Does anyone like the English Language?

Cheng-Zhong Su   Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:58 pm GMT
Steve said: “About English, I was encouraged that many of the traditional ideas are gaining acceptance, in theory. The teachers still take great pride in knowing what grammar is, although most fluent speakers of English, native and non-native, have never heard of it. What disturbs me at is the fact that so many people, in learning English, are forced to ingest the very culture that I avoid in my native American dominated modern pop culture.
Who here would be prepared to record themselves talking about their lives and their countries in English, or interviewing others in English? If you feel your accent is too bad can you provide some interesting content in written English for someone to record. We could create a corpus of general English for English language learners to listen to and read that might distract some people from bad habits.”


Thank you Steve, I have met this name on http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/auxlang I am not sure if you are the same person. At 2002, I have written a book From the Linguistic Law to ‘The International Intelligent Language’. After many years’ discussing in the internet forum, I found many content of that book have to change and I am still trying to find out what is the most important thing in the world’s understanding about language.
What I found is that most so-called linguists don’t know anything about math and information science. If only they know something about technique, they would understand what I have said long time ago and I have no chance to speak here.
Another problem; maybe the key issue is that how to count the number of English sound. For this reason, English invented so many words as ‘syllable’, ‘phoneme’, ‘CV tier’, ‘articulation’ ‘chronome’ etc. but none of them reflect the reality properly.
The confusion is that there are so many vowels in English being ignored. The problem is that English has only 26 letters, anyone use English to describe its sounds should make mistake between human voice and letter voice. The human language is not just five vowels, yet in our alphabetic letter, it just has five symbols for their representative. Sometimes we can assign few vowels into one symbol, for instance we use A to represent at least four vowels as æ, ei and ә. But other times, we use a group letters to represent vowels such as ‘en’. This mistake will be unacceptable. For until now most English speaker believes ‘en’ is a VC structure not a single vowel. My explanation is that if you think ‘en’ is a VC structure not a single vowel, then you may compare with ‘ten’ and ‘ted’ both of them could be CVC under your explanation. Now, repeat both of them twenty times quickly and clearly. You may find that you repeat ‘ten’ in five seconds but repeat ‘ted’ in seven seconds, if you utter the‘d’ very clear. This prove that ‘en’ play a role of vowel. It is just because we have no letter to represent it, and the combination of ‘e’ and ‘n’ is close to the pronunciation of this vowel so we us them to represent it. In English, there are many such vowels as ‘an’, ‘ang’, ‘on’, ‘oon’ and ‘in’ etc. Yet, since they have no formal name (symbol), phonologists still call them as VC or VCC structure. With 26 letters we want to create all words, the combination maybe various, coincidently ‘e’ followed ‘n’, at beginning we may pronounce them as e—n but later people mixed them as ‘en’ that is to say at the beginning we create a word didn’t think about its pronunciation but later, people using an easy way to pronounce it and it already play a role of vowel yet phonologist don’t recognize them. So before an investigation of English, we have to measure the time of every syllable.

We know computer can update the hardware in order to accelerate the running speed and increase the memory but human being could not do this on their brain. What we can do is exploit our sense, especially the hearing sense to do the same thing, if only we understand how it works.
Usman   Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:29 pm GMT
Cheng Zou, finish off this discussion. This forum is not for discussing this.

Secondly, from your post it is clear that you find English very different from the Chinese & are now giving your suggestions to try make English more like Chinese so that becomes close to your mother tongue & easier to learn.

They are both very different languages. You are a very racist person.

I am afraid whether other chinese think like this?
Cheng-Zhong Su   Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:47 pm GMT
I don’t think I am a racist person, for I am thinking about the languages of the world. I hope the world people get a better communication system. Before we talk about this topic, we have to know that the translatability in each language is different. It means to say if language A can translated into language B clearly, it is no mean to say that language B can translated into language A clearly too. I have given the example of prill=high+grade+copper+ore. Here ‘prill’ is synthetic word while the high+grade+copper+ore is a compound word. We can only allow prill=high+grade+copper+ore but we can’t tolerate that high=prill-( grade+copper+ore). That is to say, if a language full of compound words, it can absorb information of other language easily. But if a language full of synthetic words, it will be hard to absorb information from other language.
Another issue is about the time. In the world, hardly someone dare say that he is very good in one language. We know so many people have tried hard in one language yet they still can’t be prefect. What if those people learning two languages? Perhaps, they need two lives to do it.
correcter   Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:36 pm GMT
Cheng-Zhong Su, I am sorry to say this, but please try to be more careful. Read the forum rule #2.

Here, for an example I picked up and corrected two of your sentences.

<<[C]omputer can update the hardware [...] but human being could not do this on their brain.>>

1 [...] a computer can update its hardware [...], but a human being cannot do this to his (or her) brain.
2 [...] computers can update their hardwares [...], but human beings cannot do this to their brains.

<<It means to say if language A can translated into language B clearly, it is no mean to say that language B can translated into language A clearly too.>>

It means to say that even if the language A can be translated into the language B clearly, it doesn't mean that the language B can be translated into the language A clearly too.

Anyway, you do have a point in your messages, and I agree with you to a degree.
Cheng-Zhong Su   Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:29 am GMT
Correcter: Thank you for the correction. Perhaps it because I have just read A Dictionary of American Idioms by M.T. Boatner, J.E. gates (1975). When I switched on my computer, I just read a sentence: Joe's hobby is ham radio and he has radio on the brain most of the time. By mistake I put on "on the brain."Anyway the second sentence is absolutely wrong. What do you reckon, if I say: "by no means to say"?
Aidan McLaren   Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:59 am GMT
How can you admire a language that overuses the word "ass" and "fuck"?
Nadia   Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:08 am GMT
"fuck" and "ass" are one word?
Aidan McLaren   Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:23 am GMT
Yes, that's right, hypocrite. I decided at the last moment that the word "fuck" was overused, and I forgot to make "word" a plural.

The start of sentence doesn't include capitalisation?
mark   Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:22 am GMT
What about "I had grapes for lunch" Vs "I had grape for lunch" or
"I had a grape for lunch" ? both the number and the plural 's' are needed surley? The second sentence without the plural form is rendered meaningless. Grape what? juice, skin? seeds?
Tseug   Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:30 pm GMT
<< How can you admire a language that overuses the word "ass" and "fuck"? >>

Word usage is a part of the national psyche. By the way, the British and Australians don't use the word "ass".
Josh   Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:43 am GMT
"Word usage is a part of the national psyche. By the way, the British and Australians don't use the word "ass"."

I think that's false. It's just spelled as "arse," but since Australian English and English English are not rhotic, it's pronounced the same.
blanket   Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:51 pm GMT
"I think that's false. It's just spelled as "arse," but since Australian English and English English are not rhotic, it's pronounced the same."

Not really, there is a difference in pronunciation between 'ass' and 'arse'.
Josh   Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am GMT
"Not really, there is a difference in pronunciation between 'ass' and 'arse'."

But wouldn't "ass" and "arse" be homonyms in English English? Likewise, wouldn't "wan" and "warn" be homonyms in English English? It seems to me that the pronunciations are different only insomuch as EE and AE are different.
Dan   Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:26 am GMT
Yes