"so very", "very many"
June Kim
grammatically wrong expressions. But I have found out an example of "so very"
in the OALD (Oxford Advancded Learner's Dictionary), which was "Their attitude
is so very English!" (But they didn't accept it, 'cause they thought "a
dictionary should include all the cases in which a word is used, even tough
the cases may be somewhat wrong" and a dictionary is no more than a referrence
source, not a textbook which suggests good usages)
Also, there were a lot of examples that I could find in the BNC(British
National Corpus) which used "very many" and sometimes "so very many".
But all in vain, they never accepted them, and they still think those "so
very" and "very many" are absolutely wrong expressions and very rarely used,
if any, in English spoken countries.
Do you guys use these expressions? Do you think them wrong?
Skitt
Hmm, you know some interesting people. Not well informed, but
interesting. There is absolutely nothing ungrammatical about the two
expressions. As to whether they are used by English speaking people,
would you settle for 83379 hits with Alta Vista for "very many" and
193567 hits for "so very" as proof that at least some people use them?
Why, even I do it when appropriate. There are not very many people who
believe as your acquaintances do. This is so very strange!
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
June Kim
"Skitt" <skit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85cipa$vmi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Are you a British English speaking person?
I ask this because I suspect the reason why those people took those
expressions wrong was that the expressions were especially British;
we hardly have any chance to contact with British English here, and
mostly American English we learn from schools.
Skitt
"June Kim" <junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you a British English speaking person?
> I ask this because I suspect the reason why those people took those
> expressions wrong was that the expressions were especially British;
> we hardly have any chance to contact with British English here, and
> mostly American English we learn from schools.
>
No, I speak American English.
Dr Robin Bignall
ways of using English that just about anything goes, particularly as British
English speakers are now in a minority. However, I've been saying 'so very'
and 'very many' for almost as long as I've had teeth, and I'm confoundedly
British, dash it all. There are those who would point out that as a retired
scientist, I could never have been taught English anyway. I just sigh, light
my old-fashioned coal fire with yet another descriptivist dictionary, and
carry on eating my breakfast whilst reading yet another book on quantum
cosmology or whatever other of the very many light reading subjects (such as
American detective stories) that I currently find so very favourable. (I
once found that having picked up Hawking's 'Brief History of Time' I could
not put it down, but that was due to the superglue with which an
ex-girlfriend had treated it, and is, in any case, so very off-subject that
I will not mention it very many more times: in fact, not any more times.)
--
Wrmst rgds,
RB... (docr...@cwcom.net)
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for
two thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an
honour to the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation
slipped into the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:JUme4.31318$8P1.469196@news1-hme0...
Franke
[snip]
> Are you a British English speaking person?
> I ask this because I suspect the reason why those people took those
> expressions wrong was that the expressions were especially British;
> we hardly have any chance to contact with British English here, and
> mostly American English we learn from schools.
These expressions are very standard Engish-language expressions used
by Americans, Canadians, Brits, Australians, New Zealanders, and the
rest of the English-speaking world. Whether they are acceptable in
formal prose--i.e., in a PhD dissertation--is another issue. The
function of "so" in "so very" is to intensify "very" and "very"
intensifies "British" in the example you offer. It is redundant, so it
is not acceptable in formal English. In informal or literary contexts,
saying something like "so very British" is perfectly normal and
reasonable and acceptable. But it wouldn't cut the mustard in a formal
treatise. Some people--in America--would say "very, very" instead of
"so very."
"Very many" is a verbosity and stylistically less appealing than other
constructions. It is used primarily in questions and negatives, e.g.,
"I didn't eat very many chocolate bars today, did I?" "Many" already
implies a large number of chocolate bars and doesn't need the
intensifier "very" for anything but effect, so in formal English, the
"very" would be eliminated or replaced with "too". The sentence then
becomes "I didn't eat many chocolate bars today, did I?" and means "I
didn't eat a lot of chocolate bars today"; or it becomes "I didn't eat
too many chocolate bars today, did I?" and means "I ate a lot of
chocolate bars today, but not more than {I should have/was healthy for
me/you told me I could eat/[something else]}." [NB: I am assuming that
the tag question structure here has a falling tone at the end, not a
rising tone.] "Very many" is quite normal is spoken English and
dialog, but not in formal English.
Here is what the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage says
about "so" (adverbial intensifier):
so, adverb The use of so as an intensifier has been subject to
criticism in usage books since at least MacCracken Sandison 1917. Here
is a succinct version of the usual warning:
Avoid, in writing, the use of so as an intensifier: "so good"; "so
warm"; "so delightful." -Strunk White 1959
But some commentators (notably Bryant 1962) have observed that the
usage of intensive so, considered in its full range, is not quite as
simple as these examples suggest. So is regularly used as an
indefinite adverb of degree with the degree indicated by a following
clause:
... and so frightened Mark Twain that he died -James Thurber, letter,
2 May 1946
It had gone so simply and easily that he thought it might be worthless
-Ernest Hemingway, "An African Betrayal," Sports Illustrated, 5 May
1986
When there is no following clause, so becomes more of an intensifier.
Nevertheless, it may sometimes be rooted in material that went before
in the context:
However, after all, it seems to me contrary to reason to suppose that
Napoleon is going to do so crazy a thing -Henry Adams, letter, 13 Mar.
1859
I cannot be so patient with the White House -David A. Stockman,
Newsweek, 28 Apr. 1986
I don't know why it got on my nerves so -Peter Taylor, The Old Forest
and Other Stories, 1985
And in another intensive use-never criticized- so indicates a definite
degree that is implied rather than specified:
Many thanks for sending me so truly welcome a piece of news -Lewis
Carroll, letter, 17 June 1893
The cephalopod eye is an example of a remarkable evolutionary parallel
because it is so like the eye of a vertebrate and there is no evidence
of a common ancestor -Sarah Fraser Robbins, Massachusetts Audubon,
June 1968
... the kind of sterile over-ingenuity which afflicts so many academic
efforts - Times Literary Supp. , 2 Oct. 1969
This use is frequently found in negative contexts:
... the word ballet was not so well known then -G. B. L. Wilson, Dance
News, May 1982
... he has not been so successful -Herbert Brown, American Literature,
May 1944
What we are not so keen on is getting the truth -Anthony Quinton, N.Y.
Times Book Rev. , 15 July 1984
The criticized use of the intensive so occurs when it means "to a
large and indefinite extent or degree" and functions much like very,
exceedingly, or extremely. In general, the written contexts in which
this so appears are informal; since the use is common in speech, it
naturally gravitates to contexts that are close to speech. A few
commentators call it a feminine use, and we do, of course, have
evidence of its use by women:
... how am I to read these books? What is the right way to get about
it? They are so many and so various. My appetite is so fitful and so
capricious -Virginia Woolf, "How Should One Read a Book?" 1926, in
Yale Review Anthology, 1942
Robin Lakoff, in Language and Woman's Place (1975), agrees that this
intensive so is more common in women's language than men's, "though
certainly men can use it." Indeed, they can and do:
... on the ground under the shelf were little orange and magnolia
trees. It looked so pretty -Mark Twain, letter, 1 June 1857
... she chose a little red one from high on the vine, wiped it on her
dress, and bit off half of it. It was so good, and then the bright
sunshine made her sneeze -Garrison Keillor, Lake Wobegon Days, 1985
Mother will be so happy to know of the use to which you put Kenny's
words -Archibald MacLeish, letter, 28 Apr. 1919
Mother, I was so glad to get a letter from Jeff this morning,
enclosing one from George dated June 1st. It was so good to see his
handwriting once more -Walt Whitman, letter, 10 June 1864
I'm so excited about the trip, and the prospect of being able to buy a
Ford phaeton of my very own -John O'Hara, letter, 4 June 1934
... I'm dreadfully sorry to hear about all the pains and colds and
everything, it is so discouraging -E. B. White, letter, 4 Feb. 1942
I appreciate your sending the sporting magazines and the Book Reviews
ever so much -Ernest Hemingway, letter, 20 Mar. 1925
This is me, Winston Churchill, speaking himself to you, and I am so
glad to be able to thank you in this remarkable way -quoted in Time, 1
Apr. 1946
We can see that men writers are not afraid of the usage, at least in
their letters, where they can be themselves. Clearly the intensive so
is well established (the OED traces it back to Old English), and in
spite of the adjurations of the commentators it is not avoided in
speech or in informal writing. In its less noticeable varieties it can
even appear in more formally edited prose. You may, however, want to
avoid its baldest form-where it modifies an otherwise unadorned
adjective ("The scenery was so beautiful!") in your most serious
writing.
Franke
June Kim wrote:
[snip]
> I am afraid if I am bothering you with this.
> Having told the people what you've wrote, they questioned your qualification
> to say what is right/wrong. They said not all Americans can teach English
> to foreigners; teachers must have qualifications in English or language
> educations in general.
> How can I convince them?
Your friends are so very right: not all Americans can teach English to
foreigners.
A more important question than what Skitt's credentials are, however,
is what are your friend's credentials for questioning Skitt's English
lesson? If they are qualified to pass judgment on what Skitt has said
in answer to your question, then they have no need to know his
qualifications. If, however, they believe that possession of a degree
in English or language education from a university is the equivalent
of a thorough enough knowledge of the English language to be able to
teach that language to others, then they are merely fools. I have
several EFL teacher friends and acquaintences with MA degrees in
TESOL/ESL/EnglishEducation who have little or no substantial knowledge
of the grammar or usage of English. One of them is so poor a student
of his own language that his colleagues cannot help but laugh at him
when he misuses it--and he does it all the time. He sounds like Mr.
Malaprop, but he's got an MA in TESOL from Temple University Japan.
I do agree with your friends, though. Trust no one's opinions about
their own language, especially English. The only true authority is the
Kenkyusha English-Japanese Dictionary or that high school English
teacher who knew the Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik _A
Comprehensive Grammar of English_ by heart but couldn't speak a word
of English or write a grammatical English sentence longer than 5
words. I had a few colleagues like that in Tokyo as well. :-)
Ralph Jones
>
[...I snipped here because there is some kind of character counting
creep that seems to be exercising some kind of control over the number
of characters contained in the original messages as compared to the
responses. I hope that this will satisfy the constipatri...]. That also
explains this unnecessary verbiage.
>
> I am afraid if I am bothering you with this.
> Having told the people what you've wrote, they questioned your qualification
> to say what is right/wrong. They said not all Americans can teach English
> to foreigners; teachers must have qualifications in English or language
> educations in general.
> How can I convince them?
Why don't you tell us just what qualifications they have to say what is
right or wrong. Skitt expressed an opinion based on his experience and
provided anecdotal information to back it up. He wasn't teaching, he was
responding to an inquiry.
--
A pedant, in case you don't know it,
Corrects the words of a poet.
- rmj
http://www.hal-pc.org/~rmjones [Opinions and suggestions welcome]
James Follett
NoS...@apa.edu "D. Spencer Hines" writes:
>Hawking's book is indeed a classic.
And there follows 60 unnecessary lines to prop-up a six-word
post. Is it any wonder that the alt. hierarchy is now being
expired in hours rather than days on many servers? Trim to win
and don't consistently post excessively long sig. files.
Four lines in addition to the separator is the recommended
maximium of most service providers' AUPs.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for
two thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an
honour to the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation
slipped into the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
"James Follett" <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:947523...@marage.demon.co.uk...
| In article <85cu71$p0c$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
| NoS...@apa.edu "D. Spencer Hines" writes:
|
| >Hawking's book is indeed a classic.
|
| And... [N.B. Nothing worth reading.]
--
James Follett -- pornographer and purveyor of pulp fiction
N.Mitchum
------
> Most of people whom I know argue that "so very" and "very many" are
> grammatically wrong expressions. [...]
>
> But all in vain, they never accepted them, and they still think those "so
> very" and "very many" are absolutely wrong expressions and very rarely used,
> if any, in English spoken countries.
>
> Do you guys use these expressions? Do you think them wrong?
The people you're arguing with don't seem to have learned living
English. I don't think either expression is wrong. I use and
hear them both. I'm an American, but I believe the expressions
are common throughout all types of English.
----NM
June Kim
"Skitt" <skit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85cpuk$4qq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <85ckn5$8oe$1...@news.nuri.net>,
> "June Kim" <junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I ask this because I suspect the reason why those people took those
> > expressions wrong was that the expressions were especially British;
> > we hardly have any chance to contact with British English here, and
> > mostly American English we learn from schools.
> >
>
> --
> Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I am afraid if I am bothering you with this.
Charles Riggs
Follett) wrote:
>In article <85cu71$p0c$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
> NoS...@apa.edu "D. Spencer Hines" writes:
>
>>Hawking's book is indeed a classic.
>
>And there follows 60 unnecessary lines to prop-up a six-word
>post. Is it any wonder that the alt. hierarchy is now being
>expired in hours rather than days on many servers? Trim to win...
Good advice. This practice is even more irritating than the
upside-down style some posters use. Trim. No one wants to read lengthy
material twice in succession.
Charles Riggs
Truly Donovan
<junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Are you a British English speaking person?
>I ask this because I suspect the reason why those people took those
>expressions wrong was that the expressions were especially British;
>we hardly have any chance to contact with British English here, and
>mostly American English we learn from schools.
It doesn't matter. The use of "very many" and "so very" is quite
acceptable in American English. There are very many people who think
that "very" should not be used for reasons of style, but as is so very
often the case, this *rule* governing style is meant for people who
have no style of their own.
--
Truly Donovan
Chandler's Daughter available now
http://www.writewaypub.com/chandler.html
Truly Donovan
<junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
>I am afraid if I am bothering you with this.
>Having told the people what you've wrote, they questioned your qualification
>to say what is right/wrong. They said not all Americans can teach English
>to foreigners; teachers must have qualifications in English or language
>educations in general.
>How can I convince them?
This question wasn't directed to me, but I'm going to answer it
anyway. One does not have to be a teacher of English to be qualified
to judge what is acceptable English usage. Teachers, after all, are
not the ones who set the standards; with all due respect, teachers
for the most part pass along what they got from other teachers. For
good or evil, it is the practitioners--writers, editors, and
publishers--who, ultimately, are responsible for what becomes
generally accepted as standard.
Questioning someone's credentials to make a judgment on the basis that
they are not a teacher is absurd. The primary source is not teachers;
the primary source is the literature in the language and the judgments
of the respected practitioners and observers regarding the usages in
that literature.
R J Valentine
In alt.usage.english Truly Donovan <tru...@ibm.net> wrote:
...
] This question wasn't directed to me, but I'm going to answer it
] anyway. One does not have to be a teacher of English to be qualified
] to judge what is acceptable English usage. Teachers, after all, are
] not the ones who set the standards; with all due respect, teachers
] for the most part pass along what they got from other teachers. For
] good or evil, it is the practitioners--writers, editors, and
] publishers--who, ultimately, are responsible for what becomes
] generally accepted as standard.
]
] Questioning someone's credentials to make a judgment on the basis that
] they are not a teacher is absurd. The primary source is not teachers;
] the primary source is the literature in the language and the judgments
] of the respected practitioners and observers regarding the usages in
] that literature.
Writers, editors, and publishers can certainly hold the standards hostage
in a commercial sense, as can teachers. But it's the observers (be they
mere readers or actual purchasers) who get to make the judgments, which is
not to say that writers and editors under constraints from publishers or
that teachers formed by previous teachers can't be effective observers.
The primary source is the _good_ literature in the language, regardless of
how the current regime punctuates and spells it and sets it in type.
Other than that, I agree completely.
] --
] Truly Donovan
] Chandler's Daughter available now
] http://www.writewaypub.com/chandler.html
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj+ob...@clark.net>
Truly Donovan
Other than what? I said "observers." But observers can only observe
that which is offered for observation, so the judgment of the offerers
is critical to the process, as well.
peter stewart richards
Truly Donovan wrote in message ...
<advisedly snipped>
>There are very many people who think
>that "very" should not be used for reasons of style, but as is so very
>often the case, this *rule* governing style is meant for people who
>have no style of their own.
>
I'm a British English speaker and neither of the terms in question would
raise my eyebrow. All the same, I would think perhaps that "not very many"
fits more easily into idiomatic English than the positive term used above,
but it's a question of style and a subtle one at that. Wrong it isn't, but
if your friends (unless they really are peculiar) are picking you up on the
use of these terms, it may be that you are using them in contexts where they
contrast with the style or idiom of the rest of the expression. Tell them
that the terms arecorrect and normal, common usage. Tell them from me.
Don't however, do yourself the disservice of insisting on using terms that
annoy them and do try to find out if there is anything to satisfy, as it
were, both parties.
p
R J Valentine
] that which is offered for observation, so the judgment of the offerers
] is critical to the process, as well.
Certainly influential. But the big offerers don't yet have a monopoly,
and it is becoming less likely that they will. Good writing can survive
being oddly spelled and punctuated.
Even Hildegarde Withers books and movies turn up from time to time
] --
] Truly Donovan
] Chandler's Daughter available now
] http://www.writewaypub.com/chandler.html
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@clark.net>
Truly Donovan
<pric...@chello.no> wrote:
>
>Truly Donovan wrote in message ...
><advisedly snipped>
>>There are very many people who think
>>that "very" should not be used for reasons of style, but as is so very
>>often the case, this *rule* governing style is meant for people who
>>have no style of their own.
>>
> That last sentence, especially after the comma, spoiled the effect IMO.
While I find it regrettable that the effect IMO was spoiled for you,
I'm fairly certain that the effect that you intended was not the one I
intended and it was, after all, my post.
peter stewart richards
Truly Donovan wrote in message <04N9OJk44Wbynp...@4ax.com>...
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:37:52 +0100, "peter stewart richards"
><pric...@chello.no> wrote:
>
>>
>>Truly Donovan wrote in message ...
>><advisedly snipped>
>>>There are very many people who think
>>>that "very" should not be used for reasons of style, but as is so very
>>>often the case, this *rule* governing style is meant for people who
>>>have no style of their own.
>>>
>> That last sentence, especially after the comma, spoiled the effect
IMO.
>
>While I find it regrettable that the effect IMO was spoiled for you,
>I'm fairly certain that the effect that you intended was not the one I
>intended and it was, after all, my post.
>
To which I replied. Interesting how this works, no?
p
Partington
'very many + noun' are incorrect grammatically? They seem to be giving you
a hard time whoever they are. I have read your messages before, June, and
I think you have exactly the right idea about language and grammarians.
Grammarians should describe the language as they find it and not seek to
define it for everyone, everywhere and for all time. I am philosophically
on your side.
In any case, I think that the two expressions that you quoted would be, in
fact, perfectly acceptable to any native speaker of English. I certainly
find them so.
On what grounds do your friends say that they are grammatically wrong? An
adverb such as 'very' can modify an adjective such as 'many'. Similarly
adverbs such as 'so' and 'very' can be used as intensifiers i.e. adverbs
modifying other adverbs. Do 'they' also dismiss 'so much', 'very much' and
'very, very' as in "He is very, very stupid." ?
What do your friends think of the following examples?
"I loved him SO MUCH, and I thought you might tell him of the past." (The
Mayor of Casterbridge: Thomas Hardy 1886)
"And I'll show you young man
With SO MANY reasons why -
There but for fortune go you or I" (There but for fortune: Joan Baez or
Bob Dylan?)
'We are so made that we can only derive intense enjopyment from a contrast,
and only VERY LITTLE from a state of things.' (Sigmund Freud 1930)
'I had not thought death had undone SO MANY' (TS Eliot 1922)
There is a good example of 'correctness' which sounds very strange these
days in your original message. 'whom' is quite correct grammatically in
"Most of the people whom I know..." because it is the object of 'know' it
is quite correct to put it in the accusative case. This would be perfectly
acceptable in German for example. In modern English, however, it sounds
pretentious and many people would try to avoid it by rephrasing; many more
would simply omit the 'who' = "Many people I know..."
Best wishes
Phillipa Partington