The Frequentive Aspect and Being Disgruntled

How many of you have had a coworker say something like the following?  "I'm disgruntled.  I wish I could be gruntled."  I know I've heard it several times.  Gruntled seems like a fun play on words, but what does it really mean?  Would you even want to be gruntled?

We'll do another post soon and discuss how verbs not only have tenses, but also aspects and moods.  For now, let's just keep in mind that while a tense indicates the time of the verb's action, its aspect indicates something about how the action was done.  Today we're discussing one type of verb aspect, the frequentive.

Another question.  Have you ever sat in front of a fire and heard a log pop?  Once the flame becomes hot enough, the wood begins to crack.  When this occurs over and over, it establishes a soothing rhythm.  When something occurs over and over like this, we can say that it occurs frequently.  We can then switch the verb 'crack' into the frequentive aspect and it becomes 'crackle'.

In English, the frequentive is formed by applending '-le' to the verb.  Let's look at some more examples.

wrest --> wrestle

sniff --> sniffle

This may seem like a subtle topic, but perhaps it will help you to better choose your words when you think about what an '-le' word indicates.  Did she wrest the letter from him?  Or did they wrestle over it?  (Wrest being a one time action).

By now you've probably picked up the pattern and have worked backwards from gruntle to grunt.  Grunt is a normal, one-time action.  Gruntle means to grunt repeatedly or frequently.  That part is pretty straightforward.

It's the 'dis-' prefix that causes the confusion.  Dis- normally negates the verb, but occasionally it has the mean "very" or "a lot".  So while disgruntle may appear to mean "not repeatedly grunting and grumbling", it really means "a lot of repeated grunting and grumbling."  So if someone wants to be gruntled, they're really not improving much from being disgruntled.

Now that we've looked at the frequentive aspect, keep watch for it in your daily lexical travels.  When you see a word ending in '-le' think about that indicates and what the root (without the -le) might mean.  Waffles anyone? 

Minimalist Languages

Minimalist languages do not occur naturally. They represent one type of constructed language and have the design goal of reducing the number of available words in the lexicon.

A minimalist language can be either a priori or a posteriori. A priori languages are created independently of any existing language and often attempt to implement a philosophy. Many a priori languages organize their lexicon around some sort of taxonomy.

A posteriori languages have a lexicon based upon an existing language. These languages often attempt to simplify the perceived complexities of the base language's grammar or to create an easily understandable auxiliary language. A famous example of an a posteriori, auxiliary language is Esperanto, although it is not a minimalist language.

As stated, a minimalist language can be either a priori or a posteriori. Here, we will focus on a few examples of a posteriori, minimalist languages. Some examples are Newspeak and Toki Pona.

Newspeak

The minimalist, a posteriori language called Newspeak was created by George Orwell in his novel 1984. It is a posteriori because its lexicon is based upon an existing language, English, and it is a minimalist language because it attempts to reduce the number of words available in the vocabulary. This reduced vocabulary probably qualifies Newspeak as a philosophical language, too. The intent of the language's fictional creators was to control the concepts available for people to use for thinking.
The fictional language Newspeak was based upon an actual language called Basic English. Orwell opposed this experiment (after originally supporting it's goals of reducing the abuses of the English language perpetrated by politicians).

Toki Pona

Another a posteriori, minimalist language is Toki Pona. This language was created in 2001 by Sonja Elen Kisa. It is an a posteriori language because its vocabulary is based upon words from several existing languages. Toki Pona is also minimalist due to it's remarkably small vocabulary size, weighing in at only one hundred twenty root words.

Toki Pona is also a philosophical language. The creator wanted to make a "happy" language and infused it with Taoist concepts. Many speakers of Toki Pona feel that the simplicity of the language forces them to break down their thoughts into smaller components. For instance, the vague term "heaven" has no root word equivalent in Toki Pona. Instead, one might say "big sky place".

