Some minutiae of language. Joseph G. Moreno de Alba publicamos Hoy algunas del lenguaje del Minucia estudioso Mexican Jose G. Moreno de Alba. This is a linguist, scholar, researcher and scholar born in Jalisco, Mexico, in 1940.
Here is a brief author's biobliográfica tab.
made his first studies in Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes. He moved to Mexico City where he joined the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), where he earned a degree in Language and Literature in 1968. She completed her MA in Hispanic Linguistics in 1970 and a doctorate in the same field in 1975.
postgraduate studies in phonology and phonetics in 1967, Semantics and Dialectology in 1968, Language Contact in 1969, the Andalusian dialect in 1970, tagmemics in 1971, Transformations in 1972, and contemporary linguistics in 1975 at the Center Hispanic Linguistics at UNAM. During 1970, El Colegio de Mexico studied Intonation Hispanic and General Dialectology.
emeritus researcher at the Institute of Philological Research of UNAM. As a visiting professor has taught at eighteen universities in Britain, France, Canada, United States, the Netherlands. From 1969 to 1973 he was professor of Hispanic and English Philology at the Universidad Iberoamericana Superior and from 1986 to 1989 he was a visiting professor at El Colegio de Mexico.
number entered as a member of the Mexican Academy of Language on March 10, 1978, occupying the chair XV, was censor from 1992 to 2000, librarian from 2000 to 2003 and since 2003 he serves as director. Since 1983 a member of the International Association of Hispanics. Inside the UNAM has directed the Center for Teaching of Foreign Languages, the Faculty of Arts and Education Center for Foreigners. From 1991 to 1999 he was director National Library of Mexico. In 1996 he was appointed secretary of the Association of Linguistics and Philology of Latin America (ALFAL). It is a national researcher emeritus of the National System of Researchers. (Source: Wikipedia).
Some of the texts of Joseph G. Moreno de Alba
• Values \u200b\u200bof verb forms in English from Mexico in 1978.
• nominal derivational morphology in Mexican English, 1986.
• English in America in 1991.
• Minutiae language in 1992. • Differences lexical
between Spain and America in 1992.
• English pronunciation of Mexico in 1994.
• New minutiae of language in 1996.
• The prefixation of Mexican English in 1996.
texts present some trifles from its language, new language and Sum minutia minutiae of language. All of them recovered from the website of the Economic Culture Fund (http://www.fondodeculturaeconomica.com), a publishing label that has published much of his work.
The texts are annexed are unusual in addressing issues specific to the language and its use, but with the emphasis on simplicity and brevity exposure, useful illustration of the cases treated in specific texts, the rigorous process of documentation and reflection based on assumptions about the origin, use and development of revised words, they work to identify and peculiarizan philological work of Joseph G. Moreno de Alba and make it consistent for a broad audience, both for the student or specialist and the student and the reader interested in these issues.
The word comes from the Latin word minutia minutia, smallness. Latin was referring to dust or tiny particles that settled on things. Moreno de Alba takes the sense to think out of 'petty' own our use of the English language, focusing its arguments on the use of words, evolution is highlighted and recorded in the literature written in English, various dictionaries and also in everyday usage we carry in our language.
Without further ado here are some minutiae of language according to Moreno de Alba:
bus / truck
In Mexico, public transport vehicle and both fixed-route that makes the service within the city limits as to which links several cities together is called, as in most of the Hispanic world, bus, but also, and perhaps more frequently, truck . In English general, by contrast, is called the vehicle truck only four or more wheels used to carry large loads. Obviously, also in Mexico is called the truck to the type of vehicle. This does not however, preclude that transports people to be appointed with the same word. I have already mentioned in another note to the origin of the word bus. The term truck, meanwhile, comes from the French (truck), language that has long been referred to a "kind of heavy truck, used to carry modern loads or large, very heavy burdens from the docks in ports and from railway stations to their destinations "(Twelfth Edition 1884, Academic Dictionary). Since the first decades of the last century no longer a simple "car" and becomes a motor vehicle.
I have not found any information or news that explains the reason why, only in Mexico, buses are also called trucks. I repeat: I have not found, it does not mean none exist. Some explanations I've read do not seem convincing. For example, Santamaria, in his Dictionary of Mexican, truck, writes: "automobile for many load, which is also used to drive passengers." I do not understand well: since can carry a heavy load also leads passengers simultaneously?, do some trucks to bring suit, rather than cargo, passengers? Subject someone to provide me with better explanations or I find them, I venture, in the following lines, a modest proposal.
Top noting that the first records of Mexican trucks in the texts contained in the CORDE (Diachronic Corpus of English) are the novel The Firefly (1932), by Mariano Azuela. I guess in previous Mexican texts, not included in the cord, the word truck is used to mean 'loading vehicle. " The funny thing is that in this, the oldest of the corpus in which it appears the word truck, be it the meaning of public passenger vehicle and not cargo. Go just one example: "The officers were in your home with an attachment at eight o'clock. "I do not know ..." Ten came out to await the passage of your truck for Donceles ... You climbed the grass and you ask your assistant. "Assumptions ..."
Why the bus is called in Mexico truck? Perhaps it is due-this is the scenario that I venture to suggest, at a crossing of the words truck and van (voice which can be explained as derived from the English truck or French castellanización camionette), or a contamination of one of the meanings of the voice pickup truck. Try to explain. First, it should be noted that in some geographical and historical varieties of English, the word was used truck-and-still used to mean 'bus' or' some kind of bus. " In the twentieth edition (1984) Dictionary of academia, the third meaning of truck is literally as follows: "In some parts also designates the bus."
