to give a look at
antmjr
discussion forum let me know that it's wrong to say "give a look at"
in the meaning of "have/take a look at" (obviously it was the Italian
expression "dare un'occhiata" - to_give_ a look - that deceived me).
I discover now a number of occurrences of "give a look at" in Google
Books. Here for instance:
Is it an obsolete expression or has it a different meaning?
tony cooper
wrote:
There's nothing wrong with "give a look at" if used properly. You can
suggest that someone give a look at the new Binford table saw. You
can also suggest that they take a look at the new saw or even have a
look at. All are informal usages.
The choice of give, have, or take in this context is individual. Some
people use one, and other people use one of the other two. Your
critic seems to be one that chooses one of the other two. He is no
more right than you are.
However, I would quibble with "I stood corrected". That implies that
you misused something and understood that the correction was
appropriate. If you question the correction - as you have - then you
didn't stand corrected.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
mm
wrote:
>Recently I stood corrected, when an English member of a woodworking
>discussion forum let me know that it's wrong to say "give a look at"
>in the meaning of "have/take a look at" (obviously it was the Italian
They're the same thing afaik. You can have, give, even steal a look
at (though there has to be some level of non-permission maybe for the
last one.)
>expression "dare un'occhiata" - to_give_ a look - that deceived me).
>
>I discover now a number of occurrences of "give a look at" in Google
>Books. Here for instance:
>
>http://books.google.it/books?id=sOTuIjzxGu0C&pg=PT87&dq=%22give+a+look+at%22&ei=vUTwS77iHKqCyAT57ZzgCg&hl=en&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22give%20a%20look%20at%22&f=false
>
>Is it an obsolete expression or has it a different meaning?
Neither. It's the same meaning.
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
CDB
said, although I prefer "take a look" for that use. Your woodworker
may have been thinking of the different expression "give a look to"
(more usually found with the indirect-object pronoun), which means to
look at meaningfully, to convey a message with your glance. Here are
some GoogleBook hits for "gave him a look":
>
http://books.google.it/books?ei=vUTwS77iHKqCyAT57ZzgCg&cd=2&hl=en&q=%22gave+him+a+look%22&btnG=Search+Books ;
>
http://tinyurl.com/2dj635o .
Brian Cryer
news:116490dd-e193-44d6...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
It may depend on the usage and context, so without having a better example
to look at I'd say that the member of your woodworking forum was right to
correct you. Normally it would be correct to say "take a look at" rather
than "give a look at". Whilst I agree that the phrase is clearly in use, all
the results turned up on the first page by google when I looked for "give a
look at" should (IMO) have been "take a look at".
However, given that other posters seem to think it reasoable to "give a look
at", I assume this reflects regional or national differences in English
usage. For me in the UK (England, Hampshire) "to give a look at" is not
correct but obviously I can't speak for everyone in the UK.
--
Brian Cryer
http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
tony cooper
wrote:
>In article <hIadnZBvp8lyumzW...@pipex.net>,
>not.here@localhost says...
>> [...]
>> However, given that other posters seem to think it reasoable to
>> "give a look
>> at", I assume this reflects regional or national differences in English
>> usage. For me in the UK (England, Hampshire) "to give a look at" is not
>> correct but obviously I can't speak for everyone in the UK.
>
>Despite the pseudonym I use on usenet news, I have lived in the UK
>for all but the last few months of my life in a variety of places:
>Cheshire, Lincolnshire, Gwynedd (North Wales), Stirling, Birmingham,
>Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leicester, and Stoke-on-Trent, revisiting most
>of them from time to time fairly regularly. This was starting from
>the early 1950s to now.
>
>In all these places, I cannot recall ever hearing any form of English
>like "to give a look at", and I am sure that people in those places
>would judge it so eccentric in British English to be not correct. "To
>take a look at" would be thought of as correct, though a few other
>verbs, not including "give", might be thought of as being just about
>acceptable, such as "throw" (though possibly better in conjunction
>with "towards" rather than "at").
You have to put Usage in its' place. The original poster did not tell
us where he lives. He posts from gmail, so it could be anywhere. The
person correcting him was "English".
The problem correcting people in forums that have international
readership is that you can't say something is wrong if it is only
non-standard in the place where the person making the correction
lives.