It is in many ways an experiment with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In a nutshell, the hypothesis states that characteristics of the language one is speaking affects one's thoughts. Speakers of Toki Pona are forced to build up concepts from the one hundred twenty root words. According to Sapir-Whorf, this would have an effect on their thoughts, probably causing them to focus less on specific labels (because these are absent from the lexicon) and more on the concept they are attempting to convey.

Conclusion

Minimalist languages can come in many types and sizes, but they all try to create a system that is capable of communication through the use of a restricted lexicon (and often a restricted grammar). At first glance, this might seem to be an obvious direction in which to move our cluttered and complicated languages. However, it should be noted that, while admirable and well-constructed, none of these minimalist languages has ever gained real popularity.

Perhaps after the initial glee at having such a small list of words to learn, the machinations required to express all but the most routine concepts causes people to return to more complex, but more precise languages. Perhaps it's something else entirely.

Lay Versus Lie

This morning as I was lying in bed and the clouds were laying snow on the ground, I was thinking about the next topic on which to post.  The northeast lies buried in snow and it's so cold that chickens will lay ice cubes instead of eggs today.

I thought, why not write a quick review of "lay" versus "lie"?

Okay, it's definition time.

transitive verb - a verb which transfers its action to an object (see the post on subjects and objects if you need a refresher).  In short, a verb that is transitive requires an object.

intransitive verb - a verb which does not take an object.  Think of an intransitive verb as a "stand alone" verb.

Let's look at some examples:

I have (transitive verb) a hammer (object).

You cried (intransitive verb).

If you think about more examples, you will quickly find that there are many verbs which take two objects (a direct object and an indirect object) and some verbs can be either transitive or intransitive.  We'll cover these situations another time.  Right now I want to focus on two specific verbs: lay and lie.

Here's the most important thing to remember about "lay".  Lay is a transitive verb.  Let's say it again just to make sure it sticks in our memory.  Lay is a transitive verb.  And a transitive verb takes an object.  So, lay always takes an object.

"Lie" is an intransitive verb.  Lie does not take an object.  Most of the time when you are saying "lay", you probably mean to say "lie".

Some examples:

The chicken lays an egg.

I was lying down.  (Note that "down" is NOT an object!!)

The second most important thing to remember is that "down" is not an object.  It is a preposition.  If the verb is followed by a preposition (on, in, down, ...), you probably want to use "lie".

Why do so many people get confused about this?  There are probably a few culprits. 

The first is that old prayer that children are taught, "now I lay me down to sleep."  Here, lay is used correctly as transitive verb with "me" as its object.  Normally we don't talk like that (using lay as a reflexive verb), but somehow "lay" became associated in our minds as the correct verb to use.

The second reason for confusion might be that the past tense of "lie" is "lay".  So, right now I lie on the bed. (Notice the preposition following the verb?)  But, earlier today I lay on the bed.  This definitely contributes to confusion between "lay" and "lie".

Try to remember the main points stressed above and you won't lay an egg next time you lie down.

Coordinate Versus Non-Coordinate Adjectives

Adjectives modify nouns. Some sentences contain nouns so worthy of description that they require multiple adjectives. Now, everyone knows the rule that multiple adjectives are separated by commas when modifying the same noun. (Remember not to place a comma between the final adjective and the noun).

For example:
He ate the hard, chewy cheese.

Both "hard" and "chewy" are adjectives that modify the noun. Easy, right?

Not so fast. A comma is only needed between coordinate adjectives. This aspect of the rule is quite easy to break. Coordinate adjectives can be placed in reverse order or separated by the word "and". If you can do those two things without affecting the sense of what you are saying, then you have coordinate adjectives.

In the example above, we could have easily said:

     He ate the hard and chewy cheese.
       Or
     He ate the chewy, hard cheese.

Neither one robs the sentence of any meaning, so we have coordinate adjectives and they should be separated by a comma.

Non-coordinate adjectives, on the other hand, should not be separated by a comma. Non-coordinate adjectives are not equal. One takes precedence over the other.

An example using non-coordinate adjectives:

     He drives a blue metal car.

