Silliest French word I learnt so far

[Bart]

There's was an article not long ago in one of the papers about how American, European and Asian students living in the UK were able to understand each other perfectly but struggled with the native accent in general...

I agree that it varies a lot from cities to the countryside and across the Isles.

I notice this myself, if I and another native English speaker try to speak French we get on far better than with a native French speaker, I would think it is because we talk slower having to think more and pronounce words incorrectly (to a French speaker) but in a way that we can both understand (and he/she can’t).

 

[mansr]

Glaswegian Hindi? I'm having trouble with that concept as either in itself is a struggle on the phone.

I assume it's the Edinburgh variety they're aiming for.

 

[mansr]

Oh, look what I've done. I've gone and ended a sentence with a preposition.

 

[tuga]

I used to watch this when I was a kid...

 

[KrisW]

They go further than that meanwhile, they adapt the words to German spelling. Eine taffe Lehrerin.

What is true is that the word "tough" sounds very good to german ears, as does "kaputt" to yours.

Most of the very old words in English make plausible German ones, and, actually, once it's spelled as taff I'm perfectly okay with the word; if British football writers can talk about "gegenpressing" then why shouldn't Germans say "taff". What annoys me is when I see an English-spelled word with a German suffix inexpertly attached and just thrown into a sentence full of German ones. It is neither one thing nor the other.

 

[mansr]

Most of the very old words in English make plausible German ones, and, actually, once it's spelled as taff I'm perfectly okay with the word; if British football writers can talk about "gegenpressing" then why shouldn't Germans say "taff". What annoys me is when I see an English-spelled word with a German suffix inexpertly attached and just thrown into a sentence full of German ones. It is neither one thing nor the other.

If you think it's bad in German, stay away from Scandinavia.

 

[stevec67]

Someone above implied that the German “Handy” was a loan-word. It isn’t.

Despite the best efforts of 18th century revisionists to claim otherwise, English is a Germanic language, and so the basic words remain very similar between the the two: a fine example of this is that the German word for a hand is... ein Hand . The word for a phone handset is Handgerät, which when shortened, becomes Handy, following a common pattern in German for nicknames and short-forms. The only Englishy thing about the word Handy is the use of a y instead of i in the spelling.

That said, modern German is littered with pointless loanwords (the phenomenon is called Denglisch), so you now see “Manager” rather than Chef (itself a loanword) or Leiter; although the most contentious example was when Deutsche Bahn renamed the information-desk signage at every train station to read “Service Point” rather than the more concise German word Auskunft. (The use of English words in the signage is unrelated to the ability of the person behind the desk to speak English, by the way…)

I’m a native English speaker and passable in German, but 0nothing throws me off when reading German more than seeing an English interloper* in the middle of a German sentence. Especially when the grammatical rules of German are applied to them. (e.g., “Eine toughe Lehrerin”)

__
* Ironically, “interloper” is itself a loan-word, of Dutch origin

The linguists refer to modern English as proto -Germanic rathe r than Germanic, aiui, because it parted company long before modern German was developed.
Old English is of course another kettle of pre Saxon invasion fish.
At the end of the day we are all descended from the same set of tribes wandering around N Europe about 1500-2000 years ago. I like the way that the UK has ended up with such a strange mixture of Celt, Saxon, and French in the dictionary.

 

[mansr]

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James Davis Nicoll

 

[richardg]

The linguists refer to modern English as proto -Germanic rathe r than Germanic, aiui, because it parted company long before modern German was developed.
Old English is of course another kettle of pre Saxon invasion fish.
At the end of the day we are all descended from the same set of tribes wandering around N Europe about 1500-2000 years ago. I like the way that the UK has ended up with such a strange mixture of Celt, Saxon, and French in the dictionary.

I once read a book by Chomsky called The English Languages, I think.

It was along these lines and very easy to read. And we can't stop it changing. The best bit to give language fascists the finger is the realisation that language always comes before the rules. This suits me a lot. Something so structured and naturally evolving pays no heed to any academic point of view. Nobody is in charge. It's total anarchy is language!

 

[Mike Reed]

Oh, look what I've done. I've gone and ended a sentence with a preposition.

Well, that's a new one on me (being a no-no, that is). Beginning a sentence with a conjunction is a definite no-no (which is logical if you think about it) but so many people do, regardless. Ending with a preposition? Perfectly fine, I'd say!

 

[Mike Reed]

Something so structured and naturally evolving pays no heed to any academic point of view. Nobody is in charge. It's total anarchy is language!

The part of language, and esp. English, which is constantly evolving, Richard, is the vocabulary. The grammar rarely if ever changes. For example (non-vocab): I'm loving it, liking it, etc which is taken nowadays to be perfectly correct English on TV, on the street, everywhere. It's wrong! Love, hate, like, want etc. are stative (= a state/emotion/unchanging situation) verbs and can only be used (correctly) in the simple, not a continuous sense. Now maybe in a decade or so these stative verbs, or at least some of them, will be accepted as grammatically correct. Currently, though, they're definitely not.

