English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

13:00

As a general rule, fewer words suggests less politeness.

Anonymous

Hmm.

Anonymous

What about shorter words?

Damkerng T.

Perhaps not much (about suggesting impoliteness).

Common words are fine.

But of course, we have rude words.

Anonymous

Oh, the reason I asked is because in Japanese, there's often a correlation between politeness and the length of words used to express the same thing

Damkerng T.

Perhaps it's quite similar, but I think it's more about the length of the utterance.

Anonymous

13:04

Usually there are lots of ways of saying the same thing, and your job is to pick out the right one :-)

Damkerng T.

Exactly!

Anonymous

Yeah, that makes sense

Damkerng T.

For example, I will never reply [kin-yu] ([kin] ~ eat) when my aunt ask me.

Anonymous

You know, I notice in English when I edit down my statements and try to keep things simple, the shorter I make it the blunter it tends to seem :-)

Damkerng T.

A typical answer of mine for my aunt would be, [kamlang-kin-yu-lehy-krab].

Anonymous

13:05

Oh!

Anonymous

And what are lehy and krab?

Damkerng T.

[krab] means something similar to sir or m'am, but it reflects the gender of the speaker.

[lehy] is another tricky word. :-) It suggests something similar to English's perfective aspect.

[kamlang] suggests the progressive aspect.

Anonymous

I'm trying to decide whether I should answer that question. Maybe someone else will do so before I have a chance to sort out my thoughts

Anonymous

So earlier when you said "(I) [kamlang] eat", would you have said "kamlang kin"?

Anonymous

What is the (I) you're omitting?

Damkerng T.

13:08

Before you mentioned Japanese, I thought of one of StoneyB's answers about stative verbs.

Yes.

In Thai, I would use [phom] for I or me.

We have many words for I and me.

Anonymous

StoneyB has written about this sort of thing before, I think.

Anonymous

I've written about it, too, but only on the Japanese site

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Yes, but I couldn't find it. :-)

I wish our stack would have a more powerful search engine. :-)

Anonymous

Yeah, I tend to search for site:japanese.stackexchange.com "blah blah" on Google

Anonymous

Peter Shor's comment reminds me of a good point.

Anonymous

13:11

You can sometimes bring languages closer into alignment if you pick your translations more carefully.

Anonymous

For example, instead of calling suwaru "sit", you can call it "sit down"

Damkerng T.

@snailboat A-ha! It's Persian! (Also agree with Peter Shor.)

Anonymous

But measures like that still tend to fail

Anonymous

Languages are too quirky about this aspect stuff.

Anonymous

Me too.

Damkerng T.

13:13

Perhaps, "sitting down vs. sitting" could also help. (Thinking along Peter Shor's line.)

Anonymous

I really need to work through some of these papers.

Damkerng T.

What papers?

Anonymous

About Aktionsart in Japanese, mostly.

Damkerng T.

Oh, I remember that word!

Anonymous

But I also want to go through the relevant section in CGEL and try to get it through my brain.

Anonymous

13:15

I feel like seeing how it applies to English might help me with the concepts in general.

Anonymous

One concept that still goes over my head is the stage-level versus individual-level distinction

Damkerng T.

Eh? Any example?

Anonymous

Well, if I can sidestep that for a moment

Damkerng T.

It's okay. It's not that necessary.

Anonymous

As I understand it, the basic idea is that these are really traits of predicates (or constructions), not of individual verbs

Anonymous

13:18

I think I can give an example in English, though

Anonymous

You can read about it on Wikipedia!

Anonymous

→ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Anonymous

> 1. Every visible star is named after a famous astronomer.
> 2. Every star visible is named after a famous astronomer.

Anonymous

The distinction goes back to Carlson 1977, I think, p.190

Anonymous

I haven't managed to get it through my skull yet, though :-(

Anonymous

13:22

Stupid skull! Stupid brain.

Anonymous

I'll learn them a thing or two!

Damkerng T.

> Tyrone knew French silently in the corridor.

Anonymous

Argh, my brain!

Damkerng T.

I agree that the sentence is weird, but this is the reason Wikipedia gave us: "know French cannot be interpreted as a stage-level predicate"

Anonymous

It sounds like something Tyrone is actively doing.