Notice the absence of a comma? We would not say "a metal blue car" and we would not say "a blue and metal car", so we do not have coordinate adjectives.

As a rule of thumb, adjectives of size generally come first, followed by adjectives of age, color, then material.

When you're writing, it's easy to just start wedging commas between any two adjectives without thinking about whether they are really needed. We've all done it. Hopefully this little refresher will help us remember about coordinate versus non-coordinate adjectives.

Agenbite of Inwit

Let's talk about using the wrong word.

You writers and public speakers out there are always striving for the right word, le mot juste.  But is the right word the most precise one which indicates the concept, or a more widely known one that comes close?  Is the right word perhaps the one which creates a visceral connection with the concept in the mind of the reader?

In his book "Ulysses", James Joyce occasionally uses the term "agenbite of inwit."  Let's look at why this is the wrong word and why Joyce was right to use it.

Agenbite of inwit is misspelling of ayenbite of inwyt, the title of a French treatise.  In 1340, a monk translated this treatise into English a bit too literally.  Agenbite, or 'again bite', is a sort-of English rendering of the Latin verb remordere (to bite again).  Inwit, inner wit, is the inner sense of morality, that little voice inside of you that knows right from wrong.  So agenbite of inwit is the nagging of one's conscience.

This is the "wrong" word because the title was poorly translated and Joyce's spelling is off.  But, it is the right word too.  Used in the context of Leopoold Bloom, the protagonist of Ulysses, and his day about Dublin, the phrase packs some very visceral punch.  Joyce's 'ayen' to 'agen' consonant change renders the word closer to modern English.  Once the reader understands this phrase, it is much more potent than writing "my conscience is nagging me" amidst Bloom's stream of thoughts.  Instead we get "agenbite of inwit."  And we know.   We're right there with him.

It was gutsy of Joyce to use this phrase throughout his novel, but I think it paid off.  He single-handedly revived this phrase and it is now used occasionally by modern authors.  It's not instantly recognizable to those who haven't previously encountered it, but it is oddly familiar and similar to common English words.  It's one of those phrases that gets into your head and doesn't want to come back out.  Perhaps when you're having an agenbite of inwit?

The Sword As A Metaphor

It's been a while since we talked about myth.  Let's take a look at the idea of the sword as a metaphor.

Since swords play such a prominent role in ancient literature, poetry, and fantasy, it seems fitting that we take a moment to examine this symbol.  A sword could easily be construed as a phallic symbol.  It is long and straight and directly related to its wielder's sense of power.

Young Arthur couldn't fully ascend to his position as a leader until he had become master of the blade, Excalibur.  When he is mortally wounded and can no longer wield the sword, he orders it to be thrown into the lake.

In Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", Aragorn is the rightful king, but his sword is broken.  Narsil was the sword of his fathers, but remains broken after being shattered in battle.  It is only when the elves reforge Narsil into Anduril that he accepts his role as leader.  His sword is whole again.

In Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is a small town boy yearning for adventure.  When his guide (Obi Wan Kenobi) gives Luke his father's sword (albeit a laser sword), he learns to wield it and becomes a man.  Later, he uses his sword against his father, who chops off his sword bearing hand.

The sword as a phallic metaphor seems seems fairly obvious.  The danger is that of interpreting ancient symbols through a modern lens.  Perhaps a sword could more rightly be seen as the martial version of king's sceptor, a symbol of power, held by a ruler.  In this case, it is a warrior-king who holds the staff of the ruler. 

Irregardless

This one came as a surprise to me.  I was speaking with a colleague at work.  

I said something like "Irregardless of the cost..." and my colleague stopped me.

"There is no such word."  He said.

"Really?"

"Just use 'regardless'." He advised.

It made sense immediately.  The prefix ir- doesn't add any semantic weight to the word.  The tricky part is our natural instinct to add some negation, but regardless already contains the -less suffix.  This, of course, creates a double negative.

Merriam-Webster says that the word originated in American speech in the early twentieth century and has never been accepted as correct.  The common theory is that irregardless is a confusion of "irrespective" and "regardless".

