Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Recent Questions - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

What is the term for phrases that are compound adjectives, similar to "come-hither look", "high-school-teaching voice" or "thousand-yard stare"?

Posted: 31 May 2022 10:25 AM PDT

I know the etymology, and although it's listed as a noun, merriam-webster tells me the definition, but I want to know the name of this sort of adjective.

Wiktionary has it grouped as English Exocentric compound phrases, but that's quite what I'm looking for.

Another example is the title of this book: Don't Make Me Use My High School Teacher Voice, or the term 'Big-Boy pants', like "Time to put on your 'big boy' pants."

Rather than use a straightforward adjective like "Seductive look" or "Annoyed" they use circumlocutionary language evoke a more complicated and particular situation, circumstance or role.

But is there a specific term for this type of adjective?

What does the whole passge from Dickens' Little Dorit chapter 19 mean?

Posted: 31 May 2022 09:51 AM PDT

The Father of the Marshalsea glanced at a passing Collegian with whom he was on friendly terms, as who should say, 'An enfeebled old man, this; but he is my brother, sir, my brother, and the voice of Nature is potent!' and steered his brother clear of the handle of the pump by the threadbare sleeve.

What does the term "as who should say" mean? What does "clear of the handle of the pump by the threadbare sleeve" mean?

What is the meaning of 'how' in "How unique?"?

Posted: 31 May 2022 10:25 AM PDT

I was wondering about the semantic meaning of 'how' in this phrase.

How unique?

Could it be taken out and left as just "Unique?" Or does it actually give meaning to the phrase?

Wouldst thou like or likest?

Posted: 31 May 2022 05:58 AM PDT

The phrase "wouldst thou like" seems more appropriate to me, for the following reason:

As far as I know, "thou wilt like" is correct, and "thou wilt likest" is not, because the verb "like" is infinitive, here, due to the presence of the auxiliary verb "will". Therefore, "thou wouldst like" is correct, for the same reason. I don't see why rearranging the phrase into interrogative form should change the conjugation of the verb "like", but English is strange, and that's why I ask: Would it be correct to assume that the proper conjugation of verbs for the phrase I'm looking for is "wouldst thou like"?

Is this sentence grammatically correct- "I'm getting tired"?

Posted: 31 May 2022 05:19 AM PDT

I read in a grammar book that the following sentence is grammatically incorrect: "I'm getting tired". But there is no explanation why it is not right. It sounds okay to me.

In contrast with all what ? is correct [closed]

Posted: 31 May 2022 05:19 AM PDT

In contrast with all what's have been said about the event ?

What does "on their heads" mean here? [closed]

Posted: 31 May 2022 03:51 AM PDT

I want to know, what does "on their heads" mean in the following sentence?

They insist the easiest way to do this is on their heads.

Purpose of partitive

Posted: 31 May 2022 03:11 AM PDT

I'm having difficulty understanding the purpose of the partitive here.

A crew of men were on board a ship.

According to CGEL (p. 349),

The most straightforward type of quantification involves a quantifier in determiner or modifier function: many books, these three houses. But quantification can also be expressed by means of a noun as head with an of PP as complement. We are concerned in this section with the case where the quantificational noun is non-count, as in a lot of people.

There are three versions of this non-count quantificational noun construction to be considered, as illustrated in [53], where double underlining marks the quantificational noun and single underlining marks what we shall call the oblique, the NP complement of of:

[53] singular (a) and plural (b)

ia. [A lot of work] was done.

ib [A lot of errors] were made.

iia. [A great deal of work] was done.

iib [A great deal of errors] were/was made.

iiia. ∗[Dozens of work] was/were done.

iiib.[Dozens of errors] were made.

In [i] the number of the whole NP depends on the oblique: we will say that lot is number-transparent in that it allows the number of the oblique to percolate up to determine the number of the whole NP. In [ii], singular deal selects a singular oblique, while in [iii] plural dozens selects a plural oblique. (We include both was and were in [iib] and [iiia] to show that the ungrammaticality is not a matter of subject–verb agreement but lies within the NP.)

The obliques may be either partitive or non-partitive:

[54] i [A lot of the delegates] complained. [partitive]

[54] ii [A lot of people] complained. [non-partitive]

In [i] the whole NP picks out a subset of the set referred to by the delegates, whereas there is no such subset relation involved in [ii]. The partitive obliques are normally definite and are distinguished from the non-partitives in that they occur in the fused- head construction:

[55]i [Many of the delegates] complained. [partitive]

[55] ii *[Many of delegates] complained. [non-partitive]

Instead of [55ii] we have simply [Many delegates] complained, where there is no embedding of one NP within another.

As you can (hopefully) see, for an oblique to be considered 'partitive' it must be definite. Therefore, in the given sentence ("A crew of men were on board a ship"), the complement of of ('men') is not partitive, and as a result the entire NP ("A crew of men") does not pick out a subset of a set.

My question here, then, is this: what exactly is the semantic purpose of the partitive NP "A crew of men", if it does not have any subset relation (which is what, ere reading this particular section of CGEL, I had thought the sole purpose of partitives was: to pick out a subset of a set)?

Many thanks.

Note: I originally thought it best to post this question on the English Learners StackExchange, but after receiving no answers there (likely because this question is not suitable for the Learners StackExchange), I have opted to re-post it here, in the hope of receiving more technical answers.

