Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#211

Post by 1maginary » Mon, May 28, 2018, 12:46 PM UTC

dctoedt wrote: post #184

It'd be great if we native English-speakers would tolerate — and even encourage — "mistakes" in English to streamline (refactor?) the language and make it easier for non-native speakers to become fluent: + The world would be better off with an easy-to-use, global lingua franca. + For historical reasons, both good and bad, at the moment English is the logical candidate. (The use of an alphabet also supports English as…

Aside from V-2 already commented on, I'd like to add that spelling mistakes such as

> "it's" as a possessive

are mostly native-speaker exclusive. Your/you're, there/their, etc. spelling mistakes you just don't see non native speakers make. This is because they're just that, spelling mistakes.

So while native speakers know what they mean but it's just associated with a sound in their head, they just write out that sound. Non natives on the other hand usually think about the grammar, the right word, etc. I don't think I've ever met a non-native speaker that makes the there/their mistake e.g.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#212

Post by elboru » Mon, May 28, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

dctoedt wrote: post #184

It'd be great if we native English-speakers would tolerate — and even encourage — "mistakes" in English to streamline (refactor?) the language and make it easier for non-native speakers to become fluent: + The world would be better off with an easy-to-use, global lingua franca. + For historical reasons, both good and bad, at the moment English is the logical candidate. (The use of an alphabet also supports English as…

Can I make a wish? As a non-native speaker it would be great to have a consistent alphabet, it wouldn't matter the order of the letters, a letter would always correspond to a single sound, specially with vocals. If the Latin alphabet is not suitable for this then it would be great to have a new alphabet or maybe just the Latin one but with some letters added.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#213

Post by jherdman » Mon, May 28, 2018, 12:50 PM UTC

dctoedt wrote: post #184

It'd be great if we native English-speakers would tolerate — and even encourage — "mistakes" in English to streamline (refactor?) the language and make it easier for non-native speakers to become fluent: + The world would be better off with an easy-to-use, global lingua franca. + For historical reasons, both good and bad, at the moment English is the logical candidate. (The use of an alphabet also supports English as…

English is refactored quite frequently. I'm by no means an expert, but here are some observations.

* American English could be considered one such refactoring. Some common changes include: removing vowels without sound (e.g. "labour" => "labor", "colour" => "color"), removing duplicate letters ("programme" => "program"), and reversing some "re" words (e.g. "theatre" => "theater"). More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo... * The printing press introduced some too. The best example I can think of is the general removal of diaereses (e.g. "microörganism" => "microorganism"). Though I'm less certain of this one.

I'm a little surprised none of the gamer speak refactorings haven't made their way into the written word in a serious way, especially given their prevalence in such a large portion of the population.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#214

Post by scottmf » Mon, May 28, 2018, 12:58 PM UTC

rowaway93 wrote: post #190

jwilk wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ampersand has the following etymology for "ampersand": A mondegreen of "and per se and", meaning "and (the character) '&' by itself", which is how the symbol (&) was originally referred to in English. This formulation is due to the fact that in schools, when reciting the alphabet, any letter that could also be used as a word in itself ("A," "I," "O" and, at one point, "&") was preceded…

This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard, is it april fools day? I read about "amper's and". Although I have no idea what an amper is, if memory serves the whole thing is related to merchant short hand, but it cannot get any more ridiculous than this joke somebody is having on you.

Sorry but it’s true.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#215

Post by usrusr » Mon, May 28, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #179

olavk wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mixing up Norsemen and Normans. Norsemen (Scandinavians, sometimes called Vikings) spoke a Germanic language (called old Norse, the ancestor of current Scandinavian languages), while the Normans spoke French. English have been influenced by both, but the Norman invasion was later. Beef, veal, mutton etc. are from french.

The Normans were partly descended from the Norsemen. They tried to conquer England for the best part of a millennium, failed, conquered parts of France and Italy instead - by war and diplomacy - and then conquered England.

