Eagerer?
Gary Williams
he tells me that all of his Chinese-English dictionaries give
"eagerer" as the comparative of "eager". I myself cannot imagine
saying anything other than "more eager" because of the repetition of
/r/'s. The question is whether others, perhaps on a regional basis,
do say "eagerer".
Gary Williams
Armond Perretta
"Gary Williams" <will...@ahec.edu> wrote ...
>
> ...The question is whether others, perhaps on a regional basis,
> do say "eagerer".
One possibility is that it's the noun describing an enthusiast.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.tripod.com
Don Aitken
<ngre...@REMOVEmindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Gary Williams" <will...@ahec.edu> wrote ...
>>
>> ...The question is whether others, perhaps on a regional basis,
>> do say "eagerer".
>
>One possibility is that it's the noun describing an enthusiast.
>
Or someone who surfs on a tidal bore.
--
Don Aitken
Arcadian Rises
>>>
>>> ...The question is whether others, perhaps on a regional basis,
>>> do say "eagerer".
Perhaps jokingly, like "curiouser and curiouser".
R J Valentine
Not me. I'd even use "more eagerly" as the comparative of "eagerly", more
often than not.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
CyberCypher
news:9af8cc96.02040...@posting.google.com:
Never trust a Chinese-English or a Japanese-English dictionary. They
are generally written and edited by people who don't know better
despite the impressive list of credentialled native speakers they list
in the prefatory material.
--
Franke
GrapeApe
I want to fry like an eagerer
To the sea
Fry like an eagerer
Let my spirit carry me
Isabelle Cecchini
Gary Williams <will...@ahec.edu> a écrit dans le message :
9af8cc96.02040...@posting.google.com...
> In correspondence from a native-speaker of Chinese who teaches English
> he tells me that all of his Chinese-English dictionaries give
> "eagerer" as the comparative of "eager". I myself cannot imagine
> saying anything other than "more eager" because of the repetition of
Does the same factor bother you regarding "cleverer" ?
Isabelle Cecchini
Isabelle Cecchini
CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> a écrit dans le message :
Xns91E666341...@130.133.1.4...
I like to use English-English dictionaries, but I must admit that they
do not always give that kind of information, so precious to us foreign
learners.
I have checked the New Oxford Dictionary of English and the OED on CD.
They do not mention the form comparatives are supposed to take.
But all is not lost, since The American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition
does, and here is what they say:
ea·ger adj. ea·ger·er, ea·ger·est --they also mention inflected forms
for "dead" =>"deader" and "frank" =>"franker", which my (admittedly
French) Grammar of English had led me to believe were impossible.
Then again a full text search in the OED yielded no results for
"eagerer", and 10 occurrences of "more eager".
To top it all, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, on line at
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
says of "eager" that it is "not gradable", which I think means that it
can't be used in the comparative or superlative forms, whether inflected
or not. But surely "eager" is gradable, or isn't it?
Isabelle Cecchini
Mason Barge
One mention of "the Lion Sreeps Tonight" and I will hunt you down and kill you.
<---------- wipes the coffee off his monitor
--
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
Alan Jones
"Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:a8hsq5$s7esm$1...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de...
[...]
> I like to use English-English dictionaries, but I must admit that they
> do not always give that kind of information, so precious to us foreign
> learners.
>
> I have checked the New Oxford Dictionary of English and the OED on CD.
> They do not mention the form comparatives are supposed to take.
Try "-er" (suffix) in OED CD.
> But all is not lost, since The American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition
> does, and here is what they say:
> ea·ger adj. ea·ger·er, ea·ger·est --they also mention inflected forms
> for "dead" =>"deader" and "frank" =>"franker", which my (admittedly
> French) Grammar of English had led me to believe were impossible.
"Deader" and "franker" sound fine to me (BrE).
> Then again a full text search in the OED yielded no results for
> "eagerer", and 10 occurrences of "more eager".
>
> To top it all, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, on line at
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
> says of "eager" that it is "not gradable", which I think means that it
> can't be used in the comparative or superlative forms, whether inflected
> or not. But surely "eager" is gradable, or isn't it?
Yes, of course, at least in BrE. It's almost the last word in most
translations of "Beowulf" - "most eager for fame".
Alan Jones
CyberCypher
news:a8hsq5$s7esm$1...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de:
>
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> a écrit dans le message :
> Xns91E666341...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> will...@ahec.edu (Gary Williams) sagt
>> news:9af8cc96.02040...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > In correspondence from a native-speaker of Chinese who teaches
>> > English he tells me that all of his Chinese-English
>> > dictionaries give "eagerer" as the comparative of "eager". I
>> > myself cannot imagine saying anything other than "more eager"
>> > because of the repetition of /r/'s. The question is whether
>> > others, perhaps on a regional basis, do say "eagerer".
>>
>> Never trust a Chinese-English or a Japanese-English dictionary.
>> They are generally written and edited by people who don't know
>> better despite the impressive list of credentialled native
>> speakers they list in the prefatory material.
>
> I like to use English-English dictionaries, but I must admit that
> they do not always give that kind of information, so precious to
> us foreign learners.
>
> I have checked the New Oxford Dictionary of English and the OED on
> CD. They do not mention the form comparatives are supposed to
> take.
The Collins CoBuild on CD-ROM doesn't either. But the W3NID says
"Sometimes 'eagerer' and 'eagerest'". I don't think you'll find those
two forms in anything but attempts at linguistic humor.
>
> But all is not lost, since The American Heritage Dictionary 4th
> edition does, and here is what they say:
> ea·ger adj. ea·ger·er, ea·ger·est --they also mention inflected
> forms for "dead" =>"deader" and "frank" =>"franker", which my
> (admittedly French) Grammar of English had led me to believe were
> impossible.
There are always stupid arguments about the gradability of adjectives
like "perfect", "unique", "dead", "pregnant", etc. In some cases they
can safely be graded, but in others they cannot. There is an old
expression in AmE that goes "deader than a doornail", but that is
colloquial usage. Once one accepts that everyone is unique, it is easy
to understand how society's real oners are more unique than everyone
else. And in colloquial terms, a woman pregnant with twins or triplets
is undoubtedly more pregnant than a woman pregnant with just one child.
OTOH, compared to women who are not pregnant, all one can say is that
some are and some aren't
>
> Then again a full text search in the OED yielded no results for
> "eagerer", and 10 occurrences of "more eager".
Because writers of repute don't use such ill reputed forms.
>
> To top it all, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, on
> line at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
> says of "eager" that it is "not gradable", which I think means
> that it can't be used in the comparative or superlative forms,
> whether inflected or not. But surely "eager" is gradable, or isn't
> it?
Yes, every adjective and adverb is gradable on some scale or other, but
not according to the grammar books or dictionaries.
One can certainly choose not to use awkward forms like "eagerer" and
"cleverer", but what about the nouns "wanderer" and "philanderer"?
--
Franke
Skitt
"Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> a écrit :
> > will...@ahec.edu (Gary Williams) sagt:
> >
> > > In correspondence from a native-speaker of Chinese who teaches
> > > English he tells me that all of his Chinese-English dictionaries
> > > give "eagerer" as the comparative of "eager". I myself cannot
> > > imagine saying anything other than "more eager" because of the
> > > repetition of /r/'s. The question is whether others, perhaps on a
> > > regional basis, do say "eagerer".
> >
> > Never trust a Chinese-English or a Japanese-English dictionary. They
> > are generally written and edited by people who don't know better
> > despite the impressive list of credentialled native speakers they list
> > in the prefatory material.
>
> I like to use English-English dictionaries, but I must admit that they
> do not always give that kind of information, so precious to us foreign
> learners.
You might consult
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/index2.htm
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
GrapeApe
>>To the sea
>>Fry like an eagerer
>>Let my spirit carry me
>
>One mention of "the Lion Sreeps Tonight" and I will hunt you down and kill
>you.
Oh Me? No way...
Isabelle Cecchini
Alan Jones <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit dans le message :
gO%q8.12070$ja.8...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:a8hsq5$s7esm$1...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de...
>
> [...]
> > CD. They do not mention the form comparatives are supposed to take.
>
> Try "-er" (suffix) in OED CD.
Thanks for the tip. The OED entry does not really solve my difficulty,
though, as it gives only very general rules about the formation of
comparatives.
