Moderator:voron
Woods wrote:I just read that some prefixes containing voiced consonants change also in writing when they are followed by an unvoiced one. That seems incredibly strange to me - since when has it been this way and is it mandatory?
бездумный / бесстрастный
вздремнуть / вскипятить
возродить / воспитать
издать / исправить
разбудить / рассыпать
(examples from Modern Russian Grammar: A Practical Guide by John Dunn and Shamil Khairov, 2009)
I really would prefer to write страстный, взкипять, возпитать, изправить, разсыпать - why have two separate writings for the same prefix?
And could you give some examples of the remaining prefixes that do not change?
Linguaphile wrote:This rule was introduced more than a century ago during the spelling reform in December 1917 to simplify the spelling (better reflecting the pronunciation of those words) and improve literacy levels. It was adopted as an official rule in October 1918.
Linguaphile wrote:Yes, it is "mandatory", as this is a spelling rule. It is a misspelling to spell them the way you say you'd prefer.
Linguaphile wrote:(Of course it does happen, but it is a misspelling.)
Linguaphile wrote:There are also some people in the Russian Orthodox Church who refuse to use the бес- spelling and use без- in its place based on a mistaken belief that бес- refers to the devil
Linguaphile wrote:And words with the бес- prefix are even used in Old Church Slavonic (i.e. бесконьчьнъ).
Linguaphile wrote:Other languages do something similar to this too. Even in English, some of our Latin-based prefixes change their spellings based on the beginning of the following root: the prefix in- means "not" but changes to im- before a p in words like impatient, imperfect, impede, to il- before an l in words like illegal, illegitimate, illogical, to ir- before an r in words like irregular, irreversible, irresponsible
Linguaphile wrote:to ig- before a gn or n in words like ignoble, ignore, ignominy etc. and these changes occur in Latin as well and (just like the Russian spelling changes) reflect the pronunciation.
Woods wrote:I really don't see how having two different ways to write the same prefix could improve literacy levels, I would expect quite the contrary.
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:(Of course it does happen, but it is a misspelling.)
Oh, so you confirm you've noticed people getting confused?
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:There are also some people in the Russian Orthodox Church who refuse to use the бес- spelling and use без- in its place based on a mistaken belief that бес- refers to the devil
Only без-, but not the other ones?
Woods wrote:I would be very proud of them if they insisted on keeping the origins of the languages, but I guess that would get them in jail so I understand.
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:And words with the бес- prefix are even used in Old Church Slavonic (i.e. бесконьчьнъ).
Wait, wasn't it all из-, воз-, вз-, раз-, без- in Old Church Slavonic?
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:Other languages do something similar to this too. Even in English, some of our Latin-based prefixes change their spellings based on the beginning of the following root: the prefix in- means "not" but changes to im- before a p in words like impatient, imperfect, impede, to il- before an l in words like illegal, illegitimate, illogical, to ir- before an r in words like irregular, irreversible, irresponsible
Wasn't French responsible for that?
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:to ig- before a gn or n in words like ignoble, ignore, ignominy etc. and these changes occur in Latin as well and (just like the Russian spelling changes) reflect the pronunciation.
Were those also initially in- ?
Woods wrote:These are much more substantial sound changes though: in "illegal" there is not a trace of the sound /n/; While the Russian prefixes would just become unvoiced before an unvoiced consonant which is a perfectly normal thing that also happens in all kinds of languages and doesn't seem to be a problem at all. Two alternative prefixes that mean the exact same thing can be a big pain in the ass though.
Woods wrote:Really it's so cool that English doesn't have a country messing with its spelling rules
Woods wrote:Really it's so cool that English doesn't have a country messing with its spelling rules - regulators only come up with stuff that doesn't make any sense.
I keep insisting that languages should be considered some sort of global heritage and such arbitrary changes that break the linguistic continuum should not be allowed.
sa wulfs wrote:It just seems very weird to me to go over to the speakers of some language to complain that you don't like this or that feature because it's different from what you're used to and that therefore it's bad and it should be changed. It comes across as a bit insulting.
sa wulfs wrote:no different to Dutch deciding that some instances of final devoicing should be reflected in the spelling, so you get things like lezen~lees
Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Really it's so cool that English doesn't have a country messing with its spelling rules - regulators only come up with stuff that doesn't make any sense.