Readers from the US would find "give a look at" to be perfectly
standard and acceptable. It is not wrong from their perspective. If
a correction is made in a forum with international readership, the
correction should be in the form of "In British English, this is not
correct". Unless, of course, the usage is wrong in all varieties of
English. That is not the case here.
John Varela
In my usage, "give a look" carries a slight implication that I have
something unusual to show you. "Take a look" at this advertisement;
"give a look" (or more likely "give a lookit") at this strange
insect.
--
John Varela
tony cooper
wrote:
"Give a look" is an instruction to look at something I have. "Give a
look at", which is the term in question, is an instruction to look at
something that could be somewhere else.
John Varela
I disagree. I could have something in the palm of my hand and ask
you to "give this a look". Or I might pass you the telescope and
suggest you "give a look" at the rings of Saturn.
--
John Varela
tony cooper
wrote:
You're changing the wording, John. "Give a look at" is different from
"give this a look". "Give a look" is different from "give a look at".
"Give a look" stands alone as an instruction to look at something in
proximity (thread convergence). One can imagine someone saying this
and holding up the Playboy centerfold picture. With "give a look at",
there's an unsaid "go" in front of it. You can change the wording and
say "give a look at this" with the centerfold example, but that's a
different wording.
Introduce other words before, in the middle, or after and it does
change the meaning, but the question was about "give a look at".
mm
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:48:52 -0700 (PDT), antmjr <ant...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Recently I stood corrected, when an English member of a woodworking
>>discussion forum let me know that it's wrong to say "give a look at"
>>in the meaning of "have/take a look at" (obviously it was the Italian
>
>They're the same thing afaik. You can have, give, even steal a look
>at (though there has to be some level of non-permission maybe for the
>last one.)
>
>>expression "dare un'occhiata" - to_give_ a look - that deceived me).
>>
>>I discover now a number of occurrences of "give a look at" in Google
>>Books. Here for instance:
>>
>>http://books.google.it/books?id=sOTuIjzxGu0C&pg=PT87&dq=%22give+a+look+at%22&ei=vUTwS77iHKqCyAT57ZzgCg&hl=en&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22give%20a%20look%20at%22&f=false
>>
>>Is it an obsolete expression or has it a different meaning?
>
>Neither. It's the same meaning.
And don't forget, give a look-see.
tony cooper
wrote:
>In article <lin2v51j1v0ie07q1...@4ax.com>,
>tony_co...@earthlink.net says...
>I guess I should have repeatedly then mentioned that I was using
>British English, though I did think that the mentions I made together
>with the locations I said I had lived in would make that clear
>throughout. Thanks for suggesting I should be more diligent, however.
>I suspect I was guided more by the lack of statements from many other
>posters as to whether they are taking from an American English or a
>British English point of view, which can easily be seen in this
>thread.
I know that you speak British English. "Cheshire, Lincolnshire,
Gwynedd (North Wales), Stirling, Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
Leicester, and Stoke-on-Trent" is hint enough for me.
I was referring to the original - unnamed - critic in the woodworking
group that is English. He's the one who should state that the usage
is non-standard in British English, but not that it is non-standard in
all English versions.
It's always helpful when posters use a sig line that states where they
live. My "Orlando, Florida" sig line should be hint enough that I
speak American English. Most of the "regulars" here know where
everyone is from, but it is still helpful.
Ian Jackson
> On 17 May 2010 17:58:32 GMT, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 17 May 2010 17:00:03 UTC, tony cooper
>
> >> On 17 May 2010 16:57:01 GMT, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:48:52 UTC, antmjr <ant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Recently I stood corrected, when an English member of a woodworking
> >> >> discussion forum let me know that it's wrong to say "give a look at"
> >> >> in the meaning of "have/take a look at" (obviously it was the Italian
> >> >> expression "dare un'occhiata" - to_give_ a look - that deceived me).
>
> >> >> I discover now a number of occurrences of "give a look at" in Google
> >> >> Books. Here for instance:
>
>
> >> >> Is it an obsolete expression or has it a different meaning?
>
> >> >In my usage, "give a look" carries a slight implication that I have
> >> >something unusual to show you. "Take a look" at this advertisement;
> >> >"give a look" (or more likely "give a lookit") at this strange
> >> >insect.
>
> >> "Give a look" is an instruction to look at something I have. "Give a
> >> look at", which is the term in question, is an instruction to look at
> >> something that could be somewhere else.