----------------
In mod.Eng. the comparatives in -er are almost restricted to adjs. of
one or two syllables; longer adjs., and also disyllables containing any
suffix other than -y or -ly, having the periphrastic comparison by means
of the adv. more. [...] The periphrastic form is admissible (esp. in
predicative use) for all adjs., even monosyllables, which are not
extremely common colloquially.
----------------
Those rules are usually well-known to students of English, but there
still remain grey areas: what about adjectives such as 'cross', 'apt',
or 'real'?
Which is better?
1) The wizard got crosser and crosser with his apprentice.
2) The wizard got more and more cross with his apprentice.
1) The wizard wished he had an apter apprentice.
2) The wizard wished he had a more apt apprentice.
1) Oh wizard, please teach me how to make ghosts look more real!
2) ... All right, I know 'realler' would not sound right. I still have a
problem with 'cross' and 'apt'.
In a related thread about a similar issue in a cousin newsgroup, another
poster, rooting ( as you were) for the form 'commoner' as the
comparative for 'common' mentioned the Concise Oxford Dictionary as
having inflected forms. So maybe that is the dictionary for me!
> > But all is not lost, since The American Heritage Dictionary 4th
> > edition does, and here is what they say:
> > ea·ger adj. ea·ger·er, ea·ger·est --they also mention inflected
> > forms for "dead" =>"deader" and "frank" =>"franker", which
> > (admittedly French) Grammar of English had led me to
> > believe were impossible.
>
> "Deader" and "franker" sound fine to me (BrE).
Ah! Thank you! What about 'eagerer'?
>
> > Then again a full text search in the OED yielded no results for
> > "eagerer", and 10 occurrences of "more eager".
> >
> > To top it all, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, on
> > line at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
> > says of "eager" that it is "not gradable", which I think means that
> > it can't be used in the comparative or superlative forms, whether
> > inflected or not. But surely "eager" is gradable, or isn't it?
>
> Yes, of course, at least in BrE. It's almost the last word in most
> translations of "Beowulf" - "most eager for fame".
>
Thank you!
Isabelle Cecchini
Isabelle Cecchini
> "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> sagt
> news:a8hsq5$s7esm$1...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de:
>
> >
> > CD. They do not mention the form comparatives are supposed to
> > take.
>
> The Collins CoBuild on CD-ROM doesn't either. But the W3NID says
> "Sometimes 'eagerer' and 'eagerest'". I don't think you'll find those
> two forms in anything but attempts at linguistic humor.
> >
> > But all is not lost, since The American Heritage Dictionary 4th
> > edition does, and here is what they say:
I don't much like 'eagerer' myself, but why doesn't the AHD4 mention
'eagerer' is humorous?
[... I'm snipping your remarks about not gradable adjectives becoming
gradable when changing category from classifying to qualitative, because
I quite agree with your point of view]
> One can certainly choose not to use awkward forms like "eagerer" and
> "cleverer",
Does 'cleverer' sound that awkward?
> but what about the nouns "wanderer" and "philanderer"?
>
Yes, that is the issue. What does 'awkward' mean? How do native speakers
rationalize the fact that 'eagerer" doesn't sound right --pace the
opinion of the AHD4, of course-- whereas 'wanderer' and 'philanderer'
do?
Isabelle Cecchini
Joe Manfre
>Gary Williams <will...@ahec.edu> a écrit:
>> In correspondence from a native-speaker of Chinese who teaches
>> English he tells me that all of his Chinese-English dictionaries
>> give "eagerer" as the comparative of "eager". I myself cannot
>> imagine saying anything other than "more eager" because of the
>> repetition of /r/'s. [...]
>
>Does the same factor bother you regarding "cleverer" ?
I think we've previously contemplated some Pondian differences
regarding willingness to use "-er" (was it particularly with
adjectives ending in what for most AmE speakers would be a rhotic
/r/?).
There also seems to be a Pondian difference in the meaning of the word
"clever", but that's neither here nor there, I guess. (The BrEs seem
to use "clever" to mean something like "intelligent", whereas in AmE
it's more like "ingenious".)
JM
Isabelle Cecchini
Skitt <sk...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message :
a8i9ar$sl65n$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > I like to use English-English dictionaries, but I must admit that
> > they do not always give that kind of information, so precious to us
> > foreign learners.
