il meno <aggettivo> possible

[Kiuhnm]

Come si dice
il meno <aggettivo> possibile
in inglese?

--
Kiuhnm

Coltivatore di alberi binari

[Wolfgang]

Venerdì 1º aprile 2022 alle 00:27:58 UTC+2 Kiuhnm ha scritto:
> Come si dice
>   il meno <aggettivo> possibile
> in inglese?

“the least <adjective> possibile”

Credo che funzioni anche con un avverbio.

Ciao,
Wolfgang

[Kiuhnm]

Quindi abbiamo
the most <adjective> possible
the least <adjective> possible
as <adjective> as possible
e forse anche
as little <adjective> as possible

[Wolfgang]

Ho però l'impressione che si evitino espressioni del genere, ricorrendo
invece alla sostituzione dell'aggettivo col suo contrario (se
disponibile, naturalmente). Così

“the least expensive possible”

diventa correntemente

“as cheap as possible”.

In italiano l'espressione “il meno caro possibile” è invece quasi
indispensabile giacché non esiste un aggettivo che traduca “cheap”, ma
solo l'espressione perifrastica “a buon mercato”, poco usata perché
troppo prolissa.

Ciao,
Wolfgang

--

Oggi è venerdì, il giorno della settimana in cui si mangia
tradizionalmente del pesce, che diventa oggi uno di aprile. :)

[Tony the Ice Man]

I'm not really sure what is the aim of this question. I suspect that the
lack of context reflects a desire for some general rule. That leaves me
searching for clues because English typically demands more personal
attention.

the most inexpensive possible
the least costly possible
as inexpensive as possible
as little as possible

It seems too easy.

[Kiuhnm]

On 01/04/2022 10:03, Wolfgang wrote:
> Ho però l'impressione che si evitino espressioni del genere, ricorrendo
> invece alla sostituzione dell'aggettivo col suo contrario (se
> disponibile, naturalmente). Così
>
>      “the least expensive possible”
>
> diventa correntemente
>
>      “as cheap as possible”.

E' proprio da questo che è sorto il mio dubbio.
Ammetto che non avevo pensato a
"the least <adj> possible"
perché mi ero fissato su
"as <adj> as possible"
ed era di questo che cercavo il contrario.
Non ero sicuro che
"as little <adj> as possible"
fosse corretto, ricordando di aver visto solo
"as little as possible".

> In italiano l'espressione “il meno caro possibile” è invece quasi
> indispensabile giacché non esiste un aggettivo che traduca “cheap”, ma
> solo l'espressione perifrastica “a buon mercato”, poco usata perché
> troppo prolissa.

Infatti.

[Mad Prof]

Wolfgang <w...@ariannuccia.de> wrote:
> In italiano l'espressione “il meno caro possibile” è invece quasi
> indispensabile giacché non esiste un aggettivo che traduca “cheap”

Economico

--
Sanity is not statistical

[Kiuhnm]

On 02/04/2022 00:33, Mad Prof wrote:
> Wolfgang <w...@ariannuccia.de> wrote:
>> In italiano l'espressione “il meno caro possibile” è invece quasi
>> indispensabile giacché non esiste un aggettivo che traduca “cheap”
>
> Economico

E' più corto da scrivere ma il numero di sillabe non cambia!

[Wolfgang]

Venerdì 1º aprile 2022 alle 23:57:14 UTC+2 Kiuhnm ha scritto:
> On 01/04/2022 10:03, Wolfgang wrote:
>> Ho però l'impressione che si evitino espressioni del genere,
>> ricorrendo invece alla sostituzione dell'aggettivo col suo contrario
>> (se disponibile, naturalmente). Così
>>
>>       “the least expensive possible”
>>
>> diventa correntemente
>>
>>       “as cheap as possible”.
>
> E' proprio da questo che è sorto il mio dubbio.
> Ammetto che non avevo pensato a
>   "the least <adj> possible"
> perché mi ero fissato su
>   "as <adj> as possible"
> ed era di questo che cercavo il contrario.
> Non ero sicuro che

>   "as little <adj> as possible" (*)

> fosse corretto, ricordando di aver visto solo
>   "as little as possible".

Credo che la frase (*) sia sbagliata, ne sono anzi quasi convinto. Ma
decida Tony il Gelatiere.

Ciao,
Wolfgang

[Tony the Ice Man]

It doesn't sound good. One could say "as little costly as possible," but
why?

I'm sure a copy-editor (they still exist) would change it and add a
noun, but I can't think of a particular grammar rule that it violates.
Most listeners would consider it a contorted way of saying "as little
cost as possible," which is a common phrasing. Even if a noun isn't
included it's always added in our minds, so we could say that it's implied.

The word "possible" is problematic. One could feel freer to play with
variations leaving off that word because it doesn't add anything to the
meaning of a phrase like "the least expensive." If you think that such a
phrase implies that there are lower costs that aren't possible, then I
suppose you should add "possible" to be really, really safe. (Or, as
safe as possible.)

I tried to search for discussions of using an adjective without a noun,
but didn't find anything that said it was an OK practice except in some
particular cases.

https://www.englishgrammar.org/adjectives-nouns/
https://www.englishpractice.com/grammar/adjectives-nouns/
https://perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/adjectives-without-nouns.htm

[Kiuhnm]

On 02/04/2022 02:20, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> It doesn't sound good. One could say "as little costly as possible," but
> why?

What about "as little surprising as possible"?
There's a "rule" that says that a programmer's code shouldn't surprise
the reader, meaning that it should do exactly what one thinks it does.
The term "surprise" is the actual word used by English programmers; I'm
not making that up.
Is it grammatical/acceptable to say that their code should be "as little
surprising as possible"?
Would replacing "little surprising" with "unsurprising" improve the
sentence? I'm not sure.

[Tony the Ice Man]

I would say "as little surprise as possible."

The use of "surprising" would be understood, especially in the context
of dialog between programmers, but it an unnecessary contortion of the
language. The phrase "as unsurprising as possible" would be an
improvement over "surprising."

[Kiuhnm]

OK, thanks!

[Tony the Ice Man]

I was going to say that I think "unsurprising" is an improvement because
it avoids the double adjective without a noun of "as little surprising
as possible." However, thinking about it, I realize that "surprising"
isn't an adjective in this case, it's a gerund. I don't know how I
missed that earlier.

Although I'm fairly sure of the classification, I admit to not being an
authoritative expert in grammatical classifications within English
sentence structure, so there's a small possibility that I'm mistaken. As
a professional writer, however, I know more than most English speakers,
I've learned a lot from professional editors, and I have a good
intuitive ear for what is "right."

[Kiuhnm]

See here:
https://arts.uottawa.ca/writingcentre/en/hypergrammar/the-parts-of-speech

The parts of speech are:
verb
noun
pronoun
adjective
adverb
preposition
conjunction
interjection

This is the most important part:
"Each part of speech explains not what the word is, but how the word
is used."

So it doesn't matter if it's a gerund: it still acts as an adjective in
that sentence.

That would also agree with what I know about Italian.

> Although I'm fairly sure of the classification, I admit to not being an
> authoritative expert in grammatical classifications within English
> sentence structure, so there's a small possibility that I'm mistaken. As
> a professional writer, however, I know more than most English speakers,
> I've learned a lot from professional editors, and I have a good
> intuitive ear for what is "right."

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=as+little+_NOUN_+as+possible%2C+as+little+_ADJ_+as+possible&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26

See here for other advanced options such as _NOUN_ and _ADJ_:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/info

[Wolfgang]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 06:45:44 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
> [...]

> See here:
> https://arts.uottawa.ca/writingcentre/en/hypergrammar/the-parts-of-speech
>
> The parts of speech are:
>   verb
>   noun
>   pronoun
>   adjective
>   adverb
>   preposition
>   conjunction
>   interjection

What about articles and numerals?

Bye,
Wolfgang

[Kiuhnm]

Some classical grammars don't have specific classes for those.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner#Description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics)

[IdP]

Kiuhnm expressed precisely :
...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics)


Si legge nel brano di Wikipedia: "Some theories of grammar use the
word "numeral" to refer to cardinal numbers that act as a determiner
that specify the quantity of a noun, for example the "two" in "two
hats". Some theories of grammar do not include determiners as a part of
speech and consider "two" in this example to be an adjective."


Ma *se* è vero che i numeri cardinali, in inglese, non vengono usati
predicativamente,

e *se* è vero che una differenza tra "determiners" e aggettivi è che i
primi non sono usati predicativemente,

*allora* azzarderei che i numeri cardinali in inglese sono
"determiners"
(o talora pronomi, ma forse no! vedi
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2016/08/number.html ).

[IdP]

> Re: Parrts of speech [

Scusate il mio grasso dito, per dirla con un calco!

Sarà "parts" con pronuncia scozzese? :D

[Tony the Ice Man]

On 04/02/22 9:45 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 05:01, Tony the Ice Man wrote:

> ...

>> Although I'm fairly sure of the classification, I admit to not being
>> an authoritative expert in grammatical classifications within English
>> sentence structure, so there's a small possibility that I'm mistaken.
>> As a professional writer, however, I know more than most English
>> speakers, I've learned a lot from professional editors, and I have a
>> good intuitive ear for what is "right."
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=as+little+_NOUN_+as+possible%2C+as+little+_ADJ_+as+possible&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26
> See here for other advanced options such as _NOUN_ and _ADJ_:
>   https://books.google.com/ngrams/info

Whoa! I said I'm not an authoritative expert, but I didn't intend to say
that I'm a beginner! What I meant was that I couldn't immediately
explain, without checking a reference, the difference in terms such as:

- Gradable adjectives.
- Non-gradable adjectives.
- Proper adjectives.
- Ordinal adjectives.
- Cardinal adjectives.
- Compound adjectives.
- De-verbal adjectives.
- De-nominal adjectives.
- Attributive Adjectives.
- Predicative adjectives

[Kiuhnm]

On 03/04/2022 17:12, IdP wrote:
> Kiuhnm expressed precisely :
> ...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics)
>
>
> Si legge nel brano di Wikipedia:  "Some theories of grammar use the word
> "numeral" to refer to cardinal numbers that act as a determiner that
> specify the quantity of a noun, for example the "two" in "two hats".
> Some theories of grammar do not include determiners as a part of speech
> and consider "two" in this example to be an adjective."
>
>
> Ma *se* è vero che i numeri cardinali, in inglese, non vengono usati
> predicativamente,

Esempio?

[Kiuhnm]

The graph I linked was meant to corroborate what you said about "as
little <adj> as possible" being ungrammatical.

My real objection is to your claiming that "surprising" is not an
adjective because it's a gerund. They're concepts on different levels:
"adjective" refers to the function of a word, while "gerund" to its
grammatical form.

[Tony the Ice Man]

In fact, I was trying to figure out the function of "surprising" in the
phrase because I suspected its function may not be that of an adjective,
given that the function of an adjective is to modify a noun, and there
is no noun to modify. A gerund is a word that is created with a verb but
functions as a noun. To me, that's a more satisfying description of "the
least surprising possible" than is the assertion that "surprising"
functions as an adjective in that phrase.

However, I'm open to any arguments supporting an alternative view, given
that I do not claim to be a grammar expert. (I think that I'm in good
company. Even some professional editors I know don't claim to be grammar
experts and will point to others who they identify as "more expert in
grammar" when asked a particularly problematic question. These days it
has become a rare obsession to be one who always looks for grammar rules
to explain natural language phenomena.)

I may have entirely wandered off of the point of the original question
by now, but my adjective preoccupation was only triggered in trying to
accommodate the "aggettivo" element of the "il meno <aggettivo>
possibile" specification you supplied.

In searching for opinions regarding adjectives with no nouns, I happened
upon the article cited below that I only cite because I think it might
be of some interest to you.
https://guinlist.wordpress.com/tag/adjective-without-noun/

The site author claims to be a specialist in English for academic and
professional purposes, and he says "The blog particularly seeks to
clarify advanced topics in English grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation
that give the greatest problems to speakers of other languages when they
are involved in academic and professional communication."

[Wolfgang]

Lunedì 4 aprile 2022 01:57:06 UTC+2 Tony il Gelatiere ha scritto:
> [...]

> I may have entirely wandered off of the point of the original
> question by now, but my adjective preoccupation was only triggered
> in trying to accommodate the "aggettivo" element of the "il meno
> <aggettivo> possibile" specification you supplied.

