Grammar doubts

[Woods]

Can you refer with "one" to something that isn't countable?

She gives a lot of advice. It is usually unsolicited, even when it's good one.

[Dormouse559]

Can you refer with "one" to something that isn't countable?

She gives a lot of advice. It is usually unsolicited, even when it's good one.

No, not normally. In your sentence, just delete “one,” and it becomes grammatical and idiomatic.

[Woods]

Attributive use of non-standard plurals

As far as I know we use singular in nouns used attributively as adjectives:

a five-metre tall wall

But what if the noun has a non-standard plural, will that still be preferred?

a millenium-old culture

a millenia-old culture

More than one millenia are meant here; will that be understood from the first phrase? The second one is more exact, but I suppose it also doesn't comply with the standard grammar?

[linguoboy]

Attributive use of non-standard plurals

As far as I know we use singular in nouns used attributively as adjectives:

a five-metre tall wall

But what if the noun has a non-standard plural, will that still be preferred?

There's nothing "nonstandard" about the plural millennia. Perhaps the word you're looking for is "irregular"?

a millenium-old culture

a millenia-old culture

More than one millenia are meant here; will that be understood from the first phrase? The second one is more exact, but I suppose it also doesn't comply with the standard grammar?

No, it's perfectly standard. Compare: centuries-old, decades-old etc. Using the singular in these contexts would indicate that you were talking about exactly one century, decade, etc.

[Woods]

Attributive use of non-standard plurals

As far as I know we use singular in nouns used attributively as adjectives:

a five-metre tall wall

But what if the noun has a non-standard plural, will that still be preferred?

There's nothing "nonstandard" about the plural millennia. Perhaps the word you're looking for is "irregular"?

Yes, indeed.

a millennium-old culture

a millennia-old culture

More than one millennia are meant here; will that be understood from the first phrase? The second one is more exact, but I suppose it also doesn't comply with the standard grammar?

No, it's perfectly standard. Compare: centuries-old, decades-old etc. Using the singular in these contexts would indicate that you were talking about exactly one century, decade, etc.

You're right. But so, it's not consistent that attributive compound adjectivised nouns are used in singular.

It still sounds better to me as "millenium-old" - but all right, I trust you on that one and would be careful in such contexts.


(by the way, it could be because old starts with a vowel and millennia ends in a vowel, or because it's not so common - it really sounds odd to me, but you're the expert here)

[linguoboy]

(by the way, it could be because old starts with a vowel and millennia ends in a vowel, or because it's not so common - it really sounds odd to me, but you're the expert here)

It's because it's relatively uncommon. According to Google's ngram viewer, it's about a tenth as frequent in current literature as "centuries-old" and all but unattested before 2000.

[Woods]

(by the way, it could be because old starts with a vowel and millennia ends in a vowel, or because it's not so common - it really sounds odd to me, but you're the expert here)

It's because it's relatively uncommon. According to Google's ngram viewer, it's about a tenth as frequent in current literature as "centuries-old" and all but unattested before 2000.

Your usage of "all but" gives me doubts too - I understand and use it as "anything else except", but it seems like for some people it also means something else?

Now I see dictionaries give the meaning "very nearly" and "almost".

The Cambridge online dictionary gives these examples:

The game was all but over by the time we arrived.
I'd all but given up on you.
His addiction to gambling all but ruined him.
The outcome of the election is all but certain.
Scientists found that several of the compounds all but stopped the virus.

Don't they all have a double meaning then? How do you know which one is meant - is there a hint with the pronunciation, less stress on all or something? And is this meaning common at all or some very rare case?

Is that second meaning only for "all but" or are there other such combinations of "but" with adverbs such as everything/anything/anyone and so on where the more common meaning competes with another one?


Moving the vertical line on the graph gives 0.0000000105% results for "millennia-old" in 1900 - I'm not sure if you noticed that?

But then, without knowing of how many books, and preferably also what kind of books they analysed, that number means nothing.

It's the first time I hear of Ngram Viewer - I quickly zoomed over the info, but I am yet to inform myself of what that is - is it a useful tool? I usually just do Google searches in quotes and count the results there, and if I open them, I get a sense of how old they are. But it seems that with this you can be more specific about where you search or extract some statistics (is it only percentage of words in books in their corpora and changes of usage intensity between 1800 and today)?

[Linguaphile]

Your usage of "all but" gives me doubts too - I understand and use it as "anything else except", but it seems like for some people it also means something else?

Now I see dictionaries give the meaning "very nearly" and "almost".

The Cambridge online dictionary gives these examples:

The game was all but over by the time we arrived.
I'd all but given up on you.
His addiction to gambling all but ruined him.
The outcome of the election is all but certain.
Scientists found that several of the compounds all but stopped the virus.

