Moderator: Forum Administrators
勺园之鬼 wrote:Psi-Lord wrote:I'm always unsure about how to write such classifications… I mean, while Japonic, Eskimo-Aleut and Sino-Tibetan are language families (like Indo-European), Germanic and Slavic are subgroups of Indo-European, and Romance is yet a subset of Italic… or am I being too picky?
That, along with the fact svenska84 marked Korean as "possibly Altaic", disturbs me as it is different from most of the things I read...
Even if it is not certified (how could it be certified anyway), Korean is considered by many linguists to be part of the Altaic family (and I met some Koreans who talked to me about the link between their language and Turkish, but that's something else, hehe ).
There seems to be two theories to classify Japanese: either Altaic, or Austronesian. While the Austronesian theory was in vogue a few decades ago, now many linguists tend to link it to the Altaic family, mostly because of obvious general grammatical similtudes with Korean... The "Japonic" family seems to have been created out of perplexity by linguists who didn't agree with anything else...
ZombiekE wrote:Some years ago (as my mother learnt it), "Danos hoy nuestro pan de cada día" wasn't used (that's the one I've learnt). Instead, they said "El pan nuestro de cada día, dánosle hoy".
Notice I'm saying dánosle instead of dánoslo. It's a strange grammar thing we have in this area. Indirect object pronouns (Le/Les) may be used as masculine direct object pronouns (Lo/Los). Both with people and things. It's not official but it can be heard everywhere (I hear it several times a day and I've had to correct myself sometimes). Also, feminine direct object pronouns (la/las) can replace indirect object pronouns (le/les) in the sentences.
It's not a rule here, and it's grammatically incorrect. However, most people don't know what the other person has said, as they sound pretty alike and aren't as stressed as verbs or nouns. Sometimes people say it right others wrong.
svenska84 wrote:Well, of course it's perfectly valid as a native form of Spanish, even if it doesn't match up to the arbitrary standard, which dictates that "lo/le" not be confused. So I wouldn't call it "incorrect" unless you mean for formal writing or other purposes where you're trying to sound as "standard" as possible. Leísmo shows up in several world dialects of Spanish. Interesting phenomenon.
ZombiekE wrote:svenska84 wrote:Well, of course it's perfectly valid as a native form of Spanish, even if it doesn't match up to the arbitrary standard, which dictates that "lo/le" not be confused. So I wouldn't call it "incorrect" unless you mean for formal writing or other purposes where you're trying to sound as "standard" as possible. Leísmo shows up in several world dialects of Spanish. Interesting phenomenon.
The problem is not that people speak with that feature. The problem is that they go and write it like that because they don't know it's wrong and write it anywhere (letters, official exams, etc.) or if they know, they just don't care because it's just a "damn letter". As I see it, it's just a wide-spread grammar mistake.
Car wrote:Kubi wrote:German: Unser tägliches Brot gib uns heute
That also seems to be around, but I'm very, very sure I always heard "täglich".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest