Re: not sooner grammar
chance
> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Think of "No sooner said than done"
>
> > Well, do you set 'No sooner said than done' at the same footing
> > as the ordinary comparative sentence, for one, like,
> > 'Done no sooner than said'?
>
> I've never heard that one.
>
> Ok. How about this one?
>
> 'No sooner than said, it was performed'.
>
> --Principles of English Grammar
> by J.N. Patrick
Nope.
Whst is 'Nope?
Isn't it the same as 'It was performed no sooner than said'?
Well, what about this?
Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again,
no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup.
This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume)
A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen
contrex
"Nope" is an emphatic slang form of "no".
She knew that Maud would be off again, immediately after she had taken
Lars Eighner
talented chance broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> > Think of "No sooner said than done"
>>
>> > Well, do you set 'No sooner said than done' at the same footing
>> > as the ordinary comparative sentence, for one, like,
>> > 'Done no sooner than said'?
>>
>> I've never heard that one.
>>
>> Ok. How about this one?
>>
>> 'No sooner than said, it was performed'.
>>
>> --Principles of English Grammar
>> by J.N. Patrick
> Nope.
> Whst is 'Nope?
> Isn't it the same as 'It was performed no sooner than said'?
No, it is exactly the opposite.
It is same as "done as soon as said" or "It was performed as soon as said"
or "It was said no sooner than it was done." Of course this is almost never
literally true. (It might be literally true when the request, command, or
whatever was said has been anticipated.)
> Well, what about this?
> Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again,
> no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup.
What about it? The only question is whether the second 'she' and
the 'her' refer to Maud or to the first 'she.' Is it:
1) no sooner than Maud had taken her nose out of the cup than
Maud would be off again
or
2) no sooner had she taken her nose out of the cup than she knew Maud
would be off again
?
2) might be literally true. 1) would be the usual exaggeration mean Maud
would leave very quickly after drinking the tea.
> This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume)
> A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 37
894.7 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
contrex
> 2) might be literally true. 1) would be the usual exaggeration mean Maud
> would leave very quickly after drinking the tea.
>
Or (re)commence talking in a way that had previously irritated or
bored or which was predictable. When my father started saying stuff
like "When I was a boy, I knew the meaning of hard work!" etc, my
mother or sister or aunt would say "He's off again!" This is fairly
widepread colloquial usage.
CDB
> chance broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>> [Think of "No sooner said than done"]
>>>
>> Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again,
>> no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup.
>
> What about it? The only question is whether the second 'she' and
> the 'her' refer to Maud or to the first 'she.' Is it:
>
> 1) no sooner than Maud had taken her nose out of the cup than
> Maud would be off again
>
> or
>
> 2) no sooner had she taken her nose out of the cup than she knew
> Maud
> would be off again
>
> ?
> 2) might be literally true. 1) would be the usual exaggeration
> mean Maud would leave very quickly after drinking the tea.
>
of the cup". It seems to me that the author was using the negative
form to emphasise Maud's preoccupation with what she was doing. She
would be off again, but only after (not before, 'no sooner than') she
was finished drinking.
>
I have never read anything by Ms Sackville-West, but I wonder if the
cup contained only tea.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> > Think of "No sooner said than done"
>>
>> > Well, do you set 'No sooner said than done' at the same footing
>> > as the ordinary comparative sentence, for one, like,
>> > 'Done no sooner than said'?
>>
>> I've never heard that one.
>>
>> Ok. How about this one?
>>
>> 'No sooner than said, it was performed'.
>>
>> --Principles of English Grammar
>> by J.N. Patrick
>
"No sooner than" is an idiom meaning "as soon as" or "immediately".
It is classified as an idiom because the meaning is not the literal
meaning of the words.
The Longman Dictionary of English Idioms explains:
"no sooner said than done"
something that one has been asked to do will be done as soon as the
request or command is made.
That phrase is used as "an expression of willingness to do something".
>Nope.
>
>Whst is 'Nope?
>
Nope is the opposite of Yep (which are colloquial versions of No and
Yes).
>Isn't it the same as 'It was performed no sooner than said'?
>
>Well, what about this?
>
>Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again,
>no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup.
>
>This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume)
>A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen
It means "she knew that Maud would be off again, as soon as
(immediately) she had taken her nose out of the cup".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Robert Lieblich
ATTENTION all participants in this thread. Chance Kim is almost as
obsessed by "no sooner" as our friend Daniel is by the word meaning
"very infrequently encountered." As evidence, I offer this thread
from 2003, which is hardly the only one:
<http://tinyurl.com/ye9cnjo>. God knows how many electrons have died
that he might pursue his chimera.
