Innovative Usage Thread

[Kuchigakatai]

In Spanish we say discúlpeme/perdone/perdóneme so often that I didn't think it could be interpreted as a subjunctive (an impersonal "may it excuse me" I guess?)

[zompist]

Zompist: I'm not so convinced that "excuse me" was originally imperative. For one, it's just as likely that the original phrase used the subjunctive. Also, an overt imperative would not get away with avoiding the reflexive like this (e.g. "Excuse yourself from gym class"), so even if it was historically an imperative, it hasn't been parsed that way for some time.

In European lanuages, subjunctives and imperatives are close in function; subjunctives often serve as "polite" imperatives or as imperatives where the (polite) 2nd person pronoun is formally a 3rd person pronoun (e.g. German polite Entschuldigen Sie bitte vs. informal Entschuldige bitte, Italian scusi (3rd sg. subj. referring polite pronoun Lei) vs.2nd sg. imperative scusa referring to informal tu. Like these constructions, "excuse me" is historically a request (whether in the imperative or a polite subjunctive) to excuse / pardon / forgive the requesters actions. So a reflexive pronoun is not even to be expected here. That this is not parsed as an imperative any more is what makes a construction like "excuse you" possible.

We all agree that "excuse me" is not interpreted as an imperative today. The bit of logic I don't get is that subjunctives would not use the reflexive. You certainly use the reflexive with subjunctives in French and Spanish (Je veux que tu te laves; quiero que te bañes). And to the extent that we have it, in English:

I demand that he excuse himself.

[Kuchigakatai]

Just came across the term "wiki-worthy". Said of people. Meaning worthy to be included on Wikipedia...

[hwhatting]

Zompist: I'm not so convinced that "excuse me" was originally imperative. For one, it's just as likely that the original phrase used the subjunctive. Also, an overt imperative would not get away with avoiding the reflexive like this (e.g. "Excuse yourself from gym class"), so even if it was historically an imperative, it hasn't been parsed that way for some time.

In European lanuages, subjunctives and imperatives are close in function; subjunctives often serve as "polite" imperatives or as imperatives where the (polite) 2nd person pronoun is formally a 3rd person pronoun (e.g. German polite Entschuldigen Sie bitte vs. informal Entschuldige bitte, Italian scusi (3rd sg. subj. referring polite pronoun Lei) vs.2nd sg. imperative scusa referring to informal tu. Like these constructions, "excuse me" is historically a request (whether in the imperative or a polite subjunctive) to excuse / pardon / forgive the requesters actions. So a reflexive pronoun is not even to be expected here. That this is not parsed as an imperative any more is what makes a construction like "excuse you" possible.

We all agree that "excuse me" is not interpreted as an imperative today. The bit of logic I don't get is that subjunctives would not use the reflexive. You certainly use the reflexive with subjunctives in French and Spanish (Je veux que tu te laves; quiero que te bañes). And to the extent that we have it, in English:

I demand that he excuse himself.

I don't know whether that question is adressed to me or to Moose. I didn't claim that a subjunctive cannot be used with a reflexive. My understanding is that Moose implied that "excuse me" is a replacement for something like "(I) excuse myself", and was puzzled by the seeming dropping of the reflexive pronoun and by the role of "me". My response was to the point that "excuse me" is historically a transitive, non-reflexive request (imperative or subjunctive) to the addressee ("(please / may you) excuse me (for my offending action)", so a reflexive is not required or even to be expected in this construction.

[zompist]

We all agree that "excuse me" is not interpreted as an imperative today. The bit of logic I don't get is that subjunctives would not use the reflexive. You certainly use the reflexive with subjunctives in French and Spanish (Je veux que tu te laves; quiero que te bañes). And to the extent that we have it, in English:

I demand that he excuse himself.

I don't know whether that question is adressed to me or to Moose. I didn't claim that a subjunctive cannot be used with a reflexive. My understanding is that Moose implied that "excuse me" is a replacement for something like "(I) excuse myself", and was puzzled by the seeming dropping of the reflexive pronoun and by the role of "me". My response was to the point that "excuse me" is historically a transitive, non-reflexive request (imperative or subjunctive) to the addressee ("(please / may you) excuse me (for my offending action)", so a reflexive is not required or even to be expected in this construction.

Well, there's nothing surprising about "excuse me"; it's not reflexive because it's 2s>1s. The question is what happens when it's turned into 2s>2s.

If it really were a request to the addressee to forgive themselves, I think it'd be reflexive. After all you could advise someone, "Don't tear yourself up over this; please forgive yourself."

I'm wondering now if it's a sort of use/mention thing. It's like a meta-statement: "'Excuse me' is wrong-- 'me' should be 'you'!" It might be the same thing that produces sentences like "That's a you problem."

[hwhatting]

Well, there's nothing surprising about "excuse me"; it's not reflexive because it's 2s>1s. The question is what happens when it's turned into 2s>2s.

If it really were a request to the addressee to forgive themselves, I think it'd be reflexive. After all you could advise someone, "Don't tear yourself up over this; please forgive yourself."

