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 :)
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
Post a Comment