Thread: ''What happened''

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Hmmm, "sheriff stars" to both translationsmru and Bitpicker for their answers -- аs a native speaker of English, I really had no idea how to answer Lena's question, but I thought the subject/object analysis was very logical!

Двадцать очков Гриффиндору...

Удивительно, как люди не понимают собственного языка. В американских школах не разбирают предложения по составу?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Удивительно, как люди не понимают собственного языка. В американских школах не разбирают предложения по составу?

Не надолго, а затем люди забывают. Разве не то же самое в русских школах? Я могу вспомнить, когда я задавал вопросы русскам о падежах, и они не могли даже перечислить все из них по имени.

Originally Posted by zxc

.Не надолго.Недолго, а затем люди забывают. Разве не то же самое в русских школах? Я могу вспомнить, когда я задавал вопросы русским о падежах, и они не могли даже перечислить всех их по имени.

Недолго = короткое время
Ненадолго = на короткое время

У нашей квартире есть свободная комната, и наш друг ненадолго остановится у нас.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Удивительно, как люди не понимают собственного языка. В американских школах не разбирают предложения по составу?

Мне удивительно, что вы удивляетесь тому, что много людей плохо понимает формальную грамматику собственного языка!

I mean, one thing that I've heard over and over from people who have intensively studied a second language as adults is: "I never even thought about the grammatical rules of my own language until I began studying a foreign language and doing translations."

And speaking of translations, if it had occurred to me to try translating Lena's two sentences ("What happened?" and "What did you do last night?") into Russian, I would have immediately realized that "what" was a subject in the first one and an object in the second one. ("Что случилось?" vs. "Чем вы занимались вчера вечером?") Although I'm not sure that I would have made the connection between the subject/object difference and the use/non-use of the auxiliary verb "did."

By the way, Lena -- do you understand that "What did happen?" is grammatically possible? However, the "did" would be strongly stressed and typically have a rising intonation, and the meaning would be something like "Что, на самом деле, случилось?" But the "did" in "What did you do last night?" is normally unstressed, and doesn't have an emphatic meaning -- it's simply a past-tense marker.

I have to confess that while I never had any problem with such phrases I had to look up the reason why it is like it is in a grammar book. It's a distinction I had never really thought about before.

And this is very strange. English is not your mother toungue. How could you say it corectly if you did not know the rules? We learnt structure of English qestions and trained using them for a very long time. And questions with "who" and "what" were treated separately and much attention was paid to distinction between questions where "who" ("what") is a subject and where it is an object.

Originally Posted by Marcus

And this is very strange. English is not your mother toungue. How could you say it corectly if you did not know the rules? We learnt structure of English qestions and trained using them for a very long time. And questions with "who" and "what" were treated separately and much attention was paid to distinction between questions where "who" ("what") is a subject and where it is an object.

I guess people have different teachers and different ways of learning. I learnt English myself and I didn't have any tutors. That's why I didn't know about subject/object issues much. I know a Swedish girl who speaks English pretty well. She did study English at school but she had know idea what transcription is (she could not read it) or what the present perfect tense means...I agree with Throbert McGee...we study grammar at schools but then we just speak our native language and we don't pay attention to the rules that much. For example, when you say "Она пришла домой" or "Я пришел домой" you just say it and you don't wonder why you say "она пришла" and not "она пришел".

Marcus, I learn languages by "osmosis" rather than by memorizing rules, I try to replicate the language learning of a child learning his mother tongue. As an adult I have the additional tool of knowing about grammatical rules, but I use that tool to explain to myself certain characteristics of the language which I nevertheless try to adopt as natural rather than as the result of conscious thinking. I have read hundreds of English language novels and other books, had countless conversations in speaking and writing and have probably seen or heard and therefore now can mimick just about every imaginable sentence structure there is. If things like a non-stressed "what did happen?" never turn up, then I never get an impetus to use that form. When I notice forms like "what did happen?" then I try to glean from the context what this form achieves in addition to a simple "what happened?". Usually there will be a dialogue, for example:

A: But that's not what happened!
B: Alright, so what did happen then, in your words?

And I simply understand from such examples sooner or later that the form with "did" adds emphasis.

If you approach a language only through rules and translation, then you never achieve real access to the language. It's like using only half your brain for the language. The left hemispere processes the foreign language, applying rules and translations, then transfers the syntactic content thus transformed into the native language to the right hemisphere which harvests the semantic content; and the semantic content of the reply from the right hemisphere is clothed in the native language first in the left, then again transformed by applying the set of known rules and translations, and hopefully comes out correctly. That's like an interpreted computer language: slow.

