Hardtodivide (har dtod ivide?)
If you travel on a motorway in Finland you might see a sign that says "Kuormausalue". That means a place where trucks get loaded. Assuming that you can divide the lengthy word into shorter words correctly.
Two class mates of mine in the elementary school used to walk home passing by a sign of this kind. For months, they had been wondering the meaning of "Kuormausalue". They could read, so this was not question of that. But they just couldn't get the meaning of the word. This is how they did it:
Kuorma
USA
lue
...and they got it wrong. It almost made sense (which was a coincidence). It took some time until they heard someone saying that word kuormausalue and only then could divide it properly.
Kuormaus
alue
What they had thought was that Kuormausalue had something to do with the US and reading. Kuorma means load, USA... well you know that and lue read! (a command).
"Load USA read!" didn't quite make sense but was coincidentally almost an existing word.
In the English language, there is no problem with what I call "discern a word". I previously referred to this characteristic in "Thin translations". It is difficult to read long words.
Interesting is a long word but it is not difficult to read. Onomatopoetic is a long word but it is not hard to grasp either. So what's the trick?
Words become difficult if more than two words are put together. This statement is hard to exemplify since English is a language of separate words. So I give you an artificial instance.
superball
There is no certainty this means super ball. Likewise it could really be superb all.
Finnish is full of this kind of words. The context only can help Finns to divide the "tube words" properly.
In a sense I'm disappointed to the Finnish language. I've been quite proud of it, proud of the systematic spelling and alphabet. But compounds don't offer any assistance to people. They are words Finns are assumed to know and I don't like that. Though I don't want to complain only: I do have a suggestion and I'm dreaming of it becoming reality but my chances are minimal. Like suggesting that all the nouns in English would be written with a capital letter.
If my suggestion was turned into practice, 'kuormausalue' would look this:
kuormaus'alue.
superball would look this:
super'ball.
Worse than that,
tarjousostoautomaatti would look this:
tarjous'osto'auto'maatti.
To be systematic (since grammar should always be) - and this is going to be quite dramatic, FINLAND, would be spelled this way in the future:
Suo'mi (because now, with the existing lack of rules for vowel division, SUOMI is confusing. You could say su omi or suo mi)
So here you are, Suo'mi! Enjoy the new kieli'oppi! (grammar)____________________________________________________
for clarification: the nuclear idea of my grammar suggestion is based on the difference in vowels beginning a word and vowels in the middle of it. You can notice the difference by saying the following words: apple, eager, east. Press your fingers against your larynx and repeat these words. You can feel a weak "snap" as the larynx opens and closes. Now, repeat the following: horse, taurus, gaia. Feel the larynx. As you can see, you cannot feel the "snap" when saying taurus because the vowels do not start the word.
This is the characteristic I'm referring to in my suggestion. If you divide "kuormausalue" as kuorma + usa + lue, you can feel a "snap" when saying 'usa'. But if you say the word correctly "kuormaus + alue", you cannot feel the 'snap' in front of u but in front of a in alue because that's where the word begins. In Finnish, this 'snap' is so important that if you say "kuorma usa lue" to a person who is native speaker of Finnish and has not been in touch with foreigners, it is very unlikely he will understand what word you're trying to say. (I mean grasping the meaning immediately).
Das Land, wo man nichtet
Ich nichte,
du nichtest
er nichte
sie nichte
wir nichten
ihr nichtet
sie nichten
Sie nichten.
...und könnte auch sein:
I not
you not
he nots
she nots
we not
you not
they not
...oder:
yo noo
tu noast
el noa
ella noa
nosotros noamos
vosotros noaís
ellos noan
ellas noan
So ist der Fall in der finnischen Sprache wirklich. Nein - oder nicht - ist ein Verb. Oder verhält sich wie ein Verb. Und weil 'nicht' schon ein Verb ist, ist es nicht nötig, das folgende Verb zu konjugieren. Auf Deutsch würde das dann sein:
Ich nichte sprechen, wenn du nichtest die Hausaufgaben machen. Und unser Peter! Er nichtet wollen, dass wir zu zweit in die Stadt fahren. Er sagt, dass wir nichten reif sein, und dass die Menschen in einer Grossstadt unser Dialekt nichten verstehen!
Dass 'nicht' auf Finnisch wie ein Verb sich verhalten kann, ist eigentlich logisch. Besonders, wenn jemand ganz kurze Fragen stellt, und die Antwort auch besonders kurz und knapp sein soll. Als Beispiel ist die folgende Diskussion tätig:
-No-one seems to like this movie! - I do!
-You are not playing well enough today, girls! - Jackie
does at least!
-I don't like to be under so much pressure. - No-one
does.In Englisch kann man zumindest teilweise die Antwort konjugieren. Auf eine ähnliche Weise funktioniert auch Finnisch:
-Oletko kotona? (Bist du zu Hause?) - En (nein)
-Saanko kokeilla? (Darf ich probieren?) - Et (nein)
-Onko se rikki? (Ist das kaputt?) - Ei (nein)
-Haluatteko pelata? (Wollt ihr spielen?) - Emme (nein)
-Häiritsemmekö? (Stören wir?) - Ette (nein)
-Puhuvatko he saksaa?(Sprechen sie Deutsch?) - Eivät (nein)
'Nicht' kann auch eine ganze Frage sein. Das folgende Beispielt stellt, wie man das Verb 'nicht' ganz vielfältig verwenden kann.
