Things English lacks.

[acheron]

English used to have thou/you for singluar/plural second person. (Or more accurately, thou/ye (as in "God rest ye merry, gentlemen" or "hear ye, hear ye"; not as in "ye olde shoppe", that's a different word) You was a different case: I/me, thou/thee, he/him, we/us, ye/you, they/them. Yes, "thou" matched with "ye", and "thee" matched with "you". English has always been a little weird.)

Anyway, as in other languages (e.g. tu/usted in Spanish), the plural form began to be used as a "respectful" version, even if you were talking to someone singular. Eventually though the "respect" spread to everyone to the point that "thou" died out.

Why "you" and "ye" combined when we still have "I" and "me", etc, I don't know.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Overall, I think English is a great language. However, I often notice that there is a strange lack of words when I want to say something.
One of the major ones I notice is a lack of the plural form of "you". It often seems incorrect to use "we" or "us" or "they". Instead, there is this awkward "You guys" or "Y'all" or some other strange stop-gap measure. I believe we as ATOT should finally formalize a form of "you plural" for English.
Another missing component is the lack of a genderless human pronoun. Sure, we have "it", but it symbolizes more of an inanimate object, a distant cold pronoun. However, if we are referring to an actual person, but one whose gender is unknown, it seems wrong to use "it.

Are there any other "missing" components of English?

Edited for grammar Nazis.

the second person plural was you. the singular was thou.

Nope nope. Thou was informal singular, you was formal singular. 🙂

<---- English major with medieval lit specialty

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: acheron

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
#2: They, what's wrong with that? If they is wrong, I don't want to be right.

"They" is plural, not singular, and should never, under any circumstances, be used to describe a singular person of unknown gender.

ZV

Unless you're Shakepeare, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, George Bernard Shaw, etc.

Singular "they" has been around a long time. Hell, frakking Chaucer used it. Saying it is wrong is, well, wrong.

http://motivatedgrammar.wordpr...asons-why-its-correct/

Chaucer also spelled the same word three different ways on the same page. There weren't many grammar or spelling rules at the time.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: ElFenix

the second person plural was you. the singular was thou.

Nope nope. Thou was informal singular, you was formal singular. 🙂

<---- English major with medieval lit specialty

if was formal singular but also informal plural

<---- internet know it all

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: acheron
English used to have thou/you for singluar/plural second person. (Or more accurately, thou/ye (as in "God rest ye merry, gentlemen" or "hear ye, hear ye"; not as in "ye olde shoppe", that's a different word) You was a different case: I/me, thou/thee, he/him, we/us, ye/you, they/them. Yes, "thou" matched with "ye", and "thee" matched with "you". English has always been a little weird.)

Anyway, as in other languages (e.g. tu/usted in Spanish), the plural form began to be used as a "respectful" version, even if you were talking to someone singular. Eventually though the "respect" spread to everyone to the point that "thou" died out.

Why "you" and "ye" combined when we still have "I" and "me", etc, I don't know.

Thee actually matches with "yours" It's a possessive, IIRC.

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Are there any other "missing" components of English?

The letter Þ. Dropped out of late Middle English. It's time to bring it back.

(I'm not unopposed to bringing back Ð as well, but I'd be happy with just Þ.. there's, say, "loath"/"loathe", but there really aren't many pairs of words where it makes a difference, and we can get by with the silent e.)

 

[acheron]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: acheron
English used to have thou/you for singluar/plural second person. (Or more accurately, thou/ye (as in "God rest ye merry, gentlemen" or "hear ye, hear ye"; not as in "ye olde shoppe", that's a different word) You was a different case: I/me, thou/thee, he/him, we/us, ye/you, they/them. Yes, "thou" matched with "ye", and "thee" matched with "you". English has always been a little weird.)

Anyway, as in other languages (e.g. tu/usted in Spanish), the plural form began to be used as a "respectful" version, even if you were talking to someone singular. Eventually though the "respect" spread to everyone to the point that "thou" died out.

Why "you" and "ye" combined when we still have "I" and "me", etc, I don't know.

Thee actually matches with "yours" It's a possessive, IIRC.