What you need to aim for is a direct connection between the syntactic processes in the left hemisphere to the semantic in the right hemisphere without a detour through your native language. Only then you will really be able to think in the target language, and then you will really know the language. This is more like a compiled language, and it is fast.

I'm still a couple of years at least from reaching that point in Russian, but I am quite content that I will, eventually.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

Marcus, I learn languages by "osmosis" rather than by memorizing rules, I try to replicate the language learning of a child learning his mother tongue. As an adult I have the additional tool of knowing about grammatical rules, but I use that tool to explain to myself certain characteristics of the language which I nevertheless try to adopt as natural rather than as the result of conscious thinking. I have read hundreds of English language novels and other books, had countless conversations in speaking and writing and have probably seen or heard and therefore now can mimick just about every imaginable sentence structure there is. If things like a non-stressed "what did happen?" never turn up, then I never get an impetus to use that form. When I notice forms like "what did happen?" then I try to glean from the context what this form achieves in addition to a simple "what happened?". Usually there will be a dialogue, for example:

A: But that's not what happened!
B: Alright, so what did happen then, in your words?

And I simply understand from such examples sooner or later that the form with "did" adds emphasis.

If you approach a language only through rules and translation, then you never achieve real access to the language. It's like using only half your brain for the language. The left hemispere processes the foreign language, applying rules and translations, then transfers the syntactic content thus transformed into the native language to the right hemisphere which harvests the semantic content; and the semantic content of the reply from the right hemisphere is clothed in the native language first in the left, then again transformed by applying the set of known rules and translations, and hopefully comes out correctly. That's like an interpreted computer language: slow.

What you need to aim for is a direct connection between the syntactic processes in the left hemisphere to the semantic in the right hemisphere without a detour through your native language. Only then you will really be able to think in the target language, and then you will really know the language. This is more like a compiled language, and it is fast.

I'm still a couple of years at least from reaching that point in Russian, but I am quite content that I will, eventually.

I agree that exposure is absolutely necessary to learn the language. But grammar is also needed, I think. Probably it would have taken too long time before I would have undestood how questions are formed in English. (I' m not sure if the last sentence is correct).
bitpicker, did you pick up endings of Russian cases, for example, or their without learning them and then looked them up in a grammar book just for interest? And grammar is one of the most interesting parts of learning languages.

Originally Posted by Marcus

I agree that exposure is absolutely necessary to learn the language. But grammar is also needed, I think. Probably it would have taken too long time before I would have understood (better: too long for me to understand) how questions are formed in English. (I' m not sure if the last sentence is correct).
bitpicker, did you pick up endings of Russian cases, for example, on their own without learning them and then looked them up in a grammar book just for interest? And grammar is one of the most interesting parts of learning languages.

I did read a couple of grammar books front to back early on, and I still refer to them, read them again chapter-wise and even have some books on special linguistic topics such as particles, phonetics and contractions. But I read those books in order to find out what lies ahead of me. I never sit down with a declension table and try to memorize it. And I still use such tables to look up the correct form if I am not sure about it when writing Russian. Some cases come more naturally to me than others. But I do find already that some phrases and constructs come to mind immediately from thought image to Russian when I need them. I don't have to think a single word in German when I compose a post like this one in English, and neither do I have to think about meaning when I read English. I'll be satisfied when I have reached that level in Russian.

I agree that grammar is interesting; but it is a tool to work with the language. If you're a carpenter, then what you should care about is the wood, not the saw and the hammer. The language as it is being used is the wood, the grammar is the saw and hammer.

Originally Posted by Marcus

And this is very strange. English is not your mother toungue. How could you say it corectly if you did not know the rules? We learnt structure of English qestions and trained using them for a very long time. And questions with "who" and "what" were treated separately and much attention was paid to distinction between questions where "who" ("what") is a subject and where it is an object.

Yes, I want to echo what bitpicker said. His written English is like native, you can safely trust anything he says about English. In fact, because he's making the effort, his English is better than that of many English speakers (who are notoriously lazy about grammar, grammatical rules and even spelling.)

I suspect he probably has a noticeable accent when speaks, but that's not relevant in a forum. But basically, he's put a lot of time into it, he's an absolute ace with grammar and additionally his experiences are relevant for anyone learning English.