>
> You might consult
> http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/index2.htm
Thanks for this site! It certainly seems to have a lot of information
about English grammar. I most certainly will keep it in my bookmarks,
and I heartily recommend it to foreign learners.
But... (there always is a 'but') it still does not answer those crucial
questions: 'eagerer' or 'more eager', 'commoner' or 'more common'?
Not to forget:
1) I've never met a pleasanter Latvian.
2) I've never met a more pleasant Latvian.
Isabelle Cecchini
Skitt
>
> Skitt <sk...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message :
> a8i9ar$sl65n$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > I like to use English-English dictionaries, but I must admit that
> > > they do not always give that kind of information, so precious to us
> > > foreign learners.
> >
> > You might consult
> > http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/index2.htm
>
> Thanks for this site! It certainly seems to have a lot of information
> about English grammar. I most certainly will keep it in my bookmarks,
> and I heartily recommend it to foreign learners.
>
> But... (there always is a 'but') it still does not answer those crucial
> questions: 'eagerer' or 'more eager', 'commoner' or 'more common'?
Did you catch the following passage at that site?
=========
The inflected suffixes -er and -est suffice to form most comparatives and
superlatives, although we need -ier and -iest when a two-syllable adjective
ends in y (happier and happiest); otherwise we use more and most when an
adjective has more than one syllable.
=========
It would suggest that "more eager", and "more common" are the proper forms.
>
> Not to forget:
> 1) I've never met a pleasanter Latvian.
> 2) I've never met a more pleasant Latvian.
<blushingly> The second is the form I'm most likely to blush from.
CyberCypher
news:a8iffb$seb6n$2...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de:
>
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> a écrit dans le message :
> Xns91E712AF1...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> sagt
>> news:a8hsq5$s7esm$1...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de:
>>
>> >
>> > I have checked the New Oxford Dictionary of English and the OED
>> > on CD. They do not mention the form comparatives are supposed
>> > to take.
>>
>> The Collins CoBuild on CD-ROM doesn't either. But the W3NID says
>> "Sometimes 'eagerer' and 'eagerest'". I don't think you'll find
>> those two forms in anything but attempts at linguistic humor.
>> >
>> > But all is not lost, since The American Heritage Dictionary 4th
>> > edition does, and here is what they say:
>> > ea·ger adj. ea·ger·er, ea·ger·est [...]
>
> I don't much like 'eagerer' myself, but why doesn't the AHD4
> mention 'eagerer' is humorous?
Probably because it's normal for many and they wouldn't be able to find
the humor in it. It isn't grammatically incorrect, just a bad stylistic
choice. For the AHD4 to label it humorous would be as impolite as
laughing at someone's decision to decorate the house with kitsch.
> [... I'm snipping your remarks about not gradable adjectives
> becoming gradable when changing category from classifying to
> qualitative, because I quite agree with your point of view]
>
>> One can certainly choose not to use awkward forms like "eagerer"
>> and "cleverer",
>
> Does 'cleverer' sound that awkward?
>
>> but what about the nouns "wanderer" and "philanderer"?
>>
>
> Yes, that is the issue. What does 'awkward' mean? How do native
> speakers rationalize the fact that 'eagerer" doesn't sound right
> --pace the opinion of the AHD4, of course-- whereas 'wanderer' and
> 'philanderer' do?
I suspect that it is a matter of opinion. Some native speakers of
English have no problem pronouncing words that end in /-erer/, while
for others it is like grinding their teeth on a stone or bit of dirt in
their morning porridge (happens to me almost every day: mung beans,
pearl barley, oats, and millet -- and frequently a tiny pebble or bit
of earth as a morning surprise).
I have more difficulty saying "eagerer" than any of the others -- it's
a phonological problem because of what comes before the /-erer/.
