUCP> <418@bcsaic.UUCP> <718@spar.UUCP> <2544@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 79

In article <2544@sdcrdcf.UUCP> barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) writes:

>In any case, the logically unnecessary features Ellis mentions
>(gender, etc.) are part of the necessary redundancy of a spoken language.
>English's pattern of adding -s to the third person singular is a redundant
>pattern too.

    However, this feature is totally regular (modulo modal auxiliaries; even
    3s of to be => `iS', probably the source of 3s -S, BTW). If this be a 
    difficult qulaity of English, it is a particularly easy one to learn,
    alternating as it does between `cat meowS' and `catS meow'..

>Anyway, Ellis seems to be confusing spoken and written English in a number
>of his points.  Written English indeed uses a standard -s for most of its
>plurals.  Spoken English, however, uses -s, -z, or -uz (schwa z) for
>plurals, depending on the word.  (The plural of "cat" is "cats"; the plural
>of "form" is "formz"; the plural of "dish" is "dishuz".)

    Phonetically, English plurals are easer to form than written:

	X => X + 0z / X = sybilant {s, z, sh, zh, ch, j}
	  => X + s  / X = unvoiced  {p, f, t,  th, k}
	  => X + z  / otherwise

    Wherever -s is the proper ending, this rule admits practically no
    exceptions, and recurs for, plurals, 3rd person singular verbs and
    nominal possessives. 
    
    Spoken English is clearly more regular than written, especially
    regarding the rules for verbal inflections -- why is `exitting/exitted'
    incorrect vs `subitting/submitted'? The phonetics is easy, the
    orthography difficult..

>English nouns are divided (in a distinction no native speaer ever notices,
>but poor foreigners have to learn) into mass nouns and count nouns.
>Mass nouns are counted with counters; count nouns are counted with
>numbers.  Dish, glass, computer are count nouns.  However, you don't
>count one bread, two breads, three breads.  You count bread (or toast) with
>slices, milk with glasses, scissors (and shoes) with pairs, etc.

>One aspect of English that those whose native langauge lacks it find VERY
>hard to learn is the article.  When does a noun take no article, the
>definite article (the), or the indefinite article (a)?

    This difference (definite vs. indefinite) is not common to all
    languages, but it is nonetheless common enough that I'd hesitate to call
    it `unusual'. And it is deeper than just mass nouns vs count nouns;
    given our fixedness on singular vs plural, we treat plurals somewhat
    like (singular) nouns of quality or actions {I like (cats, scissors, salt,
    silliness)}. 
    
    There are many other features in common among those cases
    where we'd say `an X' vs `the X', and they tend to be as categorizable
    as cases where most languages would disallow or allow the introduction
    of a new referent or compel anaphoric pronoun reference (eg: "There
    goes (John, A person). Isn't (he, THE person) quite visible?").

    Regardless of the rules of English regarding article usage, I believe
    that they are quite organized according to semantics. Admittedly, English
    rules are different from, say, French (which prefers definite articles 
    before abstract nouns, for instance, where we do not).

>I never got around to taking Teaching English as a Second Language or I
>could probably write a book on the difficulties of English, both spoken
>and written, instead of merely the few paragraphs above.
>
>English spelling is NOT abominable.  It was, of course, rather more phonetic
>when it was set, back in the days that the distinction between the open
>and closed e had not disappeared and so was preserved by spelling one
>"ie" or "ee" and the other as "ea" (or so claimed my Linguistic professors).

     OK. It is our pronunciation that is insane. Repeat after me..

         cause	      COW - seh
	 preserve     preh - SAIR - veh
	 annihilate   ah - NEE - he - LAH - teh
	 etcetera     et - KEH - teh - ra

-        michael      MEE - kha - el