 

[mansr]

Well, that's a new one on me (being a no-no, that is). Beginning a sentence with a conjunction is a definite no-no (which is logical if you think about it) but so many people do, regardless. Ending with a preposition? Perfectly fine, I'd say!

It's totally fine in English. Not so much in Latin, however, and some old-school grammar purists thus believe that no other language should be permitted to commit such a heresy either. Or so I'm told. See what I did there?

 

[eisenach]

I taught EFL in Frankfurt at the beginning of the 80s. It was a fast ride in learning about my own language. Some of the things I learned:
- the English use of tenses, with the simple and continuous forms doubling those in comparable languages; make it mightily difficult to speak it like a native.
- you can mangle the language badly, but still the message gets across, which is probably why it has become a world language
- there is a significant, if now blured difference between American and British, especially in the subtle use of the simple past and the perfect tenses (I just did it (US) / I've just done it (UK)
- that it's a very subjective and expressive language in its use tenses. Often there are various options possible, but the choice betrays what the speaker really means and wants to say, often linked to the subjective time-frame.
- that whilst German might be easier for an English speaker to learn initially, it rapidly becomes more difficult, especially when venturing on the terrain of the abstract.
- that learning French is the reverse of German: harder initially, but easier to manage when dealing with abstract ideas. That's down to the (class) history of English: 400 years of class distinction and why, for example, the peasants dealt with the animals (sheep, cow, swine) and the nobs ate the meat (mutton, beef, pork).

 

[Mike Reed]

I like the way that the UK has ended up with such a strange mixture of Celt, Saxon, and French in the dictionary.

Not to mention lots of words which come from the empire and other trading outposts from our centuries of naval supremacy and far-flung entrepreneurship. Of course, add Angles and Jutes who may have had the same language as Saxons).

English is probably the most bastardised or mixed up language in the world with so many historical roots but is probably also the richest, esp. in vocabulary. We have a plethora of phrasal (a.k.a. prepositional) verbs which we use in preference, with some having many meanings. Example is 'blow up' (= enlarge, explode, inflate etc.). This is peculiar to English in its wide and varied usage.

That it's a global language is not just down to empire, i.m.o., but also due to its wide-ranging variety. More recently, the internet and general digital services have probably boosted that supremacy.

 

[richardg]

The part of language, and esp. English, which is constantly evolving, Richard, is the vocabulary. The grammar rarely if ever changes. For example (non-vocab): I'm loving it, liking it, etc which is taken nowadays to be perfectly correct English on TV, on the street, everywhere. It's wrong! Love, hate, like, want etc. are stative (= a state/emotion/unchanging situation) verbs and can only be used (correctly) in the simple, not a continuous sense. Now maybe in a decade or so these stative verbs, or at least some of them, will be accepted as grammatically correct. Currently, though, they're definitely not.

Haha so wrong! You're just in denial. Loving it is there already. As is using super in front of an adjective. There are many examples of language giving grammar 'rules' the finger.

Just wait until txt spk takes over. You will be having kittens.

Personally, I love it. Keep it evolving in any direction.

 

[mansr]

We have a plethora of phrasal (a.k.a. prepositional) verbs which we use in preference, with some having many meanings. Example is 'blow up' (= enlarge, explode, inflate etc.). This is peculiar to English in its wide and varied usage.

And that brings us to the controversy of the split infinitive.

 

[Seeker_UK]

 

[Mike Reed]

the English use of tenses, with the simple and continuous forms doubling those in comparable languages; make it mightily difficult to speak it like a native.

- there is a significant, if now blurred difference between American and British, especially in the subtle use of the simple past and the perfect tenses (I just did it (US) / I've just done it (UK)

I made your fist point in an earlier post, though some continental languages do have both continuous and simple, with similar tense structures. What may differ, however, is the complexity of use. The simple present is used for about 6 functions (incl. the future). The present continuous is equally used for present and planned future (I'm going to the shops (tomorrow).

I'm sure that 'I just did it' is an aberration in either form of English. 'Just' is an adverb which is only used with the present perfect (in this context) as it's not a specific time word.

 

[Mike Reed]

Personally, I love it.

D'you mean 'I'm loving it'? Don't agree with you; it's still grammatically wrong AND is a recent adoption. Personally, I think there's merit in having some stative verbs used in the continuous, but nobody educated properly in English would write that, even if flippantly used verbally. It ain't Queen's English yet!

Besides, it's the Wensum here in Norwich, not the Nile. ( 'I'm in denial')

 

[richardg]

D'you mean 'I'm loving it'? Don't agree with you; it's still grammatically wrong AND is a recent adoption. Personally, I think there's merit in having some stative verbs used in the continuous, but nobody educated properly in English would write that, even if flippantly used verbally. It ain't Queen's English yet!

Besides, it's the Wensum here in Norwich, not the Nile.

You is a traditionalist innit.

Of course it starts on the street. That is the whole point! The properly educated can get in the sea. They don't and can't control language. They just refuse to adapt.