The Innovative Usage Thread

[Ser]

How do people interpret this sentence?

• For example, bear grease has been substituted for extra virgin olive oil in Nuwati’s line of balms.

What's actually in the balms, olive oil or bear grease?

I can't even parse it so that "bear grease" is in the balms, though that might as well be L1 Spanish influence. Ser su(b)stituido por works just like Catalan estar substituït per, or English "be replaced by" indeed ("bear grease has been replaced by extra olive oil in Nuwati's line of balms."); and I'm not exactly familiar with English "to be substitated for".

[Travis B.]

To me, the balms contain bear grease, not olive oil.

[hwhatting]

How do people interpret this sentence?

• For example, bear grease has been substituted for extra virgin olive oil in Nuwati’s line of balms.

What's actually in the balms, olive oil or bear grease?

Bear grease in Nuwati's, olive oil in other lines.

Are people confusing "for" and "with"?

I would interprete this wording only the same way as Bob - there's bear grease in Nuwati's balms, instead of olive oil. But the magic powers of google indeed reveal that it's the other way round:

Nuwati’s product foundations are built on what Jackson refers to as natural remedies from Mother Earth’s medicine cabinet with formulas rooted in traditional Cherokee recipes — true to the original recipes with a few modifications. For example, bear grease has been substituted for extra virgin olive oil in Nuwati’s line of balms.

At least I assume that the "original Cherokee recipes" included bear produce and not olive oil - probably I'm just succumbing to cultural stereotypes.
Edit: But maybe the reporter misunderstood, the recipes come from a Mr. Cerocchi, and Nuwati just has a surfeit of bears they want to put to use?

[Thry]

People around here have always mangled the Spanish plural imperative and infinitive (dejad vs. dejar), which in my dialect come out as [de.'hah] and [de.'ha(4)], but what is annoying is that this is apparently spreading to the negative; where I'd say no os dejéis, someone said no dejaros.

[Melteor]

It's bothered me for awhile, but how do the rest of you feel about using possessors with clauses? E.g.
"Let's talk about your living here with Charlie." vs.
"Let's talk about you living here with Charlie"
To me, it feels like there's a realis distinction with the 1st that is not necessarily there in the 2nd.

How do people interpret this sentence?

• For example, bear grease has been substituted for extra virgin olive oil in Nuwati’s line of balms.

What's actually in the balms, olive oil or bear grease?

Bear grease in Nuwati's, olive oil in other lines.

Are people confusing "for" and "with"?

I would interprete this wording only the same way as Bob - there's bear grease in Nuwati's balms, instead of olive oil. But the magic powers of google indeed reveal that it's the other way round:

That's how I would take it...But it's acceptable if you stick a comma in
"For example, bear grease has been substituted, for extra virgin olive oil in Nuwati’s line of balms."
'For' just means 'in favor of' here, but this is a good example of bad writing. 'Replaced' would have been better, or 'substituted out'.

What is also going on, is that 'bear grease' is both a "role" & a "value"; if you read it as a "role" it means the olive oil literally is the "bear grease" in the recipe. (I guess that would be something of a cognitive blend? It's faux-bear-grease, like a plastic gun is fake, but is it a gun.) And then the other value reading is just that, the bear grease is bear grease, and somehow it fits into a "substitution" semantically. (Was this written by a Japanese guy?)

[linguoboy]

It's bothered me for awhile, but how do the rest of you feel about using possessors with clauses? E.g.
"Let's talk about your living here with Charlie." vs.
"Let's talk about you living here with Charlie"
To me, it feels like there's a realis distinction with the 1st that is not necessarily there in the 2nd.

To me the distinction is entirely one of register.

[Ser]

It's bothered me for awhile, but how do the rest of you feel about using possessors with clauses? E.g.
"Let's talk about your living here with Charlie." vs.
"Let's talk about you living here with Charlie"
To me, it feels like there's a realis distinction with the 1st that is not necessarily there in the 2nd.

To me the distinction is entirely one of register.

This isn't really about innovative usage, but about innovations in usage:

It seems to me that there are quite a number of speakers my age (~20 y/o) that are unfamiliar with that alternative using the genitive. People have corrected me for using it, and insist it's wrong even when I point out that it's just a more formal alternative.

This also goes for the non-interrogative "how + adjective", replaced by using "so" in another construction. Quite a few times I've said things like "how funny" or "how interesting", and people misinterpret them for a question about how funny or interesting something is. I've had to explain them, natives, that that means more or less "that's so X" ("that's so funny", "that's so interesting"), and then they tell me that's not English...

I mean, seriously? I'm pretty sure I come across both constructions fairly often in newspapers and journal articles, and stuff.



Also, the other day, before the beginning of a French class I'm taking, the prof was making fun of some things about colloquial English that aren't standard. He wrote "Me and my friend are going to the beach" and he asked how that was supposed to be corrected. Silence, confused faces. A girl next to me responds, self-doubting herself, it could probably be "My friend and I".

I thought people in general were much, much better aware of this phenomenon!

[Thry]

I thought people in general were much, much better aware of this phenomenon!

Deception everywhere.

Srsly how can I hear people saying "no dejaros, no entraros" everyday?!?! you understand me, right? right?!

