The Innovative Usage Thread

[linguoboy]

Okay, that's three times in the past week and a half I've pluralised "roof" as "rooves".

[Risla]

Regarding the imperative thing I mentioned a couple days ago, I should note that it seems to be the way my dad forms imperatives the majority of the time; he even says it to the dog.

[Yng]

Okay, that's three times in the past week and a half I've pluralised "roof" as "rooves".

That's not particularly innovative - it's even given as an alternative plural by wiktionary, although 'uncommon and usually considered incorrect'.

[TaylorS]

Okay, that's three times in the past week and a half I've pluralised "roof" as "rooves".

that's the normal plural for roof in my dialect.

I have also noticed that I pronoune "booths" as "boothes", /bu:Dz/

[Travis B.]

Okay, that's three times in the past week and a half I've pluralised "roof" as "rooves".

that's the normal plural for roof in my dialect.

I have also noticed that I pronoune "booths" as "boothes", /bu:Dz/

I have both of these plural forms, while still using the standard ones with fortis rather than lenis fricatives as well.

[Cedh]

Earlier today I took a walk outside with my parents. Just when we arrived back home, it started to rain, and my mother said, Da haben wir aber einen guten Moment erwischt zum eine Runde laufen (roughly "It seems we've chosen the right moment for going outside").

Something about the this struck me as odd: In standard German, the part meaning "for going outside" would be expressed as um eine Runde zu laufen, lit. "for a round to walk" (note that eine Runde "a round" is the direct object of walking). However, my mother fronted the preposition zu "to", which is quite common in colloquial speech: zum eine Runde laufen, lit. "to.the a round walk". The VP eine Runde laufen as a whole (including the preposed object) is nominalised and used as the object of a preposition, which in turn appears in contraction with the definite article (zum = zu dem = to the.NEUT.DAT). What's striking here is that you get a definite article immediately followed by an indefinite article (eine = a.FEM.ACC): Da haben wir aber einen guten Moment erwischt zum eine Runde laufen.

I have a feeling that this is pretty rare cross-linguistically. Are there any other natlangs that can have two different articles (referring to two different noun phrases) appear immediately after one another?

[Bedelato]

Can anyone else do this?

"I just saw something that I don't know what it is."

[Nortaneous]

I can't, but I've heard it. Replace "that" with "and" or maybe "where" and it'd be fine for me.

[Yng]

Can anyone else do this?

"I just saw something that I don't know what it is."

Yes. There's a gap here in relativisation because saying 'I just saw something that I don't know what is' is ungrammatical. So I can do that too, yes.

[Zapcon]

Can anyone else do this?

"I just saw something that I don't know what it is."

The only way I can do that, is if there is a pause or something inbetween "something" and "that". Its just how i talk, and i use the word "that" a lot anyways. Other than that, I replace "that" with "and".

[finlay]

Can anyone else do this?

"I just saw something that I don't know what it is."

Probably, but it seems wrong. In writing never. Otherwise I probably say it but I have a suspicion that the first time I heard the construction was in the context of linguistics, and any observations on the matter are possibly null and void, therefore...

[Risla]

I noticed that my brother always has two syllables in the word "sure": [ˈʃuː.ɚ]. I seem to have [ʃɚ] in all situations, but I might be observer's-paradoxing it up.

[Astraios]

Can anyone else do this?

"I just saw something that I don't know what it is."

This is normal for me in speech. I also not uncommonly put pronouns in other non-main clauses, like "The woman who she's read your book came."


How about conjugating "be", in relativized expressions, like "No, [name]'s the one who actually be's religious."? I said this to my boyfriend tonight, and didn't think it weird until he, being a stickler for "proper" English, pointed it out.

[faiuwle]

I might say the first, but only if I decided to change the sentence structure mid-sentence. Astraios' example looks bizarre to me, though.

I don't remember why "I just saw something that I don't know what ∅ is" isn't grammatical, though I do remember it being discussed in a syntax class. Something about wh-movement inside the relative clause, or somesuch.

[Magb]

Earlier today I took a walk outside with my parents. Just when we arrived back home, it started to rain, and my mother said, Da haben wir aber einen guten Moment erwischt zum eine Runde laufen (roughly "It seems we've chosen the right moment for going outside").

Something about the this struck me as odd: In standard German, the part meaning "for going outside" would be expressed as um eine Runde zu laufen, lit. "for a round to walk" (note that eine Runde "a round" is the direct object of walking). However, my mother fronted the preposition zu "to", which is quite common in colloquial speech: zum eine Runde laufen, lit. "to.the a round walk". The VP eine Runde laufen as a whole (including the preposed object) is nominalised and used as the object of a preposition, which in turn appears in contraction with the definite article (zum = zu dem = to the.NEUT.DAT). What's striking here is that you get a definite article immediately followed by an indefinite article (eine = a.FEM.ACC): Da haben wir aber einen guten Moment erwischt zum eine Runde laufen.

