Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would you use?
By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
> Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating > higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of > "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This > struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though > one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would > you use?
> By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less > dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
> Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating > higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of > "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This > struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though > one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would > you use?
I feel the same way about it as Jerry. -- Mark Brader | "The occasional accidents had been much overemphasized, Toronto | and later investigations ... revealed that nearly 90% m...@vex.net | ... could have been prevented." --Wiley Post, 1931
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:05:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman wrote: >By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less >dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
Did they maybe have a series of study questions that asked them whether one substance was "more or less dense" than another?
¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr You are already too educated stupid to understand the truth of nature's harmonic simultaneous 4-liter wine cube
Fred <r...@parachute.nit.nz> wrote: > "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:c4d91d93-859c-4989-95fb-908115d7b1cb@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating > > higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of > > "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This > > struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though > > one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would > > you use?
> > By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less > > dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
> Jerry Friedman : >> Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating >> higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of >> "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This >> struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though >> one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would >> you use?
> I feel the same way about it as Jerry.
I'd bet that the reduced time allowed grammar in primary school curricula (reduced from say 1975 or 1950) means children are no longer taught "comparatives and superlatives" the way we were.
-- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
> > Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating > > higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of > > "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This > > struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though > > one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would > > you use?
> > By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less > > dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
> I say more dense.
But I assume you don't say "more big", "more bright", "more soft", etc. Can you say what's different about "dense"? Or is that just the way your variety of English works?
> But I assume you don't say "more big", "more bright", "more soft", > etc. Can you say what's different about "dense"? Or is that just the > way your variety of English works?
Its origin is not Germanic? Can that have an influence?
>> But I assume you don't say "more big", "more bright", "more soft", >> etc. Can you say what's different about "dense"? Or is that just >> the way your variety of English works?
> Its origin is not Germanic? Can that have an influence?
I doubt it. Few people would say "more nice". Maybe because it's not as frequent, and because it was being used here in a scientific context, that the students associated it with the technicaller and difficulter words that are compared using "more" and "most".
> Lanarcam wrote: >> Jerry Friedman a écrit : >>>> I say more dense. >>> But I assume you don't say "more big", "more bright", "more soft", >>> etc. Can you say what's different about "dense"? Or is that just >>> the way your variety of English works? >> Its origin is not Germanic? Can that have an influence?
> I doubt it. Few people would say "more nice". Maybe because it's not as > frequent, and because it was being used here in a scientific context, > that the students associated it with the technicaller and difficulter > words that are compared using "more" and "most".
Lanarcam wrote: > James Hogg a écrit : >> Lanarcam wrote: >>> Jerry Friedman a écrit : >>>>> I say more dense. >>>> But I assume you don't say "more big", "more bright", "more >>>> soft", etc. Can you say what's different about "dense"? Or is >>>> that just the way your variety of English works? >>> Its origin is not Germanic? Can that have an influence?
>> I doubt it. Few people would say "more nice". Maybe because it's >> not as frequent, and because it was being used here in a scientific >> context, that the students associated it with the technicaller and >> difficulter words that are compared using "more" and "most".
> That makes more sense, of course.
My daughter recently encountered an even more mysterious grammatical/cognitive phenomenon in a grammar test she gave to her students. They had to underline all the adjectives in a short text. Naturally, most of them missed one or two adjectives, or underlined the occasional word that wasn't an adjective, but the strange thing was that 18 out of 33 students underlined the verb "bleed". Four of them erased the underlining before handing in the test, but there were still 42 per cent who believed that "bleed" was an adjective. It was in a music review describing a song where "the emotions really bleed".
>> > Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating >> > higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of >> > "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This >> > struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though >> > one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would >> > you use?
>> > By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less >> > dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
>> I say more dense.
>But I assume you don't say "more big", "more bright", "more soft", >etc. Can you say what's different about "dense"? Or is that just the >way your variety of English works?
I might say "more bright" and "more soft" but not "more big".
I might say "more tall" particularly when it is contrasted with "less tall".
In article <slrnib90b7.1vej.g.kr...@cerebus.kreme.com>,
Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <i91n1k$1m...@speranza.aioe.org> > Don Phillipson <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote: > > "Steve Hayes" <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message > > news:aae8b6pqgd45bf9eaht2qmsjmfqa4p0bug@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:43:44 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) > >> wrote:
> >>>As in "blood is more thick than water"?
> >> Or you could say "more thickerer" for emphasis.
> > We must agree this embiggens the language.
> It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Well I'll be enbiggered!
(with a bit of luck)
--
"If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones
On Oct 12, 12:04 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:05:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman wrote: > >By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less > >dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
> Did they maybe have a series of study questions that asked them whether > one substance was "more or less dense" than another?
Aha. The relevant chapter of the textbook has "denser" once and "more dense" twice, the second time in a boldfaced sentence about buoyancy. (It contrasts with the following sentence, which contains "less dense". I think you may have solved part of the mystery.
In article <i91r2r$3e...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>My daughter recently encountered an even more mysterious >grammatical/cognitive phenomenon in a grammar test she gave to her >students. They had to underline all the adjectives in a short text. >Naturally, most of them missed one or two adjectives, or underlined the >occasional word that wasn't an adjective, but the strange thing was that >18 out of 33 students underlined the verb "bleed". Four of them erased >the underlining before handing in the test, but there were still 42 per >cent who believed that "bleed" was an adjective. It was in a music >review describing a song where "the emotions really bleed".
