0
   

The most common pronunciation of "would" in "I would like to"

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 11:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Well, for the first 3, I believe
that in Spanish, thay just add an s to render a plural.
I 'm too ignorant to comment on Russian (e.g. "Bolshevik").
I don 't know from which language "apricot" derives.


What your own words shows is that it doesn't matter what language a word comes from, when it enters a new language, it follows the rules of the new language.

Japanese, like pretty much every language, has many borrowed English words. You wouldn't recognize any of them. They aren't written in English, they aren't pronounced as they are in English and many times they don't have a meaning that is identical to the English one.

That's completely natural of course because Japanese is Japanese.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 12:09 pm
@JTT,
David wrote:
Well, for the first 3, I believe
that in Spanish, thay just add an s to render a plural.
I 'm too ignorant to comment on Russian (e.g. "Bolshevik").
I don 't know from which language "apricot" derives.
JTT wrote:
What your own words shows is that it doesn't matter what language a word comes from,
when it enters a new language, it follows the rules of the new language.
HOW do my own words show that, J ???
I don t see that thay do.
I fail to understand how your conclusion is supported or justified.




JTT wrote:
Japanese, like pretty much every language, has many borrowed English words.
I 'll take your word for it, J.
I have no information regarding that language.
I imagine that MacArthur is probably a word that thay use.





JTT wrote:
You wouldn't recognize any of them.
I BELIEVE u ! (about that) (except as applied to MacArthur)




JTT wrote:
They aren't written in English, they aren't pronounced as they are in English
and many times they don't have a meaning that is identical to the English one.

That's completely natural of course because Japanese is Japanese.
Well, I recognize the right of the Japs
to do whatever thay want with their own language.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 12:19 pm

JTT, I remember that I left some questions unanswered,
which I promised to address. I am free to do so now.

Do u wish to ask me anything in that regard ??





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 12:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I BELIEVE u ! (about that) (except as applied to MacArthur)


Nope, not even that one. What's this one, garu or this sutoraiku?

Quote:
Well, I recognize the right of the Japs
to do whatever thay want with their own language.


What you don't recognize, in your ignorance, is that that's the way it is with every language.

You've proven yourself wrong. If it was a "rule" of English [any language actually] that we use the rules of the mother language for borrowed words, then it would apply equally to the words borrowed from all languages.

You know it doesn't and still you continue with the charade.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 12:51 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Nope, there's more than enough to keep you busy for a good long time.

Remember though, that there was and is no need to procrastinate when "logic" is on your side.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 03:13 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Nope, there's more than enough to keep you busy for a good long time.

Remember though, that there was and is no need to procrastinate when "logic" is on your side.
I was in the hospital for a while
and I did not have access to my computer.

Regardless of that, it has long been the case
that my languor has been exceeded only by my torpor.

Anyway, I remember promising (on this thread, or on another one)
to address some of your concerns, but having failed to do so.
Accordingly, I felt guilty. I 'd track it down, if u wanted me to,
so as to keep my word & to honor that committment.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 03:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Anyway, I remember promising (on this thread, or on another one)
to address some of your concerns, but having failed to do so.
Accordingly, I felt guilty. I 'd track it down, if u wanted me to,
so as to keep my word & to honor that committment.


You don't have to track very far, Dave. It's in this very thread.

I note that you have also failed to address the issue of words borrowed from other languages. Was that because of a dentist appointment?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 03:33 pm
@JTT,
David wrote:
I BELIEVE u ! (about that) (except as applied to MacArthur)
JTT wrote:
Nope, not even that one.
What's this one, garu or this sutoraiku?
I do not recognize those words, J, nor their language.
Accordingly, it is my choice to avoid use of words
of whose existence I am ignorant.
That has not proven to be difficult.




David wrote:
Well, I recognize the right of the Japs
to do whatever thay want with their own language.
JTT wrote:
What you don't recognize, in your ignorance, is that that's the way it is with every language.
Yes; my ignorance embraces most of the languages of this planet and all others.




JTT wrote:
You've proven yourself wrong.
Really? Rong about WHAT ?