That's "thine", I think?

 

[funkymatt]

y'all or yous, i suppose it could be spelled youse. at any rate, im glad we dont have to deal with formalities. apostrophes are difficult enough 😛

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: lyssword

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
My brother in law tells me we're missing a word for the color orange. "There's orange, and then there's THIS color." (He points at another, differently shaded orange object.) He's a Russian speaker and they are two distinct colors in Russian apparently.

Gold, darkorange? Peach? gold? Maybe he meant brown? I Don't remember different color for orange (I grew up speaking Russian) but there is for light-blue.

All you need to do is buy the super-mega-huge box of crayons and you will have the information you seek.

MotionMan

 

[Bibble]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist
and joisey bois use "yous". if they are talking to a group they say yous, if its just a person its you. at least thats how ive noticed from the people i knew from jersey.

My girlfriend goes to a state school in NJ and I love visiting her because I am able to hear all the quaint Jersey accents. I myself am from NJ as well, but I do not speak with the stereotypical "Joisey" accent (nor do most people). Nevertheless, I have on occasion used "yous" and "youse" when speaking to a group of people. Since leaving the state for school I've encountered and begun using "y'all" with more frequency. Of course, I am ridiculed for saying this by my friends in my home state. As a rule, I'll use "y'all" when I wish to be really informal, "yous" (especially "yous guys") when I wish to sound like I'm from NJ, and "all of you" or "everybody" in normal circumstances.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: lyssword
Ok, I found something, the color is probably "rizhiy" which is the color of a fox or orange color cat. Here's a quote I googled about this color:

"There are adjectives in Russian that do not exist in English and vice versa. I couldn't tell you what color my dog is, because there is no word for "Rizhiy" in English. The best I can come up with is "rust" - which isn't a word for color - or "reddish-brown." The way we talk defines how we think on a basic level."

😕

Pick a color. Rust is on the list.

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
That's why southerners use "ya'll".

Ya, and other parts use "you guys" or "youse" or "you lot" or various other variations thereof. Unfortunately, those are often unwieldy, stopgap measures. We need a definitive "you" plural.

1. It's "y'all".
2. There is a plural of you. It's "y'all".

Of course, I live in Texas.

The English language needs different verb tenses for the pluperfect tense. 😉

 

[sygyzy]

English lacks a way of describing a vague numerical range. For example, in Vietnamese if you ask how much a CD costs, the person can answer "a couple teens" or "a couple tens." These are not direct translations but they basically mean "it cost between 10 and 19 dollars" or "it cost 20-40 dollars.:

You can't say that in English. You could say "it cost between 30 and 60 dollars" but people would think you are rude for being ambiguous.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Another missing component is the lack of a genderless human pronoun. Sure, we have "it", but it symbolizes more of an inanimate object, a distant cold pronoun. However, if we are referring to an actual person, but one whose gender is unknown, it seems wrong to use "it.

That's why you would use "they." Are you new to English?

Incorrect. "They" is a collective term, referring to a group of people.

It is used as a genderless pronoun only because we do not have a proper genderless pronoun (and I agree, "it" is insufficient - you can't just objectify individuals).

How about "Correct?"

The OED disagrees with you.

2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ?he or she?).
See Jespersen Progress in Lang. §24.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VIII. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 CHESTERFIELD Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it. 1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would. 1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives §38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. 1874 [see THEMSELVES 5].

and look at that. usage goes all the way back to 1526 in their record. Even before Shakespeare.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Having grown up in Minnesota, English is seriously lacking in words to describe different types of snow.

Snow
Heavy Snow
Light Snow
Flurries
Wet Snow
Snow that's good for making snowballs
Sleet
Slush
A lot other I'm not listing
We've got plenty, as I write from Duluth 😛


The whole 'eskimos have 20 different words for snow' thing is just because of the way their language is set up. Adjectives are sort of combined with the nouns, as far as I understand it (which isn't very far).