Sure. Had the Normans been the only outside group coming to the British islands after Rome left it would be fine to call them Norsemen, Germanics or even just continentals, but due to the long sequence of invasions it is very reasonable to use and expect the most specific terms. The word "poultry" certainly did not come on a boat before 1066, and only on a very specific subset of the boats that came that year.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#216

Post by kaybe » Mon, May 28, 2018, 1:09 PM UTC

elboru wrote: post #212

dctoedt wrote: post #184

It'd be great if we native English-speakers would tolerate — and even encourage — "mistakes" in English to streamline (refactor?) the language and make it easier for non-native speakers to become fluent: + The world would be better off with an easy-to-use, global lingua franca. + For historical reasons, both good and bad, at the moment English is the logical candidate. (The use of an alphabet also supports English as…

Can I make a wish? As a non-native speaker it would be great to have a consistent alphabet, it wouldn't matter the order of the letters, a letter would always correspond to a single sound, specially with vocals. If the Latin alphabet is not suitable for this then it would be great to have a new alphabet or maybe just the Latin one but with some letters added.

How about the international phonetic alphabet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabe...

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#217

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, May 28, 2018, 1:12 PM UTC

elboru wrote: post #212

dctoedt wrote: post #184

It'd be great if we native English-speakers would tolerate — and even encourage — "mistakes" in English to streamline (refactor?) the language and make it easier for non-native speakers to become fluent: + The world would be better off with an easy-to-use, global lingua franca. + For historical reasons, both good and bad, at the moment English is the logical candidate. (The use of an alphabet also supports English as…

Can I make a wish? As a non-native speaker it would be great to have a consistent alphabet, it wouldn't matter the order of the letters, a letter would always correspond to a single sound, specially with vocals. If the Latin alphabet is not suitable for this then it would be great to have a new alphabet or maybe just the Latin one but with some letters added.

IPA is such an alphabet.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#218

Post by kazinator » Mon, May 28, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #140

kazinator wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grammatically plural nouns denoting single objects is something that occurs in multiple European languages (and perhaps others), not only English. English French Slovak pliers pinces kliešte pants pantalons nohavice scissors ciseaux nožnice All plural. The singular "kliešť" exists, but it refers to an insect: the tick. The word "nohavica" is used when referring to just one of the pant legs. (E.g. one being rolled up,…

It’s funny to compare Slovak with Polish — you could also use “kleszcze” for pliers (and “kleszcz” is also tick), but it sounds archaic — today you’d say “szczypce” or “kombinerki”, which are also nouns without singular form. Also, “pants” are called “spodnie”, which also lacks singular form, but “nogawa/nogawka” still means a pant leg.

> kombinierki

In Slovak, there is "kombinačky", which is shortening from "kombinované kliešte". Basically more or less the same item as as "combination pliers".

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#219

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, May 28, 2018, 1:24 PM UTC

carlmr wrote: post #160

KayEss wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And "an ewt" became "a newt", so it goes both ways.

Was ewt pronounce yoot like newt being pronounced nyoot? Then at leas in modern English it would have been "a ewt" to begin with and no n for confustion. I read up on this (rebracketing it's called), and now I understand why the snakes called Natter in German are adders in English, and that even made it back to German as ...otter (Kreuzotter for example).

So, is naming of the natterjack toad related to adders? Do they wear "adder jack[ets]"? The skin patterning is not completely dissimilar.

Re: Why “children,” not “childs”? (2016)

#220

Post by andrewbinstock » Mon, May 28, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

bmn__ wrote: post #162

andrewbinstock wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The visa thing sounds like a back-formation unique to your mother tongue. The word "visa" is the past participle of videre (Latin for "to see"). So it is not a plural in its formation/derivation.

You're mistaken. The verb is vidēre, videō, vidī, visum . There is also the noun vīsum, -ī , plural visa with the primary meaning the seen [thing], appearance, perception. This is the word that was borrowed into English and other languages.

Why not look it up before you assert someone is wrong? It's explained in detail in [0]. It's clear that visa is used as a past participle, not as a noun, and it's applied in the singular. There is no support anywhere for the use of visum as a singular and visa as a plural. Which is what I believe I said above.

[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/visa