Chance has no interest in understanding the proper and idiomatic use
of "no sooner." He wants, rather, to browbeat everyone into agreeing
with him even though he has no grasp of how the phrase works in
everyday language.
Proceed at your peril.
--
Bob Lieblich
The Voice of Experience
chance
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B47C8EF...@yahoo.com...
Tell me, Bob. What is wrong with asking a question seeking an answer?
Remember, you had asked for a fee for answering my question with regard to 'no sooner than'.
I have been trying to find an answer for the question without paying the fee.
You always paint some grammatically problematic sentences or phrases as 'idioms'.
Your designated 'idioms' are, then, above and beyond grammar?
Rather than blaming others for posting somewhat tough questions, you'd better wonder
how to help solve them, contributing to the cause of this group, and how to stop
dictating who is good or bad for this place as if you own it.
chance
"CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:hi7av4$c00$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>> chance broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>
>>> [Think of "No sooner said than done"]
>>>>
>>> Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again,
>>> no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup.
>>
>> What about it? The only question is whether the second 'she' and
>> the 'her' refer to Maud or to the first 'she.' Is it:
>>
>> 1) no sooner than Maud had taken her nose out of the cup than
>> Maud would be off again
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2) no sooner had she taken her nose out of the cup than she knew
>> Maud
>> would be off again
>>
>> ?
>> 2) might be literally true. 1) would be the usual exaggeration
>> mean Maud would leave very quickly after drinking the tea.
>>
> The usual phrasing would be "... as soon as she had taken her nose out
> of the cup". It seems to me that the author was using the negative
> form to emphasise Maud's preoccupation with what she was doing. She
> would be off again, but only after (not before, 'no sooner than') she
> was finished drinking.
You are a genius. You know the anatomy of the English langauge.
Thank you for confirming the grammaticality of 'Done no sooner than said'.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote
[ ... ]
> > Chance has no interest in understanding the proper and idiomatic use
> > of "no sooner." He wants, rather, to browbeat everyone into agreeing
> > with him even though he has no grasp of how the phrase works in
> > everyday language.
> >
> > Proceed at your peril.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Lieblich
> > The Voice of Experience
>
> Tell me, Bob. What is wrong with asking a question seeking an answer?
Nothing, as long as the question has a possible answer. Yours
doesn't.
> Remember, you had asked for a fee for answering my question with regard to 'no sooner than'.
No, I said I wasn't going to waste any more of my time on your
question, because the research effort you wanted from me was equal to
what I would ordinarily charge for. I never asked you for a fee, and
I wouldn't have accepted one if you'd offered. The issue about which
we had this little dialogue was, in any event, a digression that had
nothing to do with the basic issue of "no wooner." I see that your
grasp of English idiom has failed you yet again.
> I have been trying to find an answer for the question without paying the fee.
I have never wanted a fee from you. Why should I take money from you
when I already know that I cannot find you the answer you want? Your
question is nonsense. It assumes "facts" about usage that are
falsehoods, not facts. You don't want the truth -- you want
acquiescence, surrender even. I've never offered that to you, free or
paid.
> You always paint some grammatically problematic sentences or phrases as 'idioms'.
> Your designated 'idioms' are, then, above and beyond grammar?
Of course. What do you think "idiom" means? Ray Wise explained this
to you years ago. (Well, let's say he gave it a good try; you never
seem to accept the explanation, no matter how correct.)
> Rather than blaming others for posting somewhat tough questions,
It's not a tough question, Chance, it's a nonsense question, on a par
with asking why an eggplant doesn't have a yolk.
> you'd better wonder
> how to help solve them, contributing to the cause of this group, and how to stop
> dictating who is good or bad for this place as if you own it.
I'm not dictating. (*You* are dictating. You're telling me how to
behave. I'm not trying to change your behavior -- I have no reason to
think I can) I'm rxpressing an opinion -- of you and your obsession.
No one is obliged to agree with me. If they find my opinion
unpersuasive, they are free to disregard it. But they are also free to
heed my warning and stop wasting time on you. I think my opinion has
value as an explanation of your nigh incomprehensible conduct and a
warning to others.
. . .
Chance, you won't listen to reason, and you won't accept what you're
told no matter how many people tell you. I have no idea why you're so
obsessed with "no sooner" that you have gone back to it over and over
again over the past decade just in the newsgroups. I have ceased
trying to reason with you because you can't be reasoned with. All
I've attempted to do in my latest possts is help people come sooner to
the realization that trying to explain to you the usage (and what
matters is usage, not grammar) of the phrase with which you are so
obsessed is a waste of time and effort.
Anyway, the warning's been posted. Caveat poster.
--
Bob Lieblich
Yeah, why doesn't an eggplant have a yolk?
chance
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B482658...@yahoo.com...
Let it be known simply that you believe the 'no sooner than' structure is beyond grammar
because it is what you call an idiom, while I believe sentences, whatever some of them
you may call, are not beyond grammar. Objects are over there. Why can't you seize them?
Lars Eighner
talented chance broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> You are a genius. You know the anatomy of the English langauge.
> Thank you for confirming the grammaticality of 'Done no sooner than said'.
You have no interest in learning. English will not conform to your
ideology.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 38
919.7 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>> chance broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>>
>>>> [Think of "No sooner said than done"]
>>>>>
>
> You are a genius. You know the anatomy of the English langauge.
> Thank you for confirming the grammaticality of 'Done no sooner than
> said'.
As to the grammaticality of "Done no sooner than said", I agree that
it is grammatically correct; but it isn't used much, because it
doesn't mean anything very useful. Many people have already commented
at length on that point.
>
Here's another try: "no sooner than" and "as soon as" are two sides of
the same coin. "Bill is no older than Chris" is parallel to "Chris is
as old as Bill". Similarly, to say that something is "no sooner said
than done" is another way of saying that it is "done as soon as (it
is) said". "No sooner said than done" is an idiom, in the sense that
it is a set expression meaning that an order is obeyed instantly, "as
soon as" it is given. Other things that make it idiomatic are the
inverted word order and the uncommon use of the word "said" to mean
"ordered", or at least "spoken of".
>
In my opinion, the phrase itself is grammatically correct, but its
interpretation is idiomatic because the phrase is used as a whole to
convey a special meaning, as I said above. The reversed phrase that
you proposed, "done no sooner than said", would mean the same as "said
as soon as done". That's not ungrammatical, but isn't often used,
because there isn't much need for it. I suppose that, if I saw it
written, I would understand it to mean that something was spoken of as
soon as it was done. The crime was reported as soon as it was
committed: it was done no sooner than it was said.
>
That last expansion of your phrase points up the most important reason
for calling the common phrase (no sooner said than done) idiomatic:
people say it, and know what it means. People don't say "done no
sooner than said", and would be puzzled to understand what it means.
>
I don't think I will be able to carry this discussion further. My
piece is no sooner said than I am done.
Robert Lieblich
[addressing yfc]
> Let it be known simply that you believe the 'no sooner than' structure is beyond grammar
> because it is what you call an idiom, while I believe sentences, whatever some of them
> you may call, are not beyond grammar. Objects are over there. Why can't you seize them?
You have accurately stated my "belief" in this matter. I don't see
why you think you're scoring points by simply repeating what I say. I
assume you have accurately stated yours "bel;ief." As many people
have fruitlessly tried to tell you in one way or another, your
"belief," correct or not, is irrelevant, for the reason that my belief
is correct. As for seizing objects, I understand that to be a
metaphor, and I have no problem with doing so as an abstract notion --
but when the object is poisonous to the touch, or offensive in some
gross manner, I hope I am free not to seize it. That is the case
here.
No matter how many variations you may spin on "no sooner," the point
is not which ones you can wedge into some category that you call (Not
to mention that much of what you think "grammatical" isn't -- and that
it all depends on what the meaning of "grammaticalty" is.) What
matters is whether the particular locution under discussion is part of
English as it is actually used -- grammatical of not.
Indeed, to get back to that parenthetical sentence that may look
facetious but isn't, many linguists take the position that usage
governs grammaticality -- that if a given locution is common in
English, a way must be found to include it within the scope of English
grammar. (Alternatively, if it is common and doesn't fit someone
else's differing notion of grammar, it's an idiom in the sense in
which I use "idiom." It doesn't help that the definitional terms
themselves have different meanings. At one end of that scale, there's
a book of almost two thousand pages (two volumes), by the name of "The
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," whose purpose is to
construct a grammar around English as actually used. At the other
end, apparently, is Chance Kim.
When you ask someone to construct a grammatical explanation of a
phrase or clause that is almost never used seriously by a native
speaker, you may be asking the impossible. If no one uses it, then in
one sense at least it's ungrammatical by definition.
Keep this up and you'll overtake and pass Daniel.
--
Bob Lieblich
Enjoying the exercise -- to a point
chance
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B48AC7E...@yahoo.com...
Rubbish. Well, have you ever checked that book to see if it dismissed
the no soooner than structure as to be beyond grammar
because it is an idiom as you know it, let alone any authoratative grammars?
If you have, name one.
At the other
> end, apparently, is Chance Kim.
>
> When you ask someone to construct a grammatical explanation of a
> phrase or clause that is almost never used seriously by a native
> speaker, you may be asking the impossible. If no one uses it, then in
> one sense at least it's ungrammatical by definition.
>
> Keep this up and you'll overtake and pass Daniel.
>
> --
> Bob Lieblich
> Enjoying the exercise -- to a point
Remember the miserableness the onlookers expereienced
when you blubbered incoherently nonsense.
chance
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B482658...@yahoo.com...
What a funny joke that is falling flat!
chance
"CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:hia93d$uas$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thanks.
Bill McCray
Compound modifiers generally need to be hyphenated, so make it
"no-sooner-than structure".
Bill in Kentucky
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> > Indeed, to get back to that parenthetical sentence that may look
> > facetious but isn't, many linguists take the position that usage
> > governs grammaticality -- that if a given locution is common in
> > English, a way must be found to include it within the scope of English
> > grammar. (Alternatively, if it is common and doesn't fit someone
> > else's differing notion of grammar, it's an idiom in the sense in
> > which I use "idiom." It doesn't help that the definitional terms
> > themselves have different meanings. At one end of that scale, there's
> > a book of almost two thousand pages (two volumes), by the name of "The
> > Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," whose purpose is to
> > construct a grammar around English as actually used.
>
> Rubbish. Well, have you ever checked that book to see if it dismissed
> the no soooner than structure as to be beyond grammar
> because it is an idiom as you know it, let alone any authoratative grammars?
> If you have, name one.
Ah, once again I am invited to conduct a research project for your
enlightenment. It's deja vu all over again. Okay, I'm haven't
knocked myself out, but here are a few links. Enjoy:
"IDIOMS: no sooner than"
<http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/soon>
"No sooner said than done - idiom Accomplished immediately, as in He
said we should leave and, no sooner said than done. This expression
employs no sooner ... than in the sense of �at once,� a usage dating
from the mid-1500s."
<http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/no-sooner-said-than-done>,
quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms.
"GoEnglish.com teaches the meanings and uses of English idioms,
idiomatic phrases and expressions such as no sooner said than done
(...). Our goal for the lesson 'Today's Idiom = No Sooner Said Than
Done' is for you to completely understand what no sooner said than
done means, and to feel confident using 'no sooner said than done'
correctly in conversation."
<http://www.goenglish.com/Idioms/No+Sooner+Said+Than+Done.asp> The
lesson itself must be paid for, and I'm not going to spend my own
money for your benefit, but you might want to look at it.
"Idioms . . . NO SOONER WHEN/NO SOONER THAN The phrase, 'No sooner
had Paula stopped petting the cat when it began to yowl' should be
instead, 'No sooner had Paula stopped petting the cat than it began to
yowl.'�
<http://catindiaonline.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/idioms-gmat-sentence-correction-notes-iii/>
As for what idiom is:
"idiom . . . 1 A speech form or an expression of a given language that
is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the
individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on. 2 The
specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a given
language."
<http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/idiom>, quoting
AHD. Both definitions apply here.
"idi�om noun 1.the language or dialect of a people, region, class,
etc. 2.the usual way in which the words of a particular language are
joined together to express thought 3.a phrase, construction, or
expression that is recognized as a unit in the usage of a given
language and either differs from the usual syntactic patterns or has a
meaning that differs from the literal meaning of its parts taken
together (Ex.: not a word did she say; she heard it straight from the
horse's mouth)" <http://www.yourdictionary.com/idiom> Note in
particular No. 3: "differs from the usual syntactic pattern."
. . . .
Now, if you consider that "no sooner said than done" is regarded as an
idiom and that "idiom" means what the dictionary says it means, you
might actually be able to get it through your think skull that you
can't use "no sooner" as a free-floating phrase anywhere you please.
In particular, in contexts where it sounds wrong to native speakers,
it IS wrong, precisely because it sounds wrong. There's nothing
grammatically wrong, for example, with saying "I am capable to play
the piano" except that native English speakers don't say that. They
say either "I am capable of playing ..." or "I am able to ...," but
not "I am capable to ..." Therefore, "I am capable to ..." is
unidiomatic, and being unidiomatic it is WRONG. In English usage, as
Bun Mui might say.
(And let's not forget that for many linguists, that which sounds wrong
to the great mass of native speakers is, by definition, grammatically
wrong. They would say that the grammar of English allows "of" and the
present participle with "capable" but not "to" with the infinitive. I
happen to sympathize with this usage of defining terms, but it's not
necessary to my point.)
I'm confident that none of this will do any good, but it's more fun
than poking myself in the eye with a stick. No charge for the
research.
--
Bob Lieblich
Any linguists still paying attention?
chance
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B4A1200...@yahoo.com...
Sure enough. The linguists, whom you know as such, may not,
but others will.
chance
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message news:7qv6up...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B4A1200...@yahoo.com...
>> chance wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> > Indeed, to get back to that parenthetical sentence that may look
>>> > facetious but isn't, many linguists take the position that usage
>>> > governs grammaticality -- that if a given locution is common in
>>> > English, a way must be found to include it within the scope of English
>>> > grammar. (Alternatively, if it is common and doesn't fit someone
>>> > else's differing notion of grammar, it's an idiom in the sense in
>>> > which I use "idiom." It doesn't help that the definitional terms
>>> > themselves have different meanings. At one end of that scale, there's
>>> > a book of almost two thousand pages (two volumes), by the name of "The
>>> > Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," whose purpose is to
>>> > construct a grammar around English as actually used.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. Well, have you ever checked that book to see if it dismissed
>>> the no soooner than structure as to be beyond grammar
>>> because it is an idiom as you know it, let alone any authoratative grammars?
>>> If you have, name one.
>>
>> Ah, once again I am invited to conduct a research project for your
>> enlightenment.
I almost forgot. Hasn't the question get through your think skull yet?
Have you ever seen such a book as you have claimed
as ' whose purpose is to construct a grammar around English
as actually used' yet? Answer me. If not, you are a derelict
and a liar.
How pitiful you are that all that you can muster with your think skull
is just it that you believe it something!
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Have you ever seen such a book as you have claimed
> as ' whose purpose is to construct a grammar around English
> as actually used' yet? Answer me. If not, you are a derelict
> and a liar.
The best-known current grammar of that sort is "The Cambridge Grammar
of the English Language," by Huddlestone and Pullum. You can find it
at amazon.com:
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=pullum+cambridge+grammar&x=10&y=25>.
. You can read the authors' own description of the book here:
<http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Grammar-English-Language/dp/
0521431468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263171093&sr=1-1>; tinyURL
version: <http://tinyurl.com/yaynemv>.
The earlier English grammar by George Curme adheres to the same
principles. Here's an excerpt from the introduction (copied by me
from the book; I don't think it's online): "The purpose of the
treatise is to describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of
form to express thought." The entire introduction is enlightening,
even from the perspective of aomost 85 years ago, but as I said, I
can't find it online. Why don't you buy a copy of the book (both
volumes)? It's pretty cheap on Amazon, and it offers solid proof of
what I've been telling you. The Cambridge Grammar is even better for
this purpose, if only because it's so recent, but it isn't cheap.
Needless to say, there are other books that undertake the same task --
a grammar describing the English language as actually used -- but
Cambridge is the best current one, and Curme is a classic. I'd say
those two suffice to acquit me of the charges of dereliction and
lying. What? -- You think I'm making this stuff up?
[snip lots of examples of "no sooner" treated as idiom, along with
several definitions of the term "idiom"]
> How pitiful you are that all that you can muster with your think skull
> is just it that you believe it something!
How pitiful that you thick so. Even more pitiable is your inability
to confess error. This isn't a matter of belief; it's a matter of
what is reality. The citations I gave you say what I am saying. If
you're too thick ("think" was a typo, of course) to grasp that, at
least offer something to the contrary said by someone other than you.
I don't think the burden of proof is on me anymore. What have you got
-- beyond bluster, that is?
--
Bob Lieblich
Helmet tightly affixed
Peter T. Daniels
> Now, if you consider that "no sooner said than done" is regarded as an
> idiom and that "idiom" means what the dictionary says it means, you
> might actually be able to get it through your think skull that you
> can't use "no sooner" as a free-floating phrase anywhere you please.
> In particular, in contexts where it sounds wrong to native speakers,
> it IS wrong, precisely because it sounds wrong. There's nothing
> grammatically wrong, for example, with saying "I am capable to play
> the piano" except that native English speakers don't say that. They
Of course it's grammatically wrong!
> say either "I am capable of playing ..." or "I am able to ...," but
> not "I am capable to ..." Therefore, "I am capable to ..." is
> unidiomatic, and being unidiomatic it is WRONG. In English usage, as
> Bun Mui might say.
It's not "unidiomatic" in the sense of "idiom" that chance cannot
grasp.
> (And let's not forget that for many linguists, that which sounds wrong
> to the great mass of native speakers is, by definition, grammatically
> wrong. They would say that the grammar of English allows "of" and the
> present participle with "capable" but not "to" with the infinitive. I
> happen to sympathize with this usage of defining terms, but it's not
> necessary to my point.)
>
> I'm confident that none of this will do any good, but it's more fun
> than poking myself in the eye with a stick. No charge for the
> research.
>
> --
> Bob Lieblich
> Any linguists still paying attention?-
Of course. For some reason, (s)he crossposted to sci.lang.
chance
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B4A7B36...@yahoo.com...
Are you so thick that you can't see every sentence is subject
to scrutiny? Curme dealt with the no sooner than structure
by saying: I had no sooner done it than (still with temporal force
as originally) I regretted it. Have you ever seen his books yet,
your mentioning him notwithstanding?
By the way, thanks for seasonal greetings. The same to you.
Eric Walker
fear to go, but could someone please state, succinctly, what the nub of
the issue is? I have read all the posts my reader displays for this
thread, and that base point is still unclear to me.
I will, however, for now make a guess that it is whether or not the
phrase "no sooner said than done" follows ordinary grammar or is
idiomatic. I gather that a representative sentence here would be "The
thing was no sooner said than done," or something much like.
Let's start by considering a simpler sentence: speaking of some difficult
task, one might say "That's sooner said than done." In such a casting,
"soon" has the sense of "in the near future; shortly". It says that the
thing in question can be said sooner--more quickly, implying more readily
or easily--than it can be done; the "than" has its temporal sense,
deriving from the older "then".
That casting is not idiom because nothing in it is being used in a way at
any notable angle from its normal use, and even one not familiar with
English idioms should have no trouble extracting its sense. As the cited
Dr. Curme put it, "'Than' is now used with [its older] temporal force
only after 'no sooner'; where, however, it is quite natural since it
follows a comparative." Note that "quite natural".
From there, it is no great leap to "It was no sooner said than done."
The "no" simply means "not"; again from Curme, "This [No] form is often
used as a regular adverb, instead of 'not', before a comparative and
sometimes elsewhere: He is no more to be trusted than you are." So the
sentence is effectively "It was not sooner said than done," which in turn
is elliptical for "It was not sooner said than [it was] done." That has
the simple and rather clear meaning, without resort to idiom, that it was
done as quickly as it was said.
Granted, the direct interpretation means that the thing was done
literally at the same instant as it was "said"--that is, as it was
proposed or asked for; but I don't think a rather simple metaphorical
interpretation requires resort to the class "idiom" for justification.
If we say, oh, that so-and-so has an uphill battle before him, we are not
required to invoke idiom to justify a reality that so-and-so is not
engaged in martial combat with a person or persons physically elevated
from him. Likewise with a remark that an act was performed in the same
instant it was suggested or requested: we need not choose between a dead
literal interpretation and "idiom".
Was any of that on point?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Robert Lieblich
>
> I am coming into this late, and suspect that I am treading where angels
> fear to go, but could someone please state, succinctly, what the nub of
> the issue is? I have read all the posts my reader displays for this
> thread, and that base point is still unclear to me.
>
> I will, however, for now make a guess that it is whether or not the
> phrase "no sooner said than done" follows ordinary grammar or is
> idiomatic. I gather that a representative sentence here would be "The
> thing was no sooner said than done," or something much like.
[snip further discussion]
> Was any of that on point?
Not quite, but helpful anyway. Peter T. Daniels seems to have figured
tthis thing out. Chance seems to know what the problem is, but he
won't accept the only rational solution.
The problem, simply put, is that Chance thinks --and for many years
has thought -- that "no sooner" can be used not only in its idiomatic
casting, with "than," but in a whole other collection of phrasings
that are unidiomatic -- or, as Daniels the Linguist says,
ungrammatical. It doesn't help that Chance seems incapable of
understanding the two somewhat disparate meanings of "idiom" as (1) A
phrase whose meaning is not the sum of the individual words; and (2)
The standard ways in which a given language phrases things, the latter
exemplified by my "capable to learn"/"able of learning" example.
Contrary to all my professional training, I have allowed Chance to
bait me into trying to prove myself right and him wrong. He's been
clever enough not to respond in kind, choosing instead to assign straw
men to me and attack them. So I amass all these citations proving
that I am right, and he responds with beside-the-point vitriol,
generating such heat that his own grammar fails him.
Peter Daniels, a professional linguist, has beaten Chance quite
thorougnly over the head in a recent post, and it's probably time to
declare victory and go home. But thanks for joining in. Words of
wisdom never hurt.
None of this will stop Chance, of course.
--
Bob Lieblich
Too fatigued to sig
chance
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message news:7qvfae...@mid.individual.net...
I almost forgot.
Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to describe
fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express thought'?
Name the source, from which what you describe as an enlightening introduction
comes. If you can't, you are a liar.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to
> describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express
> thought'? Name the source, from which what you describe as an
> enlightening introduction comes. If you can't, you are a liar.
If you're looking yourself and not finding, be aware that Curme's great
work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume
set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version.
chance
"Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message news:hied27$pms$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:25:18 +0900, chance wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to
>> describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express
>> thought'? Name the source, from which what you describe as an
>> enlightening introduction comes. If you can't, you are a liar.
>
> If you're looking yourself and not finding, be aware that Curme's great
> work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume
> set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version.
Thanks.
Peter Moylan
> I am coming into this late, and suspect that I am treading where angels
> fear to go, but could someone please state, succinctly, what the nub of
> the issue is? I have read all the posts my reader displays for this
> thread, and that base point is still unclear to me.
I'd summarise it as follows. Chance understands, correctly, that there
are some idiomatically correct English-language locutions of the form
"No sooner X than Y". On this basis, Chance has constructed some other
sentences containing "no sooner" that seem to make sense to him/her.
So far, so good. Someone learning a second or later language will, on
seeing a certain construct, attempt to extrapolate it to new situations.
I've done this myself. It's one way of improving our knowledge of the
language. We try these new combinations, and then ask whether native
speakers understand and accept them.
Where the discussion has gone off the rails has been when Chance has
proposed a sample sentence, and native speakers of English have said
that the example is not idiomatically correct English. It then boils
down to an argument where
(a) Chance has suggested that a certain utterance could be correct
English.
(b) Various native speakers have said that the example utterance
is not correct English.
(c) Chance has asserted that the native speakers are wrong.
In other words, it keeps turning into a debate as to whether native
speakers of English understand their own language.
Various people have chipped in with their own opinion. As I recall it,
we've had at least one linguist, a couple of grammarians; and, most of
all, many owners of "native speaker intuition". They have all disagreed
with Chance. The new question, then, is whether Chance understands
English better than all of the above.
Laura S, IIRC, has suggested that Bob L is hitting his head against a
brick wall when he's attempted to explain the matter to Chance. I'm
inclined to agree. There's correctable ignorance, and then again there's
invincible ignorance.
(The English language really needs a new word that's a combination of
arrogance and ignorance. On the other hand, "invincible ignorance" seems
to do the job already.)
Aside to Chance: if you think I have the above summary wrong, you're
welcome to rebut my points. But if you limit yourself to ad hominem
attacks, as you've done with other people, you won't score any points.
[Yes, I know that the preceding paragraph is a difficult one for a
non-native speaker of English to understand, even though native speakers
will understand it. I make no apology for this. It's clear that Chance
is a very advanced learner of English, someone who can understand the
words I've used. Which makes it all the more surprising that he/she
keeps failing to understand expert opinion.]
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter T. Daniels
> (The English language really needs a new word that's a combination of
> arrogance and ignorance. On the other hand, "invincible ignorance" seems
> to do the job already.)
Another of our nonnative speakers long ago created the useful term
"ignarrogant." Presumably the all-caps he uses aren't entirely
necessary for the full effect.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:25:18 +0900, chance wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to
> > describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express
> > thought'? Name the source, from which what you describe as an
> > enlightening introduction comes. If you can't, you are a liar.
>
> If you're looking yourself and not finding, be aware that Curme's great
> work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume
> set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version.