I keep insisting that languages should be considered some sort of global heritage and such arbitrary changes that break the linguistic continuum should not be allowed.
The mere idea of spelling a given word — even your own name — the same way each time you write it is a modern innovation for English. But sure, English is a bastion of continuity.
Linguaphile wrote:the word "бес" means demon/devil. (it is related to Bulgarian бяс, if that helps, from Proto-Slavic *běsъ; in Russian it means "demon" or "devil", in Bulgarian perhaps not so strong a connotation in religious terms).
Linguaphile wrote:the issue with бес- isn't about keeping the original spelling, but that some people associate it with the devil. Literally a religious objection, not a linguistic one
Linguaphile wrote:But why do you think several different spellings for in- in English makes sense (ill-, irr-, imp-, ign- etc) makes sense but then object to без-/бес-, из-/ис-, раз-/рас- and so on? Why accept one (the English and Latin changes) and reject the other (the Russian changes)?
Linguaphile wrote: But why do you think several different spellings for in- in English makes sense (ill-, irr-, imp-, ign- etc) makes sense but then object to без-/бес-, из-/ис-, раз-/рас- and so on? Why accept one (the English and Latin changes) and reject the other (the Russian changes)? You claim it's a more substantial difference with the English and Latin prefixes because the pronunciations are so different, but in Russian it does reflect the pronunciation too.
Linguaphile wrote:I guess whether the sound change is substantial enough to warrant a new spelling is a judgement call, but when the difference is substantial enough to match the sound of a different letter (з versus с) that seems substantial enough to me.
Woods wrote:No stance on Dutch - I don't know enough. But I most likely wouldn't like it. Some examples from English look super fine to me though - e. g. leaf - leaves - because they are consistent.
Grammar Monster wrote:There is confusion because the rule for forming plurals with nouns ending in f or fe isn't straightforward. Most nouns will drop the f or fe and gain a ves.
For example:
Knife becomes knives.
Loaf becomes loaves.
Some just add s. For example:
Safe becomes safes.
Chief becomes chiefs.
With some words, both versions are accepted. For example:
Scarf becomes scarfs or scarves.
Dwarf becomes dwarfs or dwarves.
The plural of leaf is always leaves. Unfortunately, there is no clever way of knowing which nouns ending f or fe follow which rules. You have to know. (For example, you have to know that leaf becomes leaves, but belief becomes beliefs.)
Dictionary.com wrote:
Leaf, leaves. Wolf, wolves. Scarf, scarves. Beef, beeves?
Well, the plural of beef, in its most familiar sense of “meat from cows” or the like, is generally beef. But, beef can also mean “an adult cow, steer, or bull”; the plural, here, is beeves. And if you have more than one beef (“complaint”) with that unusual-seeming plural, well, you’ve got beefs.
Woods wrote:Part of why and how it became the global language - it seems that in theory many people have issues with its spelling, but at the end all agree that this approach is the best.
Preservation of origins in vocabulary, extreme simplification of grammar - brilliant!
And it being the natural evolution of the work of everyone is yet another proof that this is where things end up when all points of view are taken into account.
Woods wrote:How is the final letter in "раз" (as in один раз - once) pronounced?
Woods wrote:No stance on Dutch - I don't know enough. But I most likely wouldn't like it. Some examples from English look super fine to me though - e. g. leaf - leaves - because they are consistent.
Раз-/рас- is not consistent.
I didn't come to tell the Russians anything, but to ask where that comes from and how mandatory it is - questions which Linguaphile answered.
I hope it won't trigger a reaction like when I exposed my views about some elements of Swedish writing and one of the people there got personally offended seemingly for the rest of her life.
Linguaphile wrote:Woods wrote:No stance on Dutch - I don't know enough. But I most likely wouldn't like it. Some examples from English look super fine to me though - e. g. leaf - leaves - because they are consistent.
