The Choices Our Lingo-padres Made

Linguistics is the study of language. Language is an incredible tool that allows every person on this planet to connect with eachother; to essentially take ideas from one's own mind and put them into the mind of another. Sure, we must suspect that those ideas don't come through too purely in many cases and its another story whether  it does one much good to guard their consciousness so fiercely as we often do (knowledge is power and I would argue that novel information is a source of potential knowledge, but hey if you have made up your mind about certain things then hold fast - don't be open, don't be flexible, fine!) But I majorly digress... But for some accident of creation or perhaps as a casualty of good ol' practicable reality, we often can only speak with a certain group of people that we belong to:  a very special club known as Speakers of Our Language. Of course there are some of us who are bilingual and can speak with two groups of people, but, at the risk of offending those people, from what I hear, they sometimes have troubles with one or both groups or their membership can involve much paperwork, or even childhood challenges. But I, again, digress. What I really want to talk about, more or less unintelligently since I mostly wish to pose some questions, is how the fancy club known as Our Language decides on the rules that the members will follow in order to achieve the groups primary objective, which is that aforementioned lofty jewel that can be titled Communication (this being the whole attempt to place one's own ideas in another's mind). (We won't even get into a description or questions related to the battle that seems to go own where two or more members attempt to defend the property of their minds and perhaps counter attack with related ideas of their own device.)
Let us take as an example two 2 clubs that are well known: English and Spanish. We could ask why it is that the Spanish members, let's call them los Matadores, have decided, or evolved, or been constrained, to speak in a way that flows like red wine on a Sunday night, while the English members, let's call them The Snowballs, sound like they are cutting crunchy vegetables when they talk. We could ask that but I don't know why anybody would wonder about how a language sounds when it seems so random and impertinent. (The latter am I too, I fear.) Note that sounds are far from random and actually work on analogy, so, for example, the 'sn' sound, which is shamelessly nasal, tends to start out words that refer to snout-like objects and actions. BREAK: time for a brief sound sidewhoe: Shamelessly nasal, namelessly stays still, lamely standstill, Shamus Lee McDaniels... but I kid, I kid... Anyhow, snout-like stuff starting with 'sn': sneer, snide, snicker, snub... etc. Hmmm more verbs than anything, but thats another question. Anyhow, this stuff is stolen from Steven Pinker's book The Stuff of Thought.

Far more interesting are the rules:grammar. What do los Matadores do with their rules that the Crunchy-Cutters, er uh, The Snowballs, decided not to do, or , perhaps, failed to consider the merits of doing [awk]. And why? One example that intrigues me is los Matadores, decision, or, at least, happenstance occurence, to have different sounds to signal the victim, er uh, listener as to not one, but two, distinctive types of events tat happened in the past. Okay. Los Carrot-Crunchers do this thing where if they mean to say that something happened in the past they take the thing that happened and they put this sound on it: they end the word by putting their tongue against the flesh behind their teeth and pop a tiny bit of air betwixt the obstructions created. This is the sound that is represented by either a written letter 'T' or a 'D' (the choice between the two is really not a choice but a matter of neighbor sounds being bullies). So it goes that we have sentences like I builT a house, You lifteD my finger. Never-you-mind the many irregular ones that change a vowel sound (ran away), the truth is there are probably rules for everything its just a matter of finding them. Some such rules have indeed been discovered like why one says longER and not MORE long versus MORE interesting and not interestingER (the latter is a great method of sounding hillbilly). And the larger latter is a matter of magger No err uh a matter of the number of significant syllables in the word determining the fate of the sentence. But i digressed so disgracefully just now.
But, those loco Matadores, they have sounds not only for the very same thing but also a-whole-nother set of sounds for a special type of event that happened in the past also, but that have an aspect (the technical term for you wikipedians) of ongoingness. So they slap on these funny sounds like 'aba' or 'ia' to go ahead and alert you: the patient, trustworthy, listener, that the Thing that Happened not only happened in the past but, happened in the past, and, and and and, had a certain ongoingness to the way it was happening in the past. The Salad Chefs, on the other hand, have to do a bunch of fancy and rather trying maneuvers to do the same thing: they have to use entire phrases, that never wanted to be borrowed anyhow, to do the same thing. They have to say something like 'I -USED TO-eat iced cream when I was a child' or 'I -WAS talkING- to my friend when he came in'. Los Killers on the other hand look sn-idely over and let out a casual ' I eatIA iced cream when I was a kid' and then go in for the kill with a flash of red and a ' I talkABA to my friend  when he came in'. Blast Them!!!
So, what I really want to know is why? Why did they decide that this was so important that they must assign a special agent sound to this concept. Was it to save time, to emphasize, as a debt to a long dead king. Was it for a good reason, a bad reason, a reason that changed. Will we ever know? Did the Engleberries not think to try that move, or was their history so different as to call for different strategies? Do the two groups think in ways that are totally different and incompatible, or is this just in the representation of the ideas and not in the ideas themselves. And what of all of the other clubs? I propose a meeting of many minded mammals: the leaders of each group, or perhaps just a victim from each (with a cute name) in order that we may analyze the key differences between these clubs and consider uniting together in mental harmony. Oh wait, didn't that happen in some old book?