Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Verb-classifiers and preverbs.

Expand Messages
  • Ph. D.
    ... Let s go back to the original post: A: We ll start five-ish? B: Ish? Can t you be more specific? A: Well I could, but with this group ish is about as good
    Message 1 of 25 , May 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Charlie wrote:
      >
      > Adam Walker wrote:
      >>
      >> That was in the example you cut out. "Ish is
      >> about as good as it gets with this group."
      >
      > The trouble for me is that I have no idea what
      > that sentence means. What synonym would I
      > use for "ish" in that sentence?


      Let's go back to the original post:

      A: We'll start five-ish?
      B: Ish? Can't you be more specific?
      A: Well I could, but with this group ish is about as
      good as it gets.

      Translation:

      A: We'll start approximately at five.
      B: Approximately? Can't you be more specific?
      A: I wish I could, but with this group, "approximately"
      is about as good as it gets.

      --Ph. D.
    • Adam Walker
      ... Aproximately? Adam Ed ñavisud in junu suñu pera nun regrediri ad ul Erodu, regrediruns ad il sustrus provinchi peu l via aurra. Machu 2:12
      Message 2 of 25 , May 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- caeruleancentaur <caeruleancentaur@...>
        wrote:

        > >Adam Walker <carrajena@...> wrote:
        >
        > >That was in the example you cut out. "Ish is about
        > as good as it gets
        > >with this group."
        >
        > The trouble for me is that I have no idea what that
        > sentence means.
        > What synonym would I use for "ish" in that sentence?
        >
        > Charlie
        >

        Aproximately?

        Adam

        Ed ñavisud in junu suñu pera nun regrediri ad ul Erodu, regrediruns ad il sustrus provinchi peu'l via aurra.

        Machu 2:12
      • MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM
        In a message dated 5/2/2008 18:13:02 PM Central Daylight Time, ... How about just about or approximately ? It s all very elliptical anyway. stevo
        Message 3 of 25 , May 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/2/2008 18:13:02 PM Central Daylight Time,
          caeruleancentaur@... writes:


          > The trouble for me is that I have no idea what that sentence means.
          > What synonym would I use for "ish" in that sentence?
          >

          How about just "about" or "approximately"?
          It's all very elliptical anyway.

          stevo </HTML>
        • Carl Banks
          ... I think a better example than ish is ism . As in, I will not tolerate racism, sexism, ageism, or any other isms . The fact that ism can be
          Message 4 of 25 , May 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            caeruleancentaur wrote:
            > Adam Walker <carrajena@...> wrote:
            >
            > I suspect he meant conversations like:
            >
            >> A: So does it start at five?
            >> B: Ish.
            >
            >> A: Would you say that car is purple?
            >> B: Ish.
            >
            > That's fine for a one-word elliptical response, but how would you use
            > it in a complete sentence? Is "ish" an adjective or an adverb? I
            > don't see that "ish" has any meaning apart from being attached to
            > another part of speech.


            I think a better example than "ish" is "ism". As in, "I will not
            tolerate racism, sexism, ageism, or any other isms".

            The fact that "ism" can be pluralized, but that you can't normally
            pluralize words with the -ism suffix, indicates that its usage here is
            as a separate word, and not a suffix with an elided base.

            I believe the reason "ism" was able to break free is that English
            speakers tend to parse -ism words as compound words, since -ism is added
            to a noun and results in a noun. They think of "ism" as a word roughly
            meaning "focus". Compare the above to the following hypothetical
            sentence: "I will not tolerate racefocus, sexfocus, agefocus, or any
            other focuses." See? It's "right" to parse it as a compound in one
            case, "wrong" in the other, but there's really not much qualitative
            difference between the two.

            Of course what really proves "ism" is a word is it has started serving
            as the root for other words: words such as "ismism", the belief in
            (over)emphasizing isms.