In the dictionary manual 1989, notes: "some kind of bus." And finally, in the latest release, the 22 th edition of 2001, the second meaning of truck is just 'bus'.
The first records of truck with the sense of 'bus' are in the cord, rather old. I think that's the meaning of the word in the following passage from the book Notes of a Moroccan soldier (1920), English Ernesto Giménez Caballero:
There is Tetuan as a flock of pigeons killed in a hill. Some birds, big, beautiful, and ibis, flying slowly under the clear sky, where they begin to reveal the first stars. Smell of the sea, subtle, we dilate the windows of the nose. And the truck comes tumbling down the streets of Rio Martin.
In this sense the word is also documented in texts Paraguayans, Chileans, Peruvians ... There is no reason to think that, but not counted in the cord with records that prove the use of voice pickup with the sense of 'bus' Mexican texts, at one time been employed here the term with that meaning and, shortly thereafter, was preferred, perhaps because of its brevity, truck, truck floor next to not only be of the same family, but also the voice to be primitive, at least in French, had given rise to precisely the derived van (camionette). Note also that the designation bus, according to the cord, is in Mexico well after truck, since the first documents matched the 1950's.
habemos many
HAVE THE WORD comes from the Latin habere, whose first meaning is 'having'. In this regard little used today, precisely because to do so as we use to have or possess. Have virtually been limited to work as an adjunct to the compound tenses (I sang) and circumlocution required (I sing).
has however also as one-person full force at all times of the combination ("There, there, there will be party.") In this case, it is difficult to see today that the verb to have preserved the original meaning of 'have' and that this construction appears to be analyzed as consisting of tacit and undefined subject, verb and direct object-person, which can be singular or plural . In the sentence "there was frost, frost noun direct object was not its subject, not only grammatically but semantically undefined tacit. There is no shortage of philology students who encounter this phenomenon from the same Latin ("habuit homines in Noe Ark," which means "the ark of Noah there were men) who live object is frozen" ice was "not subject, is fully tested by permutation by direct objective pronoun (the "there") and not by subjective pronoun (* "they were").
There has always been confusion between the meaning the speaker gives this type of construction (noun as subject) and the true value of speech (noun as direct object). This explains the widespread tendency to pluralize the verb to do so consistent with its alleged plural subject (which is not subject but object.) It is quite common, even in grown people, to hear expressions like "there were many cars," there were several problems, "incorrectly pluralized verb-man, when is the right thing" * had a lot of cars "," * there were some problems. " He usually pluralized any auxiliary verb be accompanying the one-man "in the ocean * must have men like that."
confuse object
This subject is evident when an object is an inclusive plural, that is, if somehow it is within the speaker and, if so, not infrequently occurring words such as "* habemos many dissatisfied ", which not only the verb pluralization but it also changes the grammatical person who moves from third to first. Note that, precisely because of its one-person, it is impossible to use the verb be tinged inclusive: if you say "There are many unhappy" should not necessarily be understood that the speaker is included. It is therefore necessary, if you want to emphasize this is inclusive, to use another word: "there are many dissenters," for example.
This confounding is peculiar to the spoken language, but also in literature, particularly in South America, as in the following examples (taken Charles Kany, where Hispanic syntax): "* There were several gentlemen in the arena" (Lynch, Argentina), "* They were going to be games of artifice" (Dragi Lucero, Argentina), "On the floor were two beautiful roosters * "(Lillo, Chile)," was reluctant to marriage like the 'there were few "(Muñoz, Chile)," Before, they had houses everywhere * "(Gallegos, Venezuela).
provide / give / give a lecture
not a few who believe that if an expression is used by all or nearly all should be seen as awkward, as vulgar, and are dedicated to finding hard a substitute more original. These people are known as pedantic, that is, unwelcome flaunt erudition. They say, for example, "the professor give a lecture," the doctor teaches the class "because they seem to be used in these cases the verb give (" give a lecture, a class ") is, if not improper, it to less common.
Provide
is certainly synonymous but certainly give himself the language called worship, and if it feels natural in this or that written text, no longer shocking in the spoken language. Imagine telling our children, "Father, impártenos our Sunday." I think there is no reason to say if you can teach that to teach.
Angel Rosenblat The great scholar wrote an article on this tasty subject, in particular on the employment issue to give. There was quite rightly see that issue is not the same as giving. It enacts a law, decree, order, but not a class or a conference. A certain non-elected leaders are called dictators, a teacher, obviously, no. The DRAE, meanwhile, said that issue has the following meanings: a) say something breaks a necessary or convenient for someone else to be writing ', no one wants a class or conference as well. b) In the case of laws, rulings, judgments, etc. give them, issuing them, pronounce them ', not the case of a class or conference. 'To inspire, to suggest', this is a figurative meaning that has nothing to do with teaching or lectures.
Rosenblat
himself defends the hypothesis that the use of issue of giving is more ancient and common in Argentina and Chile than in other places in America (it seems that is known in Spain) and hence could be extended. Also seen as a likely source for the Italian word (an important influence in Argentina), language that sounds absolutely normal one conferenza dettare expression. In Mexico today is certainly used to be dictated by spoken and written language, but still believe it is more appropriate as simple and not as far-fetched, and I think therefore that it is better to give than to impart or teach classes.
half silly / half silly
THE PHENOMENON OF ADVERBIALIZACIÓN of adjectives has been widely studied in the grammars and is very common in spoken and written English, play slow, come quick, unwise, and so on. The Grammar of the Academy in 1962 noted that "the adjectives used as adverbs are always used in the masculine ending of the singular number, in this case is to be neutral, for referring the adjective to the verb, which, as we know, no gender. "
In the case of" slow play ", what happens is that the word play is modified by the word slowly, in that context and for that reason it works as an adverb is an adverb, even though in other statements can act as an adjective (played slow).
