Skip to main content

The English 'language'

It's only when trying to learn another language (I'm determined to improve my Spanish)  that I've noticed how ridiculous English is.
I'm sure there's hundreds of examples of this, but the one which has been keeping me occupied today is this.

Let think about the following phrases :

I open the door.
I am opening the door.

I opened the door.
I will open the door.

All makes good sence.  The first two are in the present tense - the first being the simple present tense and the second the present progressive.  The thrid is simple past tense, the fourth is simple future.  Of course there are lots of other tenses, but that will do for my example.

Let's see what happens when we want to negate these phrases.

I don't open the door.
I am not opening the door.
I did not open the door
I will not open the door.

Some of these are sensible.  The future tense makes good sence.  We simply put a "not" after the will. The second also works well : put a "not" after the "I am".  I like the idea of putting a not after the verb to suggest negation. This is essentially how latin languages like Spanish do it : they put 'no' in front of the verb.

So, why can't I say "I open not the door" or "I opened not the door".  These seem to me to make better grammatical sense (and I suspect may once have been used. they sound kind of archaic).  Why it the verb "to do" in there?  When was it decided that we need to introduce this verb into our sentences?

Why do we use the past emphatic to negate simple past tense phrases?  Answers on a postcard....  Or just type a comment :)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Christopher Hitchen's new commandments

As you probably may have gathered from reading my other posts, you'll know that I have little respect for religion. I'm proud to call myself an Atheist, and think that's it's probably the only philosophy worthy of respect in a sea of morally bankrupt religions.

Christopher Hitchens seems to live in the same moral sea as I, and in keeping with this he's written a nice little article for Vanity Fair about the 10 "Commandments" - the moral framework set forth by the judeo-christian god.

He goes through all the biblical commandments one by one and deals with them as one would given today's ethical environment.  I'm always horrified by people who treat the biblical commandments as if they're in some way a moral high point. They're really not, and I admit to being further horrified by the glaring omissions (genocide, rape, child abuse and care for the environment.  Wouldn't an omnipotent god have known about these too?)

So check out his lis…

Interesting Times...

Well, Jacqui's off to Mexico for a few weeks, or a month, or maybe longer. 

Thursday night Jacqui spent packing and I spent sorting out her laptop.  Updated all the software and switched off automatic updates - Jacqui will be using the tethering function on her iPhone for internet and at $10 per megabyte, it could be very expensive!  We ended up going to bed sometime around 4.

A few hours later, on Friday morning, we got up early and faffed about for exactly 7 minutes too long, and then battled our way through Friday Morning Traffic, moving at the exact same speed as Golden Syrup, before arriving at the airport exactly 7 minutes late.

Damn.

"Sorry sir, check-in is now closed." the lady told us.
"Closed?"
"Yes, but don't worry; you can get on the next flight for a $90 charge."
"Excellent!  When's that then?"
"In 6 hours"

The lady was very nice though : not her fault we arrived late.  She suggested that we might like to try s…