Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Ok, here's one I was thinking about last night on the way home. In every language there are a handful of verbs that are not very specific, verbs that don't indicate any particular action. "Walk", "sleep", "eat", those have explicit meanings (even though we may shift them around as needed). But in English words like "do", "make", "have" and so forth are much more general:
I have a dream, or a vision.
I do the laundry but I make dinner (and sometimes my bed).
I do my job, and I do someone a favor.
I make a promise, a face, and a friend; in another sense I make it go faster.
I make out a will.
I take a nap, and your temperature.
I wreak destruction.
You may object that this is nothing new, that English is full of verbs with shifting meanings, and what can you be thinking, Bob? But I'm talking about something more specific here: All the above phrases can be said more precisely—I dream a vision, I wash the laundry and so on—but the verbs I actually named above don't mean any of those specific things, they're just general "do" verbs, even the one about the will, in that case. And here's the thing: You simply can't do a dream, or make a favor, or take a promise or have your temperature; we have very firm notions on which verbs work for each of the nouns that we "do".
And of course in other languages they have completely different ideas. In Spanish or Swedish maybe you can do a will but you would never do a job; no, you work your job, but you would never "work" a miracle (it just sounds silly!, they'd complain). And "have" a dream? That doesn't even say anything!
Endlessly fascinating.
For a teacher of English as a second language, I can say this is often an interesting divergence in language concepts. Most of my students in my long ago years were Spanish speakers, and, in Spanish, they have the same "general" verbs, but attach them to different things than we. The verbs tener (to have) and hacer (to do, to make, some other meanings that don't translate well) are as flexible as our equivalent verbs, but the verbs are often attached to different objects, phrases, etc. So, for example, if I said tengo hambre, I would mean that "I am hungry." But the "exact" (if you can call any translation that) meaning would be "I have hunger (hungry)." It makes for difficulties, sure, in learning the other language, but it also should point out the sort-of strange equivalence when a Mexican immigrant says, in English, "I have hungry," and when an English speaker in Juarez (if there are any there right now — seriously, don't go there) says "Estoy hambre." They're both interestingly, and maybe a bit endearingly, incorrect. The best part is, though, that the audience to each will still understand the sentiment. And, if you're lucky, feed you.
I was an ESL teacher for many years, at first part-time, then full-time, then part-time evenings, both for children in elementary school and for adults at a community college. When I went to law school I continued to tutor ESL for our foreign students in the LL.M. program at the school; those students were at a much higher level than the students I had previously taught, though. I've continued to teach or tutor on a volunteer basis, though right now I am not teaching at all.
I highly recommend it, and if you do it as a volunteer it is probably not that difficult to find a gig somewhere, depending on where you live, I would suppose. For all the English I thought I knew as an English major, a writer, and an editor, I don't think I ever learned more than when I was teaching basic English to speakers of other languages. As the teacher, I always wanted to have the answers to any questions the students may have had, and it's amazing the tiny nuances of the most basic English that we generally stop thinking about after we learn it in elementary school (that said, I may have gotten a little too wonky at times, but I don't think I lost too many of the students when I did). Also, I have taught remedial English for GED programs, which offers some similar insights, but it does not compare to the enthusiasm and sheer joy of learning I felt from many of my basic ESL students. They would always tell me how thrilled they were to use something they learned in class when they were out in the community, and it was always inspiring to hear how glad they were to be learning. So, in sum, I think you would get great joy and have some of your own learning experiences if you found a class you could teach. I know I miss it when I'm not doing it.
In fact this is what I have been thinking about too. Let's take the example of the verb, "walk". It is a generic word, we understand what it refers too. However, there are number (perhaps 50 or so) of other verbs
that specifies type of walk. For example, wade, stroll, loiter, stumble, saunter, canter, ambulate and so on.
At lower or middle level, I feel, the word is perhaps enough to express ourselves. The specific words may be important for advanced level or fluent speakers or literary purpose.
It may be worthwhile to mention, that, Ogden's basic English uses 850 words, out of it there are merely 16 are the verbs (termed as operators). Some of the words have high polysemy i.e. a number of meanings. For example, the verb "Make" has 49 meanings.
I too look for such a generic verb list.
I would suggest that English has very few "generic" verbs: be, make, have, do, and maybe a few more. The thing that always gets the speakers of other languages is our verbal phrases. Even my most advanced students in the past were continually perplexed by the nuances that a single added word (usually a preposition) can imbue a verb with. For example, let's use the word break. A few directional prepositions, and the word break becomes entirely different: break up, break down, break in, and break out. Just think of the variants, and then multiply that by damned-near every English verb. It's no wonder English is so difficult to learn.
(In English there are often single verbs that describe precisely what the verbals describe, but those verbs are often sadly archaic or even more complicated to learn -- so verbal phrases might be easier. Still, it would be sad to lose words such as defenestrate for the "simpler" throw out the window. Other such losses should be so lamented.)
I was under the impression, tunawrites, that ESL teachers present these "prepositional verbs" as separate verbs—that "make" is not the same as "make up" (a fight), "make up" (a face), "make out" (between teenagers), "make out" (a form) or "make out" (like bandits). But then you are an ESL teacher. Do you really teach these verbs as variations of "make"?
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)