>
> >I disagree. I could have something in the palm of my hand and ask
> >you to "give this a look". Or I might pass you the telescope and
> >suggest you "give a look" at the rings of Saturn.
>
> You're changing the wording, John. "Give a look at" is different from
> "give this a look". "Give a look" is different from "give a look at".
>
> "Give a look" stands alone as an instruction to look at something in
> proximity (thread convergence). One can imagine someone saying this
> and holding up the Playboy centerfold picture. With "give a look at",
> there's an unsaid "go" in front of it. You can change the wording and
> say "give a look at this" with the centerfold example, but that's a
> different wording.
>
> Introduce other words before, in the middle, or after and it does
> change the meaning, but the question was about "give a look at".
>
although it is perfectly understandable.
You will here "give" in "give it a look", where it is OK in its own
right. However, here, "give" cannot be replaced directly with a "take"
or a "have".In the "have/give a look at it" form, I suppose you could
use "give", but it somehow doesn't sound right, and isn't usual.
Of course, you can "give someone a look" - but that often means that
that you "give them a dirty/disapproving look". The usual expression
is "have" or "take" - or, in the case of something 'outstanding' (say
the centrefold picture), "get a look at those!".
--
Ian
Brian Cryer
news:ocl3v5h1v9k96va5d...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> It's always helpful when posters use a sig line that states where they
> live. My "Orlando, Florida" sig line should be hint enough that I
> speak American English. Most of the "regulars" here know where
> everyone is from, but it is still helpful.
Since I only pop in occasionally to alt.english.usage and spent most of my
time in other newsgroups I'd previously though it odd suggesting that
posters indicate where they are from, but your explanation makes a good case
for it. I'll make an effort in future.
--
Brian Cryer (UK, England, Hampshire)
http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
antmjr
> although it is perfectly understandable.
>
English, there is the English Lingua-Franca too, written on the web by
people like me. I have experimented a sort of irritation in some
conversations partners, due to my poor English; or better: due to the
fact that I enjoy so much the pleasure to communicate my point of
view, that from time to time I forget I haven't the needed language
tools, and I join _the fight_ light-heartedly. People who share the
same pleasure are always able to understand (because they _want_ to
understand), while others simply cut off.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<fe...@sibianzhe.com> wrote:
>After reading and thinking about these matters, I realised that there
>is a great deal of relevance to these discussions by considering what
>might be called "standard sentence models" (my own term, based on my
>previous professional life as a mathematical psychologist: I don't
>know if a correct term exists for them in grammarians' vocabularies).
>I first thought of these when first trying to learn Mandarin Chinese
>quite a few years ago, and more so when I was later faced with trying
>to hasten the speed with which my wife and son learned (British)
>English with Mandarin Chinese as their first languages. I suggest
>that American English is more accepting of restrictions on
>implementations of what I call standard sentence models for these
>kinds of sentences than British English is. I now develop and explain
>that a bit.
Message saved to be given a longer and more careful read later.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
jim
Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> In my experience,"give a look at" certainly isn't common in BrE,
> although it is perfectly understandable.
>
> You will here "give" in "give it a look", where it is OK in its own
> right. However, here, "give" cannot be replaced directly with a "take"
> or a "have".
I suspect "Give a look" developed from "give it a look". If you use
"give it a look" often to get people to look at something, the "it" is
going to soon seem unnecessary.
-jim
John Lawler
<fe...@sibianzhe.com> wrote:
> In article <d63f8039-eb79-4493-a1f1-3034953ba2c0
> @j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> ianREMOVETHISBITjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk says...
>
> > [...]
> > In my experience,"give a look at" certainly isn't common in BrE,
> > although it is perfectly understandable.
>
>
>
>
> > You will here "give" in "give it a look", where it is OK in its own
> > right. However, here, "give" cannot be replaced directly with a "take"
> > or a "have".In the "have/give a look at it" form, I suppose you could
> > use "give", but it somehow doesn't sound right, and isn't usual.
>
> is a great deal of relevance to these discussions by considering what
> might be called "standard sentence models" (my own term, based on my
> previous professional life as a mathematical psychologist: I don't
> know if a correct term exists for them in grammarians' vocabularies).
