lower key or more low-key?

[Yilaner]

Romney took a lower key approach on Fox News Sunday, saying
that for many people the apology "sticks in their throat."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it OK to say "more low-key"? I thought low-key should be considered
a single vocabulary word.

[Django Cat]

Why? (No, seriously - what have you been taught that leads you to that
conclusion?).

DC

--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

OK, but I don't think Yilaner is wrong. I might easily say (and
probably have said) "more low-key" myself.

With all the questions of this type it can be useful to know the
language perspective of the questioner. "Yilaner" has a vaguely Turkish
look to my eyes, but I don't know if that is correct. I always tend to
assume that Masa is Japanese, and in the case of Navi I have no idea
(or if I once had an idea I've forgotten).

--
athel

[Jerry Friedman]

I say "lower-key", and I write it with a hyphen. "More low-key"
sounds slightly odd to me, but not wrong. I'm sure lots of native
speakers use it.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Django Cat]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2012-03-01 10:25:32 +0100, "Django Cat" <nota...@address.com>
> said:
>
> > Yilaner wrote:
> >
> > > Romney took a lower key approach on Fox News Sunday, saying
> > > that for many people the apology "sticks in their throat."
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ---- -------------
> > >
> > > Is it OK to say "more low-key"? I thought low-key should be
> > > considered a single vocabulary word.
> >
> > Why? (No, seriously - what have you been taught that leads you to
> > that conclusion?).
>
> OK, but I don't think Yilaner is wrong. I might easily say (and
> probably have said) "more low-key" myself.

No. I don't think he's necessarily wrong, either. I think I might say
"more low-key" or "lower key" depending on the context.

>
> With all the questions of this type it can be useful to know the
> language perspective of the questioner.

Very much so - as a writer of EFL course books it's something I'm very
aware of. I also know that in some teaching and learning contexts
certain language points may be overstressed or even be erroneous. Again
I don't think this one necesarily is, but then I've never come across
it before (not in a teaching context anyway, I have in linguistics) -
hence my curiosity. I'm especially intrigued by the concept of 'a
single vocabulary word'.

> "Yilaner" has a vaguely
> Turkish look to my eyes, but I don't know if that is correct. I
> always tend to assume that Masa is Japanese, and in the case of Navi
> I have no idea (or if I once had an idea I've forgotten).

Usually I can tell - but all three of them have pretty good English
(compared with the students I deal with day to day) and don't come up
with the usual giveaways.

DC

--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, "single vocabulary word" looks very much like the sort of term a
textbook on English for foreign learners might use, while being
virtually unknown otherwise.

>
>
>> "Yilaner" has a vaguely
>> Turkish look to my eyes, but I don't know if that is correct. I
>> always tend to assume that Masa is Japanese, and in the case of Navi
>> I have no idea (or if I once had an idea I've forgotten).
>
> Usually I can tell - but all three of them have pretty good English
> (compared with the students I deal with day to day) and don't come up
> with the usual giveaways.

True. Just after posting I saw one of Masa's posts coming from a .jp
address, making it pretty much unnecessary to guess. No doubt I'd seen
the .jp before.



--
athel

[LFS]

Any thoughts on franzi?

I don't think you can tell much from posters chosen names. Some of us
thought that Stephanie was Chinese for a long time, even though she
always signed herself Stephanie.

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-03-01 16:48:08 +0100, LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> said:

> On 01/03/2012 13:57, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2012-03-01 10:25:32 +0100, "Django Cat" <nota...@address.com> said:
>>
>>> Yilaner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Romney took a lower key approach on Fox News Sunday, saying
>>>> that for many people the apology "sticks in their throat."
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -------------
>>>>
>>>> Is it OK to say "more low-key"? I thought low-key should be considered
>>>> a single vocabulary word.
>>>
>>> Why? (No, seriously - what have you been taught that leads you to that
>>> conclusion?).
>>
>> OK, but I don't think Yilaner is wrong. I might easily say (and probably
>> have said) "more low-key" myself.
>>
>> With all the questions of this type it can be useful to know the
>> language perspective of the questioner. "Yilaner" has a vaguely Turkish
>> look to my eyes, but I don't know if that is correct. I always tend to
>> assume that Masa is Japanese, and in the case of Navi I have no idea (or
>> if I once had an idea I've forgotten).
>>
>
> Any thoughts on franzi?

No, I've wondered, but I suspect he's just as British as Pablo.

>
> I don't think you can tell much from posters chosen names. Some of us
> thought that Stephanie was Chinese for a long time, even though she
> always signed herself Stephanie.

Well she did choose a Chinese-looking name. Some have thought I was
female, and at least one has, more surprisingly, thought you were male.


--
athel

[Snidely]

Django Cat presented the following explanation :

> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> "Yilaner" has a vaguely
>> Turkish look to my eyes, but I don't know if that is correct. I
>> always tend to assume that Masa is Japanese, and in the case of Navi
>> I have no idea (or if I once had an idea I've forgotten).
>
> Usually I can tell - but all three of them have pretty good English
> (compared with the students I deal with day to day) and don't come up
> with the usual giveaways.

I think Navi has made vague references to being European recently. My
impression is of East Europe, but I don't have a solid basis for that.

/dps

--
Who, me?

[Snidely]

LFS scribbled something on Thursday, March the 1st --

> On 01/03/2012 13:57, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> With all the questions of this type it can be useful to know the
>> language perspective of the questioner. "Yilaner" has a vaguely Turkish
>> look to my eyes, but I don't know if that is correct. I always tend to
>> assume that Masa is Japanese, and in the case of Navi I have no idea (or
>> if I once had an idea I've forgotten).
>>
>
> Any thoughts on franzi?

Is "And, in Oxford especially, hebdomadally." a clue?

/dps

--
Who, me?

[Mark Brader]

Jerry Friedman:

> I say "lower-key", and I write it with a hyphen. "More low-key"
> sounds slightly odd to me, but not wrong.

Agreed.

> I'm sure lots of native speakers use it.

They are probably the same ones who say "most well-known" instead of
"best-known".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Don't let it drive you crazy...
m...@vex.net | Leave the driving to us!" --Wayne & Shuster

[Katy Jennison]

On 01/03/2012 18:21, Snidely wrote:
> LFS scribbled something on Thursday, March the 1st --

>>

>> Any thoughts on franzi?
>
> Is "And, in Oxford especially, hebdomadally." a clue?
>

Dallying weakly?

--
Katy Jennison

[Jerry Friedman]

On Mar 1, 11:14 am, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Django Cat presented the following explanation :
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> "Yilaner" has a vaguely
> >> Turkish look to my eyes, but I don't know if that is correct.

For some reason I'm sure Yilaner is Swedish.

> >> always tend to assume that Masa is Japanese, and in the case of Navi
> >> I have no idea (or if I once had an idea I've forgotten).
>
> > Usually I can tell - but all three of them have pretty good English
> > (compared with the students I deal with day to day) and don't come up
> > with the usual giveaways.
>
> I think Navi has made vague references to being European recently.  My
> impression is of East Europe, but I don't have a solid basis for that.

He said one time. He's from somewhere near the Caucasus, I think. GG
isn't cooperating.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Mar 1, 11:43 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Jerry Friedman:
>
> > I say "lower-key", and I write it with a hyphen.  "More low-key"
> > sounds slightly odd to me, but not wrong.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I'm sure lots of native speakers use it.
>
> They are probably the same ones who say "most well-known" instead of
> "best-known".

I was thinking of mentioning them.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Christian Weisgerber]

Django Cat <nota...@address.com> wrote:

> I'm especially intrigued by the concept of 'a single vocabulary word'.

Otherwise known as a lexical item.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Mike L]

It's one of those things one notices in broadcasts. Strong verbs are
getting weakened ("strived" instead of "strove"), and more and more
adjectives are undergoing comparison with "more" and "most". Not all
of them, in either case, of course; but there is a definite increase.

--
Mike.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Mar 1, 1:29 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:14 am, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > I think Navi has made vague references to being European recently.  My
> > impression is of East Europe, but I don't have a solid basis for that.
>
> He said one time.  He's from somewhere near the Caucasus, I think.  GG
> isn't cooperating.

It is now.

"Armenian is my mother tongue. But I never went to Armenian schools,
so
my Armenian is not that good. My first language is Farsi (Persian)."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_frm/thread/a5705bee8c405ab2/

--
Jerry Friedman

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:13:51 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:

[...]

> I say "lower-key", and I write it with a hyphen. "More low-key" sounds
> slightly odd to me, but not wrong. I'm sure lots of native speakers use
> it.

"Lower-key" strikes me as extraordinarily odd. It is as if I had
encountered "subdueder" or "softlier".


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Django Cat]

Vocabulary 'item' is, I think, fairly well known for something like
'zebra crossing' or 'banana split' where more than one word is needed
to describe the concept - and where "single vocabulary *word* " is
definitely wrong. I've never seen this actually taught, though.

DC
--

[Django Cat]

Oh! Right, I though you meant GG the poster...

DC

--

[Django Cat]

Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Django Cat <nota...@address.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm especially intrigued by the concept of 'a single vocabulary
> > word'.
>
> Otherwise known as a lexical item.

Yes, and definitely not a 'word'.

DC

--

[Django Cat]

But the other reason for my question to Yilaner about where he/she
learnt this is that I'm wondering if there's some kind of rule being
taught somewhere in the world about multi-word lexical items:

"you mustn't ever split a 'single vocabulary word'; it can only ever be
'more or less low key'; never 'lower key'. Here's an exclusive list of
all English 'single vocabulary words'".

Cobblers, of course; you can mix and match these things how you want.
Coursebook writers do get odd bees in their bonnets sometimes - and not
just the non-native ones.

Then again, maybe it's down to the hyphen...

DC


--

[Django Cat]

From time to time I've suspected occasional posters thought I was
French or Belgian.

DC

--

[Django Cat]

Dreadful and tragic news about the death of PC Rathbone yesterday, but
I couldn't help noticing 'showed' instead of 'shown' in the BBC report
that was repeated all day.

