Beauty of Structure

                                                        

The Eiffel Tower, an amazing structure with endless detail, inspires human ability to construct such beauty. Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel and his crew assembled 18,000 pieces of wrought iron to complete the fascinating structure we see today. The process took just under 21 months, not including the time it took for Eiffel to draft his blueprints.

Communication is not achieved by ascending a floating set of stairs. A series of events and experiences constructs our ability to communicate effectively with others. Many of us never think about detail in the structure of our language. Since the process begins at birth, it seems as if we have effortlessly constructed our native language. The case is rather that our brain has worked, even as we have slept, to make connections and build the language we use every day. The connections are assembled to construct communication that is unique from other members of the animal world.

Noam Chomsky, linguist, political activist, writer, 1928 - , has studied the nature of language and indicates the unique elements of human language are structures within the brain that cause innate abilities. He compares these innate abilities as similar to our ability to walk. These structures of our brain give us ability; experience and cultural interaction determine the particular dialect we speak. Therefore, we do not innately know English, or any other language for that matter. We construct our language to participate in the context of our experience.

Humans are adaptable, creative, and innovative. Our minds construct more than skyscrapers and industry. If we look closer, can we appreciate the beauty in the structure of our language?


Picture credit given to: credit Sigurd Decroos       credit Michael Faes          

About this blog

I am a native English speaker studying Spanish; my studies have opened my eyes to differing structures between the two languages. Learning a new language requires an understanding of origins or purpose in order to learn what a fluent speaker of a language "inherently" knows.

Fascinated by linguistics and history, I find myself with queries about the English language; why is it that the only written difference between the words "plow" and "flow" is their first letter, yet the endings are pronounced different?

Watching my three children's language development has been a fascinating experience. Even though their understanding of spoken language at this age is more developed than their ability to produce it, their seemingly effortless ability to acquire language is amazing.

From the first day we use our senses we begin to categorize our world. A child sees a dog and is told it is a dog; the child places into memory that a moving object with four legs is a dog. Later the child sees a cow and says "Dog" but is told "No sweetie, that's a cow." Now the child has created a new category; they place into their memory that a moving object with black and white spots and four legs is a cow.

In language there are patterns that are learned through categorization. The silent "E" generally indicates the pronunciation of the preceding vowel letter to say its name; thus, "can" turns into "cane," "hat" turns into "hate." But what about exceptions? The word "some" does not pronounce the preceding vowel letter "O" as its name even though it has the silent "E." My purpose of this blog is to have a little fun and explore the questions that children and adults might wonder but never ask.

I invite readers to respond with answers or queries of their own. For example, do you know why the word "some" doesn't follow the rule of the silent "E"? Or, does another query of the English language interest you?

This blog may not result in all of our questions being answered, but it certainly will give us an opportunity to infer, explore, and discover meaning of the language we engage with every day.

Moose or Meese?

If we have one goose and multiple geese, why is there one moose and multiple moose?

According to "Ask a Scientist":

"The word "moose" came to us from Algonquian Indians. Consequently
its plural, instead of being "mooses" or "meese", is the same as the
singular. That is true of most Indian names whether of a tribe, such as
the Winnebago and Potawatomi, or of an object such as papoose. It is
also true of many wildlife names not of Indian origin -- for example:
deer, mink and grouse."

A process of learning requires that we categorize items in order to make sense of new experiences that we must fit into a new category. Sometimes we experience a little disequilibrium trying to fit something into a category; subsequently we inquire and learn something new.

Language has traceable and fascinating origins. Taking the time to feed our curiosity can be interesting and rewarding. What other pluralization can we find that strays from the rule of add -s, -es? Can we explain it?