<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/21/2020 11:38 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA975D78-F68B-4D58-9279-406C903776C8@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">While I agree with the possibility that all you say
is right, I don’t accept the authority with which you speak as
if your conclusions are final and unquestionable.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I am not speaking with authority. I'm just some guy on an archaic
Internet mailing list. When they teach you good writing style in
school, they teach you not to be wishy-washy. I don't claim to be
a good writer, but aren't you the one who's always complaining
about "vague, wittering, and indecisive" writing?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA975D78-F68B-4D58-9279-406C903776C8@mac.com">
<div class="">I specifically remember being four years old and
being corrected for having said “gooder”. Part of language
acquisition is learning the rules,</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No. "Language acquisition" is a specific process of the brain
which is different than "language learning."<br>
</p>
<p>A child might obey after being told, usually repeatedly, not to
say <i>gooder.</i> But they ACQUIRED the general
superlative-making rule before they learned an exception. And most
children, when they aren't corrected by parents or teachers, will
eventually acquire the exceptions too. I don't correct my son's
grammar, and he DOES say things like <i>gooder,</i> and as time
goes on he drops them all on his own. This is a natural process,
not a matter of learning rules.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA975D78-F68B-4D58-9279-406C903776C8@mac.com">
<div class=""> from which one concludes that “gooder” ought to be
the correct form of the word. Another part of language
acquisition is learning the exceptions to the regular rules for
word formation. It’s been noted by people with much more
authority than I have that irregular forms of words tend to
persist among the most commonly used words and dissolve as words
are used less often.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's correct: commonly used irregular forms tend to persist.
And why are they the most commonly used? Because they're core to
the language. THEY PREDATE THE RULE. English words like <i>run/ran,
begin/began/begun, </i>and <i>blow/blew/blown</i>,<i> </i>not
to mention <i>be/am/is/are/was/were/being/been</i> had these
forms, or something like them, before there was an "add <i>-d</i>
to form the past tense" rule. It is NATURAL for human brains to
think in terms of separate forms for these functions. Regular
rules came later. Language according to regular rules is not how
our brains work.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA975D78-F68B-4D58-9279-406C903776C8@mac.com">
<div class="">Stockings are hung by the chimney with care, but men
are hanged for murder. My wife finds that distinction extremely
important, and she’s right, but given how common execution by
hanging has been through many centuries of English and American
culture, I strongly suspect that the rarity of modern usage will
eventually erase it from the list of irregularities in the
language.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Actually, the word <i>hanged</i> is the one that's disappearing,
changing to <i>hung</i> in all circumstances, even execution.
That means the IRREGULAR form is the one that's winning out.</p>
<p>Another example is <i>proved</i> or <i>proven</i> as the
participle form of <i>prove.</i> In Britain, they tend to prefer
<i>proved</i> (which is also the only past tense form), and
American style guides clearly advocate <i>proved.</i> But you can
still use <i>proven</i> almost anywhere, even though the form is
slowly disappearing.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA975D78-F68B-4D58-9279-406C903776C8@mac.com">
<div class="">It may be the case that adults erase irregular words
from the vocabulary,</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That is not the case. They just learn when to apply the rule and
when not to. Usually.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA975D78-F68B-4D58-9279-406C903776C8@mac.com">
<div class=""> but based on my own memory of my “gooder” moment,
it’s quite likely that if a child learns the rules for regular
word forms and is not exposed to corrections for an irregular
form, that’s a very natural overlap of language acquisition and
language evolution, and it explains why less commonly used words
become more regular, while very commonly used irregular words do
not.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There are all sorts of reasons why less commonly used words might
become more regular. It's also the case that less commonly used
words become irregular. Less commonly used words are encountered
less commonly, therefore the population has less exposure to it
and less reason to assimilate a particular form. It's the core
words, the really basic words, in English usually the Germanic
words, that have the most inertia, and those are much more likely
to have irregular forms.</p>
<p>All this is to say that "parents failed to teach children the
proper rules" is an absurd explanation for language change.</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>