That is, strictly from a functional standpoint, the voice does not slow is neither adjective or adverb, but functions as one or the other depending on the context, though perhaps for reasons often etymological or statistics, only explains DRAE slow (a) as an adjective, and perhaps thereby discuss adverbialización same adjectives and adverbs adjetivización not.
However it is usual to explain the morphology and syntax treated a case, not strictly opposite, but some have designated as adjetivización of adverbs.
In the sentence "she is half silly" it is clear that the word environment functions as an adverb, modifying the adjective because it is silly, and the only kind of words that serves to modify the adjective is an adverb. It is however very common to hear the phrase "it is * half dumb." Because no gender adverb, could be seen in this use case of adjetivización adverb. This however is not possible, as it would if the adjective mean, it does have female, would modify the adjective foolish, agreeing with him in gender and number.
What happens is that all purism aside, it is unacceptable and the sentence ungrammatical * media silly (no one would say, either by case, "it is * little smart"), because although there is certainly the word means (to ) (half, for example) always modify a noun, never to another adjective, and that this has precisely the English adverbial category (mean stupid), which has no gender and can be modified, without changing its termination, different adjectives
indigenous
IN A LETTER TO THE ADDRESS Reforma newspaper (3/23/2001), Mr. Rene Reyes Fuentes complains columnist Sergio Sarmiento the wrong job, in his view, of the word indigenous. The question asked Sarmiento ("How many Indians are in the Cocopa?") And writing his answer: "As far as I know, none," replied Mr. Fuentes said, "all members of the Cocopa are indigenous , what the difference is the location where they are ... " In fact, we are all Indians, in accordance with the meaning that dictionaries give that voice. The English Royal Academy (twenty-first edition: 1992) explains that Indigenous simply means' originating from the country concerned. " What may be controversial is that the indigenous voice in Mexico, is used to attack (to attack us and make a difference in a profoundly racist society ...", writes René Fuentes). I have the impression that in Mexican English has long been using the term Indian rather than Indian precisely because India ended up with these undesirable connotations referred Reyes Fuentes. No doubt now Indian also used, in certain contexts and situations, with discriminatory effect. Not yet coining "a phrase that replaces" and will no longer be discriminated against the Indians. Any other designation will be used for offensive and insulting if the aim is the offense and insult. I remember long ago witnessed a fight because someone in Mexico, he shouted something like "Would you leave to be Mexican!" another who had to throw rubbish in a corner. In this situation, in that context, the Mexican word functioned as an offense. Is the use of a word for certain purposes, at the time and with this or that intonation which is the offense. No remedy by changing the word. What is the injury should be avoided.
As an argument to prove itself the Indian word has pejorative connotations, the author of the letter that says I'm commenting on your computer are suggested as synonyms voices such as savage, cannibal, cannibalism, cape, Bedouin ( addition to native, aboriginal, barbaric and Indian). No doubt the computer has built the program Word, but in the version 6.0 for the years 83-94. It was such a number of criticisms made of the manufacturer for their shoddy proofreading tools, and very prominently on its abysmal thesaurus, they were forced to change it completely. In Word 95 are synonyms for native indigenous, natural and Aboriginal. In the 2000 version of Word the synonym list grew, but all are more or less acceptable: native, natural, native, native, aboriginal, indigenous, Indian, vernacular, regional. It is noteworthy that in the intermediate version, the 95, all looking foolish in the previous version, also has been removed that should have been one: India. Well done to recover the most recent version (2000). In fact, most others are not synonymous with indigenous or English in Mexico or any other party, but instead, I think so it is Indian, at least in Mexican English. Where they said or wrote Indian insensibly tends to say and write Indian.
access
even hold that there is no need to resort to neologism access, own computer jargon, since the normal English form has access. I, for my part, there are notable differences between the two verb. The meaning has long been recognized to access is' consent to what someone else wants. " Only until the twentieth first edition of the Academy, in his Dictionary, added another meaning to that word. Today is already sanctioned, either by case, the meaning of 'having access to a place or a higher status. " Accessed from the Latin, meaning 'come'. It is considered part of the current English vocabulary Latin (the) second prize (third person singular preterite accessed), which now has the particular meaning of 'less immediate reward for the award in scientific and literary events', ie the recognition that closer to first place.
The impediment to access to use the verb (as opposed to access) in computing vocabulary is not so much its meaning but on reasons of syntactic nature. Access is, according to all dictionaries, an intransitive verb, which is built without a direct object: can not access someone someone (or something), but only someone can access something and that something can not be a taxable person ("the mountaineer agreed to the summit, "but not * the summit was accessed by the mountain climber). In computer language, as far as I understand it, access works as long as verb transitive, that is always a direct object (subject in the passive): Access information means something like 'brought to me the information,' 'I did that information appear on the screen ', etc. This is why it often is used to access the passive participle (information access) or the verb appears in the passive voice access (the information was accessed.)
