Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Words and rules (a review and a question)

I have just finished re-reading the book Words and Rules by Steven
Pinker.
The author claims that language is generated through the use both of a
mental dictionary that we memorize and of a set of rules that we infer
or learn and which help us to compute endless combinations and to
manipulate new words . He also says that the two are regulated by
different areas of the brain.
He uses regular and irregular verbs in English to prove his thesis:
though irregulars are relics of once regular rules, they are now
learnt as separate entries of the mental dictionary; when we need to
express "give" in the simple past, for example, we block the rule and
use "gave", provided that we are quick enough to retrieve the
irregular form. If we are unsure because the verb is, for example, a
low frequency one, we may resort to using the rule and, if this
happens to many people with that particular verb, we "lose" the
irregular form in the space of a few generations. He also accounts for
the "invention" of irregular forms that are generated through analogy
with other verbs that are irregular. He says the "youngest" irregular
is "snuck" as opposed to "sneak" ; he says that any person over fifty
would feel it as "colloquial" while people under fifty would be
perfectly comfortable with it.
Is it true? (this is the question bit!!!)
I do advise that you read the book if you can because it is very
interesting, much more than what you probably can understand from my
brief summary. There is also a one-hour long video of a lecture he
held and which beautifully sums up his theory. 
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/143/
That's all. I hope I haven't bored you.
Ciao
Claudia

 Is it true? (this is the question bit!!!)
"snuck" used to be jocular. I suspect it's now used quite seriously.


That's what he says yes. On the Oxford-Paravia it's indicated as
"colloquial".
Thanks! You could have snuck out of answering but you didn't  :-)
Claudia

 That's what he says yes.
I was probably agreeing with him. It was jocular in the late 70s, and
perhaps
later than that.
"shat" is another possible example of a fake past tense.

On Jun 13, 2007, Claudia wrote:

BTW, (followup to my other post, and this one) the Oxford American Dictionary 
lists "snuck" as informal, not colloquial.



Or you may end up carrying gold, or frankincense or myrrh :-D (But
"but don't worry too much about the myrrh next time" - a famous
quotation from??????) :-D

On Jun 13, 2007, Claudia wrote:

Ah yes, I remember it well...
The Life of Brian, a truly inspirational film.
(Anyway, doesn't "myrrh" sound like something you might want to clear from 
your throat?)
("M-yrrh! <cough> M-yrrhhh! Excuse me; do you have a tissue?")


 your throat?)
("M-yrrh! <cough> M-yrrhhh! Excuse me; do you have a tissue?")
LOL!
Claudia

 were in Northern Ireland etc. etc. )
Well, as they say: Art imitates life imitates art.
-- 
Joey Dee from NYC
Remember: It is To Laugh
Il mio gatto
http://tinyurl.com/2a5u8b

Joeva:nnee Neema:n

 giocando a carte.
You started gambling very early!
Kiuhnm



Non ho potuto certo riscrivere il libro ma certamente quello che dici
non va contro la tesi in generale; cioè, non ogni volta che dobbiamo
usare un verbo regolare al passato applichiamo la regola; se il verbo
è ad alta frequenza è probabile che lo usiamo con -ed perché lo
abbiamo memorizzato così. E questo viene esplicitamente detto. Ma la
regola è lì nel momento in cui non riesco a far ricorso alla memoria,
vuoi perché è un verbo nuovo, vuoi perché lo uso poco. E' esattamente
quello che fai tu coi calcoli: per me 5+7 fa 12 senza pensarci, per te
no, forse l'ho trovato più spesso nella mia vita? Chissà. Però se in
un momento non me lo ricordo faccio ricorso alla regola (o forse in
questo caso al regolo... :-D )  .
Non è che il vocabolario si contrapponga all'apparato di regole, o usi
uno o usi l'altro; quante locuzioni conosciamo senza pensare al perché
quelle parole stanno insieme così?  Le regole ci consentono però di
controllare le combinazioni nel momento in cui non siamo sicuri o
vogliamo creare qualcosa di nuovo o giocare con la lingua. Se dico a
mia mamma (che non usa Internet) che scrivere un messaggio qui si dice
"postare", non credo avrebbe difficoltà a dire "Ieri Claudia ha
postato un messaggio" anche se non è possibile che abbia memorizzato
la forma; semplicemente in italiano un verbo che deriva da un
sostantivo (magari straniero) si crea alla prima coniugazione, le cui
regole conosciamo tutti.
Quindi ripeto, non sei affatto contro la tesi
Ciao
Claudia

You started gambling very early!
non so se significa anche 'giocare', o se si intende 'giocare un gioco
d'azzardo' oppure 'imbrogliare'. cmq io giocavo a scopa briscola
tresette, e mai per soldi :-)


 tresette, e mai per soldi :-)
It was just a pun (somme => somme di denaro) :-)
After all, you said:
"in particolare ricordo che certe somme si sono formate da piccolo, 
giocando a carte."
Kiuhnm

 Pinker.
I just found a used copy today. Thanks for the referral.
-- 
Joey Dee



You're welcome! I hope you enjoy it, let me know! I was interested to
read your list of books on Old English I wish I had more time to look
some up!
(my thesis for the end of university was called "Magic and
Christianity in Anglo-Saxon Charms" but it was in Italian and was
written a looooong time ago! :-S )
Ciao
Claudia

 taken as a disclaimer.
You should put it in your signature!!! :-)
Kiuhnm

Joey Dee wrote:
[...]
What the hell is going on with your signature???
Kiuhnm



You *told* me to.
I'm just following orders. :-P


 I'm just following orders. :-P
Then I /command/ you to remove my name from your signature! It's not 
ethical and a bit confusing :-)
Kiuhnm

 taken as a disclaimer.
You should put it in your signature!!! :-)
-- Anonymous

 Done.
That's better. I hope I didn't sound rude.
Anyway I was joking about the disclaimer! :-)
Kiuhnm

 taken as a disclaimer.
You should put it in your signature!!! :-)
  - Anonymous but very wise person