I certainly learned something new today.  Regardless of what I thought, irregardless isn't a word I'll be using any longer.

How Much Does a Swear Word Weigh?

From time to time, I'll be engaged in a conversation about language with a non-native English speaker.  Actually, this occurs pretty frequently.  Sometimes another person will enter and say something like "I only know one word in your language" and proceed to say the equivalent of the "f word".

Reactions to this vary. 

 I always tell people not to swear in a foreign language until they are fluent in that language.  The problem is that it seems like a fun game to you.  You're saying a cute, little naughty word that doesn't carry any baggage.  For you.  To the other person, you probably just said something offensive or, at least, wildly inappropriate.

Imagine that the situation were reversed.  You're walking down a street in Italy, someone recognizes that you are an English speaker, walks up to you and says the following:

Mi dispiace, non parlo l'inglese ma F!@# you.

What part of that is going to resonate viscerally?  Now you know what it sounds like to them.

Further, each culture assigns a different weight to swear words.  In some cultures, one would never swear in a public setting.  In others, swearing might be considered a very mild issue.

Each word (or phrase) also carries an individual weight.  So just make sure that you know the potential impact of what you are saying before you say it.

Bona Zamenhof Day

Happy Zamenhof Day!  Bonan Zamenhofan Tagon!

Yes, today (December 15th) is Zamenhof day, the birthday of Ludwig Zamenhof. He is the man who created Esperanto.

This "holiday" stretches back to 1878, when Zamenhof first told birthday well-wishers about his new language.  Today, most esperantists celebrate by purchasing a book in Esperanto.

While Esperanto is hardly the universally spoken second language that it was intended to be, it is far and away the most successful constructed language with several million speakers.  And, more importantly, in an increasingly international world, where people from various cultures mix on a daily basis, the idea of a neutral auxiliary language has never seemed more apt.

Zamenhof grew up in a city divided by multiple languages, where the people mistrusted one another due to incomprehension.  His idea was to create this neutral second language for them so that they could begin to communicate.  He thought that most conflict arose from misunderstanding and from the fear produced by not communicating.

The discussion of English as a global language must wait for another post.  Today we simply acknowledge Zamenhof and his ideals.

Estu bone kaj havu bonan Zamenhofan tagon. 

Ending Sentences With Prepositions

First off, apologies for the long silence.  During the gap between this post and the prior post I changed jobs and bought a house.  Life has a crazy way distracting one from such pleasurable pursuits as blogging.  A big thank you to everyone who has been checking back for new posts and to all of those who have found the blog useful.

------

Today, let's talk about ending sentences with prepositions.  Your English teacher told you not do it.  Your textbooks told you not do it.  But, is this really a rule that you should follow?

It turns out that  a sentence ending preposition is a rather divisive issue.  Increasingly, people are questioning this basic rule of grammar.  The argument usually centers around the fact that avoiding a preposition at the end of a sentence really has nothing to do with the English language.  This practice comes from Latin.  Encouraging people to write this way produces a style that is closer to the style of Latin.  This is undoubtedly true.  

As many of you know, English has several roots, but the lexicon is primarily derived from Anglo-Saxon and French words.  French is a direct descendant of Latin.  Throughout the history of Modern English (and still persisting today) is a stigma against the blue collar Anglo-Saxon words.  Latin derived words are perceived as more intellectual and indicative of the upper class.  J.R.R. Tolkien was frustrated by the use of the word "autumn" (French) when there was a perfectly good word for the same concept, "fall" (Anglo-Saxon).  This is fodder for a separate discussion.  For now we just need to remember that this stigma exists and that several of our grammar "rules" exist to perpetuate this stigma.

Still, I'm not sure that this is reason enough to throw out this particular rule.  Is structuring a sentence like Latin such a bad thing?  In my opinion, a better argument against this rule is the fact that it applies only to written English.  I rarely end a sentence with a preposition when I'm writing, but, mindful as I am of the rule, I often break the rule when speaking.  There's something mildly unsettling about that kind of division.

