Archive for October, 2011

Auxiliary Reduction in the comics

October 4, 2011

Today’s Bizarro, with a pun on contractions:

The linguistic contractions in question are instances of what’s become known in the trade as Auxiliary Reduction — reduced versions of (certain) auxiliary verbs, which then form a unit with the immediately preceding word. In the examples in the cartoon, the auxiliaries that are reduced are is (or, less likely but still in principle possible, has) and are, and the preceding word in each case is a personal pronoun subject (it, she, we). The resulting elements act in some ways like two-word sequences and in other ways like single words, so they present interesting analytic puzzles.

(more…)

crabsticks

October 4, 2011

From the world of compound nouns naming food. A month ago, there was lobster salad not made from lobster (though its main ingredient was a crustacean related to Homarus americanus) — now renamed zabster zalad. Now in the NYT Magazine‘s Food & Drink Issue of 10/2/11, in a “Curiosities” section, crabsticks: “What’s in a Crabstick?” by Cliff Kuang:

(more…)

Syntax without the bumps

October 3, 2011

You might have heard of phonology-free syntax; this posting is about phrenology-free syntax, syntax without the bumps.

Fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy night. (As Bette Davis’s character Margo Channing said in the 1950 film All About Eve — though the quote has become famous with “bumpy ride” rather than “bumpy night”.)

(more…)

diddly squat

October 3, 2011

Today’s Bizarro:

The construction in You (don’t) know diddly / squat / diddly-squat (about NP) has in fact caught the attention of linguists. In a Language Log posting on swearing a while back, I referred to

the analysis of NPs like (doodly) squat, (jack)shit, and fuck(-all) in sentences like You (don’t) know jackshit about linguistics — by, among others, Larry Horn (“Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation, and other quirks of grammar”, in the 2001 volume Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, edited by Hoeksema et al.) and Paul Postal (“The structure of one type of American English vulgar minimizer”, chapter 5 in his 2004 collection Skeptical Linguistic Essays).

Fascinating things, those vulgar minimizers.

Unprovoked subject whom

October 2, 2011

Subject whom(ever) has been the topic of many postings on Language Log and this blog (an inventory of postings on who/whom, through 11/15/09, is available here). Occurrences of whom in subject position can be motivated by sentence syntax — in the configurations I’ve called ISOC and ESOC (see here and here) — or can be unmotivated by syntactic context, in what I’ll call unprovoked occurrences.

From Ben Zimmer a few days ago, via Nancy Friedman on Twitter, a remarkably contemptuous response to a customer complaint from an Australian fashion chain — with a burst of unprovoked subject whom in it, in combination with some unsureness about the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relatives, beginning with

the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range

(more…)

Branding

October 1, 2011

In the October 3rd New Yorker, a piece (p. 38) by John Colapinto in The World of Business category: “Famous Names: Does it matter what a product is called?”.

(more…)

The context of danglers

October 1, 2011

What follows is an abstract for an academic conference (explanation to come) on “dangling modifiers” in context. This is only an abstract, with a 200-word limit and no space for a bibliography (though I’ll add two items below).

(more…)

Weekend portmanteau crop

October 1, 2011

Three combo innovations that came by me recently: atrociology (useful), Cuomosexual (entertaining), cheftestant (merely playful).

(more…)