> I first thought of these when first trying to learn Mandarin Chinese
> quite a few years ago, and more so when I was later faced with trying
> to hasten the speed with which my wife and son learned (British)
> English with Mandarin Chinese as their first languages. I suggest
> that American English is more accepting of restrictions on
> implementations of what I call standard sentence models for these
> kinds of sentences than British English is. I now develop and explain
> that a bit.
>
> either have verbs that are used with two objects: a "direct object",
> and an "indirect object", or else they have verbs that are used with
> "object complements". A potential source of the discussions here
> revolves around the identification of which sentence form to use (and
> hence, which model(s) are appropriate) in order to make sense of or
> interpret what is being said in the sentence "Give it a look.". The
> terms used (excepting "(standard) sentence models"), although not new
> to me, came to mind because I had read some years previously a useful
> discussion involving them which these discussions, after thought,
> came to my mind.
>
> I was prompted to look at "Basic English Usage" by Michael Swan, and
> eventually tracked down sections 355.2 and 356 which I think are
> quite relevant here.
>
> Using these sections as inspiration, I would like to hazard the
> following suggestions, though I cannot say for sure I will be
> correct:
>
> 1. A sentence that uses verb which takes an object complement are
> sentences such as:
> "They elected him president.", or
> "I call my brother 'Jim'."
> with model form:
> "<subject> <verb> <object> <noun as object complement>"
>
> Note that in these sentences, the object complement is closely bound
> with the object, such as is the case with copula sentences such as
> "He is the president" or "My brother is Jim".
>
> 2. Sentences that take two objects can have more varied forms:
>
> Case a.) with standard sentence model:
>
> "<subject> <verb> <indirect object> <direct object>"
> and example sentences:
> "I gave her a camera."
> "I will make you some money."
>
> Note that although the superficial sequences of <noun, verb, noun,
> noun> might make us think this is a case of an object complement, the
> missing component is that there is not a closely bound copula-like
> link between the two last nouns, and it is that which helps clarify
> to us that this is a case of a verb taking two objects, and thus has
> the standard sentence model I've given above. There can be some
> slight difficulty: "I will make you president.", or "I will give you
> the president's position." might need more careful thinking before
> one can allocate them with equal certainty to the correct standard
> sentence model.
>
> Shaw lists some verbs, which includes "give" and "take" as using case
> a. He also makes the point that *usually* (my emphasis) the indirect
> object refers to a person and comes first. (Note that what he says
> doesn't rule out cases where the indirect object is not a person, yet
> it still comes first, such as " He gave it the old heave-ho", "I'll
> give the dog a bone", or "I'll give the question some thought.")
>
> Case b.) with standard sentence model:
>
> "<noun> <verb> <direct object> <preposition> <indirect object>"
> and example sentences:
> "I gave a camera to her."
> "I will make some money for her."
> "He gave the old heave-ho to it."
> "I'll give a bone to the dog."
> "I'll give some thought to the question."
>
> Shaw states that we use this form when the direct object is much
> shorter than the indirect object, or when we want to give some
> special importance to the indirect object, and he would implicitly
> like us to compare:
> "I took it to the policeman" with "I took the policeman it."
> "She took the nurse who was looking after her daughter some
> flowers." with "She took some flowers to the nurse who was looking
> after her daughter some flowers."
> "Mother bought you, not me, the ice cream." with "Mother bought the
> ice-cream for you, not me." (Shaw only provides the preposition-using
> form of these sentences.) Note however, that, as I suggested in the
> previous section, we don't reserve this standard sentence model just
> for cases Shaw mentions.
>
> Case c) Shaw states that when both objects are personal pronouns, we
> more often use the standard sentence form given in Case b. That is:
>
> "Give it to me." (though he states that "Give me it." is possible)
> "Send them to her." (though he states that "Send her them." is also
> possible." Looking back to what I suggested were the more tricky
> examples in case a, we can see that "I will give you the president's
> position." can be transformed into "I will give the president's
> position to you.", but that "I will make you president" make be a bit
> more tricky, though "I will make you into (being) the president"
> might be marginally acceptable, and uncertainty might be greater in
> this last case as to whether it still really is a sentence containing
> a verb which takes two objects rather than a sentence containing a
> verb that takes an object complement.
>
> Case d.) deals with passive sentences which are not relevant here.
>
> Case e.) states that the verbs "explain", "suggest", and "describe"
> do not use the standard sentence model of case a at all. So, we
> always say:
>
> "Can you explain your decision to us?" rather than "Can you explain
> us your decision?"
