Innovative Usage Thread

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The mention of non-rhotic accents brings to mind how I would sometimes pick up unusual pronunciations of words from my non-rhotic grandmother (born February 1930, now age 90, I don't recollect exactly where, but it's some form of probably nearly dead variety from the southeastern United States; possibly has a layer of old Mid Atlantic pronunciation in there), the most memorable being what I was mentally writing mallad (roughly [mæ.ɫɪd~mæ.ɫɨd]) for mallard. It wasn't a regular acquisition, only happening with words I happened to first hear from her. There were a few others — I was thinking of them earlier — but I can't quite remember what they were.

[axolotl]

(sorry to bring politics in, but I thought this usage was too unusual to not post)

Gabriel Sterling, who has become a widely-known figure recently thanks to ongoing media coverage of the US election(s), said that he expects turnout today in Georgia to be "a subset of a million." His intended meaning seems to have been "around a million," maybe?

source (tweet)

[Linguoboy]

I was kind of struck by how smoothly "the before times" became a universally understood term for "before COVID-19 lockdowns started". I first heard it from my neighbour early in the summer and I think it only took me a second or two to understand what she meant and immediately add it to my active vocabulary. Since then I've only had one person ever ask me "What do you mean by 'the before times'?"

[Linguoboy]

I heard two novel uses today:

1. "Flat-footing" to mean "on an equal basis"
2. "Scope" with the meaning of "to refine the scope of a project"

The former could have been a form of malapropism. But the latter seems like it might be a usage adapted from computer programming. Anyone else come across it in a general context?

[quinterbeck]

In my team at work (data analysts) we use "scoping" to describe the stage of a project between client interest and creating a specification. It has the sense you give, also leaning into "to establish the scope of a project". We mainly say things like "that project's in scoping", "have we scoped this one yet?" etc. (I don't know if work counts as a general context for you)

I have never heard the phrase 'flat-footing', what was the sentence it was in?

[Linguoboy]

"to dive us in"

[Ryusenshi]

An interesting meme has been circulating in French social media: la question, elle est vite répondue. It comes from the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSFjyF3B5E

Why is this sentence interesting? On the surface, the sentence seems straightforward, and translates to "the question is quickly answered". But it is, in fact, non-standard. See, in French (unlike in English), only direct objects can turn into the subject of a passive, not indirect objects.

Language	Original sentence	Direct object	Indirect object
English	I send a letter to Paul.	A letter is sent to Paul.	Paul is sent a letter.
French	J'envoie une lettre à Paul.	Une lettre est envoyée à Paul.	*Paul est envoyé une lettre.

English says to answer ∅ a question but in French it's répondre à une question. So, normally, it can't become a passive. The sentence ?la question est vite répondue sounds... slightly off. Of course, it's a subtle point of grammar, so most people couldn't explain why it sounds slightly off.

But now the sentence is spreading quickly. People are using it as a meme. But it's possible that, in a few years, it will be still in use... after people have forgotten it was a meme. Then, it will stand as a one-off exception to the general rule that "indirect objects can't become the subject of a passive in French".

[axolotl]

An interesting meme has been circulating in French social media: la question, elle est vite répondue. It comes from the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSFjyF3B5E

Why is this sentence interesting? On the surface, the sentence seems straightforward, and translates to "the question is quickly answered". But it is, in fact, non-standard. See, in French (unlike in English), only direct objects can turn into the subject of a passive, not indirect objects.

Language	Original sentence	Direct object	Indirect object
English	I send a letter to Paul.	A letter is sent to Paul.	Paul is sent a letter.
French	J'envoie une lettre à Paul.	Une lettre est envoyée à Paul.	*Paul est envoyé une lettre.

English says to answer ∅ a question but in French it's répondre à une question. So, normally, it can't become a passive. The sentence ?la question est vite répondue sounds... slightly off. Of course, it's a subtle point of grammar, so most people couldn't explain why it sounds slightly off.

But now the sentence is spreading quickly. People are using it as a meme. But it's possible that, in a few years, it will be still in use... after people have forgotten it was a meme. Then, it will stand as a one-off exception to the general rule that "indirect objects can't become the subject of a passive in French".

