The Innovative Usage Thread
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
This is more a question than an innovative usage, but anyway, today I was discussing 'les gars' in French and I began to wonder to myself, in English can we use 'guys' as in 'guys! guys! listen up!' among a group of only women?
- alynnidalar
- Avisaru
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:35 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I can, at least.
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.
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:13 pm
- Location: Ohio
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I've personally witnessed it on a number of occasions.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I thought I posted here, but I guess not. Yes, in any dialect where "you guys" is the plural form of you--such as mine. I have a friend from Boston who moved to Atlanta; her female classmates were perplexed by this usage. Perfectly normal in most GenAm dialects, though.Viktor77 wrote:This is more a question than an innovative usage, but anyway, today I was discussing 'les gars' in French and I began to wonder to myself, in English can we use 'guys' as in 'guys! guys! listen up!' among a group of only women?
"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
I've heard it more than once in movies or TV series. In Dutch, we have something similar, where you can use "jongens" (litt. "boys") as a vocative to refer to any group of people (well, it's used esp. when talking to children or friends, but could be used amongst collegues), even if it's 100% female.
As far as innovative usage goes, Dutch has had a semantic shift of the word "vervelend" (litt. "boring", still present in the verb "zich vervelen", "to be bored") to "annoying" somewhere in the past 50 years. The current word for "boring" is "saai". Recently, my oldest daughter used "saai" to mean "annoying", so if that sticks, history is repeating itself (though I don't know what the new word for "boring" will be).
JAL
As far as innovative usage goes, Dutch has had a semantic shift of the word "vervelend" (litt. "boring", still present in the verb "zich vervelen", "to be bored") to "annoying" somewhere in the past 50 years. The current word for "boring" is "saai". Recently, my oldest daughter used "saai" to mean "annoying", so if that sticks, history is repeating itself (though I don't know what the new word for "boring" will be).
JAL
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Here, I think it's pretty common to hear people say "what can I do you for?" to mean 'what can I do for you?'. How many ZBBers are familiar with that usage? Do you hear it in person?
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Sounds perfectly normal to me, albeit the kind of language I associate with middle aged men who make dad jokes.
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
Same, except I'd qualify middle aged+ men from the Northeast.Yng wrote:Sounds perfectly normal to me, albeit the kind of language I associate with middle aged men who make dad jokes.
"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
Vijay wrote:Here, I think it's pretty common to hear people say "what can I do you for?" to mean 'what can I do for you?'. How many ZBBers are familiar with that usage? Do you hear it in person?
I have heard this person and I have used it. But it seems dated. I can't put my finger on how it's used. Not quite ironically but also quite aware of its markedness.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I honestly think this is the first time I personally have ever seen "rather" used as a verb:
mèþru wrote:The party's opponents rathered to deal with Adams than Hamilton.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I have heard "What can I do you for?" but as was mentioned, it's always said in a lighthearted way and is meant as a joke or to be informal and friendly.
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:13 pm
- Location: Ohio
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
A pretty common phenomenon - and dating back centuries, apparently. I think it's a very odd but very interesting example of syntactic change. The linked article doesn't discuss the actual process of change directly, but I looked at the Wiktionary entry for rather, and as far as I can surmise, it must have happened like this:Vijay wrote:I honestly think this is the first time I personally have ever seen "rather" used as a verb:mèþru wrote:The party's opponents rathered to deal with Adams than Hamilton.
People create sentences using the past/subjunctive form of "will" as the main verb: I would he were here.
People insert adverbs into such sentences: I would sooner he were here. or I would rather he were here. (rather originally meant sooner)
The past/subjunctive of will becomes obsolete as an independent verb, but it survives in the set phrase I would rather...
People reanalyze would as an auxiliary verb and rather as the main verb, but it still does not have all the properties of a main verb (can't take affixes, etc). I think that there are many, many English speakers who are at this stage. Is there anyone for whom the following isn't grammatical?
I'd rather he be here. (Contracting would shows that it is an auxiliary modifying rather, since you can't contract main verbs - e.g. the sentence God wills it can't be contracted to God'll it, but the sentence God will make it can be contracted to God'll make it.)
And in the last stage, rather takes on most of the characteristic of a regular verb, including the ability to take affixes, but also has many unique properties of its own as described on the Yale Grammatical Diversity page. E.g. a person might say I would have rathered that he be here, but he didn't come. or She rathers that he be here.
Is there anyone familiar with Early Modern English or English syntax that can comment on this theory?
