Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Sean]

One more, why should abbreviations in writing like I've or she'll be okay, but not would've or they'll've, when they're perfectly normal in speech?

[douglasofdorset]

Why can we say It's really good or It's very good, but we must say only I really like it, not I very like it.

I very much like it is okay, but what's going on here?

According to Macmillan 'very' is only used as an adverb before adjectives and other adverbs, or as an adjective before nouns.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/very
This means, I think, that 'very' is not a 'true' adverb.

And why must we say The big red bus not The red big bus?

Apparently the usual order of adjectives in English moves from the more general (first) to the more specific (last) - but it's much more complicated than that - see http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/order-adjectives

As for the accepted abbreviations, that's just a matter of convention, I think - though the convention is always changing, of course.  (I think modern novels do have would've, etc.)

(I also used to teach EFL, but usually not to students who could've coped with such advanced concepts!  As I recall I like it much was a frequent mistake!)

[Cato]

According to Macmillan 'very' is only used as an adverb before adjectives and other adverbs, or as an adjective before nouns.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/very
This means, I think, that 'very' is not a 'true' adverb.

And why must we say The big red bus not The red big bus?

Apparently the usual order of adjectives in English moves from the more general (first) to the more specific (last) - but it's much more complicated than that - see http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/order-adjectives

As for the accepted abbreviations, that's just a matter of convention, I think - though the convention is always changing, of course. (I think modern novels do have would've, etc.)

(I also used to teach EFL, but usually not to students who could've coped with such advanced concepts!  As I recall I like it much was a frequent mistake!)

Many thanks for the nice response!  I see nothing against "would've."  In my 6 decades in America I have never heard and have never read "they'll've."  If it does indeed occur somewhere, then the contraction would be correct for dialogue in a novel.  It would not be acceptable in formal writing.

I have noticed that such double contractions are disliked by Microsoft Word/Works, along with things e.g. "Some teachers're tougher 'n others."

[Sean]

Many many thanks for those details Douglas, greatly aiding my meagre understanding. My job's vaguely interesting... I sometimes feel like Arthur Sullivan, thinking through small scale stuff to a fair standard but with intentions far beyond, then having to settle for what was and wasn't achieved...

The work here generates plenty of thought, maybe talk more another time.

Beats plenty of other jobs anyway; appreciate the links.

[Sean]

How do Cato...

I have never heard and have never read "they'll've."

Not sure I'm reading you right but of course you've heard They'll've left by now/ They'll've had enough by then/ They'll've disappeared from view after so much grammar...

[Cato]

How do Cato...
Not sure I'm reading you right but of course you've heard They'll've left by now/ They'll've had enough by then/ They'll've disappeared from view after so much grammar...

Absolutely not!  The future perfect is rare enough, but that contraction I have neither heard nor read.  I might have come across e.g. "They will've arrived by now." 

Most people (here in the Midwest of America) for that sentence would more likely say: "They must've arrived by now," which of course is not quite as definite, but...that is what I would hear much more often than the future perfect.

[kishnevi]

Absolutely not!  The future perfect is rare enough, but that contraction I have neither heard nor read.  I might have come across e.g. "They will've arrived by now." 

Most people (here in the Midwest of America) for that sentence would more likely say: "They must've arrived by now," which of course is not quite as definite, but...that is what I would hear much more often than the future perfect.

I've never heard they'll've, and I think  I know why:   It's harder to pronounce than they'll have, and in trying to pronounce it, the mouth more or less produces the full form of have instead of the abbreviated 've.   And my experience here in Florida matches Cato--the preferred version seems to be must've, or more precisely must of, except when ordering a meal at restaurants ("He'll have the veal parmegiana and I'll have the shrimp molinari.")

[Sean]

I see what you're saying.

Got to've get some sleep over here.

[Cato]

I've never heard they'll've, and I think  I know why:  It's harder to pronounce than they'll have, and in trying to pronounce it, the mouth more or less produces the full form of have instead of the abbreviated 've.  And my experience here in Florida matches Cato--the preferred version seems to be must've, or more precisely must of, except when ordering a meal at restaurants ("He'll have the veal parmegiana and I'll have the shrimp molinari.")

