Best Of
Best Of
Making the most of the Oxford English Dictionary in the classroom
Katherine Martin, Head of U.S. Dictionaries, and Fiona McPherson, Senior Editor – OED New Words, presented about exploring the OED to make full use of its resources for research and teaching.
They took us on virtual tours of the OED, showing how to unlock the potential of the historical and linguistic data in the dictionary’s entries.
Katherine and Fiona also provided an overview of some of the OED teaching resources available.
This session covered:
• A virtual tour of the OED
• Navigating an entry to get historical data, with examples
• Using features such as timelines, advanced search, and the Historical Thesaurus to uncover the hidden riches of the OED
• An overview of the OED’s teaching resources, and ideas for how to use them in the classroom
• Q&A session
Who is this for?
Anyone who is interested in…
• Knowing more about what the OED has to offer
• Using the OED as a teaching resource
• Lexicography and historical data in the OED
Please note: Two sessions were presented, one with examples more relevant to North America and another to the UK. They provide, however, essentially the same information.
US session with Katherine Martin, Head of U.S. Dictionaries
UK session with Fiona McPherson, Senior Editor – OED New Words
Simone
Re: Prescriptive or descriptive
Gavin, the OED reports how people have used English words over the centuries. That report is the truth — or at least as much truth as the surviving data can reveal.
Language changes. My particular interest is in how English grammar has changed. But I also take some interest in word meanings, which change more radically and more rapidly than grammar.
Some changes are fleeting fads. It's the business of a scientific dictionary to identify the changes which take effect. At some point in the view it will emerge whether the use of racism for prejudices not based on a power dynamic has faded away or become one of the accepted uses.
One fad which did become accepted was the use of the double negative to express a positive. In its day the innovation was outlandish and un-English. But in time it became part of the Standard, and then a shibboleth, a marker of 'educated' speech and writing. But most speakers of most dialects retain the original double negative use, at least as an option. And speakers of the Standard dialect deploy it as a stylistic device.
As for infer/imply, the current entry (soon to be revised, no doubt) for the former includes
4. To lead to (something) as a conclusion; to involve as a consequence; to imply. (Said of a fact or statement; sometimes, of the person who makes the statement.)
This use is widely considered to be incorrect, esp. with a person as the subject.
The earliest supporting quote is from Sir Thomas More
c1530 T. More Let. Impugnynge J. Fryth in Wks. 840/2 The fyrste parte is not the proofe of the second, but rather contrary wyse, the seconde inferreth well ye fyrst.
Re: Functions of the -ing
A. What do you mean by the font variation? (ing vs ing)
B. It's difficult to discuss the concept grammatical function. I'm not sure what it would mean in traditional grammar. I'll try to answer you in terms of what some modern grammars mean by grammatical function.
First of all, -ing is not a function but a form. It's a word fragment (technically known as a morpheme) which combines with the bare form of a verb. In this case, the combination forms are selling and travelling.
Now these -ing forms of verbs, these words do have grammatical functions.
ONE
Some -ing words can function like ADJECTIVES. One example is travelling, as in
a travelling salesman
The other word can do the same — but only as part of a compound, as in
_ a best-selling author_
Strictly speaking, these are not adjectives. We can't say
a more travelling salesman or a very best-selling author.
And although we can say
This salesman is travelling
it means something different from
This is a travelling salesman
And we don't say
This author is best-selling
but rather
This author is a best-seller
But some -ing words have become adjectives, for example
very interesting, more annoying, the most exciting
The book is interesting, The boy is annoying, the race is exciting
There is a term for the function of all these words, whether adjectives or not. The term is PREMODIFIER.
And it's important to note that premodifiers function within a NOUN PHRASE.
TWO
Just as an -ing word-fragment combines with a verb to make a one-word form, so in turn an
-ing word may combine with a form of be to make a meaningful unit.
Here's a list for sell:
am/is/ are selling
was/were selling
have/has/had been selling
can/could/will/would/must/might etc be selling
The are termed FINITE VERB FORMS. Specifically they are the PROGRESSIVE finite verb forms.
Their grammatical function is within a CLAUSE.
The grammatical function of a finite verb form is to hold the clause together.
In order for a clause to be grammatical
- all finite forms demand a SUBJECT
- the structure of the rest of the clause is determined by the verb from which the finite form is made. For example:
— sell normally demands an OBJECT (such as insurance)
— travel normally does not demand an OBJECT, but may be followed by an ADVERBIAL (such as to Finland)
— put demands both an OBJECT and an ADVERBIAL (e.g. She put the book on the table_)
— give_ demands a DIRECT OBJECT and either an INDIRECT OBJECT or an ADVERBIAL
(e.g. He gave her the flowers or He gave the flowers to her.)