DC. Good God, I'm turning into Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in my old
age.

--

[Christian Weisgerber]

Django Cat <nota...@address.com> wrote:

> Vocabulary 'item' is, I think, fairly well known for something like
> 'zebra crossing' or 'banana split' where more than one word is needed
> to describe the concept - and where "single vocabulary *word* " is
> definitely wrong. I've never seen this actually taught, though.

I don't understand why you are obsessing about this, especially
considering that "word" is a vague concept.

If your students are Germans (this also extends to a variety of
other European languages), they will consider "Zebrastreifen" and
"Bananensplit" to be _obviously_ single words, and the English
equivalents, which are formed the same way, are _clearly_ also to
be treated as single words despite the aberrant spelling.

You can, of course, explain to your students that most English
speakers think of a word as delimited by spaces and will thus
consider "zebra crossing" to be two words.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Mar 2, 1:51 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:13:51 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I say "lower-key", and I write it with a hyphen.  "More low-key" sounds
> > slightly odd to me, but not wrong.  I'm sure lots of native speakers use
> > it.
>
> "Lower-key" strikes me as extraordinarily odd.

Just out of curiosity, do you have the same feeling about forming
other adjective-noun comparatives the same way? I can't think of
many, but there's "higher-stakes", "higher-end", "higher-speed",
"higher-profile", maybe a "broader-spectrum antibiotic". Okay, that
last one looks strange to me too.

> It is as if I had encountered "subdueder" or "softlier".

Well, "lower-key" exists, whereas "subdueder" violates a well-known
rule.

COCA results, if anyone cares:

"more low-key": 43
"lower-key": 15

I was expecting more for "lower-key".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Django Cat]

Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Django Cat <nota...@address.com> wrote:
>
> > Vocabulary 'item' is, I think, fairly well known for something like
> > 'zebra crossing' or 'banana split' where more than one word is

> > needed to describe the concept - and where "single vocabulary word

> > " is definitely wrong. I've never seen this actually taught, though.
>
> I don't understand why you are obsessing about this,

Obsessing? What an odd way of putting it. I'm taking part in the
discussion, thanks.

>especially
> considering that "word" is a vague concept.

No, it's a very simple concept. In writing a word is a group of letters
with a meaning and no spaces. In speech it might be a little more
tricky to pin down, but it's not 'vague'.

>
> If your students are Germans (this also extends to a variety of
> other European languages),

Compound nouns? Which languages are other those then, pray?

> they will consider "Zebrastreifen" and

> "Bananensplit" to be obviously single words,

Because they are - no spaces, see?


> and the English
> equivalents, which are formed the same way, are clearly also to

> be treated as single words

Well, they'd be wrong because any fool can see that while 'Bugelbrett'
(forgive me if this is a bad example or I've mistranslated it) is one
word, 'ironing board' is clearly two words. In both languages they
refer to a *single* lexical item, and that's why it's important to make
a distinction here.


> despite the aberrant spelling.

Sorry, what? You've lost me.

>
> You can, of course, explain to your students that most English
> speakers think of a word as delimited by spaces and will thus
> consider "zebra crossing" to be two words.

I wouldn't dream of bothering them with anything so confused and
irrelevant. Your conception of 'word' is curious - not a programmer are
you? Anyway, when people start accusing me of 'obsessing' it's time to
get out of the thread.

Cheers

DC




--

[Mike L]

Remember - you do know, of course - that English is a great
attributive user of nouns, so I'd argue that these really _are_ pairs
of words rather than single compound expressions.

--
Mike.

[R H Draney]

Django Cat filted:

>
>Dreadful and tragic news about the death of PC Rathbone yesterday, but
>I couldn't help noticing 'showed' instead of 'shown' in the BBC report
>that was repeated all day.
>
>DC. Good God, I'm turning into Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in my old
>age.

This probably won't help much, then:

http://www.tikitumble.com/2012/03/please-keep-door-close/

....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:33:29 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:

[...]

Re >> "Lower-key" strikes me as extraordinarily odd.

> Just out of curiosity, do you have the same feeling about forming other
> adjective-noun comparatives the same way? I can't think of many, but
> there's "higher-stakes", "higher-end", "higher-speed", "higher-profile",
> maybe a "broader-spectrum antibiotic". Okay, that last one looks

> strange to me too. . . .

Yes, by and large, I do.

It is interesting that Curme states that the -er/-est forms are now
largely confined to "words of one syllable and a large number of words of
two syllables, especially those in -er, -le, -y, -ow, [and]
-some . . . ." It is not, as he notes, a definite rule, only a trend,
but the exceptions seem much weighted toward using more/most with shorter
forms than vice-versa.

I am guessing that the various compounds you suggest above strike me as
weird or worse owing to a sense on my part that the hyphenated compound
"low-key" is a very nearly integral "word" of two syllables, whose
comparative without 'more' would thus want to be "low-keyer" (which is
absurd, hence the 'more').