Don't they all have a double meaning then? How do you know which one is meant - is there a hint with the pronunciation, less stress on all or something? And is this meaning common at all or some very rare case?

They are not used in the same grammatical constructions, so they don't have double meanings. Generally when "all but" precedes a noun or noun phrase, it has the meaning of "everything except". In these sentences, you could replace the word "but" with the word "except", and it will still make sense (and still have the same meaning).
Examples:
She kept it a secret from all but her closest friends. = She kept it a secret from all except her closest friends.
All but two of the employees stayed home from work. = All except two of the employees stayed home from work.
He lost the support of all but his most loyal fans. = He lost the support of all except his most loyal fans.

Generally when "all but" precedes an adjective or verb form, it has the meaning of "very nearly". You can replace the phrase "all but" with the word "nearly" in these sentences, and it will still make sense and keep the same meaning.
Examples are the ones you posted above:
I'd all but given up on you. = I'd nearly given up on you.
His addiction to gambling all but ruined him. = His addiction to gambling nearly ruined him .
The outcome of the election is all but certain. = The outcome of the election is nearly certain.
Scientists found that several of the compounds all but stopped the virus. = Scientists found that several of the compounds nearly stopped the virus.

[Woods]

Generally when "all but" precedes a noun or noun phrase, it has the meaning of "everything except".
(...)
Generally when "all but" precedes an adjective or verb form, it has the meaning of "very nearly".
(...)
The outcome of the election is all but certain. = The outcome of the election is nearly certain.

Interesting, and that applies to "all but" only, but not to "anything but", "everything but" and so on?

For me until now, "the outcome of the election is all but certain" meant the outcome of the election was not certain, there could and likely would be unexpected surprises.

Would it still mean this if I say "the outcome of the election is everything but certain" or "anything but certain", or is it only with "all but" that I need to be careful if it precedes a noun, or an adjective or verb?

[Linguaphile]

Interesting, and that applies to "all but" only, but not to "anything but", "everything but" and so on?

For me until now, "the outcome of the election is all but certain" meant the outcome of the election was not certain, there could and likely would be unexpected surprises.

Would it still mean this if I say "the outcome of the election is everything but certain" or "anything but certain", or is it only with "all but" that I need to be careful if it precedes a noun, or an adjective or verb?

All but + adjective/verb has the idiomatic meaning of "very nearly". Other phrases like anything but don't have this idiomatic meaning.

The outcome of the election is all but certain. = The outcome is nearly certain.
The outcome of the election is anything but certain. = The outcome is not certain at all.
The outcome of the election is everything but certain. = The outcome is not certain at all.

[Woods]

Double consonants after stressed syllables:

Why do I vaguely remember from "English classes" that we double the consonant after a stressed syllable before the derivative suffix, but the word "transferable" - with stress on the mid syllable - is written with only one f?

[Linguaphile]

Double consonants after stressed syllables:

Why do I vaguely remember from "English classes" that we double the consonant after a stressed syllable before the derivative suffix, but the word "transferable" - with stress on the mid syllable - is written with only one f?

There are a couple of things going on here. First of all the f is not at the end of the word that we're adding the suffix to, so it is not the f that could potentially be doubled (*transfferable). But assuming that you meant the r (*transferrable) and not the f, the word transferable was originally pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, although many people now pronounce it with the stress on the second, and its modern spelling is based on the pronunciation in which the first syllable is stressed. With a stressed first syllable, the doubling rule doesn't apply. So, we don't write *transferrable with two r's but instead transferable with one. Another word that works the same way is preferable. Both of these words have variable stress patterns: some people pronounce it with a stressed second syllable and others pronounce it with a stressed first syllable. So these words follow the same pattern as other similar words that are stressed on the first syllable, like sufferable or pilferable.

[Woods]

Double consonants after stressed syllables:

Why do I vaguely remember from "English classes" that we double the consonant after a stressed syllable before the derivative suffix, but the word "transferable" - with stress on the mid syllable - is written with only one f?

There are a couple of things going on here. First of all the f is not at the end of the word that we're adding the suffix to, so it is not the f that could potentially be doubled (*transfferable). But assuming that you meant the r (*transferrable) and not the f, the word transferable was originally pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, although many people now pronounce it with the stress on the second, and its modern spelling is based on the pronunciation in which the first syllable is stressed. With a stressed first syllable, the doubling rule doesn't apply. So, we don't write *transferrable with two r's but instead transferable with one. Another word that works the same way is preferable. Both of these words have variable stress patterns: some people pronounce it with a stressed second syllable and others pronounce it with a stressed first syllable. So these words follow the same pattern as other similar words that are stressed on the first syllable, like sufferable or pilferable.