I have a feeling that this is pretty rare cross-linguistically. Are there any other natlangs that can have two different articles (referring to two different noun phrases) appear immediately after one another?

It isn't exactly what you're describing, but here's a similar thing in Norwegian. This is from a newspaper article about Christina Taylor Green (the girl who was killed in the recent Tucson shootings):

Jeg vil at hennes minne skal leve videre fordi hun var et håpets ansikt [...]
I want her memory to live on because she was a face of hope [...]

The interesting part being:
et håp-et=s ansikt
INDEF.NEUT hope-DEF.NEUT=POSS face
Lit. "a the hope's face"

The definite article is suffixed to "face" "hope", while the indefinite article modifies the whole NP. This is primarily a literary construction, but a fairly common one.

[Jipí]

Da haben wir aber einen guten Moment erwischt zum eine Runde laufen.

It's a phrase consisting of a set expression which acts as a single NP I think: zum Eine-Runde-laufen. I can't give examples, but I've heard (and probably used) similar constructions as well.

[Bedelato]

Can anyone else do this?

"I just saw something that I don't know what it is."

This is normal for me in speech. I also not uncommonly put pronouns in other non-main clauses, like "The woman who she's read your book came."


How about conjugating "be", in relativized expressions, like "No, [name]'s the one who actually be's religious."? I said this to my boyfriend tonight, and didn't think it weird until he, being a stickler for "proper" English, pointed it out.

Nope, I can't do either of those.

As for the first, I can only do put the pronoun in when it's two levels deep, but not one.

For the second, "No, [name]'s the one who's actually religious."

[TomHChappell]

This is normal for me in speech. I also not uncommonly put pronouns in other non-main clauses, like "The woman who she's read your book came."

That's the right way to do it in some other languages, but not in English.

How about conjugating "be", in relativized expressions, like "No, [name]'s the one who actually be's religious."? I said this to my boyfriend tonight, and didn't think it weird until he, being a stickler for "proper" English, pointed it out.

Isn't that correct AAVE? I understand that it distinguishes between a temporary and transient "be" and a permanent or habitual "be". Or at least some linguist thinks so. And AAVE may have moods different from those of standard average American English; for instance it may have a subjunctive or conditional mood that sounds slightly different from those of SAAE.

Astraios, where did you learn to speak English, at what age, and what race are you? Depending on your answers (which you don't have to tell us if you don't want to) that usage might be just dialectal rather than "innovative".

Or, of course, maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Yng]

AAVE has something like 'we be workin' and 'we workin' for habitual and continuous. I don't think 'be' is generally conjugated.

[Nortaneous]

I think conjugated be is from some British dialect. I highly doubt it's AAVE, anyway.

[TomHChappell]

I think conjugated be is from some British dialect. I highly doubt it's AAVE, anyway.

I reckon you be right.

[finlay]

Can anyone else do this?

"I just saw something that I don't know what it is."

This is normal for me in speech. I also not uncommonly put pronouns in other non-main clauses, like "The woman who she's read your book came."


How about conjugating "be", in relativized expressions, like "No, [name]'s the one who actually be's religious."? I said this to my boyfriend tonight, and didn't think it weird until he, being a stickler for "proper" English, pointed it out.

"... who actually bes religious all the time as opposed to pretending to be religious."

in that, yeah kinda. no idea how you would spell it though, so it's definitely nothing literary. I think there's a difference between be as a copula and be as a verb meaning something like 'act'.

"If you be a clown, I'll be a dog" is acceptable, for instance. But there's probably something there with the if.

[faiuwle]

"If you be a clown, I'll be a dog" is acceptable, for instance. But there's probably something there with the if.

Maybe it's actually "if you'll be.." with the contraction swallowed?

[Astraios]

That's the right way to do it in some other languages, but not in English.

Yeah, I know. xD It actually annoys me, but it always happens before I notice what I'm about to say, and then it's out and people go "WTF".

Astraios, where did you learn to speak English, at what age, and what race are you? Depending on your answers (which you don't have to tell us if you don't want to) that usage might be just dialectal rather than "innovative".

I learnt to speak English in my parents' house, in Chester (south of Liverpool, right on the border with Wales); I don't know exactly how old I was when I started making sentences, but I was younger than most people, and I talked mostly to myself, rather than to other people; and I'm partly White British, partly Eastern European. Not really your typical AAVE candidate...

"... who actually bes religious all the time as opposed to pretending to be religious."

Yup, that's how I meant my sentence too.

Maybe it's actually "if you'll be.." with the contraction swallowed?

Possibly, but I've never heard it with the <'ll>, so I don't know. Also, that reminded me - I have, shamefully, this: "I will tell you when we'll get there." I know where it comes from though - thinking too often in languages which do this.

[finlay]

"If you be a clown, I'll be a dog" is acceptable, for instance. But there's probably something there with the if.

Maybe it's actually "if you'll be.." with the contraction swallowed?

No, that means something different... i think... possibly...

something to do with volition or contempt but i can't quite put my finger on it so maybe it doesn't exist.