JTT wrote:
If it was a "rule" of English [any language actually] that we use the rules of the mother language
for borrowed words, then it would apply equally to the words borrowed from all languages.
So far as I am aware, there is no rule of English
regarding how OTHER languages shoud be treated.

However, it is clear that when we use words of other languages,
we are no longer speaking English, until we revert to using English words again.
Accordingly, when using those languages, we shoud use their words
according to the rules of that other language,
rather than to imitate the mythologists who used to jam a lion's head
onto the body of a horse or a fish (or whatever it was).
Just play it straight. As per the old saying: "When in Rome, do as the Romans."

JTT wrote:
You know it doesn't and still you continue with the charade.
I 'm sorry, J; your meaning escapes me, here.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 03:41 pm
@JTT,
David wrote:
Anyway, I remember promising (on this thread, or on another one)
to address some of your concerns, but having failed to do so.
Accordingly, I felt guilty. I 'd track it down, if u wanted me to,
so as to keep my word & to honor that committment.
JTT wrote:
You don't have to track very far, Dave. It's in this very thread.
OK. I 'll do that today.

JTT wrote:
I note that you have also failed to address the issue of words borrowed from other languages.
I take it that I was not sufficiently clear.
I thought (thawt) that I had covered that.
I shall re-iterate:
when we speak words of other languages
(e.g.: forum, from Latin) we shoud apply the usage rules
of their language of origin, because we r USING that language when we speak or write those words.


JTT wrote:
Was that because of a dentist appointment?
No. I have good teeth and have no need of dental services.
Thank u for your concern.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 03:56 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I shall re-iterate:
when we speak words of other languages
(e.g.: forum, from Latin) we shoud apply the usage rules
of their language of origin, because we r USING that language when we speak or write those words.


As I've mentioned at least once, Om, repeating nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

The first time you advanced this spurious notion, you could be forgiven for your ignorance. But now you are advancing a lie for I've shown you that this silly notion isn't followed with any regularity at all.

It's completely ludicrous, as you yourself have noted - you admit that you don't know the rules for plural marking or the pronunciation for all the languages of the world.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 04:23 pm
@JTT,
David wrote:
I shall re-iterate:
when we speak words of other languages
(e.g.: forum, from Latin) we shoud apply the usage rules
of their language of origin, because we r USING that language when we speak or write those words.
JTT wrote:
As I've mentioned at least once, Om, repeating nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
I have expressed agreement with that notion
and I ratify that now, but the alleged "nonsense"
has not been identified in any way that is sufficiently specific
as to render us able to address any dispute of accuracy or of legitimacy.

U r free to reveal that information now.
Then I will consider it, but its not enuf merely to call anything "nonsense".
That will not enable an analysis.






JTT wrote:
The first time you advanced this spurious notion, you could be forgiven for your ignorance.
But now you are advancing a lie for I've shown you that this silly notion isn't followed with any regularity at all.
From your words, I infer that u believe
that u have proven something; that something is "spurious".
I am not following your reasoning.
I am not clear on what it IS that u believe to be "spurious".

Note also that legitimacy is not affected by whether or not
a notion is "followed with any regularity at all" or not.



JTT wrote:
It's completely ludicrous, as you yourself have noted - you admit that you don't know the rules for plural marking
or the pronunciation for all the languages of the world.
That is TRUE
(that I know not plural marking for almost all alien languages),
but I fail to understand the reason that u consider that to be significant or relevant to this discussion.

Will u elucidate ?





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 04:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
That is TRUE
(that I know not plural marking for almost all alien languages),
but I fail to understand the reason that u consider that to be significant or relevant to this discussion.

Will u elucidate ?


I'll let you do it, Om.


Quote:
when we speak words of other languages
(e.g.: forum, from Latin) we shoud apply the usage rules
of their language of origin, because we r USING that language when we speak or write those words.




OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 06:12 pm
@JTT,
David wrote:
That is TRUE
(that I know not plural marking for almost all alien languages),
but I fail to understand the reason that u consider that to be significant or relevant to this discussion.

