New answers tagged linguistics
It depends on the usage. "Yesterday," "today," and "tomorrow" can either be nouns or adverbs. In "Today is a good day." Then "today" is a noun. But if you say, "I'll see you tomorrow," then it's an adverb, since "tomorrow" is modifying the verb, "see." If it's an adverb, it's sometimes called an adverb of time, along with other words like "later," "now," ...
In linguistics, this phenomenon is called cross-language speech perception. A large amount of research has studied how users of a language perceive foreign speech (referred to as cross-language speech perception) or second-language speech (second-language speech perception). The latter falls within the domain of second language acquisition. ...
The best term I can come up with is non-native phoneme.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language in its section (p1506) on anaphoric uses of this and that with noun phrases as antecedents states: ... both this and that can be used anaphorically - and in general one could be replaced by the other with very little effect on the meaning. In contrast, Swan in Practical English Usage (p591) does detect a ...
It's true that this is used in cataphoric reference and that hardly ever; but they are also both widely used in anaphor, the basic difference then being that this is proximal, that distal. In practice, however, unless there are two likely referents to distinguish between, they are pretty much interchangeable in anaphor.
Languages are arbitrary and, yes, the rules are made up, but involve the principles of reasoning
Many of the rules are artificial in at least two senses. In one sense, some are artificial in that they were the natural form for speakers of one variety of English, but they have been imposed on speakers of other varieties. For the speakers of these varieties, they were originally artificial. One example of this is the -s suffix for the third person ...
No language begins with rules. In the course of time speakers of a language find a sytem of speaking that is accepted by all - more or less. And as grammar is only description of how a language system works Chomsky's statement has only limited value. Of course, there are cases, where experts as Samuel Johnson and others discussed problems of language and ...
He means "artificial" in the sense of "arbitrary". That is, there is no particular reason why "the ball red" is standard in some languages while "the red ball" is standard in others. However, just because rules are arbitrary doesn't mean you can't determine what is or is not correct according to the rules. Parking restrictions are quite arbitrary too, but ...
Life's much simpler if we look at a gerund as verb present continuous, where it is, and a nominalization of verb, where it is. The two uses are unrelated in behavior. Verbs and nouns are chalk and cheese. The underlying semantic is common but the POSs are distinct.
For one, -ful cannot be an infix here, because it needs to be there before -ness can be (further) suffixed. The rest, with four components, seems perfect.
Top 50 recent answers are included