Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[_Runtu]

Leaving Droopy out of it (a good feeling ...) may I say that I do not see a sentence like "Verl took and ate the whole pie" as a truncated form of "Verl took the whole pie, and ate it". Instead it feels to me that the verb 'to take' is being used as an intensifying auxiliary, in the same way that the verb 'to go' is used in the second sentence of this utterance:

"You know what my fool of a husband did? He went and put my silk shirt through a high-temperature wash and ruined it".

In that case, it seems to me that there is no sense of motion about 'went' - it conveys the sense of 'he proceeded to', doesn't it? And that is what I think 'took' is doing in the example given.

I am trying hard to think of a scientific (as opposed to gut feeling) way of deciding whether Trevor is right or I am (or neither of us), but I don't know enough about linguistics to be able to say. Anybody?

I think you may be right. I've known people who use it exactly in that way, as an intensifier, but then I know other people who rarely use a verb without putting "take and" in front of it. I think it's interesting.

[_Chap]

I think you may be right. I've known people who use it exactly in that way, as an intensifier, but then I know other people who rarely use a verb without putting "take and" in front of it. I think it's interesting.

I once spent time in a military environment where almost every non-formal utterance when an officer was not present seemed to require a word equivalent to the archaic 'swiving' (but unusable in this forum) to be placed in front of each noun. The speech of some kids seems to require the use of 'totally' in front of every verb: I swear I heard some kid say something on the radio a few days ago like: "we totally helped this cop pull a woman out of the wreckage [of her house after a tornado]".

I agree that in such cases no actual intensifying effect results: maybe it is the linguistic equivalent of putting chilli sauce on everything you eat.

[_Tarski]

See what I mean about your posts lacking substance? 25 words just to say "neener neener."

I understand that It deeply offends and knaws at people like Buffalo, Kevin, Delusion, Tarski and others here, that some of us actually think and write at somewhat above 7th or 8th grade level.

What rather takes me aback is that some of the people who are flummoxed by "thick," complex, sophisticated writing and command of the English language have degrees and have been themselves to college and university themselves.

A sign of the turbid, addlepated postmodern times perhaps?

See what I mean about your posts lacking substance? 25 words just to say "neener neener."

I understand that It deeply offends and knaws at people like Buffalo, Kevin, Delusion, Tarski and others here, that some of us actually think and write at somewhat above 7th or 8th grade level.

What rather takes me aback is that some of the people who are flummoxed by "thick," complex, sophisticated writing and command of the English language have degrees and have been themselves to college and university themselves.

A sign of the turbid, addlepated postmodern times perhaps?

No one is flummoxed by your pretentious "thesaurus-centric" writing--at least not in the way you think. You have never used a single word that wasn't in my vocabulary but you have used plenty of words that I would only use rarely for the reason that if words of that sort are used too often on a given occasion, they give rise to a pretentious and affected tone. You cram into each sentence as many of these kind of words as possible and the effect is not what you think it is. It is a matter of good taste and moderation more than a question of the difficulty of the vocabulary.

"Turbid, addelpated postmodern." LOL
None of these words are difficult but, in this conversational context, using them all in a row is just lame and distracting.


Your ideas (??):

Your ideas (such as they are) are never complex and you mistake florid prose for complex argumentation. In fact, when the verbiage is cleared away, we see no actual argumentation at all but rather mere dressed up assertion.

This is actually another reason that real intellectuals and scholars don't write or speak like you do (especially in conversation); one nice idea is worth a million nice words and some of us want our ideas to be center stage rather than the individual words we employ. In fact, a good logical argument or interesting idea is also much more important than not only vocabulary but also grammar or style. Of course, your "style" is merely an affected one as I said.

The secondary importance of style and vocabulary is nowhere more clear than in mathematics where a correct but poorly stated proof is infinitely more interesting and precious than a well-worded but incorrect and therefore worthless proof.
Falsehoods expressed in flowery prose are still falsehoods and circular reasoning is never overcome by a better vocabulary.
Your flowery prose would be much more tolerable if it were the vehicle for some superior reasoning.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Mr. Droopy's forced turgidity is damned retarded.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Simon Belmont]

Hello,

Mr. Droopy's forced turgidity is f*****g r*******.

V/R
Dr. Cam

DID YOU SERIOUSLY JUST SAY THAT?

Your are the king of turgidity and pretentiousness.

Your stupid "Hello," and "V/R" are the very definition of asinine.

You are a dolt.

[_Trevor]

Leaving Droopy out of it (a good feeling ...) may I say that I do not see a sentence like "Verl took and ate the whole pie" as a truncated form of "Verl took the whole pie, and ate it". Instead it feels to me that the verb 'to take' is being used as an intensifying auxiliary, in the same way that the verb 'to go' is used in the second sentence of this utterance:

"You know what my fool of a husband did? He went and put my silk shirt through a high-temperature wash and ruined it".