Which one is the correct one? Why? [migrated]

Posted: 31 May 2022 02:18 AM PDT

I'm unsure about these as English is my second language. The tense used here is Present future.

  1. I'm going to meet my father tomorrow.

  2. I'm meeting my father tomorrow.

If both are true, how so?

Being neutral with opinion [closed]

Posted: 31 May 2022 01:37 AM PDT

I have a couple of items that are, in my opinion, quite bad in quality. I would like to express their similarity while being neutral and not offend their creator nor argue with anyone who has other view than mine. The aim is that everyone who agrees with me knows what I mean. What's the best way of expressing it?

Is this sentence right-"someone is challenging to communicate with"?

Posted: 31 May 2022 04:15 AM PDT

Can I say that "somebody is challenging to communicate with"? Is this sentence right? And how to rewrite the sentence in other ways?

What is the meaning of "lugubration"?

Posted: 31 May 2022 12:31 AM PDT

I could have sworn "lugubration" was a word, but dictionaries I check either draw a blank, or suggest it's a spelling error of "lucubration".

And yet .. it shows up in historical uses:

Queensland Legislative Assembly Hansard (7 SEPTEMBER 1880):

The Press had been unduly fostered by the State, in being allowed to send their lugubrations broadcast throughout the colony without a quid pro quo.

Historical and Descriptive Guide through Shrewsbury (S. F. Williams, 1881):

It can readily be believed, as Dr. Taylor says, that all this lugubration caused "my Lord hymself to change countenance!"

Letter from John Fogg Taylor of Tundemunga, near Adelaide (1840):

[...] & I was resolved not to trouble you with my lugubrations [...]

The two Napoleons and England: Two Pages of History (1858):

The slavery and degredation of France, groaning under the foot of the Corsican usurper, formed the staple of his lugugrations in prose; the dagger that laid low Cæser, graced his verse.

Each of these are possibly related to lucubration ("a learned or pedantic piece of writing"), but each could also be related to lugubrious ("looking or sounding sad and dismal"). Sadly, the only commonality is the paucity of context. My uneducated and unsourced prior sense of the word leans towards the latter sense, so my opinion shouldn't be considered unbiased.

Are there dictionaries or more that can shed light on the old meaning of lugubration?

Is there an expression for ‘bad news’ when meant literally for negative news we get from the media?

Posted: 31 May 2022 05:19 AM PDT

We are checking bad news every day. Should we constantly be informed about all that _______ ?

I need an idiom or expression for a context like the above.

Meaning to the phrase "last year's man"

Posted: 31 May 2022 07:54 AM PDT

I saw this in a Leonard Cohen's lyrics. I wonder if it means anything in particular in the English language.

Prepositional/infinitive phrase connectors

Posted: 31 May 2022 07:07 AM PDT

When prepositional /infinitive phrases are used as sentence connectors, ie they come at the beginning of a sentence, what is their status in the sentence? Are they mere connectors and not a part of the sentence or they also are integral part of the sentence they introduce?

Example:

  • He is a hardworking man. Apart from this, he is also very diligent.

Here is "apart from this" only a connector or also an integral part of the sentence "he is also very diligent?

Similarly,

  • He wants to be rich. To achieve his objective, he is working very hard.

Here, is "To achieve his objective" only a connector or also an integral part of the sentence "he is working very hard", acting as an adverbial?

Mixing simple present and a present participle in the same phrase?

Posted: 31 May 2022 06:03 AM PDT

I'm writing an explanation of my duties in a job that I currently have, and I came up with the bullet:

Organize large groups of over 200 people, directing them to activities and allocating seating in theaters

Is it wrong to put both the simple present and the present participle in one phrase like this? I'm trying to say that part of my duty in organizing large groups is to direct them to activities and to theater seats. Should I be mixing organize with directing / allocating? It doesn't quite seem right to use direct / allocate here though. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

edit: I feel that I should be mixing simple present with present participles here because I'm not trying to say that I have 3 duties, but rather that one duty (organizing) includes 2 separate aspects (directing / allocating). I realized that I am trying to say "I organize large groups of over 200 people, which includes directing them to activities and allocating seating in theaters." However, is it okay to leave out the "which includes" part here because it is implied by the present participle?

Is "willfully disingenuous" a tautologism?

Posted: 31 May 2022 01:31 AM PDT

It seems to me that definitions of disingenuous such as the following might imply willfulness:

adjective

  1. lacking in frankness, candour, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; >insincere: "Her excuse was rather disingenuous."

Is the adjective necessary?

Passive clauses without auxiliaries

Posted: 31 May 2022 07:54 AM PDT

Sentences such as I came across a letter that was typed by her secretary, can be "reduced" by removing that and the auxiliary verb, yielding I came across a letter typed by her secretary. In this particular case, the by phrase, or some other modifying phrase such as that morning or in red ink appears to be obligatory. You can't simply say, *I came across a letter typed, although you can say I came across a typed letter.

In other cases, though, this seems to be OK; consider All the students arrested were from King's College.

In what cases is a dependent required to make the clause grammatical? Can anyone point me to a discussion of this in a reliable reference grammar, preferably the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language? I see it mentioned there on p. 78, but this particular issue is not discussed.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)