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
I don't think I normally use "I would rather" followed by a subjunctive clause. It doesn't strike me as ungrammatical, but it seems somewhat archaic in the same way as "I would he were here" (although not to the same degree). For me, "I would rather" is most commonly followed by a plain infinitive. If I'm taking about someone else, I feel like I'd be more likely to say something like "I'd rather have Jane go to the store" than "I'd rather Jane go to the store." I guess there are some common expressions I might use where it is followed by a clause, like "I'd rather you didn't."Porphyrogenitos wrote:People create sentences using the past/subjunctive form of "will" as the main verb: I would he were here.
People insert adverbs into such sentences: I would sooner he were here. or I would rather he were here. (rather originally meant sooner)
The past/subjunctive of will becomes obsolete as an independent verb, but it survives in the set phrase I would rather...
People reanalyze would as an auxiliary verb and rather as the main verb, but it still does not have all the properties of a main verb (can't take affixes, etc). I think that there are many, many English speakers who are at this stage. Is there anyone for whom the following isn't grammatical?
I'd rather he be here. (Contracting would shows that it is an auxiliary modifying rather, since you can't contract main verbs - e.g. the sentence God wills it can't be contracted to God'll it, but the sentence God will make it can be contracted to God'll make it.)
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
The normal usage in my dialect is would rather followed by a clause in the present subjunctive; e.g. "I would rather he eat his vegetables for once".
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.
- 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
Three new brexit-related words encountered today: wrexit, bremainer, and brexiteer.
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
Relevant: https://youtu.be/lcDGkuvqqWE?t=18m10s
And if you do end up voting to oust yourselves, we have to keep hearing those same awful words for an even longer while.
And if you do end up voting to oust yourselves, we have to keep hearing those same awful words for an even longer while.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Does "the Eurovision" grate anyone else's ears? The presenters kept saying this here in Sweden even though their English was otherwise basically flawless and I can't tell if it's an error or if this form is considered acceptable? Because for me it has to be without an article except in the long form "the Eurovision Song Contest."
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Yes.Viktor77 wrote:Does "the Eurovision" grate anyone else's ears?
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
What is wrong with “the Eurovision”?
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
The definite article.Pole, the wrote:What is wrong with “the Eurovision”?
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Yeah, but why?
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Same reason why you can't say "The Germany" or "The London" or "The Microsoft"
Re: The Innovative Usage Thread
Both "Eurovision" and "the Eurovision Song Contest" are fine for me, but "the Eurovision" indeed seems wrong. The way I'd explain it is that it sounds like a compound, and we don't usually use "the" in proper noun phrases or compounds unless the head is a common noun, but it's a kind of contest, not a kind of vision.
- 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
"Eurovision" is a name. Names don't get articles. [with the possible exception of one or two countries, but that's a confusing area - is it Gambia, the Gambia, or The Gambia? Technically, the legal situation is that the second is preferred, but I think that's the least likely to actually be found these days; and even there you could argue that it's an abbreviation for "(The Islamic Republic of) the Gambia", i.e. the republic on the Gambia river.]
[also with the exception, as that demonstrates, of names of geographical entities. In most cases, this occurs when there is an elided common noun: "the Gobi (Desert)", "the Atlantic (Ocean)", "the Stelvio (Pass)"; in the case of rivers in Europe, and a few of historical significance, the expanded form may have inversion: "the (River) Thames", "the (River) Danube"; but "the Mississippi (River)", "the Yangtze (River)"; the Nile is an ambiguous case, as it's normally "the (River) Nile" in common speech, but you sometimes see "the Nile (River)" in more technical contexts. Another exception is mountain ranges suffixed with -s, even when there's no implicit common noun: the Alps, the Himalayas, the Andes, the Cairngorms, the Pennines. [never "the Alps Mountains"].
[also: individual mountains in the alps when the word 'Mont' or 'Monte' is not present. So "Scafell", "Everest", "Mont Blanc", "Kilimanjaro", but "the Matterhorn", "the Eiger", "the Dom", "the Ailefroide", etc.]
[also with the exception, as that demonstrates, of names of geographical entities. In most cases, this occurs when there is an elided common noun: "the Gobi (Desert)", "the Atlantic (Ocean)", "the Stelvio (Pass)"; in the case of rivers in Europe, and a few of historical significance, the expanded form may have inversion: "the (River) Thames", "the (River) Danube"; but "the Mississippi (River)", "the Yangtze (River)"; the Nile is an ambiguous case, as it's normally "the (River) Nile" in common speech, but you sometimes see "the Nile (River)" in more technical contexts. Another exception is mountain ranges suffixed with -s, even when there's no implicit common noun: the Alps, the Himalayas, the Andes, the Cairngorms, the Pennines. [never "the Alps Mountains"].
[also: individual mountains in the alps when the word 'Mont' or 'Monte' is not present. So "Scafell", "Everest", "Mont Blanc", "Kilimanjaro", but "the Matterhorn", "the Eiger", "the Dom", "the Ailefroide", etc.]
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!