Loooong replies in posts

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 10:02 PM GMT
    Lostboy said This

    (7) I'd lick the pecs of the guy above me.

    is fine.


    I already said that! But mine was better because it had sound effects. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 10:11 PM GMT

    You'll never find a gayer grammar lesson !! LOL

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 10:20 PM GMT
    GHoSTic said
    You'll never find a gayer grammar lesson !! LOL

    lol...That's for sure..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 10:24 PM GMT
    I hate long threads. Keep these under 20 posts please. And no more than 500 words per thread. Thanks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 12:14 AM GMT
    "The best response would be:

    I'd lick the guy's pecs in the post above me. "


    noooo.. it has the ambiguity that you are licking in the post above you rather than establishing which guy "the one who posted above". The one we are all happy with is

    (7) I´d lick the pecs of the guy above me.

    But notice that the sense unit [the guy above me] remains intact. We are using a construction with the "of" of posession rather than the germanic case inflection of the apostrophe S.

    "Examples 1 and 2 may be theoretically correct but they are not accepted standards for current modern English."

    Uh?

    "I've never seen anything like it anywhere."

    Ah. You just read the wrong stuff.

    The examples (1) and (2) are fine, and I´m a native speaker with a PhD in the area of linguistics.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 1:46 AM GMT
    haha... the reading the wrong stuff was a semi joke. I don´t think Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte have much about licking pecs.

    I actually don´t understand the problem. These are usages which are fine, but which we tend to avoid as they are somewhat awkward. Language is endlessly generative of new utterances and you don´t need something in a dictionary for it to be real or correct.

    That´s enough of long posts for one thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 1:53 AM GMT
    Wolfeman saidI lose interest as soon as a picture of a cat appears! It seems to happen a lot... and always by the same users.

    funny pictures


    funny pictures
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 1:57 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]Lostboy said[/citeNope. I presume we have no problem with "The guy above me" as a sense unit (syntactically a Noun Phrase, NP). It´s analogous to "the guy in blue".

    (1) I´d lick [NP the guy in blue]´s pecs
    (2) I´d lick [NP the guy above me]´s pecs.

    If we change it to

    (3) *I´d lick the guy´s pecs above me

    the sense goes out the window. We couldn´t say

    (4) ¨*I´d lick the guy´s pecs in blue.

    [/quote]
    Isnt that a bogus example becasue "pecs in blue" doesnt make sense, not because of the grammar of the construction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 2:08 AM GMT
    Wolfeman saidI lose interest as soon as a picture of a cat appears! It seems to happen a lot... and always by the same users.



    Huh... that's what usually gets my attention. Though I guess since a picture is a thousand words than a picture would be a long post... icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 1:35 PM GMT
    Caslon9000 said[quote][cite]Lostboy said[/citeNope. I presume we have no problem with "The guy above me" as a sense unit (syntactically a Noun Phrase, NP). It´s analogous to "the guy in blue".

    (1) I´d lick [NP the guy in blue]´s pecs
    (2) I´d lick [NP the guy above me]´s pecs.

    If we change it to

    (3) *I´d lick the guy´s pecs above me

    the sense goes out the window. We couldn´t say

    (4) ¨*I´d lick the guy´s pecs in blue.


    Isnt that a bogus example becasue "pecs in blue" doesnt make sense, not because of the grammar of the construction.[/quote]

    The * before an example is standard shorthand for "this example is incorrect". Sorry... I forget people don´t know nerdy linguistics stuff... The point was that both examples are modified nouns: [in blue] and [above me] are both prepositional phrases which clarify WHICH guy I´m talking about, which is why they can´t be split without losing the sense and being ungrammatical
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 2:58 PM GMT



    Long post, short post; we enjoy both. Even the supposedly 'worst' posts give insights into the poster, which is nice.

    But then, we really like people.