Zompist Bboard Again

To make sure, in the sentence
"Not until last month did I become available, pick one out and start reading it",
a German speaker told me
"You can't use "available" here in the sense of "having time"; you are always "available" for someone else, not for something you want to do yourself."

Q: Is it true? Thank you.
P.S. The Cambridge dictionary, however, doesn't define the word so tightly.

Cambridge wrote:If someone is available, they are not busy and therefore able to do something.

But OTOH I find no examples to support my usage.

azhong wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:28 am "You can't use "available" here in the sense of "having time"; you are always "available" for someone else, not for something you want to do yourself."

They're right: if you say you are "available", it's always to someone else-- it means you're ready for a job, or a romance, or even a game. It never means that you have time for yourself.

I have a question about the American English usage of the word "mad". These days, it seems to mainly mean "angry" and not "crazy". But I wonder how recent that development is. Back when Mad magazine was founded, its founders seem to have meant the name as "mad" as in "crazy", not as "mad" as in "angry".

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:40 am I have a question about the American English usage of the word "mad". These days, it seems to mainly mean "angry" and not "crazy". But I wonder how recent that development is. Back when Mad magazine was founded, its founders seem to have meant the name as "mad" as in "crazy", not as "mad" as in "angry".

I think "mad = crazy" is more common in British English-- we'll say "he's crazy" rather than "he's mad". But we're familiar with it, from expressions like "madman", "madness", "madhouse", even "madcap". Note that Mad had competitors named Cracked and Crazy. But you can't beat the alliteration and assonance of Mad Magazine.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:40 am I have a question about the American English usage of the word "mad". These days, it seems to mainly mean "angry" and not "crazy". But I wonder how recent that development is. Back when Mad magazine was founded, its founders seem to have meant the name as "mad" as in "crazy", not as "mad" as in "angry".

If I'm remembering right, it's attested in something like 1400 with the sense of "angry" (by transference from "full of emotion, overcome with emotion"), and I want to say it appears in this sense a few times in the KJV. I think it's one of those things like fall for autumn that used to be common, or at least present, in most forms of English, but didn't survive to the present everywhere.

I've practiced a German-English writing exercise, and this is the English part. Are there anything unnatural in it, especially the underlined parts?

Thank you.

1. Several months ago I picked three books in a bookstore, supposing I'd like all three.
2. So far (Now?) I've finished reading all; unfortunately, only one of them attracts me.
3. My neighbor borrowed and read them, too. He said none pleased him because all three of the stories were too complicated for him.
4. In addition, my sister read the three books, too. She thinks two of them are wonderful.
5. However, the book that doesn't please her so is exactly the only one that pleases me.
6. Books, I think then, are just like dishes.
7. What attracts one doesn't always attract someone else.

azhong wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:50 am 1. Several months ago I picked three books in a bookstore, supposing I'd like all three.
2. Now I've finished reading all; unfortunately, only one of them attracts me.
3. My neighbor borrowed and read them, too. He said none pleased him because all three of the stories were too complicated for him.
4. In addition, my sister read the three books, too. She thinks two of them are wonderful.
5. However, the book that doesn't please her so is exactly the only one that pleases me.
6. Books, I think then, are just like dishes.
7. What attracts one doesn't always attract someone else.

So I've used underlining to indicate words or phrases I think are unidiomatic for various reasons.

1. "Pick" by itself is generally limited to harvesting fruits and vegetables (e.g. "I picked three apples [off a tree]"). For selecting items out of an array, I used a phrasal verb like "picked out" or "picked up". (Here I'd prefer the latter.)
2. As a pronoun, "all" generally takes the form "all of them" or (more colloquially) "them all".
3. This is a somewhat odd use of "attract". I'd prefer an expression like "speaks to me" or "I only care for one of them."
4. "Please" has a somewhat archaic/literary flair when used this way. The more usual way to express this sentiment would be to say "He said he didn't like any of them because...". Similarly, in (5), "...the book she didn't like..." instead of the "...the book that doesn't please her...", etc.
5. "all three of the stories" is confusing; it sounds to me like you're talking of three stories in a collection of several short stories rather than three individual books. Are you just looking for a synonym for "book" or are you trying to say that he specifically didn't like the narratives in each of the books?
6. We tend not to use "dishes" that often in ordinary English; it's more of a culinary term. I would just say "Books are just like food."
7. The use of "one" as a pronoun is quite literary. More colloquial would be "one person".

azhong wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:50 am 1. Several months ago I picked three books in a bookstore, supposing I'd like all three.
2. Now I've finished reading all; unfortunately, only one of them attracts me.
3. My neighbor borrowed and read them, too. He said none pleased him because all three of the stories were too complicated for him.
4. In addition, my sister read the three books, too. She thinks two of them are wonderful.
5. However, the book that doesn't please her so is exactly the only one that pleases me.
6. Books, I think then, are just like dishes.
7. What attracts one doesn't always attract someone else.

