Hi, All!

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes; but the plural of ox became oxen not oxes. One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese, yet the plural of moose should never be meese. You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice; yet the plural of house is houses, not hice. If the plural of man is always called men, why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen? If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet, and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet? If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth? Then one may be that, and three would be those, yet hat in the
plural would never be hose, and the plural of cat is cats, not cose. We speak of a brother and also of brethren, but though we say mother, we never say methren. Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine the feminine, she, shis and shim.

(With thanks to George Pope)

Cheers... Dallas

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, CANADA (1:153/7715)

Hi, Dallas Hinton!
I read your message from 27.12.2021 16:14

DH> We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes; but the plural
DH> of ox became oxen not oxes. One fowl is a goose, but two are
DH> called geese, yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
DH> You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice; yet the
DH> plural of house is houses, not hice. If the plural of man is
DH> always called men, why shouldn't the plural of pan be called
DH> pen? If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet, and I give you
DH> a boot, would a pair be called beet? If one is a tooth and a whole set
DH> are teeth, why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth? Then one
DH> may be that, and three would be those, yet hat in the plural would
DH> never be hose, and the plural of cat is cats, not cose. We speak of a
DH> brother and also of brethren, but though we say mother, we never say
DH> methren. Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine
DH> the feminine, she, shis and shim.

For English learners it should be something more positive. ;-)

Bye, Dallas!
Alexander Koryagin
fido.english_tutor 2021
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
* Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)

Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Dallas Hinton:

We speak of a brother and also of brethren... [etc.].

For English learners it should be something more positive. ;-)

Understood. Okay... in general, and on a more serious note:

1) My native tongue has simplified various other inflections which caused a lot of grief when I was trying to learn French & German.

2) If one has a dictionary which explains the etymology, i.e. from whom we borrowed the word, it's easier to understand spellings like "yacht" & "caught". In short, we borrowed them from different languages. And once you know words like "scribe" in English, you can make sense of headers written by people from Europe who've forgotten to change their language toggle.... :-))




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Hi, Ardith Hinton!
I read your message from 06.01.2022 23:56

Happy New Year!

DH>> We speak of a brother and also of brethren... [etc.].
ak>> For English learners it should be something more
ak>> positive.;-)
AH> Understood. Okay... in general, and on a more
AH> serious note: 1) My native tongue has simplified
AH> various other inflections which caused a lot of grief when I
AH> was trying to learn French & German. 2) If one
AH> has a dictionary which explains the etymology, i.e. from whom we
AH> borrowed the word, it's easier to understand spellings like "yacht"
AH> & "caught". In short, we borrowed them from different languages.
AH> And once you know words like "scribe" in English, you can make
sense of
AH> headers written by people from Europe who've forgotten to change their
AH> language toggle.... :-))

It is also a big question what percent of all English words is known to
all the people speaking English. ;) So, when speaking English, maybe it
is a good idea to simplify phrases and don't use old fashion words.

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
fido.english_tutor 2022
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
* Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)

Dallas Hinton:

DH > We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes; but the
DH > plural of ox became oxen not oxes. [...]

Auld lang syne cow and cow made kine.
---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Oops! What I meant to say was:

Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

If one has a dictionary which explains the etymology,
i.e. from whom we borrowed the word, it's easier to
understand spellings like "yacht" & "caught".

Perhaps I should have typed "knot", rather than "yacht"... but then you might learn more, if you look up "yacht" for yourself, than you would have learned if you are fairly content with what you already know about "knot". My point is that native speakers tend to struggle with these issues as well... so what you are seeing in Dallas's message is our version of gallows humour. :-)

It is also a big question what percent of all English
words is known to all the people speaking English. ;)

No argument AFAIC. When last I heard there were +/- half a million words in the English language, not counting technical terms... but the average social conversation included only about 300 of them. I don't talk down to the folks I meet in this echo, yet they seem to keep coming back for more.... :-Q

So, when speaking English, maybe it is a good idea to
simplify phrases and don't use old fashion words.

In some cases, yes. In others it's sufficient if you get the drift ... while people like Anton & me will have a wonderful time with material like "lest thy clownish bearing discover thee". I don't remember now what you were asking about on that particular occasion... but I immediately added IVANHOE to my "must-read" list & was not disappointed. It's a good adventure story which like most classics can be appreciated on a variety of levels, and as a teacher I'm delighted when others can admit they have no idea what I'm babbling about. In my experience very few junior high school students do that... and one of my former students told me I was the only teacher he'd ever met who said "I don't Inknow". If you tell me you don't understand I can slow down or try rewording what I said or get back to you when I've examined the matter further.

