正在查看此主题的用户
BenKenobi 说:
The second is clunky and unnatural, and from what I gather it's grammatically incorrect to throw that kind of adverb right to the end of a sentence. I think it's one of those things which has been "adopted" into English from people playing around with the language, like "more better" which I hear so often even from english teachers and people who write for a living that it might as well be in the oxford dictionary.
It is entirely grammatical. It is awkward-sounding also. And generally not done as a result.
The stress, as has been said, can be changed independently of the word order.
The stress, as has been said, can be changed independently of the word order.
On the weirdness of Hebrew verbs:
So Ancient Hebrew had a stereotypical system, it has two types of conjugation, the prefix, and the suffix, and displayes the Afroasiatic /ʔ t y n/ sequence in the prefix. There are furthermore a cohortative and imperative moods. And finally, there's the Participle, which was used in repeated actions, as a "gnomic" mood, along with the normal adjectival (actual "participle" role) use.
It goes like this for a Pa'al (form I) verb, specifically for the regular (strong) stem QTL, to kill:
Infinitive: liQṬoL
Action Noun: QṬiLa
suffix prefix cohortative imperative active participle passive participle
S1: QɔṬaLti ʔɛQṬoL ʔɛQṬoLɔ QoṬeL/QoṬɛLɛt QɔṬuL/QṬuLɔ
S2m: QɔṬaLtɔ tiQṬoL QəṬoL QoṬeL QɔṬuL
S2f: QɔṬaLt tiQṬəLi QiṬLi QoṬɛLɛt QṬuLɔ
S3m: QɔṬaL yiQṬoL QoṬeL QɔṬuL
S3f: QɔṬLɔ tiQṬoL QoṬeLɛt QṬuLɔ
P1: QɔṬaLnu niQṬoL niQṬoLnɔ QoṬeLim/QoṬeLot QṬuLim/QṬuLot
P2m: QɔṬaLtɛm tiQṬəLu QiṬLu QoṬeLim QṬuLim
P2f: QɔṬaltɛn tiQṬoLnɔ QəṬoLnɔ QoṬeLot QṬuLot
P3m: QɔṬLu yiQṬəLu QoṬeLim QṬuLim
P3f: QɔṬLu tiQṬoLnɔ QoṬeLot QṬuLot
Similar to Arabic, but lost the final short vowels in the prefix which differentiate the subjunctive and jussive moods in Fuṣḥa. And unlike Arabic, you have the cohortative.
The interesting part is the lack of morphological (conjugated) tense, as the two main conjugations only indicate aspect and the tense is inferred from semantics. The Suffix is the perfective aspect, implying an action is completed and viewed as a whole (and thus tends to be used in the past tense), while the prefix is the imperfective, implying a an action is ongoing, thus tends to be used in the present and future. There are indeed many times when the perfective aspect is used in the future: in prohetic visions, for example, where the action is viewed as certain and "already set in stone", thus fitting a perfective aspect.
Probably the most unique innovation is an addition of a w- prefix. When it is added to a verb, usually during narrative prose, it "inverts" the verb, and now the imperfective form is used as a perfective and vice versa. For example, in the sentance:
Wayomɛr Dɔwid ləSɔrey haLəwiyim... David told the leaders of the Levites... (a temple priest helper) - 1 Chronicles 15:16, NIV
"Yomɛr", which is an imperfective form is now used like a perfective one "told", not "tells" or "will tell".
This is frequently very confusing as the w- prefix is also used as the conjunction "and". This is why many translations of the bible start sentances with "And" for no apparent reason. For example, that same verse in KJV is translated as "And David spake to the chief of the Levites...". This is redundant and wrong, as the w- here is a verbal prefix, not a conjunction. This has even became a stereotypical hellmark of bible English, and one of the many reasons translations like the NIV sound "wrong" to many people.
Now, modern revived Hebrew reshuffled it: the less conjugated (only for number and gender) active participle is now a present tense, the perfective is a past tense, and the imperfective is a future tense. The w- prefix is also no longer used in the verbal sense, leading many Jews to interpret it as "and". The forms are the same, but their meaning is different, causing many uninitiated Jews to wrongly interpret verses or get confused.
Not sure why I wrote all this, but I hope you find it rather interesting, like I do.
So Ancient Hebrew had a stereotypical system, it has two types of conjugation, the prefix, and the suffix, and displayes the Afroasiatic /ʔ t y n/ sequence in the prefix. There are furthermore a cohortative and imperative moods. And finally, there's the Participle, which was used in repeated actions, as a "gnomic" mood, along with the normal adjectival (actual "participle" role) use.
