English questions

[Raphael]

Which is the usual, default, more common form of the idiom:

"forcing square pegs into round holes"

or

"forcing round pegs into square holes"

?

The former.

Thank you!

[jal]

The former.

Obviously, as round pegs go quite well in square holes :D.


JAL

[bradrn]

The former.

Obviously, as round pegs go quite well in square holes .

Only if the diameter of the peg is less than the width of the hole. Conversely, square pegs fit just fine into round holes if the diagonal of the peg is shorter than the diameter of the hole.

[jal]

Only if the diameter of the peg is less than the width of the hole. Conversely, square pegs fit just fine into round holes if the diagonal of the peg is shorter than the diameter of the hole.

Though my reply was of course tongue-in-cheek, When looking solely at diameter, a square peg with sides with length n does not fit in a round hole with diameter n, but not vice versa.


JAL

[Raphael]

Does it still make sense, or is it completely antiquated, to capitalize the word "internet" in the mid-2020s?

[Travis B.]

Does it still make sense, or is it completely antiquated, to capitalize the word "internet" in the mid-2020s?

I am used to "Internet" as in "the Internet" being capitalized to this day, unlike any random internetwork.

[alice]

It would be wrong not to.

[Raphael]

Thank you both! Now I wonder what people who are too young to remember a time before the I/internet see this.

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else here speak or is otherwise familiar with any English variety which is frequently h-dropping in grammar words but normally h-preserving in content words? I ask because I have not seen such a pattern described for other English varieties but such a pattern exists in the dialect here, where words like have (and words derived from it such as have to) are frequently subject to h-dropping even when fully stressed, but most content words are h-preserving aside from words such as hour, herb (but not Herb the name), and honor as well as often house, which may go either way.

I think dropping /h/ in weak forms is pretty much universal, and is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on h dropping. My accent fits with this: the strong form of have does have /h/ but the weak form does not, which is how the weak forms of of and have become homophones. Note that for me (and I think this is normal) even the weak form of have to, unlike that of have, retains a full TRAP vowel so the combination of a dropped /h/ and an unreduced vowel -- [aftə] or similar -- is commonly heard.

It seems like you have a little more /h/ dropping than this if you're saying that have can lack [h] in what is apparently the strong form, and that you can also drop it in house.

Yes, the strong form of have can lack [h] for me.

Actually, I was wrong about it being a grammar word/content word difference, because not only does h-dropping apply to have when it is used as a content word, but I have caught myself h-dropping in some other common content words such as hear and its derived forms such as heard. Even still, the more content-ish a word is for me the less likely it is to undergo h-dropping.

[jcb]

In English, people often concatenate nouns together to create phrases, for example: "blood pressure", "anxiety level". To me, the established ones (like "blood pressure") sound fine, but the unestablished ones (like "anxiety level") sound sophomoric.

When I write, I avoid "N1+N2" patterns. So, for example, I would rewrite this sentence:

When your fear is activated, your anxiety level will increase.

Like this, with "N2 of N1":

When your fear is activated, your level of anxiety will increase.

Or this:

When your fear is activated, your anxiety will increase.

Or even better yet:

When fear increases, anxiety increases.

Am I the only one who feels this way about this pattern? How do people here feel about this?

[hwhatting]

I'm not a native speaker, but I'm using English and talk to native speakers for over 30 years. I'm used to concatenations like "anxiety level" being productive and being formed all the time, so I don't share your misgivings.

[Travis B.]

To me "Y of X" constructions in the place of nonce "X Y" constructions feel more, well, formal and are not something I would typically use that much in everyday speech.

[Starbeam]

To me "Y of X" constructions in the place of nonce "X Y" constructions feel more, well, formal and are not something I would typically use that much in everyday speech.

Seconded, and I go out of my way to avoid "of" constructions because they come off ornate in addition to being formal. Using compound phrases is common and even once* constructions like "anxiety bonus" or the like do not sound unnatural to me. If there's any fluency issue, it's probably in the semantics of the words used, not the compound structure. That said, "of" constructions sound a little less fancy if you use them with plurals: "sands of time" versus "pocket sand".

