|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
An article in the new Smithsonian Magazine, "Mapping Galactic Foam." (don't accuse me of doing mushrooms, people...that's really the title, it's really there!) uses the phrase "...--or mind-bogglingly huge" in it's opening paragraph. The extra -ly sounds redundant to me, I probably would have just used "mind-boggling huge." But I also have always thought of the word as a two-word phrase: mind boggling. I looked it up on the Webster-Merriam online dictionary (the word wasn't even listed in my shelf dictionary--peculiar), and found both usages listed in hyphenation: mind-boggling and mind-bogglingly (dictionary debut date--1964). But even if it's acceptable, I still don't like "mind-bogglingly" -- it sounds like the needle is stuck on the record (for those of you old enough to remember that annoying occurrence)...I just can't get comfortable with that dangling "-ly"! Thoughts, folks?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
well, my first thought is that, not surprisingly, mind-boggling is an adjective and mind-bogglingly is an adverb. as a matter of fact [read, actually], that about sums up my thoughts on the matter. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Yes, the adjective/adverb contrast is a good point, tsuwm. I was aware of that but trying to steer clear of the question because it launches into a thread I was planning on the matter...but this might as well be it! It seems, over the last 30 years or so, we have come to juxtapose our adjectives and adverbs with an increasing acceptability, and just dropping the -ly suffix of the true adverb form. Take the case of really/real, for instance, because it's the most vivid to most of us. Somewhere back in the '50's or '60's folks began to drop the -ly for emphasis..i.e. REAL hard. Then it found it's way into regular usage as in "real cool". In fact, part of my question being "when did this evolution to the loss of the -ly adverb take place?", I was surprised to find on looking into a '72 Websters that "real" is listed as a legitimate adverb. Now, I know that somewhere as a young schoolboy it was drummed into my head that an adverb always takes the -ly because I scold myself mentally to this day even when the other use is now permitted. There are a list of other adverbs that fit the really/real transition, but I don't have them offhand...will post when I find them, and invite others to do the same. So, in light of all this, why should a word like mind-boggling be forced into such an awkward pronunciation by taking the -ly in the adverb, when words like "real" are now an acceptable adverb form? It doesn't make sense. But, then again, nobody ever said the English language always makes sense!  And, in regards to the broader question...can anyone trace the loss of the -ly further back than the '50's? If so, where and why? If you could help me solve this mystery that would be real cool, man! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
WO'N lylles i t seems, over the last 30 years or so, we have come to juxtapose our adjectives and adverbs with an increasing acceptability...firstly, and I mention this only because it's one of my innumerable peeves, I don't think you mean "juxtapose" (to place next to) but, perhaps, "interchange"? second, this is not at all a recent happening; here is what Mencken wrote in 1921 regarding the issue: The result of this movement toward identity in form was a confusion between the two classes of words, and from the time of Chaucer down to the eighteenth century one finds innumerable instances of the use of the simple adjective as an adverb. “He will answer trewe” is in Sir Thomas More; “and soft unto himself he sayd” in Chaucer; “the singers sang loud” in the Authorized Version of the Bible (Nehemiah xii, 42), and “indifferent well” in Shakespeare. Even after the purists of the eighteenth century began their corrective work this confusion continued. Thus one finds “the people are miserable poor” in Hume, “how unworthy you treated mankind” in the Spectator, and “wonderful silly” in Joseph Butler. To this day the grammarians battle against the amalgamation, still without complete success; every new volume of rules and regulations for those who would speak by the book is full of warnings against it. Among the great masses of the plain people, it goes without saying, it flourishes unimpeded. The cautions of the school-marm, in a matter so subtle and so plainly lacking in logic or necessity, are forgotten as quickly as her prohibition of the double negative, and thereafter the adjective and the adverb tend more and more to coalesce in a part of speech which serves the purposes of both, and is simple and intelligible and satisfying. 2
