The Innovative Usage Thread
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I'm torn between Finlay and Sumeric here. I can't tell if veritable just sounds more educated, more stressed, or if it carries a unique meaning, something more tangible than pragmatics. I'm going to have to think on it.
If I may, I had another construction come up in my speech that intrigued me. During a heated argument I wrote: "So did I think that everything was fine." This has something to do with the 'so did I' or 'as did I' phrases we use. This intrigues me because it seems to exhibit typical Germanic SV->VS alteration in statements, something that I can't say I was aware we were doing in English. Perhaps you know of other cases where English flips the subject and verb in non-interrogative statements? Without sounding poetic of course.
If I may, I had another construction come up in my speech that intrigued me. During a heated argument I wrote: "So did I think that everything was fine." This has something to do with the 'so did I' or 'as did I' phrases we use. This intrigues me because it seems to exhibit typical Germanic SV->VS alteration in statements, something that I can't say I was aware we were doing in English. Perhaps you know of other cases where English flips the subject and verb in non-interrogative statements? Without sounding poetic of course.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
We have dying subjunctive forms like "Should you be interested, please inform your supervisor".
We also have forms like "Never have I seen such a thing", "Never before did I consider the possibility that .." - I wouldn't call this innovative or generally applicable, but it still exists. It's restricted to auxiliaries of course, unlike the German version.
We also have forms like "Never have I seen such a thing", "Never before did I consider the possibility that .." - I wouldn't call this innovative or generally applicable, but it still exists. It's restricted to auxiliaries of course, unlike the German version.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
What's the intended meaning there? I'm having trouble parsing it as anything other than a question.Viktor77 wrote:"So did I think that everything was fine."
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I assume he's using "so" in the old-fashioned sense of "thus".KathAveara wrote:What's the intended meaning there? I'm having trouble parsing it as anything other than a question.Viktor77 wrote:"So did I think that everything was fine."
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Recently while perusing a Wikipedia article on the Got Talent franchise (don't ask), I came across the phrase "Franchise that's status in [sic] unknown". It took me a while to parse this, but I guess that's is a possessive relative pronoun formed by analogy with whose. It sounds quite natural to me, so I suspect I've used it before without thinking about it, but I don't recall ever before having seeing it written.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
That sounds absolutely awful to me; I would have used "whose" or reworded. >_<linguoboy wrote:Recently while perusing a Wikipedia article on the Got Talent franchise (don't ask), I came across the phrase "Franchise that's status in [sic] unknown". It took me a while to parse this, but I guess that's is a possessive relative pronoun formed by analogy with whose. It sounds quite natural to me, so I suspect I've used it before without thinking about it, but I don't recall ever before having seeing it written.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
No doubt most people would, but the word who and its derived forms are pretty strongly associated with animate referents these days, so it makes sense that some people look for an alternative involving that or which when the referent is inanimate.Zaarin wrote:That sounds absolutely awful to me; I would have used "whose" or reworded. >_<linguoboy wrote:Recently while perusing a Wikipedia article on the Got Talent franchise (don't ask), I came across the phrase "Franchise that's status in [sic] unknown". It took me a while to parse this, but I guess that's is a possessive relative pronoun formed by analogy with whose. It sounds quite natural to me, so I suspect I've used it before without thinking about it, but I don't recall ever before having seeing it written.
It's similar to why the old Lord's Prayer opening line "Our Father, which art in heaven" sounds so jarring nowadays.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
True enough. I guess I most strongly associate which with inanimacy and who with animacy, but I'm more comfortable using who with an inanimate than which with an animate.Magb wrote:No doubt most people would, but the word who and its derived forms are pretty strongly associated with animate referents these days, so it makes sense that some people look for an alternative involving that or which when the referent is inanimate.Zaarin wrote:That sounds absolutely awful to me; I would have used "whose" or reworded. >_<linguoboy wrote:Recently while perusing a Wikipedia article on the Got Talent franchise (don't ask), I came across the phrase "Franchise that's status in [sic] unknown". It took me a while to parse this, but I guess that's is a possessive relative pronoun formed by analogy with whose. It sounds quite natural to me, so I suspect I've used it before without thinking about it, but I don't recall ever before having seeing it written.
It's similar to why the old Lord's Prayer opening line "Our Father, which art in heaven" sounds so jarring nowadays.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Does anyone else find "He's got" perfectly natural and acceptable, but the uncontracted form "He has got" to be a bit off?
He's got 10 points.
He has got 10 points.
Could be some frequency effect.
He's got 10 points.
He has got 10 points.
Could be some frequency effect.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
In that context yes, because uncontracted forms are only used colloquially for emphasis, and there's no emphasis there. In this exchange it's perfectly natural though:
Has he got a house?
No, but he HAS got a car.
Formally of course contracted forms are perfectly acceptable - but I wouldn't use 'have got' in writing, I don't think.
Has he got a house?
No, but he HAS got a car.