I'm wondering now if it's a sort of use/mention thing. It's like a meta-statement: "'Excuse me' is wrong-- 'me' should be 'you'!" It might be the same thing that produces sentences like "That's a you problem."

I'm not sure anymore that I understand what "excuse you" is supposed to mean. This is what Moose wrote:

I've been thinking a lot lately about the English colloquialism "excuse you." In some dialects of American English you might say "excuse you" to someone who has performed some faux pas for which they should be ashamed. The formula is clear: excuse me indicates that the speaker has made a social error, so excuse you indicates the same about the listener. But the grammar is doing my head in.

I took it as meaning "you (not me) did something wrong and you ought to offer an apology". You seem to say that it means "you did something wrong, but it's fine with me". What of the both is it? Or maybe both, or something else entirely?

[zompist]

I'm not sure anymore that I understand what "excuse you" is supposed to mean.

I took it as meaning "you (not me) did something wrong and you ought to offer an apology". You seem to say that it means "you did something wrong, but it's fine with me". What of the both is it? Or maybe both, or something else entirely?

You got it right the first time. Here's an explanation.

I see now that my explanation was unclear, but that's what I meant too. The meta explanation is that it's saying "'Excuse me' is what you should say."

[hwhatting]

Thanks!

[Moose-tache]

The meta explanation is that it's saying "'Excuse me' is what you should say."

I like this angle. Deliberately breaking grammar rules in English to make a meta-textual point is a common thing ("The pandemic is going poorly because freedom"), so it could certainly be at work here.

[Linguoboy]

The meta explanation is that it's saying "'Excuse me' is what you should say."

I like this angle. Deliberately breaking grammar rules in English to make a meta-textual point is a common thing ("The pandemic is going poorly because freedom"), so it could certainly be at work here.

As per forum rules, I have to quibble with your particular example. "because FREEDOM" is attested from at least 2008 and there were enough examples of the general "because NOUN" construction by 2012 for it to acquire that name as it made the rounds of the linguistic blogosphere. So while it may once have been a deliberate breaking of English grammar rules to make a meta-textual point, that point has passed and now it's just a somewhat colloquial preposition.

[Linguoboy]

Spotted in the wild (my emphasis): "you know common decency tells me that i should go straight to them and tell the woman that I so-call care a lot about and tell her that one of her close friends that she allows around her child is a murderer and a spy and working against them and everything they morally stand for--"

Has anyone else seen this use of "so-call" [sic] somewhere before?

[Moose-tache]

The meta explanation is that it's saying "'Excuse me' is what you should say."

I like this angle. Deliberately breaking grammar rules in English to make a meta-textual point is a common thing ("The pandemic is going poorly because freedom"), so it could certainly be at work here.

As per forum rules, I have to quibble with your particular example. "because FREEDOM" is attested from at least 2008 and there were enough examples of the general "because NOUN" construction by 2012 for it to acquire that name as it made the rounds of the linguistic blogosphere. So while it may once have been a deliberate breaking of English grammar rules to make a meta-textual point, that point has passed and now it's just a somewhat colloquial preposition.

I was once raked over the coals on this website for daring to suggest that metaphorical uses of a word can ever become part of its default definition with repeated use, so I must quibble with your quibble.

But that use of "so-call" is absolutely wild. I can see the logic, but I've never heard anything like it.

[Otto Kretschmer]

BTW
The original Greek word for horse was hippos but it was replaced in Byzantine era with the word alogo which originally meant "unable to speak". The new meaning became so ingrained that modern Greek speakers do not consciously recognize it's original meaning and the word hippos is now only used in compounds.
Any examples of this happening in English?

[Linguoboy]

“girl” replacing “maid”?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Possibly "flour" (originally an orthographic variant of "flower", of which it is an etymological doublet) partly replacing "meal".

[Kuchigakatai]

I was once raked over the coals on this website for daring to suggest that metaphorical uses of a word can ever become part of its default definition with repeated use, so I must quibble with your quibble.

Pretty sad to hear if/that that happened. There's so many examples in Romance, like pōnere 'to put' becoming the hyper-specialized (and originally rather metaphorical...?) pondre 'to lay eggs' in French. Or to open some random page of Zompist's Lexipedia, "down" from Old English ofdūne 'off the hill/dune'. EDIT: Hm. Maybe a better example would be Latin pēnsāre 'to weigh' > Spanish pensar 'to think'.

“girl” replacing “maid”?

And relatedly, "virgin" (from French) replacing "maiden", to the point "maiden" now feels like something you'd only find in old books, besides the compounds "maiden voyage" and the band Iron Maiden.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Also the fictitious torture device called an "iron maiden".

[MacAnDàil]

From which the band name derives

[Rounin Ryuuji]

On this note, I don't think "maiden" has undergone semantic bleaching of its elements in the way such a word as alogo is described as having done; it's a good example of vocabulary being supplanted, however.

[Kuchigakatai]

I keep seeing youngsters using "extra" as an adjective meaning something like "outstanding", "outstandinly good". Not a usage I was familiar with till this year. Today I saw:

I think it's a pretty cool place, I really like extra and huge art pieces