TIL: Today I Learned

[Valka D'Ur]

You guys aren't getting what I'm saying about English and sense. You are right that the rules of English dictate that our planet be referred to as Earth, and that the ground be referred to as the earth. However, it is still correct to use the latter term for the planet, because English breaks its own rules without shame.

(It may just be an Americanism, but I've definitely seen it.)

I am not American. Just because other people break the rules, there's no reason why I should, and definitely no reason why my teacher should say I was wrong for insisting that Earth is the name of the planet we live on, the other planets' names are capitalized and therefore Earth's name should be capitalized.

But this was a teacher who insisted that trees "loose" their leaves in the fall, and there were other instances of where she was wrong, was called on it, and was loathe to admit that a student was right. That year was one long squabble, as I'd just recently become a Star Trek fan and my interest in astronomy was rekindled... both of which meant that I slanted as many of my assignments in that direction as I could.

Just think... if the internet had been around then, I'd have had other Star Trek fans to talk to, rather than taking my writing efforts out on a teacher who knew little about science, cared even less, and was allergic to admitting to making mistakes.

Revenge was sweet, though. One of our assignments was to take a nursery rhyme and rewrite it as a news story. We were supposed to read it out loud to the class, but the teacher said that she understood that some of us were shy about doing that, so she would read those out loud herself, if we asked.

So I wrote the Peter Piper rhyme into a news story, and it was as much of a tongue-twister as the original rhyme (all the sentences were grammatically correct and made sense). I asked her politely if she would please read mine to the class, and after the second sentence, if looks could kill I'd have become a puddle of goo right then and there. The other kids thought it was a hoot.

I'll admit that it was a dirty trick to play. But after all the unnecessary crap she'd put me through that year, docking marks for nonexistent mistakes, I thought she deserved it.

Absolutely but not just that. "The Earth is the only chance our species has for survival" refers to the planet and would be gibberish without the article. Whenever we refer to the planet on which we live we use "The". Even if we substitute the word "world" our planet is very much the definite article. The World was, after all, Not Enough".

Whut?

"Earth is the only chance our species has for survival" is not gibberish in any way. Of course if "world" were substituted, we would need to write "The world" because our planet's name isn't "World." But using "world" is awkward and inaccurate, because it makes me want to know which world. This one? Some other one? Be specific.

Here's an example that fell in my path the other day. I was walking my dog after a windy day and I saw part of a tree blown down before me. It was about three feet long and about half an inch in diameter at its thickest part. It felt too big to call it a twig. But it also felt too small to call it a branch, since the main branches on the tree it fell off of were maybe 8 inches in diameter at the place where they met the tree. Of course, one can name it in English; one can call it a small branch or a large twig. But a language that had a word for that intermediate stretch would be able to think this thing that I saw in front of me a little more precisely than English can.

Break it over your knee, and you'll have two twigs. Problem solved. Otherwise, the only applicable word I can think of is "stick."

 

[Mouthwash]

I am not American. Just because other people break the rules, there's no reason why I should,

But if English itself breaks the rules, by whose authority do you correct it? Every language has arbitrary things that don't fit their own pattern. Are all speakers of those languages making mistakes?

But this was a teacher who insisted that trees "loose" their leaves in the fall,

That's correct, actually. Doesn't mean the same thing as "lose their leaves," which is what she was probably thinking of, but it's still proper English.

 

[sophie]

But if English itself breaks the rules, by whose authority do you correct it? Every language has arbitrary things that don't fit their own pattern. Are all speakers of those languages making mistakes?

That has to do with orthographic convention though, not with the Language.

 

[Mouthwash]

That has to do with orthographic convention though, not with the Language.

And what is "the Language?"

 

[sophie]

Grammar, Phonology, Phonotactics, Semantic inventory

The problem you described - people using a minuscule e when referring to Earth the proper noun doesn't exist within the context of the language, because when you are speaking there's no way beyond context to know when you are referring to earth and Earth. The error occurs only within the context of a prescriptive orthographic convention, but that has no bearing on the grammar, phonology, or semantic elements that underlie the actual Language.

You could change the orthographic Convention - adopt German's System and capitalize every non-pronoun Substantive, and nothing about the Language would have changed by doing so. The Language that i have been speaking over these past two Sentences is exactly the same English that i was speaking in the previous Paragraph.

ORWECOULDADOPTTHECLASSICALGREEKANDLATINSYSTEMANDHAVENOPUNCTUATIONMINUSCULESORSPACESONCEAGAINNOTHINGABOUTTHEENGLISHLANGUAGEHASCHANGEDPERSEBYMEREPRESENTINGTHELANGUAGEINTHISMANNER

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Is there a reason they wrote that way? I guess it makes chiseling words into monuments easier but I don't see how it would help with any other writing.

 

[Mouthwash]

Grammar, Phonology, Phonotactics, Semantic inventory

That's not what is commonly meant when one refers to 'language,' so your objection is just semantic quibbling.

 

[sophie]

Is there a reason they wrote that way? I guess it makes chiseling words into monuments easier but I don't see how it would help with any other writing.

When ink and paper exist at a heavy premium, you don't want to waste them on things that provide no value aside from comfort to the reader.

Plus Latin has some elements inherent to its structure that make reading without punctuation much easier.