Formally of course contracted forms are perfectly acceptable - but I wouldn't use 'have got' in writing, I don't think.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية
tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!
short texts in Cuhbi
Risha Cuhbi grammar
tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!
short texts in Cuhbi
Risha Cuhbi grammar
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Whatever happens, we have gotYng wrote:
Formally of course contracted forms are perfectly acceptable - but I wouldn't use 'have got' in writing, I don't think.
the Maxim gun, and they have not.
Granted, that was more than a hundred years ago.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
"satisfice"
Thought this was a recent blend, turns out it's a bit of jargon that's already more than a half-century old.
Thought this was a recent blend, turns out it's a bit of jargon that's already more than a half-century old.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
From a PPE student: yeah, they've been using that one a long while.linguoboy wrote:"satisfice"
Thought this was a recent blend, turns out it's a bit of jargon that's already more than a half-century old.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Has anyone encountred this usage of "cookbook" before? (The speaker is a seafood farmer in Washington State):
"Geoduck is our newest species and it took us a long time - about a decade, just to get to a point where we weren't throwing money away," says Dewey. "It's still not a cookbook today but it's profitable.
-
- Smeric
- Posts: 1258
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
- Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
- Contact:
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
^That usage seems non-standard to me, but I think you can use nouns in that way.
When you had a to learn a song about geoduck in elementary school, you'd suspected that geoduck would be a cookbook too, but nay, I haven't seen much geoduck in American restaurants.
When you had a to learn a song about geoduck in elementary school, you'd suspected that geoduck would be a cookbook too, but nay, I haven't seen much geoduck in American restaurants.
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Intrusive L!
Today I said that gargling with mouthwash "only makes my throat rawler".
Today I said that gargling with mouthwash "only makes my throat rawler".
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:13 pm
- Location: Ohio
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Ah, I have "bolth" for "both". I wonder if that's some kind of hypercorrection, since I have /l/ in a lot of words that historically lost it, such as palm and balm. (But not all - I don't have /l/ in "folk", for example.)
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Bolth has been around for years. It probably originated as a hypercorrection, but I've never had it in my speech.Porphyrogenitos wrote:Ah, I have "bolth" for "both". I wonder if that's some kind of hypercorrection, since I have /l/ in a lot of words that historically lost it, such as palm and balm. (But not all - I don't have /l/ in "folk", for example.)
I really have to think about what words with the rhyme TALK or FOLK have [ɫ] in my speech. For years, I wasn't even aware I was deleting it. (Or, rather, never had it.) But I don't generally drop it in word-final position, so it was startling to hear myself restore it by false analogy.
- ol bofosh
- Smeric
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:30 pm
- Location: tʰæ.ɹʷˠə.ˈgɜʉ̯.nɜ kʰæ.tə.ˈlɜʉ̯.nʲɜ spɛ̝ɪ̯n ˈjʏː.ɹəʔp
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I say words like stalk, walk, talk and they have permanent l-vocalisation, so stalk and stork ar split. But they never recover the /l/.
It was about time I changed this.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I have permanent l-loss, with vowel quality changes, in just about all the typical words it is found in in English except calm, palm, and falcon. Note that this is distinguished from my native l-vocalization, which is applied to almost all cases of /l/ aside from word-initially, stressed syllable-initially, or when geminate. Hence when I pronounce calm as [kʰɒ̃(ː)õ̯m] this reflects an underlying /kɔlm/, which is a spelling pronunciation. (Note that not all people who speak roughly the same variety as me have this, e.g. my father pronounces calm as [kʰã(ː)m], reflecting an underlying /kɑm/.) This contrasts with my pronouncing talk as [tʰɒʔk], which reflects an underlying /tɔk/, which is not a spelling pronunciation.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I actually have a weird split there. When referring to the genre of music, I (often but not always) have [fɔlk], but in all other contexts I have [foʊ̯k].Porphyrogenitos wrote:(But not all - I don't have /l/ in "folk", for example.)
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Holy crap, I think I might have that, too (mutatis mutandis).Zaarin wrote:I actually have a weird split there. When referring to the genre of music, I (often but not always) have [fɔlk], but in all other contexts I have [foʊ̯k].Porphyrogenitos wrote:(But not all - I don't have /l/ in "folk", for example.)
I would assume this is because "folk music" is a term I most often hear from more punctilious speakers (like NPR radio personalities).
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Possibly thanks to "other than", the first sounds far more natural to me, to the point where I'd probably correct the latter if I found I'd used it in writing.R.Rusanov wrote:Sometimes I say 'another X than Y' instead of 'another X from Y'
(Without doing any actual research, I do know "there are other worlds than these" is attested at least as far back as 1982.)
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
A while ago I also came to the realization that I do this, but I just concluded I was being weird. Good to know I'm not alonelinguoboy wrote:Holy crap, I think I might have that, too (mutatis mutandis).Zaarin wrote:I actually have a weird split there. When referring to the genre of music, I (often but not always) have [fɔlk], but in all other contexts I have [foʊ̯k].Porphyrogenitos wrote:(But not all - I don't have /l/ in "folk", for example.)
I would assume this is because "folk music" is a term I most often hear from more punctilious speakers (like NPR radio personalities).
— o noth sidiritt Tormiott