Language Evolution, it's Fantastic, it's Incredible

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by a1call

Please don't try to teach a Persian how to speak Persian.

I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to tell you how to speak your language. My only point was that the word appears to have a broad range of meanings, only one of which is similar to the current meaning in English (and certainly not the same), and none of which match the historical meaning of the word in English.

Originally Posted by a1call

I don't know what your sources are

I cited the dictionary I used in my post.

Originally Posted by a1call

Ponder in its English form is closer to Persian pendar than its supposed French root of to think which is pronounced as ponse which is the whole point of my ( by now repeated at least 3 times) argument.

Yes, you keep repeating that it is "closer" without explaining how you determine that. In linguistics you describe an ordered sequence of changes, each one giving (1) an environment in which (2) a sound turns into (3) another sound. When a small sequence of changes explains a large corpus of words between two languages you have a relationship (there are more technicalities but that's the essential idea). If you have an alternative I'm game, but I think you'll need something more than a gut feeling.

Originally Posted by a1call

As for brothers/brethren, it was not very long ago when I was thought by my English teacher that saying "brothers", was as wrong as saying, "womans" or "childs", but language evolves. "Brothers" is now more proper than spelling night as nite.

Your teachers were wrong -- that was never the correct advice, at least in their or your lifetime. As I said, there are specialized cases when it can be correct to use brethren even today -- for example, the OED's definition II. 4. B. of "brother",

A person forming part of a group bound together by geographical or ethnic ties; a fellow citizen or fellow countryman; a compatriot.

could be "brother" or "brethren". But if you want to refer to two males who have the same parents you have, "brothers" is the correct word to use in English -- and it has been for several hundred years. In fact the OED has (for the ordinary sense of the word) this Old English example from 1225:

Þo two sustres wepen for here broðres deað.

which uses broðres (brothres), not brethren. In fact they don't have a single citation of that sense of the word using "brethren" or its derivatives. Every use they have of brethren is one of the specialized senses, like "member of a male religious order" (even in that sense, though, you're much more likely to see "brothers" than "brethren" today).

[a1call]

I think, i am relying too much on the old Websters. But regardless you are correct regarding the "brethren" Since I was not born much earlier than 1913.
http://www.websters1913.com/words/Brethren



Regarding the Persian-English word proximities, I am done going down that circle.
You may believe as you wish, Let's just agree to disagree.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by chalsall

My ex-wife and I used to have arguments about the correct use of "learned" vs. "learnt".

One day she said "I'm coming around to learnt

"Why," I asked, "because you've been reading the Economist?

"No", she answered, grinning. "Burnt.

I've never seen or heard "learnt" in US English. The past participle "learned" has one syllable. The adjective "learned" has two syllables. The name Learned [as in judge (Billings) Learned Hand] also has two syllables.

I have seen "burnt" used occasionally in place of "burned."

[Dubslow]

"Burnt to a crisp" comes to mind. "Burned to a crisp" just doesn't have quite the same ring.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I've never seen or heard "learnt" in US English. The past participle "learned" has one syllable. The adjective "learned" has two syllables. The name Learned [as in judge (Billings) Learned Hand] also has two syllables.

I have seen "burnt" used occasionally in place of "burned."

The fire burned.
The forest is burnt.

EDIT: However, such distinctions are being lost in a digital world in which a fair number of people can neither distinguish between "accept" and "except," nor between "there," "their," and "they're." Yes, I know I'm a geezer who grew up in a competitive Grammar NAZI home. But for me, grammatically correct constructions, with complex tenses have elegance. I did not realize how ingrained this was until I started studying French grammar. I had no problem with tenses once I set up equivalents to, "By the next time I see you I shall have had many visions of futures to which I might arrive, if I have not had any second thoughts at some time in the past."

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by kladner

The fire burned.
The forest is burnt.

Like Dr Sardonicus I have only heard this in BrE.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

The fire burned.
The forest is burnt. [snip edit]

Come to think of it, the usage I've seen of burnt has almost always been, as in the above, adjectival -- but usually referring to toast or other overcooked items. Very occasionally, I've seen or heard "burnt up" or "all burnt up" in reference to larger things like houses or forests.

Once in a while, I've heard people complain about how complicated (US) English grammar is. Drawing on my college experience, I tell them, "You think English grammar is complicated? I know a sure cure for that -- German grammar!"

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Like Dr Sardonicus I have only heard this in BrE.

I picked it ("learnt") up from reading The Economist, which is a British newspaper.

A word they also often use is "hotted-up", for example "the China market is hotted-up". Never felt quite right (read: correct) to me...

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by chalsall

A word they also often use is "hotted-up", for example "the China market is hotted-up". Never felt quite right (read: correct) to me...

I haven't heard that, but I've not been to the UK lately.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kladner

However, such distinctions are being lost in a digital world in which a fair number of people can neither distinguish between "accept" and "except," nor between "there," "their," and "they're."

What about "effect" vs. "affect"? I still have trouble with that one when writting.

Originally Posted by kladner

Yes, I know I'm a geezer who grew up in a competitive Grammar NAZI home. But for me, grammatically correct constructions, with complex tenses have elegance.

Indeed! Seconded.

At least with computer languages you have a compiler/interpreter between you and the processor, telling you when you've made a grammatical error (but not, importantly, that what you meant to say is actually what you said; "Do What I Mean" (DWIM) is a coveted instruction).

There was a time when most human language writers had a human editor between them and the reader. Very rare now-a-days.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by chalsall

A word they also often use is "hotted-up", for example "the China market is hotted-up". Never felt quite right (read: correct) to me...

Nor should it. Those folks at the Economist have a lot to answer for. Instead of achieving freshness through novelty, they have achieved a "new" way of expression that is born tired.

"Hotted" is an especially egregious case of verbing. For one thing, it is usually nouns are tortured into verb-hood, whereas "hot" is an adjective. For another, there are the verb forms "heating" and "heated" already available. "Hotted-up" is an aggravated form of this linguistic crime.

There are any number of ways of expressing the same thought without infesting the language with congenitally trite neologisms. For example,

"The China market is heating (has been heating) (has heated) up (lately)."

"The China market is (getting) hot."

"The China market is (wild) (seething) (effervescent) (exploding)."