Zompist Bboard Again

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:55 am I can't remember, but have we discussed already how the loss of the perfect in American English is extending to the past perfect as well? I notice it especially with counterfactuals (e.g. a Nate Bargatze bit I watched the other day where he talks about what his life would be like "if I didn't marry [my wife]"). A few years ago, it was jarring, but I'm becoming accustomed to it as a variant, though I haven't caught myself using it yet.

There may have been changes in the use of the perfect and past perfect versus the simple past, but I was surprised when I first ran into the notion that that the perfect is being "lost"—and I continue to feel like that's far from a certain prediction. (A reduction in frequency isn't necessarily a step in the direction of total loss: there are some Language Log posts about a reduction in the frequency of "the" in English corpora but I think it would be premature to speak of "the loss of the definite article" in English.) Actually, from what I remember in terms of what English classes/grammar-test study guides and so on focused on while I was in school, I think variability in the use of the past perfect vs. other alternative constructions might be more common, or might have been common for longer, than variability in the use of the present perfect, since the past perfect is a lower frequency construction overall. Could your timeframe of "a few years ago" maybe be a case of the recency illusion?

Estav wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:52 pmA reduction in frequency isn't necessarily a step in the direction of total loss

Yes. It often annoys me to hear that the subjunctive is supposedly getting lost in Latin American Spanish, when it is not the case. It just happens that there is a number of contexts where both indicative and subjunctive are acceptable (often with a connotation of indicative = realis or less irrealis and subjunctive = more irrealis) where the Spanish of Spain would only accept the subjunctive, but in such cases there's nothing literary, formal or awkward about the subjunctive in most LatAm Spanish dialects. (Rioplatense Spanish speakers do feel very awkward about some of those, but they're not the whole set of Latin American speakers.)

It is also possible for things to make a comeback from a dwindling situation. The pronoun tú became less common in 15th-16th century Spanish entering in competition with vos (which used to be its formal counterpart), which is part of the reason why many dialects in Latin America ended up retaining only vos and usted (with tú being an informal polite alternative with foreign connotations). But in the better-connected parts of the Empire with a flow of people from Spain, that is both the nearby Caribbean and the seats of power (Mexico, Colombia and Peru), tú made a strong comeback and even stamped vos out of regular usage into the very formal and literary realm, as the pronoun you'd use to e.g. address the king (except in northern/central Spain where it survived in the plural as vosotros).

I thought this was an odd usage:

While Morris has been positive about his tenure on the show, future black cast members have spoken about trying to avoid getting pigeonholed like he was perceived to have been.

By future, the author actually means past, because the article is a retrospective of former SNL cast members. I would’ve said “later cast members” (or “subsequent” in more formal writing).

One of my Facebook friends is ranting about the use of "social distance" as a verb (e.g. "Young people didn't social distance because the government kept telling them not to worry.").

So on another group I've got someone claiming that in "English English", "they feared for me" means "they were afraid of me".

I've never heard this from anyone and I can't find any confirmation in lexicographical works. Has anyone across the pond ever heard such a usage?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 11:37 am So on another group I've got someone claiming that in "English English", "they feared for me" means "they were afraid of me".

I've never heard this from anyone and I can't find any confirmation in lexicographical works. Has anyone across the pond ever heard such a usage?

I cannot say that I have. The only valid reading of "they feared for me" is "they were fearful on my behalf" for me.

dewrad wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 12:00 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 11:37 am So on another group I've got someone claiming that in "English English", "they feared for me" means "they were afraid of me".

I've never heard this from anyone and I can't find any confirmation in lexicographical works. Has anyone across the pond ever heard such a usage?

I cannot say that I have. The only valid reading of "they feared for me" is "they were fearful on my behalf" for me.

Liekwise

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:02 pm One of my Facebook friends is ranting about the use of "social distance" as a verb (e.g. "Young people didn't social distance because the government kept telling them not to worry.").