In the end, what should you do?  That is, of course, up to you.  My advice is to try following the rule.  Like any rule of grammar, if you break it, break it consciously.  Being more mindful of how you are structuring your sentence can't be a bad thing.

Commenting on comments

You may have noticed that I disabled comments on this blog. This was mostly to protect the people posting comments from future embarrassment.

Each year, around the time that school goes back in session, I receive several helpful comments about the blog that insult me and make me question the time and effort that goes into making any future posts. I mention schools being back in session because I suspect that these comments are coming from students VERY early in their linguistics studies.

For example, not long ago a comment came that was so full of assumptions that I had to read it twice to make sure it wasn't a joke. To the person who posted that "ALL languages have..." and made assumptions about baseball and the like: linguistics is a science and one needs to develop scientific thinking. If you find yourself using words like "always", "never", "all languages", you probably haven't yet developed your skills of scientific thinking. By the way, you'll realize why you were incorrect when your class gets up to constructed languages.

Ah, the confidence of the neophyte.

Tonight, I received a comment calling me an "idiot" from a person who cannot tell the difference between Latin and Italian. Having lived in Italy for years myself, I can assure that your "correction" was indeed Italian. You kind of missed the point of the post, it seems. What stuns me is that he took to write and submit the comment demonstrating this fact.

I guess it might be better if a single one of these helpful comments had been spelled correctly or had correct grammar. And, I know that many people have found the blog helpful and interesting (thanks for those comments). But, sometimes I wonder why I take the time.

Thanks for listening to the rant- it was a long time in the making. Next time: back to real linguistics.

Which Language To Learn?

A colleague of mind recently told me that his daughter's school had asked her to choose which language to study for the next three years. Knowing my interest in language, he came to me for advice. What an interesting question, I thought. And it goes far beyond being a choice that only high school students face. University students attempting to pick up a language that will bolster their choice of career, adults wishing learn something new, people wanting to connect more with their heritage, people who are relocating, people wishing to keep their minds sharp by learning something new- all face this same question.

In this case, his daughter had the choice of Latin, French, or Spanish. High school students, perhaps, have an easier choice than most because the choices are limited to the few languages that the school actually offers. But, even here some interesting decisions must be made. Of the three languages above, one can obviously divide them in Classical Languages (Latin) and Modern Languages (French and Spanish). So the first decision might be whether she wants to learn a classical or modern language.

Classical languages can be more difficult to learn (especially at the beginning) for a couple of reasons. First of all, you cannot find stories, novels, DVDs, and popular music in that language. These are great tools for learning a language. Not only is understanding a culture a crucial aspect of truly learning new language (see the post on Language and Culture), but the desire to understand what you are hearing or reading is a great motivator. Desire is an important part of learning a language. Everyone performs better when they have a desire to learn instead of treating language learning as a chore.

Additionally, classical languages can be more difficult because they often use explicit case endings which involve a high level of memorization initially. These languages also sometimes lack modern language features such as definite articles, making them seem awkward to modern speakers. However, there can be a thrill when learning a language that reaches back into the history of humanity. Once mastered, modern languages which are based upon a classical language will be easier to learn. But remember, difficulty is an important factor when choosing a language. Difficulty can also be measured by how different the language is from languages that you already speak.

If she chooses to study a modern language, she still faces an interesting choice. Both French and Spanish are amongst the top ten most spoken languages in the world. And each of them is spoken in many countries around the world. Thus, they are both quite useful. Usefulness is a major factor when choosing a language.

Both of these languages could provide opportunities for employment or career advancement. Both of them have a huge pool of films, music, and literature to enjoy. Location might be a factor when choosing a language to study. Here in New York City, Spanish would be of more use than French as there are many Spanish speakers living here. However, I would caution against allowing one's current location to heavily influence the choice of a language. It's easy enough to move somewhere else or get transferred.

Regularity might be a factor when choosing a new language, but again I would urge caution. Some languages (like English) are riddled with exceptions and special cases. This can make mastering a language difficult (though might not be a factor for beginning students regardless of the language).