Anonymous

13:24

Right at the moment.

Anonymous

But no, it's just a general trait Tyrone has.

Damkerng T.

Interesting.

Anonymous

I think I agree with the explanation, although the definitions on Wikipedia seem to conflict with the examples.

Anonymous

> An individual-level predicate is true throughout the existence of an individual. For example, if John is "smart", this is a property that he has, regardless of which particular point in time we consider.

Anonymous

But no. Maybe John learned French at some point.

Anonymous

13:26

"Throughout the existence of an individual" doesn't seem like an adequate definition

Damkerng T.

I see, perhaps the part "in the corridor" is the problem. (I think "knowing French silently" is possible.)

Anonymous

Is it? Give me a sentence that works.

Damkerng T.

> I silently know Malay.

(Not that it is true, btw. :-)

Anonymous

My brain doesn't like it.

Damkerng T.

What if I replaced silently with secretly?

> I secretly know "the Plan".

(I make it sound a little more exciting.)

Anonymous

13:33

That's fine.

Anonymous

Damkerng secretly knows Kung-Fu.

Damkerng T.

Oh, we have a link for that!?

Anonymous

Oh, they changed the trope!

Anonymous

The one I'm thinking of got renamed to this: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuddenlyAlwaysKnewThat

Damkerng T.

Oh, I remember that line: I know Kung-Fu!

Anonymous

13:35

That used to be the title of the trope before some trope-destroying trope-destroyer trope-destroyed it

Jasper Loy

In Mandarin hanyupinyin, it is gong fu.

Damkerng T.

Are Wuxia and Gong Fu (Kung-Fu) different?

@snailboat I think adding "secretly" to this "know Kung-Fu" sounds odd.

Jasper Loy

Usually, one watches a wu xia movie but practises gong fu. The words have different usage.

Damkerng T.

Ah, I see. Thanks!

Jasper Loy

But my Chinese is not very good, so don't trust me, lol.

Anonymous

13:38

Mine either, but that seems right to me :-)

Damkerng T.

@JasperLoy Okay, I will keep that in mind. :-)

BRB -- looking for a new chocolate bar...

Jasper Loy

If only there were no countries and the world is one.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I have no chocolate bars, only a space bar.

Damkerng T.

Oh, I'm not sure if a space bar is eatable!

@JasperLoy Imagine is always good!

Oh, we just have got a handful of new questions on ELL!

Anonymous

Well, I've never tried.

Anonymous

13:51

So for all I know, it might be edible.

Anonymous

Have you ever heard that dirted slang?

Anonymous

I sure haven't.

Damkerng T.

I think I've heard something like dirt cheap.

But dirted hardcore, no!

Oh, I see. It was taken out from: "Wow and he was supposed to be your homeboy too... Damn you were dirted hardcore."

I think I can imagine someone "dirts" someone. A slang word?

Anonymous

That's understandable there, but I've never heard it before.

Anonymous

You know, CGEL says that conversion is a better term than zero derivation for words jumping categories with no change

Damkerng T.

13:54

Macmillan documented: "do someone dirt" ~ to treat someone very badly

Anonymous

The idea being, zero derivation involves adding a zero-length affix (for which there is no actual evidence, of course)

Anonymous

While conversion doesn't imply any such theoretical construct. All it means is that, for example, a noun (like dirt) was converted to a verb without a change in form

Damkerng T.

That makes sense. (Btw, does anyone use zero derivation?)

Anonymous

But I'm wondering whether people would find conversion confusing.

Anonymous

Me!

Anonymous

13:56

I define it every time I use it.

Damkerng T.

Oh! I'm sorry. going out to hide for a while...

Anonymous

Hah

Anonymous

I'm trying to decide whether I should stop :-)

Damkerng T.

meow... (Hagu is typing here.)

Anonymous

Aww

Anonymous

13:56

Hi, Hagu!

Damkerng T.

meow meow

Anonymous

I like when cats type. They tend to type stuff like nllllearreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa‌aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafk;l;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;‌;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;‌;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Anonymous

I've never seen such an eloquent cat typist before.

Damkerng T.

meow lol meow

What just happened?

:-)

Anonymous

You were taken over by a cat!

Damkerng T.