[Ser]

Srsly how can I hear people saying "no dejaros, no entraros" everyday?!?! you understand me, right? right?!

Non sequitur. Do people think "no os dejéis" is ungrammatical, a weird thing only a foreigner like ol bofosh would say or write? (I have no problem whatsoever with "me and my friend are", but what surprises me is that people wouldn't think of "my friend and I are" as something natural too.)

[Thry]

Nope it was not a reference to you, so obviously it doesn't sequi, it was a bump on this:

People around here have always mangled the Spanish plural imperative and infinitive (dejad vs. dejar), which in my dialect come out as [de.'hah] and [de.'ha(4)], but what is annoying is that this is apparently spreading to the negative; where I'd say no os dejéis, someone said no dejaros.

"no dejaros" sounds acceptable only because I'm more or less Pacense (that's the demonym for Badajoz).

[Thry]

people wouldn't think of "my friend and I are" as something natural too.

Well they're the linguistical-bias-free natives, so if they don't then it's not natural ITD.

[Melteor]

@Serafin, linguoboy: Re Grammarz:
To me the genitive construction sounds like overcompensation or something. But the unmarked example sounds awkward too somehow. I'm trying to think of how I would personally go about phrasing it...I think this is when I would try to nominalize it e.g. "your living arrangement with Charlie" but really I think the most natural thing for me would be to say, "Let's talk about how you're living here with Charlie [like this]." Surprisingly I don't associate the genitive construction with higher register or older speakers, but that is actually from where I lifted the example. I know several city-people who used it and surprised me.

I can't really speak to the other examples, but the ones with 'how' are silly. I use it all the time & have never gotten that reaction. Look at my above example with the word!

[Radius Solis]

In an Alanis song I recently came across:

Day one, day one, start over again
Step one, step one, with not much making sense
Just yet I'm faking it 'til I'm pseudo making it
From scratch, begin again, but this time I as “I” and not as “We”

Using free-"pseudo" with a verb? Not something I think I've heard anywhere else. Reasonably within artistic license, but it called attention to itself.

Opinions?

[jmcd]

Well she is rather famous for her innovative usage (or misusage, as you will) after all. In fact, I might even say it's what she's most well-known for, besides the fact she sings pop songs.

[linguoboy]

In an Alanis song I recently came across:

Day one, day one, start over again
Step one, step one, with not much making sense
Just yet I'm faking it 'til I'm pseudo making it
From scratch, begin again, but this time I as “I” and not as “We”

Using free-"pseudo" with a verb? Not something I think I've heard anywhere else. Reasonably within artistic license, but it called attention to itself.

What makes you call this an example of "free" pseudo? The lack of a hyphen? Because I would still consider it a prefix. At least I can't think of anything which could appear between it and make. (Cf.: "kinda pseudo making it" vs *"pseudo kinda making it".)

[TaylorS]

I was amused today at work when I heard a customer telling my coworker "it cost $60,000 to put the stretch in the limo."

LOL, "to put the stretch in the limo"?

[dunomapuka]

Amusing use of "meta:"

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/index.php?date=033112

[Thry]

How does it differ from the normal usage of meta- in meta-language or meta-time?

[Ser]

A friend of mine just used a subjunctive imperfect ending in -esa (bolding mine):

estaba caperucita roja en el cuarto de la cabania o lo que fuesa la choza donde vivia y estaba el lobo disfrazado de la abuelita .. y le pregunta la caperuza .. abuelita ... que son esos ojos tan grandes que tienes, y le dice el lobo, para verte mejor hija, para verte mejor, la caperuza la pregunta, y que son esas orejas tan grandes que tienes y le contesta el lobo, para oirte mejor hijta, para oirte mejor, y viene la caperuza y le pregunta, abuelita, y que es ese iphone tan grande que tienes, y le dice el lobo, es un Ipad PENDEJAA ...

(He's writing with a US keyboard layout, which explains the use of <niV> for /ɲV/.) My conjecture is that he was trying to use a style typical of published fairytale books (note the total lack of voseo, in spite of being a fellow Salvadoran), and trying to use an -ese imperfect subjunctive, he let himself be influenced by the -era forms and ended up with -esa...

[Thry]

That's just wrong!

I use <ny> when I don't have a <ñ>.

[ol bofosh]

Orange can't afford to use <ñ>. That's why they say "Llevamos 2 anos juntos..."

Make of that what you may.

[Thry]

xD well, living next to Portugal, I'm mostly immune to that pun.

[ol bofosh]

Okay, this isn't "normal speech" but when I'm "thinking out loud" I often turn the present perfect "have" into "are".

have 'a' are

I said to my cats today "'a' you eaten yet." It sort of morphed onto "are".

Might that be innovative?

[Thry]

Nope it's actually the standard register when talking to cats...

Also you talk to cats in MY country in English? pero qué haces tío? que me los vas a volver locos!!! pronto dicen meow y to

[ol bofosh]

Tengo gatos bilingüales:
"Hello, sweety. You hungry?"
"¡Joder! Quitate de en medio."
"Here's some food."
"Para ya. ¡Pesao!"
"I love you."
"Oye, que no se caga fuera de la caja, ¡jolines!"