> > > > > > Sacred faeces! I just did a google search for "boggles the mind" and... > > > > > > do one yourselves. I just cannot believe it. My mind boggleth over.
> > > > Which came first, the transitive seen above, or the adjective > > > > "mind-boggling"? Can the latter reasonably be seen as a derivation from > > > > "the mind boggles"?
> > > According to the OED's latest draft entries for the third edition, "the > > > mind boggles" goes all the way back to 1899, while "mind-boggling" is > > > only attested from 1964. Here are the earliest cites:
> > > 1899 Amer. Jrnl. Philol. 20 439 If the MSS, in attributing > > > works to ancient authors, only furnish us with a thesis to > > > prove, there is opened a vista of scepticism and material > > > for dissertations at which the mind boggles.
> > > 1964 Punch 19 Feb. 257/1 A lot of mind-boggling statistics.
> > > There are no OED cites yet for transitive "boggle the mind", but the New > > > York Times archive has examples back to 1958:
> > > Topics of The Times > > > New York Times, Apr 8, 1958, p. 28 > > > A few years ago the idea of a man-made star no bigger > > > than a grapefruit tracking through space would have > > > boggled the mind.
> > > The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after > > > 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive > > > usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation > > > (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
> > What model could the participle-from-intransitive have been following?
> > (Do you dare ask a.u.e.? I won't.)
> There are a number of participles of the form X-Ying, meaning "causing > one's X to Y" (i.e., Y is construed intransitively):
> (The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could be > understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering", > and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or > intransitively.)
> Any others?
Yes, good idea. Let's have a brain-storming session. That usually helps the idea-forming process.
> > (The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could be > > understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering", > > and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or > > intransitively.)
> > Any others?
> Yes, good idea. Let's have a brain-storming session. That usually helps the > idea-forming process.
"Brain-storming" is derived from "brain-storm", and thus has no bearing on the discussion (it doesn't mean "causing one's brain to storm"). "Idea-forming" is another one that could be construed either transitively or intransitively (the process forms ideas, or the process causes ideas to form).
I'll restate the question: are there any others that are clearly intransitive?
>(The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could be >understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering", >and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or >intransitively.)
"heart-sinking"?
"It sank her heart" - iffy "Her heart sank" - fine
(The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could beunderstood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering", and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or intransitively.)
Ben Zimmer later: I'll restate the question: are there any others that are clearly intransitive?
-- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" > could beunderstood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", > "ear-shattering", and "heart-wrenching" could be construed > either transitively or intransitively.)
> Ben Zimmer later: > I'll restate the question: are there any others > that are clearly intransitive?
Rolleston <rolles...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message <news:35tri0hsg759cqrfi5b4g14o3eaiha9t0s@4ax.com>... > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > [...] > >> foot-tapping > >> heart-stopping > >> gut-wrenching > >> toe-tapping > >> eyebrow-raising > >> hair-raising > >> nail-biting > >> knee-buckling > >> blood-draining
> >The only one that _might_ be intransitive is "knee-buckling," though I > >don't know quite what it would mean.
> What about "foot-tapping"?
> Clearly, one can tap feet. That is not what is meant.
No, that's a good one. A "toe-tapping" or "foot-tapping" tune doesn't transitively tap your toes or feet, it sets them a'tapping. "Arse-clenching" is not unknown over here, and I submit it's a parallel. I have a very clear sense of what "knee-buckling" means, so that should be in, too.
("Swash-buckling", of course, doesn't mean what everybody thinks it means, and would in any case be inadmissible. But how are we to place "bodice-ripping"?)
Rolleston <rolles...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message <news:35tri0hsg759cqrfi5b4g14o3eaiha9t0s@4ax.com>... > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > [...] > >> foot-tapping > >> heart-stopping > >> gut-wrenching > >> toe-tapping > >> eyebrow-raising > >> hair-raising > >> nail-biting > >> knee-buckling > >> blood-draining
> >The only one that _might_ be intransitive is "knee-buckling," though I > >don't know quite what it would mean.
> What about "foot-tapping"?
> Clearly, one can tap feet. That is not what is meant.
I can't tell whether "toe-tapping", "foot-stomping", and the like should be considered transitive or intransitive. Eyebrow-raising behavior is the kind that raises eyebrows. Toe-tapping music doesn't tap toes; it causes hearers to tap their toes (transitive) or causes toes to tap or is accompanied by toes tapping (both intransitive and possibly parallel to the supposed development from "the mind boggles" to "mind-boggling"). Maybe the pros over there at sci.lang know how to tell the difference and whether the difference is important.
The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
Ben Zimmer later wrote:
There are a number of participles of the form X-Ying, meaning "causing one's X to Y" (i.e., Y is construed intransitively):
(The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could be understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering", and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or intransitively.)