13:58

LOL

Btw, we usually use the phrase "cat's heart" for someone who won't be responsible for their actions. :-)

So I let a cat take over me for a while. :D

Anonymous

Oh, I like that!

Damkerng T.

Heehee.

Anonymous

I finally started treating relative that as a subordinator instead of a relative pronoun in my answers

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I think it could be both.

Anonymous

Well, Quirk et al. call it a relative pronoun, which I believe follows traditional grammar.

Anonymous

14:06

McCawley and H&P both agree that it is not a relative pronoun

Damkerng T.

Oh! But they're from the same university, I think.

Anonymous

You can conclude that it's the same subordinator that you have in non-relative clauses

Anonymous

McCawley was a U of C linguist in the generative tradition, H&P are at Edinburgh, I think

Damkerng T.

Oh! Quirk was a U of C linguist too, I believe.

Anonymous

Randolph Quirk

Charles Randolph Quirk, Baron Quirk, CBE, FBA (born 12 July 1920) is a British linguist and life peer. Life and career Quirk was born at Lambfell, where his family farmed, in the parish of Michael on the Isle of Man, the son of Thomas and Amy Randolph Quirk. He attended Douglas High School for Boys on the island and then went to University College London (UCL) to read English (the department relocated to Aberystwyth due to the war) under A. H. Smith. His studies began in 1939 but were interrupted in 1940 by five years of service in Bomber Command of the RAF, where he rose to the rank of s...

Damkerng T.

14:10

Oh, he's a Baron?

Anonymous

I gave the arguments for considering it the subordinator that recently

Anonymous

I think you can consider it a relative pronoun if you like. I don't think it's a really big deal

Damkerng T.

If only I had CGEL... :-)

Anonymous

Well, some of the arguments I gave were from McCawley.

Anonymous

I think. Who remembers? It was like a week ago.

Anonymous

14:14

But you can see some differences.

Anonymous

It always appears before the clause, like the subordinator that for non-relative clauses.

Damkerng T.

I'm sure it was recently, but not sure exactly when.

Anonymous

> The bucket which I placed three apples in.
> The bucket that I placed three apples in.
> The bucket in which I placed three apples.
> *The bucket in that I placed three apples.

Damkerng T.

Aha! I think I know why you wouldn't like to think of it as a relative pronoun.

Anonymous

All three types of relatives (wh-relatives, that-relatives, and bare relatives) have different syntax

Anonymous

14:24

Hmm.

Anonymous

We usually talk about not being able to delete that when the gap is in subject position, right?

Damkerng T.

Yes, I think.

Anonymous

There are more restrictions

Anonymous

> The book that I bought that Ann had recommended was boring.

Anonymous

> The book ~~that~~ I bought that Ann had recommended was boring.

Anonymous

14:26

> *The book that I bought ~~that~~ Ann had recommended was boring.

Anonymous

When you stack relative clauses like that, only the first one can be bare

Damkerng T.

I think we can't delete those thats that can be replaced by which.

Anonymous

> The book that I bought which Ann had recommended was boring.

Anonymous

> The book which I bought which Ann had recommended was boring.

Damkerng T.

Hmm...

Anonymous

14:28

I like the sound of the that-which version better, but I don't see a problem with the which-which version

Anonymous

I mean, it seems grammatical to me

Anonymous

To me, it seems like the guiding principle for subordinator that is "Does the listener need a signal that we have a subordinate clause?"

Anonymous

Which is why I think you can't delete subordinators from a subordinate clause that begins a sentence

Anonymous

I think this explanation can be coerced into working for the case up there, too

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

14:31

I'm not really certain. I haven't thought it through thoroughly enough.

Anonymous

Oh, I just noticed I used <ough> four times in five words :-)

Anonymous

And all four had different pronunciations.

Damkerng T.

It even sounds poetic!

Anonymous

I'm a poet and I didn't know it?

Damkerng T.

Yeah!

Anonymous

14:37

I've been trying to think about how to present Japanese adjectives all morning.

Damkerng T.

Eh?

Anonymous

Well, there's a conflict.

Damkerng T.

In an answer?