Nel caso “il meno <aggettivo> possibile” non si tratta affatto di un
aggettivo senza sostantivo (adjective without noun), bensì di un
aggettivo predicativo, come si vede subito mettendo l'espressione in un
contesto, ad esempio: “Questo vino è il meno costoso possibile” (ma fa
proprio schifo).

> In searching for opinions regarding adjectives with no nouns, I

> happenedupon the article cited below that I only cite because I

> think it might be of some interest to you.
>
> https://guinlist.wordpress.com/tag/adjective-without-noun/

Quegli aggettivi sono aggettivi sostantivati. Quindi non sono più
aggettivi, bensì sostantivi. Ritengo fuorviante la denominazione
“adjective without noun”.

Ciao,
Wolfgang

[Kiuhnm]

On 04/04/2022 01:57, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> On 04/03/22 3:23 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
>> My real objection is to your claiming that "surprising" is not an
>> adjective because it's a gerund. They're concepts on different levels:
>> "adjective" refers to the function of a word, while "gerund" to its
>> grammatical form.
>
> In fact, I was trying to figure out the function of "surprising" in the
> phrase because I suspected its function may not be that of an adjective,
> given that the function of an adjective is to modify a noun, and there
> is no noun to modify. A gerund is a word that is created with a verb but
> functions as a noun. To me, that's a more satisfying description of "the
> least surprising possible" than is the assertion that "surprising"
> functions as an adjective in that phrase.

I think I now understand what you mean. You're thinking:
- we should have little + noun
- but we have little + surprising
- surprising is not a noun
- could it be an adjective without a noun, that is, an adjective that
acts as a noun?

Maybe something like:
"as little <of what's surprising> as possible"

That's interesting, but I think we're bending the rules a little too much!
I've already given up on "little surprising" and moved on :)

[IdP]

Kiuhnm was thinking very hard :

Mmh, in effetti trovo anche
"The Ten Commandments are ten, the months of childbirth are nine, the
days of circumcision are eight, the days of the week are seven, the
Mishnah sections are six, the books of the Torah are five, the
Matriarchs are four...".

[Tony the Ice Man]

Meno male che ci sia una persona che conosce tutte delle classificazioni.

In Inglese, allora, "predicative adjective" e "substantivised
adjective." Quest'ultimo termine aggettivo sostantivato, se non più un
aggettivo, secondo me è mal chiamato perché la parola aggettivo è il
sostantivo nel termine, e il sostantivato è un modificatore. Nello
spirito di pace sul mondo, la ritiro come obiezione pubblica e la
conservo come obiezione personale.

[Kiuhnm]

Grammarians call words such as "impossible" /adjective/ in advance, and
then teach us that the parts of speech, including "adjective", are about
the use of a word and not its form, basically contradicting themselves.
They should say "impossible" is just a word and becomes a part of
speech, an adjective or a noun, when it's part of a sentence.

[Kiuhnm]

So I agree with you on this: "substantivised adjective" is utter
nonsense, but we'll have to live with it.

[Kiuhnm]

"adjective without a noun", though, is even worse.

(Last consecutive post, I promise)

[Wolfgang]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 00:51:59 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 00:47, Kiuhnm wrote:
>> On 04/04/2022 20:22, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
>>> On 04/04/22 1:31 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
>>>> Lunedì 4 aprile 2022 01:57:06 UTC+2 Tony il Gelatiere ha scritto:
>>>>> [...] I may have entirely wandered off of the point of the original
>>>>> question by now, but my adjective preoccupation was only triggered
>>>>> in trying to accommodate the "aggettivo" element of the "il meno
>>>>> <aggettivo> possibile" specification you supplied.
>>>>
>>>> Nel caso “il meno <aggettivo> possibile” non si tratta affatto di un
>>>> aggettivo senza sostantivo (adjective without noun), bensì di un
>>>> aggettivo predicativo, come si vede subito mettendo l'espressione in
>>>> un contesto, ad esempio: “Questo vino è il meno costoso possibile”
>>>> (ma fa proprio schifo).
>>>>
>>>>> In searching for opinions regarding adjectives with no nouns, I
>>>>> happenedupon the article cited below that I only cite because I
>>>>> think it might be of some interest to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://guinlist.wordpress.com/tag/adjective-without-noun/
>>>>
>>>> Quegli aggettivi sono aggettivi sostantivati. Quindi non sono più
>>>> aggettivi, bensì sostantivi. Ritengo fuorviante la denominazione
>>>> “adjective without noun”.
>>>

>>> Meno male che ci sia una persona che conosce tutte delle
>>> classificazioni.
>>>
>>> In Inglese, allora, "predicative adjective" e "substantivised
>>> adjective." Quest'ultimo termine aggettivo sostantivato, se non più
>>> un aggettivo, secondo me è mal chiamato perché la parola aggettivo è
>>> il sostantivo nel termine, e il sostantivato è un modificatore. Nello
>>> spirito di pace sul mondo, la ritiro come obiezione pubblica e la
>>> conservo come obiezione personale.
>>
>> Grammarians call words such as "impossible" /adjective/ in advance,
>> and then teach us that the parts of speech, including "adjective", are
>> about the use of a word and not its form, basically contradicting
>> themselves. They should say "impossible" is just a word and becomes a
>> part of speech, an adjective or a noun, when it's part of a sentence.
>
> So I agree with you on this: "substantivised adjective" is utter
> nonsense, but we'll have to live with it.

Let's make it more bearable using American spelling of “substantivized”.

Ciao,
Wolfgang

[Kiuhnm]

Tony forgot to americanize it :)

[Wolfgang]

I thought he was American.

Anyway tonight, unable to fall asleep, I had an idea of another
illogical expression, analogous to our “substantivized adjective”: the
“liquified gas” is not a gas, but a, though unstable, liquid.

Ciao,
Wolfgang

[Tony the Ice Man]

This morning I ate some of the American breakfast cereal Grape Nuts, a
product which contains no grapes and no nuts.

[Kiuhnm]

It's similar, but different: a "liquified gas" is a gas that was
liquified. The important thing is that it was a gas at some point.
"substantivized adjective" doesn't make sense because the word it refers
to was never an adjective to begin with: before being put into the
sentence it was nothing and then became a noun.

One way to look at it is that the term "adjective" is overloaded
(computer science jargon): it can refer to (i) a word which is usually
used as an adjective or to (ii) a word that's being used as an adjective.
So a "substantivized adjective" is "a word that's usually an adjective
being used as a noun".

[Wolfgang]

Grape-Nuts is a brand, which is completely arbitrary. The makers of this
product are free to give it any name, even one that contains wrong
information on the ingredients.

Contrary to that, “substantivized adjective” and “liquified gas” are no
brands, but denominations in normal language. And here the objection
that the former one is no adjective and the latter no gas may make sense.

Ciao,
Wolfgang

[Tony the Ice Man]

On 04/06/22 4:31 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 19:46:45 +0200, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
>> On 04/04/22 11:57 PM, Wolfgang wrote:

>>> ...

>>> Anyway tonight, unable to fall asleep, I had an idea of another
>>> illogical expression, analogous to our “substantivized adjective”:
>>> the “liquified gas” is not a gas, but a, though unstable, liquid.
>>
>> This morning I ate some of the American breakfast cereal Grape Nuts,
>> a product which contains no grapes and no nuts.
>
> Grape-Nuts is a brand, which is completely arbitrary. The makers of this
> product are free to give it any name, even one that contains wrong
> information on the ingredients.

It isn't true that the makers of this product can give it any name.

Here, in this newsgroup, we enjoy the luxury of niggling over any
statement, no matter how unimportant, irrelevant, or inconsequential.
And I assert my entitlement to the decadent indulgence of my personal
whim, and the expression of the most infantile manifestation of my ego
to say, they cannot call it milk, as the makers of soy milk/silk
discovered. And if it were made in Italy outside of a certain
geographical terrain, I don't think they could call it Chianti D.O.C.G.

> Contrary to that, “substantivized adjective” and “liquified gas” are no
> brands, but denominations in normal language. And here the objection
> that the former one is no adjective and the latter no gas may make sense.

I knew that. Did you think I didn't know that? Why would you think I
didn't know that? I knew that. (Paraphrased from Martin Short as Nathan
Thurm, SNL circa 1984-1985)