I can't tell whether "toe-tapping", "foot-stomping", and the like should be considered transitive or intransitive. Eyebrow-raising behavior is the kind that raises eyebrows. Toe-tapping music doesn't tap toes; it causes hearers to tap their toes (transitive) or causes toes to tap or is accompanied by toes tapping (both intransitive and possibly parallel to the supposed development from "the mind boggles" to "mind-boggling"). Maybe the pros over there at sci.lang know how to tell the difference and whether the difference is important.
It occurs to me that the likely model was 'mind-opening'.
Jerry's point bothered me too.
"They were playing mind-boggling music." "They were playing foot-tapping music."
"Jim spoke about a mind-boggling incident." "Jim spoke about a hair-raising incident."
Where is the transitive/intransitive difference? Is a supposition that "the mind is the whole person" involved?
-- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The only one that _might_ be intransitive is "knee-buckling," though I > > >don't know quite what it would mean.
> > What about "foot-tapping"?
> > Clearly, one can tap feet. That is not what is meant.
> I can't tell whether "toe-tapping", "foot-stomping", and the like > should be considered transitive or intransitive. Eyebrow-raising > behavior is the kind that raises eyebrows. Toe-tapping music doesn't > tap toes; it causes hearers to tap their toes (transitive) or causes > toes to tap or is accompanied by toes tapping (both intransitive and > possibly parallel to the supposed development from "the mind boggles" > to "mind-boggling"). Maybe the pros over there at sci.lang know how > to tell the difference and whether the difference is important.
Is the difference supposed to be whether, for example, doing a thing causes one's own foot to tap, or doing the thing causes someone *else's* foot to tap?
Because if it is, I wouldn't call that a question of transitivity. They're both transitive. I'd call it reflexivity. (I wash myself vs. I wash the car.)
If that's not the point.... what is it? Is there some linguistic significance to "transitivity" that is different from the well-known properties of transitive and intransitive verbs?
> > Which came first, the transitive seen above, or the adjective > > "mind-boggling"? Can the latter reasonably be seen as a derivation from > > "the mind boggles"?
> According to the OED's latest draft entries for the third edition, "the > mind boggles" goes all the way back to 1899, while "mind-boggling" is > only attested from 1964. Here are the earliest cites:
> 1899 Amer. Jrnl. Philol. 20 439 If the MSS, in attributing > works to ancient authors, only furnish us with a thesis to > prove, there is opened a vista of scepticism and material > for dissertations at which the mind boggles.
> 1964 Punch 19 Feb. 257/1 A lot of mind-boggling statistics.
> There are no OED cites yet for transitive "boggle the mind", but the New > York Times archive has examples back to 1958 (long before Kissinger):
> Topics of The Times > New York Times, Apr 8, 1958, p. 28 > A few years ago the idea of a man-made star no bigger > than a grapefruit tracking through space would have > boggled the mind.
> The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after > 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive > usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation > (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
The 1903 Funk & Wagnalls already has two transitive senses s.v. boggle:
1. To make a bungle or botch of. [cf. AHD1] 2. (Rare.) To perplex or disconcert.
The second sense fits "mind-boggling" quite well and could have been illustrated by the 1958 NYT citation. In my view, the OED staff should chuck that draft etymology and get busy looking for attestations of emerging transitive non-bungling boggling in the 1890s.
> "Ben Zimmer" <bgzim...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote ... > > According to the OED's latest draft entries for the third edition, "the > > mind boggles" goes all the way back to 1899, while "mind-boggling" is > > only attested from 1964. Here are the earliest cites:
> > 1899 Amer. Jrnl. Philol. 20 439 If the MSS, in attributing > > works to ancient authors, only furnish us with a thesis to > > prove, there is opened a vista of scepticism and material > > for dissertations at which the mind boggles.
> > 1964 Punch 19 Feb. 257/1 A lot of mind-boggling statistics.
> > There are no OED cites yet for transitive "boggle the mind", but the New > > York Times archive has examples back to 1958:
> > Topics of The Times > > New York Times, Apr 8, 1958, p. 28 > > A few years ago the idea of a man-made star no bigger > > than a grapefruit tracking through space would have > > boggled the mind.
> > The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after > > 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive > > usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation > > (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
> The 1903 Funk & Wagnalls already has two transitive senses s.v. boggle:
> 1. To make a bungle or botch of. [cf. AHD1] > 2. (Rare.) To perplex or disconcert.
> The second sense fits "mind-boggling" quite well and could have been > illustrated by the 1958 NYT citation. In my view, the OED staff should > chuck that draft etymology and get busy looking for attestations of emerging > transitive non-bungling boggling in the 1890s.
To be fair, the entries for "mind" and "mind-boggling" (from which I took the above citations) have been updated recently, since the OED3 revisions started with the letter M. The OED2 entry for "boggle" looks like it has remained intact from the late 19th century when the early fascicles were compiled. The editors will eventually get back around to the beginning of the alphabet, at which time I'm sure the history of transitive "boggle" will be further elucidated.
