 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I noticed something funny about the English language (might be similar
with many other languages as well):
Most sentences of the form "A when B" can be changed to "when B, A" and
it will still be a valid sentece and the meaning won't change. For example:
"Tom panicked when he heard the news."
"When he heard the news, Tom panicked."
"It hurts when I touch here."
"When I touch here, it hurts."
"The motor starts making funny noises when the car goes too fast."
"When the car goest too fast, the motor starts making funny noises."
"I'm happy when you are happy."
"When you are happy, I'm happy."
"Remember to take your wallet when you leave."
"When you leave, remember to take your wallet."
Can you think of any sentence of the form "A when B" which does not work
in the form "when B, A" (or the other way around)?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When in Rome, do as the Romans do! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Most sentences of the form "A when B" can be changed to "when B, A" and
> it will still be a valid sentece and the meaning won't change. For
> example:
BTW this works for lots of other words, not just "when".
Because I'm already late, I'm taking the bus.
I'm taking the bus because I'm already late.
After I've finished, I'm going home.
I'm going home after I've finished.
Although it's hot, I'm keeping my jacket on.
I'm keeping my jacket on although it's hot.
Wherever we end up, it's going to fun.
It's going to be fun wherever we end up.
...
I never thought about it before, but I guess in most cases it doesn't matter
which way round you say sentences like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b9fa1dd@news.povray.org...
>
> I noticed something funny about the English language (might be similar
> with many other languages as well):
Just *one* funny thing? :-D
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Most sentences of the form "A when B" can be changed to "when B, A" and
> it will still be a valid sentece and the meaning won't change. For example:
Most people probably believe that each word has a meaning, and putting
words together adds their meanings to create a sentence.
This is provably false, however:
This is hot.
Is this hot?
Same three words, but one is a statement, the other is a question.
To me, the weird thing about language is that just changing the order of
words can totally transform the meaning of the sentence...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> To me, the weird thing about language is that just changing the order of
> words can totally transform the meaning of the sentence...
In English yes, because the only way to tell which part of the sentence is
which is by word order. (Most?) other languages have other methods besides
just the order of the words.
This catches me out sometimes if I try to translate a phrase directly from
German to English, sometimes I get completely the wrong meaning because I
paid too much attention to the word order and not the words themselves.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> To me, the weird thing about language is that just changing the order
>> of words can totally transform the meaning of the sentence...
>
> In English yes, because the only way to tell which part of the sentence
> is which is by word order. (Most?) other languages have other methods
> besides just the order of the words.
You mean other languages use inflections to distinguish intended meanings?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b9fafd8$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Most people probably believe that each word has a meaning, and putting
> words together adds their meanings to create a sentence.
>
> This is provably false, however:
>
> This is hot.
> Is this hot?
>
> Same three words, but one is a statement, the other is a question.
"Let's eat, Grandpa!"
"Let's eat Grandpa!"
Not just good grammar, punctuation saves lives...
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> To me, the weird thing about language is that just changing the order
>>> of words can totally transform the meaning of the sentence...
>>
>> In English yes, because the only way to tell which part of the
>> sentence is which is by word order. (Most?) other languages have
>> other methods besides just the order of the words.
>
> You mean other languages use inflections to distinguish intended meanings?
Indeed. Try the slavic group of languages. When the Kat gets angry she
immediately defaults to thinking in Slovak and then translating word for
word into English - Most amusing :-)
Put down that brick, Kat. Put it ...Aaargh!
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || These opinions are mine alone, || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || others can find their own || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I noticed something funny about the English language (might be similar
> with many other languages as well):
>
> Most sentences of the form "A when B" can be changed to "when B, A" and
> it will still be a valid sentece and the meaning won't change. For
> example:
>
> "Tom panicked when he heard the news."
> "When he heard the news, Tom panicked."
...
> Can you think of any sentence of the form "A when B" which does not work
> in the form "when B, A" (or the other way around)?
I think it depends on the tense...
"Tom panicks when he hears the news." (scared of any kind of news)
"When he hears the news, Tom panicks." (some specific news)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