I'm waiting for when it turns into "la question, elle est vite répondue à." Non-Germanic sentence-final preposition!

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I'm waiting for when it turns into "la question, elle est vite répondue à." Non-Germanic sentence-final preposition!

Old French did have some structural Frankish influence, if I'm understanding right (I recollect reading that Old French was often verb-second), so it isn't really all that far-fetched.

[Moose-tache]

Heard from a fluent L2 speaker: "I tired to prevent it, but it keep on happens."

So [to keep on happen] has been reanalyzed as a single verb with an iterative meaning.

[Ares Land]

I'm waiting for when it turns into "la question, elle est vite répondue à." Non-Germanic sentence-final preposition!

Tu viens avec? is common in Northern and Eastern France; in the East they have Pousse la porte contre!

And congrats for that analysis of la question elle est vite répondue

[Linguoboy]

The other day I heard your all for "belonging to all of you". The speaker seemed to have it consistently in her idiolect but I suspect that you all is not part of her native dialect.

[Travis B.]

The other day I heard your all for "belonging to all of you". The speaker seemed to have it consistently in her idiolect but I suspect that you all is not part of her native dialect.

Here the genitive of you guys is your guys.

[dɮ the phoneme]

Not sure if this is actually innovative, but I often find myself ellipting portions of subordinate clauses in natural speech that after the fact strike me as odd or dubiously grammatical. I recently recently responded to the question "which chair" with "the one that I was sitting with you guys", which sounded natural as I said it but struck me as odd immediately after.

[Kuchigakatai]

Not sure if this is actually innovative, but I often find myself ellipting portions of subordinate clauses in natural speech that after the fact strike me as odd or dubiously grammatical. I recently recently responded to the question "which chair" with "the one that I was sitting with you guys", which sounded natural as I said it but struck me as odd immediately after.

The correct form would have "on" between "sitting" and "with", right? The one that I was sitting on with you guys. Not sure if the "on" has to go all the way at the end...

[dɮ the phoneme]

Not sure if this is actually innovative, but I often find myself ellipting portions of subordinate clauses in natural speech that after the fact strike me as odd or dubiously grammatical. I recently recently responded to the question "which chair" with "the one that I was sitting with you guys", which sounded natural as I said it but struck me as odd immediately after.

The correct form would have "on" between "sitting" and "with", right? The one that I was sitting on with you guys. Not sure if the "on" has to go all the way at the end...

I would probably use "in" instead of "on", which makes me think of a stool or ottoman more than a chair, but otherwise yeah. Either "one that I was sitting in with you guys" or "one that I was sitting with you guys in" sound fine to me.

[Kuchigakatai]

or "one that I was sitting on with you guys in"

That is also weird though... Although maybe you forgot to remove the "on"...

[dɮ the phoneme]

or "one that I was sitting on with you guys in"

That is also weird though... Although maybe you forgot to remove the "on"...

I did forget, yes

[Vijay]

Not sure if this is actually innovative, but I often find myself ellipting portions of subordinate clauses in natural speech that after the fact strike me as odd or dubiously grammatical. I recently recently responded to the question "which chair" with "the one that I was sitting with you guys", which sounded natural as I said it but struck me as odd immediately after.

I think some people say that.

Not sure if the "on" has to go all the way at the end...

Nope.

[Pabappa]

for me there are three different interpretations depending on the wording...

the chair that i was sitting with you guys:
literal interpretation for me is too silly to be reasonable unless there's a context, since "sitting" in its bareform implies babysitting, so unless the chair is a person I would assume the speaker left an important word out, and then figure out what they meant by context.

the chair that i was sitting on with you guys:
Normal, meaning that the speaker was sitting on a chair while in a room with some other people.

the chair that i was sitting with you guys on:
Same as above, but this time they are all crowded into a single chair, which is a bit silly unless the people are very small or the chair is very large. presumably someone is on someone else's lap.

the chair that i was sitting in with you guys:
seems a bit odd to me, even if the chair has armrests, etc, and mostly encircles the body. but still grammatical.


If you take out the word for chair and just say "one that I was sitting with you guys in", etc, then Im picturing a large vehicle, not a single chair, unless context says otherwise.

also...
ellipting
was i the only one who noticed that? i would just say "eliding".