Remember that English is MUCH closer to German than it is to Russian, so it's been easier for him to learn than it's been for you, for example. In Western Europe it's also much easier to get exposure to English and native English speakers.

For me, it's the same thing although in Scandinavia we have even more exposure to English than in Germany. I started from a really young age and I've lived in the UK for 10+ years. Basically, I am confident about my English and if I make any mistakes here, it's because I don't bother proof-reading most of the time, and because I change what I want to say while I'm in the middle of writing a sentence.

Unfortunately I don't know grammatical terms well and I am not as good at explaining the reasons why a certain sentence structure is better than another, as Robin is. The only English grammar I can remembers studying, is verbs: "go-went-gone" and "I am, you are, he-she-it is..." The rest I simply learnt naturally.

One little mistake is not the end of the world unless it's for a professional situation. I don't even particularly agree with the idea that everyone should have to speak English as a second language... As can be seen in International Politics, Science etc - as long as you've got functional English and can articulate yourself clearly without sounding like a fool... that's all you really need. Anything else is "extras". You should be aware that native English speakers usually think that foreign accents sound cool and interesting and they generally believe that the foreign speaker is intelligent since he masters more than one language (at least that is the attitude towards white people...)

I agree with everything that Robin said, although I wouldn't have expressed it as well. Translationsnmru is another forum user who is not a native English speaker but writes in absolutely perfect English and gives great advice.

I am trying to apply the same principles that he's outlining to learning Russian (basically repeating what I did for English). But I'm not so sure my approach is correct; Russian is harder and more different to any other language I know. I have not had the same practical incentive (necessity) to learn it, and nowhere near the same exposure. So I am not sure that the "English" approach necessarily works for learning Russian.... I feel that my learning is far too slow although it got a big boost by my trip to Eastern Europe (which is coming to and end shortly).

And I have a vertical hole in my brain where the information about grammar should be. For some reason I seem unable to pick it up and remember it. It's a real handicap when learning Russian and I am so in awe of people who can confidently speak about grammatical concepts.

at least that is the attitude towards white people...)

And what about other people? I ask because I'm not very white.

Originally Posted by Marcus

And what about other people? I ask because I'm not very white.

This is funny. White, black and not very white I think the attitude is the same when your English is understandable.

Originally Posted by Marcus

And what about other people? I ask because I'm not very white.

Originally Posted by Lena.from.Russia

This is funny. White, black and not very white I think the attitude is the same when your English is understandable.

Lena, Hanna is correct about white, black, not very white... but it is even worse in the States. If you are Hispanic and don't speak English very well OR you speak it well but with an accent, many Americans ASSUME you are stupid. However, if you are white and don't speak English very well and have a "cool" accent, people will not think that. Americans love cool accents and white or light skin people. We are shallow.

Marcus, there is good news... the white skin is changing to a "what are you?" mixture. If you are a mixture of races and somewhat light skinned and people can't tell exactly what you are... are you white Hispanic, Italian, European??? What are you?? A multi-ethnic person AND on the light or a little brown, then you have it made right now. So, you dear Marcus, you might be an "it" person in the States right now.

The problem with being a mutli-ethnic person though, is that no one race will claim you. Sadly, you are not enough of one thing to be able to fit in.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Мне удивительно, что вы удивляетесь тому, что много людей плохо понимает формальную грамматику собственного языка!

I mean, one thing that I've heard over and over from people who have intensively studied a second language as adults is: "I never even thought about the grammatical rules of my own language until I began studying a foreign language and doing translations."

And speaking of translations, if it had occurred to me to try translating Lena's two sentences ("What happened?" and "What did you do last night?") into Russian, I would have immediately realized that "what" was a subject in the first one and an object in the second one. ("Что случилось?" vs. "Чем вы занимались вчера вечером?") Although I'm not sure that I would have made the connection between the subject/object difference and the use/non-use of the auxiliary verb "did."

By the way, Lena -- do you understand that "What did happen?" is grammatically possible? However, the "did" would be strongly stressed and typically have a rising intonation, and the meaning would be something like "Что, на самом деле, случилось?" But the "did" in "What did you do last night?" is normally unstressed, and doesn't have an emphatic meaning -- it's simply a past-tense marker.

Yes, now I do understand that it is possible. I've never heard ''what did happen'' before though. But I trust native speakers
In addition, I would never guess that "did" could be translated as "на самом деле"...I would imagine an angry or anxious Russian man/woman shouting "ЧТО случилось" and this loud "ЧТО" would mean your stressed "did".