In addition to Linguoboy’s (excellent) comments, some more thoughts:

• To me, ‘suppose’ has much the same connotation as ‘imagine’, which is that what you’re thinking is in some way hypothetical, or not strongly supported by any evidence. Here I’d use the more neutral word ‘think’ instead.
• I agree with Linguoboy that ‘now’ is better than ‘so far’ in this context: the latter has the additional implication that you haven’t completely finished what you’re doing, and are only talking about what you’re done up to this point, and not what you haven’t done yet. Strictly speaking this isn’t precisely wrong, but it does sound very weird in a context where you’re specifically talking about how you’ve already finished reading everything you wanted to.
• ‘Attract’ is the one place I disagree with Linguoboy: to me, their two suggested alternatives seem a little too verbose for this context. I’d just use ‘like’ instead: …unfortunately, I only like one of them.
• Stylistically, the repetition of ‘too’ in the same way in two consecutive sentences feels somewhat annoying. I’d replace the first with ‘also’: My neighbour also borrowed and read them…. Or you could get rid of that ‘in addition’ in the second sentence — it’s redundant when you’re already using ‘too’. (Actually, come to think of it, I’d get rid of ‘in addition’ either way.)
• ‘Wonderful’ is perhaps slightly over-effusive. Unless she really did love those books that much, I’d prefer ‘lovely’ or ‘great’ or some other similar adjective.
• Sentence 5 in general seems very clunky to me. As Linguoboy said, ‘please’ is quite a literary word these days; this applies even more to the word ‘so’ when used as an adverb. As an alternative to the other, you can use ‘so much’ instead. I’d recommend getting rid of one word or the other, or better yet both.
• ‘Then’ doesn’t seem quite right here: what you want to emphasise here is that the one event was the reason for the other, rather than the one happened before the other. On the other hand, I can’t think of any much better word here. (‘Thus’ almost works, but it’s a little formal and technical…)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:05 am

azhong wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:50 am 3. [He said he liked none of them] because all three of the stories were too complicated for him.

5. "all three of the stories" is confusing; it sounds to me like you're talking of three stories in a collection of several short stories rather than three individual books. Are you just looking for a synonym for "book" or are you trying to say that he specifically didn't like the narratives in each of the books?

The latter. So, I think the expression is idiomatic?
The narratives in each of the books are all too complicated for him.

Q: In the phrase "the narratives in each of the books", does the plural form of "narrative" mean there are already more than one narratives in each book? Or is it a typo and should be " the (three) narratives in all (three) of the books" or "the narrative in each of the books"?

Also, thank you both for your comments.

"Narrative" is a rather literary word and feels out of place here. It is a word you would expect someone to use in formal writing about literature or perhaps when lecturing about literature in a literature class.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:16 pmTo me, ‘suppose’ has much the same connotation as ‘imagine’, which is that what you’re thinking is in some way hypothetical, or not strongly supported by any evidence.

Which is perfectly compatible with the situation, isn't it? He doesn't mention any evidence, so his supposition could be based on as little as the appearance of the covers.

azhong wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:54 am

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:05 am

azhong wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:50 am 3. [He said he liked none of them] because all three of the stories were too complicated for him.

5. "all three of the stories" is confusing; it sounds to me like you're talking of three stories in a collection of several short stories rather than three individual books. Are you just looking for a synonym for "book" or are you trying to say that he specifically didn't like the narratives in each of the books?

The latter. So, I think the expression is idiomatic?
The narratives in each of the books are all too complicated for him.

