Re: A for B
- From: "Alan" <in_flagrante@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:40:07 GMT
"Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim" <Jdibrahim@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142120901.607814.252430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan schrieb:
While it may be "interesting for a linguist" to pursue Polish via
Russian,
the original poster's goal appears to be improving his Polish. Although
there is certainly a relationship between Polish and Russian, it would be
as
foolish to learn Polish by listening to Russian as it would be to learn
Dutch by listening to German, or to learn Italian by listening to
Spanish,
"interesting" as those approaches may be to a linguist.
P.S. The languages are usually called "Slavic" ("Slavonic", much less
used,
is acceptable). The plural of "Slav" is "Slavs", not "Slaves".
I mean if you speak German you already speak Dutch(don't take it to
heart).
What's there to take to heart?
In addition Sounds can be easily substituted. ...
It's not only a matter of substitution of sounds, Dr J, it's the subtitution
of words, it's the substitution of grammar, etc. In other words, German is
German and Dutch is Dutch. A monolingual Dutch speaker cannot speak German
any more than a monlingual German speaker can speak Dutch. They may find
some sound-betn similarities in their language which, of course, are
"interesting" to a linguist, but they do not speak the same language. But I
respect enough to assume that you know that already ---- you just have a bad
habit of writing hyperbolically.
I am not sure Alan but I think the words Slave and Slaves exiisted
(motivated by analogy) but could be no more in use now because of the
associations. They were said to have even caused some problems.
They do come from the same root, Dr J. In English, at any rate, we do make
the disctinction of capitalizing the "S" and leaving off the final "e" when
referring to the ethnic group and adding a "final "e" when referring to an
involuntary worker. Do not be confused by etymology. We are speaking
English, Dr J. You may indeed find some instance of some writer using
"Slave" for "Slav", but that is neither common nor accepted. If you wish to
write "Slave" when you mean "Slav", do not complain if you are
misunderstood.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A for B
- From: Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
- Re: A for B
- References:
- A for B
- From: penguinsare@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A for B
- From: Alan
- Re: A for B
- From: Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
- Re: A for B
- From: Alan
- Re: A for B
- From: Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
- A for B
- Prev by Date: Re: 16th century verbs
- Next by Date: Re: You do not explain anything!
- Previous by thread: Re: A for B
- Next by thread: Re: A for B
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