> "Can you suggest a good dentist to me?" rather than "Can you suggest
> me a good dentist?"
> "Please describe your wife to us." rather than "Please describe us
> your wife."
>
> Case f.) points out a difference between British English and American
> English with respect to the verb "to write".
>
> He suggests that we can write "Write me a letter.", using standard
> sentence model for case a, and we can use the standard sentence model
> for case b as well: "Write a letter to me", but when there is no
> direct object, although in American English one can write "Write me",
> although this is understood in British English, it is more common for
> us British speakers and writers to write "Write to me", that is, we
> fall back on omitting the direct object in the context of standard
> sentence model for case b rather than case a, which is more common in
> American English.
>
> Now, turning to "give it a look". First of all, it seems to me that
> this is a sentence in which give takes two objects. If we apply the
> rules I've given above, they suggest that "it" is the indirect object
> and "a look" is the direct object. That is, case a.
>
> Although Shaw lists some verbs that normally only use the standard
> sentence model for case b, he doesn't give any indication that there
> are unacceptable cases where a verb normally only uses the standard
> sentence model for case a.
>
> This may then suggest that in many cases where we have a example of a
> verb using standard sentence model for case a, we can transform or
> convert the sentence into one using standard sentence model b, as I
> did in some of the examples, above. They may be strained, but they
> are still possible. So, let's try to do it to "Give it a look."
>
> "Give a look <preposition> it."
>
> It is difficult to provide a preposition which yields a naturally
> sounding sentence. "towards" might be suitable, though expanding the
> sentence a little to "Give a look in the direction of it" might be
> possible depending on what was intended, otherwise it might sound
> peculiar indeed. Something else may be needed to be changed, and it
> could be that the verb would be better changed to make it more common
> in British English than American English, or something else might be
> wrong, such as the model it is being fitted to.
>
> Taking the last possibility first, in a slang form of British
> English, we may sometimes here shouted "Give it me!", which is not
> modelled by "<verb> <indirect object> <direct object>" at all (though
> it might be forced to be so, but usually only for special or comic
> effects), but is rather to be interpreted and modelled as
> "verb> <direct object> <indirect object>" which can be translated
> into a non-slang form of "Give it to me". If we try to use this
> slang-based model with "Give it a look", we face greater problems of
> identifying an appropriate preposition, and so we might usefully
> think of changing the verb to make the conversion between the two
> standard sentence structures equally common.
>
> In this, there seems to be a difference between American English and
> British English, and I suggest that in British English, one might
> more commonly use a different verb, such as "throw", which would
> yield:
>
> "Throw it a look" which could be transformed more easily into "Throw
> a look towards it" or "Throw a look at it", which is marginally less-
> strained in British English than "Give a look towards it" or "Give a
> look at it".
>
> However, we could always change "look" to the more slang-like form
> (in British terms) of "look over" as well, which would yield
> sentences like "Give it a look over" or "Give a look over at it."
> which might be slang-like to British people, but marginally easier to
> deal with than ...
>
> read more »
Without getting into a point-by-point discussion here, let me just
point
out that there are TWO relevant dimensions here: not just word order
(linear, l.-to-r, temporal order) such as you are considering, there
is also
constituent order (non-linear, hierarchical, structural order) to
consider.
For instance, some things can happen in a subordinate clause that
can't
in a main clause, and vice versa. Ditto for things within the scope
of a
negative (like Negative Polarity). And a lot of stuff can get left
out
that might make things clearer to understand, little words like
"that"
and "which" and "and" and so on.
I think your categorization of this class of constructions (that's
what
we call'em in linguistics) is pretty good for a cold start. Most
linguists would add a lot of detail (that's what we do for a living,
after all -- check the details) and maybe not group things the same
way, but you're basically right that everything depends on the
controlling verbs. As I put it in my grammar classes,
Verbs Have More Fun.
There's even a book about this:
Levin, Beth. 1993. U Chicago Press
English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Survey.
This lists dozens of types of syntactic alternations (like
"give the ball to Bill" vs "give Bill the ball", which is the
Dative Alternation) and the verbs that control them, as
well as dozens of semantic classes of verbs and the
alternations they feature in. For instance, see
http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/spray.pdf
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/
Getting an education is a bit like a communicable sexual
disease. It makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs, and
then you have the urge to pass it on. -- Terry Pratchett