 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » A lot v alot... |
|
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| PaulJK... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hans Aberg wrote:
[quote:f0a4d7d258]PaulJK wrote:
Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
pjk
You misquoted, making look as though I said it, and then the error is
propagated down the thread.
Hans
[/quote:f0a4d7d258]
Sorry, as the quote marks in the above text show, I was
responding to what Franz said. I referred to 'alot books'
which is exactly what Franz said.
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hans Aberg... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PaulJK wrote:
[quote:a63f5f4a35]Hans Aberg wrote:
PaulJK wrote:
Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
pjk
You misquoted, making it look as though I said it, and then the error is
propagated down the thread.
Sorry, as the quote marks in the above text show, I was
responding to what Franz said. I referred to 'alot books'
which is exactly what Franz said.
[/quote:a63f5f4a35]
Then you should have answered directly to Franz's post. In addition to
the formally correct quoting being hard to see, some newsreaders keep
track of the threading*), which will come out wrong.
Hans
*) Like <http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 14, 9:16 am, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
[quote:072f0ec56a]On 2009-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables?
I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
the first one.
[/quote:072f0ec56a]
That's not an infix ("interpolation") -- it's a Spoonerism.
It's pretty safe to say that NO infix can intervene _within_ a
syllable in English. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-14, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote:ec2ff369d2]On Oct 14, 9:16Â am, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2009-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables?
I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
the first one.
That's not an infix ("interpolation") -- it's a Spoonerism.
[/quote:ec2ff369d2]
I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
an infix than the two example you gave...
[quote:ec2ff369d2]It's pretty safe to say that NO infix can intervene _within_ a
syllable in English.
[/quote:ec2ff369d2]
....except that it violates that principle. Maybe the principle isn't
100% correct?
--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk
<a24061 at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:aohhq6x3l6.ln2 at (no spam) news.ducksburg.com> in sci.lang:
[quote:58ce3df240]On 2009-10-14, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:16 am, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2009-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
maybe a constraint that you need more than two
I can't think of an example with fewer than two syllables in the
original word, but in "bass-ackwards" the interpolation comes inside
the first one.
That's not an infix ("interpolation") -- it's a Spoonerism.
I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
an infix than the two example you gave...
[/quote:58ce3df240]
It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
<Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
[...]
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 15, 4:13 pm, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
[quote:0af785b59a]On 2009-10-14, Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
an infix than the two example you gave...
It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
OK, you've convinced me about the spoonerism and non-spoonerisms. But
how is it certain that "bass-ackwards" can't also be viewed as
infixation? Or, how is infixation defined so that this can't be an
example of it?
[/quote:0af785b59a]
Why would you set up an absolutely unique example of "infixing a
morpheme after the onset of a syllable" to account for this one word,
when the process of Spoonerism is a familiar source of language play? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-14, Brian M. Scott wrote:
[quote:bca8ee26f1]On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
an infix than the two example you gave...
It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
[/quote:bca8ee26f1]
OK, you've convinced me about the spoonerism and non-spoonerisms. But
how is it certain that "bass-ackwards" can't also be viewed as
infixation? Or, how is infixation defined so that this can't be an
example of it?
--
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results,
but that's not why we do it. [Richard Feynman] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 16, 9:14 am, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
[quote:1225b8a9df]On 2009-10-15, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 15, 4:13 pm, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2009-10-14, Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
an infix than the two example you gave...
It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
the beginning of <backwards>). It clearly isn't derived
from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
OK, you've convinced me about the spoonerism and non-spoonerisms. But
how is it certain that "bass-ackwards" can't also be viewed as
infixation? Or, how is infixation defined so that this can't be an
example of it?
Why would you set up an absolutely unique example of "infixing a
morpheme after the onset of a syllable" to account for this one word,
when the process of Spoonerism is a familiar source of language play?
Why are you incapable of answering an honest question without being
arrogant?
[/quote:1225b8a9df]
How is that "arrogant"? I asked why you would set up a special process
to cover an individual case when that case is covered by an existing
rule.
But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
kibble group)? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-15, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote:8ccbff9d7c]On Oct 15, 4:13Â pm, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2009-10-14, Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
I don't see why "bass-ackwards" is any more of a spoonerism or less of
an infix than the two example you gave...
