Author Topic: Dear Expert (Read 165359 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #50 on:** May 23, 2010, 07:12:24 PM »

It's called subject-auxiliary inversion, and among other things it occurs when you have a restrictive adverb at the beginning of the clause.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #51 on:** May 23, 2010, 07:37:44 PM »

Thanks, Jonathon! I think it'll make sense if I explain it to them as another case similar to the yes-no questions. They already understand that.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #52 on:** June 08, 2010, 07:37:30 PM »

Why don't we say usefuler? I just taught my class about comparatives and superlatives and gave them the standard rule of 1 or 2 syllables taking -er and -est and 3 or more syllables taking more or most. Their textbook told them that and told them that some words are irregular like good,bad and far. That's all the information they gave them and then one of their practice words was useful. I was afraid of it so I didn't use it as an exercise in class, but I'm looking over their homework and most of them got it right anyway: more useful.

But I can't find an explanation anywhere - why don't we say usefuler? The other words I could think of that end in -ful are bashful and fretful and I think those are both irregular like useful. Is that the rule, then? Words that end in -ful? So why didn't our textbook tell them that?

Jonathon · « **Reply #53 on:** June 08, 2010, 07:53:56 PM »

The OED says,

Quote

In mod.Eng. the comparatives in -er are almost restricted to adjs. of one or two syllables; longer adjs., and also disyllables containing any suffix other than -y or -ly, having the periphrastic comparison by means of the adv. more.

So yes, it does appear to be the suffix that's blocking the addition of -er (but apparently almost any other suffix will too). I don't know why your textbook doesn't say that, except that language is so complex that it's impossible to capture all the important rules that govern its use in one textbook. I guess that rule just didn't make the cut.

The Genuine · « **Reply #54 on:** June 08, 2010, 08:26:40 PM »

It would be way easier to next time simply have your students born in America.

Neutros the Radioactive Dragon · « **Reply #55 on:** June 08, 2010, 08:29:04 PM »

I had to look up two of those words just to understand that quote. Yes. I betray my ignorance, I know, but... wow.

I need ice cream now.

Jonathon · « **Reply #56 on:** June 08, 2010, 08:40:39 PM »

I'm guessing periphrastic was one, but what was the other?

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #57 on:** June 08, 2010, 09:26:56 PM »

I don't mind the textbook not covering that particular exception, but then don't use it as one of their exercises!

And this textbook is even written by a native speaker.

rivka · « **Reply #58 on:** June 08, 2010, 09:27:15 PM »

Quote

I'm guessing periphrastic was one, but what was the other?

Perhaps disyllable? I looked that one up (although I thought I knew what it might be), and the other.

Jonathon · « **Reply #59 on:** June 08, 2010, 09:43:10 PM »

Yeah, I guess the meaning of disyllable isn't necessarily obvious, even though it looks like it should be.

Neutros the Radioactive Dragon · « **Reply #60 on:** June 08, 2010, 10:20:05 PM »

Quote

Quote
I'm guessing periphrastic was one, but what was the other?
Perhaps disyllable? I looked that one up (although I thought I knew what it might be), and the other.

Ding, ding, ding!

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #61 on:** June 08, 2010, 11:52:18 PM »

On a random note, while researching this question my first thought was to google the word "usefuler." All of the results were non-helpful uses of the word on blogs and forums, except for one, which was a linguistics article that addressed the entire subject. It was written by my linguistics professor Dr. Elzinga. How often does googling a random question lead you straight to an answer by someone you're already facebook friends with?

Neutros the Radioactive Dragon · « **Reply #62 on:** June 09, 2010, 05:45:52 AM »

More and more often.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #63 on:** June 09, 2010, 08:10:09 AM »

Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser.

Jonathon · « **Reply #64 on:** June 09, 2010, 09:28:25 AM »

That's funny. Before I found the answer in the OED, I was thinking he'd be the perfect person to ask about that.

pooka · « **Reply #65 on:** June 10, 2010, 04:13:55 PM »

The narrow definition of irony became common knowledge due to the song by Alanis Morrisette, but I only knew it because of a line in "Reality Bites". :hangs head in shame:

I don't buy that Morrisette was striving for meta-irony in her song.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #66 on:** July 13, 2010, 06:44:35 PM »

How common is the spelling technic vs. technique? I've only seen it twice - once on one of my piano books I learned from as a teenager. I thought it was a horrid example of anglophones' lack of spelling ability, but then looked it up to be surprised that it was a legitimate variation. I just saw if for the second time on a friend's facebook page for some education enterprise called "Learning Technics." (Part of my rancor is boiling right now at the claims they're making about learning, but I might be able to stay cool enough to ask about their theoretical backing to maybe be convinced of their legitimacy) It really rubs me the wrong way; like, "why should you think that people would come to you as education experts when you're using such an infuriating spelling?" But maybe that's totally irrational of me. Is there a marked difference in usage as far as anyone knows?

Jonathon · « **Reply #67 on:** July 13, 2010, 07:10:45 PM »

I don't recall ever seeing that before. The OED says this about technic (which it says is pronounced /'tɛknɪk/, not /tɛk'nik/ so it's not simply an alternate spelling of technique):

Quote

2. Chiefly U.S.

a. Technical details or methods collectively; the formal or practical aspect of an art, science, or subject; (also) practical skill in the application of this. Now rare.
Largely superseded by technique.

b. A technical method; a scientific procedure.
Largely superseded by technique.

So I guess that answers your question: it's not a weird spelling but a slightly different word that has mostly been replaced by technique.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #68 on:** July 13, 2010, 11:38:09 PM »

So if they insist on pronouncing it the same as technique and treat it as an identical word am I justified in thinking them slight imbeciles who don't really read much?

Jonathon · « **Reply #69 on:** July 14, 2010, 09:28:44 AM »

Judging by the number of people on the forums who have admitted to mispronouncing words because they read them and had never heard them (or had never connected the written and spoken forums), I'm going to suggest that the issue isn't necessarily a lack of reading. But I'd probably find it irksome too.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #70 on:** July 20, 2010, 03:26:25 AM »

I like this expert's answer to how to pluralize octopus. It gives me hope for the dear-to-my-heart syllabuses.

Scott R · « **Reply #71 on:** July 20, 2010, 06:26:57 AM »

That's great.

She needs to keep her hands down, though. This ain't no kung-fu movie.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #72 on:** July 20, 2010, 06:45:35 AM »

Really? I liked the hands. They seemed charming to me. Or maybe she was just charming, and that charm spilled over onto her hands.

rivka · « **Reply #73 on:** July 20, 2010, 12:38:01 PM »

Quote from: Tante Shvester on July 20, 2010, 06:45:35 AM

Really? I liked the hands. They seemed charming to me.

Agreed. But speaking with one's hands is a common Jewish (and bi-coastal) trait; not so much among American Midwesterners. Which is why it looks normal to us, and not to Scott.

Or else Scott's just being weird again.

The Genuine · « **Reply #74 on:** July 20, 2010, 02:12:20 PM »

What do American Midwesterners do with their hands whilst talking?