Some people never stop. Although I’m fit to drop and need to get some sleep, here’s my last email exchange. I’m sorry if any of you were thinking of asking anything later but I’m not feeling great and need to turn in:
- when did the ‘thee’ and thou forms change from more intimate to more formal/archaic…17th century? why?
- Essay structure…we agreed not a good idea to structure with frameworks…what did we agree was a better approach?
- shaping answer around context?
Start with GASPH – show that you know what kind of text(s) you are dealing with
- in the ‘Charge’ paper…’something of something’…what is ‘of’ in sentences like this? its not a preposition is it?
Yes it is.
- did aux verbs come about to make syntax more complex to compensate for simplification elsewhere in the lang? where did the idea for them come from?
Good question: some languages are analytic (they express grammatical relations lexically; ie by separate words such as auxiliary verbs, prepositions/particles). Others are synthetic (they express grammatical relations primarily by inflections). In reality languages are on a sliding scale between the two extremes. As to why the shift along that spectrum should occur, I don’t really know, but you are right to suggest that when a change occurs in one aspect of the language system, compensating changes occur elsewhere to ‘take up the semantic slack’, as it were. This discussion seems relevant to the issue:
- in the ‘Charge’ paper again…’labor’=american spelling…Webster wanted a simpler spelling didnt he? so is this why the american spellign was simplified from ‘labour’…or was ‘labor’ the original?
That’s right enough. (As is usually case with language it’s probably not quite as straightforward as that.