The Deal » English

A Lesson on Grammar

jayhat — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:22:59 +0000

In English, an obviative form of a verb is used to differentiate two otherwise ambiguous third-person pronouns. For instance, the sentence “Melanie borrowed Linda’s car” can be expressed as “She borrowed her car,” or even more ambiguous, “Melanie likes what Linda likes” can be expressed as “She likes what she likes.” So, an obviative form would likely be a marker—some sort of affix—used to differentiate “she” from “her” or “she” from “she.”

Of course, in English we don’t have an obviative form. We allow for the ambiguity, relying on the speaker—or writer—to avoid using pronouns in ambiguous situations. So, for the cost of a single, extra rule of grammar, we pay by having a limitation imposed on the language.

The reason I bring this up—other than to show that English has its limitations—is to point out that we have words in English that exist only as a means to express things we don’t do.

“Obviative” is an English word that describes something we don’t do in English.

I use this to illustrate the fact that, while there are plenty of things that we do that don’t make sense, there, too, are plenty of things we don’t do that do make sense. But we still don’t do them.

In both cases, change comes with rationality. Or reality.

Or a gentle prod from someone who cares.

I attempt to prove the existence of reality

jayhat — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:03:28 +0000

I think, therefore I am.

I am, therefore I do.

I do, therefore I act.

I act, therefore things happen.

Things happen, therefore things change.

Things change, therefore there exists something outside myself.

There exists something outside myself, therefore I am not alone.

What, no schwa?

jayhat — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:58:42 +0000

It’s interesting to me that in the English language we have all sorts of sounds that our letters shouldn’t naturally make. We take words from other cultures–if cultures exist–and integrate them into our own without respect for whether or not these words are pronounceable given our previous set of sounds. And, rather than integrating new letters to represent these new sounds, instead we appraise our established set of letters and decide which one is closest.

Most people don’t write, yet, we refuse to change our written language because we imagine words to be something stagnant, constant, quantifiable. We imagine that we can put a o- next to a u- next to a g- next to an -h and we can learn to pronounce it the same way we always have, independent of the fact that we never have, that we pronounce things differently, all the time, over space.

Even more interesting to me: We generally ignore sounds we’ve used since the language first diverged from German.

And not just sounds we use every once in a while. I’m not talking about eñes or umlauts.

Get this: The schwa is the most common vowel in the English language.

Languages are the cornerstones of cultures–if they exist. How a given people interact with their given language tells you much about who they are, as a people.

So, what I’m saying is, extrapolate.

Extrapolate, people.