DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13265--------------------------------------------------
Unfamiliar words
DIR By: Alharacas
Date: March 14, 2019, 5:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Kseniia, this thread was inspired by your use of
"eukariotic" and... just a minute, what was it again... ah, yes,
"ethnophaulism", but is definitely not meant as a criticism. :)
SuKi's and Jerry's comments just reminded me of how often I've
been critizised for using
strange/funny/unusual/complicated/highbrow words in German.
So, seriously, how do you feel about people who do that? And how
do you react when someone's just used a word you're not familiar
with? In your native language, I mean.
#Post#: 13276--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: Nikola
Date: March 14, 2019, 4:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This reminds me of our professor of linguistics who used to say
to us "you have to be able to explain it to me like I'm a
complete idiot". I liked that.
In the book Bad Science, the author explains how in advertising,
using sophisticated and often incomprehensible language is the
way to go (sadly). They compared how attractive a product seemed
to people when presented in a plain, comprehensible way, and
when lots of sophisticated, foreign-sounding words were used,
and the latter worked better, even in cases where people had no
idea what had been said.
#Post#: 13277--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: SHL
Date: March 14, 2019, 5:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Alharacas link ---
>
> Yes, Kseniia, this thread was inspired by your use of
"eukariotic" and... just a minute, what was it again... ah, yes,
"ethnophaulism", but is definitely not meant as a criticism. :)
> SuKi's and Jerry's comments just reminded me of how often I've
been critizised for using
strange/funny/unusual/complicated/highbrow words in German.
> So, seriously, how do you feel about people who do that? And
how do you react when someone's just used a word you're not
familiar with? In your native language, I mean.
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh, it doesn`t bother me a bit when people use highbrow words in
English. That´s how I learn new words. I recall reading a court
case 30 years ago and I read a Judge use the word „vituperation“
or the verb „viturate“ because I had never heard it before. So,
I looked it up and kind of liked it. But, for some reason I
never used or wrote it. I actually used it just recently to
another lawyer who told me he had never heard if it before (a
native English speaker). These highbrow words are great to know,
but you just have to know they are highbrow and not expect to
hear them much (especially in ordinary conversation). That´s
where really fine-tuning your knowledge of a language commons
in, and sets you apart from others.
Just to give you a good German example, I was listening to a 20
year old interview with Helmut Schmidt, who I think was probably
the best German Chancellor there ever was (I know many
disagree), but he was such a good Statesman and gentleman. He
was being interviewed about the Mogadishu Lufthansa hijacking in
October 1977, by terrorists trying to trade RAF terrorists in
prison for the hostage-passengers. He commented at one point,
(just paraphrasing), „die Maschine ist in Rom zwischengelandet,
und ich hab die italienische Regierung ERSUCHT, sie nicht
started zu lassen, aber sie ließen sie doch starten.“ (The plane
made a stop in Rome and I ASKED the Italian government not to
allow the plane to take off).
Since I hadn`t heard the verb „ersuchen“ before, I looked it up.
I knew what it meant from the context, so that was easy enough.
Then I asked a native German speaker on Skype once about this
and she gave me this funny look and asked „ersuchen“? That`t
really OLD. Then I asked Miriam about that word a year ago on
Italki and she told me no one in Germany would say that and that
she doubted her kids (who were native speakers, like she) if
they ever heard the word before and they said they didn`t know
what it means. Duden did flag it as (geh), elevated speech and
polite. I asked my German lawyer friend last Summer about the
word and she said, „Steve, Helmut Schmidt was a very educated
and intelligent man from Hamburg and he did speak like this.
But, you can forget „ersuchen“. No one is going to say this in
ordinary speech.“ So, I just chalked up ersuchen to the
„understand it, but don`t use it category“ of German words out
ther. Dwds.de (from LEO) ranks ersuchen on it´s word frequency
chart has scoring a 4 out of 7, but shows a hugh decline in its
use since 1950 (scoring a 15 in 1950 to about 2.5 now). I find
these frequency-of-use charts handy for this purpose.
It´s all these little nuances of words that I enjoy about
languages. Like I still use the word „das Diktionär“, because
one of my German professors (the one from Hamburg) always used
it with us in class in 1980. But Duden calls the word veraltend
(dated), but I like it because Duden says its a
„fremdsprachliches Wörterbuch“, a translating dictionary, not
just an ordinary dictionary (like Duden) that gives no
translations. So, it might be old, but I think it more
accurately describes what many us use (or at least once used
before the internet).
