Originally posted by howardbradleyHmm? Two tenses? Do you mean two conjugations? English has a lot of tenses (present, past, future, conditional, subjunctive mood, &c).
English has such an inconsistent orthography and very little grammar to speak of (it only has two tenses for instance).
And it does have 'proper grammar.' I mean, you couldn't write this sentence and have it be intelligible: 'Two the mat a on cats green sat.' Part of this is because, unlike in Latin, say, we don't decline our nouns or conjugate.
The problem with English is, because it utilizes the words of so many etimological origins, orthography is inconsistently applied; you get a little Germanic system here, Romantic construction there, Anglosaxan derivation here and there, &c.
It's not nice and neat like in some other languages, but it's also very flexible; because of its widely composite origins, English has more words in common vocabulary (not including medical jargon and the like) than any other language (I think...). I find that English is reasonably easy to learn to speak poorly, but rather difficult to learn well. But it's far easier to learn English than say Korean or Arabic, which I understand to be amongst the hardest languages to learn for Westerners.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioNope I do mean two tenses: past and present. To express things about the future we still use the present tense, as in: "I am going (present) to go (infinitive) to the movies".
Hmm? Two tenses? Do you mean two conjugations? English has a lot of tenses (present, past, future, conditional, subjunctive mood, &c).
And it does have 'proper grammar.' I mean, you couldn't write this sentence and have it be intelligible: 'Two the mat a on cats green sat.' Part of this is because, unlike in Latin, say, we don't declin ...[text shortened]... abic, which I understand to be amongst the hardest languages to learn for Westerners.
Nemesio
You are right of course, it does have a grammar and things would be unintelligible if it didn't. It's just that the grammar is made up of so many exceptions and so many of the "rules" can be broken and yet the result is still meaningful. This is why I stated that poor grammar is more likely a sign of poor memory - it's difficult to remember all those exceptions.
You spelled etymological incorrectly just for grins right?
I think you're right about English being easy to learn to speak badly, but even when speaking it badly one can usually make oneself understood. Of course being English means that I have never mastered another language - I struggled with French for years - so I can't comment on which are the most difficult to learn. They all are!
Originally posted by howardbradley
Nope I do mean two tenses: past and present. To express things about the future we still use the present tense, as in: "I am going (present) to go (infinitive) to the movies".
I'm not trying to be confrontational or contrary-minded, but there are 12 basic tenses in English. Tense is defined "a form of a verb used to indicate the time, and sometimes the continuation or completeness, of an action in relation to the time of speaking." While English largely uses compound verb forms (verbs comprising two or more individual words), this does invalidate the existence of those tenses.
You are talking about simple verb formation, which is related to conjugation (which in turn is related to tense). But most verbs (regular) have two conjugational constructions (e.g., walk and walks), which is what I thought you meant. So-called 'weak' verbs have two different simple tense constructions (e.g., walk and walked), and we'll note that the past tense and past participle are identical.
But there's a third construction in 'strong' verbs. To quote an Old English web site: Strong verbs use the Germanic form of conjugation (known as Ablaut). In this form of conjugation, the stem of the word changes to indicate the tense. (emphasis mine) http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Old_English
One example they give is: Sing, sang, sung. This is carried over into modern English with a relative handfull of verbs.
And all of these verbs have a third/fourth form (for weak and strong verbs respectively): the present particple, which is formed by adding 'ing' to the 1st person present tense. As a result, your example is somewhat incorrect; you said 'I am going (present) to go (infinitive) to the movies.' What you marked as 'present' is actually a 'perfect' formation. Present is 'I go.' 'Going' is another formation of that verb. So, the present verb is 'am,' the perfect verb 'going,' the infinitive -- which in combination with the preceding two formations forms future tense -- is 'to go.'
I know you can't say 'I sung' or 'I singing.' But, those are definitely tense constructions with formal variants, it's just they use either 'to have' or 'to be' as a helping verbs.
So, I think you meant that there are only two different simple tense constructions; this don't include particples, which are themselves are the integral parts of compound tenses. But there are obviously more than two tenses in English.
See:
http://grammar.englishclub.com/verb-tenses.htm
http://www.learnenglish.de/PictureIt/tensespage.htm
Originally posted by howardbradley
You spelled etymological incorrectly just for grins right?