Obviously access is an anglicized. Access to English means 'Opportunity of Reaching or using' [opportunity to reach or use]. Has a clear sense transitive. Thus it is said, in English: access to information. All of us wonder whether or not access proper use of English. But there appears to be a English verb that accurately equivalent, semantically and syntactically, to to access (for example, Allegan, transitive certainly does not have that exact sense). Would need to use more or less complicated circumlocution, nor are completely equivalent: make available, for example. The anglicized access is made under the rules of English morphology and, more importantly, is used increasingly wider frequency among a larger number of English speakers. Speakers are not academics, that govern the language. And perhaps it is now time to incorporate it into the dictionaries.
access
THIS WORD, from the Latin access ('close') better than ad and cedere (ay 'retire')-as noted by DRAE-had, until the nineteenth edition of 1970, only the meaning of 'consent to what another request or want' or the 'give one their views. " It was therefore criticized as Gallicism, using access to the meaning of 'access' to something: "John Doe came to power," for example. Obviously there was no problem in saying "So and so had access to power", because the voice seemed accessible and defined as "action to reach or approach." Other forms, accepted in 1970, including the sense of 'come' were accessible and runners-up (lower reward for which is about to the top of a contest).
Among the many changes and additions to the twentieth edition of DRAE (1984), were two new meanings, 3 and 4, in the entry access 'access, passage or entrance to a place' and 'to access a situation, condition or higher degree, reach. " As seen, with these newly accepted definitions, there is no reason to say "John Doe agreed to my house" or "Zutano came to power", without, of course, no longer correct other constructions of "Joe agreed to stay" ('consented ').
is likely that the value of access as 'come' is older in French than in English and, therefore, be dismissed as Gallicism the use of this verb in English, with that sense. However, in my opinion, there is every reason to justify the addition of these meanings in the DRAE: first, the undeniable fact of their increasingly widespread use among educated speakers, but also correct etymological basis on which to sustain meanings added since the first Latin dictionary meaning of the verb are always accessed is just 'get, come, come. "
a / ha / ah! / Ha
SOMETIMES A SIGN LANGUAGE (one word) can be formed by a single phoneme. Such is the case of a, ha, ah, ha, words in which the phoneme / a / phoneme not accompanied by any more (the h is a letter that does not represent or sound or phoneme). Apparently I should not have trouble spelling such a voice: a (no h) is a preposition; has is a form of the verb to have, ah, usually accompanied by an exclamation (¡!), is an interjection, and finally, to can sometimes be as ancient and rare, ha (with accent), rather than have (had) with the courage to do ("ha long time no see "), although the most common is to write without an accent (ha). It is remarkable that even in the use of these very short words committed gross misspellings. See some examples.
Volume
some daily the following texts: 1) "to be 'out', which * has by now seems increasingly desirable ..."; 2)" we are all subject * has made mistakes ", 3)" and what impact * have you had in your life to be red? "4)" has criticized many who say direct their efforts only * has to gain peace and justice ", 5)" rock and roll is not * a dead ".
In paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 has been written by a, ie the preposition be confused with the verb. They are prepositions, which are not h: at this point, we are subject to, guide efforts a. On the contrary, subsection 3, the confusion is the opposite, since use was made of the preposition in place of the verb, which should be written with h: had. The rule, in short, is very simple: take the form h corresponding to the present of the verb to have (has) h will be written without the preposition (a).
One observation regarding the interjection. The twenty-first edition of DRAE (1992) notes the way ha! as allomorph, as Spelling equivalent ah! That is, as the authorized vocabulary, can be written as interjection ah! As ha!: "Ah, how clever you are!" and "Ha, how clever you are!" As expected, virtually all other dictionaries, which largely limited to transcribe some of the items and meanings DRAE, repeat the same, ie scoring, as an interjection, the way ha! In old prints from the lexicon of the Academy already appears that way ha! as a variant of ah, like that of 1925 (fifteenth edition). For my part I think that in the current English rule (and very probably in a long time ago), nobody has written! by ah! I would recommend to simplify the spelling, which many would see healthy, delete article ha! DRAE.
to see / have
NORMALLY a spelling error does not correspond to a phonological error, that is not often the confusion of phonemes by speakers of a given dialect when you use alphabetic writing, although with obvious limitations, intended to reflect the phonological system of language. So what in Mexican English (and the American general) is simple misspelling (written, for example, "I will * marry a hare") can become, in another dialect in phonological confusion: the same sentence, but written by a Madrid, either by case, as in Madrid s is a phoneme (alveolar) and z is another (interdental), which in Mexico does not happen again and then letters (or graphs) correspond to a single phoneme (alveolar). Just the obvious explanation is the spelling mistake in the voices that are pronounced the same and are spelled differently, sometimes confusing pairs of words that are phonological-semantic oppositions (house / hunting, go / fence, etc.) sometimes resulting in spellings exist (* occasion, * Jendara, * avitasión ...).
More rare is the occurrence of spelling errors that involve a diverse set of words or phrase. There is no shortage, however, some interesting cases. Note the following two statements: 1) "Let * be who wins in Sunday's game" 2) "How delicious is resting after * to see worked!" It is clear that in subsection 1 appears to be on view and that the 2 is written to see where it should be noted. Also you may have noticed that manifests itself in misspellings 1 is much more common than is exemplified by 2. This is confusing for whose explanation is necessary to address the relationships are between various words (two in this case) and therefore constitute a type of errors for which correction is not enough common consulting a dictionary (which is certainly an entry to have but not provided, a specific input to see).
