 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009"more rare"
are things like this (1) wrong (2) Poor usage (3) correct and mean something somewhat different from the inflectional form ("rarer") (4) synonymous with the inflected form? > are things like this > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (4) synonymous with the inflected form? A little odd but 4. --Jeff  SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> are things like this >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A little odd but 4. Is the question intended to wake someone up? Probably not, but it will probably have that effect! Anyway, for most uses of "rare", "rarer" is the normal comparative, but "more rare" isn't wrong. However, for "rare" in the sense of degree of cooking of meat, "more rare" seems to me to be more usual. Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden skrev: > Anyway, for most uses of "rare", "rarer" is the normal comparative, but > "more rare" isn't wrong. However, for "rare" in the sense of degree of > cooking of meat, "more rare" seems to me to be more usual. In Danish the basic rule - with many exceptions - is that short adjectives are inflected while long ones take "more/most". I suspect the same is true for English. Also in Danish the unusual form is not clearly wrong. SignatureBertel, Denmark > In Danish the basic rule - with many exceptions - is that short > adjectives are inflected while long ones take "more/most". I > suspect the same is true for English. Also in Danish the unusual > form is not clearly wrong. The unusual form is okay for short adjectives, but is wrong for long ones. For example, I'm sure no one here would say "substantialer" or "religiouser". SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > The unusual form is okay for short adjectives, but is wrong for long > ones. > For example, I'm sure no one here would say "substantialer" or > "religiouser". Hmm.. curiouser and curiouser. >> The unusual form is okay for short adjectives, but is wrong for long >> ones. >> For example, I'm sure no one here would say "substantialer" or >> "religiouser". > > Hmm.. curiouser and curiouser. Curiousest remark I have ever seen. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> The unusual form is okay for short adjectives, but is wrong for long >> ones. >> For example, I'm sure no one here would say "substantialer" or >> "religiouser". > > Hmm.. curiouser and curiouser. OK, but I think that Lewis Carroll was consciously breaking a rule that he knew well when he wrote that. Signatureathel >>> The unusual form is okay for short adjectives, but is wrong for >>> long ones. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OK, but I think that Lewis Carroll was consciously breaking a rule > that he knew well when he wrote that. Yes, and cheerfully confessed as much: 'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English); 'now I'm opening out like the largest telescope that ever was! Good-bye, feet!' http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pWUwXP1XNCAJ:www.cleavebooks.co.uk/grol/alic e/won02.htm+Alice+%22curiouser+and+curiouser%22+%22quite+forgot+how+to+speak+goo d+English%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca http://tinyurl.com/kjb8a5 > > For example, I'm sure no one here would say "substantialer" or > > "religiouser". ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Hmm.. curiouser and curiouser. But Lewis Carroll isn't here, is he? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>> For example, I'm sure no one here would say "substantialer" or >>> "religiouser". ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Hmm.. curiouser and curiouser. > > But Lewis Carroll isn't here, is he? That was the curious incident of the dog in the night. Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden filted: >Is the question intended to wake someone up? Probably not, but it will >probably have that effect! Maybe not...seems to me a few people have tried that in the past, but explicit reference to the word doesn't get him as worked up as merely using it in passing....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> are things like this >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A little odd but 4. Poetic and perhaps a little archaic Earth has not anything to show more fair: But she, tho' conscious of his worth, Had chose a youth more rare; a rustic Reuben was his name More sweet than Nectar or Ambrosiall meat But, cf, As none can be fairer or rarer than Sarah My lassie from Lancashire. And now we retire to the rare raid shelters to await the arrival of the Daniel come to judgement SignatureJohn Dean Oxford On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:28:23 -0700, analyst41 wrote: > are things like this > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (4) synonymous with the inflected form? The usual form of the comparative for an adjective is a most idiosyncratic matter. Most adjectives normally use only one form, either the -er or the preceding "more" (the suffix was the universal mode in Old English, but is today mainly confined to one-syllable and many two- syllable adjectives, though--again--with idiosyncratic distribution). But there are some adjectives that can take either form. Of those, Curme (_English Grammar_) remarks that we tend to use "the simple form [-er] before the noun with classifying force, the form with 'more' . . . after the noun with descriptive force: 'There never was a kinder and juster man' (classifying), but 'There never was a man more kind and just' (descriptive)." He adds that "Often the choice between the old and the new type depends merely upon the agreeableness of sound, so that there is much variation in expression here." "What is more rare than a day in June?" SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > Subject: "more rare" > are things like this > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inflectional form ("rarer") > (4) synonymous with the inflected form? You can't generalize about "things like this". In *this* case it's 4. In another case it might be 2. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "C takes the point of view that the programmer msb@vex.net | is always right" -- Michael DeCorte >> Subject: "more rare" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You can't generalize about "things like this". In *this* case it's 4. > In another case it might be 2. This is one area where non-natives needn't lose any sleep. There is no harm in getting your comparative or superlative form "wrong". Say "more nice" or "beautifuller" and everyone will know what you mean. Adrian |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.