The Language Thread

[Takhisis]

A spin-off from the Today I Learned long-runner!

Here we can discuss anything related to languages (even German, if for some reason you don't want to post in ze Germans' thread).

Beware of @OwenGlyndwr, who'll probably try to own this thread through adverse possession.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I just want to say, a propos of nothing at all, that it is unidiomatic to use the formulation "X is the only chance of Y," where X = some physical object.

For example, one should not say "The Earth is the only chance for humanity's survival," but rather "The Earth provides the only chance for humanity's survival."

The reason is simple: chances are something that emerge or develop or arise in the course of time, whereas physical objects simply persist through time.

 

[Takhisis]

So, physical objects… does that include people?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not generally, no. People tend to think of themselves as developing in the course of time, not as physical objects.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not generally, no. People tend to think of themselves as developing in the course of time, not as physical objects.

Physical objects also develop in the course of time though.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And if that development is what gives you your chance at something, then it's perfectly fine to say as much with an is.

Chantix, from the other thread, is an example of this: [The course of treatment involved in taking] Chantix is my one chance of quitting smoking.

(though I'd actually still like represents there better than is)

 

[Takhisis]

(though I'd actually still like represents there better than is)

So what is the chance?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I just want to say, a propos of nothing at all, that it is unidiomatic to use the formulation "X is the only chance of Y," where X = some physical object.

For example, one should not say "The Earth is the only chance for humanity's survival," but rather "The Earth provides the only chance for humanity's survival."

The reason is simple: chances are something that emerge or develop or arise in the course of time, whereas physical objects simply persist through time.

You could just chalk it up to colloquial English and stop being so pedantic about it.

There are times when I channel Spock in my posts, but this isn't one of them.

 

[warpus]

I just want to say, a propos of nothing at all, that it is unidiomatic to use the formulation "X is the only chance of Y," where X = some physical object.

Yeah in terms of pure logic and mathematical construct you are 100% correct. Assuming that unidiomatic means what I think it means

But it's not math, it's human language, and in this case I think "chance" is supposed to signify an event and not mathematical probability. And it's English anyway, so there are no rules to begin with

 

[Mise]

I, too, find it weird to hear e.g. "water is my only chance of survival" rather than "finding water" or "water provides".

May I recommend this (now closed) thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...recovering-grammar-nazi-support-group.249386/
And particularly Bill3000's & Plotinus's posts in it, for example the discussion about "to err", using "myself" and "yourself" as a more formal version of "me" and "you", or the meaninglessness of "X is one of the only Ys", all of which have stuck with me all these years...

 

[Mouthwash]

I, too, find it weird to hear e.g. "water is my only chance of survival" rather than "finding water" or "water provides".

It only works if you're drawing attention to the object. For instance, if the person you're addressing isn't aware of the object or its importance. Desert survival is obviously going to involve water, so it makes more sense to emphasize the 'finding.'

If I were explaining the situation to someone who had never heard of water, and I gave a jug of it (removing the need to search), it would make a lot more sense to say that the water was his only chance of survival, no?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The impression I'm getting from this conversation is that if a person is in the desert and has water, and comes across a person dying of dehydration, the person with water should ignore the dying person unless asked for water using correct and formal grammar. If the person says, "Water! It's my only chance!" the person who has water should give him a lecture on grammar and walk away, taking the water with him.


As I said before: The unspoken words are unspoken because most people understand them without the need for them to be spoken.

 

[Borachio]

Ooh. Is this the thread for venting pet peeves about the use of English?

I, myself (ahem), get unnecessarily aeriated when people use "Peter and I" incorrectly. (Other forenames are available)

For example, "it seems to Peter and I that...", or "Goodnight from Peter and I".

Why do they do that? They wouldn't say "it seems to I", or "Goodnight from I".

But it's a really persistent, and pervasive, simple grammatical error. In both writings and speech.

Of course "Peter and I" is used correctly in such phrases as "Peter and I think such and such".

People, please just remove the "Peter"s from your sentence temporarily and see if it's something you would say.

 

[Leifmk]

My main mind-boggling factoid relating to languages, of late, is twofold:

The Na-Dene family consists of a number of related Native American languages spread across an immense geographical distance. A bunch of ones up north in Alaska and Canada, a few specks on the northwest coast of the USA, and then another cluster way the heck down in Arizona and New Mexico. This, in itself, is both impressive as far as migration patterns go, and where the ability of modern linguists to identify relationships is concerned.

But. Furthermore.

There is a somewhat tentative (but plausible) connection found between this family, and a near-extinct family of native Central Siberian languages. Like, literally half the world away. The respective ancestors of these various groups would have last seen each other somewhere around the Bering Strait maybe thirteen thousand years ago. Damn, dude.

 

[warpus]

Imagine how interesting human migrations and languages are going to be to study once we start travelling around the galaxy and settling over planets and solar system. If that ever happens

 

[Takhisis]

The impression I'm getting from this conversation is that if a person is in the desert and has water, and comes across a person dying of dehydration, the person with water should ignore the dying person unless asked for water using correct and formal grammar. If the person says, "Water! It's my only chance!" the person who has water should give him a lecture on grammar and walk away, taking the water with him.

Erm, no.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Erm, no.

Well, that's helpful.

What are people really saying, then? If I'm desperately talking about chances, and the situation is imminently dire, I am not going to give any portion of any mammal's posterior whether or not I use correct grammar to make my situation known to someone who can help. As long as they know what the problem is and what to do about it, who cares if I've used colloquial English?

 

[Takhisis]

We are being pedantic about language in an isolated situation. We are not stating that we'd let people die simply because they spoke English wrongly.

 

[Borachio]

What percentage of speech can be garbled but a message still be understood?

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that it's as high as 90%. But that maybe be wrong.

 

[Takhisis]

Depneding on waht yuo maen by garbeld, teh percntage cna eb realyl quiet hihg.