Consistent with what?
Linguaphile wrote:Grammar Monster wrote:Safe becomes safes.
Chief becomes chiefs.
Linguaphile wrote:Grammar Monster wrote:With some words, both versions are accepted. For example:
Scarf becomes scarfs or scarves.
Dwarf becomes dwarfs or dwarves.
Linguaphile wrote:Unfortunately, there is no clever way of knowing which nouns ending f or fe follow which rules. You have to know.
Linguaphile wrote:belief becomes beliefs
Linguaphile wrote:Well, the plural of beef, in its most familiar sense of “meat from cows” or the like, is generally beef. But, beef can also mean “an adult cow, steer, or bull”; the plural, here, is beeves. And if you have more than one beef (“complaint”) with that unusual-seeming plural, well, you’ve got beefs.
Linguaphile wrote:every language has its idiosyncrasies and oddities that make them difficult for learners and confusing at times. If you want to learn a language, you just need to take the time to learn its idiosyncrasies.
Linguaphile wrote:I wouldn't suggest that Russian should change. Instead I would just need to spend more time learning it (...) I just haven't dedicated enough time to be successful in learning it
Linguaphile wrote:It also continues to strike me as very odd that you hold English spelling up as an example of the kind of thing you'd like to see in other languages. English has its strengths, but consistent and logical spelling truly isn't one of them.
Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Part of why and how it became the global language - it seems that in theory many people have issues with its spelling, but at the end all agree that this approach is the best.
Everyone agrees on this? Which international accord should I refer to?
Dormouse559 wrote:The B was added as a nod to Latin debitum, but the word hadn't previously been spelled with a B in English, nor in Old French, which is the immediate source of the English word. Is French (or English itself) not a relevant part of the history of "debt"?
Dormouse559 wrote:And, far from preserving origins, there are myriad examples in English where supposedly historical spellings actively obscure history.
(...)
There are "historical" spellings based on forms that have never existed, like "scent". The C does not reflect a sound that has ever existed in this word or its ancestors (Old French sentir, Latin sentio), and the word had previously been spelled sent in English.
Dormouse559 wrote:And prescriptive English spelling does not and never has taken all points of view into account, only those of the powerful, privileged and upper-class.
h34 wrote:Woods wrote:How is the final letter in "раз" (as in один раз - once) pronounced?
Generally, with an unvoiced -з (so it sounds like *рас). The pattern in Russian seems to be that voiced obstruents are devoiced in final position. Then again, I'm almost sure I've heard раз being pronounced with a voiced -з as well (correct me if I'm wrong), especially if it is immediately followed by a word beginning with a voiced consonant, as in раз, два, три ("one, two, three") or раз в год ("once a year"). So perhaps it depends on the definition of "final position", on the semantic relationship with the next word etc.
Woods wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Part of why and how it became the global language - it seems that in theory many people have issues with its spelling, but at the end all agree that this approach is the best.
Everyone agrees on this? Which international accord should I refer to?
The implicit accord of everyone writing it the way they do, while being free to write however they wish.
Dormouse559 wrote:The B was added as a nod to Latin debitum, but the word hadn't previously been spelled with a B in English, nor in Old French, which is the immediate source of the English word. Is French (or English itself) not a relevant part of the history of "debt"?
No, it's mending one injustice
Dormouse559 wrote:And, far from preserving origins, there are myriad examples in English where supposedly historical spellings actively obscure history.
(...)
There are "historical" spellings based on forms that have never existed, like "scent". The C does not reflect a sound that has ever existed in this word or its ancestors (Old French sentir, Latin sentio), and the word had previously been spelled sent in English.
Mistakes happen. I would have gone for "sent" for sure.
Dormouse559 wrote:And prescriptive English spelling does not and never has taken all points of view into account, only those of the powerful, privileged and upper-class.
Which coincidentally were also the ones educated at language?
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:Grammar Monster wrote:Safe becomes safes.
Chief becomes chiefs.
Safe and chief are different because they're essentially advectives.
