Moderator:JackFrost
Woods wrote:"Listen to the advice that pisses you off, not to the one that makes you happy."
Can this be said?
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:"Listen to the advice that pisses you off, not to the one that makes you happy."
Can this be said?
Sure it can. It’s confusing, though, since “the one” sounds like it refers to a person giving the advice, not the advice itself.
The more idiomatic way to phrase this world be “…not (just) what makes you happy.” The clearest way to phrase it would be simply to repeat “advice”.
Woods wrote:less of + plural ?
It makes them feel less of losers. - Is that okay English?
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:less of + plural ?
It makes them feel less of losers. - Is that okay English?
I would say it's fine in colloquial English, but I'm not sure it works in a higher register. It's odd because "less of a loser" works in any register (well, "loser" is rather colloquial, but replace this with, say, "soldier" and you could use it anywhere) but I can't think of an corresponding plural form that does. I'd be inclined to substitute "less like losers".
Woods wrote:Well, the text mixes all registers from the most upper-class to the lowest kind of slang. But if it's totally non-idiomatical and it's the first time you see it as a construction, maybe it's a bad idea?
lingoboy wrote: A good example is "Did you used to go there?"
Woods wrote:lingoboy wrote: A good example is "Did you used to go there?"
Well, that one is pretty horrible!
If you compare it to that, I definitely shouldn't use it
Have you heard this and my phrase from natives?
"Did you use to go there" sounds right to me though - is it not very good? Is there a better way of saying it?
linguoboy wrote:This gets complicated, because used to is in the process of being grammaticalised. When used to express habituality, it's not pronounced the same as it is otherwise (such as in this very sentence). That is:
This is the knife I used to slice the cheese. It needs washed.
This is the knife I used to slice with. Now it's only good for stabbing.
do not sound the same in my dialect (or in the English of most other fluent speakers I know). In my speech, the first is approximately [ˈjʉʊ̯zd̥tə] and the second is [ˈjʉʊ̯stə]. And this is true regardless of its position in the sentence. That is:
I [ˈjʉʊ̯stə] go there. Did you [ˈjʉʊ̯stə] go there too?
Since they have the exact same pronunciation, it would make sense to use the same spelling. But using an what looks like a marked past tense form after did violates basic principles of English grammar and orthography, so it looks all wrong. But the spelling use to doesn't look better because it suggests the pronunciation [ˈjʉʊ̯zˈtʉʊ̯], which would be absolutely jarring in this context.
Woods wrote:Also I would've assimilated the voice behind the "s" into the "t" in the past: "Did you use to go there" (Did you [ˈjʉʊ̯stə] go there). Maybe if I say "This is the knife I use to slice the cheese", I could put some voice behind the "s" is I say it slowly or emphasise it, but if I say it fast probably not. Would you?
Woods wrote:But after all, isn't the pronunciation supposed to follow the grammar and not vice-versa?
Woods wrote:So shouldn't we just write "Did you [ˈjʉʊ̯stə] go there too?" as "Did you use to go there" and let the speaker pronounce in the way that's most natural to them? After all both "used to" (the thing I used to do that with) and "used to" (do something) come from the same place, and are the same word - why would we adapt grammar to match its two divergent pronunciations?
Woods wrote:When you're saying that "used to" is in the process of being grammaticalised, does that mean that it wasn't very common to use it in any other forms than a basic affirmative?
Woods wrote:By the way, I just noticed you write the -ise verbs with the British ending even though you are from the US - is there a reason for that or is it your personal preference?
Woods wrote:"Have good time! " - is that correct English?
Woods wrote:I read a few opinions on the Internet suggesting it should be used with the indefinite article, but "time" in this context does not seem like a countable object to me.
Woods wrote:What about "she had hard but rewarding time"?
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:"Have good time! " - is that correct English?
I can’t think of an occasion where I would ever say that.
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:I read a few opinions on the Internet suggesting it should be used with the indefinite article, but "time" in this context does not seem like a countable object to me.
Why not?
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:What about "she had hard but rewarding time"?
Same deal. I’m hard-pressed to come up with an example where “time” is qualified by an adjective without also taking an article. (I feel like there must be an example from physics but I can’t think of it.)
Woods wrote:So if you heard that phrase as a goodbye or something you would be surprised? And would you rather have it with the article?
Woods wrote:linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:I read a few opinions on the Internet suggesting it should be used with the indefinite article, but "time" in this context does not seem like a countable object to me.
Why not?
Cause it's not like "you will do this three times," but about all the "time" you're going to spend there (it hasn't been said how long but probably a few hours) - can't count it, like "would you like some water" - I mean, how could you count "time" in this case?
Woods wrote:linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:What about "she had hard but rewarding time"?
Same deal. I’m hard-pressed to come up with an example where “time” is qualified by an adjective without also taking an article. (I feel like there must be an example from physics but I can’t think of it.)
So how does that phrase sound to you? And would you add an indefinite article to it?
Woods wrote:The phrase is about an ongoing process that took years. Nobody says how many. How could that be countable?
Woods wrote:I read a few opinions on the Internet suggesting it should be used with the indefinite article, but "time" in this context does not seem like a countable object to me.
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:What about "she had hard but rewarding time"?
Same deal. I’m hard-pressed to come up with an example where “time” is qualified by an adjective without also taking an article. (I feel like there must be an example from physics but I can’t think of it.)
Woods wrote:He or she knows what they want and waits until they find it.
Is it okay to use both he or she and they in the same sentence, referring to the same subject?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests