You’re thinking in terms of location, rather than state-of-being. “I’m home” is your status.
“I’m driving, I am bored, I’m safe, I am away”… None of those sound weird, do they? This, combined with the more technical grammar rules others have commented…
deleted by creator
Home is the adjective. It’s a state of being.
Many times I’ll walk in the door but need to log into work, and I’ll say to my wife “I’m not home yet”. As in, my external responsibilities are not completed and I am not available. When I’m available to my family or to relax, I have then become “home”.
Edit: I meant adverb. It modified the state of being. Like being “away”.
It’s because “home” in this formation is an adverb, whereas school is a noun. You can be an adverb- I’m surprised, I’m exhuasted… - but you must be at a noun (or on, or in, or some other preposition).
Ironically students of foreign language often cling to these grammatical structures and are less confused by the same word in different contexts.
You mean adjective, right? Adverb describes the verb, like talking “loudly” or “quietly”
This is the adverb form. If it were an adjective, it would be nearer to the noun and not seperated by the verb like in “He stole home plate.” “Home” is modifying the state of being or “am”.
with the addition that most languages - especially romance languages - have irregular verbs and constructions.
e.g. in french you say “I have 30 years” to say you are 30 years old. in English you say “I am 30” to say you are 30 years old. It makes no sense to say you are the number 30 or you have 30 years. But no one really thinks about it.
“I am 30” makes sense because it’s a shortened form of “I am 30 years old”.
They likely meant to say “adverbial phrase.”
Home is used differently than house. I’m home makes sense. I’m house doesn’t (which is your school and post office equivalent).
Also, I feel at home but I don’t feel at house.
In this usage, “home” is an adverb / adverbial! It is a preposition being used adverbially.
I’m going in. I’m going home.
Send it out. Send it home.
Run away! Run home!
All languages have quirks, but English is awful.
I only realized that the more I studied other languages, making me reflect on English.
Like, English doesn’t have a future tense. It seems like a pretty basic thing, but in English you say “I’m going to X”. Why do you use the verb ‘to go’ there? Why is that the way English creates a future tense? If you’re headed to the store now: I’m going to the store. If it’s happening later: I’m going to go to the store. WTF is this bullshit? “going to go”? Just stop and think for a second about “going” and “go” in that phrase.
And the verb “to do”, why is that part of questions in English? Statement: You have a dog. Question: Do you have a dog? What does “to do” have to do with any of that? Why is “doing” the verb that somehow is used to turn a statement into a question?
And then there’s “to use”. Using is to take, hold, deploy, consume… so why is it sometimes part of the past tense. Sure, you can say “I walked to school”, but if you want to talk about habits or routines: “I used to walk to school”. Why is “to use” even involved there at all?
That’s not even accounting for spelling and pronunciation which is just ridiculous in English.
We have a letter ‘k’ that reliably makes a certain sound, and a letter ‘s’ that reliably makes another sound. But, a huge variety of words use “c” which can make a ‘k’ sound like cat, or an ‘s’ sound like city. The letter ‘c’ has no sound of its own, it’s just a randomizer machine for one of the other useful sounds. The letter ‘g’ has one sound that no other letter makes, in words like “grip” and “great”. There’s another letter “j” that makes a different sound, like in “jet” and the name “Jim”. But, for some reason, sometimes the “g” makes a “j” sound, so “Jim” and “gym” have the same sound but completely different spellings, leading to bullshit like the confusion over how to pronounce “gif”.
English has roughly 20 vowel sounds, depending on the accent, but the vowel letters are ‘a’, ‘e’, ‘i’, ‘o’, ‘u’, and sometimes ‘y’. So, you’d think that at least those 5/6 are sorted and the other 20 come from combinations, right? Nope. In British English, for some reason “can” and “can’t” get a different vowel sound for the ‘a’, despite “can’t” being a contraction for “can not”, which literally contains “can”. The letter “u” can sound different between “put” and “putt”, even though you’re just tacking a ‘t’ to the end of that combination of letters. If you tack an ‘s’ on the end it doesn’t change, but if you tack an ‘e’ on the end… whoa, an entirely new sound different from both “put” and “putt”.
I’m glad the world is slowly converging on one language that allows everyone to communicate with everyone else, but it sucks that the language that came out on top is English.
I just want to point out that English’s future tense does exist, but it’s just non-distinct in many cases because, well, as you’ve said, English is fucked.
“We’re eating steak.”
You need context to determine whether this statement is talking about the present or the future. So much of the language is implied contextually that you can just drop off words and assume the listener will understand.