I'm quite in awe of those who can master a foreign alphabet, as you have, in order to communicate with me. I reckon we all have our talents. :-)
--- timEd 386 1.10.y2k+




Area : Ardith's 14 Discussion

Date : Sat Jan 08, 20:14 loc From : alexander koryagin 2:153/7715 To : Ardith Hinton 2:153/7715 Subj : Confusion!! ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

* Copied (from: English_Tutor) by Ardith Hinton using timEd/386 1.10.y2k+.

Hi, Ardith Hinton!
I read your message from 06.01.2022 23:56

Happy New Year!

DH>> We speak of a brother and also of brethren... [etc.].
ak>> For English learners it should be something more
ak>> positive.;-)
AH> Understood. Okay... in general, and on a more
AH> serious note: 1) My native tongue has simplified
AH> various other inflections which caused a lot of grief when I
AH> was trying to learn French & German. 2) If one

Perhaps I should have typed "knot", rather than "yacht"... but then you might learn far more, if you check out the latter for yourself, than you'd have learned if you think you understand "knot" & its +/- 20 definitions. The point is that native speakers tend to struggle with these issues as well. :-)

It is also a big question what percent of all English
words is known to all the people speaking English. ;)

No argument there. When last I heard there were +/- half a million words in the English language, not counting technical terms... but the average social conversation included only about 300 of them. I don't talk down to the folks I meet in this echo, yet they seem to keep coming back for more.... :-Q

So, when speaking English, maybe it is a good idea to
simplify phrases and don't use old fashion words.

As a schoolteacher, I realized I might use terms my students didn't understand & invited them to request a bit more explanation. From my POV this was a considerable improvement upon what grownups often did was a child. Many of them ignored what I had to say if I didn't say it the way they were used to or assumed I must be misprouncing my name because they'd never heard it before while children & foreigners get it right when it's just one of many new words.

As a parent, I often had to dummify my language to communicate with other people's kids. But AFAIK we're all adults here... and you're welcome to tell me you haven't a clue what I'm on about if that's the case. OTOH some of us love it when you quote stuff like "lest thy clownish bearing betray thee" & decide to read IVANHOE for ourselves. That's adult education for you.... :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+


Date : Sun Jan 09, 00:09 loc From : Ardith Hinton 1:153/716 To : alexander koryagin 2:153/7715 Subj : Confusion!! ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

If one has a dictionary which explains the etymology,
i.e. from whom we borrowed the word, it's easier to
understand spellings like "yacht" & "caught".

Perhaps I should have typed "knot", rather than "yacht"... but then you might learn far more, if you check out the latter for yourself, than you'd have learned if you think you understand "knot" & its +/- 20 definitions. The point is that native speakers tend to struggle with these issues as well. :-)

Hi, Ardith Hinton! -> Alexander Koryagin
I read your message from 16.01.2022 00:11

If one has a dictionary which explains the etymology, i.e. from
whom we borrowed the word, it's easier to understand spellings
like "yacht" & "caught".

Perhaps I should have typed "knot", rather than "yacht"... but then
you might learn more, if you look up "yacht" for yourself, than you
would have learned if you are fairly content with what you already
know about "knot". My point is that native speakers tend to
struggle with these issues as well... so what you are seeing in
Dallas's message is our version of gallows humour.

I also didn't say my words seriously.

It is also a big question what percent of all English words is
known to all the people speaking English.

No argument AFAIC. When last I heard there were +/- half a million
words in the English language, not counting technical terms... but
the average social conversation included only about 300 of them. I
don't talk down to the folks I meet in this echo, yet they seem to
keep coming back for more....: - Q

It seems to me that I can't imagine how on earth a person can remember one million words. And, besides, we should note that today 90% of people don't read any books. ;)

So, when speaking English, maybe it is a good idea to simplify
phrases and don't use old fashion words.

In some cases, yes. In others it's sufficient if you get the
drift... while people like Anton & me will have a wonderful time
with material like "lest thy clownish bearing discover thee". I
don't remember now what you were asking about on that particular occasion... but I immediately added IVANHOE to my "must-read" list
& was not disappointed. It's a good adventure story which like most classics can be appreciated on a variety of levels, and as a
teacher I'm delighted when others can admit they have no idea what
I'm babbling about. In my experience very few junior high school

I believe that now in the USA there should be a simplified version of IVANHOE, as it is for the Bible. ;)

students do that... and one of my former students told me I was the
only teacher he'd ever met who said "I don't Inknow". If you tell
me you don't understand I can slow down or try rewording what I
said or get back to you when I've examined the matter further.