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:Dictionary.com wrote:Well, the plural of beef, in its most familiar sense of “meat from cows” or the like, is generally beef. But, beef can also mean “an adult cow, steer, or bull”; the plural, here, is beeves. And if you have more than one beef (“complaint”) with that unusual-seeming plural, well, you’ve got beefs.
Same thing with the intrinsic quality of an adjective, I think. "Beefs" is used when talking about meat from that animal, which in a way gives the feeling that "beef" qualifies the noun, from there it's spelt like an adjective.
I didn't know about the word beeves, but the way it's explained it makes perfect sense to me. It's quite clever.
Woods wrote:It's not about time put in, and obviouslu I got the rule immediataly just by reading about it. It is just that I don't like that somebody comes and makes an arbitrary change like that. Such things make me like the spelling of one language (Danish) and dislike the spelling of another so much that it makes me feel bad every time I read or write it (Swedish) - even though they are essentially two very close deviations of one and the same language.
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:I wouldn't suggest that Russian should change. Instead I would just need to spend more time learning it (...) I just haven't dedicated enough time to be successful in learning it
Let's take the example with Swedish again. I totally want to learn it. It's not about not wanting to put in the time at all. I want to learn it, but I also want it to be nice and beautiful, the same way that if I pass by a beautiful statue in the middle of my town every day and I like the statue, and someone comes and spits on it and sprays it with graffiti just to keep on with modern tendencies because, let's say, he doesn't like old art but only new things, I would be very annoyed.
Woods wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Part of why and how it became the global language - it seems that in theory many people have issues with its spelling, but at the end all agree that this approach is the best.
Everyone agrees on this? Which international accord should I refer to?
The implicit accord of everyone writing it the way they do, while being free to write however they wish.
Woods wrote:h34 wrote:Woods wrote:How is the final letter in "раз" (as in один раз - once) pronounced?
Generally, with an unvoiced -з (so it sounds like *рас). The pattern in Russian seems to be that voiced obstruents are devoiced in final position. Then again, I'm almost sure I've heard раз being pronounced with a voiced -з as well (correct me if I'm wrong), especially if it is immediately followed by a word beginning with a voiced consonant, as in раз, два, три ("one, two, three") or раз в год ("once a year"). So perhaps it depends on the definition of "final position", on the semantic relationship with the next word etc.
Bingo!
It was a question for Linguaphile though
Of course. Or the plural "два раза". It is just natural to pronounce the з as /z/ when there's a voiced consonant or vowel to accentuate it. Not a good idea to respell every word where it doesn't happen to be the case.
sa wulfs wrote:Woods wrote:I didn't come to tell the Russians anything, but to ask where that comes from and how mandatory it is - questions which Linguaphile answered.
I hope it won't trigger a reaction like when I exposed my views about some elements of Swedish writing and one of the people there got personally offended seemingly for the rest of her life.
That's the thing, you didn't merely ask a question about whether this is mandatory or whether some variance is acceptable. You got an answer to that question and then you challenged it, arguing that your way would be better and seemingly looking for a loophole or a gotcha to get it your way. It may not be your intention, but that's how it comes across. If you want to know why this keeps happening, that's why.
Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Part of why and how it became the global language - it seems that in theory many people have issues with its spelling, but at the end all agree that this approach is the best.
Everyone agrees on this? Which international accord should I refer to?
The implicit accord of everyone writing it the way they do, while being free to write however they wish.
Right. We write how we do because we're all secretly philologists at heart and not because there are overwhelming economic and social advantages to it.
Dormouse559 wrote:English happens to have a lot of borrowings from Latin — all the better — but these educated people were perfectly willing to arbitrarily change English orthography and grammar in order to make it more like Latin and harder for the unprivileged to learn, history be damned. And yet you idolize these people.
Linguaphile wrote:If you're saying that they're derived from adjectives, "safe" is, but "chief" is not.
What makes them different from words pronounced and spelled with the -ves plural is the time at which they entered English. Words that entered English a long time ago from Old English (leaf, calf, thief, wolf, half) tend to use the -ves plural. Words that entered English more recently from mostly other sources (chief, safe, beef, proof, oaf, waif) tend to have the -fs plural.