Anna: En tajua. (Anna: Ich verstehe nicht.)
Mikko: Etkö? (Mikko: Nein?)
Anna: En! (Anna: Nein!)
Mikko: Eivätkö hekään? (Mikko: Sie auch nicht?)
Anna: Eivät, emmekä me! (Anna: Nein, und wir auch nicht!)
Mikko: Ei voi olla totta! (Mikko: Das kann ja nicht wahr sein!)
Anna: Eiväthän he tiedä kaikkea. (Anna: Sie wissen ja nicht alles.)
Was aber ganz komisch ist, ist dass 'ja' - überraschend - kein Verb ist. Auch für Finnen reicht einfach "ja".
Ist in der finnischen Sprache und Menthalität also "nein" mehr persönlich als "ja"?
Ist vielleicht gut so, denn das Wort "kyllä" zu konjugieren ist schon eine Operation. Eine Menge Einbildungskraft ist notwändig, wenn man
ich jae
du jast
sie jat
er jat
wir jaen
ihr jaet
sie jaen
Sie jaen
...ins Finnische übersetzt:
kyllän
kyllät
kyllä
kyllämme
kyllätte
kyllävät
JA oder NEIN? Meine Antwort ist: beide! und hoffentlich ist das alles...
Phyguistics
This is an irrational story that I was inspired to write at 4 am last night.
"Ja, vi elsker dette landet
som det stiger frem"
...so begins the Norwegian national anthem. In English it is: "Yes, we love this country, how it rises forward".
Last night I was just about to fall asleep when suddenly these lyrics come to my mind and I started to work on them on the cusp of dream and consciousness.
Poetry might not be rational, words don't necessarily make sense, art is free to express thoughts in a non-systematic, weird, strange, funny, confusing, absurd way.
Nothing can really rise forward, can't it? But so do the lyrics state. The anthem is beautiful poetry, full of powerful words. Most people would agree that the lines I wrote above are a poetic expression that above all refers to growth, try, development, hope, and respect. As long as the lyrics transmit the message they were meant to, rationality is not important.
But what I did last night was a sudden try to set the lyrics into a scientific model.
After hours of vector calculations in the afternoon, my brain probably had gone into overdrive and I saw mechanics everywhere.
At 04:15 I stood out of bed, fumbled for a piece of paper and a pen since I didn't want to turn on the light, wrote my idea in the darkness hoping that I could understand my handwriting the following morning and went back to sleep. My idea was saved and I hopefully would remember all the thoughts behind it next morning.
Nothing can rise forward. An object can either - according to my understanding of physics and maths - rise upwards or move along the x-axis or do both but then the movement should be described differently, eg. rising upwards the angle being 30 degrees. Thinking this way, the actual movement of the object (or the country) would be -- as weird as it sounds -- the resultant vector of the vertical movement and the horizontal movement.
Wow, the composer of the anthem has been genius!
The lyrics don't express the movement and change in terms of the real movement but take advantage of its components x and y. They are not real forces or real movements but they can help to understand how long and in what direction the actual development is (going to).
Dividing a part of a national anthem into vectors is certainly a ridiculous idea. But linguistics does it all the time. When I talked with a professor of linguistics from the UK, he actually told me that the most useful subject to study in order to succeed in linguistics is mathematics.
Look at the study of syntax, grammar, audio-linguistics and speech research - they are all very scientific. Messages, our words full of what we think cannot be measured including emotions and standpoints, - they can all be recorded, analyzed, put into a chart, into calculations. Ratios between vowels and consonants, intonation and wave length, length of words, diminutives, and basically everything that relates to languages, and any way of communication between two or more individuals... it's all pure science. It can be, at least.
So, Norway might not be rising forward. It is moving towards something in between these forces. The resultant depends on the ratio between these two, which one has a stronger support of the people and in which angle they want to go for the future. Straight up so that the vertical, stable development is forgotten and rapid growth wins? Quick profits in a short term, an economic boom and consumerist times? Or modest, safe and socially equal development onwards along the x-axis with a very few peaks along the y-axis? We'll see. And now I need to keep going with dynamics...
Day of stereotypes
Occupations...Tell them...
you're dentist and they stop smiling at you [they don't want to show their teeth]
you're English teacher and they won't write you anymore [they're afraid of spelling]
you're lawyer and they start lying at you [about what they did]
you're doctor and they will find a disease they suffer from [to get free treatment]
you're stylist and everyone has their clothes in the laudrette that day [they lie]
you're bodybuilder and they pull their stomachs in [those pears and apples]
you're speech therapist and they avoid tricky words [they don't want to know...]
you're wine-tasting-prof. and they think you get drunk every day [an occupation indeed?]
And how to get there...you're 20 and you won't get the job [you have no experience]
you're 30 and you can't take the job [you're having a baby]
you're 40 and you can't keep the job [they can't afford so many employees, they say]
you're 50 and you can't get the job [you're too old]
you're 60 and you can't leave the job [you don't have enough savings yet]
you're 70 and you will be the job [you have no other life anymore]
you're 80 and they will do your job [finally you're out]
you're 90 and they ask for a secret [how you've lived so long]
you're 100 and the media wants to know how you did it [100 years alive!]
you're 110 and they will hire you again for research [for genetic vitality]
you're 120 and you'll be a human for the first time since you were 10
I don't know why I wrote this. After all, it doesn't have too much to do with linguistics.
