Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No. I mean the syllable with the accent. We say IN-ter-net, not in-TER-net.innernet?
No. I mean the syllable with the accent. We say IN-ter-net, not in-TER-net.innernet?
on the art world, there are many poseurs
inter >in terra> inside earth > inside something
net > network > connected objects
inter network > inside network
??
the rest of the world
americans
perhaps this is what the "in" is all about....
Spot on!
Like "in school." The Brits even say "in hospital," although we don't.Note how in bed has become a phrase that sometimes requires no article . . . .
But we say "on vacation," "on land," etc.. . . . while the preposition on does, in this case.
There is very little consistency between the use of prepositions in two different languages, even two as closely related as English and German.The German idiomatic translation would be "in the internet" (im Internet). We'd never say auf, i.e., "on the internet."
In this century we have overcome that obstacle by inventing a new kind of word: the noun-adjective compound. We say user-friendly, fuel-efficient, labor-intensive, and a host of new words that describe relationships very precisely.
I'm sure they look normal to you, since German is famous for its word-building engine. That's how you manage to survive without borrowing a lot of foreign words. But this particular kind of compound was not a living, standard mode of word creation in English until the late 20th century. I doubt that there were more than ten or twenty noun-adjective compounds in the entire dictionary in 1940. I can't even think of an old one, although I managed to remember one and posted it here a few months ago.These are just normal word-formation products, short forms of phrases:
For starters, this reduces a six-syllable phrase to a four-syllable compound. But in addition, "friendly to the user" is a phrase that cannot be simply put in front of a noun: a friendly-to-the-user interface? Nope: that's German syntax! We would have to say "an interface that is friendly to the user." By saying instead "a user-friendly interface," we have reduced twelve syllables to eight, a 33% improvement.user-friendly <- friendly to the user
"An engine that is efficient in the use of fuel" vs. "A fuel-efficient engine." Thirteen syllables become seven: a reduction of almost 50%!fuel-efficient <- efficient in the use of fuel
"A project that requires a lot of labor" vs. "A labor-intensive project." From eleven syllables to eight. This is the smallest reduction in all the examples in this post, and it's still a colossal 27% improvement in the efficiency of our language.labor-intensive <- requiring a lot of labor
They describe relationships that people didn't often need to talk about in the Stone Age, so they didn't need short, efficient ways to describe them. We do, and we do.These compounds do not describe a new relationship . . . .
As I noted earlier, "short" is not a quality that Germans value in language. It's very important to us. We invented texpeak!. . . . they are just short forms of longer phrases.
Even in Latin, but the modern Romance languages have largely lost it. The other Germanic languages still retain it, if for no other reason than that they have great respect for German and often copy German word formations, such as Danish vitenskap for Wissenschaft. We just appropriated the shorter French word, "science." If we had done the same thing as the Danes and called it "witship" it would probably be the brunt of a lot of bad puns in science classes for children.In other languages, such as German, this kind of formation of new words is common.
Interesting.
The German idiomatic translation would be "in the internet" (im Internet). We'd never say "auf", ie. "on the internet."
People are starting to use the word "cloud" to refer to the data that's stored out there, somewhere, in ways they don't understand.The true meaning of the Internet isn't a collection of servers internationally, it's more along the lines of being an ethereal data stream following an industry standard that happens to exist on international servers running a varying number of operating systems and other software. In other words it's non-corporeal, ether-presence.
I know you Germans love your long, intricate sentences, but we don't!"
As I noted earlier, "short" is not a quality that Germans value in language. It's very important to us. We invented texpeak!