“What are we eating?” vs. “What are we eating tonight?”
It’s so funny because whereas a lot of other languages have rules with defined exceptions here and there, speaking English is more of a theoretical approach.
It feels like English just happened one day and we’re all trying to figure out why.
It’s so funny because whereas a lot of other languages have rules with defined exceptions here and there, speaking English is more of a theoretical approach.
I feel like this also makes it useful in that you can butcher the hell out of it, and still communicate somewhat effectively. I don’t feel that’s the case in some other languages, or maybe I’m willing to put up with my colleague’s broken English far more than they’re willing to put up with my broken German/Spanish/etc.
I think English allows you more different ways of doing things than most other languages. The future tense being “going to X” and one of the past tenses being “used to X” means that new English learners don’t need to spend as much time studying yet another verb tense.
OTOH, the spelling and pronunciation is such a massive hurdle compared to a simple language like Spanish.
Yeah, it’s definitely convenient in most cases, I would say. Though it can also be inconvenient when messaging, because sometimes said need to add context can read very unnaturally in an otherwise grammatically correct sentence.
English’s future tense
There are various future tenses.
Future Simple / Simple Future: Will + [base form] – I’ll eat that later; or Going + [infinitive] – I’m going to eat that later.
Future Continuous: Will be + [present participle] – I’ll be eating that later.
Future Perfect: Will have + [past participle] – I’ll have eaten that later.
Future Perfect Continuous: Will have been + [present participle] – I’ll have been eating that later.
There’s also using the present continuous to talk about the future – I’m eating that tomorrow.
Also, the simple present – I eat that tomorrow.
English is flexible, but it’s also weird. There are a lot of distinctions that matter to native English speakers but that are really hard to put into rules. Like “will” vs. “going to”. They have slightly different meanings, but good luck coming up with an easy to understand rule about when to use each version.
My uneducated guess is that England had so many colonies throughout history that a lot of languages affected English and we have this Frankenstein of a language
That’s part of it, but I think a bigger part is all the countries that colonized the British Isles. English has elements of Germanic languages like German, Dutch, Old Norse, etc. It has elements of Latin languages from Latin itself to French. The British Empire definitely resulted in words being brought back from the various colonies, but the English they spoke then was fairly similar to what we know today. It was already this weird, bastardized Germanic / French language.
As a dane, you have no idea how good you have it. Be happy that English became the lingua franca and not something worse.
What are some of the issues with Danish?
There’s so many it’s hard to think of them all.
Let’s start with the fact that Danish is practically two languages in one - the written language and the spoken language. There is very little connection between the two. You cannot look at a word’s spelling and know how it is pronounced, and often it is not pronounced how you would think it is pronounced by looking at the spelling.
The grammar is simple, but it’s so full of irregularities that you basically need to memorise a wide array of words and phrases.
The spoken language has more vowel sounds than the alphabet has vowels, even when Danish has added three extra (æ, ø and å). Each vowel can therefore be pronounced in different ways depending on the word. No, there is no system to tell you which sound is the correct one, you just have to know and memorize it.
Add to this the fact that the pronounciation is quite complicated and basically impossible for foreigners to learn without having a heavy or at least moderate accent.
The spoken language has more vowel sounds than the alphabet has vowels, even when Danish has added three extra (æ, ø and å).
That’s one thing I think English at least did right. Other languages added extra letters and/or diacritics to try to capture all the variations on vowel sounds. But, in most languages there are far more vowel sounds than there are vowels. So, don’t make things unnecessarily complicated by adding extra letters. The one language that seems to do it basically right is Spanish, where there are only about 5 vowel sounds and they use the accent character not to show that a letter is pronounced differently, but just to cue you in on which syllable is accented when it might not be the one you expect. (With a few minor annoying variations, like el and él).
English at least has “going to” and “will” for future. In Estonian you just use present simple and the only way to know you’re talking about the future is if you hint it with some time related word.
You just say “I go to the supermarket” and it’s ambiguous. You say “I go to the supermarket tomorrow” and you know it’s talking about the future.
Do you know if that’s unique to Estonian, or also true of Finnish? AFAIK, Finnish (and Estonian) are a weird language branch in that most of Europe is Indo-European. Even distinct languages like Italian and German are more related to each-other than Finnish.
It’s the same way in Finnish.
I used grammatically incorrect examples on purpose to point out there’s no present simple vs present continuous distinction in Estonian either.
I will go to the store?
What does willpower have to do with it?