It´s funny how Helmut Schmidt would use words like „ersuchen“
but use erinnern without the „sich“ reflexive so frequently. He
regularly said, „das erinnere ich nicht“ throughout the
interview or „Ich erinnere die Details nicht“, which Duden lists
as a non-standard northern German variant (it actually makes it
easier for English speakers because it´s more like English)
There`s a great interview of Schmidt by Sandra Maischberger
where he chain smokes throughout the whole thing (he smoked for
80 years and never died of a smoking related cause, and lived to
be 96). He was about 95 during the interview and she asked about
living to be 100, and he said he`d never want that. He told her
„well, you have a better change of making it to 100 than I do“
to which she replied, „well, interviewing you with all this
smoke I rather doubt it..“ LOL
#Post#: 13330--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: Kseniia
Date: March 16, 2019, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think we all would agree that using highbrow expressions
just to show you're smart is not a very smart thing to do.
Besides, it's usually very easy to tell if you don't quite
understand what these "clever" words mean.
Still, there are at least three situations when I think it's
very much acceptable:
1. When you're talking like a normal person pretty much all the
time and add something like this jokingly;
2. When you're in a group of people who are supposed to know
these words. I certainly wouldn't ask a lecturer on the history
of religion to stop using the word "Eucharist", for example,
just because I don't know what it means (ask straight away or
may google help you). Nor would I be terrified to hear something
like "labialised palatal approximant" from a linguist — though I
think it wouldn't be a crime to ask for some clarification or
example if it's something I can't figure out quickly;
3. When the word is particularly useful and it saves your
efforts. Imagine telling someone about, say, palindromes (my
friend's daughter thinks it's a very difficult word) without
using the word "palindrome". If you're not going to introduce it
in the very beginning of your explanation, you'd probably end up
repeating "this kind of sentences or words" a lot. What I mean
is "if the stars are lit, then someone must need them, of
course?" (c) — that is, if there's a word for something, maybe
it makes sense to use it?
#Post#: 13331--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: Kseniia
Date: March 16, 2019, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
...but it all refers to your native language I believe. As for
foreign languages, if you make mistakes and tend to speak in a
stilted, unnatural manner in general, and you can't even use
intonation (which is the case with anything written), no one
would really understand there was a joke somewhere. If you have
never discussed some topic before, sometimes there is absolutely
no way to tell if native speakers use some words or not. Take
English, for example. I know you probably don't realise that,
but it is a crazy language. Not only do you have to clarify
ridiculous things (he put HIS hand in HIS pocket, THE man in A
red shirt), but you also use a lot of words that sound very
formal to my ear (maybe it's not as bad as in French but still).
Yes, I know, you might say that it refers only to non-natives'
English and you actually use phrasal verbs etc., but that's not
what I'm talking about. I have a book in my hands, and I can
give you lots of examples just after looking at a random page:
"reserve", "consult", "invasion", "confrontation", "frontier",
"based", "generation", "permanent", "argument", "disoriented" —
all these words exist in Russian now (in their Russianised forms
so to speak) but they would sound awfully bureaucratic. So, when
I see something like that poor word, "ethnophaulism"... well, it
doesn't seem that different. Everybody knows what "ethno" means,
and "phaul" sounds a bit like "foul", and you can say "foul
language" — I believe it's not a highbrow expression? — so,
maybe you say it, too. How would I know? Unfortunately it's hard
to come across notes like "don't use this, it's all Greek to
native speakers of English".
Now, to answer your question: I don't think I stand out in any
way when I speak Russian, and no, I don't remember people
criticising my Russian since I was a child. I may sound boring
but I doubt I sound very "sophisticated", whatever that means.
The only thing I've noticed is that when I read literature in
English or French and don't use Russian in everyday life, I
start writing in an awful manner (all these unnecessary
participle phrases and calques) in Russian. Actually, it's quite
easy for me to say what language I was reading in / who I was
speaking with just based on what I wrote in Russian. It can be
cured — the effect, thanks heaven, is not permanent — but it's
quite sad it exists.
#Post#: 13364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: SHL
Date: March 16, 2019, 7:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kseniia,
„ Take English, for example. I know you probably don't realise
that, but it is a crazy language. Not only do you have to
clarify ridiculous things (he put HIS hand in HIS pocket, THE
man in A red shirt), but you also use a lot of words that sound
very formal to my ear (maybe it's not as bad as in French but
still). Yes, I know, you might say that it refers only to
non-natives' English and you actually use phrasal verbs etc.,
but that's not what I'm talking about. I have a book in my
hands, and I can give you lots of examples just after looking at
a random page: "reserve", "consult", "invasion",
"confrontation", "frontier", "based", "generation", "permanent",
"argument", "disoriented" — all these words exist in Russian now
(in their Russianised forms so to speak) but they would sound
awfully bureaucratic.“
It´s an interesting observation. I learned long ago never to
bother asking why a language is the way it is. No one really has
a good answer, unless you like linguists who try to trace back
historical antecedents, which are sort of big „so whats“ anyway.
