Language desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 9[edit]

Closed word classes[edit]

I was reading something about English grammar and it said that certain classes of words were "closed". The classes included "determiners", "prepositions" and "conjunctions". I was wondering if it was possible to come up with new words to fit this category that actually have a degree of usefulness. Perhaps other languages already have words in these categories for which there is no English equivalent. Do we limit our ability of expression by not having those analogues or does it not make a difference? I'm not sure which category "a" and "the" etc fall into, but I think Japanese or Chinese or both don't have either one or both - what limits does this impose on the way they express themselves, their culture, scientific progress (alternatively, what limits does it remove)? --Seans Potato Business 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the part I can answer, 'a' and 'the' are articles, a type of determiner. As an example of what we can gain by adding to closed classes, a second person plural pronoun is something many languages have which is lacking in English. Unless, of course, one is in certain parts of the United States, in which case one has y'all. Algebraist 17:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What can we do with a "second person plural pronoun" that we can't do currently? --Seans Potato Business 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would eliminate any confusion when you're talking to a single person among many. To specify it now, we need to add another word like "all" afterward. Consider the difference between "You are crazy!" and "You all are crazy!". Matt Deres (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a reactionary, but there's a solution to that. Just reintroduce the second person singular pronoun "thou", leaving "you" as plural only, which was the way it was originally. That would eliminate the need for "you all" and such barbaric expressions as "y'all" and (cringe) "yous". Going back to a pre-existing solution that worked just fine for a millennium seems a better approach than inventing a whole new one. Thou many thank me for this idea one day. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joking though thou mayst be, I must stand up for the rights of dialects not to be referred to as 'barbaric'. "Y'all" and "yous" belong to dialects within which they are perfectly crumulent. Of course, I would expunge them from anything meant to be in Standard English :) Ye may hold me to that. Skittle (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "crumulent" appears not be a particularly crumulent word; although I acknowledge that my mention of this fact can only tend to increase its crumulence. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 'twas a typo for cromulent. How embarrasing that my proofreading was so poor. Let the cromulicity flourish. Skittle (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have "a" or "the" in the Slavic languages, and as far as I know, they don't have any difficulty expressing themselves. They may, however, have trouble understanding The The. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian has a definite suffix on nouns. To answer the original question, "closed" means that changes to the class of words are very rare, but they do happen. From the 16th century onward, they, them, their was expanded from just a plural pronoun to a singular, gender-nonspecific pronoun for certain antecedents. There are other examples not only in the pronouns but with auxiliary verbs and other closed classes as well. To what extent does the presence or absence of these kinds of words influence a culture? Not much. The Welsh have no word for together, the Moken no word for when (maybe), the English no word for Pecht, the Chinese no word for the... and yet they all have no difficulty expressing whatever they want (but don't tell that to popular journalists; they practically make a living spinning B.S. out of minor language things like this). Strad (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian has a set of pronouns for its "dual" number meaning "we-two", "you-two", etc: [1] Some languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive we, French (and many other languages) have two distinct verbs for "to know" (to know how or that, and to be acquainted with), Spanish has two verbs for "to be" depending on whether the sentence concerns a temporary or an intrinsic quality... Just a few things that English doesn't have! (Just remembered: Croatian has a particle "li" which indicates the irterrogative. SaundersW (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish has no articles and next to none prepositions - it mainly uses word inflections, and postpositions (and a few prepositions) in addition to them. But it still has very many closed word classes. All conjuctions, all particles, and what little there is of postpositions and prepositions are closed. Pronouns are also closed. As a rule of thumb, it's just the nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs which are open. And the inflective and agglunative nature of Finnish can result in words such as juoksentelisinkohankaan "I wonder if I should run around aimlessly after all". JIP | Talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're taking requests here, I'd like English to come up with a first person plural pronoun (or maybe we need two) that specified whether the active listener was included or not. There have been many times when I've said something like, "We're going to the shop" and wanted to tactfully but specifically exclude the person I'm talking to. If you're in a quiet enough setting or if the person is a good listener, they could hear a difference emphasis on the word, but it's far from clear. Matt Deres (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a job for SaundersW. She (is Saunders a girl's name or a last name?) can put it on urbandictionary.com and we'll all vote for it, and just like that, a new first person plural pronoun! In the meantime, I suggest using "Lou Ferigno and I are going to the shop", so as not to use plural pronouns at all --Seans Potato Business 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Given Lou's situation, the plural might be required anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Matt, an exlusive/inclusive pronoun distinction could be very useful in that situation. The Tok Pisin solution is Yumi (you and me) vs Mipela (I+plural suffix). Steewi (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need catchy title for English report[edit]

It's about why humans need to work on colonization of Mars. 'Colonization of Mars' is a boring and bland title. Thoughts? Bellum et Pax (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marz roxxorz..23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotclaws**== (talk • contribs)

Brave New World

The Martians are Coming!

Better Red Planet than Dead Planet

On Mars one day, we'll work rest and play. [may not work outside the UK]

Life on Mars. [Especially recommended if your English teacher is a Bowie fan]

DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Red Planet than Dead Planet is pretty hot. Thanks! Bellum et Pax (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Build your own Martian

Turning the Red Planet Green

Calling All Future Martians

The Advantages of Mars-scaping

Steewi (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Greening the Red Planet" ?? Saukkomies 02:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more inspiration, see Mars Bar#Advertising slogans. A ecis^Brievenbus 08:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man has always been domesticating something: plants, animals, landscapes, ... , Earth, Moon. And now Mars?! Domestication of Mars. --217.11.17.251 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do humans need to colonize Mars? Perhaps the answer can be the title. "Putting our eggs in more than one basket: Colonizing Mars", or, "Earth Struck Out, Mars On Deck", or something less silly. Pfly (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A variation on Saukommies, and a play on Lady Macbeth's handwashing (Make the green one red...): "Make the Red one Green"? SaundersW (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]