One possible explanation for these misspelled phrase could be that at least one of the words involved in the confusion does not have a clear semantic value for the speakers, ie in that case there is no clear meaning attached to graphic image of the word. Note that, in the example, there is a simple infinitive auxiliary times conjugate compounds and therefore no precise lexical meaning, in this case, it is difficult for the spelling mistake speakers have already seen. This obviously adds to the fact that phonics is exactly the same in both cases, therefore, on the one hand, both the b as the v, centuries ago, are pronounced as bilabial (although there are some who, smugly, try labiodental articulate as the v, error in my opinion as bad as the mistake of writing), and secondly, the presence of the h silent in there does not mean that the phonemes are heard as having (four), which those on view ( the same four, but give rise to two different linguistic words or signs).
a bird / a bird
centuries of English grammar is explained that for reasons of euphony, the feminine definite article is changed to the masculine when noun that follows begins with a root (the eagle and the eagle not * the fairy and the fairy not *). It however retains the feminine form as between the article and the noun is inserted any words (the sweet talk and sweet talk no *) and also when the item comes before an adjective (the arid plains and barren plain not * .) These requirements appear since the first editions of the Grammar of the Academy.
On the contrary, the rules for the use of the indefinite article before a noun with initial tonic never been sufficiently explicit. For example, in nineteenth-century academic grammars usually not recorded prescription. That is as it should be maintained using one or according to gender of the noun that was (a bird, for example).
grammar rules in a well-known late nineteenth century, the Mexican Rafael Ángel de la Peña, however you can read the following rule: "A lost apócope the vowel before names starting with the same stressed vowel. "provides examples of the classics," which is seeing a soul fall into sin "(St. Teresa)," the need is so strong a weapon "(Ribadeneyra ), "an English governess (Juan Valera).
's edition of the Academy Grammar of 1931 appears a rule drafted in eclectic (if not contradictory)," similarly to what happens with the way female definite article or indefinite numeral one sometimes loses the end before words that begin with a sharp, so call a soul. It should, however, preferred, in general, to always distinguish the feminine form of the male. "
Finally, the outline of a new grammar of English (1973), the Academy still undecided," and female is employed, and sometimes considerably less, before feminine singular noun beginning with the phoneme vowel / a /,-o has written, "when has stress accent and immediately follows the indefinite: a bird, an aria." Clearly, the change of position between editing 1931 ("should be preferred one ...") and the Sketch of 1973 (" is employed, and sometimes considerably less ...").
my opinion that need good study preference (A bird or a bird) in good contemporary writers, as only reliable data in this regard may be recommended or otherwise.
satisfaré / satisfy
MEET THE WORD comes from the Latin suit (of satisfaction, 'pretty' and facere, 'make') and means' to fulfill a desire or an obligation, satisfy an appetite. " From the point of view of historical phonology, it is interesting to note that, contrary to the general rule that suppresses the initial f-facere (whose loss is indicated by the spelling molt h: do), meet the conservation, the that converts voice into a Latinism semiculto.
This verb should present no particular difficulty over the combination, considering that he observed the same irregular morphology of the verb do, well known by the speakers: the first person present indicative throughout the present subjunctive la-c,-g is changed to: "I meet (the others are regular this time), meet, meet, etc.., in copretérito is regular (satisfying).
times, however, in my view, have higher incidences of failure by many speakers are on the one hand, the bygone (Indicative and subjunctive) and, secondly, the future and pospretérito (indicative). With respect to the bygone, it is not unusual to hear (and write) * satisfying y * satisfy the correct place I met and satisfied. Sufficient notice is not said * * haciera it did or did and do. What happens is simply that speakers, by the law of analogy, become a regular verb is irregular. In other words, they are driven by the fact that regular verbs ending in-er make the past tense in-t (I ran, I read, etc..) And regularize the past to satisfy saying * satisfying, forgetting that this verb is conjugated as do irregular. The indicative irregular preterite (vowel mutation by i) is maintained in the past subjunctive: satisfied, not * satisfy (regularization analog).
Perhaps even more frequent mistake is to regulate the future and pospretérito indicative. The verb to have irregularities in these times: I will and would. As seen, the irregularity is a decrease in the future syllable regularly, it being recalled that the rule for future training in English (and other languages \u200b\u200bderived from Latin) is to add the ending-e or-a (s) (from the verb to have: I, ha, ha, etc.) to the infinitive: run-e: run (run, run, etc.). The same applies to the pospretérito, which is gramema-ed, which meets do verb that is not pospretérito future * and * who which to do but I will and would. When speakers say * * suit and would meet are not doing anything but apply the rule to an irregular verb. If you do meet conjugates as the only correct way for the future and pospretérito are, respectively, and satisfy satisfaré.
haiga
few weeks ago, during the most important news from television, chatting with the presenter, one of the most conspicuous politicians of the country said in all seriousness, something like the following: "Haiga haiga past what happened." I thought I had misheard. However, several people had been equally surprised, one of them a cult journalist who dedicated one of his columns to the incident. Certainly we know that President Calderón had coined, referring to past elections, the famous phrase "as they say in my village: haiga been like haiga been." The politician I speak of, will there be glossed the famous sentence? Maybe. But I gave that impression.