What does it mean "I don't Inknow"?

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
english_tutor 2022
---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

My point is that native speakers tend to struggle with
these issues as well... so what you are seeing in
Dallas's message is our version of gallows humour.

I also didn't say my words seriously.

Fair enough... I did notice your winks. But I also see that a word like "yacht" may be one the majority of us need to use only occasionally. :-))

It is also a big question what percent of all English
words is known to all the people speaking English.

No argument AFAIC. When last I heard there were +/- half
a million words in the English language, not counting
technical terms... but the average social conversation
included only about 300 of them. I don't talk down to
the folks I meet in this echo, yet they seem to keep
coming back for more.... :-Q

It seems to me that I can't imagine how on earth a person
can remember one million words.

Agreed. In my dictionaries, even those which claim to include many fewer words, there's a large team of specialists involved. :-)

And, besides, we should note that today 90% of people
don't read any books. ;)

Quite possibly... but they don't read echoes like E_T either! I am addressing an audience consisting of people who do read books &/or who know how to find various dictionaries on the Internet if they don't have their own. :-)

I believe that now in the USA there should be a
simplified version of IVANHOE, as it is for the Bible. ;)

I found simplified versions of Shakespeare's words when I looked up a phrase in which I was uncertain about the spelling... but AFAIC much was lost that way. The author of IVANHOE used the language of Shakespeare & of the King James Bible... which his audience would have been familiar with... to represent the Old English which his medieval characters would have used. If the language were too authentic, few people would be able to understand it... if it were too modern, as in "you'll blow your cover", the effect would be lost.

My experience as a junior high school teacher is that if Johnny (or his father) read some children's edition of e.g. HUCKLEBERRY FINN before he was old enough to appreciate the original Johnny may refuse to accept further input WRT the subject because he is quite convinced he's already mastered it.... :-Q

If you don't feel ready to tackle some particular work yet, I would suggest you make a mental note & be patient. I gave up on WAR AND PEACE when I first tried to read it because I couldn't keep the names straight... but then I met you & other folks here who were able to explain how Russian names work, the library introduced a system where I didn't have to go downtown to find out what editions were available besides the one at our local branch, and various people shared their interpretation of the cast of characters on the Internet. I found one which included a few errors but printed it & modified it as I saw fit. :-)

... and one of my former students told me I was the
only teacher he'd ever met who said "I don't Inknow".
If you tell me you don't understand I can slow down or
try rewording what I said or get back to you when I've
examined the matter further.

What does it mean "I don't Inknow"?

Oh, dear! I guess it means I shouldn't post messages late at night ... as I often do when I may be interrupted at other times... because I tend to overlook such errors. What I had in mind was "I don't know".... :-(




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Hi, Ardith Hinton! -> Alexander Koryagin
I read your message from 20.01.2022 01:34

I believe that now in the USA there should be a simplified version
of IVANHOE, as it is for the Bible.

I found simplified versions of Shakespeare's words when I looked up
a phrase in which I was uncertain about the spelling... but AFAIC
much was lost that way. The author of IVANHOE used the language of Shakespeare & of the King James Bible... which his audience would
have been familiar with... to represent the Old English which his
medieval characters would have used. If the language were too
authentic, few people would be able to understand it... if it were
too modern, as in "you'll blow your cover", the effect would be
lost.

It seems true, although it was a Russian translation of IVANHOE that I read first, and I liked it very much. IMHO, it depends on the translator who must have a good sense of humour. If a translator is a serious pedant IMHO he cannot translate such things. Although, formally, everything can be translated correctly.

My experience as a junior high school teacher is that if Johnny (or
his father) read some children's edition of e.g. HUCKLEBERRY FINN
before he was old enough to appreciate the original Johnny may
refuse to accept further input WRT the subject because he is quite convinced he's already mastered it.... :-Q

The heptateuch about Harry Porter is more important for the young generation. ;--)

If you don't feel ready to tackle some particular work yet, I would suggest you make a mental note & be patient. I gave up on WAR AND
PEACE when I first tried to read it because I couldn't keep the
names straight... but then I met you & other folks here who were
able to explain how Russian names work, the library introduced a
system where I didn't have to go downtown to find out what editions
were available besides the one at our local branch, and various
people shared their interpretation of the cast of characters on the Internet. I found one which included a few errors but printed it & modified it as I saw fit.

Getting red -- I haven't read WAR AND PEACE. ;) I didn't find the crooks to get hooked. At least after seeing a movie with the same name.

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
english_tutor 2022
---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)