Right!  A contraction is supposed to make things smoother, not harder, for the speaker: so yes, "they'll've" to my mouth is much harder than "they'll have."

[aquablob]

Thehluv

[Karl Henning]

I'm feeling they'll've . . . .

[Cato]

I'm feeling they'll've . . . .

Heh heh!   

Concerning contractions: "mize" came up in conversation last night.   

e.g.

"Since it's raining, we mize well go home: no baseball today."

"Mize" = "might as"

[Ten thumbs]

Heh heh!   

Concerning contractions: "mize" came up in conversation last night.   

e.g.

"Since it's raining, we mize well go home: no baseball today."

"Mize" = "might as"

Indeed, that's how it goes, but if people can't be bothered with consonants, why not 'we mize well gome'?

[Karl Henning]

Not a Grumble, strictly speaking: 24 kinds of American English.

[Cato]

Not a Grumble, strictly speaking: 24 kinds of American English.

Thanks for the link,Karl! 

When I was in college, I was told that America basically had hardly any "dialects."  The definition was that a dialect needed a certain number of actual grammatical and vocabulary oddities, so that a standard speaker would not completely understand what the dialect speaker was saying.

What America has is a variety of accents i.e. different ways of pronouncing words, which will not really prohibit complete understanding.

Only if an accent is very off kilter will it qualify as a dialect.

We were also told by the professors that "null-grade" English was spoken throughout most of central and northern Ohio, with the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights having the purest, unaccented English.

That claim would not be true today, since Shaker Heights is quite different from what it was half a century ago!

Linguists have maps which will delineate the most minute things, e.g. parts of cities where one accent or even word is heard vs. another.  (I suspect Nyoo Yawk Siddy alone has more than 24 kinds of English!      )

Interesting to see Ohio split in half: I have lived all over the state, however, and have never heard "doughnuts" called either "fatcakes" or "dunkers."

"Dunkards" however were the Mennonites, i.e. people who are "Amish lite" !   One hears the term very seldom these days.

[Karl Henning]

It may just be that I grew up in a bit of a melting-pot, but I've heard a number of terms which the article pins to one or another distant part of the country.

I sure do remember the porch being called a stoop from my earliest days, and at some point I did connect that with the old Dutch settlers of Nieuw Nederland.

[Cato]

It may just be that I grew up in a bit of a melting-pot, but I've heard a number of terms which the article pins to one or another distant part of the country.

I sure do remember the porch being called a stoop from my earliest days, and at some point I did connect that with the old Dutch settlers of Nieuw Nederland.

That was also not unknown in German-immigrant sections of Dayton, "stoop" (as a noun) is most probably related to "Stufe" in German which is the word for "step."

[Sergeant Rock]

Cato, here's another reason we should take pride in being Buckeyes 

According to a Study People In Ohio Curse More Than Anyone Else In The Country

New Jersey's response: "I got yer fuckin' study right here."

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

Fie on Jersey, I say!

[Cato]

Cato, here's another reason we should take pride in being Buckeyes 

According to a Study People In Ohio Curse More Than Anyone Else In The Country

Well, I am skeptical, although the nature of my life isolates me from people who might tend to suffer from coprolalia.  (Ancient Greek for "potty mouth.")

My wife and my brother say that I intimidate people in general, especially when I talk: this seems not to have affected my students' reaction to me, as the lazy ones tend to be unintimidated and therefore stay lazy, unless placed under the greatest psychological stress from their parents, which these days is unlikely.

On the other hand, I have noticed that certain people who tend toward coprolalia (like my late father-in-law, my brother-in-law, and others) affect a higher tone in my presence and try to avoid their regrettable habit.

I have always thought that the loosening of censorship in the 1960's and 1970's in movies (and later on television) catalyzed more cursing among the populace, who too often imitate what they see and hear in movies.  Certainly growing up 60 + years ago in a lower-class neighborhood I heard very little cursing from anyone in public.  The idea that one ought to control one's mouth in public - especially in front of children - was still widely believed. 

Observing the spread of public crudity since then has been one of the most depressing aspects of my life.

Fie on Jersey, I say!

Amen!  0:)