May. 10th, 2004 02:47 pm
A tentative entry about language
Right now, there is on my desk a book entitled A tentative grammar of the Efe or Mbuti language. I love the notion of a linguist so uncertain that he can't even decide what to call the language he's describing. It led me to expect sentences like, "Well, you could use the instrumental case here, but, uhm, I'm not sure I would; I mean, it wouldn't be wrong, but would it be the best way to express what you have in mind?" Of course, nothing really distinguishes the style from thousands of other descriptive grammars.
I searched the title and found that we also have a "tentative grammar" of something called Kipsigis-Nandi (mind you, that could change) and Mycenaean Greek. It makes me want to start my own popular series to compete with Routledge's "Colloquial" and the English Universities' "Teach Yourself". After all, I hate giving definite answers when people ask, "How do you say that in X?" I mean, seriously, it depends, doesn't it? How many ways are there in Engish to imply that someone's statement is false? Or even state it outright?
Oh, though I do feel a responsibility to post a bit more about my attempts to learn Mandarin Chinese, if only in order to reassure
teapot_farm that this is a not a hopelessly quixotic task. I've learned how to say quite a number of things over the past two months. Statements, questions, requests--simple, but basically unambiguous. Yes, it may be highly "idiomatic" to say "Precious surname, huh?" when you want to know someone's name, but it's not confusing after you've done it a few times. We're also lucky to have a teacher who's very responsive to our curiosity about variations and distinctions.
I searched the title and found that we also have a "tentative grammar" of something called Kipsigis-Nandi (mind you, that could change) and Mycenaean Greek. It makes me want to start my own popular series to compete with Routledge's "Colloquial" and the English Universities' "Teach Yourself". After all, I hate giving definite answers when people ask, "How do you say that in X?" I mean, seriously, it depends, doesn't it? How many ways are there in Engish to imply that someone's statement is false? Or even state it outright?
Oh, though I do feel a responsibility to post a bit more about my attempts to learn Mandarin Chinese, if only in order to reassure
no subject
'Cause that would be funny.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
1. trans. To furnish (a literary work, a chapter, etc.) with a heading or superscription; in early use gen. (cf. TITLE n.). Subsequently only in narrower sense: To give to (a book, etc.) a designation by which it is to be cited, or which indicates the nature of its contents. Chiefly with complementary obj.; also const. by, with.
Are you objecting to the passive voice?
no subject
no subject
Right, or in any other language. Some of the things I've seen in language tutoring has, sadly, been a reinforcement that there is only one way to say something, which ... erm, is false. :: chuckles as he draws a conversation circle ::
no subject
no subject
no subject
Actually, diccionarios.com lists cosher. I wonder what the earlier word was. (After all, they had Jews; there must've been some term in use.)
no subject
Try using the term "cosher" to any average Mexican or Spaniard, for example and chances are you'll get a blank stare unless they're Jewish or knowledgable of Jewish lifestyles (which'd be rare -- average Latin beliefs on Jews are ... unique, to say the least, at least from what I've experienced).
Instead, even if you use the term "kosher"/"cosher", you'll have to use a much weightier explanation like, "comida conforme a la lay (tradición) judaica", as the term's not common in modern Spanish usage.
For obvious reasons this gets more complex when you get into Asian languages ...
no subject