It obviously is a Spoonerism of <ass backwards>,
interchanging null (at the beginning of <ass> and /b/ (at
the beginning of <backwards>). Â It clearly isn't derived
from <backwards> by infixation of <ass>.
Abso-bloomin'-lutely> and <in-fickin'-credible> clearly are
not Spoonerisms of anything and clearly do show infixation.
OK, you've convinced me about the spoonerism and non-spoonerisms. Â But
how is it certain that "bass-ackwards" can't also be viewed as
infixation? Â Or, how is infixation defined so that this can't be an
example of it?
Why would you set up an absolutely unique example of "infixing a
morpheme after the onset of a syllable" to account for this one word,
when the process of Spoonerism is a familiar source of language play?
[/quote:8ccbff9d7c]
Why are you incapable of answering an honest question without being
arrogant?
--
hmmmm: sounds like the same DLL hell problem my cousin had. try
deleting all DLLs in your Windows/system32 directory and see what
happens. (Bryce Utting) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote:ba416934ed]On Oct 16, 9:14Â am, Adam Funk <a24... at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
Why are you incapable of answering an honest question without being
arrogant?
How is that "arrogant"? I asked why you would set up a special process
to cover an individual case when that case is covered by an existing
rule.
[/quote:ba416934ed]
It's the way you tell 'em.
--
When Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under
Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Herring... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <hb1fnl$aes$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>, PaulJK
<paul.kriha at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> writes
[quote]Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
[/quote]
Magdalenians.
He also hasn't noticed that we don't say "heaps books" or "piles books"
or "dozens books" or any of those other imprecise quantifiers that need
"of".
--
Richard Herring |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Franz Gnaedinger... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 19, 5:40 pm, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
[quote]In message <hb1fnl$ae... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>, PaulJK
paul.kr... at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> writes
Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
Magdalenians.
He also hasn't noticed that we don't say "heaps books" or "piles books"
or "dozens books" or any of those other imprecise quantifiers that need
"of".
[/quote]
Thanks for confirming my argument: I said if 'a lot' is written
together, 'alot', 'I like it alot', then it raises the question
whether one will still have to write 'a lot of books' or can
also write a single word, 'alot of books', but then logic
would demand that 'alot' is treated like 'all' or 'many' or
'five': all books, many books, five books, alot books.
I don't support 'alot' as one word; colloquial 'I like it alot'
is okay, but only as a colloquial form, emphasis via an
uncommon writing, expressing some kind of exuberance
or enthusiasm. If that uncommon form became the rule
one would have to look out for a new form of conveying
enthusiasm. Every language has ways of expressing
feelings that overflow and melt language to some extent.
Leave them be and don't turn them into general forms.
Hope I made myself halfways understandable. Grammar
is richer than what a textbook offers. Language always
finds a way around the rules, a lesson learned to me
by Pater Rupert Ruhstaller. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Herring wrote:
[quote]In message <hb1fnl$aes$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>, PaulJK
paul.kriha at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> writes
Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
Magdalenians.
[/quote]
That's true. I keep forgetting about them guys, ANS of MAG DAL ENI.
I keep forgetting too that some of them live still amongst us today.
[quote]He also hasn't noticed that we don't say "heaps books" or "piles books"
or "dozens books" or any of those other imprecise quantifiers that need
"of".
[/quote]
They could be Books for Dummies on evolution of medieval counting
and units of measurements, books about Heaps, Piles and Dozens.
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
[/quote]
another words "why"
[Mais où sont les KevinS d'antan?!?]
[quote]legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
kibble group)?
[/quote]
You're the Louis XVIII of the USERNET.
--
History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
(Thurgood Marshall) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David DeLaney... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:38:41 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
But if you want to talk about "arrogant," howcome you hijack
legitimate sci.lang threads by, at some point and without notice,
crossposting them to your infantile buddies at "kibology" (aka the
kibble group)?
Our computers do it AUTOMATICALLY.
[/quote]
same as on web forumms.
Dave "so are you going to angrily tell us we're using LANGUAGE?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd at (no spam) vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:37 pm
|
|