In that case, it seems to me that there is no sense of motion about 'went' - it conveys the sense of 'he proceeded to', doesn't it? And that is what I think 'took' is doing in the example given.

I am trying hard to think of a scientific (as opposed to gut feeling) way of deciding whether Trevor is right or I am (or neither of us), but I don't know enough about linguistics to be able to say. Anybody?

Huh. Well, I don't see why the addition of "go" in such cases can't represent the same kind of detailed accounting of process. And, it is true that it intensifies the main action, but such details are bound to add a certain vividness in the way they expand the narrative. People tend to do this when they are excited about describing events to others. They shift tense, get into all sorts of details, and the like. I see the same kind of impulse at work in both of these constructions. I am not, however, a linguist.

[_Chap]

Huh. Well, I don't see why the addition of "go" in such cases can't represent the same kind of detailed accounting of process. And, it is true that it intensifies the main action, but such details are bound to add a certain vividness in the way they expand the narrative. People tend to do this when they are excited about describing events to others. They shift tense, get into all sorts of details, and the like. I see the same kind of impulse at work in both of these constructions. I am not, however, a linguist.

How about yet another usage of the type we are discussing: "he up and [verb]" - as in, for instance, "Wilbur! I was just starting to milk the cow, and she up and died!"

Here there is surely no possibility of claiming that the "up and" element tells you any concrete detail of the dying process, since there is no need for the cow to have done anything but die rather suddenly for this usage to be appropriate. All it does is to suggest that the speaker wants to draw attention to the fact that the event that took place was striking and worthy of particular attention. That I suggest is all that "took and" and "went and" are doing.

But I could be completely misguided, and all this is very O/T.

[_Trevor]

How about yet another usage of the type we are discussing: "he up and [verb]" - as in, for instance, "Wilbur! I was just starting to milk the cow, and she up and died!"

Here there is surely no possibility of claiming that the "up and" element tells you any concrete detail of the dying process, since there is no need for the cow to have done anything but die rather suddenly for this usage to be appropriate. All it does is to suggest that the speaker wants to draw attention to the fact that the event that took place was striking and worthy of particular attention. That I suggest is all that "took and" and "went and" are doing.

That is interesting, but I would suggest that in this instance it is very possible that "up and died" involves the elision of an element. For instance, people love to combine a verb that is modified by up with "and died," hence "curled up and died," "hurry up and die," "shrivel up and die," and the like. It is entirely possible that "up and died" combination stuck even in the absence of the initial verb.

So, yes, I think the "up" is in a sense "intensive" but it is a development from the full combination of verb+up+and die.

I want to hear from a linguist, though. It could be that I am just blowing smoke. I fully admit that I am guessing here.

I think, but the way, that in the Blue Ridge Mountains on hears, "We are down to the Walmarts." This, it seems to me, may come from "We went down to X."

Please prove me wrong so that I can once again falsify Simon's regular accusation that I never admit to being wrong.

[_Chap]

How about yet another usage of the type we are discussing: "he up and [verb]" - as in, for instance, "Wilbur! I was just starting to milk the cow, and she up and died!"

Here there is surely no possibility of claiming that the "up and" element tells you any concrete detail of the dying process, since there is no need for the cow to have done anything but die rather suddenly for this usage to be appropriate. All it does is to suggest that the speaker wants to draw attention to the fact that the event that took place was striking and worthy of particular attention. That I suggest is all that "took and" and "went and" are doing.

That is interesting, but I would suggest that in this instance it is very possible that "up and died" involves the elision of an element. For instance, people love to combine a verb that is modified by up with "and died," hence "curled up and died," "hurry up and die," "shrivel up and die," and the like. It is entirely possible that "up and died" combination stuck even in the absence of the initial verb.

I don't find your argument convincing, since I doubt very much that the person using the 'up and died' phrase about the cow had any process of the kind you suggest in mind.

But who cares what either of us thinks? Let us agree to differ, and maybe report back by PM if we ever find ourselves sitting next to a specialist in linguistics who is willing to answer an amateur question.

[_Trevor]

I don't find your argument convincing, since I doubt very much that the person using the 'up and died' phrase about the cow had any process of the kind you suggest in mind.

Conventions like this do not require that the speaker be conscious of where they come from. They are conventions that develop more or less organically in a group of speakers. So, I wouldn't expect a correct answer if I were to ask, "did you mean to say curl up and die when you said up and die?" I would expect the person to look at me like I am crazy or just say, "I meant what I said." That does not decrease the possibility that a development such as the one I suggest occurred.

But who cares what either of us think? Let us agree to differ, and maybe report back by PM if we ever find ourselves sitting next to a specialist in linguistics who is willing to answer an amateur question.

Agreed.