Haiga (and aiga) in there, present subjunctive of credit, came to be used for a classic and is now quite common in popular and rural talk. Menéndez Pidal observes that could influence it, by way of pollution, other verb forms are also at that time g verbal, without possessing the infinitive, as worth (worth), fall (down), hear (hear), etc. . In a passage from the book of life, death, virtues and miracles of St. Teresa of Jesus (1591), Fray Luis de León, can read the following:
"It is written God is love and if love is infinite love and infinite goodness, and such love and kindness to and no wonder that such excesses aiga love that disturb those who do not know him, and although much you know by faith. "
standard in the contemporary English, both written as the spoken, only used there. The use of Haig is now reduced to rural areas or popular, but in these records is far more common than you might think . A few years ago did some tests on Ceneval drafting young freshmen in high school. I had access to some of these texts. It required the student to answer the following question: "What and how would you do to improve society in which we live? "I quote an excerpt from one of the answers:" Basically we take so much corruption and q 'aiga aunq severe punishment' x at least get to work is giving
...".
In the written language of all time has always preferred the way there. Haiga or aiga has been and is much less than sporadic employment. However, unequivocal evidence that Haig was and is very common in the record vulgar becomes the high frequency with which writers Traditionalists of the nineteenth and early twentieth haiga put into the mouths of their popular characters. abounds in this way in the narrative texts Pérez Galdós, Pereda, Güiraldes Carrasquilla, Benavente, Valle-Inclán, Mayor of Rio Gallegos, Azuela, Arniches, Valera, Gabriel y Galán, Ascasubi ... There could be hundreds of examples. Suffice it to one of José María de Pereda (The puchera, 1889):
"When he saw the thing I was on point, I told him: 'Well, I had to Decit respetive two words this and that'. And it provides finely, without faltale, come on ... no faltale or as well, recongrio! The man was at first something Cortao; dempués golvió to tell me: 'And I fell with it? ". And I arrespondí' Well so and so ', always finely recongrio, without faltale Angun a thing! At last I said: 'That the haiga hablao or not, is not your own account'. "
Someone may ask: Is it correct to say haiga for you? Perhaps the correct term (or wrong) is not as own. Some linguists believe that only wrong what is against the structural rules of language as abstract system. In other words, native speakers, strictly, we can not speak correctly, as neither can do the native anglophones. Such be appropriate to better use the term copy (or copy), which applies not only to the abstract system of language but to the specific language called historical. So, which is exemplary for some speakers may not be for others. The issue in the European dialect of English (like saying "I write a letter" to "I write a letter") may not be in the U.S. and vice versa: when a Mexican says "opens to 11" for "not open until 11 "is using a low copy expression to the ears of a European speaking.
illiterate English
If two are talking, none of the two you will notice that one says there haiga instead. Perhaps not even notice it. But speakers educated, literate and, moreover, tend to read and write, have decided from said and written centuries ago has, not Haig. Indeed, it is a convention ... neither more nor less. Therefore, for the standard of English rule, the lesson is there. This was not a decision by the school teachers or scholars of the language, or government, but of all educated English speakers, good writers in front, it should be. Therefore, if someone wants to speak to such people, moderately educated, they should tell you, not Haig. That should teach school. Out of respect for society is that the form to be used, for example, radio or television.
Moreover, as is clearly haiga "Stigmatizing" who uses it is marked as belonging to social group of people not educated, but for other reasons (having gone to college, whether by case) is not, strictly speaking, part of it. I think educated people, ie the vast majority of the population would not want to be ruled by an uneducated person, if only on the linguistic level. It, therefore, that politicians, aware that talk like educated people can carry the not inconsiderable benefit of being better received, better heard by the (very influential) society of educated people. On the contrary, will not miss the city choosing to carry the point of not voting for who said in public rather than have haiga. Their (respected) have reasons.
today (in) day
IN THE ARTICLE "TODAY" THE DRAE, 2001 (twenty-second edition) No expression is explained today (en) day, although do register other, seemingly less important or unusual, as of today is tomorrow or today. So the issue has been happening since 1817. Deliveries for the years 1780, 1783, 1791 and 1803, today the phrase is included with the meaning 'at the present time or season, now. " In 1803, the sentences are added in addition to today and the day today. The three are deleted from the edition of year 1817 to the most recent (2001). One might think that these expressions were eliminated because they are judged the same meaning as the adverb today. Not so: According to the same DRAE (2001), now means' on this day, in the present day ', and in accordance with the edition of 1803 (and earlier), now means' at this time or season, now. " I think that in modern English this opposition persists, today = 'on this day' and today = 'at the present time, now. " It says "today my breakfast (or breakfast) early, "but not" * Today I had breakfast early. "Therefore, both (today, today) should be explained in the lexicon of the Royal English Academy.
" the editors have decided to withdraw this expression dictionary for little used in contemporary English You can not be that reason. Today it is usual in all registers (colloquial, formal, literary, journalistic, etc.) of all dialects Current English. Will it be a neologism vitando? By no means: the phrase has venerable age and enjoys the prestige it gives you that great writers, classic and contemporary, have used and used. In accordance with the voluminous data Diachronic Corpus of English (the English Royal Academy), the oldest record (1325) of the expression seems to correspond to Don Juan Manuel (El Conde Lucanor): "Et fízoles so well that today days are inherited those coming from their generations. " One could cite many passages of the classics which is the term I'm commenting. Basten the lines from Quevedo
I do not dislike allegory:
The horned animal, we know: That this virtue
have it today:
Many good men who know
current Good writers use it often. See the following passage from Manuel Puig: "He believes in himself and all he says. It is this that today is so hard to find: authenticity." There are innumerable passages of excellent texts in which contemporary writers, quite properly, used the phrase that is being explained. Because of its significance ('now, at the present time'), the verb that goes with it or that the phrase is usually referred to in the present. Therefore calls attention to the following text Sarduy, in which the phrase now refers to a verb in the imperfect: "As for evergreens, admittedly, had been rejuvenated. Was now a mujeranga groomed and rather slender, erect ..." There was some contradiction between (past) and now ('now'). Maybe I could have written "was then a ..."