As a quick example, Medieval Latin tended to end its clauses through one of three prose-rhythms:

cursus planus (- x x - x) where - is an accented syllable and x is an unaccented one
Bonifacii martiris prima puerilis natriturae rudimenta suscepti
(ru-di-men-ta sus-CEP-ti = (x x - x x - x)
https://vocaroo.com/i/s14IFPcLXVIC

cursus tardus (- x x - x x)
ut cum omni delectatione philosopharentur, excolere
(phi-lo-so-pha-REN-tur ex-CO-le-re = (x x x x - x x - x x)
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0RnqPyfPkCv

cursus velox (- x x x x - x)
ipsum nec inmature deseruerit nec periculis irremediabilibus manciparit
(ir-re-me-di-a-BI-li-bus man-ci-PAR-et (x x x x x - x x x x - x)
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0BB8mkSgXtY

When you spend a lot of time around it, it you start to listen for those rhythms, and picking them out makes it much easier to parse a sentence, particularly when Latin is a language which tends to nest dozens of clauses within each other.

Within the punctuation-conventions of modern Latin script, this all counts as one sentence:

Spoiler :

Suberat et alia non inrationabilis, ut opinor, causa, quae uel sola sufficere posset, ut me ad haec scribenda conpelleret, nutrimentum uidelicet in me inpensum et perpetua, postquam in aula eius conuersari coepi, cum ipso ac liberis eius amicitia; qua me ita sibi deuinxit debitoremque tam uiuo quam mortuo constituit, ut merito ingratus uideri et iudicari possem, si ego tot beneficiorum in me conlatorum inmemor clarissima et inlustrissima hominis optime de me meriti gesta silentio praeterirem patererque uitam eius, quasi qui numquam uixerit, sine litteris ac debita laude manere; cui scribendae atque explicandae non meum ingeniolum, quod exile et paruum, immo poene nullum est, sed Tullianam par erat desudare facundiam.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's not what is commonly meant when one refers to 'language,' so your objection is just semantic quibbling.

Insufferable

He's going out of his way to give a thorough answer to your questions, however vague and esoteric they may be. Stop being a **** about it

 

[Mouthwash]

Insufferable

He's going out of his way to give a thorough answer to your questions, however vague and esoteric they may be. Stop being a **** about it

You'd be better served by reading posts before judging them. I pointed out that talking about trees which "loose their leaves" is correct English. He used his arbitrary definition of language to contradict me. No question was asked or answered.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But if English itself breaks the rules, by whose authority do you correct it? Every language has arbitrary things that don't fit their own pattern. Are all speakers of those languages making mistakes?

The point here is that she marked me down, saying I was incorrect. I was not incorrect, and pointed out why I was not incorrect. It's not my fault that she was one of the teachers who couldn't stand being corrected by a student, or even challenged by a student. I wasn't obnoxious about it - just asked why she'd marked me down, and when she told me why, I pointed out that her reasoning was flawed - she said Saturn was capitalized because it's a planet, and I said, "So is Earth."

That's correct, actually. Doesn't mean the same thing as "lose their leaves," which is what she was probably thinking of, but it's still proper English.

Tree, standing out on the lawn, with multicolored leaves still attached: "*$%*())&^! leaves! It's nearly October and you're still attached! GET OFF ME, DAMMIT!"

*Tree attempts to shake the leaves off, but they'll leave in their own good time as the season progresses, thankyouverymuch.*


Nope. That particular assignment was a poem. I intended to use the word "lose" and in that context, "loose" was incorrect.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You'd be better served by reading posts before judging them. I pointed out that talking about trees which "loose their leaves" is correct English. He used his arbitrary definition of language to contradict me. No question was asked or answered.

I did read and judge the posts. It's not my fault they don't make you out to be a nice person.

 

[Arakhor]

How is "loose their leaves" correct English? If you mean to make less tight, the correct word would be loosen.

 

[sophie]

How is "loose their leaves" correct English? If you mean to make less tight, the correct word would be loosen.

loose, v. (third-person singular simple present looses, present participle loosing, simple past and past participle loosed)

1. (trans.) To let loose, to free from restraints
2. (trans.) To unfasten, to loosen
3. (trans.) To make less tight, to loosen
4. (intrans.) Of a grip or hold, to let go
5. (archery) to shoot (an arrow)
6. (obs.) To set sail
7. (obs.) To solve; to interpret

 

[Arakhor]

Well, unless trees are weaponising their leaves somehow, I can only assume that's an (North) American usage then.

 

[sophie]

Well, unless trees are weaponising their leaves somehow, I can only assume that's an (North) American usage then.

Blame James I:

Ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them unto me.

 

[Arakhor]

Ah, yes. The 17th Century, when the two English languages diverged for no obvious reason.

 

[GinandTonic]

Whut?

"Earth is the only chance our species has for survival" is not gibberish in any way.

Clearly British English and Canadian English have diverged. I'm an English teacher and I'ld dock points for the lack of the article.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'd also point out that even "the Earth" is not a "chance," exactly. There's some weird lack of parallelism when it's put that baldly. "Preserving the Earth is (or represents or constitutes) the only chance our species has for survival." Something along those lines..

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, unless trees are weaponising their leaves somehow, I can only assume that's an (North) American usage then.

I didn't say the sentence made sense, only that it used the word correctly.