The Beginning Of The Confusion

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:55 pm

Xui and Shun refer to the same Chinese word, pronounced in Mandarin and Cantonese respectively.

coffeedecafe · Post by **coffeedecafe** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:44 am

Xui wrote:
coffeedecafe wrote: the present is not perfect in either life or language.
Can you tell the difference?

why,yes.
life is what you do. language is what you talk about.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:36 am

Are you sure your coffee is decafe?

coffeedecafe · Post by **coffeedecafe** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:00 am

my coffe 'is' decafe is present tense
my coffee 'was' decafe was past tense
my coffee is double caffeine whipped is 2 tense...

rudedog · Post by **rudedog** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:34 pm

Hello Xiu,
If I understand your question correctly, the confusion is about the semantic purpose of adding s/es to the verb "to go" in 3rd person singular. I agree with you. There is no logical, semantic purpose that requires that form. Adding s/es to the verb does not add any more meaning to "he goes to school" than "he go to school". I think the s/es rule is merely a remnant from an older form of the verb, he goest , that has been simplified to "he goes" in current usage.
I think your question illustrates the problem of focusing on grammar rules and error correction in isolation. Learning English by memorizing grammar rules is usually not helpful. English grammar rules are confusing, inconsistant, and full of exceptions. Some rules you just have to accept because that's the way English is used. The explanation may be a throwback to some obsolete English grammar that isn't even logical to native English speakers anymore. So teaching "why this rule makes sense" is often pointless. It makes more sense to teach that this is just the way English speakers say it.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:52 am

Xui wrote "(go)" there simply to show it was a gap-fill/"inflecting" kind of exercise, requiring some form of the lemma/verb "(to) GO". His problems are not so much with inflections-as-facts-so-just-learn-them-dammit as with the "choices" of "tense" that any competent speaker of English has to and unfailingly does make. You could waste a lot of time trying to make sense of what he says (take my word for it, there is none), and even more in trying to get him to make sense.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:47 pm

English grammar rules are confusing, inconsistant, and full of exceptions. Some rules you just have to accept because that's the way English is used. The explanation may be a throwback to some obsolete English grammar that isn't even logical to native English speakers anymore. So teaching "why this rule makes sense" is often pointless. It makes more sense to teach that this is just the way English speakers say it.

I don't find English grammar rules any more confusing or inconsistent than those of any other language, and there are not that many exceptions. I rather suspect you have been given the wrong rules.

Conjugation of verbs or declension of nouns, or gender which is really declension by another name, have no logic behind them. We use 'goes' because that indicates the third person singular. As in English we would precede the verb with a pronoun or noun the declension is redundant but redundancy is a very important part of any language, and indeed the one gripe you could reasonably have about English is that it does not have enough redundancy.

coffeedecafe · Post by **coffeedecafe** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 5:18 am

in this wish of a merry christmas to all, may i submit that "on earth, peace, goodwill to all" is past perfect, present perfect, and future perfect, based on one who exists beyond the limits of time?
maybe i will return to perfectly on topic next time.