Re: Deleting ing and ly words.
- From: Tim S <Tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:34:18 +0100
Anna Mazzoldi wrote:
Tim S wrote:
<snip>
These days, grammatical words which are dependents of a noun
<blah blah blah>
Indeed.
Yes.
But while I know my way around modern linguistics if I focus, the
categories that are hardwired in my brain are the ones I've learned in
childhood. This is probably made worse by the fact that I learned them
for *Italian*, which for obvious reasons fits the "classical grammar"
model better than English -- or most non-Romance languages; and for
many years Italian was the only language for which I studied or thought
about grammar. (The next one was French, which is close enough to
Italian that I didn't have to learn any new concepts.)
I was in a similar position for English, but by now I've read enough linuguistics books that the old terms have faded in my mind. Also, the new ones made things much clearer, so were memorable and stuck.
Tim
.
- References:
- Deleting ing and ly words.
- From: Kevin J . Cheek
- Re: Deleting ing and ly words.
- From: Patricia C. Wrede
- Re: Deleting ing and ly words.
- From: Anna Mazzoldi
- Re: Deleting ing and ly words.
- From: Tim S
- Re: Deleting ing and ly words.
- From: Anna Mazzoldi
- Deleting ing and ly words.
- Prev by Date: Re: Help support non-crazy scientist?
- Next by Date: Re: noodling request: Faustian bargains
- Previous by thread: Re: Deleting ing and ly words.
- Next by thread: Re: Deleting ing and ly words.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading