Well, the peevologist would say that if the father only had two daughters, he would speak of the younger of the two, but if he had three or more, he would speak of the youngest of them. At least, that's what they tried to drill into me at grammar school.
Well, the peevologist would say that if the father only had two daughters, he would speak of the younger of the two, but if he had three or more, he would speak of the youngest of them. At least, that's what they tried to drill into me at grammar school.
I would agree and spotted this myself. However, that answer was the only one that could have been correct given the right circumstances; all the others had clear errors.
Richard English
Posts: 7065 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Originally posted by zmježd: Well, the peevologist would say that if the father only had two daughters, he would speak of the younger of the two, but if he had three or more, he would speak of the youngest of them. At least, that's what they tried to drill into me at grammar school.
Using the superlative with only 2 things is called the superlative of two. The prescription is that the superlative should be used with more than two things, but that the comparative should be used with two. The superlative of two has been used by Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Byron, Scott, Thackeray, Emerson, Fielding, Fowler, and Hemingway. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says the prescription against it "has a dubious basis in theory and no basis in practice, and it serves no useful communicative purpose whatsoever. Because it does have a fair number of devoted adherents, however, you may well want to follow it in your most dignified or elevated writing."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
Using the comparative rather than the superlative does have the advantage of making a statement slightly clearer.
"This is my older daughter" needs no further explanation. "This is my oldest daughter" needs additional qualification if the total number of daughters needs to be known.
I agree, though, that it is a very minor point.
Richard English
Posts: 7065 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Originally posted by Richard English: Using the comparative rather than the superlative does have the advantage of making a statement slightly clearer.
Yes, that's true Richard. However every complaint about the superlative of two I've seen concerns a usage where it only two things are concerned. So clarity has nothing to do with the complaint.
Yes, that's true Richard. However every complaint about the superlative of two I've seen concerns a usage where it only two things are concerned. So clarity has nothing to do with the complaint.
Of course; if the topic involved more than two people then the use of the superlative wouldn't be wrong! And even those with a limited grasp of comparatives would be unlikely to say, "This is the older of my three daughters".
Richard English
Posts: 7065 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
But why isn't it onomatopoeic? That was the wrong choice in the quiz. Does the letter have to sound hard (for lack of a good descriptor!), like the "c" in "click?" In looking it up it says, "the formation of a word, as cuckoo or boom, by imitation of a sound made by or associated with its referent." How are the two "c"s in "click" any different that the two "yo" sounds? I am sure I am missing something.
[We talked about the "dolt" scale on the the chat today so perhaps this question will have a "dolt" rating.]
Originally posted by Kalleh: But why isn't it onomatopoeic? That was the wrong choice in the quiz. Does the letter have to sound hard (for lack of a good descriptor!), like the "c" in "click?" In looking it up it says, "the formation of a word, as cuckoo or boom, by imitation of a sound made by or associated with its referent." How are the two "c"s in "click" any different that the two "yo" sounds? I am sure I am missing something.
smooch - Wayyy better than kissing. Smooches, smooching, smoochable, smoochfest, smoochy, smoocherific. Delightfully onomatopoeiac word. If you're sayin' it, you're practically doin' it.
e.g., Go on, say smooch slowly and see if you don't close your eyes and pucker.
What about smooth? The word sounds like its meaning, especially if you draw it out (smoooth), but it doesn't sound like it, so that can't properly be called an onomatopoeic, can it? What would you call it?
Originally posted by tinman: What about smooth? The word sounds like its meaning, especially if you draw it out (smoooth), but it doesn't sound like it, so that can't properly be called an onomatopoeic, can it? What would you call it?
Ideophones are a larger class than onomatopoeic words. While onomatopeic words represent sounds, ideophones represent ideas like colour, sound, manner, intensity. For instance "glimmer, glisten, gleam" all represent light-related concepts. The sound-meaning relationship in words like these is somehow not completely arbitrary.
"Yo-yo" is not an ideophone; it was borrowed from a Polynesian language. Of course it might have originated as an ideophone in that language, who knows.
"Yo-yo" is not an ideophone; it was borrowed from a Polynesian language.
I don't agree with your logic here. I can't see what the language the word is borrowed from has to do with whether or not it's an ideophone. The word "yo-yo" seems to me to be perfectly descriptive of the motion of a yo-yo and is therefore a de facto ideophone. It may even have been borrowed because people thought it sounded like the motion. Out of curiosity, which languages did glimmer, glisten and gleam originate in.
Originally posted by BobHale: I don't agree with your logic here. I can't see what the language the word is borrowed from has to do with whether or not it's an ideophone.
You're right. But ideophones are language-specific. Just because "yo-yo" seems perfectly descriptive of something in English doesn't mean it was perfectly descriptive of that thing in Polynesian. What I meant was that "yo-yo" wasn't created as an ideophone, it's just a borrowed word.
quote:
The word "yo-yo" seems to me to be perfectly descriptive of the motion of a yo-yo and is therefore a de facto ideophone.
I don't agree that it is perfectly descriptive of the motion of a yo-yo, but if you think it is, then it's an ideophone, I guess.
Ideophones are a larger class than onomatopoeic words.
Thanks, goofy. A look at the posted article led me to such things as sound symbolism or phonosemantics (I had heard of sound symbolism before, but not of phonosemantics). I read about Japanese sound symbolism, phonesthemes, blending, ... and on and on. Some of it I understood, though most of it was over my head.
Ah, yes. Thank you all for not being too hard for me. I asked Shu about it and realized that I had meant "alliteration," which he also said is wrong. He called it "reduplication." I am not sure he is correct, though. When I look it up, it says, "reduplicating as a grammatical pattern." This is just a word.
It does sound like "ideophone" might be the correct term, but of course "onomatopoeia" is completely wrong. On a "dolt scale" I think it would rate about a 9 (with 1 - being "tiny misundertanding" to 10 - being "What were you thinking?")