Finally, personal aesthetics are an important factor when choosing a language. Everyone has some language to which they've always been attracted. Maybe it's a language your family used to speak or it's the language of a country where you had a fantastic vacation. Maybe you don't consciously know the reason. But, you've always loved the sound of that language, always wanted to learn it.

So, we've looked at some factors to consider when choosing a language:

• desire
• difficulty
• usefulness
• location
• regularity
• personal aesthetics

My colleague said that his daughter's teacher was pushing her study Latin, but that she was leaning in the direction of Spanish. Between those two choices, I recommended Spanish as it was useful here in NYC and would be easier to learn. She could always go back and pick up Latin later, having a great head start from all of the common roots that the two languages share. Personally, I would have chosen French. Though less useful here in New York City, I love the way it sounds and I absolutely love reading in French. This would fall under the "personal aesthetic" category from above.

Ultimately she chose Latin. I wish her bona fortvna.

Adjectives

Adjectives modify nouns. This means that they decorate nouns by adding some characteristic. The adjective big can make the noun dog much more interesting when it becomes a big dog. Rabid, scary, and ghost might be interesting too.

Adjectives can never modify verbs or any other part of speech. They are crazy about nouns and don't have time for any other part of speech.

In some languages, adjectives change their endings to agree with the noun they modify. Often adjectives will agree in gender and number with the noun they modify. For example, in French feminine nouns end with an 'e'. So if I'm an adjective that's decorating a feminine noun, I too must end with an 'e'.

French nouns are made plural by appending an 's'. So, if I'm a French adjective modifying a plural noun, I must end with an 's'.

Many languages exhibit this type of noun-adjective agreement.

exercise #1: What are the first five adjectives that come into your head when you hear the word "water"? What about "fire"?

exercise #2: Does English have the kinds of noun-adjective agreement mentioned above?

Language and Culture: You Can't Have One Without the Other

Let's clear up a common a misconception. If you properly learn a language you will not (cannot!) forget it. You might get a little rusty and forget a few less common words, but you will not lose the ability to speak that language. Anyone who tells you otherwise has memorized words and phrases, but has not truly allowed that language to become a part of them.

So what do we mean by properly learning a language? Learning the grammar, the vocabulary, idiomatic usage, and... the culture. Learning a language means that you also learn a culture. Luckily for you, this means that you'll get to watch some films and listen to some songs. That's not so bad is it? How about food? Yep, you'll need to try some new recipes (or find a new restaurant). You've got to get in there and allow this new culture to become less foreign.

exercise #1: Try to find a DVD spoken in your chosen language. Set it to speak in the original voices and simply put the subtitles on English. Start to listen to the rhythm of the words and phrases. At first it will seem like a high-speed jumble, but eventually it will start to seem more natural.

Enjoy the film. How did the film differ from an American film?

exercise #2: Find the word for "bread" in your new language. From now on, that is your only word for bread. Your friends and family will get used to hearing you say it. Don't worry. Start using this word exclusively. Even if all of the other words you say are still in English, it will help your brain to associate the concept of bread to this new word. Words are only labels, after all. Attach a new label to the underlying concept of 'bread'.

Do the same thing for "milk" and "water". These are good words because the occur frequently in daily life.

exercise #3: Eat a meal at a restaurant which specializes in your target country's cuisine. If this is impractical for where you live, download a recipe. Enjoy the meal. Did you like the food? Do you think that people who live there eat that kind of meal of every day?

exercise #4: Find some songs from your target country. Order an album or purchase some tracks online. Enjoy the music.


The point of all of these exercises is to make the foreign culture seem less foreign. The words themselves will make more sense when you understand the people who speak them. Besides, a new perspective is never a bad thing. In my experience, every culture has some things that they do particularly well. Find those things. Allow the strengths from this new culture strengthen your own life. You never when something that you try for a few weeks while learning language might become a permanent part of your life.

Less and Fewer

This one is pretty straightforward, but I hear people getting these two words confused. Time for a quick review.

