To answer your question from the limericks thread, Kalleh, yes, both adjectives and adverbs modify other words but adjectives only modify nouns and adverbs only modify verbs. That's the rule and, as with so many other rules, this rule is often tossed out the window.

Regarding "agley," as an adverb meaning "out of kilter," it would be correct to say that "plans went agley." You'd sound like a dork, even to a Scott, but that's besides the point. There is no such thing as an "agley plan." What the adjective form of "agley" is, I don't know. Nor do I want to.

Regarding the breaking of this rule, I'm afraid that this is a lost cause but one which I fought for many years. Technically, it is incorrect to say, for example, "How quick can you get here?" "Quick" is an adjective and, as such, cannot modify the verb "to get." It should be "How quickly can you get here?" Sadly (for me, anyway, though I may be the last person to care) the incorrect form has been used so widely that it is now in many guidebooks as acceptable.

TOTALLY rubs me the wrong way but, then again, I'm not King on this thread.

quote:

---

To answer your question from the limericks thread, Kalleh, yes, both adjectives and adverbs modify other words but adjectives only modify nouns and adverbs only modify verbs.

---

Last time I looked, adverbs also modify adjectives. i.e. She is a very pretty girl. "Girl" is the noun, modified by "pretty" which is the adjective, modified by "very" which is the adverb!

And adverbs can also modify other adverbs.
For example, in "He left very quickly," the "quickly" is an adverb the verb left, and the "very" is an adverb the adverb quickly.

The quick/quickly confusion is interesting. What is the logic behind 'faster' being an acceptable adverb, but quicker being solely adjectival?

The logic is that 'fast' is both an adjective and an adverb. You can have 'a fast runner' (adj) and you can 'run fast' (adv). 'Faster' can be the comparative form of the adverb and the adjective.

Totally agree with all of the above. I in no way intended to present myself as an adverbial expert aside from my firm belief that adverbs modify verbs where adjectives shouldn't, but often do.

For any confusion, I apologize quickLY.

Okay, then, experts (disregarding CJ here because he is biased ), is it correct to say: "uses language that's often agley"?

note: "agley" is an adverb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Okay, then, experts (disregarding CJ here because he is biased ), is it correct to say: "uses language that's often agley"?

note: "agley" is an _adverb_

---

Yes, and as such, it wouldn't modify the noun "language."
"uses language that often goes agley," yes.
"uses language that's often ugly," again, yes.
But "uses lang...

Oops! Wait a minute. Kalleh has put her mean face on and pointed out the fact that I am not an expert. I'll wait for said experts to chime in, secure in the knowlege (I sincerely hope, anyway) that they will agree with me.

But why all this fuss about "agley"? It's such an archaic and/or obscure and/or pretentous (pick one) word. It has been used more frequently on this board in this past week than it has in both the New York and London Times for the past year!

A song lyric that has always bugged me from "You Can't Hurry Love" is Love don't come easy. It's a game of give and take. It should be Love doesn't (of course) come easily (adverb modifying the verb "come) etc.

So who are you gonna believe, me or Diana Ross??

CJ, I remember reading that the 1960's edition of Webster's Dictionary actually had fewer words than the 1930's edition, because they removed words for which they had no citations after the mid 1700's -- except that they did not remove words that were needed to understand important older literature.

And of course, that literature includes Robert Burns' To a Mouse:

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

Interesting that "agley"' was apparently pronounced to rhyme with "joy".
Also (as I think Richard has noted), the proverbial line is usually rendered as "the best-laid plans".

quote:

---

Originally posted by museamuse:
The logic is that 'fast' is both an adjective and an adverb. You can have 'a fast runner' (adj) and you can 'run fast' (adv). 'Faster' can be the comparative form of the adverb and the adjective.

---

That's just repeating the question. Why is fast also an adverb, but quick just an adjective?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graham Nice:

That's just repeating the question. Why is fast also an adverb, but quick just an adjective?

---

I'm not sure that the question has an answer, or if it does it may be lost in the mists of time.

Of course "fast" is by no means unique in this respect. Other words have a common adjectival/adverbial form and some have both this form and the -ly form with different meanings.

He works hard.

is clearly not the same thing at all as

He hardly works.

Has the train been running late ?

isn't quite the same as

Has the train been running lately ?

Other adverbs can take both forms with little change in meaning.

"I'll deal with them direct."

and

"I'll deal with them directly."

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

It's an exception to the rule, Graham. And there are lots in the English language. Most adverbs are formed by adding the ending -ly to the adjective, like quick, quickly / bright, brightly / intellectual, intellectually. Fast is one of the exceptions and the adverb happens to be the same as the adjective. The same goes for the adjective 'hard'. There are more. You can look them up in Michael Swan's Practical English Usage under 'Adjectives and Adverbs'.

And I don't think my answer was redundant. I just assumed you had more knowledge of English grammar than you seem to.

[This message was edited by museamuse on Thu Feb 13th, 2003 at 0:24.]

quote:

---

Other adverbs can take both forms with little change in meaning.

"I'll deal with them direct."

and

"I'll deal with them directly."

---

Couldn't these two have different meanings? The first could mean I will deal with that person rather than via someone else, whereas the second sentence could mean I will deal with them in a timely matter.

Since "fast" is getting dissected here, I'd like to hear opinions on: "What is the opposite of 'fast'?" This was discussed at dinner a while ago and there were some interesting opinions expressed.

An interesting word. Not only does it have the sense of speed, it can also convey immoveability, in the usage stuck fast.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LadyBeth:

quote:

---

Other adverbs can take both forms with little change in meaning.

"I'll deal with them direct."

and

"I'll deal with them directly."

---

Couldn't these two have different meanings? The first could mean I will deal with _that_ person rather than via someone else, whereas the second sentence could mean I will deal with them in a timely matter.

---

They could. The second sentence is ambiguous. It could mean "without an intermediary" or it could mean "immediately".

It's occurred to me since postingthat someone is bound to question my source for the use of "direct" as an adverb.
Collins Cobuild English Grammar.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I will stay true to my new name and not get in any fights, but really....

Anyway, the opposite of fast is slow or loose or feast.

quote:

---

An interesting word. Not only does it have the sense of speed, it can also convey immoveability, in the usage stuck fast.

---

When I asked for opinons on the "opposite of fast" I was thinking only of the sense of speed. I should have been more precise. Mea culpa. However, "stuck fast" is worth exploring,too, and I'll get there shortly.

First, back to the dinner table discussion. The argument that won the day, in regard to the "opposite of fast" was not "slow", but "stopped". The reasoning was (and it seemed persuasive at the time) that "fast" and "slow" are not opposites, but merely different manifestations of "speed". Both entail movement. The opposite of either would have to eliminate movement altogether. Thus: "stopped" or "still". Something like that. Opposing views are invited.

In regard to stuck fast, I offer the following anecdote:
One of the oldest programs on the radio (wireless) service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is called "The Fisheries Broadcast". (Perhaps it is a sign of the times that for its first thirty years on the air it was called "The Fishermen's Broadcast" and it has only recently been renamed). One of its features is a segment on trade jargon. Recently, the question was put to the audience: "What do the Coast Guard and the Weather Office consider to be fast ice? All the telephone replies , save one, said that fast ice was ice moving quickly with the current or tide. WRONG. One caller said that fast ice is ice that is not moving at all because it is "fast to the shore". CORRECT.(At least, it's correct in trade jargon.) Fast is an interesting word!

'Faster' can be the comparative form of the
adverb and the adjective.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And here I thought it was someone who'd given up eating.

Most
adverbs are formed by adding the ending -ly to the adjective, like quick, quickly /
bright, brightly / intellectual, intellectually. Fast is one of the exceptions and the
adverb happens to be the same as the adjective. The same goes for the adjective
'hard'.
____________________________________________

So, if you're "phallically challenged," but tumescent, are you ummm, ahh, hardly?

[This message was edited by Asa Lovejoy on Thu Feb 13th, 2003 at 21:48.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duncan Howell:
First, back to the dinner table discussion. The argument that won the day, in regard to the "opposite of fast" was not "slow", but "stopped". The reasoning was (and it seemed persuasive at the time) that "fast" and "slow" are not opposites, but merely different manifestations of "speed". Both entail movement. The opposite of either would have to eliminate movement altogether. Thus: "stopped" or "still". Something like that. Opposing views are invited.

---

I don't buy that argument. If the opposite of "fast" cannot be "slow" because they both entail motion, then "counter-clockwise" cannot be the opposite of "clockwise" since both imply direction and motion, and "hate" cannot be the opposite of "love" since both are emotions.

The opposite of "fast", as related to speed, is "slow" and the opposite of "stopped" or "still" is "moving".

When I first saw the post, I thought "The opposite of 'fast' is 'pig out'", but I knew that wasn't the sense of fast you meant.

Tinman

quote:

---

"The opposite of 'fast', as related to speed, is 'slow' and the opposite of 'stopped' or 'still' is 'moving'."

---

Lemme see, lemme see....
...thought I had this figured out....Oh, yes!

We agree that the opposite of 'stopped' is 'moving'.

'Fast' and 'slow' are both rates of 'moving'.

Therefore...'Fast' and 'slow' are both opposites of 'stopped'.

Ouch! Me head hurts!

I am reminded of Casey Stengel's reply to a sports reporter who inquired as to the team's progress during spring training: "Coming along slow, but fast."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duncan Howell:

We agree that the opposite of 'stopped' is 'moving'.

'Fast' and 'slow' are both rates of 'moving'.

Therefore...'Fast' and 'slow' are _both_ opposites of 'stopped'.

---

Isn't the point not that fast and slow are both opposites of stopped but that neither is.

It's like claiming that because coloured is the opposite of colourless and red and yellow are both colours then red and yellow are also opposites of colourless.

Vescere bracis meis.

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

It's like claiming that because coloured is the opposite of colourless and red and yellow are both colours then red and yellow are also opposites of colourless.

---

Exactly!