Will u elucidate ?
JTT wrote:
I'll let you do it, Om.
I can 't propound your objections because I don 't understand them.
That is the reason that I asked u what thay were.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 06:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, first you admit that you don't know the rules for marking plurals for "almost all alien languages". But you suggest that "when we speak words of other languages we shoud apply the usage rules of their language of origin, because we r USING that language when we speak or write those words".

You can't see the inconsistencies in your ideas? You can't see how impossible the situation you've advanced is?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2011 12:30 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
David, first you admit that you don't know the rules for marking plurals for "almost all alien languages".
Yes; I said that and I stand by it.




JTT wrote:
But you suggest that "when we speak words of other languages
we shoud apply the usage rules of their language of origin,
because we r USING that language when we speak or write those words".

You can't see the inconsistencies in your ideas?
You can't see how impossible the situation you've advanced is?
It is not inconsistent because I do not speak words of alien languages that I don 't know.
For instance, I use the word forum and I DO know
the way to render it into a plural form and I have done so.

I never use languages that I don 't know,
thereby avoiding the inconsistency that u mention.
Hence, that has never become a problem.

Correct me if I 'm rong,
but I seem to detect a tacit implication
from u that I DO use languages that I don't know.
I don 't believe that I have ever done that.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2011 01:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Correct me if I 'm rong,
but I seem to detect a tacit implication
from u that I DO use languages that I don't know.


There's no need to make a pretense of being thick.

You use words that have come from other languages where you follow the rules of English; two examples that I've already provided, 'apricot' and 'Bolshevik'.

Two is more than enough to illustrate that your idea is nonsense. I suspect that you have had occasion to mark both of these words in their plural sense and to do so you used the rules of English.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2011 01:55 am
@JTT,
David wrote:
Correct me if I 'm rong,
but I seem to detect a tacit implication
from u that I DO use languages that I don't know.


JTT wrote:
There's no need to make a pretense of being thick.

You use words that have come from other languages where you follow the rules of English;
two examples that I've already provided, 'apricot' and 'Bolshevik'.

Two is more than enough to illustrate that your idea is nonsense.
I suspect that you have had occasion to mark both of these words
in their plural sense and to do so you used the rules of English.
It did not occur to me that apricot was an alien word.
I never considered the possibility. I have usually referred to
the communists or the commies, rather than "Bolshivik"
but, in candor, I cannot deny that I have sometimes said
"Bolshevik"; not ofen. I just did not think of it.
I never made a conscious decision to Americanize that word.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2011 02:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It did not occur to me that apricot was an alien word.
I never considered the possibility. I have usually referred to
the communists or the commies, rather than "Bolshivik"
but, in candor, I cannot deny that I have sometimes said
"Bolshevik"; not ofen. I just did not think of it.
I never made a conscious decision to Americanize that word.


Yet you ignore the salient point. There are thousands upon thousands of other words that have come to English and for them you follow the rules of English for marking plurals.

See the same article, link below, for many Latin words that bear little resemblance to some very common words we use today. That they have changed as much as they have point to what I've said from the outset. Words are "borrowed" but they are massaged to fit the phonology, the grammar rules of the borrowing language and often changed meanings or changes in nuance.

If it was possible to return these words to a group of REAL modern day Latin speakers, the words would be foreign to them in all respects.

Quote:

Major Periods of Borrowing

...

Those who first use the new word might use it at first only with speakers of the source language who know the word, but at some point they come to use the word with those to whom the word was not previously known. To these speakers the word may sound 'foreign'. At this stage, when most speakers do not know the word and if they hear it think it is from another language, the word can be called a foreign word. There are many foreign words and phrases used in English such as bon vivant (French), mutatis mutandis (Latin), and Fahrvergnuegen (German).

However, in time more speakers can become familiar with a new foreign word or expression. The community of users of this word can grow to the point where even people who know little or nothing of the source language understand, and even use, the novel word themselves. The new word becomes conventionalized: part of the conventional ways of speaking in the borrowing language. At this point we call it a borrowing or loanword.

