The English Language is Flawed! - page 3

In NZ "to go bush" means to go camping/hiding in the bush, or something along those lines.

Jim, why do you have to avoid using the word ''bush''?

Because his girlfriend's gone brazilian. You know ... no bush at all down there.

http://beauty.ivillage.com/body/basics/hremoval/article/0,,217750,00.html?

Why Get a Brazilian Bikini Wax?

English had a subjunctive case at one time just like all of the older Indo-European languages. However, today it uses auxiliary (helper) verbs like "may" (e.g. May I take this chair? ; May he be killed) ) and "let" (Let's sit at this table! ; Let him be killed). Linguistically speaking, this is actually an advancement over older IE languages like Sanskrit, Russian, Greek and Latin where flexional endings are used to show that the verb is in the subjunctive tense. Some east Asian languages like Chinese and Vietnamese also get along fine without a subjunctive case and, like English,use helper verbs to express subjunctive concepts.

two things I'd like to mention,

1. I vaguely recall reading that inflections/conjugations are the remains of helper words that denoted a tense... they eventually got merged into the verb, is that correct?

2. About formal/informal pronouns. Yes I do imagine it would be quite strange speaking a language where you speak to everyone with the same words. However, its just as strange going the other way. I learnt German using 'du' and now find it strange to use 'Sie' for the formal but I know I have to because I'm not dealing with fellow university students anymore! I think respect in the English language is shown by a subtle change in voice tone and the choice of words used. Its not something that can be clearly explained as in just changing the pronoun.

One last thought, I never use Sir/Ma'am either... is this only used in the States? Is it used in the UK? I never hear it in Australia/NZ.

Dear Vn23,

Sometimes no one knows the answers to certain questions in linguistics for sure. The most popular theory about inflections is that they evolved in those languages where the people were nomads and migrated a lot. Both the original Indo-Europeans and the original Semites were these kinds of people.

The Chinese, on the other hand, have been a settled agricultural people for about 5,000 years and their language shows little trace of the inflections that the ancesteral Chinese language had. In other words, Chinese has been steadily losing flexions (or inflections). In Europe, English has been doing kind of the same thing, shedding ancesteral flexions (inflections) and changing into a language that is more analytical and monosyllabic (just like Chinese and Vietnamese).

Analytical type languages make much greater use of helper verbs and prepositions as opposed to flexional type languages. For example, in Modern English we say "Let it happen!" in Ancient Greek this was "Ginesto!" with Gin- being the root meaning "happen" and the -ESTO flexional ending serving the same purpose as the English words "Let it". Modern Greeks say it a little more analytically as "Asto na ghini". An ancient Greek inscription from the Roman period says TiberiOU = "TO Tiberius" but Modern English says it analytically with the preposition "To" instead of a flexional ending as in Greek (-ou) . Russian is still like Greek as in TsarYIU! "TO the Czar!".

The use of formal and informal "you" goes back to the days when European society was divided into nobles and peasants. This situation no longer exists but French and German nevertheless have not yet given the distinction up as has English. The Germans, I'm told, are very conservative and may never change their language to the extent that the English, Dutch and Scandanavians have changed theirs.

P.S. Sir and Ma'm are still used by many (but not all) people in the United States. "Sir" is kind of a tricky word. If a stranger calls you "Sir" it is considered a sign of respect but if your mother or your boss calls you that it means that you are in trouble.

Brennus said: >>The most popular theory about inflections is that they evolved in those languages where the people were nomads and migrated a lot. Both the original Indo-Europeans and the original Semites were these kinds of people.<<

I have never heard about this theory, but it makes sense. By the way, Asian nomadic people's languages are mostly agglutinative (using suffiixes attached to word roots, as in Mongolian, Turkish and Hungarian - the latter two also used to be Asian nomads). Curiously, however, those languages have not changed so much as e.g. English and French have. Could it be because these peoples had such an animated history that it never let them settle down in a comfortable way? :-)

In response to Boy's post: I suppose it would seem strange to someeone who was taught in their native vernacular that to show respect you should address your elder's by the way "You" is used in addressing them. In the English language, I do not think that we put much inphesis on inferiority/superiority positions when addressing one another, yet we can still show respect appropriately in different ways. This could be in the tone in which we speak, using a saluatation before his or her name before being addressing that person, or even the in which we word what we are saying to that person.

I was taught from a very early age to always respect my elder's and that to show this respect I should address my elder's by saying, "ma'am and sir" after being spoken to. I'm certainly happy with that. And I certainly don't feel that it's strange to use them when I do.

Dear Easterner,

You're right . A lot of nomadic people speak agglutinative type languages too (exceptions are kind of Korean and Japanese) but I don't know what the theory is behind this one. The Bantu languages of Africa are apparently of an agglutinative type too with the most famous of them being Swahili. However, all of the great Bantu migrations out of West Africa into Eastern and Southern Africa seem to have occurred between the 12th and 17th centuries. Take Care!

Dutchboy,

The use of ma'm and sir haven't disappeared completely in American society. You probably know that if you live in the U.S. However, there has been a decline in their usage since the 1950's. I was in grade school at that time and already had some teachers who objected to kids saying "Yes, Ma'am" or "Yes, Sir" to them possibly because they thought it was old-fashioned, even phony. The 1950's were a pivotal period in American history when the last of the Victorian period was disappearing along with all things associated with it like good grooming, well-tailored clothes, corporal punishment, tea parties, piano lessons and formal dating. (Remember the 50's television program "Leave It To Beaver"? It was kind of a latter day Victorianism). During this time adults began to stop addressing each other as Mr. and Mrs. and to call each other on a first name basis. Of course, the pendalum will eventually swing back the other way as it always does and we will have something similar to Puritanism or Victorianism again only under a different name. Overall, I agree with you that saying "Ma'm" and "Sir" is only good manners.

That's the only solution I have come up with. I fully agree with you. But I have a question can I address a 25 year old girl as "Ma'm" who is unmarried? Why do I have an impression like "Ma'm" is only used to refer to married women? For example, in my country, unmarried girls are easily offended if by a mistake I call them as ladies or women.

If there is nothing wrong to use these words then I should have not have any problems with using them. It is still better than call simple people's names.

You can use "ma'am" for a 25-year-old woman, although it might surprise or maybe offend her. I think addressing a 25-year-old as "Miss" is much more appropriate.

Thanks! That's exactly what I wanted to know.

You should use "miss" for a 25-year-old woman even if she is married?