Actually, it's the Inuit, and they have over 50 phrases.

again, you're spreading more myth and slander! 😉
http://www.mendosa.com/snow.html

he Great Inuit Vocabulary Hoax is anthropology's contribution to urban legends. It apparently started in 1911 when anthropologist Franz Boaz casually mentioned that the Inuit?he called them "Eskimos," using the derogatory term of a tribe to the south of them for eaters of raw meat?had four different words for snow. With each succeeding reference in textbooks and the popular press the number grew to sometimes as many as 400 words.

In fact, "Contrary to popular belief, the Eskimos do not have more words for snow than do speakers of English," according to linguist Steven Pinker in his book The Language Instinct. "Counting generously, experts can come up with about a dozen."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/...nopsis&bookkey=3640750

Pullum cites a detailed article on the phenomenon, that I have not yet obtained: Laura Martin, 1986. "Eskimo Words for Snow: A case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropological example." American Anthropologist 88(2), pp. 418-423. She traces the myth to Franz Boas' Introduction to The Handbook of North American Indians (at least 15 volumes, sadly out of print and going for $75+ per volume used). In that introduction he says merely (as described by Pullum on p. 162):

just as English uses derived terms for a variety of forms of water (liquid, lake, river, brook, rain, dew, wave, foam) that might be formed by derivational morphology [suffixes and other such stuff] from a single root meaning 'water' in some other language, so Eskimo uses the apparently distinct roots aput 'snow on the ground', gana 'falling snow', piqsirpoq 'drifting snow', and qimuqsuq 'a snow drift'.

From there Martin and Pullum trace the steady growth of exaggeration, starting with Whorf's much quoted 1940 article that grows the word-count magically to 7, and eventually reaching sources claiming totals as high as 400. Just a few weeks ago I sat across a table at dinner from someone claiming to actually know "all 57 Eskimo words for snow" -- but I had neither a native speaker nor Pullum's article at hand.

so, both sources cite 4 legitimate words for snow. I mentioned earlier that I thought there were 5. My memory was only off by 1.

 

[shortylickens]

Am taking Spanish now and we were just talking about how (in english) "you" can mean many different things.
But overall I like it, one of the few simple things in the english language. And I dont say "yous guys" or "yall". Thats just fucking stupid.

One of my major distresses in Spanish is how words have to change completely on a regular basis. All nouns have a gender, and the gender has to match in a dozen other places. Adjectives have to match in gender and number.
Verbs have to be conjugated a dozen different ways.
I dont like it.

But, I will say one thing English has that I have not seen elseware is contractions, and those must be fucking annoying for a foreigner to pick up. Most of them make no damn sense at all.
"Won't"? How the fuck do you get that from "will" and "not"? Was somebody smoking crack?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Most of them make no damn sense at all.
"Won't"? How the fuck do you get that from "will" and "not"? Was somebody smoking crack?

hey, at least all the letters are there. 😛

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
*snip*

Wow, I stand corrected. A quick Google search confirms that you're right.

My elementary school teachers lied to me! 😛

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zinfamous
*snip*

Wow, I stand corrected. A quick Google search confirms that you're right.

My elementary school teachers lied to me! 😛

:beer:

zinfamous gains a level!

e-peen ++

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Another missing component is the lack of a genderless human pronoun. Sure, we have "it", but it symbolizes more of an inanimate object, a distant cold pronoun. However, if we are referring to an actual person, but one whose gender is unknown, it seems wrong to use "it.

That's why you would use "they." Are you new to English?

Incorrect. "They" is a collective term, referring to a group of people.

It is used as a genderless pronoun only because we do not have a proper genderless pronoun (and I agree, "it" is insufficient - you can't just objectify individuals).

How about "Correct?"

The OED disagrees with you.

2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ?he or she?).
See Jespersen Progress in Lang. §24.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VIII. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 CHESTERFIELD Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it. 1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would. 1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives §38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. 1874 [see THEMSELVES 5].

and look at that. usage goes all the way back to 1526 in their record. Even before Shakespeare.

While the OED is undoubtedly a very credible source, I have to disagree here.

This depends on your professional field. In technical writing (my profession), "they" is a plural pronoun. It should used only when necessary - almost anything else is preferable (second-person or gender neutral name; even "his or her"/"he or she", while wordier, is more correct).