Fewer is an adjective. Period.
Less can be either an adjective or an adverb. I've never heard anyone mistake fewer for an adverb, so this is not where the confusion lies.

The question is which of the two adjectives to use when modifying a noun. Is it "fewer problems" or "less problems"? They both sound like they could potentially be correct. At least, neither adjective seems jarringly wrong.

Here's the rule:

Use "fewer" with countable nouns and "less" with non-count nouns.

What is a non-count noun? Anything which wouldn't normally be counted in individual or finite items. Water is an example of a (usually) non-count noun. You would ask for some water and not three water. This means that you would use "less" to modify water. For example, the tub holds less water (not fewer water). The same holds true for gas.

On the other hand, you don't want to use "less" to modify a countable noun. I heard an advertisement the other day state that something had "less calories". They really meant to say "fewer calories". It's not that they were incomprehensible. I understood what they meant, but they didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Comma Confusion

Lately, I've noticed a few different species of comma users. It interesting to see the way people misuse them. Let's take a look at some of the groups of comma abusers that you might encounter in the wild:

1. Overusers - This group is probably the largest group of comma abusers in existence. They sprinkle extra commas everywhere. When in doubt, they always drop in an extra comma.

2. Abstainers - This group shuns commas entirely. Their motto seems to be: when in doubt, leave it out. Also, when you're sure, leave it out. It is a bit jarring to see an appositive phrase naked against the word it modifies.

3. Guessers - These people are very inconsistent in their comma use. They can't quite remember the rules. Each sentence is a new adventure with them.

4. Conjunctioners - This is a rare species of comma abusers. A conjunctioner will isolate each and every conjunction in a sentence with commas. (We'll look at this below)

So, when should one actually use a comma? Let's look at the most obvious cases and keep things simple.

When to use a comma:

1. To indicate a pause - This is the raison d'etre of a comma. Anytime you want to indicate a slight pause, use a comma. For a full stop, use a period.

2. To directly address someone or something - Use a comma before the person or thing being addressed. (see the post "Goodbye, Vocative" for a more detailed explanation).

3. Before a negating conjunction - Do not use a comma with "and" or "or". Use a comma with "but", which indicates a negation or exception to the previous clause.

4. Before a modifier - The "which" in the previous sentence is a good example. It introduces a modifier (in this case, a clause). For an appositive phrase (another type of modifier), use a comma both before and after the phrase. Look at the following sentence. Jane's friend, Billy, eats marshmallows. "Billy" is the appositive phrase.

5. Before a verb in the present progressive - A verb in the present progressive ends in "-ing". This is sometimes incorrectly called the "gerund", but a gerund indicates a nominal form (not a verbal form). An example of this usage might be: Susan walked into the room, eating a handful of popcorn.

The Words and the Bees

I learned a little Esperanto the other day (http://en.lernu.net). What a great community and a very interesting language. Speakers of one of the Romance languages will find it easy to learn as the lexicon derives heavily from Latin (in a more recognizable, Italian form). I wondered why Esperanto had never really caught on as an auxiliary language (i.e. a language that can be spoken between two people with different native languages). I suppose it's due to the fact that French and English have often filled that role. But, that is a whole other post in itself.

One of the discussion forums had a posting about gender in Esperanto. French and English aside, this might be the real reason that the Esperanto community isn't larger than it is. No, not because of it's handling of gender. Because of posts like that one. So many assumptions made, so many linguistic misunderstandings.

Let's step back a moment and look at gender in a language. First of all, words don't have gender. Or, let me put it another way: words don't have gender. Gender is a biological trait. For reproduction. Words don't reproduce.

Most languages, however, arbitrarily call one group of words "masculine" (the group which has endings that match the word for "man" in that language). Another group will be called "feminine" (the group which has endings that match the word for "woman" in that language). Sometimes there's even "neuter" (for words that fall into neither category).