It´s easier just not to fight against the tide and go with the
flow. Whatever is normal and natural, just roll with it. The
goal is to be as skillful and natural in your use of the
language as you can, just fighting it makes it harder. Like the
examples you gave as ridiculous. „He put his hand in his pocket“
or „the man in a red shirt.“ I`m a bit confused what seems
strange about these simple sentences. A man can put his hand in
anyone else`s pocket, so it only makes sense to say he put his
hand in HIS pocket as opposed to someone else`s if that´s what
you want to say. Right? How could you say „he put his hand in
pocket“? Whose pocket would that be? There are hundreds of
possibilities. Or „The man in a red shirt.“ What of you are
looking at 10 men all in different color shirts and you only
wanted to point out the one with the red shirt? What other
possibilities would there be? I suppose you could say „Man in
red shirt“ but that´s just not how Germanic languages work.
I heard famous linguist Noam Chomsky talking about this once. He
said French was actually more like a Germanic than Romance
language. For example, he said in the Romance languages, say
Spanish, you can omit the subject of a sentence, essentially
saying „goes walking“ instead of „he goes walking.“ He said it
goes right back to Latin, but you can`t do that in French or any
of the Germanic languages (actually the reason you can get away
with this is probbaly because the changing verb tense tells you
the object case anyway, not necessarily the identity of the
object, but it suffices in many cases to leave it out, like in
„yo soy“ v. „soy“ in Spanish. The „yo“ becomes redundant. Not
wrong, just not necessary.
As to the other verbs you mentioned, yes they are just part of
ordinary speech. There`s nothing elevated about them. It just
one of those things you have to learn and accept. Most of the
really elevated speech comes out of professions, like you
observed. So, there are a lot of words I`d use in law, in
written form, but never in a spoken form outside of a courthouse
talking to a Judge because I know no one would understand it.
Ever overheard doctors speak among themselves? It`s the same
thing. It´s like listening to another language.
#Post#: 13372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: Kseniia
Date: March 17, 2019, 3:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@SHL, oh, I like "linguists who try to trace back historical
antecedents", they calm me down a little. I know of course that
it's better not to fight and just relax and think of England,
but when your brain is against this stuff it's not really
pleasant anyway. I wish I could be more flexible, but alas.
As for the examples, the point is, there aren't hundreds of
possibilities. It's either his own hand (99,9%), or someone
else's hand (0,01%). It's either his own pocket (say, 95%,
though even this figure is really small for this kind of
sentence), or someone else's pocket (5%). So it's worth
clarifying only when it's something out of ordinary, when it's
someone else's hand or pocket, that is. In Russian it would
normally be "He put hand in pocket", unless there's something
unusual about the situation. But actually it's contagious, so
now in Russian literature you can see "He put (his) own hand in
pocket", and every editor worth their salt would comment on it
this way, "Well of course it's his own hand, whose else could it
be? Seriously, strike it out". As for articles, well, I know
it's the 10000th time I complain about them, but yes, it would
be "Man in red shirt" in Russian, and I assure you that it
doesn't make it any more difficult to identify the man. But yes,
of course I know it's just how it works in your language, but
the problem with the articles I have is not that it irritates me
that you speak this way (that would be strange), but that my
brain hurts when I think with this degree of precision about
things. I don't see any point in clarifying obvious things all
the time, it just seems unnecessary and sometimes even unnatural
to me. Actually I would really like to know who started speaking
this way first and why, because it seems like
Proto-Indo-European didn't have any articles (nor did Latin, as
far as I know).
#Post#: 13403--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: SHL
Date: March 17, 2019, 10:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kseniia link ---
>
> @SHL, oh, I like "linguists who try to trace back historical
antecedents", they calm me down a little. I know of course that
it's better not to fight and just relax and think of England,
but when your brain is against this stuff it's not really
pleasant anyway. I wish I could be more flexible, but alas.