From the Microsoft Manual of Style, 3rd Edition (p. 107)

Avoid the generic masculine pronoun. Use the instead of his, or rewrite material in
the second person (you) or in the plural. If necessary, use a plural pronoun such
as they or their with an indefinite singular antecedent, such as everyone, or with
multiple antecedents of different or unknown genders, such John and Chris. Use
his or her for the singular possessive case if you can do so infrequently and if nothing
else works.

As well, grammar rules are dramatically different now than they were in the 1500s (even the 1800s). Those examples are only relevant to historical texts, not current English.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Are there any other "missing" components of English?

intelligence

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Another missing component is the lack of a genderless human pronoun. Sure, we have "it", but it symbolizes more of an inanimate object, a distant cold pronoun. However, if we are referring to an actual person, but one whose gender is unknown, it seems wrong to use "it.

That's why you would use "they." Are you new to English?

Incorrect. "They" is a collective term, referring to a group of people.

It is used as a genderless pronoun only because we do not have a proper genderless pronoun (and I agree, "it" is insufficient - you can't just objectify individuals).

How about "Correct?"

The OED disagrees with you.

2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ?he or she?).
See Jespersen Progress in Lang. §24.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VIII. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 CHESTERFIELD Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it. 1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would. 1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives §38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. 1874 [see THEMSELVES 5].

and look at that. usage goes all the way back to 1526 in their record. Even before Shakespeare.

While the OED is undoubtedly a very credible source, I have to disagree here.

This depends on your professional field. In technical writing (my profession), "they" is a plural pronoun. It should used only when necessary - almost anything else is preferable (second-person or gender neutral name; even "his or her"/"he or she", while wordier, is more correct).

From the Microsoft Manual of Style, 3rd Edition (p. 107)

Avoid the generic masculine pronoun. Use the instead of his, or rewrite material in
the second person (you) or in the plural. If necessary, use a plural pronoun such
as they or their with an indefinite singular antecedent, such as everyone, or with
multiple antecedents of different or unknown genders, such John and Chris. Use
his or her for the singular possessive case if you can do so infrequently and if nothing
else works.

As well, grammar rules are dramatically different now than they were in the 1500s (even the 1800s). Those examples are only relevant to historical texts, not current English.

According to wikipedia, which is a FAR more credible source than some no-name, never heard of, Oxford English Dictionary, "The correctness of this usage is disputed". So I win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Things English lacks.

Toothpaste?

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

According to wikipedia, which is a FAR more credible source than some no-name, never heard of, Oxford English Dictionary, "The correctness of this usage is disputed". So I win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They

He quotes the OED, I quote the MSTP, and you quote Wikipedia (which derives its sources from a New York Times editorial and a dictionary.com entry)? :laugh:

Don't be a tool.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

According to wikipedia, which is a FAR more credible source than some no-name, never heard of, Oxford English Dictionary, "The correctness of this usage is disputed". So I win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They

He quotes the OED, I quote the MSTP, and you quote Wikipedia (which derives its sources from a New York Times editorial and a dictionary.com entry)? :laugh:

Don't be a tool.

Hey, don't be a hater! That is the same place that helped me get my bachelors degree on advanced pigeon dynamics.

It still sounds a tad weird though. For example, you see a person afar, so you cannot identify the gender. Asking "Who are they" still seems weird in that situation.

Edit: or would it be "Who is they". That sounds even more out of place.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

According to wikipedia, which is a FAR more credible source than some no-name, never heard of, Oxford English Dictionary, "The correctness of this usage is disputed". So I win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They

He quotes the OED, I quote the MSTP, and you quote Wikipedia (which derives its sources from a New York Times editorial and a dictionary.com entry)? :laugh:

Don't be a tool.

Hey, don't be a hater! That is the same place that helped me get my bachelors degree on advanced pigeon dynamics.

It still sounds a tad weird though. For example, you see a person afar, so you cannot identify the gender. Asking "Who are they" still seems weird in that situation.

Edit: or would it be "Who is they". That sounds even more out of place.

ROFL!

But yea, excellent example - "they" is out of place in that context. I would probably say "Who is that person?", but it'd be nice to have a more generic term.