The rule about choosing "more" versus addin "/-er/" to 2-syllable
adjectives is that it's up to the speaker. On that ground alone there
is nothing objectionable about "eagerer", but when it comes time to say
it, it sounds awkward to my ear. What exactly "awkward" means when
talking about a sentence or the form of a word seems to vary with the
listener/reader. This is a matter of art, usage, and context and not
grammaticality or objective correctness. Thirty years ago, I would have
thought that "To whom did you give the letter?" was a perfectly normal
English sentence, but now it sounds a bit stilted, stuffy, and
overformal, although when I have to add "*To whom requests for reprints
should be addressed at . . .[address]" to some of the medical articles
I revise, I find it perfectly natural: I just imagine a stuffy,
stilted, and overly formal editor with flowing white hair, a pinstriped
suit, a somber bowtie, and glaring patent leather shoes pointing a blue
pencil at me from the other side of the desk.
--
Franke
Alan Jones
To me, either is acceptable. "Cleverer" is fine, too: "more clever" sounds
clumsy.
> 1) The wizard wished he had an apter apprentice.
> 2) The wizard wished he had a more apt apprentice.
"Apter" seems rather old-fashioned, but so does "apt" itself in that sense.
I can't accept "more apt" in this position, though "He wished his apprentice
were more apt" would do..
> 1) Oh wizard, please teach me how to make ghosts look more real!
> 2) ... All right, I know 'realler' would not sound right. I still have a
> problem with 'cross' and 'apt'.
>
> In a related thread about a similar issue in a cousin newsgroup, another
> poster, rooting ( as you were) for the form 'commoner' as the
> comparative for 'common' mentioned the Concise Oxford Dictionary as
> having inflected forms. So maybe that is the dictionary for me!
>
> > > But all is not lost, since The American Heritage Dictionary 4th
> > > edition does, and here is what they say:
> > > ea·ger adj. ea·ger·er, ea·ger·est --they also mention inflected
> > > forms for "dead" =>"deader" and "frank" =>"franker", which
> > > (admittedly French) Grammar of English had led me to
> > > believe were impossible.
> >
> > "Deader" and "franker" sound fine to me (BrE).
>
> Ah! Thank you! What about 'eagerer'?
No!
It has to be said that in this matter, as in much else, English is steadily
changing. As an elderly British person of rather traditional opinions, I
regard "commoner" as standard and "more common" as clumsy; but I doubt
whether many - if any - people under about fifty would agree. So it's
useless to consult an old, or even a middle-aged, reference book for
accurate information on current usage. The principles are well set out in
the big Quirk et al. grammar (in more detail than in OED), and Fowler rev.
Burchfield is good on specific words, though he doesn't purport to give
anything like an exhaustive list (and of course he's even older than I am -
he was my tutor). I suppose there will also be useful advice in Swan, but I
seem to have temporarily mislaid my copy.
Burchfield makes the point only too clear when he writes of superlatives:
"It is a matter of deciding whether the -est or the 'most' form feels more
natural." But how is that feeling to be developed? Perhaps the best I can do
is suggest that you use the "more"/"most" forms if in any doubt. Some
people may find those forms stylistically unfortunate in some contexts, but
a mistake in using -er is more likely to make a reader think your English is
actually incorrect. As you will have seen, that accusation has been levelled
at me and others who prefer "commoner" while thinking ourselves
linguistically quite well-informed.
Alan Jones
Alan Jones
news:52cr8.17421$ja.11...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
[...]
I suppose there will also be useful advice in Swan, but I
> seem to have temporarily mislaid my copy.
A postscript, chiefly for Isabelle Cecchini. I've found my copy of Swan
again: "Practical English Usage" (OUP: 2nd edition, 1995). He does as much
as anyone could to make the matter clear, and I don't see how more could be
usefully said without an individual entry for every adjective in the
language. See his section 136 (pages 119-121 in the paperback edition).
Alan Jones
Gary Williams
> Gary Williams <will...@ahec.edu> a écrit dans le message :
> ... I myself cannot imagine
> > saying anything other than "more eager" because of the repetition of
> > /r/'s. [...]
>
> Does the same factor bother you regarding "cleverer" ?
Hmmm....the best answer I can give (because trying to imagine what I
would do is being contaminated by the act of imagining) is "not as
much". I can't imagine myself saying "eagerer"; but I can imagine
myself saying "cleverer", although I think (right now--I may have
changed my mind by lunch) "more clever" is more likely to come from
_my_ mouth.
BTW, thanks for your contributions to this thread. I'm referring my
correspondent to everything you've written and all the responses
thereto.
Gary Williams
Isabelle Cecchini
>
> "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:a8iffa$seb6n$1...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de...