As Travis says, this is a term of art from literary criticism, so it's not compatible with a very colloquial context. I would just say "He found them all too complicated." I think the general assumption would be that the narratives were to blame rather than the diction or structure (though these are also possibilities). I guess it's a question of how important it is to foreground the exact reason why he didn't like the books.

azhong wrote: Q: In the phrase "the narratives in each of the books", does the plural form of "narrative" mean there are already more than one narratives in each book? Or is it a typo and should be " the (three) narratives in all (three) of the books" or "the narrative in each of the books"?

I don't know how many narratives each book contains.

azhong wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:50 am I've practiced a German-English writing exercise, and this is the English part...

This is how I would've cast these sentences:

1. Several months ago, I bought three books from a bookstore, thinking I would like all three.
2. However, having read all of them, I only ended up liking one.
3. I lent them to my neighbour, but he told me he didn't like any of them because they were too complicated.
4-5. My sister also read them, and liked two, but the one she didn't like was the one I did.
6-7. Taste in books is a bit like taste in food — what one person likes won't always suit another's palate.

Edit: Corrected a typographical error in lines 4-5.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:35 pm 3. I lent them to my neighbour, but he told me he didn't like any of them because they were too complicated.

Thank you, also to Travis explaining "narrative". "You've helped me once again."
I found you've simplified a lot, including the tense change. Indeed, simplicity is beauty.
I'm curious about one thing: You 've changed the subject from "the neighbour" to "I" in the third sentence. I guess it's not a major issue, but I am glad to learn if there is any special consideration on the change. Or else just ignore the question.

azhong wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:48 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:35 pm 3. I lent them to my neighbour, but he told me he didn't like any of them because they were too complicated.

I'm curious about one thing: You 've changed the subject from "the neighbour" to "I" in the third sentence. I guess it's not a major issue, but I am glad to learn if there is any special consideration on the change. Or else just ignore the question.

I think it's probably a stylistic instinct. The sentences coming before using "I..." statements, another one in parallel simply felt right there. Perhaps somebody else might be able to explain it better, though.

I see phonetic transcriptions transcribed with rounded fully back high vowels after coronals for /ʊ uː/, but when I pronounce them to myself, they sound very strongly accented — as in at least the speakers are not native NAE-speakers. Yet I am pretty sure the individuals transcribing their own speech are native NAE-speakers, and I am pretty sure that if I actually heard them I wouldn't perceive their speech as strongly accented. So what is going on here? Is it that what is being transcribed as [ʊ] or [u] is not actually truly fully backed but rather at least a bit centralized (as one sees in transcriptions of AusE and NZE)? When I hear other Americans speak in media, I tend to not hear fully backed high vowels except perhaps in the vicinity of dorsal consonants.

A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:06 pm A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

So you might have something similar to me where high back vowels assimilate to adjacent consonants with regard to POA. In the case of those words, I have [u] in vous (whether in French — which mind you I don't speak — or as an English loan), grew (but if I try to pronounce it with [ɻ] for /r/ I tend more towards [ʉ], but this is not my native pronunciation), and the first syllable of kutsu (if I pronounced it as if it were an English loan), but [y] in the second syllable of kutsu (again, if I nativized it). This is in contrast with the AusE and NZE pattern of having [ʉː] across the board for /uː/.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:14 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:06 pm A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

So you might have something similar to me where high back vowels assimilate to adjacent consonants with regard to POA. In the case of those words, I have [u] in vous (whether in French — which mind you I don't speak — or as an English loan), grew (but if I try to pronounce it with [ɻ] for /r/ I tend more towards [ʉ], but this is not my native pronunciation), and the first syllable of kutsu (if I pronounced it as if it were an English loan), but [y] in the second syllable of kutsu (again, if I nativized it). This is in contrast with the AusE and NZE pattern of having [ʉː] across the board for /uː/.

My English /u/ doesn't seem terribly affected by environment, I was just comparing it to the /u/ of languages I can relatively competently pronounce.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:06 pm A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

What does this mean for the usual transcription of Japanese ⟨u⟩ as [ɯᵝ]?

(As for myself, in English I have distinctly central [ʉː] in most if not all environments.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:27 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:06 pm A part of it might simply be convention. Now that I test it, when I pronounce vous, it's farther back than grew, which is not as far front as kutsu.

What does this mean for the usual transcription of Japanese ⟨u⟩ as [ɯᵝ]?

I've seen it transcribed as [ɨᵝ], too. I expect there's significant variation. I'm also not a native speaker.