Anonymous

No, no

Anonymous

I mean, I always could use a description like this in an answer

Anonymous

14:39

But I've been trying to figure out my own approach to Japanese grammar

Anonymous

There's some really brilliant work by Nishiyama and Aoyagi on Japanese adjective morphosyntax which I'd like to ~~steal~~ borrow

Anonymous

But I think it'd be really counterintuitive for someone who didn't already speak the language

Anonymous

Or heck, for someone who does :-)

Anonymous

I think it's just counterintuitive, even though it's theoretically really neat.

Damkerng T.

Heehee.

Anonymous

14:42

And I'm trying to think of how to bridge that gap between their theory, which is totally neat, and a practical description that won't confuse someone's head off

Damkerng T.

Sounds like something not easy.

Anonymous

This is the sort of conflict I was describing earlier when I laid out my values about description, minimizing "counterintuitiveness" but also keeping the description as simple as possible

Anonymous

I wrote up an answer once trying to do this, but I decided halfway through not to post it because my approach was half-baked

Anonymous

Some of my answers on ELL don't go into all of the details they probably should

Anonymous

Sometimes I feel a little guilty about that but hope people find them ~~interesting~~ useful anyway :-)

Damkerng T.

14:49

They are indeed!

> Money can be exchanged for goods or services that fulfill people’s needs and wants which in turn bring happiness.

Isn't it just like your example a while ago?

Anonymous

In which way exactly?

Damkerng T.

We have that-which.

Anonymous

I see that-which

Damkerng T.

23 mins ago, by snailboat

> The book that I bought which Ann had recommended was boring.

Anonymous

I like that-which, generally speaking

Anonymous

14:51

In that particular sentence, I admit I got confused. I wasn't sure at first what which referred to

Damkerng T.

Oh, I think I can see why we can drop that that but not that which.

Anonymous

Because the gap is in subject position?

Damkerng T.

Hmm... probably not good enough.

Anonymous

> [ which (in turn) ____ bring happiness ]

Damkerng T.

I was thinking about your sentence.

Anonymous

14:53

In my sentence, the gap coindexed with which is in object position: [ which Ann had recommended ____ ]

Anonymous

But you need something there to let the reader know you're putting another subordinate clause in, I think.

Anonymous

Either that or a wh-word will do

Damkerng T.

I think we can drop only the first one.

In short, the first that already stole the dropping.

So we can't drop the which.

(Or the reader would be left confused.)

> The book that I bought which Ann had recommended was boring.

> The book I bought which Ann had recommended was boring.

> The book Ann had recommended that I bought was boring.

> ?The book Ann had recommended I bought was boring.

> ?The book I bought Ann had recommended was boring.

Anonymous

Yeah.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That's also what I think.

Damkerng T.

14:58

Ah, perhaps I didn't understand you the first time you mentioned it.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Hmm. I don't understand this:

Anonymous

Oh, wait, I might get it.

Anonymous

> *The book ~~that~~ Ann had recommended ~~which~~ I bought was boring.

Anonymous

> The book ~~that~~ Ann had recommended ~~that~~ I buy was boring.

Damkerng T.

Yeah!

Anonymous

15:01

@snailplane In that case, can you please give a slang word having similar meaning? — Man_From_India 10 mins ago

Anonymous

Is it okay if I leave that activity to someone else? :-)

Damkerng T.

I will post a comment mentioning "do someone dirt". :-)

Anonymous

Is that a thing?

Anonymous

I don't know that one either.

Anonymous

I may not be hip with the lingo the kids use these days

Damkerng T.

15:02

It is in Macmillan. (with a note: American informal)

do someone dirt ~ "to treat someone very badly"

Anonymous

Wow!

Anonymous

I totally don't know it.

Anonymous

15:21

In English, I think people usually say that all of our relative clauses have gaps.

Anonymous

We have a few so-called "gapless relatives" where the gaps are filled in by resumptive pronouns, but I think most people think those sentences are nonstandard

Anonymous

Although I found a post on Language Log which gives another type: itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005022.html

Damkerng T.

I will save it for later, I think.

Anonymous

It's about non-standard usage, but you might find it interesting

Anonymous

You might have heard sentences like those before

Anonymous

15:27

I'm trying to understand why a "gapless relative" isn't just called a "subordinate clause"

Damkerng T.

Maybe it's just because it's still considered a relative clause.

Anonymous

That's circular. Why is it still considered a relative clause?