today comes from the Latin hodie. Hodie, in turn, seems to come from die hoc, case ablative phrase could be translated literally 'on this day. " Given the etymology, it remains therefore to be somewhat redundant phrase today, because it is saying something like 'in this day by day. " However, the etymology of today (\u0026lt; hodie \u0026lt;hoc die) is not transparent to the speakers and, therefore, today is not perceived as redundant. You may think that even if you say "this morning", "this afternoon", "tonight", you can also say "today in (the) day" to bring the whole of that period (24 hours .) This is meant not just 'all day today,' but just 'now', 'at the present time. "
I said that in the DRAE published in 1803, he explained, also today, two phrases: today and in the day today, according to the lexicon that mean the same thing ('now in the this time '). The first (today), although less common than today, has full force in contemporary English. It is also used by good writers. Its antiquity is perhaps greater, though in the early documentation of the thirteenth century, seems to have the meaning of 'now, at the present time' but of 'on this day, today', as seems to be seen in the following passage from an anonymous document of the Cathedral of León, 1288:
Et
us by e fazer rather more thanks to the bishop and the council (...) grant from today onwards to the bishop and the council (... ) all other things tenements ho ayan qualesquier (...) that takes away and postage free and (...)
However, a few years later, in the fourteenth century, the phrase now goes to mean 'now, in time present ', as evidenced by the following text, also anonymous, taken from the "Chronicle of a very brave king Ferdinand the quarto": "E Villalón and I tell them to the right and aviation, this trucks received them and are today in possession and possession dello. It is interesting to transcribe a passage from the General History of the Things of New Spain, Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, in which appear the two sentences (now and today) in the same line: "... and old buildings from their homes and liming appears today. They are found today also Blurbs first fact ..."
Finally, the expression today in the day is no use in modern English. Seems to have some (little) effect from the late eighteenth to early twentieth century. Although sporadic, can be used by prestigious writers of that era, as Mariano José de Larra, who is the following: "To know I steal, I sing a different story, and it would need to be today in the day liberal, before I could be anything to give me the win. "
In short, the drafters should DRAE return to include in the article "today", the phrase today, and today, with the meaning of 'now, at the present time. " This would be fully justified both because it is in force expressions, as in our language because they have special meaning, different from the one with the adverb today. The phrase in today's day can keep out of the dictionary, due to their zero force in modern English, however, must be explained by the great historical dictionary that is preparing the Royal English Academy.
why, why, why
Who does not want to enter lucubrations complicated syntactic word defined as 'a separate segment of the other segments white spaces', ie for it is based on written text and make use of orthographic criteria. Well, then it is worth remembering that sometimes make spelling flaws that separate segments that belong together or vice versa. Very often, for example, typing dictation typists and correct it where it may well be also.
There is sometimes confusion in the writing of certain segments and phrases formed by the preposition plus the particle. To ask a question why it is used, which becomes a phrase consisting of more interrogative pronoun preposition that should be marked and therefore it is, spelled in two words: "Why do not you come?"
The answer to that question begins, is introduced by a subordinating conjunction causal, which consists of a single word without accent graphics spelling and prosodic accent on the first syllable (because): "Why not you here? "Because I could not."
Finally, many are unaware that there is also a reason, a single word acute accent spelling in é. It is a masculine noun corresponding to 'cause, reason or motive', as the DRAE. So shall it be written: "I do not know the reason for your absence, where why, as a synonym for cause, is the direct object to ignore and, as a noun that is, it also complements adnominal (in your absence) you edit.
"March 10, or 2000?
ON THE WEBSITE of the Royal English Academy have recently appeared at least two notes that are related to the expression of the dates from 2000. In the first, the end of 2000, reads as follows:
"In English, the term commonly used in states that dates between the reference month and the year is lodged, no article, the preposition of: 1 January 1999. Yes, it is necessary to dial if the article explicitly mentions the word year: January 15, 1999. There is no reason for 2000 (and those who are set upon him) is an exception to the general use . As it is an emblematic date (last year of the millennium), there has been much ', 2000' (with ellipsis of the word year) in general, not the expression a specific date, and this has made the ear 'sound better' formula '1 January 2000 'to '1 January 2000'. Both can be considered eligible: the first was understood by the deletion of the word year and the second, to conform to general usage in English for the expression of the dates. For the dating of letters, documents, etc., It is recommended to follow the general usage: 1 January 2000.
On another note, in early 2002, they become more precise observations on the expression of dates. Before making some comments, it seems desirable to transcribe full well (as above), this not so small Release:
"When we refer in modern English to a date prior to 1100, we often use the article in front of the year, at least in the spoken language: The Arabs invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 711 ... No Missing, however, abundant evidence without the article in the written language. Thus, in a text of the Spain of the Cid, Ramón Menéndez Pidal, we read: The two kings ordered their beams and attacked him (August 14, 1084). A similar fluctuation was recorded in reference to dates after 1100, although in this case is more frequent absence of the article: The Catholic Monarchs conquered Granada in (the) 1492 ... A Unlike a hundred dates include the brief reference to 2000 can be imprecise in the minds of speakers to describe uniquely a year. Therefore the majority prefers English article on the use of expressions such as I'll go to the Caribbean in the summer of 2000 or the highway will be completed in 2004. Different issue is the dating of letters and documents, which since the Middle Ages preferred option is no article before the year, consolidated in practice a set formula: Mar. 4, 1420, December 19, 1999. The Royal English Academy understands that this application is to be maintained in the letters and documents dating from 2000 and thereafter (eg March 4, 2000). If you explicitly mention the word year, it must precede the article: May 5th 2000 '.
