ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

It's definitely an adjective! Just one where the comparative should be "more fun" rather than the (funner) "funner". I mean, you'd say "it's rather fun" and stuff, right?

― Alba, Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:37 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but would you say, "so fun" (common in US, but not really accepted formally) or would you say it had to be "so much fun"?

"rather fun" is interesting, because the OED cites punch magazine saying something is "rather fun" even while denying it can be an adjective. i can't square that one, it's definitely used as an adjective there.

are there any other adjectives that take exactly the same form as the noun? i wonder if that's why the transition is incomplete and why "funner" and "funnest" sound so bad. (normal rule is supposedly one syllable adjective takes "er", two can go either way, more than two takes "more".)

shit.....

yeah, but we have shitty and shittier as alternatives if you don't want the ambiguity/awkwardness of "shitter". funny got co-opted by the comedians before "fun" started being commonly used as an adjective.

names that end in -s - always pluralize by adding -es? joneses, thomases, strausses...?

Yes.

And that also goes to Mannixes, Martinezes, etc.

yes. this construction seems awkward as hell to me, but it is s.o.p. because what can you do?

How do I make a plural out of dumplin'?

Sorry, that doesn't show up well, try this one:

dumplin'

DUMPLINGS!!

But if I want to drop the "g"?

dumplins?

You spell it with the 'g', but then you don't pronounce the 'g'.

dumplins

dumplin's 'n' potato's

is it not grammatically correct to use "or" in place of "i.e."?

for example:

These programs are required to be part of [jargon], or [things that explain that jargon]

These programs are required to be part of turtles, or those things in the sea that float.
These programs are required to be part of turtles, i.e., those things in the sea that float.

I thought it was OK usage, but my boss keeps changing it, and google is not being my friend.

Looks strange to me - it seems as if you're saying there's a choice rather than giving clarification.

(also programs can't be part of turtles)

Doesn't answer your question, but what about using "such as" instead of "or"?

i.e. = "id est" = "that is," meaning "that is to say" or "in other words..." So it wouldn't be correct to use it in place of "or."

(xp) But then that's giving an example of one of many rather than explaining all

A nice mnemonic for i.e. and e.g.:
i.e. = id est = in ether words...
e.g. = exempli gratia = For egsample...

hmm ok. i am placated for now but i may come back with more examples later if they arise. thansk!

You can use use "or" to mean "also referred to as," but that doesn't correspond exactly with "i.e."

ok, yeah, i think that might be what i was thinking of...

viz.
to wit
namely

when doing a comparative, do you need to repeat the verb? is it just a stylistic preference or is one WRONG.

My cat is cuter than your cat.
My cat is cuter than your cat is.

This cohort belongs to a higher socioeconomic class than the other cohort.

My feeling is that in cases where the specific wording COULD introduce ambiguity, keep the verb, but I don't think it's necessary?

hmm ok.

option A sounds so weird to me but maybe i have just brainwashed myself into thinking it sounds wrong?

A) The data suggest that cohort X were much more likely to complete Activity A, Activity B, and Activity C than their matched counterparts.

B) The data suggest that cohort X were much more likely to complete Activity A, Activity B, and Activity C than *were* their matched counterparts.

but then i start to think that option B is unnecessary. so i can't decide.

I'd go with A because I believe in simplicity and you don't seem to think it will interfere with comprehension.

ok. thanks you two!

http://www.ehow.com/how_2086393_use-raise-rise-correctly.html

When writing and speaking, people often misuse the words raise and rise. Raise is an intransitive verb meaning "to lift up, to exalt or to enhance," and rise is a transitive verb-a verb that takes a direct object-meaning "to move or pass upward in any manner, to increase in value or to improve in position or rank." The forms of the words are very similar but have distinct differences. Follow the steps to learn how to use the words raise and rise correctly.

last time i google grammar tips

That's similar to lay and lie, at first glance? Sounds reasonable to me?

no, raise is transitive and rise is intransitive - "they raised prices" (prices = object) - "jesus rose from the dead"

"Ethanol is a depressant, which lowers heart rate."

This is wrong, but how do I explain to a simpleton that it is wrong?

I think the thing that makes it wrong is that the writer has tried say two things (ethanol is a depressant; depressants lower heart rate) but has overstretched the word depressant to do so, trying to use it as both subject and object in two different statements. Is that accurate?

Also, can you think up a good example with the main words replaced that would really hammer home why this construction does not work (A is a B, which C)?

Relative pronoun clauses (aka adjective clauses in this instance) should be able to be separated into simple sentences and still be true.
Ethanol is a depressant. Depressants lower heart rate. If that's not the case, the sentence is a stinker.

I think those two statements are true, but still the sentence doesn't work. I think might have something to do with the singular/plural switch (i.e. you had to turn depressant into depressants in your second sentence). For example, "Some drugs are depressants, which lower heart rate" is fine. At the same time, you can say, on its own, "A depressant lowers heart rate". But I hear the original sentence as "Ethanol is a depressant. Depressant lowers heart rate" - i.e. Hulk-speak. Maybe I'm wrong.

I guess I'd have to know who the writer is - native or nonnative speaker?

Native, though uninterested in the nitty gritty of grammar. It is a caption in an educational film. I think she understands that it sounds awkward but doesn't think it's a big enough deal to change it at the moment. To me it sounds awful.

Native, though uninterested in the nitty gritty of grammar.
This is most people, tbf. I'm not repulsed by the sentence in question, but it is clunky.

"Ethanol is a depressant that lowers heart rate."
"Ethanol is a depressant, so it lowers heart rate."

The 'wrongness' you sense is awkwardness, not flawed grammar. I like the suggestion of "Ethanol is a depressant, so it lowers heart rate", in that it is clearer, more natural and, if space were a consideration, fits easily in the same space.

"Ethanol is a depressant, lowering the heart rate."

THANK YOU.

Yeah, either that or ""Ethanol is a depressant; it lowers the heart rate" (replacing semi-colon with a dash if preferred)

"Ethanol is a depressant; DRINK IT AND DIE"

Yep, we're going with that.

The comma before 'which' makes it a non-defining relative clause which refers to the whole previous clause, not just the noun. Compare:
Old Trafford is a stadium which can seat more than 70,000 spectators ('which' = stadium)
She said she found my cooking disgusting, which really took the edge off my evening ('which' = the fact that she said she found my cooking disgusting)

So "Ethanol is a depressant, which lowers heart rate." is a bizarre sentence - it doesn't mean that depressants lower heart rate, nor that ethanol lowers heart rate. It means that the existence of the fact that ethanol is a depressant somehow lowers heart rate.

Ethanol is a depressant and lowers heart rate.