I suspect one reason I feel that way is that bare "key" is not an
adjective (except with a very different meaning, and the same applies to
"stakes", "end", &c &c), nor are there common forms "high-key" or "middle-
key". When we say "more low-key", we don't--to my sensibilities--mean
quite the same thing that "lower-key" would, did we admit such a term at
all (despite its occasional occurrence). "Low-key" is itself a fairly
specific quality; when that quality is intensified, the "key" is not
really being lowered, the sense of softness that the compound form
implies is being reduced.

Or something along those lines . . . .


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[John Holmes]

R H Draney wrote:
> Django Cat filted:
>>
>> Dreadful and tragic news about the death of PC Rathbone yesterday,
>> but I couldn't help noticing 'showed' instead of 'shown' in the BBC
>> report that was repeated all day.
>>
>> DC. Good God, I'm turning into Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in my old
>> age.
>
> This probably won't help much, then:
>
> http://www.tikitumble.com/2012/03/please-keep-door-close/

[regarding ads on that page]
Is it legal over there to advertise perpetual motion machines? I think it is
considered a form of fraud here.


--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[R H Draney]

John Holmes filted:

>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> http://www.tikitumble.com/2012/03/please-keep-door-close/
>
>[regarding ads on that page]
>Is it legal over there to advertise perpetual motion machines? I think it is
>considered a form of fraud here.

I don't think we're seeing the same ads...I get one for "Advanced TV" from my
cable company, one (in Spanish) that looks to be for a "feed the children"
charity, one that warns against using illegal steroids, and one for credit
counseling....r

[John Holmes]

You are right. I don't see the same ads now that I saw before. Last time
there was one for http://www.hojomotor.com/ and another that looked like a
different brand of the same scam.

Now I get the spinning ballerina illusion.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <4f5199b0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, John Holmes <s...@sig.instead> wrote:

>[regarding ads on that page]
>Is it legal over there to advertise perpetual motion machines? I think it is
>considered a form of fraud here.

Many fraudulent products are legal to sell in the U.S. The government
regulates advertising of drugs, for example, but homeopathic remedies
are carefully constructed to contain nothing but water, which makes
them not-drugs so far as the law is concerned -- and so long as they
are correctly labeled, the fact that they don't actually have any
active ingredient is not grounds for complaint. They are far from the
only examples in the supermarket of very, very expensive bottled
water. At some point, the responsibility for the money lost on
purchasing a bogus but harmless product falls upon the mark for giving
up his money so readily rather than on the seller. At best, the
purchaser of a perpetual-motion machine might pursue the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose,
but that would at most mean getting his money back (and probably the
embarrassment of going into court to bring such a suit keeps most
marks from ever doing so -- that and the propect of losing anyway on
account of not having read the fine print).

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Jerry Friedman]

On Mar 2, 6:01 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:33:29 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Re >> "Lower-key" strikes me as extraordinarily odd.
>
> > Just out of curiosity, do you have the same feeling about forming other
> > adjective-noun comparatives the same way?  I can't think of many, but
> > there's "higher-stakes", "higher-end", "higher-speed", "higher-profile",
> > maybe a "broader-spectrum antibiotic".

I may try to figure out why I said "there's" there. Normally I use
"there are" with plurals, but it would seem strange in that sentence.

> > Okay, that last one looks strange to me too. . . .
>
> Yes, by and large, I do.
>
> It is interesting that Curme states that the -er/-est forms are now
> largely confined to "words of one syllable and a large number of words of
> two syllables, especially those in -er, -le, -y, -ow, [and]
> -some . . . ."  It is not, as he notes, a definite rule, only a trend,
> but the exceptions seem much weighted toward using more/most with shorter
> forms than vice-versa.
>
> I am guessing that the various compounds you suggest above strike me as
> weird or worse owing to a sense on my part that the hyphenated compound
> "low-key" is a very nearly integral "word" of two syllables, whose
> comparative without 'more' would thus want to be "low-keyer" (which is
> absurd, hence the 'more').
>
> I suspect one reason I feel that way is that bare "key" is not an
> adjective (except with a very different meaning, and the same applies to
> "stakes", "end", &c &c), nor are there common forms "high-key" or "middle-
> key".  When we say "more low-key", we don't--to my sensibilities--mean
> quite the same thing that "lower-key" would, did we admit such a term at
> all (despite its occasional occurrence).  "Low-key" is itself a fairly
> specific quality; when that quality is intensified, the "key" is not
> really being lowered, the sense of softness that the compound form
> implies is being reduced.
>
> Or something along those lines . . . .

Thanks. My sensibilities understand "low-key" a bit differently--I
could see saying "an approach in a lower key", and such things exist,
though they're rare. Anyway, I suspect your feeling that "higher-
stakes" is weird has a different origin, since as far as I can tell a
higher-stakes game is exactly the same as a game played for higher
stakes.

I forgot what's probably the most common of these. COHA results:

longer-term: 119
more long-term: 6

(Three of the hits for "more long-term" are irrelevant, and it looks
like only a few of the hits for "longer-term" are.)

Anyway, I automatically go into the mode of "longer-term", not to
mention compounds with past participles such as "better-known" and
"higher-pitched", with all these words.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:11:09 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:

(For some weird reason, my software--Pan--refuses to quote the article
text; the below was inserted manually.)