Damkerng T.

Because it has a relative pronoun.

Anonymous

What about in languages without relative pronouns?

Damkerng T.

Eh? I couldn't think of one.

Anonymous

15:36

Japanese has no relative pronouns

Damkerng T.

Hah!

We just discussed a sentence with several wh-clauses!

Anonymous

Well, they weren't in a relative clause, they were just in a subordinate clause.

Damkerng T.

Maybe I should double check the gloss.

Anonymous

But Japanese has relative clauses

Damkerng T.

confused :-)

When [doko-ni] where-LOCATIVE or [nani-o] what-ACCUSATIVE is used in a subordinate clause, isn't it a relative pronoun?

Anonymous

15:41

A relative word relates the head noun to the gap inside the relative clause.

Damkerng T.

Oh, so they are just a pronoun, then?

Anonymous

Here's a normal clause: booru-o ketta "kicked the ball" The direct object has an accusative case marker -o

Anonymous

Now, we can relativize this clause by pulling out booru:

Anonymous

> [ ketta ] booru "the ball {which/that/∅} [someone] kicked"

Anonymous

There's no word like which or that in the Japanese translation

Anonymous

15:44

The -o disappeared when booru was relativized. Japanese does not indicate the role of the head noun in the relative clause

Anonymous

You just have to tell from context where the gap is.

Anonymous

There, the gap is in object position

Damkerng T.

I can see that they don't normally use a word like which or that. Can they say it explicity?

Anonymous

No.

Anonymous

There's no way to do it.

Damkerng T.

15:45

Oh!

Anonymous

However! There usually aren't too many options for where the gap could be

Anonymous

And if you supply any other arguments it could be, then you know the gap's not in that position

Anonymous

For example, if the relative clauses contains an -o marked NP, then you know the gap's not in object position, because you've already got one of those.

Anonymous

So if it's unclear, you can add constituents you'd normally drop (like, say, the subject)

Anonymous

[ ketta ] booru is literally just "kicked ball", but

Anonymous

15:48

Logically there's probably a subject (which would be marked by -ga) which has been left out :-)

Anonymous

Here, it's not important, because balls don't usually kick people. Usually it's the other way around.

Anonymous

Now, in a subordinate clause like the sentence from earlier

Anonymous

In Japanese, doko and nani are both nouns. (So doko is a little different from where, which a lot of people would call an adverb)

Anonymous

You could call them pronouns if you like

Anonymous

They're wh-words for sure.

Anonymous

15:51

But they aren't relative words.

Damkerng T.

Hmm...

Anonymous

And the reason they're not relative is that they don't anaphorically link a head noun outside the clause to a gap inside the clause

Anonymous

That's what our relative pronouns do in English.

Anonymous

> the food [ which I ate ___ ]

Damkerng T.

Thai also has a few words similar to these relative pronouns in English.

Anonymous

15:53

Which refers back to food, which it links to the gap in object position

Anonymous

(So it's kind of like "I ate (food)")

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. How do they work?

Damkerng T.

It's very simple. (I usually think Thai is simple, structurally.)

We have a stub, works pretty much like that.

A few words works as that: [ti], [sueng], [an]

(Read them the way you read Japanese or Korean.)

And that's about it!

> the food [ti] I ate.

> the ball [ti] I kicked.

Anonymous

Sounds kind of like English!

Damkerng T.

Yeah!

There is a little bit more trick on them. We can pile up on them.

Anonymous

15:56

Oh?

Damkerng T.

> the ball [luk-ti] I kicked.

Anonymous

What is luk?

Damkerng T.

[luk] is the unit of ball.

Anonymous

A-ha

Damkerng T.

We have "ball one [luk], two [luk], three [luk], and so on."

> the food [jan-ti] I ate.

[jan] ~ dish

Anonymous

15:58

Japanese has counters for everything

Anonymous

They attach to numerals like suffixes

Damkerng T.

The same in Thai too!

But we think of them as separate words, not suffixes.

Anonymous

Ahh

Anonymous

In Japanese traditional grammar, they're considered a type of dependent word

Anonymous

That is, they can't appear on their own

Anonymous

15:59

But they do consider them words

Damkerng T.

A-ha!

Anonymous

I wonder if the syntax is very different

Transcript for