 |
 | 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 / September 2010Well read
Describing a person is "well read" always seems slightly odd to me.  Signature"If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones > Describing a person is "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. Oops. Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. Signature"If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones > Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to > me. We usually call "read" etc. the past passive participle, but it would more accurately be called the anything-but-present-active participle: It can also be present passive, as in "your loved ones", or past active, as in "a fallen angel" or the example given. For a discussion of the latter possibility, with plenty of examples, see Fowler, MEU, s.v. intransitive past participle. Russian is more lavishly supplied -- it has distinct present active, present passive, past active, and past passive participles. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Whatever distracts can console; whatever consoles can :|| ||: addict. :|| >> Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to >> me. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Russian is more lavishly supplied -- it has distinct present active, > present passive, past active, and past passive participles. A person can be "well-spoken". I'm sure there are other examples of ostensibly passive form but active meaning. SignatureJames > A person can be "well-spoken". I'm sure there are other examples of > ostensibly passive form but active meaning. > > -- > James A woman can be well-endowed. Come to think of it, I guess a man can be, too. Gil [James:] >> A person can be "well-spoken". I'm sure there are other examples >> of ostensibly passive form but active meaning. > > A woman can be well-endowed. Come to think of it, I guess a man > can be, too. If he is well-hung. Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ "El hombre es tantas veces hombre cuanto es el número de lenguas que ha aprendido". -- Carlos I (Rey de España) > "rt...@aol.com" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If he is well-hung. When I look up 'deponent', I find it means, of a verb, passive in form but active in meaning. I must say that it hadn't occurred to me before now that English was endowed with deponent verbs. -- Further franzi sayeth not. > [James:] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > If he is well-hung. And more important;y, well mannered. Or at least well intentioned. and my couch is well sprung. Signature"640K ought to be enough RAM for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981 >> [James:] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > and my couch is well sprung. That's what I was thinking. In the examples offered, when the past participle is not used to mean "acted upon", it seems to be a transfer to adverb-participle from adjective-noun. One can see how the transfer took place. The well-read are people of good reading and the well-spoken of good speech, just as the the well-intentioned are those of good intentions and the well-mannered of good manners. I suppose the well-hung and well-sprung* are of good hang and good springs. *Pun in there somewhere. > "rt...@aol.com" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If he is well-hung. ...whereas if he is properly hung, it would be others who might stand a chance of being well-endowed. (don't quibble with me about "hanged", please). > [James:] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > If he is well-hung. A good example of where you need to be careful with your hyphens. "You ought to be bloody-well hung" is rather different from "You ought to be bloody well-hung". SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk rtnda@aol.com filted: >> A person can be "well-spoken". I'm sure there are other examples of >> ostensibly passive form but active meaning. > >A woman can be well-endowed. Come to think of it, I guess a man can >be, too. And either or both can be dark-complected.... (Or even *have* a dark complected, in New Mexico)....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > rtnda@aol.com filted: [...] >> A woman can be well-endowed. Come to think of it, I guess a man can >> be, too. > > And either or both can be dark-complected.... > > (Or even *have* a dark complected, in New Mexico)....r Anybody in those parts with an inferiority complect? (It took me a long time to realize that when Arab colleagues said somebody was "a complex man", they meant he would benefit from a nice lie-down on the psychiatrist's couch.) SignatureMike. > A person can be "well-spoken". I'm sure there are other examples of > ostensibly passive form but active meaning. That is a slightly different, and anomalous, construction. Since calling someone well-spoken (or soft-spoken, or well-behaved) includes the present, one would expect well-speaking, etc. My guess is that "well-spoken" (soft-spoken, well-behaved) results from fudging the choice between "well-speaking" (soft-speaking, well-behaving) & "good-speeched" (soft-speeched, good-behaviored). Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: The right to hurt people's feelings is the only right worth :|| ||: having. :|| Joe Fineman filted: >> A person can be "well-spoken". I'm sure there are other examples of >> ostensibly passive form but active meaning. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >choice between "well-speaking" (soft-speaking, well-behaving) & >"good-speeched" (soft-speeched, good-behaviored). At this point, someone is bound to mention "long-lived", so I suppose it'll have to be me....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > At this point, someone is bound to mention "long-lived", so I > suppose it'll have to be me....r An entirely different construction, from the noun phrase "long life". Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; :|| ||: ethical advertising uses truths. :|| >> At this point, someone is bound to mention "long-lived", so I >> suppose it'll have to be me....r > > An entirely different construction, from the noun phrase "long > life". So I have long believed, and pronounced the word -/ laIvd/ in consequence. This thread is making me wonder if there isn't a case to be made for / lIvd/ after all, as a parallel construction to "well-read". There may be other such constructions with adverbs different from "well": "high-flown" could be for "of high flight". Both "long"and "high" can be adverbs, of course. >>>> Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; >>>> :|| ethical advertising uses truths. Which beat lies for that purpose, they say. CDB: [re "long-lived"] > So I have long believed, and pronounced the word -/ laIvd/ in > consequence. This thread is making me wonder if there isn't a case to > be made for / lIvd/ after all, as a parallel construction to > "well-read". There may be other such constructions with adverbs > different from "well": "high-flown" could be for "of high flight". > Both "long"and "high" can be adverbs, of course. The Longman Pronunciation Dictionary has /-laIvd/ as the American way and /-lIvd/ as the British, and the entry is starred to warn the reader that "the British and American pronunciations are different in an important and unpredictable way". The OED has only /-laIvd/. I say /-lIvd/, and I don't think I've heard /-laIvd/ before. Do any Brits say /-laIvd/? SignatureJohn > CDB: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > /-laIvd/. I say /-lIvd/, and I don't think I've heard /-laIvd/ > before. Do any Brits say /-laIvd/? It's probably a patchwork. I'm Canadian, and grew up saying / lIvd/, until I thought about it. Joe seemed to be implying that / laIvd/ was right ('from the noun phrase "long life"'), and he's a Texan. >> CDB: >> >> [re "long-lived"] > It's probably a patchwork. I'm Canadian, and grew up saying / > lIvd/, until I thought about it. Joe seemed to be implying that / > laIvd/ was right ('from the noun phrase "long life"'), and he's a > Texan. Correct, up the last word. I have never lived in Texas, and am linguistically mixed, having spent my childhood in southern California & Vermont, and spent longish periods there & in Scotland, New York, and Virginia. But my pronunciation of -lived, like yours, is due to my having thought about it. As to British usage, MEU 2 calls /laIvd/ correct, but concedes that /lIvd/ is "almost always heard". Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Happiness is no more than good health and a bad memory. :|| >>> CDB: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > As to British usage, MEU 2 calls /laIvd/ correct, but concedes that > /lIvd/ is "almost always heard". Sorry. Wonder how I got that idea? "There's nothing between the North Pole and Texas but a barbed-wire fence" doesn't seem like enough. >>>> Happiness is no more than good health and a bad memory. :|| John wrote on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:35:36 +0100: > [re "long-lived"] >> So I have long believed, and pronounced the word -/ laIvd/ in >> consequence. This thread is making me wonder if there isn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> "high-flown" could be for "of high flight". Both "long"and >> "high" can be adverbs, of course. > The Longman Pronunciation Dictionary has /-laIvd/ as the > American way and /-lIvd/ as the British, and the entry is > starred to warn the reader that "the British and American > pronunciations are different in an important and unpredictable > way". The OED has only /-laIvd/. I say /-lIvd/, and I don't > think I've heard /-laIvd/ before. Do any Brits say /-laIvd/? This American tends to use /-lIvd/ but I've heard /-laIvd/ as well. It's possible that /-lIvd/ is not a majority usage in the US since I spent the first years of my life in Britain and I don't think I use "long-lived" very often. Webster's Unabashed does give both pronunciations with /-laIvd/ first. (I think I have correctly changed their pronunciation guide to ASCII IPA.) SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > CDB: > [re "long-lived"] >> So I have long believed, and pronounced the word -/ laIvd/ in >> consequence. This thread is making me wonder if there isn't a case to >> be made for / lIvd/ after all, as a parallel construction to >> "well-read". There may be other such constructions with adverbs >> different from "well": "high-flown" could be for "of high flight". >> Both "long"and "high" can be adverbs, of course. > The Longman Pronunciation Dictionary has /-laIvd/ as the American way and > /-lIvd/ as the British, and the entry is starred to warn the reader that > "the British and American pronunciations are different in an important and > unpredictable way". The OED has only /-laIvd/. I say /-lIvd/, and I don't > think I've heard /-laIvd/ before. Do any Brits say /-laIvd/? Do any Americans? I say it as I would say "In 1985, she lived in this house" and I would find a long i instead rather jarring. SignatureThe way I see it, the longer I put it off, the better it'll end up being. Heck, school doesn't start for another 43 minutes. >> CDB: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I say it as I would say "In 1985, she lived in this house" and I > would find a long i instead rather jarring. There are two questions to be considered: general usage and mechanism of production. On the first count, I think you are with the great majority: most people rhyme it with "seived", not "dived". On the second, the best pronunciation may depend on whether "-lived" is a straightforward participial adjective with the meaning "endowed with a life", as in "long-armed" or "broad-shouldered", with the traditional voicing of the "f" in "life" in such a position (as in "sharp-knived", say), in which case it is or should or can be pronounced / laIvd/; or (new thought) whether it's parallel to "well-read": a resort to the combination of adverb and verbal past participle to express the same kind of endowment, often when there is no suitable noun to be made into a participle. Then it would be / lIvd/. I suppose the practical result of this puzzlement is that you can say the word any way you please. >> CDB: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I say it as I would say "In 1985, she lived in this house" and I would > find a long i instead rather jarring. long-leaved? SignatureRob Bannister Joe Fineman filted: >> At this point, someone is bound to mention "long-lived", so I >> suppose it'll have to be me....r > >An entirely different construction, from the noun phrase "long life". Depends how you pronounce the I....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. >> A person can be "well-spoken". I'm sure there are other examples of >> ostensibly passive form but active meaning. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > choice between "well-speaking" (soft-speaking, well-behaving)& > "good-speeched" (soft-speeched, good-behaviored). They can be "Spanish-speaking," as well. --Jeff SignatureLove consists of overestimating the differences between one woman and another. --George Bernard Shaw >> Describing a person is "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. > >Oops. > >Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. Well said. > Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. On one occasion last summer I neglected to use sun cream. I was well red. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. >> > On one occasion last summer I neglected to use sun cream. I was well > red. A visibly sick stray cat paused in its staggering at some work we were having done, and one of the builders said "That cat's well ill." SignatureMike. Mike Lyle filted: >>> Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >A visibly sick stray cat paused in its staggering at some work we were >having done, and one of the builders said "That cat's well ill." I'll just bet it was pretty ugly too....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > Mike Lyle filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>A visibly sick stray cat paused in its staggering at some work we were >>having done, and one of the builders said "That cat's well ill." > I'll just bet it was pretty ugly too....r He already said it was a cat. SignatureIn my world there are people in chains and you can ride them like ponies Lewis filted: >> Mike Lyle filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >He already said it was a cat. If you took it in (despite your obvious dislike of cats) and cared for it, folks in Boston might say you were wicked kind....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > Lewis filted: >>> Mike Lyle filted: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you took it in (despite your obvious dislike of cats) and cared > for it, folks in Boston might say you were wicked kind....r Or downright upright. CDB filted: >> Lewis filted: >>>> Mike Lyle filted: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >Or downright upright. Good of you to be so outright forthright....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. >Lewis filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >If you took it in (despite your obvious dislike of cats) and cared for it, folks >in Boston might say you were wicked kind....r If you were cute, some British girls might say you were well fit. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >If you took it in (despite your obvious dislike of cats) and cared for it, > >folks > >in Boston might say you were wicked kind....r > > If you were cute, some British girls might say you were well fit. But not necessarily a good fit. Signature"If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones On Sep 25, 12:05 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: > > Describing a person *as* "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. > > On one occasion last summer I neglected to use sun cream. I was well red. A well deserved reaction. >Describing a person is "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. It should be "well-read". It's parallel to "well-spoken", but it is a little odd, since the person has been reading, not being read. SignatureJohn John O'Flaherty filted: >>Describing a person is "well read" always seems slightly odd to me. > >It should be "well-read". It's parallel to "well-spoken", but it is a >little odd, since the person has been reading, not being read. Cf: "It's unpleasantly like being drunk." "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?" "Just ask a glass of water." ....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > >It should be "well-read". It's parallel to "well-spoken" I usually differentiate between: "John is well read." and "Mary is a well-read person." Not really sure why. Possibly pondian. I'm on the AmE side of the water. Signature"If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones >> >It should be "well-read". It's parallel to "well-spoken" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not really sure why. Possibly pondian. I'm on the AmE side of the water. As Wilson Follett points out in _Modern American Usage_, [A hyphen] is not wanted between an adverb and its adjective before a noun . . . . But when the adverb 'well' is linked with a past participle, again only before the noun, the hyphen is required . . . . I don't think that that is Pondian. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ |
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.