> I may try to figure out why I said "there's" there. Normally I use
> "there are" with plurals, but it would seem strange in that sentence.

I imagine that you were thinking of the lot as a collection. I, and I
think many people, often do that with things that seem pieces of a set
(an extended version of "On the table was a cup and saucer.")

> Thanks. My sensibilities understand "low-key" a bit differently--I
> could see saying "an approach in a lower key", and such things exist,
> though they're rare. Anyway, I suspect your feeling that "higher-
> stakes" is weird has a different origin, since as far as I can tell a
> higher-stakes game is exactly the same as a game played for higher
> stakes.

Yes, I see that I was too quick to generalize. "Higher-stakes", "longer-
term", and some like that make fine sense. I suppose there are in-
between cases; I can imagine someone saying "I was thinking of a more
long-term arrangement," where the implied alternative is not a long-term
arrangement of lesser length but rather an arrangement that isn't truly
"long"-term at all.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Jerry Friedman]

On Mar 3, 8:50 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:11:09 -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> (For some weird reason, my software--Pan--refuses to quote the article
> text; the below was inserted manually.)
>
> > I may try to figure out why I said "there's" there.  Normally I use
> > "there are" with plurals, but it would seem strange in that sentence.
>
> I imagine that you were thinking of the lot as a collection.  I, and I
> think many people, often do that with things that seem pieces of a set
> (an extended version of "On the table was a cup and saucer.")
>
> > Thanks.  My sensibilities understand "low-key" a bit differently--I

> > could see saying "an approach in alower key", and such things exist,

> > though they're rare.  Anyway, I suspect your feeling that "higher-
> > stakes" is weird has a different origin, since as far as I can tell a
> > higher-stakes game is exactly the same as a game played for higher
> > stakes.
>
> Yes, I see that I was too quick to generalize.  "Higher-stakes", "longer-
> term", and some like that make fine sense.  I suppose there are in-
> between cases; I can imagine someone saying "I was thinking of a more
> long-term arrangement," where the implied alternative is not a long-term
> arrangement of lesser length but rather an arrangement that isn't truly
> "long"-term at all.

Thanks. It's pretty clear from the numbers that a lot of people see
the same difference between "low-key" and "low-stakes" that you do.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Christian Weisgerber]

Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> >If your students are Germans (this also extends to a variety of
> >other European languages), they will consider "Zebrastreifen" and
> >"Bananensplit" to be _obviously_ single words, and the English
> >equivalents, which are formed the same way, are _clearly_ also to
> >be treated as single words despite the aberrant spelling.
>

> Remember - you do know, of course - that English is a great
> attributive user of nouns, so I'd argue that these really _are_ pairs
> of words rather than single compound expressions.

As far as I know, all the Germanic languages can pile up attributive
nouns, and all of them write them as closed compounds (i.e., no
spaces) with the exception of English.

In fact, poor spellers sometimes write such compounds with spaces
in German, enraging language peevers, and I think the same complaint
has been mentioned here for Dutch and Swedish.

Morphologically, this monster of German legalese
Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz
and its English translation
beef labeling supervision duties delegation law
are the same kind of multiple noun-noun compound.

Old English also used closed compounds as far as I can tell from
glancing over a few texts that are available online. Entering the
realm of speculation now, I wonder if this aspect of modern English
spelling isn't originally due to French orthographic influence,
since French isn't big on compounds.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Django Cat <nota...@address.com> wrote:

> >especially considering that "word" is a vague concept.
>
> No, it's a very simple concept.

If it were so simple, I wouldn't be looking at a list like this right
now:
* phonological word
* orthograhic word
* morphologic word
* syntactic word
* semantic word

> In writing a word is a group of letters with a meaning and no spaces.

That is _your_ definition.

Oh, and I'd be very careful about requiring meaning, which can be
hard to attribute to function words. For example, the three instances
of "a" in your sentence above don't have any meaning at all. If
you translate the sentence into, say, Russian, they will just
disappear, without any compensation by other grammatical means, and
no loss of meaning.

> > If your students are Germans (this also extends to a variety of
> > other European languages),
>
> Compound nouns? Which languages are other those then, pray?

I can't quite parse your question. You'll also find compound nouns
in the other Germanic languages. There is substantial compounding
(noun and otherwise) going on in Slavic. And of course there's
Finnish and Hungarian.

> Well, they'd be wrong because any fool can see that while 'Bugelbrett'

Bügelbrett

> (forgive me if this is a bad example or I've mistranslated it) is one
> word, 'ironing board' is clearly two words. In both languages they
> refer to a *single* lexical item, and that's why it's important to make
> a distinction here.

And I'm telling you why it's entirely unsurprising that somebody
who doesn't know the jargon term "lexical item" would come up with
the expression "single vocabulary word" to mean the same thing.

> > despite the aberrant spelling.
>
> Sorry, what? You've lost me.

The English habit of inserting spaces into compounds. It's aberrant,
the other Germanic languages don't do it.

[Lanarcam]

Le 05/03/2012 21:55, Christian Weisgerber a écrit :

> Django Cat<nota...@address.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> despite the aberrant spelling.
>>
>> Sorry, what? You've lost me.
>
> The English habit of inserting spaces into compounds. It's aberrant,
> the other Germanic languages don't do it.
>

It is so much more readable, they should insert underscores, that
would be still better.

See:
Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
Donau_dampf_schiff_fahrts_elektrizität_enhauptbetriebs_werk_bau_unterbeamten_gesellschaft.

Just like in the C language, that's much understandable, innit?

[Mike L]

Possible, I suppose; but not necessary. Considering modern uasge,
though, English does use closed compounds as well as both hyphened and
simple attributives; this often makes shades of meaning available.

--
Mike.

[R H Draney]

Mike L filted:

>
>Possible, I suppose; but not necessary. Considering modern uasge,
>though, English does use closed compounds as well as both hyphened and
>simple attributives; this often makes shades of meaning available.

Vide (because someone will undoubtedly ask for examples)
"blackboard/black-board/black board" and "greenhouse/green-house/green
house"....r

[Adam Funk]

You forgot the Java option:

DonauDampfSchiffFahrtsElektrizitätEnhauptbetriebsWerkBauUnterbeamtenGesellschaft.


But hey, why _enhauptbetriebs_ and not _enhaupt_betriebs_?


--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-02, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Django Cat <nota...@address.com> wrote:
>
>> Vocabulary 'item' is, I think, fairly well known for something like
>> 'zebra crossing' or 'banana split' where more than one word is needed
>> to describe the concept - and where "single vocabulary *word* " is
>> definitely wrong. I've never seen this actually taught, though.
>
> I don't understand why you are obsessing about this, especially
> considering that "word" is a vague concept.

I don't think the Cat is obsessing, just reflecting students'
questions.

> If your students are Germans (this also extends to a variety of
> other European languages), they will consider "Zebrastreifen" and
> "Bananensplit" to be _obviously_ single words, and the English
> equivalents, which are formed the same way, are _clearly_ also to
> be treated as single words despite the aberrant spelling.
>
> You can, of course, explain to your students that most English
> speakers think of a word as delimited by spaces and will thus
> consider "zebra crossing" to be two words.

But German does have the "aberration" of connecting elements:
sometimes -(e)n, sometimes -s, sometimes nothing. And ISTR reading in
AUG that there are some compounds where Germans aren't even sure which
option to use.


--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-05, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Morphologically, this monster of German legalese
> Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz
> and its English translation
> beef labeling supervision duties delegation law
> are the same kind of multiple noun-noun compound.

I agree.

> Old English also used closed compounds as far as I can tell from
> glancing over a few texts that are available online. Entering the
> realm of speculation now, I wonder if this aspect of modern English
> spelling isn't originally due to French orthographic influence,
> since French isn't big on compounds.

French has compounds --- they just have spaces, hyphens, &
prepositions between the nouns:

can-opener or can opener = ouvre-boîte

steamboat = bateau à vapeur

ironing board = planche à repasser


AIUI, the way adjectives are attached supports the interpretation as
compound nouns:

"folding ironing board" = "planche à repasser pliante",
not "planche pliante à repasser".

--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]

[Peter Moylan]

John Holmes wrote:
> R H Draney wrote:
>> Django Cat filted:
>>>
>>> Dreadful and tragic news about the death of PC Rathbone yesterday,
>>> but I couldn't help noticing 'showed' instead of 'shown' in the BBC
>>> report that was repeated all day.
>>>
>>> DC. Good God, I'm turning into Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in my old
>>> age.
>>
>> This probably won't help much, then:
>>
>> http://www.tikitumble.com/2012/03/please-keep-door-close/

There's still a sign, on a road near me, saying "Change traffic conditions".

> [regarding ads on that page]
> Is it legal over there to advertise perpetual motion machines? I think
> it is considered a form of fraud here.

I don't see any ads on that page. You might need to update your ad-blocker.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-08, Peter Moylan wrote:

> John Holmes wrote:
>> R H Draney wrote:

>>> http://www.tikitumble.com/2012/03/please-keep-door-close/
>
> There's still a sign, on a road near me, saying "Change traffic conditions".
>
>> [regarding ads on that page]
>> Is it legal over there to advertise perpetual motion machines? I think
>> it is considered a form of fraud here.

What if they're labelled "for entertainment only"?

> I don't see any ads on that page. You might need to update your ad-blocker.

Same here.


--
"Gonzo, is that the contract from the devil?"
"No, Kermit, it's worse than that. This is the bill from special
effects."

[Christian Weisgerber]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:

> >Possible, I suppose; but not necessary. Considering modern uasge,
> >though, English does use closed compounds as well as both hyphened and
> >simple attributives; this often makes shades of meaning available.
>
> Vide (because someone will undoubtedly ask for examples)
> "blackboard/black-board/black board" and "greenhouse/green-house/green
> house"....r

What's "black-board" and "green-house"?

Also note that your examples are adjective-noun compounds. For
noun-noun compounds there is considerable spelling variation, e.g.,
"pigpen"/"pig pen", and I for one wouldn't want to rely on it for
shades of meaning.

