universal_grammar_thoughts z i have observed that native spanish speakes frequently make a very specific mistake in english. i has to do with tense shifts within a given sentence. an example is: i was watching the cars pas by but i couldn't count it. i am sure that there is a very clear explanation of why this construction makes sense in spanish and therefore is likely to mistranslate to english in just this way. but what does it say about idea of a universal grammar? does this mean that our constructions in english are mutually incompatible with those in spanish? does it mean that tense is a relative concept? it seems counter-intuitive that what is an absolute rule in english would not translate to some similar absolute rule in spanish. any thoughts? 080609 ... duh that should be: pass 080609 ... duh duh that should be: speakers 080609 ... Lemon_Soda Hrm...I know they have similar roots in Latin, but just as cultures can think differently, shouldn't languages built around them be different too? Meaning what passes Mongolia may not be seen the same way in Switzerland, not because we don't all use the same words, but also because we just think differently. Hrm... 080609 ... Non-Linguist There are grammatic similarities in many languages, but nothing approaching a "universal_grammar". I speak Spanish but I learned on the street so I'm no grammarian. However, I too have noticed that Spanish speakers from many different places make the same grammatical mistakes, and I, in turn, make typical "Englishized" mistakes in Spanish. In English, "the red apple". In Spanish, "la manzana roja" (the apple red). Plus the entire world_of_verbs functions differently in Romance languages. Are there comparable elements to the Germanic languages? Sure, but I would argue they are outweighed by the contrasts. In classical Latin this is very evident. A single verb can do much, including ridiculous things: Demonstro (I demonstrate) Demonstror (I am being demonstrated) Demonstraveris (you will have been demonstrated) Demonstratisunt (they were carried) Demonstra (DEMONSTRATE!!!) This has pros and cons. A single verb is more tidily expressed in Latin. But when several conjugated verbs come together, Latin becomes a confusing headache quickly, because sentence structure is usually rather loose and not always indicative of what affects what. (The leaves, the wind, raining, it blew, they fell.) I'm told that ancient Greek has the same problem. A friend of mine who is a linguist told me once that grammar in the far east is a totally different undertaking, equal in importance but with wholly different processes. For a sense of this, acquire several different translations of the works of Du Fu, a Tang-era Chinese poet. I suggest this because his works are usually quite entertaining, and sometimes deeply evokative. 080609 ... NonLinguist Demonstratisunt (they were demonstrated) Oops. 080609 ... Non Linguist I also have heard that several languages have next to no grammatic capacity for temporal expression. Either one currently sees something or they do not; there is no having seen it yesterday, last week, or years before. It simply is not currently seen. And then there's Russian... but I don't understand it well enough to comment upon. 080609 ... minnesota_chris Universal_grammar is an idea, a work-around, that seeks to answer the question "how can children learn a complex, complex language, even though they haven't heard it very much, and often they hear it wrong?" The idea is that every language has some principles that are the same in every language, and that those principles are hard-wired into every human brain. All we are doing is putting the English words/structures into a "human language" that is the same for every person, whether they are British or speaking some click language in Africa. It's not a proven idea, nor is it possible to prove, so scientists don't like it. 080609 ... Non Linguist Another friend asked my linguist friend whether it wasn't quite obvious that all languages traced back to a single root language. The response of the linguist was something like this: "While it is understandably desirable, for the sake of simplicity, to trace all language back to a Babel-ian root, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Variation in structure is considerable and in many instances it is impossible to discern whether a trait shared by two languages is due to fraternity or borrowing. Furthermore the (six or seven) dominant language families of today's world are neither sufficiently similar for certainty of shared ancestry, nor do they represent the world's myriad extinct languages in any comprehensive way." Of course, I am paraphrasing. And the researched stance of one linguist doesn't necessarily equate with inexorable truth. And Mr. Chris of MN, that is an interesting idea indeed. 080609 ... Non Linguist I am thinking about the example of the red apple, Z, and here we may have an example whereby nuance_IS_precision. English "I want the apple red." (I want the apple to be red; I want the thing that is apple red in color." Spanish "Yo quiero la manzana roja." = "I want the apple red." BUT REALLY = "I want the red apple." I use this example for mere amusement. Sorry to blathe so much about this. 080609 ... stork daddy well i believe, and there are quite a few deep thinkers who have written on the subject, that proponents of universal grammar look towards deeper structure, and readily admit the presence of unique and not always analagous variations on certain resounding themes. most universal grammar theory looks to fairly simple and deep grammatical concepts like subjects, objects, and predicates. 080609 ... stork daddy additionally a lot of the theory revolves around language acquisition, more than the actual languages. it looks to why it is that any human from anywhere can learn any language if they start young. 080609 ... - - 101127 what's it to you? who go blather from