Ask Our Grammar "Experts" II, the Sequel

[Doug]

I heard me that.

[Janyegail]

I didn't say it right I guess. I mean when people say "My brother he went to the store" or the like.

[Ken, Moderator]

Ohhh. Yes. That is needless repetition, though I've seen it done in books for effect. Not sure what the effect is, but certainly it's unnecessary when talking.

[Doug]

Its excessively redundant and multiply repetitive.

[Ruth]

Newengland wrote: "Ohhh. Yes. That is needless repetition, though I've seen it done in books for effect. Not sure what the effect is, but certainly it's unnecessary when talking."

I think it's done to capture a certain dialect.

[Ken, Moderator]

Needless words are nothing new. The two latest rages among students are a.) "Wait..." followed by whatever they wanted to say, and b.) "I have a question..." followed by the question. In both cases, the opening salvos are unnecessary.

[Stephen]

Newengland wrote: "Needless words are nothing new. ... In both cases, the opening salvos are unnecessary. " Partly true. Opening salvos do serve the purpose of gaining the listener's attention, or at least signalling the speaker's intent to speak further. They also give the speaker a BIT of additional time to form their thought. And the two you cite are infinitely preferable to the one that was current when I was in high school... " Um...."

[Doug]

Stephen, I think you are right about the excuse to use preemptive words to consume time. There are at least three reasons to do this in spoken language. First is to gather attention either by waiting for the desired attention to congeal in the air ie: waiting for silence.or change subject as with a paragraph. The second is to attract attention and authority to oneself as the speaker. The third is to impose importance to the subject matter to come to perhaps add believability to a weakly formed forthcoming statement. There could be other reasons like slow thought or inferiority complex or impairments but those are not speech related.

I have not seen this much in writing because the author has the time to circumvent all of those on hard copy.

If the author is writing in dialect it has to be constrained to certain characters in the story and probably shouldn't be written in first person unless there is only one character. That's my humble opinion.

[Ken, Moderator]

Reasonable points, though "buying time" makes me think of politicians in a debate forum.

In writing, the habit is much worse:

"In this essay, I will tell you about..."

"In the following paragraph, I will prove..."

... and so forth. That's just disrespectful to the reader, who will figure out your intent quickly enough as you set to work.

In the next sentence, I will tell everyone goodbye. Goodbye, everybody!

[Doug]

Newengland wrote: "Reasonable points, though "buying time" makes me think of politicians in a debate forum.

In writing, the habit is much worse:

"In this essay, I will tell you about..."

"In the following paragra..."


Oh, no. Don't go away, NE! Ha Ha Ha

When we disrespect the readers' intuition and time, they may ask subconciously, whether we are writing mostly for ourselves or mostly for them. We always write for ourselves but let the reader be able to overlook it.

Buying time is like fishing. You don't always find fish or bait left on the hook.

[Kenneth P.]

Re-reading a GR review of my own today, I came upon the term "archetypical American." I thought, holy crap that's embarrassing! I should have written "archetypal." But are they both correct (and identical) adjectives?

If so, are they synonyms for "prototypical?" Talk about a can of worms! If I'd simply written "quintessential" I wouldn't be in this mess. This is an obsucure book review of an obscure book that will never be read. I must fix it immediately!!

[Ken, Moderator]

Thanks, Kenneth. I was looking for a Grammar Tip of the Day -- and this was it! Also, I learned something (one of the reasons I thought of doing a tip a day... or at least a tip most days).

[Doug]

I have this interpretation.

"Archetypical" is a model, pattern, or example.
Ex: log cabin construction (specific type). Traveling in an archetypical Ford sedan. A architypical spaghetti dinner. An architypical guitar.

"cal" invokes hot, specific.

An archetype item or discourse is a general example from/of/about a similar group(s).
Ex: Archetype course in floor plan design. A class, group, style, or flexible concept. Archetype surface transportation. Archetype American food. An archetype stringed instrument.

Am I right or wrong? Opinions?

[Mark]

A British friend of mine, condemned to reside in the United States (as have I been, though quite unjustly and under protest), wrote to complain acrimoniously of the use of "different than" that he had been hearing recently (which I take to have meant, "within the past 50 years") by educated American speakers. Of course, there are no "educated American speakers" (the occasional "woofer" or "tweeter," but not the entire "speaker"), and he should certainly have known this, but I wrote to correct his misapprehension, and thought I would share my response in this venue, for want of anything more productive to do (such as to observe the reproductive cycle of toads, or cut off my feet).

Herewith my response:
Dear ********,

I confess this drives me utterly insane, also, but "different" has a different syntagmatic role from the one it once did, and it is used incorrectly (as though it were a comparative) with near universality in the United States, and has been so used for at least forty years. Actually, I think I would reel with astonishment if a reporter from The New York Times managed to get it right, and would presume the reporter had to be British and had to have been educated at a British "public" school and then attended Cambridge, reading under a prominent syntactician, but avoiding all contact with sociolinguists. And had to have read no American literature whatever of vintage more modern than the works of T.S. Eliot. Also that, probably, that reporter had actually been cryogenically preserved in a capsule since 1817, and was, unbeknownst to her journalistic colleagues, Jane Austen, saved from death through extraterrestrial intervention and recently revived by those aliens for reasons having to do with their admiration of Mansfield Park. (Since I am an American, I will not bother to put the name of the book in quotes.)

Based on my experience of language abuse... er, I mean, use by Americans since 1975, I could come up with no alternative viable explanation. The correct use of "different" would strike me as a linguistic event so startling and unprecedented as to require coverage in The New York Times, wherein it would be described as an elocutionary act "different than" any that had been witnessed in the United States since the end of Prohibition, and probably a sign that one of the seven seals mentioned in "Revelation" had been opened. The Times would advise readers to await the Apocalypse, which must surely be imminent. I feel that if you have heard an American say "different from" at any time in the past decade, then he or she is different from any other American who currently lives and mutilates English on a daily basis, uttering a grammatically correct sentence, on average, once every seven years, but only by accident.

Very sincerely yores (because I do not want to violate the law in Texas, which requires that this email contain a minimum of one horrifically misspelled word),

Mark

[Ken, Moderator]

Doug -- Check out the Grammar Tip of the Day thread. I'm not sure Garner and you would agree.

Mark. I like it. Living under protest. It's the American way.

-- An uneducated American speaker. ;-)

[Doug]

Tomorrow is anither day.

[Mark]

Doug wrote: "Tomorrow is anither day."

Can you demonstrate conclusively that tomorrow will not be a night? :)

Benightedly yours,

Mark

[Doug]

Mark wrote: "Doug wrote: "Tomorrow is anither day."

Can you demonstrate conclusively that tomorrow will not be a night? :)

Benightedly yours,

Mark"

I can't even demonstrate yesterday conclusively, let alone that tomorrow already exists in that common statement. After all, what evidence of it remains? People often say ridiculous things with bad grammar and do not give it a first thought. I am guilty of it.

Yesterday IS gone. :)

Benightedly yours in return, (because where I go in the dayed light, only my shadow knows.) :) :)
Doug

[Doug]

Newengland wrote: "Doug -- Check out the Grammar Tip of the Day thread. I'm not sure Garner and you would agree.

"Archetypical" and "Archetype": Are you suggesting the later is an unnecessary neologism?

[Ken, Moderator]

The former: Yes.

[Doug]

Woo hoo! Other variations of spelling exist. I sort of hate that idiom like "ain't". It is the title of some songs, a game, and the name of some enterprises. I wonder if Garner's has installed it. It falls within a growing lot of other expressions of closure or emotion that are being used more. I did not see it in my dictionary as a celebratory shout of agreement, etc, yet, why do these belong in the lexicon unless they are important pieces of human communication. However, machines communicating can not grasp the innuendos pertinent to each sentence many of them may follow or precede. How could/should those definitives be annotated clearly for future generation readers and listeners, if it is possible, and should they be included at all? :)
Is it necessary to have little or no exact meaning for about 25,000 such idioms that are in use in English?
Just asking. :)
I know people whose speech is over-clouded with half the utterances in idioms. What causes the failure?

[Mark]

Doug wrote: "Mark wrote: "Doug wrote: " because where I go in the dayed light, only my shadow knows.) :) :) ..."
Convey my best wishes to Lamont Cranston.

Benightedly yours,

(a shadow gnostic) Mark :)

[Doug]

Mark wrote: "Doug wrote: "Mark wrote: "Doug wrote: " because where I go in the dayed light, only my shadow knows.) :) :) ..."
Convey my best wishes to Lamont Cranston.

Benightedly yours,

(a shadow gnostic) Ma..."

Blues forever, Man! I saw Cranston just the other day, er, well, I only heard him. It was foggy.

[Mark]

Newengland wrote: "I'm heading for the door so don't have a minute to dog down a rule for specific words like this. I have to tell you that "more scary" looks wrong in a big way, yet "more tense" doesn't bother me as..."