(It should be noted that not all foreign words do become loanwords; if they fall out of use before they become widespread, they do not reach the loanword stage.)

Conventionalization is a gradual process in which a word progressively permeates a larger and larger speech community, becoming part of ever more people's linguistic repetoire. As part of its becoming more familiar to more people, a newly borrowed word gradually adopts sound and other characteristics of the borrowing language as speakers who do not know the source language accommodate it to their own linguistic systems. In time, people in the borrowing community do not perceive the word as a loanword at all. Generally, the longer a borrowed word has been in the language, and the more frequently it is used, the more it resembles the native words of the language.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/borrowed.html


Quote:
I never made a conscious decision to Americanize that word


You don't "Americanize" any of these words. The rules for marking plurals, in fact the vast majority of grammar rules were devised long before there ever was any Americans or any American dialect.
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2011 05:58 am
@oristarA,
"In "I would like to", "would" is pronounced as [wəd] (weakly sounded)? "

I bet that you're reeeeally glad you asked now, aren't you?

(insert rolling eyes emoticon here)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2011 07:30 am
@JTT,
David wrote:
It did not occur to me that apricot was an alien word.
I never considered the possibility. I have usually referred to
the communists or the commies, rather than "Bolshivik"
but, in candor, I cannot deny that I have sometimes said
"Bolshevik"; not ofen. I just did not think of it.
I never made a conscious decision to Americanize that word.
JTT wrote:
Yet you ignore the salient point. There are thousands upon thousands of other words
that have come to English and for them you follow the rules of English for marking plurals.
I know not which words those are.
Re-iterating:
I don 't use alien words with whose definitions I am not familiar.
If I am familiar with the definitions, I tend not to use alien words
(preferring English words) anyway.

Until u said so, I had no idea that apricot (which I have not eaten)
is not an English word; I never considered the question.


JTT wrote:
See the same article, link below, for many Latin words that bear little resemblance to some very common words we use today. That they have changed as much as they have point to what I've said from the outset. Words are "borrowed" but they are massaged to fit the phonology, the grammar rules of the borrowing language and often changed meanings or changes in nuance.
I have NEVER made a conscious, intentional decision to apply
American rules of usage to alien words (e.g. I have never said: forums.)





JTT wrote:
If it was possible to return these words to a group of REAL modern day Latin speakers,
the words would be foreign to them in all respects.
Pardon my skepticism.


Quote:
Major Periods of Borrowing

...

Those who first use the new word might use it at first only with speakers of the source language who know the word, but at some point they come to use the word with those to whom the word was not previously known. To these speakers the word may sound 'foreign'. At this stage, when most speakers do not know the word and if they hear it think it is from another language, the word can be called a foreign word. There are many foreign words and phrases used in English such as bon vivant (French), mutatis mutandis (Latin), and Fahrvergnuegen (German).

However, in time more speakers can become familiar with a new foreign word or expression. The community of users of this word can grow to the point where even people who know little or nothing of the source language understand, and even use, the novel word themselves. The new word becomes conventionalized: part of the conventional ways of speaking in the borrowing language. At this point we call it a borrowing or loanword.

(It should be noted that not all foreign words do become loanwords; if they fall out of use before they become widespread, they do not reach the loanword stage.)

Conventionalization is a gradual process in which a word progressively permeates a larger and larger speech community, becoming part of ever more people's linguistic repetoire. As part of its becoming more familiar to more people, a newly borrowed word gradually adopts sound and other characteristics of the borrowing language as speakers who do not know the source language accommodate it to their own linguistic systems. In time, people in the borrowing community do not perceive the word as a loanword at all. Generally, the longer a borrowed word has been in the language, and the more frequently it is used, the more it resembles the native words of the language.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/borrowed.html


David wrote:
I never made a conscious decision to Americanize that word
JTT wrote:
You don't "Americanize" any of these words.
By that assertion, I mean that I have never decided to apply American rules of use to alien words.


JTT wrote:
The rules for marking plurals, in fact the vast majority of grammar rules
were devised long before there ever was [u mean were?? David] any Americans or any American dialect.
That might well be true.





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:03:57