an odd conversation

A Japanese friend of mine occasionally asks me questions about English that get me to realize things that I haven’t previously thought about. Here’s one:

(Points at book shelf) “What do you call this?”
“A book shelf”
“So the books go IN the shelf.”
“No, the books go ON the shelf.”
“What if the shelf has a door?”
“Then it’s not a shelf; it would be a cabinet.”
“And things go IN them, right? Not ON them?”
“Yes, they go IN.”
“But the cabinet has shelves, right?”
“Most of them.”
“So things are ON the shelves IN the cabinet, right?”
“Right.”
“Why?”
“I don’t know.”

Ah, linguistic relativity.

Ask your friend to imagine that there are bottles and books stacked on the shelves. Then ask him to count them up.
"Why?"
"I don't know."

things go in a cabinet, b/c the cabinet is an enclosure. things go on a shelf b/c it's a surface (and things go on a surface).

But, if you want, you can put a pot on the shelf in the cabinet.

Or, you could put it on the 3rd drawer down on the dresser

My head hurts....make it stop.

I love when those who don't speak English as their primary language ask questions to those that speak it all the time. It makes me wonder about stuff. It also makes me realise that English is most likely one of the most ridiculous languages when it comes to many of the rules...

sapito318 said:

Or, you could put it on the 3rd drawer down on the dresser

Click to expand...

Um, no. No, you can't.

"...in the 3rd drawer down in the dresser."

My job is answering such questions daily....

I had many conversations like that...usually had late at night, in my apt., with my roommates, when I was between 18-25...

JimBow said:

It also makes me realise that English is most likely one of the most ridiculous languages when it comes to many of the rules...

Click to expand...

That's because English barely has any rules and any rules we do have we tend to break on a regular basis.

At least in Georgia anyway.

I feel that English is a language breaker. Let me explain: Americans with english as their primary/only language have the most trouble learning new languages. Also, those english speakers who manage to become fluent in another language such as spanish or french, which are 2 of the the most commonly learnt foreign languges in the U.S., will forget those languages very easily and quickly when the classes are over if they do not keep it up. Also, the rules of the american english are so awful, it makes the learning cuve extremly difficult to overcome, and often discourages people entirely from learning another language. This is why it is a widely held beleif that if you learn a second language at a very young age, it is easier for you to cross that barrier.

Why is it that a house burns down in a fire, but all of your belongings burn up in that same fire?

nikkuchan said:

A Japanese friend of mine occasionally asks me questions about English that get me to realize things that I haven’t previously thought about. Here’s one:

(Points at book shelf) “What do you call this?”
“A book shelf”
“So the books go IN the shelf.”
“No, the books go ON the shelf.”
“What if the shelf has a door?”
“Then it’s not a shelf; it would be a cabinet.”
“And things go IN them, right? Not ON them?”
“Yes, they go IN.”
“But the cabinet has shelves, right?”
“Most of them.”
“So things are ON the shelves IN the cabinet, right?”
“Right.”
“Why?”
“I don’t know.”

Click to expand...

The shelves become logical storage units within the cabinet so you can refer to either. You can just say something is "in the cabinet" but it's best to say "on the (first, second, third, etc) shelf in the cabinet" for clarity's sake. Think of it this way, you can be sitting on a seat and you can be sitting in your car, which also has a seat. The seat becomes a logical storage unit within the car so you can either refer to something being "on the car seat" or "in the car". I guess you could say "on the cabinet shelf" too, but I think that sounds awkward. The point is that the outer storage unit modifies how you refer to the inner storage unit but its function remains the same. You still put things on the shelf, regardless of its location.

Your homework assignment is to translate that into Japanese.

danek said:

Why is it that a house burns down in a fire, but all of your belongings burn up in that same fire?

Click to expand...

You could say a house burned up though. I think people say burned down, because it gets closer to the ground (burnt rubble) as the fire progresses. People say burned up because the incinerated material floats away as ash/smoke, going up into the air.

So a house "burns up" to eventually become "burned down". Yes this makes complete sense...really.

VR6ofpain said:

You could say a house burned up though. I think people say burned down, because it gets closer to the ground (burnt rubble) as the fire progresses. People say burned up because the incinerated material floats away as ash/smoke, going up into the air.

So a house "burns up" to eventually become "burned down". Yes this makes complete sense...really.

Click to expand...

Plus fire travels upwards so things tend to "burn up".

rabidpotatochip said:

Plus fire travels upwards so things tend to "burn up".

Click to expand...

You guys are starting to analyze this too much. This was a rhetorical question, intentionally posed to illustrate some of the silly/confusing idiosyncracies of the English language.

Kind of like: If the plural of goose is geese, shouldn't the plural of moose be meese?

danek said:

You guys are starting to analyze this too much. This was a rhetorical question, intentionally posed to illustrate some of the silly/confusing idiosyncracies of the English language.

Kind of like: If the plural of goose is geese, shouldn't the plural of moose be meese?

Click to expand...

Even more mindblowing for non-native English speakers

Mongoose / Mongeese Mongooses

danek said:

You guys are starting to analyze this too much. This was a rhetorical question, intentionally posed to illustrate some of the silly/confusing idiosyncracies of the English language.

Kind of like: If the plural of goose is geese, shouldn't the plural of moose be meese?

Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is with our analysis, the issue is with the rhetoric of your question since it could clearly be answered in a satisfactory manner.

Anyway, "meese" really isn't a good pluralization, too easy to pronounce it as rhyming with "cheese" rather then "fleece"; "mooses" would probably be better, less confusion.

danek said:

You guys are starting to analyze this too much. This was a rhetorical question, intentionally posed to illustrate some of the silly/confusing idiosyncracies of the English language.

Kind of like: If the plural of goose is geese, shouldn't the plural of moose be meese?

Click to expand...

No, because anyone who ever grew up with Looney Tunes (before they got edited) and Sylvester the Cat knows that the plural of mice is meese(s).

danek said:

Why is it that a house burns down in a fire, but all of your belongings burn up in that same fire?

Click to expand...

It's rased to the ground. Always amused me that. Our American friends would probably spell it wrongly as razed...

galopede said:

It's rased to the ground. Always amused me that. Our American friends would probably spell it wrongly as razed...

Click to expand...

Could I use that in a sentance like, "The wreking ball operator, who just got a raise, raised the ball up and razed the razor factory to the ground."?

OK, it's been a long day and my mind's a little loopy.