The Innovative Usage Thread

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
User avatar
Viktor77
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Viktor77 »

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?
Falgwian and Falgwia!!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

User avatar
alynnidalar
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:35 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by alynnidalar »

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.

Porphyrogenitos
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:13 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

I've personally witnessed it on a number of occasions.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Zaarin »

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?
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.
"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?”

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

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

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Vijay »

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?

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Yng »

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

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Zaarin »

Yng wrote:Sounds perfectly normal to me, albeit the kind of language I associate with middle aged men who make dad jokes.
Same, except I'd qualify middle aged+ men from the Northeast.
"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?”

User avatar
spanick
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:35 am
Location: California

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by spanick »

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.

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Vijay »

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.

User avatar
clawgrip
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1723
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:21 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by clawgrip »

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.

Porphyrogenitos
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:13 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

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.
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:

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?

Sumelic
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Sumelic »

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.)
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."

Travis B.
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Milwaukee, US

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Travis B. »

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.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
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

Post by Salmoneus »

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!

User avatar
gach
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by gach »

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.

User avatar
Viktor77
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Viktor77 »

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."
Falgwian and Falgwia!!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Vijay »

Viktor77 wrote:Does "the Eurovision" grate anyone else's ears?
Yes.

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Pole, the »

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.

Sumelic
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Sumelic »

Pole, the wrote:What is wrong with “the Eurovision”?
The definite article.

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Pole, the »

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.

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by KathTheDragon »

Same reason why you can't say "The Germany" or "The London" or "The Microsoft"

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jmcd »


gmalivuk
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:24 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by gmalivuk »

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.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
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

Post by Salmoneus »

"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.]
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!

Post Reply