Is there any evidence that vol. 1 of the work, Hans Kurath's treatment
of English phonology, ever appeared?
António Marques
> Tell me, Bob. What is wrong with asking a question seeking an answer?
> Remember, you had asked for a fee for answering my question with regard
> to 'no sooner than'.
> I have been trying to find an answer for the question without paying the
> fee.
Miser.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Is there any evidence that vol. 1 of the work, Hans Kurath's treatment
> of English phonology, ever appeared?
Before I finish this post, I'll check Google a bit, but I'm pretty sure
it did not. Several search results refer to Kurath and Curme, but at
least the Verbatim Press reprint of Volume II (my Volume I copy is still
on order) makes no reference to Kurath in the front pages.
The Brittanica's Curme article referes to "the third and second volumes
respectively of A Grammar of the English Language by Curme and Hans
Kurath", but their article on Kurath makes no mention at all of the work.
Questia turns up what appears to be a list of the three volumes of the
work, but the actual contents displayed start with Curme's established
work. Wikipedia's Kurath article is likewise silent on that book.
Google books refers to the three volumes, but has information only on the
supposed second and third.
In sum, it seems it never saw light.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:25:18 +0900, chance wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to
> > describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express
> > thought'? Name the source, from which what you describe as an
> > enlightening introduction comes. If you can't, you are a liar.
>
> If you're looking yourself and not finding, be aware that Curme's great
> work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume
> set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version.
I thought I made it clear that I was quoting directly from the book --
Curme's grammar, written by him -- because I could not find the text
onine. Chance's facility with English seems to vary in proportion to
the degree of his outrage. So, lest any doubt remain:
Chance -- I copied the quotation in question directly and verbatim
from the Introduction written by Curme and appearing at the beginning
of Volume 1 of his complete two-volume grammar of the English
language. I have both volumes in my bookcase at home. I cannot cite
an appearance of Curme's introduction on the Web because I cannot find
one. I told you previously, and repeat, that the entire two-volume
work is available on the Web, and it would do you a great deal of good
to purchase a copy (which you can do relatively cheaply) and study it
-- starting with the introduction. If you simply want to confirm the
accuracy of my quotation, just find the book in a library.
What bizarre twist of your mind leads you to accuse me of making this
stuff up? I'm not. What I *am* doing is bearing out Laura's comment.
In fact, I'm going to have to replace my very beat-up helmet if this
keeps up.
--
Bob Lieblich
Whose helmets are not made of tin
chance
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4B4BDE5F...@yahoo.com...
> Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:25:18 +0900, chance wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to
>> > describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express
>> > thought'? Name the source, from which what you describe as an
>> > enlightening introduction comes. If you can't, you are a liar.
>>
>> If you're looking yourself and not finding, be aware that Curme's great
>> work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume
>> set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version.
>
> I thought I made it clear that I was quoting directly from the book --
> Curme's grammar, written by him -- because I could not find the text
> onine. Chance's facility with English seems to vary in proportion to
> the degree of his outrage. So, lest any doubt remain:
>
> Chance -- I copied the quotation in question directly and verbatim
> from the Introduction written by Curme and appearing at the beginning
> of Volume 1 of his complete two-volume grammar of the English
> language. I have both volumes in my bookcase at home.
Sorry for doubting your claim about the case of copying
part of Curme's introduction. The citation sounded
familiar to me somewhat, though I thought that is irrelevant
to the points of contetnion between us.
Eric Walker
[...]
> I told you previously, and repeat, that the entire two-volume work is
> available on the Web, and it would do you a great deal of good to
> purchase a copy (which you can do relatively cheaply) and study it --
> starting with the introduction. . . .
I believe you can get the pair, in decent shape, for about $25 (plus
shipping). But if that's pricey, the shortened "College Outline Series"
paperback is a perfectly satisfactory alternative and is priced so low
that the shipping will doubtless be more than the book price. (The COS
version does not leave out much, if any, actual text: it was created
largely, if I understand it aright, by dropping some of the many copious
examples of usages that Curme gives in the full version.
chance
"Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message news:higpuj$qqe$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thanks.
chance
"chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote in message news:7r27cp...@mid.individual.net...
Let it be known, however, that I am leaving the debate at that, forgoing pursuing it
till the issue is being put to rest, out of not the fault of my foolishness,
which may have been taken to be so in view of overlooking your glossing over
and evading points of contention but out of the sense of the wisdom of not following
the policy of taking no prisoners.