>
> As for the examples, the point is, there aren't hundreds of
possibilities. It's either his own hand (99,9%), or someone
else's hand (0,01%). It's either his own pocket (say, 95%,
though even this figure is really small for this kind of
sentence), or someone else's pocket (5%). So it's worth
clarifying only when it's something out of ordinary, when it's
someone else's hand or pocket, that is. In Russian it would
normally be "He put hand in pocket", unless there's something
unusual about the situation. But actually it's contagious, so
now in Russian literature you can see "He put (his) own hand in
pocket", and every editor worth their salt would comment on it
this way, "Well of course it's his own hand, whose else could it
be? Seriously, strike it out". As for articles, well, I know
it's the 10000th time I complain about them, but yes, it would
be "Man in red shirt" in Russian, and I assure you that it
doesn't make it any more difficult to identify the man. But yes,
of course I know it's just how it works in your language, but
the problem with the articles I have is not that it irritates me
that you speak this way (that would be strange), but that my
brain hurts when I think with this degree of precision about
things. I don't see any point in clarifying obvious things all
the time, it just seems unnecessary and sometimes even unnatural
to me. Actually I would really like to know who started speaking
this way first and why, because it seems like
Proto-Indo-European didn't have any articles (nor did Latin, as
far as I know).
>
--- End Quote ---
I know what you are saying, Kseniia, but I guess there`s not
often logic to languages. But, however we go about saying
something, as long we are communicating without ambiguity I
suppose that´s all that matters. I struggled with this 40 years
ago with German, but just got used to it. Like to say in German
you want to get your hair cut, you don`t refer to „your hair“
the way we do in English (Alharacas can maybe add some nuance to
this or offer alternatives) but typically you say, „Ich möchte
mir die Haare schneiden lassen.“ That´s „I would like (to me-
indirect object case personal pronoun) the hair have cut (but
the word order is switched on „have cut“). The „lassen“ part
just mean in this sentence someone else is cutting your hair,
you are letting someone do it,as opposed to doing it yourself
obviously. So, the odd part for English speakers is the body
part being just called „the hair“. I recall an instructor
telling me it was obvious that it was your hair you were having
cut, not someone else’s, because of the reference to „me“ in
there, as an indirect object. A bit awkward for English speakers
to grasp, but not for the German hearing this. Why this is said
this way, who knows? There`s an American guy on Quora who has
lived in German 25 years, and is on his second marriage to a
German. His German is, of course, outstanding. He was asked
about English vs. German and some question about learning each,
and as a teacher of English, gave a really good answer. I can`t
recall all the details, but he said English is deceptively easy
looking, at first, due to what looks like a simple grammar
structure, unlike German. But, as he said, the deeper you get
into it, the harder it gets. He said it starts to quickly loose
any predictability and reliability and sort of becomes chaotic
at a point, where German stays rather logical and consistent.
#Post#: 13408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: Alharacas
Date: March 18, 2019, 2:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kseniia link ---
>
> But yes, of course I know it's just how it works in your
language, but the problem with the articles I have is not that
it irritates me that you speak this way (that would be strange),
but that my brain hurts when I think with this degree of
precision about things. I don't see any point in clarifying
obvious things all the time, it just seems unnecessary and
sometimes even unnatural to me. Actually I would really like to
know who started speaking this way first and why, because it
seems like Proto-Indo-European didn't have any articles (nor did
Latin, as far as I know).
>
--- End Quote ---
Kseniia, I know exactly what you mean because I feel just the
same - about aspects. ;D
#Post#: 13409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unfamiliar words
DIR By: Kseniia
Date: March 18, 2019, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@SHL, yes, I agree, I'm just ranting, as usual :) Interesting
observations about asking for getting your hair cut in German
and English, but you know what else I find a bit strange about
English? [sorry, but it seems like I just can't stop talking
about it] That when referring to hair "en masse", you normally
use the singular form! Apparently, even in German it's the
plural (die Haare)! I was amused to find out that in Irish, for
example, "hair" is also singular, but at least you can use the
word "cuid", and "mo chuid gruaige" would be something like "my
portion of hair". But pure singular is just funny. At least
English speakers sometimes can see it, too, I remember one
sketch from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" about an extremely helpful
barber, and "Which of sir's manifold hairs would he care to
place in my professional care for the purposes of securing an
encutment?" (yeah, speaking of slightly unusual expressions) is
exactly the question I have when I read "I want my hair cut".
HTML https://youtu.be/aMRYry_MzAw
@Alharacas, oh, I understand your difficulties with aspects. I'm
not sure how it works in Polish but I think it's similar with
Russian, and judging by hundreds of essays written by non-native
speakers of Russian, this is something every second student have
difficulties with, and it seems like explanations a-la "use
perfective verbs for sporadic, completed actions and
imperfective verbs for continuous or repetitive actions" do not
help that much. I have the same problem with perfect tenses in
English (even though one lovely person explained them to me a
thousand times), but I don't it that irritating. For some reason
I'm more tolerant to different perceptions of actions and time
than to this article nonsense :)
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page