[...]
> > 1) The wizard wished he had an apter apprentice.
> > 2) The wizard wished he had a more apt apprentice.
>
> "Apter" seems rather old-fashioned, but so does "apt" itself in that
> sense. I can't accept "more apt" in this position, though "He wished
> his apprentice were more apt" would do..
Ah! Thank you very much! You have just hit on another pet preoccupation
of mine: the fact that some adjectives can only be used predicatively.
It seems that the same sort of thing might be going on with comparative
forms.
> [...]
> Perhaps the best I can do
> is suggest that you use the "more"/"most" forms if in any doubt. Some
> people may find those forms stylistically unfortunate in some
> contexts, but a mistake in using -er is more likely to make a reader
> think your English is actually incorrect. [...]
Excellent advice! Thank you!
Isabelle Cecchini
Isabelle Cecchini
> Did you catch the following passage at that site?
[I'll copy the address here, for those interested:
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/index2.htm, as it is really a good site.]
> =========
> The inflected suffixes -er and -est suffice to form most comparatives
> and superlatives, although we need -ier and -iest when a two-syllable
> adjective ends in y (happier and happiest); otherwise we use more
> and most when an adjective has more than one syllable.
> =========
Yes, I've read it, and I agree it is useful advice, a bit too general
for me, though.
> It would suggest that "more eager", and "more common" are the proper
> forms.
That certainly seems to be the conclusion that would be drawn by a
foreign learner such as myself. I would also infer from that rule that
"more narrow" is the proper form, while "narrower" is impossible, which
is in contradiction with what other sources say.
The more I try to understand this issue, the difficulter it gets.
Isabelle Cecchini
Isabelle Cecchini
> A postscript, chiefly for Isabelle Cecchini. I've found my copy of
> Swan again: "Practical English Usage" (OUP: 2nd edition, 1995).
> He does as much as anyone could to make the matter clear, and
> I don't see how more could be usefully said without an individual
> entry for every adjective in the language. See his section 136
> (pages 119-121 in the paperback edition).
Yes, Swan is indeed one of my chief references. His guidelines are very
clear. On the issue in question, he writes:
--------------
To find out the normal comparative and superlative for a superlative for
a particular two-syllable adjective, check in a good dictionary.
--------------
That really is the problem.
Among the dictionaries I can lay my hands on, the only one which gives
that sort of information seems to be the AHD4 (the one which saw no
problem with "eagerer", apparently).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary might be another one. Franke has indicated
the Webster's Third as mentioning that type of detail.
Next stop: WH Smith's shop (they have a branch in Paris).
Isabelle Cecchini
Isabelle Cecchini
>
> I suspect that it is a matter of opinion. Some native speakers of
> English have no problem pronouncing words that end in /-erer/, while
> for others it is like grinding their teeth on a stone or bit of dirt
> in their morning porridge (happens to me almost every day: mung
> beans, pearl barley, oats, and millet -- and frequently a tiny pebble
> or bit of earth as a morning surprise).
Knowing that food is never off-topic in this newsgroup, I'll admit I'm
intrigued, and risk the question: do you put sugar in it? Also, is it a
recipe from your native country, or is it something of a standard in
Taiwanese cooking?
> [...]
> What exactly "awkward" means when
> talking about a sentence or the form of a word seems to vary with the
> listener/reader. This is a matter of art, usage, and context and not
> grammaticality or objective correctness. [...]
Thank you very much for that very lucid explanation.
Trying to understand "art, usage, and context" is exactly why I read
a.u.e. The more I read posts by such literate and erudite posters as
yourself, the more distrustful I get about the knowledge I have acquired
about the English language through books and dictionaries.
Isabelle Cecchini
Skitt
Good point! Yeah, I'd use "narrower". Shall we call it one of the
exceptions that prove the rule? Probably not. Hmm, "shallower", but not
"callower", nor "fallower", nor "hallower", nor "mellower". "Yellower"? I
give up!
> The more I try to understand this issue, the difficulter it gets.
Fun, isn't it?