*I know the word is "nonce", but that has taken on a completely different meaning and i feel a need to use an alternative

[jal]

Also, N1 + N2 doesn't always mean "N2 of N1", as there are a myriad of possible relations between two nouns in a compound. But be my guest and go to the pool of swimming with your suite of bathing.


JAL

[jcb]

To me "Y of X" constructions in the place of nonce "X Y" constructions feel more, well, formal and are not something I would typically use that much in everyday speech.

Perhaps my normal speech and writing is a little more formal than average? I avoid words like "mom, dad, kid, rock, pop" in favor of "mother, father, child, stone, soda". However, I do try to avoid Latinate words, when good Germanic ones exist. So, I avoid words like "purchase, assist, imbibe" in favor of "buy, help, drink".

[jcb]

How does the plural possessive of nouns with irregular plurals sound to people?

For me, "mens'" as in "mens' clothing" sounds okay, probably because it's common, but for other nouns it just sounds wrong, simply leaving these nouns with no plural possessive form.

Sounds Okay:
- mens' clothing
- my (right) foot's toes

Sounds Bad:
- my feets' toes (To express the same idea, I'd have to say "the toes of my feet".)
- geeses' beaks
- mices' tails

[Travis B.]

How does the plural possessive of nouns with irregular plurals sound to people?

For me, "mens'" as in "mens' clothing" sounds okay, probably because it's common, but for other nouns it just sounds wrong, simply leaving these nouns with no plural possessive form.

Sounds Okay:
- mens' clothing
- my (right) foot's toes

Sounds Bad:
- my feets' toes (To express the same idea, I'd have to say "the toes of my feet".)
- geeses' beaks
- mices' tails

I have to say that I get the same impression from these that you do.

[linguistcat]

How does the plural possessive of nouns with irregular plurals sound to people?

For me, "mens'" as in "mens' clothing" sounds okay, probably because it's common, but for other nouns it just sounds wrong, simply leaving these nouns with no plural possessive form.

Sounds Okay:
- mens' clothing
- my (right) foot's toes

Sounds Bad:
- my feets' toes (To express the same idea, I'd have to say "the toes of my feet".)
- geeses' beaks
- mices' tails

I have to say that I get the same impression from these that you do.

I'm fine with both geese's and mice's (written that way), but feet's feels weird. But maybe because I'm (slightly) more likely to talk about something owned or part of several geese or mice than something owned by feet.

[WeepingElf]

How does the plural possessive of nouns with irregular plurals sound to people?

For me, "mens'" as in "mens' clothing" sounds okay, probably because it's common, but for other nouns it just sounds wrong, simply leaving these nouns with no plural possessive form.

Sounds Okay:
- mens' clothing
- my (right) foot's toes

Sounds Bad:
- my feets' toes (To express the same idea, I'd have to say "the toes of my feet".)
- geeses' beaks
- mices' tails

I have to say that I get the same impression from these that you do.

Similar to me. "X's Y" sounds OK when you can say "X owns Y", otherwise not.

[zompist]

How does the plural possessive of nouns with irregular plurals sound to people?

For me, "mens'" as in "mens' clothing" sounds okay, probably because it's common, but for other nouns it just sounds wrong, simply leaving these nouns with no plural possessive form.

Sounds Okay:
- mens' clothing
- my (right) foot's toes

Sounds Bad:
- my feets' toes (To express the same idea, I'd have to say "the toes of my feet".)
- geeses' beaks
- mices' tails

Pedantic note: for irregular plurals, you're supposed to use 's not s'. Thus men's clothing.

I think these plural possessives sound a little odd, but it may just be unfamiliarity. Some Googling found examples in the wild:

Paying attention to your feet's structure, movement, changes in appearance, or any pain that comes up can have a direct impact on your short and long-term health.

Noticeable shifts in your feet's appearance, structure, function, or the onset of pain are signals that you may need to seek medical attention.

By exploring how changes in meat texture and other sensory factors due to cooking affect mice's food preferences, this study aims ...

How should I measure my mice's food intake without a gram scale?

It's the homespun details of the mice's house, built from a wealth of raw materials at the junkyard, that bring the most delight.