The Innovative Usage Thread

[finlay]

Anyone else add an /l/ (or really a /`/) to both? Thus giving us /boU`T/.

i don't think you really know what that ` is. it's practically impossible to pronounce like that (for multiple reasons – including that you have to jump back from your retroflex position to θ). just write ɹ like normal people.

[Viktor77]

Anyone else add an /l/ (or really a /`/) to both? Thus giving us /boU`T/.

i don't think you really know what that ` is. it's practically impossible to pronounce like that (for multiple reasons – including that you have to jump back from your retroflex position to θ). just write ɹ like normal people.

I fucked up, I meant /5/, so /boU5T/. Brain fart.

[----]

I've heard some people put an /l/ in that word, but often it ends up sounding something like [bɔɫθ], notably not pronounced with the 'long o'.

[Viktor77]

I've heard some people put an /l/ in that word, but often it ends up sounding something like [bɔɫθ], notably not pronounced with the 'long o'.

Oh that could just be my ignorance in distinguishing them.

[Drydic]

I've heard some people put an /l/ in that word, but often it ends up sounding something like [bɔɫθ], notably not pronounced with the 'long o'.

Well yes maybe but cot/caught merged people would map that sound to (and imo probably actually use) [oU], their only other 'o' sound. That might be what it was anyways; I'm fairly sure the [5] is the [oU] offglide lateralized (fortited sounds weird and I think is the wrong form of fortition anyways).

[R.Rusanov]

I wouldn't be surprised if /ow/ as in "open" turned to /o/ before voiced consonants and /u/ everywhere else - contrasting with both /ɒ/ <o> and /ʉw/ <oo>

[Boşkoventi]

Anyone else add an /l/ (or really a /`/) to both? Thus giving us /boU`T/.

Not in "both", but I think I (sometimes) do that in "only": /oʊlnli/ -> [ɔ(ɫ)nli].*

I've heard some people put an /l/ in that word, but often it ends up sounding something like [bɔɫθ], notably not pronounced with the 'long o'.

Well yes maybe but cot/caught merged people would map that sound to (and imo probably actually use) [oU], their only other 'o' sound. That might be what it was anyways; I'm fairly sure the [5] is the [oU] offglide lateralized (fortited sounds weird and I think is the wrong form of fortition anyways).

* FWIW, yes phonemically it's /oʊ/, but I'm pretty sure most (all?) Americans pronounce /oʊl/ as [ɔɫ], so that American "bowl" sounds about the same as British/English/RP "bawl". [boʊɫ ~ [bəʊɫ] sounds distinctly "British" to me.

[finlay]

I have a hard time saying things like [@U5], but that's mainly because i have L-vocalization.

They had a discussion on a bbc podcast a couple of years ago about whether troll is pronounced /ol/ or /Ql/, and I could barely even hear the distinction they were making between the two sounds tbh - even in RP what's usually @U becomes more of a monophthong before l.

[Viktor77]

Anyone else add an /l/ (or really a /`/) to both? Thus giving us /boU`T/.

Not in "both", but I think I (sometimes) do that in "only": /oʊlnli/ -> [ɔ(ɫ)nli].*

Yep, I got that one too, occasionally.

[Radius Solis]

From: http://news.discovery.com/earth/videos/ ... future.htm

I have found an example of singularized "loads of". Specifically, "loads of sediment was dumped downstream".

Various head nouns with following "of" have been reanalyzed as quantifiers, giving us singular "lots of", "tons of", and so forth, but I have never heard this with "loads of" before. How long, do you think, before the "of" becomes a productive quantifier-izing suffix? It has already reduced to -a in lotsa and tonsa and a few others, though they are not normally spelled to show it even in contexts where you'd see "gonna".

[ol bofosh]

Sounds quite normal to me.

"Loadsamoney!"

Edit: "loads of sediment was..." sounds normal to me because in that phrase (and others similar) I tend to agree with the last noun in the phrase rather than the head. Another innovation?