What does “going to” have to do with it? Do they need to spiritually travel to the motivation center of the brain before you go to the store? I’m just saying, if you say “going to go” over “will”, you’re gonna get tongue cramps, and for all intents and purposes, they mean the same thing. This is language that we’re talking about. All words are made up, so just try to keep up and you will be fine.
The annoying thing is that “I’ll go to work tomorrow” and “I’m going to go to work tomorrow” have subtly different meanings to English speakers, but good luck trying to come up with a rule to explain the difference to someone learning the language.
You know, that’s a good example, you have a good point. In some contexts they are slightly different. I’ll take a wack at describing the difference though: “I’ll go to work tomorrow” sounds like making a decision out loud, in the moment, while “I’m going to go to work tomorrow” just sounds like communicating intentions, regardless of when the decision was made or whether they were the ones to make it. In this context “I’m going to go” can substitute “I’ll go”, but the reverse might sound weird. So I concede but only a little
Hey what’s the difference between put and putt?
Putt is shorthand for “put and only put”.
Verbose HTTP is looking great.
As opposed to “put and do something else”?
No get! Only put
Phonetically, put: /pʊt/ vs. putt: /pʌt/
ʊ is the sound from words like “book”, “hook”, “pull” or "should.
ʌ is the sound from words like “gut”, “double”, “butter”, “luck”, etc.
Thanks! Yes it’s weird. Cut and put sound tutally different wile cut and putt are pronounced the same
Put is something you do to something (I will put this down), putt is a technique in golf (watch me land this putt).
Thanks!
Dude, I am so post office.
That one genuinely made me laugh out loud; thanks, haha.
No, actually it’s not even tickling any resemblance of confusion
The concept of multiple languages seems to confuse so many monolinguists.
It’s not intuitive if you don’t know several languages that some things in language are just how any human communicate, such as skipping words and stuff.
You’re clearly fluent if you describe “tickling any resemblance” of an effect. Learners would likely say something akin to “make me confused” or similar or less.
Maybe, I don’t know what counts as fluent. But I am learning
Same
For me it always just felt very close to “I am here” / “I am done” / “I am late” / “I am fine” — not as description of a place but state.
All the quirks, weirdnesses and exceptions are the best / most fun parts of any language. Close second, how it constantly evolves and where the words originated from.
This is it exactly. “I am at home” describes your location. “I am home” describes your current state.
I had to explain to a friend recently why
“I’m at Steve’s house”
Was fine but
“I’m in Steve’s house”
Was weird. Like, get out of there before you get arrested.
That reminds me that my sixth grade teacher was adamant that 'I am going over Steve’s house" meant that one was visiting the house, not flying over it.
I like learning french because it shows me how weird the connections to english are.
“Chez Steve” means “At Steve’s [place]”. This one is more verbose in english.
But you can say “chez moi” for “at home”. And no need to specify which home.
How many homes do you have?
That’s exactly my point.
I’m at Steve’s house.
I’m in Steve’s backyard.
I’m at Steve’s backyard barbecue.
Yeah, English is pretty f’d up.
Nah, this kinda does make sense. You wouldn’t wanna be inside Steve’s barbecue, would you?
I would sure appreciate that explanation. Like I broadly get that ‘at’ implies you are present with the person’s knowledge while ‘in’ implies you are there without their knowledge but I would like an explanation of why the meanings are implied as such
“I’m out of soap”
Well duh, you wouldn’t even fit inside one.
Do I fill in or fill out this form?
Who is your soap guy? Your soap is too small.
Because home isn’t a normal location, it’s “home”.
It’s where you’re from.
Like, no one says “I’m house” or “I’m apartment building” because it’s not about the physical structure. It’s about being where the heart is. How many pillows do Grandmas need to stitch that on?
“I am House.” - Some TV doctor
Some people called Romans, they go the house?
Romanes eunt domus!
Your instincts are right in that English as a second language is tricksy and annoying. The “I’m home” thing never occured to me, but there’s plenty of stumbling blocks. They’re, their, and there. Idioms like “piece of cake”. It’s a long list. Not the hardest of all languages to learn, but it is confusing in places.
Don’t British people say in hospital or something?
We do, yes :)
Can you think of any similar differences?
“In hospice?” Which I’ve heard here, too and just refers to the type of care they receive.
We have that here too. I found what I was referring to:
In British English, the word hospital can appear as a noncount noun, without the article a or the before it, in certain phrases:
(British English):He’s in hospital.= (American English):He’s in a hospital or He’s in the hospital.
I want to add Canadian English goes with the latter too.
