I stumbled across the verb "arrive" used in a transitive sense the other day. I was going in for my flu shot and at the front desk the receptionist, having to pass me on to another receptionist on another matter, said "You can have him after I've arrived him."
I was mulling this over this morning and even I could think of another way to say it that didn't involve using a verb that, up until now and to the best of my knowledge, had been only intransitive. What I got wondering, and this is really my only question although I'm sure some will run amok decrying the usage, is whether having another way of saying something is a valid criticism of any usage. I maintain that there's always another way to say it.
Your question reflects a very common trend to use a given word in another part of speech, eg, CRASH: n: when there is a security ~ vb: ~ the White House [fr West Wing] adj: in the ~ mode
That doesn't answer your q; but I suppose by the purists the practice is still considered vulgar
PS: Can anyone suggest a way to use ~ as an adverb
Quote:
Your question reflects a very common trend to use a given word in another part of speech, eg, CRASH: n: when there is a security ~ vb: ~ the White House [fr West Wing] adj: in the ~ mode
That doesn't answer your q; but I suppose by the purists the practice is still considered vulgar
PS: Can anyone suggest a way to use ~ as an adverb
"Arrive" hasn't changed part of speech here, just had an added transitive sense. The other way of saying it that occurred to me was "check in" which can be used transitively or intransitively.
"Crash", btw, has been used as a noun since at least the 16th century. Nouns and adjectives have slopped over each other since before the beginning. Even classical Latin did it.
There is not a good equivalent for the misuse of arrive in this sentence: "You can have him after I've arrived him." This is because the actor is not the receptionist but the Faldage. Only Faldage arrives; receptionists do other things. They might record him, check him in, tick him off the list, welcome him, acknowledge him, enter him or any of a dozen other things ... but none of them have anything arriving about them, as the receptionist already arrived earlier in the story.
P.S. Is this response within the category of "run[ning] amok decrying the usage"? One hopes not.
Nouns and adjectives have slopped over each other since before the beginning. Even classical Latin did it.
Yes, indeed. That's why Latin grammarians called both nouns and adjectives nomina 'names'. As far as they, and the Greek grammarians whom they aped were concerned, nouns and adjectives were the same kinds of words. They did subdivide the grammatical category into nomina substantiva and nomina adjectiva. (Ever notice how entries for nouns and adjectives in the OED are categorized by sb. and a.?)
Quote:
. . . "You can have him after I've arrived him."
I was mulling this over this morning and even I could think of another way to say it that didn't involve using a verb that, up until now and to the best of my knowledge, had been only intransitive. What I got wondering, and this is really my only question although I'm sure some will run amok decrying the usage, is whether having another way of saying something is a valid criticism of any usage. I maintain that there's always another way to say it.
Come again?
I'm sorry, Fong, but that is an abomination. Users should be punished by summary, public, removal of the tongue, without anesthesia, as an example to others who would even think about using this grotesquery.
And yes, there are always other ways to say almost any particular something, but many of them are just plain wrong. This one's a case in point.
TEd, proud to be a prescriptivist, proud to be a defender of good English, proud to stand against the tide of evil that is eroding our beautiful language, even if that stand be fruitless. And proud to have Father Steve close at hand.
Users should be punished by summary, public, removal of the tongue, without anesthesia, as an example to others who would even think about using this grotesquery.Language Log wrote a nice
entry about the violence of English prescriptivists.
... that is an abomination. Users should be punished by summary, public, removal of the tongue, without anesthesia, as an example to others who would even think about using this grotesquery.
Now THAT is as fine an example of "run[ning] amok decrying the usage" as I have ever seen.
Sponsored by:
The perfect grammar tool
Grammar, Thesaurus and Spelling Works on all the sentence
whitesmoke.com
Quote:
There is not a good equivalent for the misuse of arrive in this sentence: "You can have him after I've arrived him." This is because the actor is not the receptionist but the Faldage. Only Faldage arrives; receptionists do other things. They might record him, check him in, tick him off the list, welcome him, acknowledge him, enter him or any of a dozen other things ... but none of them have anything arriving about them, as the receptionist already arrived earlier in the story.