Sorry my bad - yes, I was talking about the r, not about the f!

Interesting, so I assume that also most people pronounced the basic verb (to transfer) with the stress on the first syllable but then it took that pattern where the noun has stress on the former syllable and the verb on the latter?

Can we then adapt the spelling to fit the pronunciation? I'm contradicted - on the one hand I like pronouncing it with the stress on the latter syllable, on the other - writing it "transferable" makes me read it as /'trænsfərəbəl/.

(Now waiting for an army of Norwegians, Swedes and Spanish people to start insulting me for questioning the spelling rules of English.)

Actually, is it fine if I say /'trænsfərəbəl/, but to /trəns'fər/? It wouldn't be too weird to have an adjectival form / present participle with the stress on a different place to the one in the verb that it was made from? I am thinking about it cause you mentioned 'preferable, I wouldn't really think of pronouncing it as pre'ferable, yet I don't even think that pronouncing the verb itself with stress on the first syllable is an option.

Would still prefer transferrable though, to emphasise my pronunciation. Looking at the web, it seems like a lot of people are confused, and even my phone is suggesting it. Plus the -rr- seems to be established for other forms - transferred, transferring.

[Linguaphile]

Actually, is it fine if I say /'trænsfərəbəl/, but to /trəns'fər/?

Yes. It's one of the words for which the stress is variable - different people pronounce it in different ways. However, I don't think I've ever heard /trəns'fər/ specifically; when the stress is on the final syllable, most American English speakers keep the /æ/, making it /ˈtɹæns'fɚ/ (/træns'fər/). For many speakers the stress is on the first syllable of transfer when it's a noun and on the second syllable when it's a verb, which follows a common pattern in English.

Would still prefer transferrable though

I looked into it more and although I've always spelled it transferable, it turns out some dictionaries list transferrable as an alternate spelling. So it's less common but also accepted, at least by some.

[Woods]

However, I don't think I've ever heard /trəns'fər/ specifically; when the stress is on the final syllable, most American English speakers keep the /æ/, making it /ˈtɹæns'fɚ/ (/træns'fər/).

About this, I honestly haven't even noticed. When I listen to myself, I think it's more of a schwa sound, but first - I am not native, and second - I don't think that most of my pronunciation is based on one of the American ones anyhow. But you are right - I just played the recordings at both Merriam and Cambridge's dictionaries* and they both keep the /æ/ sound when unstressed. I was under the impression that this is a sound we make mostly (if not only) in stressed syllables.

(*one question that came to mind while writing my second-to-last sentence - does it sound better if I add the genitive to both names or just to the latter?)

It would be nice if other English-speaking countries - such as Australia or New Zealand, or companies based therein, made their own dictionaries so we could also have a listen. I found one instance of "transfer" recorded by an Australian on Forvo, but it has the stress on the first syllable - so I assume she probably meant the noun; or they have the stress on the first syllable for the verb too over there - who knows.

Would still prefer transferrable though

I looked into it more and although I've always spelled it transferable, it turns out some dictionaries list transferrable as an alternate spelling. So it's less common but also accepted, at least by some.

Yeah, it seems like. You won't be considered illiterate by most if you take on such forms, will you? I have found myself in other such situations where I would prefer a certain spelling, and then see for example in the Oxford Dictionaries that it used to be spelt that way in the 17-hundreds. So technically, it is (or was, or has been for those who read literature) part of the English language - but how well known that is to speakers is another matter. That is kind of the opposite situation to what is happening with the verb we are discussing at present, but I am still wandering, what is the reaction of a native to an unfamiliar spelling of a certain word - which nonetheless follow a familiar, albeit usually applied elsewhere, pattern. (I'm getting too hypothetical here I think

[Woods]

the net below has rot away

Interesting form of the verb to rot - has it been used because it rhymes well or does it occur from time to time in some dialects of English?

Actually, for me the past participle has always been rotten, although I now see the Oxford Dictionary gives "rotted" as both praeteritum and as the third form:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rot_1

I would have said:

it has rotten away

Should it be "it has rotted away" if I want to said it correctly?

Or can I say "it has rot away" like in the song?

[linguoboy]

the net below has rot away

Interesting form of the verb to rot - has it been used because it rhymes well or does it occur from time to time in some dialects of English?

Actually, for me the past participle has always been rotten, although I now see the Oxford Dictionary gives "rotted" as both praeteritum and as the third form:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rot_1

I would have said:

it has rotten away

Should it be "it has rotted away" if I want to said it correctly?

Or can I say "it has rot away" like in the song?

For me, the only correct form of the past participle is rotted. "It has rot away" has a poetic ring to it that would sound appropriate in some contexts, but it find it a bit jarring in this song given that the other lyrics belong to a more colloquial register.

