zompist bboard

"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

Is that bolded bit grammatical for you? It's the first thing my brain came up with, but for some reason it rings false, even though I can't come up with a better way of saying it.

Also, can silly be made into an adverb (i.e. is sillily grammatical)? It's in the Wiktionary category for "dated English words," and it sounds kind of funny to me, anyways. If not, would you express it periphrastically (like in a silly way)?

Antirri wrote: "That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

Is that bolded bit grammatical for you? It's the first thing my brain came up with, but for some reason it rings false, even though I can't come up with a better way of saying it.

I need a pronoun:

"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing it."

Damn extraction across binding nodes.

roninbodhisattva wrote:I need a pronoun:

"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing it."

Damn extraction across binding nodes.

Yes, same here.

It sounds much better with "it", but for me it's something that just doesn't work in English.

I prefer it without it, I think.

I sillily forgot to bring my dinosaur (or whatever) also sounds fine, to me.

Antirri wrote:"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

As with the others I'd use a resumptive pronoun. An alternative is "That's the sort of thing that if people saw you doing it, they'd find it weird."

Antirri wrote:Also, can silly be made into an adverb (i.e. is sillily grammatical)? It's in the Wiktionary category for "dated English words," and it sounds kind of funny to me, anyways. If not, would you express it periphrastically (like in a silly way)?

I'd either go with something like "walk" → "do a silly walk" or "draw" → "draw a silly thing"/"draw something silly", but [sɪɫ.(l)ɪ.liː] isn't too horrible. (Not sure if it's actually geminate.)

Bob Johnson wrote:"draw" → "draw a silly thing"/"draw something silly"

There's a difference between "drawing something silly" and "drawing something sillily", i.e. "in a silly way". The latter refers to the way of drawing, the former to the output (alternative: "sillily drawing something").


JAL

Bob Johnson wrote:

Antirri wrote:"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

As with the others I'd use a resumptive pronoun. An alternative is "That's the sort of thing that if people saw you doing it, they'd find it weird."

I'd find that version more awkward that the version with the pronoun.

And I wouldn't say sillily is wrong, but I wouldn't say it much either. "He rather sillily ..." does seem like something I might say though.

Huh. To me, adding it makes it sound like there's something extra that shouldn't be there, although rephrasing everything works for me as well. What's the it here? A "resumptive pronoun?"

roninbodhisattva wrote:

Antirri wrote: "That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

Is that bolded bit grammatical for you? It's the first thing my brain came up with, but for some reason it rings false, even though I can't come up with a better way of saying it.

I need a pronoun:

"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing it."

Damn extraction across binding nodes.

I prefer the option without the pronoun, although it's a bit unwieldy and a bit unnatural. I have a bit of an aversion to the ones with extra pronouns, although it's probably just some kind of snobbery as I'm fairly sure I will just happily insert them if needed in practice.

finlay wrote:I prefer the option without the pronoun, although it's a bit unwieldy and a bit unnatural. I have a bit of an aversion to the ones with extra pronouns, although it's probably just some kind of snobbery as I'm fairly sure I will just happily insert them if needed in practice.

How do you feel about "the thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is"?

I don't like it, but I can't think of a way to rephrase it and in practice will probably use it without noticing.

Bob Johnson wrote:

finlay wrote:I prefer the option without the pronoun, although it's a bit unwieldy and a bit unnatural. I have a bit of an aversion to the ones with extra pronouns, although it's probably just some kind of snobbery as I'm fairly sure I will just happily insert them if needed in practice.

How do you feel about "the thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is"?

Yeah, I find that I'd also say this, "...which you don't know what is." Hrm.

I find the example in the first post completely grammatical, and that is how I would always say it. Putting an "it" at the end sounds like a hyper-correction, or too many words.

Antirri wrote:"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

Is that bolded bit grammatical for you?

Sounds fine to me.

linguofreak wrote:

Antirri wrote:"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

Is that bolded bit grammatical for you?

