sirdanilot wrote:'*omdat + swear word' seems to be impossible, though. '*omdat teringlijer' (*because tuberculosis-sufferer)
You seem to have missed the quasi-verb part. I can see, though haven't actually heard it, that a Dutch person would say "omdat opzouten" or "omdat val dood" or "omdat krijg de kanker" or whatever. Note that "omdat teringlijer" is close to the mentioned "because as preposition", as in "why did he do that? because asshole". But that's not what's the issue here.
None of the examples you say here sound remotely close to grammatical, either. So I don't see this omdat + pejorative construction arising in Dutch any time soon.
Actually, my usage of "because ____" is quite broad. I have, among others, "because reasons" and "because Santa Claus", both of which I have used semi-regularly.
sirdanilot wrote:None of the examples you say here sound remotely close to grammatical, either. So I don't see this omdat + pejorative construction arising in Dutch any time soon.
Ha ha, so because something is deemed by you to be ungrammatical, it won't arrive in Dutch? Riiiiiiight... You probably also don't know the expression "omdat achter een boom"?
Yeah 'because reasons' also seems to be calqued into dutch by some innovative speakers. But mostly by those who get exposed to such usage as 'because reasons' so mostly those who are on the internet a lot and not the mainstream community.
sirdanilot wrote:those who are on the internet a lot and not the mainstream community.
It seems you argue here that "being on the internet a lot" and "mainstream community" are somehow mutualy exclusive. Exactly what hole in the ground do you live in?
with being on the internet I specifically mean being on fora and reddit and such a lot. not being on facebook and using the internet to buy shoes and for work. I specifically meant people who engage with other people on the internet a lot that they do not know in real life. hope it is clear now
KathAveara wrote:Actually, my usage of "because ____" is quite broad. I have, among others, "because reasons" and "because Santa Claus", both of which I have used semi-regularly.
These are both examples of the "recent accession of because to the ranks of prepositions" mentioned in my post. More on that particular innovation here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=9494.
Do Dutch quasi-verbs behave similarly to their English counterparts?
Seems like ordinary verbing, except that if I'm correct in the interpretation "She sent something to my inbox", it's a pretty audacious applicative derivation.
I'm pretty certain I've heard that before; it doesn't actually sound strange to me.
Something I find myself doing is fusing words I feel should go together: plotline, questline, playthrough, watchthrough, readthrough...And spellcheck has to regularly tell me that "moreso" is not a word. Yes I am an L1 speaker and no I do not speak German. (Though I would like to learn--any language that sees fit to give us out-of-control compounds like "Unabhaengigkeitserklaerungen" is a good language in my book )
I could go either way with noun+noun compounds like "plotline", because "plotline" and "plot line" both obviously mean a type of line having to do with plot. The ones with "through" don't feel like nouns at all when written separately, though. So for example, "three playthroughs" is fine, but "three play throughs" is wrong and "three plays through" sounds wrong or at least archaic.
Fusing them feels necessary to make that particle or preposition or adverb into part of a noun.
I wanted to quote this because I use "moreso" too and I am always creating compounds. I've also written "incase" and "infact" and I'm a supporter of "alot."
KathAveara wrote:Actually, my usage of "because ____" is quite broad. I have, among others, "because reasons" and "because Santa Claus", both of which I have used semi-regularly.
I hear/read "because reasons" pretty often, though mostly when hanging out in my fandom.
Oh, and there's another one: "fandom" meaning "the collection of the actions of the fans of a particular show/book/film/other coherent body of work". Also "feels", which are similar to but not quite the same as "feelings".
This one threw me: police with singular verb agreement (is). Could've been speaker error, but the speaker was speaking formally and didn't correct herself.
The police is going to tackle this problem vs. the police are going to tackle this problem?
Hmm I would not consider either one incorrect but hey I am not native.
The 'singularization' of such mass nouns (or collectives, not sure how to call this) is, cross-linguistically, a very common phenomenon. In Dutch at least politie is as far as I can tell singular. De politie zal/*zullen dit probleem gaan aanpakken (the police jis going to tackle this problem). The plural form sounds incorrect to me in this case.
This has actually been a fairly recent change in the official prescriptive grammar of Dutch. You can now officially say een aantal mensen zullen gaan protesteren tegen die actie (a number of people shall protest against this action) with a plural, though to me this still sounds a bit off and I would use a singular form zal.
Something else is the reanalysis of datives to nominatives (logical because no case marking). Official: de reizigers wordt verzocht hun vervoersbewijs gereed te houden but more informally the following is accepted: de reizigers worden verzocht hun vervoersbewijs gereed te houden with a singular. (the passengers are requested to keep their ticket ready). This is because originally it is verzoeken + 'dative' but this is being reanalyzed.
linguoboy wrote:This one threw me: police with singular verb agreement (is). Could've been speaker error, but the speaker was speaking formally and didn't correct herself.
what's wrong with that? p sure that's prescriptively correct and normal in lots of American English - I thought plural agreement with groups was a British thing?
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية
linguoboy wrote:This one threw me: police with singular verb agreement (is). Could've been speaker error, but the speaker was speaking formally and didn't correct herself.
what's wrong with that? p sure that's prescriptively correct and normal in lots of American English - I thought plural agreement with groups was a British thing?
That was what threw me: I'm used to thinking of plural agreement with corporate names as a British thing, but police must be an exception IMD because The police is here just sounds completely off to me.
I think police or equivalent words are singular in most languages, and the singular varieties sound completely fine to me in English too. The police are here is possible but I would not say it myself. But hey not native and all
Yeah in that context it's weird for me too - I could only use singular agreement if talking about the police as an abstract institution (not in their ~worldly form~ as a couple of people in uniforms turning up on your doorstep really excited about monopolisin' that violence)
actually maybe I couldn't even use it there and 'police' is always plural????
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية
sirdanilot wrote:The boston one has a normal street lay-out, New York is crazily artificial. Boston is therefore probably more European-Friendly. I much prefer cities that have grown organically rather than just someone playing simcity4 in real life and planning the entire thing.
Yng wrote:Yeah in that context it's weird for me too - I could only use singular agreement if talking about the police as an abstract institution (not in their ~worldly form~ as a couple of people in uniforms turning up on your doorstep really excited about monopolisin' that violence)
actually maybe I couldn't even use it there and 'police' is always plural????
Think it's the same for me too--I can't think of any context in which "police is" would be grammatical for my dialect.
I guess if someone was saying, like, "'The police' is an institution dating back hundreds of years...", but that still seems off.
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
It works for me as part of a proper name, which functions like any other corporate name:
*The police has been informed.
University Police has been informed.
The university has been informed.
Except that there is a rock band called "The Police" and saying "The Police is touring again next year" is jarring in a way that "From Montreal is touring again next year" is not. (But cf. *"The Pixies is touring again next year".)
(Though I would like to learn--any language that sees fit to give us out-of-control compounds like "Unabhaengigkeitserklaerungen" is a good language in my book