Linguaphile wrote:But then there is the group of words that can take either plural (dwarf, roof, hoof, scarf, kerchief) and some of these are from Old English, some from Old French, etc. and there is no rule to predict their plurals.
Linguaphile wrote:Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:Dictionary.com wrote:Well, the plural of beef, in its most familiar sense of “meat from cows” or the like, is generally beef. But, beef can also mean “an adult cow, steer, or bull”; the plural, here, is beeves. And if you have more than one beef (“complaint”) with that unusual-seeming plural, well, you’ve got beefs.
Same thing with the intrinsic quality of an adjective, I think. "Beefs" is used when talking about meat from that animal, which in a way gives the feeling that "beef" qualifies the noun, from there it's spelt like an adjective.
I didn't know about the word beeves, but the way it's explained it makes perfect sense to me. It's quite clever.
You've misunderstood it though. "Beefs" isn't use when talking about meat from the animal. (When talking about meat, we treat it is a noncount noun, so the plural is "beef".) "Beeves" is used (rarely) when talking about the animals themselves. "Beefs" is used when talking about complaints; it is a newer meaning, so it uses the newer (-fs) rule.
Linguaphile wrote:In other posts I think you've mentioned trying to write things in Danish in Swedish-speaking contexts (in Finland) and being disappointed when it was not accepted, right?
Linguaphile wrote:Try to see it from a Swedish-speaker's point of view. The first assumption might be "he already knows Danish and doesn't want to take the time to learn Swedish"
Linguaphile wrote:Okay, so you say that the time needed for this is not the reason. It's actually because you think their language is too ugly to write!
Linguaphile wrote:since you are in a place where Swedish is an official language and Danish is not, it comes off as being unwilling to adapt to your surroundings or valuing someone else's language more than theirs
Linguaphile wrote:when you keep insisting and trying to convince others that your opinion is better
Linguaphile wrote:Woods wrote:h34 wrote:Woods wrote:How is the final letter in "раз" (as in один раз - once) pronounced?
Generally, with an unvoiced -з (so it sounds like *рас). The pattern in Russian seems to be that voiced obstruents are devoiced in final position. Then again, I'm almost sure I've heard раз being pronounced with a voiced -з as well (correct me if I'm wrong), especially if it is immediately followed by a word beginning with a voiced consonant, as in раз, два, три ("one, two, three") or раз в год ("once a year"). So perhaps it depends on the definition of "final position", on the semantic relationship with the next word etc.
Bingo!
It was a question for Linguaphile though
Of course. Or the plural "два раза". It is just natural to pronounce the з as /z/ when there's a voiced consonant or vowel to accentuate it. Not a good idea to respell every word where it doesn't happen to be the case.
Why should the question be only for me? h34 took the time to answer you in good faith, presumably in the belief that you really wanted to know. But instead you were looking for some kind of "gotcha" or loophole like sa wulfs mentioned above (and, for some strange reason, you apparently wanted it to come only from me).
Linguaphile wrote:I think this is exactly the kind of thing sa wulfs was talking about, and I agree:sa wulfs wrote:Woods wrote:I didn't come to tell the Russians anything, but to ask where that comes from and how mandatory it is - questions which Linguaphile answered.
I hope it won't trigger a reaction like when I exposed my views about some elements of Swedish writing and one of the people there got personally offended seemingly for the rest of her life.
That's the thing, you didn't merely ask a question about whether this is mandatory or whether some variance is acceptable. You got an answer to that question and then you challenged it, arguing that your way would be better and seemingly looking for a loophole or a gotcha to get it your way. It may not be your intention, but that's how it comes across. If you want to know why this keeps happening, that's why.
Woods wrote:I can't please anyone: when I don't like something about a certain language - how dare I, and when I do like something about another - how dare I again. The price of having an opinion.
Woods wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:English happens to have a lot of borrowings from Latin — all the better — but these educated people were perfectly willing to arbitrarily change English orthography and grammar in order to make it more like Latin and harder for the unprivileged to learn, history be damned. And yet you idolize these people.