Note that the English Royal Academy grammatically justified the use of the article (2000): "It is understood by the elision word of the year "(first release). On the contrary, the omission of the article (2000) is permissible simply" to conform to general usage in English for the expression of the dates "(first release) or be consolidated in practice as "a set formula" (second release). Indeed, what matters is the norm, understood as the sum of the speeches individual. When most of the speakers has decided upon a linguistic habit, when it has become a general custom, you can purchase, deservedly, the character of a rule, now in the sense of rule which requires all alike.
not is interesting, however, that there remains a serious difficulty to explain grammatically the omission of the article (January 1, 2000). Among the functions of the preposition is to introduce noun phrases (substantive) determinative or circumstantial nature: stone house, come from Paris. You can also enter adjectives, they, however, should be considered: has a reputation for smart. Grammatically speaking, the numbers are almost always adjectives (but not adjectives, because not designate qualities or defects) and adjectives are called numerals. Can be cardinal, and if so are always appended to the noun (twenty oranges) or ordinal and, therefore, may precede or postpone the noun (tenth floor, tenth floor). Can be written in letters or numbers. With lyrics often written the cardinals up to twenty (fifteen books) and, occasionally, the ordinal (fourth place), it is customary to use figures in cardinal greater than twenty (1999) and, sometimes, in the ordinal (46 º = forty-sixth). It is important to note that, especially in high denominations, cardinals often replaced ordinals. That is precisely the case, for a long time, the designation of the years: the year 1951 (1951) = thousandth fifty-first year. You can also retained the cardinal value, in which case the preemption is required and the only reading would be: 1951 years (plural) = 1951 years.
In summary, when parsing the statement March 10, 2000, when trying to identify the grammatical category of each of the words, to reach the 2000 figure, there is no way to do apparently it is a cardinal adjective, but the preposition can not introduce such adjectives, contrast, if instead of saying March 10, 2000 say, 2000 March 10, l makes the preposition a paper contract (of + the = of) and the article is pointing us to be missing (but that is latent, unspoken) the noun year: March 10, 2000 = 10 March (year) 2000. In this case, there is no difficulty in identifying the grammatical category of the number 2000: cardinal used as ordinal adjective that modifies the noun (tacit) year.
Note, for demonstration of this, that when we want to designate not only the year but the month with an ordinal (and not your name), then we always use the item. It may well be said the 10 of the third month of the year, never say * 10 of the third month of the year. Third month is a nominal sentence, which requires paper (the third month). The adjective 2000 (based on ordinal cardinal) calls its noun (an adjective without a noun is like a stamp without an envelope) and that noun is year. It may well not be expressed, left unspoken. In that case the article which states that there is in the deep structure, noun: March 10, 2000 = 10 March (year) 2000. As shown, There are grammatical reasons for the use of the in lieu of. But I understand the position of the Royal English Academy: if widespread habit of expressing dates and not to the, this is reason enough to recommend.
tell, he said to him, díceselo
KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY of spelling rules has to do with the etymology of words. However, some of the errors or concerns that we all have to write may be related not only spelling but also the grammar. I think this can be exemplified by the phrase that forms the imperative of the verb to say when you follow certain enclitic pronouns.
not have rarely seen the phrase written in c tell, in statements such as "do not lie to your friend, tell him now." In that case the phrase has no c s can be displayed by a basic parsing. Tell consists of three elements: 1) the imperative (irregular) to say (say), 2) the indirect object expressed by the third person pronoun (you), that before the change, first in general and from the century XIV, A, 3) the direct neutral third person pronoun (you) tell them. The difficulty, as shown, is in the component are: the speaker is no obvious explanation for it and, therefore, tends to change the spelling of the phrase write said to him right instead of tell.
Indeed, the writer unconsciously tell * said to him by correctly identified as a say in front of * design, not realizing that, tell, it is a pronoun equivalent to him not a syllable of the verb say. There is certainly said to him in English the term, but its meaning and the syntactic functions of its constituents are completely different. Said to him consists of only two elements: 1) the third person present indicative of that (say), 2) the direct neutral third person pronoun (him). Said to him could be part of sentences like the following: "the man said to him quietly all" (he says).
Finally, especially in spoken language, can be a strange construction díceselo (or dícecelo or dísecelo) in the transcript above statements as, "Do not lie to your friend, * díceselo now." Obviously, what happens here is that the speaker has changed the way the imperative to say, instead of the correct di employs an unusual says (* tells you to say you). A wrong imperative that adds two enclitic pronouns (Indirect and direct) is (equivalent to it) and. This results in the curious phrase díceselo.
In summary: 1) the imperative of the verb say is di, 2) it can take an indirect object pronoun (equivalent to it) and a direct object pronoun (lo), 3) it gives the tell phrase.
Joseph G. Moreno de Alba
Webquest: Playing with the tangram 
you can do silhouettes of objects, animals or people: 
Its main feature is that all the pieces together form a square. So we just have to decide what size we want to do (in our case 12 cm). 
We can do 