(Unsurprisingly, Google turns up a nonnegligible number of hits for
"green house vegetables".)

[Christian Weisgerber]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> > realm of speculation now, I wonder if this aspect of modern English
> > spelling isn't originally due to French orthographic influence,
> > since French isn't big on compounds.
>
> French has compounds --- they just have spaces, hyphens, &
> prepositions between the nouns:
>
> can-opener or can opener = ouvre-boîte

Yes, this verb-object pattern is very productive in French, but
rare in English (e.g. "telltale") or German.

For what it's worth, French does have the occasional attribute noun,
e.g.:
professeur femme (woman teacher)
contrôle radar ("radar check", i.e., speed trap)

> AIUI, the way adjectives are attached supports the interpretation as
> compound nouns:
>
> "folding ironing board" = "planche à repasser pliante",
> not "planche pliante à repasser".

(At which point Grevisse has a little note pointing out that many
ordinary noun phrases don't like this either.)

Apparently the French grammarians lump all lexical items with
orthographic spaces together as "locutions", only to point out--
surprise, surprise--that these can behave quite differently
syntactically.

I haven't looked into this issue in French yet, and I don't have
the time now, plus my French is poor and I lack the sprachgefühl.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> > You can, of course, explain to your students that most English
> > speakers think of a word as delimited by spaces and will thus
> > consider "zebra crossing" to be two words.
>
> But German does have the "aberration" of connecting elements:

Other Germanic languages may have such linking elements as well.
Looking at the Swedish Wikipedia's main page, I see such compounds
as "himlakropp", "stelkroppskraft", and "kvinnodag", where the -a-,
-s-, and -o- would be worth an explanation. Any Swedish speakers?

The basic rule for noun-noun compounds in English is that the
attribute noun is in the singular, even when the corresponding item
occurs in multiplicity, e.g., a beehive houses more than a single
bee. But sometimes the attribute is in the plural, and I don't
think there are any clear rules.

> sometimes -(e)n, sometimes -s, sometimes nothing.

According to Wikipedia: -e-, -s-, -es-, -n-, -en-, -ens-
Hund_e_leine, Ansicht_s_karte, Freund_es_kreis, Urkunde_n_fälschung,
Held_en_tat, Kind_er_geld, Schmerz_ens_geld
Additionally the zero element ("Haustür") or a subtractive element
where -e- is dropped ("Kronprinz").

Many instances mimick a genitive or plural, are interpreted by naive
speakers as such, and are less conducive to a closed compound
spelling than you might think.

> And ISTR reading in AUG that there are some compounds where Germans
> aren't even sure which option to use.

Yes, if you try to look up the rules in a grammar, you'll be boldly
told that there aren't any. That can't be quite right, because
speakers agree too much, but there certainly is no lack of compounds
where speakers do disagree, or jargon uses a different variant from
ordinary speech, etc. It's a perennial topic on de.etc.sprache.deutsch.

[James Hogg]

Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>> You can, of course, explain to your students that most English
>>> speakers think of a word as delimited by spaces and will thus
>>> consider "zebra crossing" to be two words.
>> But German does have the "aberration" of connecting elements:
>
> Other Germanic languages may have such linking elements as well.
> Looking at the Swedish Wikipedia's main page, I see such compounds
> as "himlakropp", "stelkroppskraft", and "kvinnodag", where the -a-,
> -s-, and -o- would be worth an explanation. Any Swedish speakers?

These can all be interpreted as old genitive endings:

himla- genitive plural
(but this can also be the IE -o- linking elements in compounds, as in
"hippodrome")

kvinno- genitive singular of nouns in -a
(there's a variant in -u if the root was short in Old Swedish. gatukök,
saluhall)

Masculine a-stems have genitives in -s, and this -s- is normally
required when an element is added to a word that is already a compound.
Combine the words that mean "hand" and "grip" and you get "handgrepp",
but a one-hand grip is "enhandsgrepp"

In addition, some compounds are formed with -e-.

--
James

[Lanarcam]

I really don't think that your French is that poor, you've cited
things
I didn't know about French grammar among other things.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-08, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> > realm of speculation now, I wonder if this aspect of modern English
>> > spelling isn't originally due to French orthographic influence,
>> > since French isn't big on compounds.
>>
>> French has compounds --- they just have spaces, hyphens, &
>> prepositions between the nouns:
>>
>> can-opener or can opener = ouvre-boîte
>
> Yes, this verb-object pattern is very productive in French, but
> rare in English (e.g. "telltale") or German.

I think that pattern is an effect of the fact that French makes
head-first compounds, whereas English & German make head-last
compounds and German in particular needs the end of a compound noun to
have noun-morphology (der Dosenöffner, des Dosenöffners).

> For what it's worth, French does have the occasional attribute noun,
> e.g.:
> professeur femme (woman teacher)
> contrôle radar ("radar check", i.e., speed trap)

Yes, also head-first.

>> AIUI, the way adjectives are attached supports the interpretation as
>> compound nouns:
>>
>> "folding ironing board" = "planche à repasser pliante",
>> not "planche pliante à repasser".
>
> (At which point Grevisse has a little note pointing out that many
> ordinary noun phrases don't like this either.)
>
> Apparently the French grammarians lump all lexical items with
> orthographic spaces together as "locutions", only to point out--
> surprise, surprise--that these can behave quite differently
> syntactically.

I'll see if I can find that in my Grevisse.


--
Oh, I am just a student, sir, and I only want to learn
But it's hard to read through the rising smoke
of the books that you want to burn
[Phil Ochs]

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-08, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> > You can, of course, explain to your students that most English
>> > speakers think of a word as delimited by spaces and will thus
>> > consider "zebra crossing" to be two words.
>>
>> But German does have the "aberration" of connecting elements:
>
> Other Germanic languages may have such linking elements as well.
> Looking at the Swedish Wikipedia's main page, I see such compounds
> as "himlakropp", "stelkroppskraft", and "kvinnodag", where the -a-,
> -s-, and -o- would be worth an explanation. Any Swedish speakers?
>
> The basic rule for noun-noun compounds in English is that the
> attribute noun is in the singular, even when the corresponding item
> occurs in multiplicity, e.g., a beehive houses more than a single
> bee. But sometimes the attribute is in the plural, and I don't
> think there are any clear rules.

Fair point.

>> sometimes -(e)n, sometimes -s, sometimes nothing.
>
> According to Wikipedia: -e-, -s-, -es-, -n-, -en-, -ens-
> Hund_e_leine, Ansicht_s_karte, Freund_es_kreis, Urkunde_n_fälschung,
> Held_en_tat, Kind_er_geld, Schmerz_ens_geld
> Additionally the zero element ("Haustür") or a subtractive element
> where -e- is dropped ("Kronprinz").
>
> Many instances mimick a genitive or plural, are interpreted by naive
> speakers as such, and are less conducive to a closed compound
> spelling than you might think.

Do you mean that this mimicry is a factor leading native speakers to
misspell (with spaces, I mean) compounds that should be written
without spaces?

>> And ISTR reading in AUG that there are some compounds where Germans
>> aren't even sure which option to use.
>
> Yes, if you try to look up the rules in a grammar, you'll be boldly
> told that there aren't any. That can't be quite right, because
> speakers agree too much, but there certainly is no lack of compounds
> where speakers do disagree, or jargon uses a different variant from
> ordinary speech, etc. It's a perennial topic on de.etc.sprache.deutsch.

Right.


--
Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about
its friends.

[Peter Moylan]

Lanarcam wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:58 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

[comments on French compound nouns]

>> I haven't looked into this issue in French yet, and I don't have
>> the time now, plus my French is poor and I lack the sprachgefühl.
>
> I really don't think that your French is that poor, you've cited
> things I didn't know about French grammar among other things.

It's very common, I believe, for non-native speakers of a language to
know things about grammar that the native speakers hadn't noticed. The
non-native had to be taught such details formally. The native speaker
doesn't even notice that there was something that needed to be learnt.

(Having said that, I guess I'd better add that Christian's command of
French appears, on the evidence of other messages in this newsgroup, to
be better than mine. Besides, it always takes me several attempts to be
able to pronounce sprachgefühl -- which I guess is the same word in
French, since neither French nor English seems to have a good native
word for this concept.)

[Christian Weisgerber]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

[compound nouns in German]

> > According to Wikipedia: -e-, -s-, -es-, -n-, -en-, -ens-
> > Hund_e_leine, Ansicht_s_karte, Freund_es_kreis, Urkunde_n_fälschung,
> > Held_en_tat, Kind_er_geld, Schmerz_ens_geld
> > Additionally the zero element ("Haustür") or a subtractive element
> > where -e- is dropped ("Kronprinz").
> >
> > Many instances mimick a genitive or plural, are interpreted by naive
> > speakers as such, and are less conducive to a closed compound
> > spelling than you might think.
>
> Do you mean that this mimicry is a factor leading native speakers to
> misspell (with spaces, I mean) compounds that should be written
> without spaces?

Possibly. That said, if you take a compound like "Arbeitsamt"
(employment office) where there is no 's' anywhere in the declension
paradigm for "Arbeit", you can still find some people who write
"Arbeits Amt".

[Adam Funk]

I haven't come across that misspelling, but I don't see much
"un-edited" German (except graffiti).

However, that 's' that has nothing to do with the declension of
'Arbeit' does support my (facetious) description of the connective
elements as "aberrations". :-P


--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-03-09, Peter Moylan wrote:

> It's very common, I believe, for non-native speakers of a language to
> know things about grammar that the native speakers hadn't noticed. The
> non-native had to be taught such details formally. The native speaker
> doesn't even notice that there was something that needed to be learnt.

The non-native speakers pay more attention to the grammar books.
;-)

> (Having said that, I guess I'd better add that Christian's command of
> French appears, on the evidence of other messages in this newsgroup, to
> be better than mine. Besides, it always takes me several attempts to be
> able to pronounce sprachgefühl -- which I guess is the same word in
> French, since neither French nor English seems to have a good native
> word for this concept.)

Here's the really important question: what language has the most words
for Sprachgefühl?


--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]