Quite a stretch. I don't mind you finding ingenious arguments against my position, but it isn't all right to almost attribute me supporting exploitative and racist politics.
Woods wrote:Chinese speakers have to learn thousands of characters and they don't complain
Woods wrote:Yes because it doesn't make any sense to write in a different standard while the two "separate languages" are 95% identical; and everything in written Danish is perfectly understandable to a Swedish speaker.
Woods wrote:Learning Danish technically is learning Swedish, with some minor differences in writing and a huge difference in pronunciation.
Woods wrote:Tell me what you'd think if you wanted to sit an exam in a UK uni and they asked you to first bring a certificate that you speak British English, because learning in the US doesn't count.
Woods wrote:Linguaphile wrote:when you keep insisting and trying to convince others that your opinion is better
How is that different from you trying to convince me that yours is better?
Woods wrote:I was surprised he thought it was a question.
Woods wrote:So if we live in a world where people are not allowed to have their own opinions you will be happier?
I think that's when things get scary - when a group of people gets annoyed at the mere fact someone doesn't agree with something or questions things.
Woods wrote:I hope it won't trigger a reaction like when I exposed my views about some elements of Swedish writing and one of the people there got personally offended seemingly for the rest of her life.
Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:I can't please anyone: when I don't like something about a certain language - how dare I, and when I do like something about another - how dare I again. The price of having an opinion.
Well, when that opinion is misinformed, it doesn't really matter whether you think of it as condemnation or praise. It's just wrong.
Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:English happens to have a lot of borrowings from Latin — all the better — but these educated people were perfectly willing to arbitrarily change English orthography and grammar in order to make it more like Latin and harder for the unprivileged to learn, history be damned. And yet you idolize these people.
Quite a stretch. I don't mind you finding ingenious arguments against my position, but it isn't all right to almost attribute me supporting exploitative and racist politics.
I'm not saying you do support racism or exploitation. I'm saying you have profoundly misunderstood the reasons why English orthography is the way it is.
Linguaphile wrote:Woods wrote:Chinese speakers have to learn thousands of characters and they don't complain
Russian speakers have to learn two spellings for some prefixes and they don't complain.
Linguaphile wrote:Danish and Swedish are different languages, while American and British English are two varieties of the same language. You may not like it (...)
Linguaphile wrote:if I were going to a university in the UK I would have absolutely no issue with them asking me to take a British English test to enroll there or do whatever else was needed to obtain something certifying my language ability.
Linguaphile wrote:LOL, you have no idea how many language exams I've had to take to get various language certifications over the years for various reasons, and usually for the same languages over and over because they are for different purposes and require different certifications.
Linguaphile wrote:you are trying to convince people that their language is wrong
Linguaphile wrote:I'm trying to convince you that native speakers know best what works for their language
Linguaphile wrote:Woods wrote:I was surprised he thought it was a question.
You wrote it as a question, on a Russian-learning forum. What else would people think it was?
Linguaphile wrote:No one is censoring you or saying you can't make these arguments. (...) But know that it's not an argument you're likely to win with any of them. I'm clearly not going to convince you of that either, so I'll stop trying.
Linguaphile wrote:Woods wrote:So if we live in a world where people are not allowed to have their own opinions you will be happier?
I think that's when things get scary - when a group of people gets annoyed at the mere fact someone doesn't agree with something or questions things.
No, that's not what anyone here said. The comments about gotchas and loopholes came after you said this:Woods wrote:I hope it won't trigger a reaction like when I exposed my views about some elements of Swedish writing and one of the people there got personally offended seemingly for the rest of her life.
Linguaphile wrote:You said you hoped it wouldn't happen, I was explaining how you could avoid it
Linguaphile wrote:You have the right to complain about orthography, native speakers have the right to disagree, and after that if you continue insisting that you know better than native speakers
Woods wrote:Misinformed in what way?
Dormouse559 wrote:Woods wrote:Misinformed in what way?
I’ve already told you, but I’ll say it again. You have a view that modern English orthography preserves its linguistic heritage for posterity
Dormouse559 wrote:I take more issue with the second point because it ignores the elitist motivations behind the orthography.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests