# Stuff missing from English **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028 "2003-06-24T14:38:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/21 "2003-06-24T21:01:16Z")
In line with previous posters: Missing the difference between informal you (in French: tu) and formal you (vous). It sounds odd to say you in a respectful manner. A lack of gendered nouns and cases, since this makes it much more difficult to refer to remote words in longer sentences with pronouns (?) like ‘her/him/it’. You can only do it in limited cases, like (silly example): “He took home a wife and an experience to last a lifetime, which stayed with him even after she left him.” The which is grammatically (though not semantically) ambiguous. Of course you can say that the lack of this motivates English speakers to use short sentences, which arguably increases readability. Still at times I find myself constrained in these little sentences, like a marathon-runner stuck in a crowded street. ---
**Author:** ![ReuvenB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@ReuvenB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReuvenB)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/22 "2003-06-24T22:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kyla \* > \*\*I don’t know if English is really crying out for it, but Hebrew has an untranslatable word that makes a definite noun specific. (The noun —\> _this_ noun.) \*\* The word in hebrew is _et_. Aleph taf. I think the proper term is an object verb marker. ---
**Author:** ![Agback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Agback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agback)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/23 "2003-06-24T23:15:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enola Straight \* > \*\*As I understand it, there is no word “the” in Russian and Hungarian has no pronouns. > > Do foreign language speakers notice anything missing in the English language? \*\* Spelling rules. Regards, Agback ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/24 "2003-06-24T23:16:16Z")
As police sketch artists are doubtless aware, it is notoriously difficult to construct English phrases that will convey an exact description of a person’s physical appearance, exact enough that the hearer will form a roughly accurate mental image of the person described. When pressed, we generally try to find comparisons with well-known faces: “His face was . . . well . . . he looked a lot like Jack Nicholson, but with a bigger nose and curly red hair!” But I don’t know if this is a deficiency of English alone, or of all or most human languages. It is a very curious failing, considering the importance of physical appearance in practically all human cultures. The same can be said of smell. I remember from one of Garrison Keillor’s stories, “Smell is the key to memory.” So it is. But have you ever tried to describe a smell to another person, without comparing it to another smell the hearer might recognize? ---
**Author:** ![Agback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Agback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agback)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/25 "2003-06-24T23:18:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Skammer \* > \*\*I wish we had a good contraction for “am I not,” as in, “I’m good looking in this, am I not?” > > You can’t say “Aren’t I?”, “Amn’t I?” or “Ain’t I?” without sounding like a moron. \*\* Or, in the case of “ain’t I”, like a member of the English upper class. Or do you consider that to be the same thing? Regards, Agback ---
**Author:** ![Why\_A\_Duck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@Why\_A\_Duck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Why_A_Duck)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/26 "2003-06-24T23:18:56Z")
English needs more infixes. We’re up to our probosci in prefixes and suffixes, but what about the middle ground? In my college liguistics class, the only infix the teacher could think of was: fan-f\*\*\*ing-tastic. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/27 "2003-06-24T23:52:34Z")
Really, Why A Duck? In my Linguistics 1 class, Tagalog infixes were discussed quite early. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/28 "2003-06-25T00:01:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Really, Why A Duck? In my Linguistics 1 class, Tagalog infixes were discussed quite early. \*\* Right, but I think he was referring to a lack of English infixes. ---
**Author:** ![Dragonblink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Dragonblink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragonblink)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/29 "2003-06-25T00:48:09Z")
There are other English infixes, but they’re all variations on the same theme: fan-f\*cking-tastic, in-freaking-credible, stu-bloody-pendous, ri-Goddamn-diculous. ---
**Author:** ![Why\_A\_Duck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@Why\_A\_Duck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Why_A_Duck)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/30 "2003-06-25T00:49:33Z")
cor-friggin-rect! (see we only have one, and it’s a big no-no) ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/31 "2003-06-25T00:50:51Z")
Arabic uses an infixed -t- in the VIII. derived form of the verb. But you gotta admit, yeah, infixes are fairly rare in the world’s languages. Got any other examples? Here’s my candidate for something English is sorely lacking: **The distinction between exclusive and inclusive 1st person plural.** We just have this single pronoun, _we_. Does it mean ‘I and you’ — or does it mean ‘I and that other person (but not you)’??? Can’t tell, can you? Not without some context. This is a loss of information. When I was just a kid I sensed this lack in English and imagined a language where you could tell the difference. Then I grew up to be a linguist and found there are _lots_ of language families that do just this. Algonquian (e.g. Abenaki) Altaic (Mongolian and Tungus-Manchu) Australian (Warlpiri) Austronesian (Malay, Hawaiian) Dravidian (Tamil, Malayalam) Iroquoian (Cherokee, Mohawk) Here are some examples: ```auto Language inclusive we exclusive we -------- ------------ ------------ Abenaki kiona niona Hawaiian kakou makou Malay kita kami Mohawk akwa- tewa- Mongolian bida ba Samoan tatou matou Tamil nâm nânkaL ``` In Mongolian, the inclusive is formed from the 1st person singular _bi_ with a plural suffix. The exclusive is formed differently. But in Tamil, it’s the other way around. It’s the _ex_clusive that’s formed from the singular _nân_ plus a plural suffix, while the inclusive is different. Both of these remind me of the Rastafarian **“I and I”** (what would you call that, 1st person expansive?) When I made my first conlang Mömö, based on Ural-Altaic, I made the 1st person inclusive on the Mongolian pattern. 1st person singular _me_, inclusive _mete_ (with -_te_ as the plural suffix), exclusive _bi_. Then when I made my second conlang Domi, a blend of Mömö and Dravidian, I used the Tamil pattern: 1st p. sing. _nên_, inclusive _mên_, exclusive _nênar_ (the plural suffix being -_r_). ---
**Author:** ![raygirvan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ac91a4/32.png) [@raygirvan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raygirvan)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/32 "2003-06-25T00:52:03Z")
_You can’t say “Aren’t I?”, “Amn’t I?” or “Ain’t I?” without sounding like a moron._ I disagree, at least for UK English. “Amn’t I” is Scottish English (though mildly archaic). “Ain’t I” = working-class English (or Mockney). “Aren’t I” is fine as educated colloquial. If you try a search at [the Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/) (highbrow UK newspaper) for “aren’t I”, you’ll find a number of examples in print: for instance, an interview with Kristin Scott-Thomas. In practice, in many regional dialects (such as Devon, where I live) it becomes even more elided: “I’m not going to do that” becomes “I an’t gonna do that”. It’s a construction that’s near-as-dammit universal in everday speech, and only prescriptive grammarians object. ---
**Author:** ![DarrenS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@DarrenS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DarrenS)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/33 "2003-06-25T01:01:46Z")
Contradictory yes - like “si” in French or “doch” in German. It clarifies things immensely. Compare: English: -You haven’t seen the doctor today? -Yes Does this mean, yes I have, or yes in answer to your negative, i.e. no I haven’t? French: -Tu n’as pas vu le medecin aujourd’hui" -Si. Unambiguous - “yes, I have”. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/34 "2003-06-25T02:18:15Z")
Arabic and Persian also have contradictory yes. Arabic affirmative yes: _na‘am_ contradictory yes: _balá_ —_mâ ra’ayti al-tabîb al-yawm_ ‘You haven’t seen the doctor today’ —_balá_ ‘Yes I have’’ Persian affirmative yes: _baleh_ contradictory yes: _cherâ_ —_emrûz pezeshk râ na-dîdî_ ‘You haven’t seen the doctor today’ —_cherâ, dîdam_ ‘Yes I have’ As for Hungarian pronouns—_si, doch, balá, cherâ!_—Hungarian does have the same full set of pronouns as in English: _én, te, ö"; mi, ti, ök_. Hungarian even has the respectful 2nd person pronouns that English lacks: _maga, maguk_. The possessive pronouns, however, take the form of enclitics. Not “verb endings,” **UnuMondo** , but **pronominal enclitics**. It’s true that the definite verb endings and pronominal enclitics resemble each other for the singular pronouns (_-am, -ad, -a_), but are different in the plural (_-unk, -otok, -uk_ for the possessive pronouns versus _-uk, átok, -ák_ for the definite verbs. Indefinite verbs are, of course, another story. This is where Hungarian grammar gets a bit complex). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/35 "2003-06-25T03:05:24Z")
As Agback wrote, probably the biggest flaw in the English language is spelling. Words with similar spellings often have non-similar pronunciations and vice versa. On a seperate issue, I could see the possibility of having different classes of possessives: 1 - personal possessive - something that is a part of you: my arm, my opinion, my favorite flavor of ice cream 2 - ownership possessive - something you own: my car, my house, my trip to Hawaii 3 - relationship possessive - something you are a part of or something you have a relationship with: my family, my country, my wife, my neighbor, my company ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/36 "2003-06-25T03:21:52Z")
Of course one major reason that English spelling rules – such as they are – are inconsistent is that so many English words are taken from other languages. ---
**Author:** ![Jervoise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d2c977/32.png) [@Jervoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jervoise)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/37 "2003-06-25T03:58:06Z")
Spoken English lacks a formal modifier to indicate that the preceeding words form a question. We use a question mark in written English, but rely on inflection, context and word arrangement when speaking. _Desu ka_? ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/38 "2003-06-25T04:09:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sinungaling \* > \*\*Oh yes, agape and eros, storge and philos. I believe agape is friendly love and eros is obviously romantic love, but I can’t remember what storge and philos were. \*\* Well, let me whip out my _Liddell_ and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon\* (Seventh Edition) and check. _agape:_ love, esp. brotherly love, charity. _eros:_ love. (with perhaps characteristic Victorian restraint, that’s pretty much as far as L&S go. But we know we’re talking about passionate sexual love.) _storge:_ love, affection, of parents and children. Good call **Sinungaling**. This was a new one on me, and I studied Ancient Greek for two years. (Ask me if I remember any of it.) BTW, it would be pronounced store-geh, and wouldn’t rhyme with forge. _philia:_ friendly love, affection, friendship. * * * - Does the name Liddell remind you of anyone else from the Victorian era? Yes, Dr. H.G. Liddell was the father of Alice Liddell, well-known young friend of fellow Christ Church Oxford don C. L. Dodgson. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/39 "2003-06-25T04:47:00Z")
If you’re interested in artificial or constructed languages – “conlangs” – check out [http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/conlang.html](http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/conlang.html), which provides information on 310 of them. Most of these were never intended to be used as “universal languages,” but were invented as creative exercises, or as elements of a fictional universe (e.g., Klingon). Also see [http://www.quetzal.com/conlang.html](http://www.quetzal.com/conlang.html). The English word “why” has two logically distinguishable meanings: “from what cause” and “for what purpose.” It would be better if there were two separate words. Combining the two meanings into one word gives it an unwarranted air of mystery, a sense that there could be more meanings still. Remember that episode of _The Prisoner,_ where Number Six asked a computer “Why?” and it melted down? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028/40 "2003-06-25T10:27:10Z")
Arabic and Latin have two ways to say “or.” English has only one word for this. _Am_ in Arabic and _aut_ in Latin give you a choice of only one out of only two contrary possibilities. It’s got to be either yes or no, up or down. In Arabic, _am_ is used in the sense of ‘whether’ when there are only two choices: If Joe Strummer of the Clash had sung “Should I Stay or Should I Go” in Arabic, it would go “_hal aqif **am** amshi?_” _Aw_ in Arabic and _vel_ in Latin leave open an indefinite number of alternatives. You see this in Latin book titles where an alternative title follows the main title: _Liber AL vel Legis_. English speakers have logically felt the lack of a distinction between the two meanings of _or_, so they came up with the bastard conjunction **“and/or”** to express the sense of _vel_, meaning any number of possibilities. This reserves the plain _or_ for the choice of only one out of two. English usage experts will point out that _or_ works for both meanings, but the speakers feel a lack and supply a remedy anyway. Same as they feel the lack of a distinction between singular and plural 2nd person, thus _y’all_ or _youse_ for the plural (_vosotros_). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuff-missing-from-english/184028.md?page=3)