It goes like this for a Pa'al (form I) verb, specifically for the regular (strong) stem QTL, to kill:
Infinitive: liQṬoL
Action Noun: QṬiLa
suffix prefix cohortative imperative active participle passive participle
S1: QɔṬaLti ʔɛQṬoL ʔɛQṬoLɔ QoṬeL/QoṬɛLɛt QɔṬuL/QṬuLɔ
S2m: QɔṬaLtɔ tiQṬoL QəṬoL QoṬeL QɔṬuL
S2f: QɔṬaLt tiQṬəLi QiṬLi QoṬɛLɛt QṬuLɔ
S3m: QɔṬaL yiQṬoL QoṬeL QɔṬuL
S3f: QɔṬLɔ tiQṬoL QoṬeLɛt QṬuLɔ
P1: QɔṬaLnu niQṬoL niQṬoLnɔ QoṬeLim/QoṬeLot QṬuLim/QṬuLot
P2m: QɔṬaLtɛm tiQṬəLu QiṬLu QoṬeLim QṬuLim
P2f: QɔṬaltɛn tiQṬoLnɔ QəṬoLnɔ QoṬeLot QṬuLot
P3m: QɔṬLu yiQṬəLu QoṬeLim QṬuLim
P3f: QɔṬLu tiQṬoLnɔ QoṬeLot QṬuLot
Similar to Arabic, but lost the final short vowels in the prefix which differentiate the subjunctive and jussive moods in Fuṣḥa. And unlike Arabic, you have the cohortative.
The interesting part is the lack of morphological (conjugated) tense, as the two main conjugations only indicate aspect and the tense is inferred from semantics. The Suffix is the perfective aspect, implying an action is completed and viewed as a whole (and thus tends to be used in the past tense), while the prefix is the imperfective, implying a an action is ongoing, thus tends to be used in the present and future. There are indeed many times when the perfective aspect is used in the future: in prohetic visions, for example, where the action is viewed as certain and "already set in stone", thus fitting a perfective aspect.
Probably the most unique innovation is an addition of a w- prefix. When it is added to a verb, usually during narrative prose, it "inverts" the verb, and now the imperfective form is used as a perfective and vice versa. For example, in the sentance:
Wayomɛr Dɔwid ləSɔrey haLəwiyim... David told the leaders of the Levites... (a temple priest helper) - 1 Chronicles 15:16, NIV
"Yomɛr", which is an imperfective form is now used like a perfective one "told", not "tells" or "will tell".
This is frequently very confusing as the w- prefix is also used as the conjunction "and". This is why many translations of the bible start sentances with "And" for no apparent reason. For example, that same verse in KJV is translated as "And David spake to the chief of the Levites...". This is redundant and wrong, as the w- here is a verbal prefix, not a conjunction. This has even became a stereotypical hellmark of bible English, and one of the many reasons translations like the NIV sound "wrong" to many people.
Now, modern revived Hebrew reshuffled it: the less conjugated (only for number and gender) active participle is now a present tense, the perfective is a past tense, and the imperfective is a future tense. The w- prefix is also no longer used in the verbal sense, leading many Jews to interpret it as "and". The forms are the same, but their meaning is different, causing many uninitiated Jews to wrongly interpret verses or get confused.
Not sure why I wrote all this, but I hope you find it rather interesting, like I do.
Feragorn 说:
Ahm... /ʕ/.
Though, prescriptivism? It's a post puerly about historical Hebrew, nothing to do with modern Hebrew, except pointing out the verb reshuffling.
It's a facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1729018840726327/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1729018840726327/
Feragorn 说:
Ahhh, excuse me for my ignorance. One of my favourite is סטטוסים בארמית, which is completely written in Talmudic Aramaic:
https://m.facebook.com/statusinaramic/?locale2=he_IL
Feragorn 说:
I should do it to Syriac, just for ****s and giggles. Or maybe the navy seals copypasta?
kurczak 说:
The latter. Chinese could probably get away with being a toneless language but there would be a lot of homophones and potential confusion with some of the rarer words. My experience with chinese lyrics is that they're relatively simple and cover a lot of the same ground. They tend not to butcher or colloquialise the grammar like japanese (mostly toneless) does.
Kentucky James 说:
Jacob is right, I think. I read that modern Chinese pop generally forgoes tone - in general, you need and can figure out things through context. But Classical chinese music does apparently attempt to confirm as much as possible to tonal contours. I believe there is some evidence ancient greek music did the same at times.
to me effective=efficace=accomplishes objective
efficient=maximum output given input
efficient=maximum output given input
Efficacy is effectiveness for people who pronounce vase as vah-se.