Jessie's rule is heuristically correct, but Ruth is closest to the truth in citing the sagacious observation of her Italian teacher. Frequency of attestation trumps all, and as any linguist pledged to descriptivism (I think there's some sort of Hypocritic Oath involved) and indoctrinated with the "Prime Directive" ("thou shalt not prescribe") will tell you, language is democratic. Which, I must needs say, nor can choose but do, is why we forbear to wreak locutions of antiquarian vintage, which I, for one, would most certainly be loath e'er to do, whate'er the vintage of swich licour (in Aprille, for example).

[Ken, Moderator]

Ooh. A little Chaucer in my coffee!

[Mark]

Newengland wrote: "Ooh. A little Chaucer in my coffee!"

Coffee might help with "the droghte of March." :)

[Mark]

Doug wrote: " Blues forever, Man! I saw Cranston just the other day, er, well, I only heard him. It was foggy. 

You need to listen for the evil beat in the "hearts of men." :)

[Doug]

Mark wrote: "Doug wrote: " Blues forever, Man! I saw Cranston just the other day, er, well, I only heard him. It was foggy. 

You need to listen for the evil beat in the "hearts of men." :)"

When I was a little kid I scrounged up a crappy radio and listened to "The shadow" after my parents went to bed. I was caught listening to that evil and the radio was dispatched beyond The Creaking Door.

[Ruth]

Doug wrote: "Mark wrote: "Doug wrote: " Blues forever, Man! I saw Cranston just the other day, er, well, I only heard him. It was foggy. 

You need to listen for the evil beat in the "hearts of men." :)"

When ..."

Me,, too.

[Doug]

Ruth wrote:

Oh wow, it is a small world. I did get a new radio for Christmas 2 years later beautifully guilt wrapped.

[Doug]

Can one sentence have two subjects?

[Mark]

Doug wrote: "Can one sentence have two subjects?"

One sentence can consist of two coordinate clauses conjoined with "and" or "but" or some other conjunction, or it can contain an "embedded sentence" in the form of a relative clause (beginning, e.g., with "which" or "by which" or "with whom") which would have its own subject (of which this sentence now contains two examples), but otherwise, no, not in the sense in which you mean it, though you can also have a compound subject and this is another example of an additional clause which has two coordinate clauses of its own and a relative clause with "which." In the preceding sentence, though, "one sentence," "it," "a relative clause" (in the deep structure of the parenthetical in which "beginning" is really "which begins" and also as the subject of the subordinate clause with "which"), "this sentence," a second (implied, deep structural) occurrence of "one sentence" after "no" ("cannot" is also implied), "you" before "mean" and "you" after "though," and "this," and "an additional clause" (deep structurally) are *all* subjects (though of different verbs). Does that help? :) :)

[Doug]

Mark wrote: "Doug wrote: "Can one sentence have two subjects?"

One sentence can consist of two coordinate clauses conjoined with "and" or "but" or some other conjunction, or it can contain an "embedded sentenc..."

Yes, it helps and greatly, Mark. Thank you. I have been reading some older stuff with very long descriptive sentences and many embedded clauses. Understanding this will help me move through it more quickly as I tend to read very slowly and get distracted especially with mixtures of description and dialog. Appreciated.

[Sarah]

I have a question about using "lavish in" as a verb. Is this correct: "I lavished in reading a book set in the same landscape where I found myself."

I dislike the word "relish" and "savor" seems ordinary. I do prefer "to lavish in" but get the feeling I'm making it up...

Thanks for any advice.
Sarah

[Mark]

S. wrote: "I have a question about using "lavish in" as a verb. Is this correct: "I lavished in reading a book set in the same landscape where I found myself."

I dislike the word "relish" and "savor" seems ..."

Hi, S.,

One can:

"languish in" (phonologically similar)
"indulge in" (semantically similar)
"relish in" (semantically similar)
"glory in" (semantically similar)

and I could probably come up with a number of other verbs with similar meanings for which "in" would be a valid clitic. "In" has the status of a "clitic" rather than a preposition in these examples because it forms a unit with (and modifies the meaning of) its "host verb," even though it's lexically separate.

In "I sleep in the bed," the structure is:
S --> NP VP
NP --> Pron
VP --> Verb ADVP
Pron --> I
Verb --> sleep
ADVP --> PP --> Prep NP
Prep --> in
NP --> DET N
DET --> the
N --> bed

So, in this example, "in" is part of the prepositional phrase used as an adverbial phrase to describe where I sleep. It's not part of the verb, "sleep," and doesn't modify it or change its meaning. "I sleep in" (where "in" *is* used as a clitic), in fact means something quite different from "I sleep."

In the examples,
"I relish in writing bad reviews."
or
"I glory in the experience."

