Print

Print


--- On Mon, 1/28/13, Leonardo Castro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
2013/1/29 Jeff Sheets <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> After this, babies learn a few words, the more common ones that they hear
> all the time from their environment. They use these words in isolation. The
> next stage is evidenced by the combination of two or three words. In
> addition, words can be overgeneralized or overspecified. "Dog" may mean all
> pets to a baby. "Mama" might mean both parents.

I didn't know this could happen. My daughter made this distinction
very early. Actually, I guess that she thought that my name was
"papai" and my wife's name was "mamãe". But now she sees us talking
about the "papai" and "mamãe" of other kids, so she is generalizing
these concepts. She got very confused when she saw people calling
Santa Claus "Papai Noel". Now, when she sees Santa Claus, she says
"papai", then she point the finger at me and says "papai" again. Not
sure if she thinks I'm Santa Claus.
=======================================

In my just-sent response to Nicole, I suggested that outright grammar mistakes, like "taked" for "took" et al. (the result of false analogy) tend to be corrected, while other childish usages/coinages are thought to be "cute" and so survive at least for a while.

This got me to wondering-- in a language like Portuguese (or Spanish, which I know better), do young children ever falsely analogize incorrect tense forms? For ex., from Sp,. poner 'to put', the preterit is irreg. puse etc., the past ppl. is puesto (probably similar in Port.). Is a Spanish speaking child ever likely to form a preterit "regularly" (*poní)  or past ppl. *ponido? (I have to confess to that error when I was 14, just learning the lang. :-((( )

I'd suspect, since the preterit is rather rare anyway, proper learning of it might come much later; not so the past ppl. perhaps. And I'm sure other languages with irregularities would offer the same opportunities for incorrect formations. In others' experience, does that happen?