Sounds fine to me.

I also find nothing wrong with the sentence, and definitely prefer it without the resumptive pronoun although I think I might say it both with and without the pronoun in informal speech--it's just that in writing, when I have time to think about it, "it" seems superfluous.

Antirri wrote:

Bob Johnson wrote:

finlay wrote:I prefer the option without the pronoun, although it's a bit unwieldy and a bit unnatural. I have a bit of an aversion to the ones with extra pronouns, although it's probably just some kind of snobbery as I'm fairly sure I will just happily insert them if needed in practice.

How do you feel about "the thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is"?

Yeah, I find that I'd also say this, "...which you don't know what is." Hrm.

I'd have to include the pronoun if I were to say "which you don't know what (it) is", but in reality I'd remove the relativizer altogether and replace it with a conjunction, so I'd have "the thing your aunt gave you and you don't know what it is".

'Course, there's still a resumptive pronoun in there. I thought it might have to do with whether the removed noun is a subject or object, but then realized that I found no problem in "that's the kind of thing that people would find weird if they saw working". In fact, I judge the following three sentences to be grammatical and idiomatic:

• (1a) "That's the kind of thing that people would find weird if they saw it working".
  (1b) "That's the kind of thing that people would find weird if they saw working."
  (2a) "That's the kind of plan that would surprise me if it ended up working."

whereas the following sentence is outright grammatical:

• (2b) *"That's the kind of plan that would surprise me if ended up working."

This sentence is grammatical:

• (2c) "That's the kind of plan that would surprise me ending up working."

but I think that, in this case, "ending up working" is an adverbial phrase akin to the preposition phrase in

• (2d) "That's the kind of plan that would surprise me by ending up working."

"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing it." -- without doubt.

"The thing your aunt gave you of which you don't know what it is." -- maybe. Without, it sounds worse. Still sounds awkward though

To me it sounds possibly a little more grammatical with the "it", but I wouldn't react to the first one either, I think.

I'm not a native speaker, but I like the sentence in the OP better. And I think Zompist has a section about this in the (online; I don't know about the printed) LCK.

I'm not a native speaker either, and I have objections to both sentences. I think one of the complications is the garden path effect caused by "That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird" being a grammatical sentence. Also, I wonder if the sentence with "it" is more acceptable in case "that" is explicitly used:

- That's the kind of thing that people would find weird if they saw you doing it

as "it" here may refer to "that". Without "that", "it" seems to refer to "the kind of thing", but then "would find weird" misses an object. The sentence without "it" feels incorrect perhaps because both "would find weird" and "saw you doing" need an antecedent, and cannot both have the same (especially it being implicit). Or something.


JAL

Sounds good to me without it.

*That's the sort of thing people would judge you for saying/doing/eating/etc.

As for sillily, I would say this:

He's being/acting silly

But never *He's singing silly

...

"That's the kind of thing [that] people would find weird if they saw you doing."

> If they saw you doing, that would be the kind of thing that people would find weird. (Lolwut?)

> If they saw you doing it, that would be the kind of thing that people would find weird. (Haaaaa... Ok. :3)

But both have a slight different meaning...

How do you make -ly adjectives into adverbs, e.g. friendly, silly?
My usual cop-out is "in a ___ manner/way", but that sort of circumlocution can get quite tiring.

Ouagadougou wrote:How do you make -ly adjectives into adverbs, e.g. friendly, silly?
My usual cop-out is "in a ___ manner/way", but that sort of circumlocution can get quite tiring.

You are someone who says "fastly"?


JAL

jal wrote:

Ouagadougou wrote:How do you make -ly adjectives into adverbs, e.g. friendly, silly?
My usual cop-out is "in a ___ manner/way", but that sort of circumlocution can get quite tiring.

You are someone who says "fastly"?


JAL

I don't think anyone says that. Just fast or quick in lieu of quickly.