Any compound noun can be compound verbed...

KathTheDragon wrote: Liekwise

Me niether.

Thanks for the feedback on fear for, everyone!

Thanks to a neighbour, I've learned a new retronym: "hard pants" (i.e. proper trousers, as opposed to the sweatpants or pyjama pants we lie around in all day).

Relatedly, self-isolation didn't introduce me to the term "voice call", but it sure has normalised its place in my vocabulary.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 4:48 pm "hard pants"

That's pretty hilarious in Britain.

From a post by Linguoboy in the Venting Thread over in Ephemera on this Board:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:57 pm You're catastrophising again.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:21 pm From a post by Linguoboy in the Venting Thread over in Ephemera on this Board:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:57 pm You're catastrophising again.

Catastrophize is a legit word in English, for the record.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:03 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:57 pm You're catastrophising again.

Catastrophize is a legit word in English, for the record.

Course it's totes legit; all the words I use are.

Would not have guessed that it's attested as far back as 1623 (albeit with a somewhat different sense).

Yes, I forgot to note that anything said in English by a native speaker thereof is, by definition, perfectly cromulent.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:11 pmYes, I forgot to note that anything said in English by a native speaker thereof is, by definition, perfectly cromulent.

It's not clear to me how serious this post is a criticism of linguoboy, but you can tell that line of his was a joke from his use of "course" and "totes", besides the faux-arrogance.

Since the election of the new non-partisan president last year, whose name is Nayib Bukele, the main political axis in Salvadoran politics has turned from left (social democrat, represented by the FMLN party, formerly socialist, and a pro-Soviet guerrilla before that) vs. right (hard capitalist, fairly pro-oligarchic and formerly also very pro-military) to nayibista (in favour of the president) vs. antinayibista (against the president, pro-establishment towards the existing assembly parties).

Ser wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:05 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:11 pmYes, I forgot to note that anything said in English by a native speaker thereof is, by definition, perfectly cromulent.

It's not clear to me how serious this post is a criticism of linguoboy, but you can tell that line of his was a joke from his use of "course" and "totes", besides the faux-arrogance.

Would a serious criticism of linguoboy involve the words perfectly cromulent? lol.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:03 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:21 pm From a post by Linguoboy in the Venting Thread over in Ephemera on this Board:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:57 pm You're catastrophising again.

Catastrophize is a legit word in English, for the record.

Oh. My bad. Sorry.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:02 pmOne of my Facebook friends is ranting about the use of "social distance" as a verb (e.g. "Young people didn't social distance because the government kept telling them not to worry.").

https://youtu.be/9PYlF-xU3bA
title: "Pokemon but the trainers are Social Distancing"

"How're you guys. It's Wednesday, 1st of April. It's Pokemon Red, but all of the trainers are social distancing. So, all the trainers are staying home because they're responsible, alright? In addition to that, I'm gonna make it a nuzlocke, also, I can't run away from wild Pokemon, and I can't use Repels. This challenge is so sick, alright?"

From this page on new stuff by Gary Larson:

Larson wrote:Despite my retirement, I still had intermittent connections to cartooning, including my wife’s and my personal Christmas card.

"My wife's and my X" strikes me as wrong though it's technically correct. But IMD it feels like there is no actually good way to say this. "My wife and I's"? "I and my wife's"?

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:34 pm From this page on new stuff by Gary Larson:

Larson wrote:Despite my retirement, I still had intermittent connections to cartooning, including my wife’s and my personal Christmas card.

"My wife's and my X" strikes me as wrong though it's technically correct. But IMD it feels like there is no actually good way to say this. "My wife and I's"? "I and my wife's"?

"My and my wife's X" is probably the clearest, though some may prefer the ambiguous "my wife's X and mine" when 'X' is short. "Your X and mine" is pretty widespread, but context-dependent - "your friend and mine" will be taken as referring to one person, while "your wife and mine" will be taken as referring to two people.