"In" *is" a clitic that's part of the verb, because you wouldn't independently say, "I glory" or "I relish." (full stop)

ANYWAY, the point is that THERE IS NO SUCH VERB-CLITIC COMBINATION AS "LAVISH IN." "Lavish [someone] with (e.g., attention)" is a valid combination in which "with" might be considered an atypically non-adjacent clitic rather than a preposition (because "I lavish," cannot stand alone), but "in" is not a valid clitic that goes with the word, "lavish."

I think you probably want to say "indulge in" or "delight in."

[Sarah]

Thanks very much. I must be confusing it with "languish in."

[Doug]

S. wrote: "Thanks very much. I must be confusing it with "languish in.""

Languish (yourself) in (pain, neglect, etc.)? I (will) languish in doubt because concerning the speaker doesn't there have to be an adverb or another verb or something? I am just asking. I don't know.

[Stephen]

S. wrote: "I have a question about using "lavish in" as a verb. Is this correct: "I lavished in reading a book set in the same landscape where I found myself."

I dislike the word "relish" and "savor" seems ordinary. I do prefer "to lavish in" but get the feeling I'm making it up..."

I'd agree that "lavish in" is incorrect. Lavish may be defined as "expending or bestowing profusely." Perhaps you should "delight" in reading such a book, or revel in it, or even find profuse pleasure in it.

I do feel your pain though when it comes to trying to find precisely the right word. I think that Mark Twain said it best... “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”

[Sarah]

I've decided to stay far away from lavish, except as an adjective, as in "a lavish buffet." I'm glad I had a moment of doubt and asked. Otherwise I'd be sending off an essay with a dumb flub in it. :)

I think in the phrase "languish in" the "in" is a plain old preposition, e.g. "she languished in jail for 5 years."

[Ken, Moderator]

Here's Garner:

"As a transitive verb, lavish takes a direct object, but it is traditionally a thing, not a person. That is, you lavish gifts on a person, not a person with gifts. But writers have begun to engage in object-shuffling with this verb."

[Angela]

Ah, the evolution of language...

[Doug]

Newengland wrote: "Here's Garner:

"As a transitive verb, lavish takes a direct object, but it is traditionally a thing, not a person. That is, you lavish gifts on a person, not a person with gifts. But writers have ..."

If you added -ed changing the tense or if you try substituting the word "age", for example, in place of "languish" what happens in various cases? Object shuffling is tricky. Again, I'm curious and don't know.

[Andrea]

I always use "a couple _of_". But I see "a couple this" all the time. Is there a rule?

[Ken, Moderator]

As a noun, couple needs the preposition of to link it to another noun. You are correct, Andrea!

[Andrea]

Thank you! I started to doubt myself since I see it the other way so often. Is it acceptable?

[Ken, Moderator]

It is frowned upon -- a nice way of saying, "No," though the local vernacular may trump any rules in the book, as we well know.

[Doug]

Trump(ing) has a time limit of once per hand, trick, or play or meld, etc. Otherwise, it is a "rule change". You cannot always or usually "trump". The last trump attempt in a hand is the only trump. :)

[Mark]

Leslie wrote: "I'm stuck... I need help!

I have an author I'm proofing for who is using (to name a few):

- "more scary" instead of "scarier"
(ex: She found it to be more scary than she thought.)

- "more tense"..."
Leslie wrote: "I'm stuck... I need help!

Subtle... I think strictly speaking, a comparative form is just that - it compares something to something else. A is taller than B. B is shorter than A. So I'd say the first one is "She found it scarier than she thought". This compares the situation she finds to the situation she imagined. Also, to me, it sounds less stilted, it rolls off the tongue, while the version with "more" makes me halt in mid-flow.

But the second one does not really describe a straightforward comparison between two static states. The second sentence portrays a development, it describes that an emotion was building as "he ... walked along". So I would ditch the comparative form in this sentence entirely and say something like "He felt himself growing increasingly tense as ...", "As they walked along, he felt getting more and more tense", etc.

[Mark]

Newengland wrote: "Ohhh. Yes. That is needless repetition, though I've seen it done in books for effect. Not sure what the effect is, but certainly it's unnecessary when talking."

I believe it is a sociolect. "The plumber he said, 'never flush a tampoon'" (Frank Zappa, "Flakes", from "Sheik Yerbouti")

[Stephen]

In grammar one must still consider the connotations from the POV of the speaker and the audience.

The repetition in a quote such as "The plumber he said, 'never flush a tampon'" is one way of quickly distancing the speaker from the assertion being made.

If it were worded as "The plumber said, 'never flush a tampon'" it feels more like the plumber is being cited as authority.