            Carl Banks
          • Andreas Johansson
            ... There s also istic as an adjective meaning bigoted or prejudiced. -- Andreas Johansson
            Message 5 of 25 , May 3, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Quoting Carl Banks <conlang@...>:

              > caeruleancentaur wrote:
              > > Adam Walker <carrajena@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > I suspect he meant conversations like:
              > >
              > >> A: So does it start at five?
              > >> B: Ish.
              > >
              > >> A: Would you say that car is purple?
              > >> B: Ish.
              > >
              > > That's fine for a one-word elliptical response, but how would you use
              > > it in a complete sentence? Is "ish" an adjective or an adverb? I
              > > don't see that "ish" has any meaning apart from being attached to
              > > another part of speech.
              >
              >
              > I think a better example than "ish" is "ism". As in, "I will not
              > tolerate racism, sexism, ageism, or any other isms".
              >
              > The fact that "ism" can be pluralized, but that you can't normally
              > pluralize words with the -ism suffix, indicates that its usage here is
              > as a separate word, and not a suffix with an elided base.
              >
              > I believe the reason "ism" was able to break free is that English
              > speakers tend to parse -ism words as compound words, since -ism is added
              > to a noun and results in a noun. They think of "ism" as a word roughly
              > meaning "focus". Compare the above to the following hypothetical
              > sentence: "I will not tolerate racefocus, sexfocus, agefocus, or any
              > other focuses." See? It's "right" to parse it as a compound in one
              > case, "wrong" in the other, but there's really not much qualitative
              > difference between the two.
              >
              > Of course what really proves "ism" is a word is it has started serving
              > as the root for other words: words such as "ismism", the belief in
              > (over)emphasizing isms.

              There's also "istic" as an adjective meaning bigoted or prejudiced.

              --
              Andreas Johansson
            • Eugene Oh
              For what it s worth, the Japanese seem to have adopted ism as an independent word quite some time before the Westerners who invented the concept did. It
              Message 6 of 25 , May 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                For what it's worth, the Japanese seem to have adopted "ism" as an
                independent word quite some time before the Westerners who invented
                the concept did. It exists as, of course, the katakana loanword
                "izumu", which simply means "ideology", "theory", or "way of
                thinking". It has also led to "chirarizumu", coming from "chirari", an
                adverb meaning approximately "instantaneous" -- Instantaneism, anyone?

                Eugene

                On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Carl Banks <conlang@...> wrote:
                >
                > I think a better example than "ish" is "ism". As in, "I will not tolerate
                > racism, sexism, ageism, or any other isms".
                >
                > The fact that "ism" can be pluralized, but that you can't normally
                > pluralize words with the -ism suffix, indicates that its usage here is as a
                > separate word, and not a suffix with an elided base.
                >
                > I believe the reason "ism" was able to break free is that English speakers
                > tend to parse -ism words as compound words, since -ism is added to a noun
                > and results in a noun. They think of "ism" as a word roughly meaning
                > "focus". Compare the above to the following hypothetical sentence: "I will
                > not tolerate racefocus, sexfocus, agefocus, or any other focuses." See?
                > It's "right" to parse it as a compound in one case, "wrong" in the other,
                > but there's really not much qualitative difference between the two.
                >
                > Of course what really proves "ism" is a word is it has started serving as
                > the root for other words: words such as "ismism", the belief in
                > (over)emphasizing isms.
                >
                >
                > Carl Banks
                >
              • MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM
                In a message dated 5/3/2008 01:17:57 AM Central Daylight Time, ... I agree with all of this except the use of focus . I don t think focus comes anywhere
                Message 7 of 25 , May 3, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 5/3/2008 01:17:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
                  conlang@... writes:


                  > I believe the reason "ism" was able to break free is that English
                  > speakers tend to parse -ism words as compound words, since -ism is added
                  > to a noun and results in a noun. They think of "ism" as a word roughly
                  > meaning "focus". Compare the above to the following hypothetical
                  > sentence: "I will not tolerate racefocus, sexfocus, agefocus, or any
                  > other focuses." See? It's "right" to parse it as a compound in one
                  > case, "wrong" in the other, but there's really not much qualitative
                  > difference between the two.
                  >

                  I agree with all of this except the use of "focus". I don't think "focus"
                  comes anywhere near the meaning of "ism".

                  stevo </HTML>
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.