|
 |
Common errors vs language evolution | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Medulin Tetraglot Senior Member Croatia Joined 4478 days ago 1199 posts - 2192 votes  Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali | Message 17 of 72 14 November 2013 at 2:23am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
In European Portuguese it's ''cheguei a casa''.
The only variant of Spanish which uses EN with verbs of movement (like IR, SALIR, LLEGAR etc) is popular Paraguayan Spanish: http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/voces_hispanicas/paraguay/asu ncion.htm You could argue ENTER is a verb of movement. In this case in Portuguese it's ENTRAR EM, in Latin American Spanish it's ENTRAR A while European Spanish prefers ENTRAR EN. It's not that CHEGAR A is not used in colloquial Brazilian Portuguese, CHEGAR A and CHEGAR EM have different meanings: chegar a: a meaning of coming/arriving and reaching/going to: ''Ainda não cheguei ao fim do livro'' stress on the act of movement, not on the destination/aim chegar em: a meaning of coming/arriving and entering/going into: '' A gente chegou no Louvre procurando a "Mille e Tre" '' stress on the destination reached (often with the meaning of going into, entering) Edited by Medulin on 14 November 2013 at 2:25am 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Zireael Triglot Senior Member Poland Joined 4461 days ago 518 posts - 636 votes Speaks: Polish*, EnglishB2, Spanish Studies: German, Sign Language, Tok Pisin, Arabic (Yemeni), Old English | Message 18 of 72 14 November 2013 at 11:41am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
So chegar a is like Spanish ir and chegar em is like Spanish llegar?
On topic: In Poland there is quite some discussion about declining loanwords and about włączać vs włanczać. Currently, the correct form is the former, but more and more people are using the latter. At least no one is telling us "poszłem" is correct yet! Edited by Zireael on 14 November 2013 at 11:43am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| drygramul Tetraglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4278 days ago 165 posts - 269 votes Speaks: Persian, Italian*, EnglishC2, GermanB2 Studies: French, Polish | Message 19 of 72 14 November 2013 at 12:05pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
It's a casa. They're both fine in this setting, as you can't really tell if the event is near or far in time. However, if you said: "arrivai a casa poco fa" "sono arrivato a casa poco fa" the first sentence is wrong. This misuse of the passato remoto is typical of southern Italians. Generally you can use passato prossimo instead of passato remoto without making a mistake, but that doesn't work the other way around. Edited by drygramul on 14 November 2013 at 12:06pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| yong321 Groupie United States yong321.freeshe Joined 5352 days ago 80 posts - 104 votes Studies: Spanish | Message 20 of 72 15 November 2013 at 7:07pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
Common errors leading to accepted form: One thing I noticed is that if the language community is fairly isolated, evolution is slow, i.e. errors stay as errors. With more inter-linguistic and inter-cultural exchange, evolution happens, including the transition of common errors to an accepted form. If the population densities of two groups speaking two different languages (neither group significantly dominates politically) live in the same area are about equal, simplification of each other's language occurs. If they have drastically different inflections, e.g., children of the next generation may opt for a language with minimal inflection or substituting a different simpler mechanism for inflection. Edited by yong321 on 15 November 2013 at 7:12pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5038 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 21 of 72 15 November 2013 at 9:58pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
This is nonsense. 1. The fact that a linguistic change has been introduced from a foreign language has nothing to do with whether or not it's an "impoverishment," whatever that loaded term means. 2. More educated people may speak differently than the uneducated, but that in no way means the educated dialect is the more correct, less "dumb-downed" one. Utterly uneducated folk speak with the same linguistic complexity as Nobel Prize winners. 3. That a change is introduced via mass media also has no bearing on whether or not that change is a detriment to the language. Simply put, all human languages (and all dialects, but not pidgins) are of equal communicative power. Notions that a certain class of language are more dumb-downed than others is not one the linguistic community takes seriously and makes about as much sense as my claiming that Italian is just a dumb-downed form of Latin. ("Those dreadful Gauls! Dropping case endings wherever they like! Introducing barbarities from their native tongue! It's a result of the Vulgate, you know, Jerome trying to reach the common man, who of course is an ignoramus. Poor Latin!") 5 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| drygramul Tetraglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4278 days ago 165 posts - 269 votes Speaks: Persian, Italian*, EnglishC2, GermanB2 Studies: French, Polish | Message 22 of 72 15 November 2013 at 10:22pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
I warmly invite you to read again what I am referring to, that was not even the point.
How's that a sequitur? Who talked about an educate dialect? The Italian language follows precise rules that are the same in the whole country, not unlike maths.
Again, that was not even the point. The culprit of my argument was not the mass media. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5038 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 23 of 72 15 November 2013 at 10:51pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
Then I have no idea what you're saying. You were the first in the thread to introduce the term "impoverishment," and then to support the claim of impoverishment you said:
The only reasonable reading of what you said I can devise is: "The term impoverishment applies because the change is introduced by "foreign common saying."" Your only response is that I misunderstood you. Fine. It would be much easier if you elaborated what you meant rather than just claiming I missed the point.
You did. You blamed the Italian education system and its differing standards for "impoverishing" the language. If that's not equivalent to the claim that the less educated speak worse, then I don't know how else to construe it. Incidentally, grammar is not the same thing as math. The truths of math extend beyond the social realm, whereas whether or not you can split an infinitive gramatically is merely a social construct.
Then tell me the point. Because when you blame an impoverishment on the "dumbing down process [that] is a marketing strategy that provides the means to reach every people, and obviously the least common denominator is the ignorant," I'm not sure what else you could be referring to. Regardless, whatever the answer to all these niceties, the objectionable part of your post was the idea that language is impoverished or dumb-downed by a change. Is that what you're saying? Because that is, to repeat, nonsense. And if that's not what you're saying, then what do you mean by impoverishment? 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Luso Hexaglot Senior Member Portugal Joined 5871 days ago 819 posts - 1812 votes Speaks: Portuguese*, French, EnglishC2, GermanB1, Italian, Spanish Studies: Sanskrit, Arabic (classical) | Message 24 of 72 16 November 2013 at 12:07am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
No. You're mixing two things here: First: the verb To go = ir (PT/ES) To arrive = chegar (PT) = llegar (ES) Second: the preposition See Medulin's explanation above. I think it's rather complete. I can elaborate on the preposition's side, if you wish. As it is a bit of a nightmare (preposition use varies wildly from language to language and sometimes within the same language) I'll just leave it at that, for now. 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