No. I have a low IQ.
Nemesio
Originally posted by shavixmirI rather think there may be a link. For native English speakers, the ability to communicate using correct spelling and faultless grammar *tends* to indicate higher intelligence.
No.
The two have got nothing to do with each other.
The point has been made elsewhere (hi Howard!) that poor spelling/grammar indicates a poor memory for the various inconsistencies inherent in English. Isn't the ability to hold many pieces of information in one's thoughts at least a component of intelligence?
Intelligent people *tend* to read more. By reading one identifies the many inconssistencies in the language. Intelligent people *tend* to remember *and apply* these in their future communications.
Does that sound reasonable?
Originally posted by ivangriceI disagree. Proper use of English is due to education and has nothing to do with intelligence.
I rather think there may be a link. For native English speakers, the ability to communicate using correct spelling and faultless grammar *tends* to indicate higher intelligence.
The point has been made elsewhere (hi Howard!) that poor spelling/grammar indicates a poor memory for the various inconsistencies inherent in English. Isn't the ability to ho ...[text shortened]... nd* to remember *and apply* these in their future communications.
Does that sound reasonable?
If you grow up in the slums of Glasgow and Liverpool, are glue-sniffing by the age of 7 and are prostituting yourself by the age of 13 to pay for your heroin addiction, you will have no chance of a good enough education to write or speak proper English.
You could be a very intelligent person though.
Some of the most intelligent people are dyslexic. Their English will also not reflect upon their intelligence.
The best schools in Britain are nearly non-accesible (is that a word) for intelligent children of poorer breeding, due to the price ticket. This means that less intelligent children of richer breeding get into them.
These less intelligent children will, because the level of education in these 'private' schools is so high, have better grammar and spelling than the more intelligent children forced into lesser education.
Originally posted by shavixmirIt is easy to use specifics (anecdotal evidence, perhaps) to counter a general theory. All things being equal, a better command of the language is consistent with higher intelligence.
I disagree. Proper use of English is due to education and has nothing to do with intelligence.
If you grow up in the slums of Glasgow and Liverpool, are glue-sniffing by the age of 7 and are prostituting yourself by the age of 13 to pay for your heroin addiction, you will have no chance of a good enough education to write or speak proper English.
You ...[text shortened]... etter grammar and spelling than the more intelligent children forced into lesser education.
That's not to say that there are intelligent people with poor language skills (you point out some examples), or that there are unintelligent people with good language skills (though examples of this appear to be rarer, for some reason).
The examples you cite refer mainly to extremes e.g. dyslexia, social privation. Taking the whole population, I think there would be a positive correlation between use of language and intelligence.
It depends how you define "intelligence".
If you define intelligence in an acadmeic sense, then poor grammar/spelling will probably be indicative of a "lower" academic intelligence, as spelling and grammar are critical to academic achievement.
However, intelligence can be defined in business, sporting, artistic, entertainment terms. In many of these fields spelling and grammar are not critical to achievement, and as such would not negate from such intelligence.
It depends on what you consider "intelligent" to be.
Mark
Originally posted by ivangriceLet us participate in a wee contest then...
It is easy to use specifics (anecdotal evidence, perhaps) to counter a general theory. All things being equal, a better command of the language is consistent with higher intelligence.
That's not to say that there are intelligent people with poor language skills (you point out some examples), or that there are unintelligent people with good language sk ...[text shortened]... ulation, I think there would be a positive correlation between use of language and intelligence.
We'll both write 1000 word essays (no spell check allowed) and ask various members of RHP to judge them on grammar and spelling (no dictionaries allowed either).
Then we'll both do an internet IQ test (the same one).
Then we'll both compare educations.
Let's put your theory to the test!
Originally posted by nemesioYou forgot the subjunctive!
Originally posted by howardbradley
[b]Nope I do mean two tenses: past and present. To express things about the future we still use the present tense, as in: "I am going (present) to go (infinitive) to the movies".
I'm not trying to be confrontational or contrary-minded, but there are 12 basic tenses in English. Tense is defined "a form o ...[text shortened]... u spelled etymological incorrectly just for grins right?[/b]
No. I have a low IQ.
Nemesio[/b]
The present subjunctive is used -
as a kind of third person imperative: 'God be praised!'
in demands/requests: 'We kindly ask that Joe Bloggs report to the conference room as soon as is convenient.'
The past subjunctive is used -
When supposing something without suggesting that it's true: 'Suppose that the Earth were flat.'
In conditional constructions: 'If I were rich, I would buy a new car.'
To indicate doubt about an event actually happening (now used mainly with modals): 'I could do that, but...'
With 'shall' it has a special meaning: 'I shall go to the party, but really I shouldn't.'
I've probably missed some, but you get the idea.
Also, I can think of these exceptions to your classification of strong and weak verbs: 'show/showed/shown', 'prove/proved/proven' and the American English 'dive/dove/dived'. The last one is especially weird - how did that one come about?
Originally posted by AcolyteNope. In my first post I mentioned 'subjunctive mood,' and in the second post I said 12 basic tenses. I was just trying to demonstrate that there are more than two tenses, as was being maintained.
You forgot the subjunctive!
There are all sorts of tenses beyond the four variants (simple, continuous, perfect simple and perfect continuous) within past, present and future; I'm not sure they are entirely quantifyable, because some blend into others. Subjunctive, conditional, active versus passive voice are all elements which alter tense in a formal and grammatical sense, of course. Modals and phrasals complicate matters further!
This page (which I cited earlier) goes into complete detail.
http://grammar.englishclub.com/verbs.htm
Nemesio
Originally posted by AcolyteIt's not my classification! LOL!
Also, I can think of these exceptions to your classification of strong and weak verbs: 'show/showed/shown', 'prove/proved/proven' and the American English 'dive/dove/dived'. The last one is especially weird - how did that one come about?
Of course there are exceptions! It's English! 😀
I don't know about dived/dove, but that it's probably a strong verb that people started using the weak past tense structure. New verbs very rarely (if ever?) are strong; at least all the ones I can think of derive from Old English. Someone with a better knowledge of etymology would have to comment on dived/dove, but I suspect my guess is close to the mark.
For my part, I never say 'dived,' I think.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioThanks for the links. I had a root around on tha Interweb myself.
I'm not trying to be confrontational or contrary-minded, but there are 12 basic tenses in English. Tense is defined "a form of a verb used to indicate the time, and sometimes the continuation or completeness, of an action in relation to the time of speaking." While English largely uses compound verb forms (verbs comprising two or more individual words), ...[text shortened]... u spelled etymological incorrectly just for grins right?[/b]
No. I have a low IQ.
Nemesio[/b]
It appears we are not the only ones who disagree. Apparently the number of tenses in a language (not just English) is often a point of contention. Even the Wikipedia page on the subject of tenses is in dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tense
This gives a table of twelve tenses as you said, but goes on to say "In addition, most modern grammars of English agree that English does not have a future tense (or a future perfect)." I must have been (unknowingly) influenced by Biber, D et al who think that English only has two tenses.
I think this all goes to prove just how confusing a language English really is - I pity people who have to learn it as a second language.
I apologise for the spelling remark - it was a cheap shot.
Originally posted by shavixmirThat sounds like fun :-).
Let us participate in a wee contest then...
We'll both write 1000 word essays (no spell check allowed) and ask various members of RHP to judge them on grammar and spelling (no dictionaries allowed either).
Then we'll both do an internet IQ test (the same one).
Then we'll both compare educations.
Let's put your theory to the test!
However, I rather think the point of my last post has been missed: individual pieces of evidence mean little when trying to prove/disprove a theory. As I mentioned in that last post, I may simply be a person with low intelligence yet a good grasp and usage of English.
BTW, as a purely hypothetical question, would the 1000-word essays both have to be on the same topic?
Originally posted by ivangriceThe judges would have to decide a topic.
That sounds like fun :-).
However, I rather think the point of my last post has been missed: individual pieces of evidence mean little when trying to prove/disprove a theory. As I mentioned in that last post, I may simply be a person with low intelligence yet a good grasp and usage of English.
BTW, as a purely hypothetical question, would the 1000-word essays both have to be on the same topic?