Charters gives a number of characteristic examples of its use: “wounded very bad,” “I sure was stiff,” “drank out of a cup easy,” “he looked up quick.” Many more are in Lardner: “a chance to see me work regular,” “I am glad I was lucky enough to marry happy,” “I beat them easy,” and so on. And others fall upon the ear every day: “he done it proper,” “he done himself proud,” “she was dressed neat,” “she was awful ugly,” “the horse ran O.K.,” “it near finished him,” “it sells quick,” “I like it fine,” “he et hoggish,” “she acted mean,” “he loved her something fierce,” “they keep company steady.” The bob-tailed adverb, indeed, enters into a large number of the commonest coins of vulgar speech. Near-silk, I daresay, is properly nearly-silk. The grammarians protest that “run slow” should be “run slowly.” But near-silk and “run slow” remain, and so do “to be in bad,” “it sure will help,” “to play it up strong” and their brothers. What we have here is simply an incapacity to distinguish any ponderable difference between adverb and adjective, and beneath it, perhaps, is the incapacity, already noticed in dealing with “it is me,” to distinguish between the common verb of being and any other verb. If “it is bad” is correct, then why should “it leaks bad” be incorrect? It is just this disdain of purely grammatical reasons that is at the bottom of most of the phenomena visible in vulgar American, and the same impulse is observable in all other languages during periods of inflectional decay. During the highly inflected stage of a language the parts of speech are sharply distinct but when inflections fall off they tend to disappear. The adverb, being at best the step-child of grammar—as the old Latin grammarians used to say, “Omnis pars orationis migrat in adverbium”—is one of the chief victims of this anarchy. John Horne Tooke, despairing of bringing it to any order, even in the most careful English, called it, in his “Diversions of Purley,” “the common sink and repository of all heterogeneous and unknown corruptions.” 3
Where an obvious logical or lexical distinction has grown up between an adverb and its primary adjective the unschooled American is very careful to give it its terminal -ly. For example, he seldom confuses hard and hardly, scarce and scarcely, real and really. These words convey different ideas. Hard means unyielding; hardly means barely. Scarce means present only in small numbers; scarcely is substantially synonymous with hardly. Real means genuine; really is an assurance of veracity. So, again, with late and lately. Thus, and American says “I don’t know, scarcely,” not “I don’t know, scarce”; “he died lately,” not “he died late.” 92 But in nearly all such cases syntax is the preservative, not grammar. These adverbs seem to keep their tails largely because they are commonly put before and not after verbs, as in, for example, “I hardly (or scarcely) know,” and “I really mean it.” Many other adverbs that take that position habitually are saved as well, for example, generally, usually, surely, certainly. But when they follow verbs they often succumb, as in “I’ll do it sure” and “I seen him recent.” And when they modify adjectives they sometimes succumb, too, as in “it was sure hot.” Practically all the adverbs made of adjectives in -y lose the terminal -ly and thus become identical with their adjectives. I have never heard mightily used; it is always mighty, as in “he hit him mighty hard.” So with filthy, dirty, nasty, lowly, naughty and their cognates. One hears “he acted dirty,” “he spoke nasty,” “the child behaved naughty,” and so on. Here even standard English has had to make concessions to euphony. Cleanlily is seldom used; cleanly nearly always takes its place. And the use of illy and thusly is confined to ignoramuses. [any typos sic]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Thanks, tsuwm! That was certainly enlightening and thorough! I'm amazed you had that information at your fingertips!! And, yes, "interchange'" is probably more precise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
I think that we tend to forget that our teachers often frame lessons as absolutes to make a point, either fully intending to modify that stance later on and forgetting to, or assuming that we would realise ourselves that some absolutes aren't quite as absolute as others.
I, too, was told that all adverbs had -ly on the end of them. I worked out early on that this wasn't necessarily the case ...
It was one of the things that triggered my interest in language.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I was forewarned of this thread by someone who didn't remember the target of the objection. I read the article and assumed† that it was going to be about the misuse of comprised. I had my riposte all worked out and now have nothing to do with it. †Just goes to show that the old bromide (are there any new bromides?) is true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
†Just goes to show that the old bromide (are there any new bromides?) is true.
The word "bromide" caught my eye. The dictionary does not say anything about why "bromides" are objectionable. I remembered "bromhidrosis" but dictionary doesn't give it. On Internet I immediate found a German site which defined it as "when the sweat stinks."
So, old bromides literally stink. But new ones are constantly being formed, alas.
Fr brome < Gr brÔmos, stench
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,351
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