This would seem consistent with a style of grammar teaching that says "adjectives are describing-words" (Geoff Pullum is off in a corner sputtering) or similar intuitive (but wrong) definitions. (Slightly better, at least, is "adjectives are words that modify nouns", but I suspect that leads to almost as much confusion.)
You'd have to survey the students to find out why they thought that. (It probably matters, of course, what the students' educational background was.)
-GAWollman
-- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft woll...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Jerry Friedman wrote: > On Oct 12, 12:04 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:05:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman wrote: >>> By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less >>> dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
>> Did they maybe have a series of study questions that asked them >> whether one substance was "more or less dense" than another?
> Aha. The relevant chapter of the textbook has "denser" once and "more > dense" twice, the second time in a boldfaced sentence about buoyancy. > (It contrasts with the following sentence, which contains "less > dense". I think you may have solved part of the mystery.
Nevertheless, it does seem to be one of the changes happening to the language at present. I hear slightly surprising "more x" examples on BBC about as often as I hear rather annoying weak pasts of strong verbs, though rather more often than I hear American words for things there is already an Imperial Standard Word for.
>>My daughter recently encountered an even more mysterious >>grammatical/cognitive phenomenon in a grammar test she gave to her >>students. They had to underline all the adjectives in a short text. >>Naturally, most of them missed one or two adjectives, or underlined the >>occasional word that wasn't an adjective, but the strange thing was that >>18 out of 33 students underlined the verb "bleed". Four of them erased >>the underlining before handing in the test, but there were still 42 per >>cent who believed that "bleed" was an adjective. It was in a music >>review describing a song where "the emotions really bleed".
>This would seem consistent with a style of grammar teaching that says >"adjectives are describing-words" (Geoff Pullum is off in a corner >sputtering) or similar intuitive (but wrong) definitions. (Slightly >better, at least, is "adjectives are words that modify nouns", but I >suspect that leads to almost as much confusion.)
>You'd have to survey the students to find out why they thought that. >(It probably matters, of course, what the students' educational >background was.)
I never knew anyone who had trouble with the concept after this:
>>My daughter recently encountered an even more mysterious >>grammatical/cognitive phenomenon in a grammar test she gave to her >>students. They had to underline all the adjectives in a short text. >>Naturally, most of them missed one or two adjectives, or underlined the >>occasional word that wasn't an adjective, but the strange thing was that >>18 out of 33 students underlined the verb "bleed". Four of them erased >>the underlining before handing in the test, but there were still 42 per >>cent who believed that "bleed" was an adjective. It was in a music >>review describing a song where "the emotions really bleed".
>This would seem consistent with a style of grammar teaching that says >"adjectives are describing-words" (Geoff Pullum is off in a corner >sputtering) or similar intuitive (but wrong) definitions. (Slightly >better, at least, is "adjectives are words that modify nouns", but I >suspect that leads to almost as much confusion.)
I was taught at school that adjectives are words that modify nouns.
> > Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating > > higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of > > "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This > > struck me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though > > one of the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would > > you use?
> > By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less > > dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
> I say more dense.
But I assume you don't say "more big", "more bright", "more soft", etc. Can you say what's different about "dense"? Or is that just the way your variety of English works?
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes: > Jerry Friedman wrote: >> On Oct 12, 12:04 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:05:08 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman wrote: >>>> By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less >>>> dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
>>> Did they maybe have a series of study questions that asked them >>> whether one substance was "more or less dense" than another?
>> Aha. The relevant chapter of the textbook has "denser" once and "more >> dense" twice, the second time in a boldfaced sentence about buoyancy. >> (It contrasts with the following sentence, which contains "less >> dense". I think you may have solved part of the mystery.
> Nevertheless, it does seem to be one of the changes happening to the > language at present. I hear slightly surprising "more x" examples on BBC > about as often as I hear rather annoying weak pasts of strong verbs, > though rather more often than I hear American words for things there is > already an Imperial Standard Word for.
If you go for the theory in Pinker's Words and Rules it's just what you would expect. Once words drop below a certain threshold of use they will regularise. The latter is irritating, but unavoidable.
I heard "snuck" in a BrE science programme only last week. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:05:08 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote: > Fourteen of my students took a test with a question about floating > higher in salt water than fresh. Eight of them used a comparative of > "dense" in their answer. Of these, all used "more dense". This struck > me as strange--I'd use "denser". Is it generational? (Though one of > the students looks older than me.) Maybe regional? What would you use?
> By the way, none of the answers contrasted "more dense" with "less > dense", which would be about the only time I might use "more dense".
Curme observes that the terminational comparative "was universal in Old English, but it is now confined to words of one syllable and a large number of words of two syllables . . . . Some adjectives which take -er and -est may also take 'more' and 'most', the simple form before the noun with classifying force, the form with 'more' and 'most' after the noun with descriptive force." He gives as examples:
There never was a kinder and juster man."
There never was a man more kind and just.
He further adds that "Often the choice between the old and the new type depends merely on the agreeableness of sound, so that there is much variation in expression here."
