General Linguistics discussion

29 views
Welcome

Comments Showing 1-23 of 23 (23 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by San (new)

San (mrsan) | 3 comments We need to get this group moving! Can you please introduce yourself and talk about why you belong to this group?

My name is San and I live in NZ. I'm a language geek and love language books. I'm keen on discussing language books and also linguistics in general. How about you?


message 2: by Amle (new)

Amle My name is Amle and I'm a Swedish expat living in France. I love learning languages and everything about them. I can't claim immense knowledge in this area but I like etymology and language history.

Since I'm quite the amateur language geek, it would make me very happy if people would share some recommendations about language books they've read and liked.


message 3: by Barbara (new)

Barbara (bkbsmiles) | 13 comments Hello! The last two classes that I took prior to graduating were about the psychology of language and language and thought. I just like talking about language in general.


message 4: by San (new)

San (mrsan) | 3 comments Rhys wrote: "San wrote: "We need to get this group moving! Can you please introduce yourself and talk about why you belong to this group?

My name is San and I live in NZ. I'm a language geek and love languag..."


Yes, I've done a bit. It's very alien for a European language speaker, but there are plenty of "fun" resources for it :-)


message 5: by San (new)

San (mrsan) | 3 comments Rhys wrote: "San wrote: "Rhys wrote: "San wrote: "We need to get this group moving! Can you please introduce yourself and talk about why you belong to this group?

My name is San and I live in NZ. I'm a langu..."


Where do you live?


message 6: by Stacy (new)

Stacy | 3 comments My name is Stacy, and i live in Minneapolis, MN. I am an ESL teacher with children in kindergarten through 2nd grades. I am a language geek; I speak 6 languages to varying degrees, and have been gobbling linguistics books of late. Very excited to share this passion with like minded folks!


message 7: by Barbara (new)

Barbara (bkbsmiles) | 13 comments Stacy, it is so great to be in your company!


message 8: by Stacy (new)

Stacy | 3 comments Thanks, Barbara... Your two classes (psychology of language and language and thought) sound very intriguing; I would love to know if you have any book recommendations...


message 9: by Barbara (new)

Barbara (bkbsmiles) | 13 comments Stacy, I book that I really enjoyed was "The Mother Tongue English and How It Got That Way" by Bill Bryson


message 10: by Pip (new)

Pip Hi everyone,

My name's Pippa and I'm a Brit living in Northern Spain. I'm also an EFL teacher and teacher-trainer, and love languages and language. It looks as is there are some very interesting discussions going on here already, and I look forward to getting to know you all and sharing views and knowledge :-)


message 11: by Jason (new)

Jason (amancalledj) | 2 comments I'm Jason.

I teach high school language arts at an international school in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. My master's degree is in TESL, and I previously taught ESL and survey courses in grammar and linguistics at the university level in the US.

I've just joined the group because I enjoy discussing language and linguistics with likeminded people.


message 12: by Muhammad (new)

Muhammad | 6 comments Iam muhammad,from Kurdistan,Iraq. iam interested in linguistic discussion, particularly in syntax,semantics ,and pragmatics. i used to be one of the followers of the Chomskyan approaches in linguistics,because he has introduced linguistics logically and with given evidences for every claim...i would be happy if iam being accepted!...Regards.


message 13: by Pip (new)

Pip Hello Jason and Muhammad!

As you can see, I've very recently joined too. I'm very glad to meet some like-minded linguists and I'm looking forward to some interesting discussions with you!

Pippa


message 14: by Muhammad (new)

Muhammad | 6 comments first let us talk about a syntactic question which has arisen in my mind, there is a structure like this (what the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve.) in this structure a claim is supposed by the writer of the book (ideas and ideals), who is (Neil smith) which is about (the element ( heart) in the last sentence is considered to be as if it be the object of the verb (grieve, rather to be the subject of it!, and its assumed that if (over) is added at last it would basically and logically be the subject of (grieve). typically i want to know the detail about this assumption! if you know, tell us with detail ? Regards.


message 15: by Pip (new)

Pip I'm not entirely sure I understand the question - forgive me!

The phrase basically means "The heart can't grieve for something which it can't see."

Examining the structure of the original sentence"What the eye doesn't see, the heart cannot grieve over":

This is a sentence with an adverbial dependent clause. Both clauses have a subject (the eye in the first and the heart in the second). However, the object is the same for both: What.

"What the eye doesn't see" is the dependent clause and acts as an adverb which modifies "the heart cannot grieve".

Does that make sense?!


message 16: by Muhammad (new)

Muhammad | 6 comments Of course, it does,but there is another interpretation which is (what the eye doesn't see grieves the heart), in accordance with this the (heart) is the object of the verb (grieves), what is your point of view?!


message 17: by Pip (new)

Pip Ahhhhh... I think you might be mixing proverbs!

"What the eye doesn't see, the heart cannot grieve over" means that sometimes it's better not to know about things, because knowing them (or seeing them) would only make you upset.

Your interpretation (which would be without the comma) actually has a different proverb: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder". That is: when something is far away (you can't see it), you feel more for that thing.


message 18: by Pip (new)

Pip PS - As this is an "Introduce yourself" forum, perhaps we should start a new thread for this discussion?


message 19: by Muhammad (new)

Muhammad | 6 comments I do not think so! very good this semantically or metaphorically , this when there is (over) at the last of the sentences, what if there is no over? does the sentence mean the same?and you did not explain the syntactic future of (heart)?! because it was my main focus in that question!...Regards..


message 20: by Pip (new)

Pip The sentence means the same whether you put "over" or not.

As I said in a previous post, "the heart" is the subject of the verb "grieve (over)".

If it were the object, the sentence would be: What the eye doesn't see does not grieve the heart.


message 21: by Muhammad (new)

Muhammad | 6 comments Pip! i apprehend what you mean, but if you look at my question from starting discussion , you will get the hang of that i did not meant (heart) functioning as the subject, conversely i did mean the word (heart), to function as the object of the verb (grieve)!, and iam not mixing it with proverb or any thing els, iam just concentrating on the syntactic function for the determined element, i hope you grasp me.....Regards.


message 22: by Pip (new)

Pip No, sorry Mouhammad, I give up! I really don't understand your question. Maybe someone else can help? I would create a thread elsewhere though.


message 23: by Muhammad (new)

Muhammad | 6 comments Thanks a lot. surely you had a huge idea on the idiom, disregarding the mean idea, i really appreciate it ...nice to chatting with you dear...hope you be my friend from Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/mouhammad.dh....


back to top