But, the words themselves don't have any gender. It's just a term for convenience. It helps us to identify that group of words. The actual term in Italian would be "genere" which means "type". Words don't have gender. Look at one with its clothes off sometime if you don't believe me.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at the poster's complaint. The idea was that Esperanto is sexist because a few words have the suffix -in- added to them to indicate biological femininity. Of course, it's just as easy to say that all words in Esperanto inherently contain the -in- suffix and that the omission of the this indicates biological masculinity.

Even readers of this blog (I'm assuming a certain amount of interest in linguistics) will probably find this very arbitrary and semantic. And that, my friends, is the point. Nit picking like this raises a barrier around your community. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that these kind of assumptions and agenda pushing get in the way of the wider adoption of an interesting language.

The Common Era

This post addresses a question that I sometimes hear: what do BCE and CE mean?

CE (or C.E.) is an abbreviation for common era. The common era began roughly 2006 years ago with the year 1 (not 0). Thus, one could say that they were born in 1976 CE. This could be read aloud as "I was born in the year 1976 of the common era".

BCE (or B.C.E.) is an abbreviation for before the common era. This is for dates that occurred before the year 1 CE. Remember that the year 1 CE was preceded by the year 1 BCE. There was no year 0. For example, one could say that the age of the great philosophers in Greece was around 400 BCE.

Basically, these abbreviations replace the religiously loaded AD and BC and are rapidly becoming the accepted usage. This change is quite welcome because:

1. Most people incorrectly placed AD after the year, where it is supposed to come before the year.
2. The historical person of Jesus (upon whom the old system was based) was actually born around 4 BCE. Thus, the entire system was miscalibrated anyway.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Linguistic Balance

I've been thinking lately about the tradeoffs that different languages must endure. For any linguistic phenomenon, there is a balance. This is not to imply that the natural languages were created by some guy sitting in an office, or, worse yet, created by committee. But, over time each natural language displays certain linguistic traits.

Let's take a look at inflection. English is normally considered a not highly-inflected language (especially when compared with Greek or German, for example). But, some amount of inflection does exist.

The word "book" is a singular noun. How do we make it plural? By inflecting the word- in this case adding an "s".

Now compare this with Chinese (note- in this blog we'll take Chinese to mean Mandarin unless otherwise noted). Words in the Chinese language do not inflect. At all.

So how do we make a "book" into "books"? Chinese is able to avoid inflection through the use of small, modifier words. A contrived example might be translated as "many book".

Now, which method is better? To the Chinese, English's appended 's' is redundant. Look at this sentence.

There are three books on the table.

Given the word "three", do we really need that 's' to indicate that there is more than one book?

There are three books on the table.

What does that 's' give us that "three" doesn't?

On the other hand, in Chinese one is forced to use multiple words. In real life, we don't always respond to questions with complete sentences. Look at the dialogue below:

Person A: Did you want a book or books?
Person B: Books.

In this case, the inflected plural is more efficient. Here's the same, corny example translated from a hypothetical conversation in Chinese:

Person A: Did you want a book or books?
Person B: Many book.

A Chinese speaker is forced to use multiple words to reply to the same question.

So which is better? Neither. Like any linguistic "choice" each has its advantages and disadvantages. It's just fun to think about what those differences are.

Growing Symbols

I've been struck lately about the use of plants (specifically trees) as symbols in Mythology and Fantasy. I recently picked up a copy of Robert Graves "The White Goddess" at The Strand in Manhattan.

I've been busy lately, so I haven't had time to really start reading it in earnest yet, but I've flipped through it several times. Graves attempts to define a "grammar" of myth. He focuses primarily on the Celtic (and maybe UK-wide) myths and how they descended from the tree-based Germanic mythological tradition.

Graves goes so far as to offer tables and charts indicated the symbolic weight of the various types of trees.

His work has sensitized me to plants in literature. Thinking back, I've noticed that most of the works of fantasy that I've found truly effective have been seeded with plant references throughout.

When I was reading a novel over the weekend, I saw mention of a linden tree as part of the description. Why a linden tree, I wondered. Does it have some special significance? Why not some other type of tree?

Watch for plants (and especially trees) as you're reading this week.