[Radius Solis]

Well, yes, agreeing with the last noun instead of the head is a known thing. But if you have that consistently, it only makes the usage distinction I brought up irrelevant to your variety of English - so you have nothing you can really say about it, thus your post does not represent a data point with regard to it.

[ol bofosh]

I don't know if I have it consistently. Certainly worth exploring. Does anyone know a name for it? (agreeing with the last noun and not the head)

A hive of bees make honey sounds weird, for example. A pack of wolves hunt to live, likewise.

Loads of money is a good thing, fine. And a lot of bees are flying. I don't know if that's any more useful.

[Viktor77]

From: http://news.discovery.com/earth/videos/ ... future.htm

I have found an example of singularized "loads of". Specifically, "loads of sediment was dumped downstream".

Various head nouns with following "of" have been reanalyzed as quantifiers, giving us singular "lots of", "tons of", and so forth, but I have never heard this with "loads of" before. How long, do you think, before the "of" becomes a productive quantifier-izing suffix? It has already reduced to -a in lotsa and tonsa and a few others, though they are not normally spelled to show it even in contexts where you'd see "gonna".

Part of me thinks it sounds weird, but then part of me thinks nothing of it. But I keep repeating this phrase in my head and I have some inkling to use the plural "Loads of sediment were dumped downstream" but then, I say the singular and it sounds fine, too.

You have confused me!!

[finlay]

From: http://news.discovery.com/earth/videos/ ... future.htm

I have found an example of singularized "loads of". Specifically, "loads of sediment was dumped downstream".

Various head nouns with following "of" have been reanalyzed as quantifiers, giving us singular "lots of", "tons of", and so forth, but I have never heard this with "loads of" before. How long, do you think, before the "of" becomes a productive quantifier-izing suffix? It has already reduced to -a in lotsa and tonsa and a few others, though they are not normally spelled to show it even in contexts where you'd see "gonna".

"loads of" is not innovative. what are you talking about?

plus it's not really singular it's uncountable/mass.

[ol bofosh]

There are loads of...

There is a load of...

There are a load of...

There is loads of...

None of them seem to be weird to me... weird.

[Ser]

There are loads of...

There is a load of...

There are a load of...

There is loads of...

None of them seem to be weird to me... weird.

"There is" is often used with whatever follows next anyway: "there's tons of garbage there", "there's apples in the fridge"...

[Nesescosac]

Do any of y'all use "themself" as the reflexive of singular they?

[Drydic]

Do any of y'all use "themself" as the reflexive of singular they?

Anyone who doesn't (and does use singular they) is an idiot. Singular they may not be standard but I don't think it qualifies as innovative.

[ol bofosh]

Generally not but I imagine using for the singular they.
"There was a person that saw themself in the mirror."

[----]

I have that and I also say 'theirself' sometimes, but I don't really keep track of which one I say more often.

[Melteor]

I'm pretty sure I use "their own" whenever the need arises e.g.
"They saw their own face in the mirror."
The closest I ever got was probably "their own self" but I used that with other pronouns too.

[Drydic]

Well for a case of theirself yeah, but you would not say They saw themself in the mirror, really?

[Radius Solis]

"loads of" is not innovative. what are you talking about?

I'm talking about number agreement. Specifically, which of these sets does it belong to?

Set 1:
Bottles of water are/*is in the fridge.
Boxes of junk are/*is stacked up in the corner.

Set 2:
Lots of water *are/is in the fridge.
Tons of junk *are/is stacked up in the corner.

Though "loads of" is semantically bleached in the manner of set 2, it remains grammatically a member of set 1:

Loads of junk are/*is stacked up in the corner.

But the speaker in the video treated it grammatically as a member of set 2 - which would represent the last step in grammaticalizing it as a quantifier, if it sticks. Of course, perhaps you have the innovation already and it's all old hat to you.

[----]

For me it's kind of nebulous in set 2, I feel like it could go either way and I could be fine with calling either of 'is' and 'are' correct in that situation. However, if it's made into a There+be phrase, I always have "there is". More so with 'lots', "there are lots" sounds a little bit off.