P.S. Is this response within the category of "run[ning] amok decrying the usage"? One hopes not.
Do you not understand how verbs that can be both transitive and intransitive work? This is just the same thing as saying, e.g.:
A) I burned the pile of wood.
2) The pile of wood burned.
Incidentally, your list of things that she might have done pretty much sums up what she did. She said it all in one word. Sounds like a pretty evil abuse of language to me.
"Crash", btw, has been used as a noun since at least the 16th century. Nouns and adjectives have slopped over each other since before the beginning. Even classical Latin did it.
True, but "crash" denoting the requirement for immediate attention is an adjective, but it is stretched in the other examples to include noun and verb uses. So I would still appreciate an instance where it might be used as an adverb
To me, this usage sounds rather like sloppiness and an unwillingness to remember the actual needed verb for the moment. Similar but less appropriate, perhaps, than the current use of the verb "grow" in the phrase "grow your business". Is that evolution of a language, replacing the cumbersome "cause your business to grow", or other possibly more correct phraseology? Or maybe people really do mean simply to throw a bit of fertilizer on the business, hose it down, and hope for a good amount of sunshine...
"I will arrive him."
I think this falls under the category of creative language use, and probably began as a jocose solecism to circumvent the overuse of certain words and expressions. Eventually the joke wore off, but the solecism remained.
I've seen this kind of thing before. When circumstances excessively limit a speaker's lexical palette, the urge for fresh alternatives may break out in open defiance of grammaticality.
It is a deliberate meme of poor grammar which is actually indicative of grammar-conscious language use.
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but certainly the same principle is behind the use on message forums of words like "Interweb" (for the much overused word "Internet").
I have seen posters on this forum say "PM me". "Personal message me" is no better that "arrive him." [1]
The ironic corollory of this hypothesis is that the speaker may be in a form of employment below her intellectual station.
Edit : [1] Myself included!
"You can have him after I've arrived him." This is because the actor is not the receptionist but the Faldage. - I beg to disagree. The phrase was definitely used as a kind of shorthand for a formal process (sequence of prescribed actions) executed by the receptionist. I think this kind of "language" is not uncommon in the "health sector". It is probably related to the proverbial illegible writing of doctors.
Quote:
To me, this usage sounds rather like sloppiness and an unwillingness to remember the actual needed verb for the moment.
Arriving people is a major part of her job description. This is not sloppiness or unwillingness to remember any presumed actual needed verb.
Quote:
Quote:
Arriving people is a major part of her job description.
Your subject and verb are not in agreement in that sentence.
Ducking and running for cover, probably to no avail, is:
descrip that I am, I'm with werner and Faldage on this one. I understood what was meant. don't necessarily like the coinage, but I understood it.
Em--it is probably related to filling out forms. Many doctor's offices have "Time of Arrival" on the sign-in sheet. Although I've not heard this particular usage before, to me it's no worse than "enter him", which, esp. if interpreted literally, sounds quite painful! In the latter, I believe everyone understands that it is short for entering his name, and (in the logbook or register) is understood.
In this case, possibly part of the duty once a patient has arrived may encompass other things; for ex., noting payment and/or putting a new form in the front of the patient's file for Reason for Today's Visit, etc. etc. Probably all of these kinds of things are encompassed in the meaning of "arriving" a patient. Mercy--as busy as doctors' offices are, if the staff said, "I have entered his name in the register and completed all the requirements for his arrival process" for every patient, they'd probably lose a whole appointment's worth of time by the end of the week!
Well, I would much rather be the dear arrived than the dear departed.
Quote:
Your subject and verb are not in agreement in that sentence.
Subject-verb agreement is redundant.
the dear departed 
transitive?