Stolan Senior Member United States Joined 3792 days ago 274 posts - 368 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Thai, Lowland Scots Studies: Arabic (classical), Cantonese
| Message 17 of 41 26 December 2013 at 12:59pm | IP Logged |
I guess both or anything deviating from the norm, mostly Germanic ones. I reckon most Germanic languages have
around the same amount of monosyllabic strong verb roots in active use with some variation.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
lingoleng Senior Member Germany Joined 5058 days ago 605 posts - 1290 votes
| Message 18 of 41 26 December 2013 at 4:07pm | IP Logged |
Stolan wrote:
To lingoleng: I swear I saw Ich hatte V gehabt somewhere before, what does this double preterite perfect mean? |
|
|
Well, at first: A Bavarian speaker would not say that. It would be "Ich habe es gesehen gehabt" instead of "Ich hatte es gesehen". Both mean that someone had seen something before something else happened. ("Ich hatte es gesehen" is pretty much the same as "I had seen it".)
The upper German way to build this past perfect, pluperfect may have spread and been used by other speakers who did not really need it (because their native dialect has a normal past tense, Imperfekt, Präteritum I). Only a small step further is needed and in analogy "Ich hatte es gesehen gehabt" is possible, too. Its meaning is still not different from the past perfect/pluperfect (Nobody really needs a tense which marks things that had happened before something had happened before something happened ... :-) One step before is all we can handle in everyday life.)
While the meaning of "Ich hatte es gesehen", "ich habe es gesehen gehabt" and "ich hatte es gesehen gehabt" is pretty much exactly the same, there are of course differences regarding register and style. Only the first one is considered high style and to be expected by an educated speaker in a formal situation or in written texts (other than sms or similar, of course). The second one is not unlikely to be used by an educated Bavarian speaker even in formal situations, by pure interference, or stubbornness, we Bavarians tend to proud of our dialect. The third one is colloquial, used by speakers of non-upper-German variants only and is certainly a very powerful, colourful expression of antecedence. Some people show a tendency to use the past perfect as a standard time of their narration (I know this from TV only and am not sure if it is a standard feature of their everyday language or only happens in pseudo-formal situations like interviews or meeting with "dialect-foreigners"), and they may also be inclined to use the even stronger double periphrastic pluperfect in situations where standard German would use a simple past tense. There was a time when I found this rather ugly, but on the other hand, it is a source of variety and may be considered expressive.
Edited by lingoleng on 26 December 2013 at 4:18pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
|
Henkkles Triglot Senior Member Finland Joined 4013 days ago 544 posts - 1141 votes Speaks: Finnish*, English, Swedish Studies: Russian
| Message 19 of 41 27 December 2013 at 12:13pm | IP Logged |
Stolan wrote:
I guess both or anything deviating from the norm, mostly Germanic ones. I reckon most Germanic languages have
around the same amount of monosyllabic strong verb roots in active use with some variation. |
|
|
But the strong verbs are just as regular as the "normal" ones, it's just a different way to form the past tense. Just because there aren't that many of them doesn't render them irregular, despite what most studybooks would have you think.
2 persons have voted this message useful
|
ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 4988 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French
| Message 20 of 41 27 December 2013 at 4:34pm | IP Logged |
Spasty wrote:
In the US (Midwest) I've heard 'preach' ~ 'praught' instead of 'preached,' and I always catch myself saying 'blound' instead of 'blinded'. |
|
|
That's interesting. I've noticed ablauts sneaking into my language too, which is odd since it's not the most common means of making the past in English. The other day a bell dinged and I said, without thinking, "The bell just dung."
Never heard anyone else use that word, but it came out spontaneously.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 4988 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French
| Message 21 of 41 27 December 2013 at 4:35pm | IP Logged |
montmorency wrote:
Isn't there also the (slightly humorous?) "dove" for "dived"? |
|
|
Both sound fine (and non-humorous) to me.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
luke Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6965 days ago 3133 posts - 4351 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Esperanto, French
| Message 22 of 41 27 December 2013 at 4:45pm | IP Logged |
montmorency wrote:
Isn't there also the (slightly humorous?) "dove" for "dived"? |
|
|
The word is "dove" which rhymes with "trove" as in "treasure trove".
I've been reading The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Constance Garnett. There are a few tenses that she uses that sound wrong to me. Basically, she uses a regular past tense when it seems to me as a native speaker from the U.S., that the tense should actually be irregular. The "snuck" versus "sneaked" is a good example (though I don't know that that is the example from the book. I know Constance Garnett has a good command of the English language. Perhaps some of these differences are simply regionalisms. E.G., in the U.K., perhaps one would say "dived". In the U.S., one might sound a bit uncouth to say "dived" instead of "dove". (or maybe not).
Dictionary.com wrote:
Usage note
Both dived and dove are standard as the past tense of dive. Dived, historically the older form, is somewhat more common in edited writing, but dove occurs there so frequently that it also must be considered standard: The rescuer dove into 20 feet of icy water. Dove is an Americanism that probably developed by analogy with alternations like drive, drove and ride, rode. |
|
|
There are of course the differences where American English has tended to simplify from British English. E.G., color instead of colour, and spelled instead of spelt.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Henkkles Triglot Senior Member Finland Joined 4013 days ago 544 posts - 1141 votes Speaks: Finnish*, English, Swedish Studies: Russian
| Message 23 of 41 27 December 2013 at 6:13pm | IP Logged |
luke wrote:
There are of course the differences where American English has tended to simplify from British English. E.G., color instead of colour, and spelled instead of spelt. |
|
|
To call this simplification is violence in my opinion. These are merely orthographical changes.
3 persons have voted this message useful
|
luke Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6965 days ago 3133 posts - 4351 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Esperanto, French
| Message 24 of 41 27 December 2013 at 6:31pm | IP Logged |
Papashaw1 wrote:
English has the habitual be that never caught(yet) on with others so I don't know what may become of it. Its been pretty steady for English where I've been and not much has mutated yet, I would love to use the habitual be but it
would sound very very awkward. No 2nd person plural yet in heavy use. Singular they is doing well though. |
|
|
Can you give examples of what this means? I can guess, but since we're from different continents, we probably hear different things.
1 person has voted this message useful
|