Rotten for me is a purely an adjective, like (nonstandard) boughten.

[Woods]

For me, the only correct form of the past participle is rotted. "It has rot away" has a poetic ring to it that would sound appropriate in some contexts, but it find it a bit jarring in this song given that the other lyrics belong to a more colloquial register.

Rotten for me is a purely an adjective, like (nonstandard) boughten.

Nice that you checked the song!

What parts do you find to belong to the colloquial register - the fact that he says "cause" instead of because etc.?

I love songs like that - it takes a while until you find your own way to understand each of the things he says (not typical of most of this band's other songs though).

So you're saying that I should stop using my rotten I guess? Strange discrepancy between past participles as verbal forms and their corresponding forms as adjectives here - not very typical of English!


Talking of it, how do you understand "low man is due" - he's dying, or he needs to confess?

[linguoboy]

What parts do you find to belong to the colloquial register - the fact that he says "cause" instead of because etc.?

That and the use of abbreviated verb forms (e.g. I've, can't, you'll) throughout.

So you're saying that I should stop using my rotten I guess?

Fluent speakers will find it confusing.

Strange discrepancy between past participles as verbal forms and their corresponding forms as adjectives here - not very typical of English!

It's unusual, but there are other examples. For instance, ill-gotten, which is found even in those varieties of English which otherwise have got as the past participle of get.

Talking of itWhile we're on the subject, how do you understand "low man is due" - he's dying, or he needs to confess?

I don't think the text favours one conclusion over the other. It suggests to me that he's facing some sort of consequences for his actions but it's not at all clear what.

[Woods]

What parts do you find to belong to the colloquial register - the fact that he says "cause" instead of because etc.?

That and the use of abbreviated verb forms (e.g. I've, can't, you'll) throughout.

I do that in my speech too - literally, I say "cause" too, I often use the full forms much more than usually in casual speech, but then I also mix in things like the pronoun "they" for third person singular, not particularly elevated expressions and who knows what else. I guess the hardest for me as a non-native speaker would be to recognise and keep the registers separate - it seems impossible when you haven't lived in one particular English-speaking place for long and used the language in every possible context and when there are so many conflicting versions of English (also changing throughout time). And that in spite of following serious content from both the US and the UK and occasionally other places too and using it in my everyday activity even in a country where the everyday language is something else. It is probably the biggest challenge - but isn't it becoming standard to speak that way, as witnessed by the song and by the fact that even politicians nowadays speak in a totally casual manner? Or is it only in California and by millionaires who don't give a darn about anything?

So you're saying that I should stop using my rotten I guess?

Fluent speakers will find it confusing.

I wouldn't

Until now I wouldn't have thought there was a problem and from now on I'll think "a-ha, here's something extra I have learnt that he hasn't!"

Strange discrepancy between past participles as verbal forms and their corresponding forms as adjectives here - not very typical of English!

It's unusual, but there are other examples. For instance, ill-gotten, which is found even in those varieties of English which otherwise have got as the past participle of get.

Is "gotten" standard in American English in all registers or only in everyday speech? It's one of the cases where I much prefer the American form and I use it throughout - but when I need to be extra formal I go with "got" just to be safe. Can I use "gotten" everywhere indeed?

This is also not a perfectly corresponding example though - can you think of other ones where the past participle ends in -d and the corresponding form in -n?

(This stuff reminds me of Swedish, which is one of the reasons I hate this language - luckily in English is just a rare occurrence.)

And one more thought - if I stick to British spelling, have halfway British pronunciation with some Australian elements (but for sure clearly not an American one) and throw in forms like that, i.e. ones that Britons clearly never use, does that also come off as jarring?

Actually I don't even know if we should involve the pronunciation, as I might pronounce each word with a different accent depending on where I first learnt it from or on my mood, or how fluent my interlocutor is - if he isn't then I try to sound more American because it's more understandable. But let's fix at least the writing (and it's also more important - scripta manent).

Talking of itWhile we're on the subject

What is the problem with "talking of something" in my sentence - is it non-idiomatic, or does it belong to a bad register? I very much appreciate these corrections, but I guess sometimes it would be good if you say what's wrong with my phrasing, cause otherwise I don't get it.

how do you understand "low man is due" - he's dying, or he needs to confess?

I don't think the text favours one conclusion over the other. It suggests to me that he's facing some sort of consequences for his actions but it's not at all clear what.

I also googled it and someone was saying that to him it means that the guy has been through much misery and now he finally deserves some peace and happiness. To me it's that he needs to confess. I thought there might be some more universal interpretation based on what the expression means that I'm not getting, but apparently not. That's why I love poetry - everybody understands it his or her way! Unfortunately most songs are more straightforward nowadays.