CyberCypher
news:a8l5ta$t8ic2$4...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de:
>
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> a écrit dans le message :
> Xns91E780B9C...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> I suspect that it is a matter of opinion. Some native speakers of
>> English have no problem pronouncing words that end in /-erer/,
>> while for others it is like grinding their teeth on a stone or
>> bit of dirt in their morning porridge (happens to me almost every
>> day: mung beans, pearl barley, oats, and millet -- and frequently
>> a tiny pebble or bit of earth as a morning surprise).
>
> Knowing that food is never off-topic in this newsgroup, I'll admit
> I'm intrigued, and risk the question: do you put sugar in it?
> Also, is it a recipe from your native country, or is it something
> of a standard in Taiwanese cooking?
No, it's something of my own invention. Next time around, though, I'm
going to cut the mung beans because they take too long to get soft
enough to be enjoyable.
No, I don't put sugar per se in, but I do add a banana and some Yoplait
drink yogurt, which is really too sweet to drink. OTOH, I could also
add my homemade tomato sauce and tunafish if I eat it for lunch. They
sell a 5-grain or 7-grain mix here, but it contains black rice, which I
do not like, and brown rice, which I do. I prefer oats, to rice,
though.
>
>> [...]
>> What exactly "awkward" means when
>> talking about a sentence or the form of a word seems to vary with
>> the listener/reader. This is a matter of art, usage, and context
>> and not grammaticality or objective correctness. [...]
>
> Thank you very much for that very lucid explanation.
> Trying to understand "art, usage, and context" is exactly why I
> read a.u.e. The more I read posts by such literate and erudite
> posters as yourself, the more distrustful I get about the
> knowledge I have acquired about the English language through books
> and dictionaries.
>
--
Franke
Isabelle Cecchini
> "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> sagt
> news:a8l5ta$t8ic2$4...@ID-68874.news.dfncis.de:
> > of a standard in Taiwanese cooking?
>
> No, it's something of my own invention.
Wonderful! Thank you!
I. C.
Isabelle Cecchini
>
> Good point! Yeah, I'd use "narrower". Shall we call it one of the
> exceptions that prove the rule? Probably not. Hmm, "shallower", but
> not "callower", nor "fallower", nor "hallower", nor "mellower".
> "Yellower"? I give up!
> Fun, isn't it?
It certainly is!
I. C.
Alan Jones
"Yellower" and "mellower" are fine. "Hallow" isn't an adjective. "Fallow" is
absolute: a field either is or isn't. I'm not sure about "callow": if one
can use it comparatively (John is callow but Jim is callower) I'd be happy
with -er.
Alan Jones
Skitt
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Skitt <sk...@earthlink.net> a écrit:
> > > Good point! Yeah, I'd use "narrower". Shall we call it one of the
> > > exceptions that prove the rule? Probably not. Hmm, "shallower", but
> > > not "callower", nor "fallower", nor "hallower", nor "mellower".
> > > "Yellower"? I give up!
> > > [...]
> > > Fun, isn't it?
> >
> > It certainly is!
>
> "Yellower" and "mellower" are fine. "Hallow" isn't an adjective.
What was I thinking? Sorry.
> "Fallow" is absolute: a field either is or isn't.
Hmm, that reminds me of the "degrees of uniqueness" arguments.
> I'm not sure about "callow": if one can use it comparatively
> (John is callow but Jim is callower) I'd be happy with -er.
I'm sure that it can be used comparatively, and I would not be happy
with -er. No way, but that's just me, I suppose.
Isabelle Cecchini
> BTW, thanks for your contributions to this thread. I'm referring my
> correspondent to everything you've written and all the responses
> thereto.
>
I've just remembered another wonderful tool which I learnt about in this
very newsgroup. It gives limited access to the Collins Cobuild English
Corpus.
http://titania.cobuild.collins.co.uk/form.html
I tried "more+eager" and "eagerer". "More+eager" got an enthusiastic
response, while "eagerer" drew a blank.
"There were no instances of your search pattern found in the corpora you
selected" is what I got. Somebody really should tell the AHD4 people.
Isabelle Cecchini
Karl Reinhardt
>> Then again a full text search in the OED yielded no results for
>> "eagerer", and 10 occurrences of "more eager".
>
>Because writers of repute don't use such ill reputed forms.
Gosh, I must have missed the locker room discussion of the slutty rep
of "eagerer".
Karl