It's common to use the word verb to refer to a function or a form or a word class.
So some modern grammars use the term PREDICATOR for the grammatical function.
THREE
FINITE CLAUSES in turn have a grammatical function within a SENTENCE. This may be:
- the only clause — e.g. She is selling insurance.
- the MAIN CLAUSE — e.g. She is selling insurance because she needs the work.
- a SUBORDINATE CLAUSE — e.g. She wears a business suit when she's selling insurance.
FOUR
This where we come to selling and travelling in your examples. I'll discuss this in a new post.
Re: Functions of the -ing
FOUR
This where we come to selling and travelling in your examples.
Each is part of what used to be called a phrase.
selling insurance and travelling to Finland
Modern grammars call these NON-FINITE CLAUSES because they are grammatically almost the same as FINITE CLAUSES.
- The main difference is that the are often without a SUBJECT — as in your two examples
- However the structure of the clause is controlled by the verb is the same way, whether the verb form is finite or non-finite.
There are two other types of NON-FINITE CLAUSE built around different NON-FINITE forms.
- TO-INFINITIVE — e.g. She moved to the Northeast to sell insurance.
- BARE INFINITIVE — e.g. We watched her travel to Finland.
FIVE
NON-FINITE CLAUSES can have different grammatical functions within SENTENCES.
Some are the same functions that can be fulfilled by NOUN PHRASES.
- SUBJECT — Selling insurance is profitable. Travelling to Finland will be enjoyable.
- OBJECT — I regret selling insurance. I recommend travelling to Finland.
- after a PREPOSITION —It was a scheme for selling insurance. It's an article about travelling to Finland.
Another common grammatical function within a sentence is as ADVERBIAL.
You can see this by substituting a one-word ADVERB with the same grammatical function.
She works the Northeast region of the state enthusiastically.
Gradually I found the weather got colder and colder.
Re: Pronunciation of plural forms (BrE)
I see I missed one English consonant sound. It's the one spelled with letter-L or letters-LL or -LE or -LLE Like the nasal consonant sounds of GROUP C, it's VOICED in English:
- l (voiced)
So a fuller version should read
The sounds for a regular plural are:
- s — ropes, cats, picks, safes, paths (and for some lochs)
- z — robes, cads, pigs, waves, lathes, sums, sons, rungs, balls (and for some beers)
— plus all words ending in vowel sound or consonant sounds - ɪz — buses, causes, wishes, garages (for some speakers), matches, badges
Re: Pronunciation of plural forms (BrE)
@RueHg
Question 3.
In accents such as Scottish and American words spelled with a final letter-R (or final letters -RE) are always pronounced with an R-sound.
When there is a plural noun-ending, I hear it as voiced r followed by voiced z.
This may not be objectively true but it makes no practical difference.
In accents like mine, and most accents of Britain and the Southern Hemisphere, words spelled with a final letter-R (or final letters -RE) are pronounced with a vowel sound or diphthong sound.
A plural noun-ending is therefore pronounced z.
In my accent the sounds are:
VOWELS
- -ɑː, -ɑːz —car, cars
- -ɔː, -ɔːz — core, cores; four, fours; drawer, drawers; floor, floors; dinosaur, dinosaurs plus possibly cursor, cursors when spoken carefully for emphasis
- -ɜː, -ɜːz — fir, firs; cur, curs; entrepreneur, entrepresurs plus possibly sender, senders when spoken carefully for emphasis
- -ə, -əz — brother, brothers; theatre, theatres; mirror, mirrors; colour, colours; molar, molars
DIPHTHONGS
- -ɪə, -ɪəz — fear, fears; beer, beers; pier, piers; emir, emirs; mere, meres
- -ɛə, -ɛəz — mare, mares; pair, pairs; heir, heir; bear, bears; prayer, prayers; mayor, mayors
- -jʊə, -jʊəz — cure, cures
- -aɪə, -aɪəz — dyer, dyers; denier, deniers; fire, fires; choir, choirs; liar, liars; lyre, lyres; buyer, buyers
- -aʊə, -aʊəz — flower, flowers
Re: Pronunciation of plural forms (BrE)
Question 1.
In all languages there's an observable difference between consonants produced with and without VOICE — sound made when the vocal cords are allowed to vibrate.
In most languages most of the time, changing a consonant from VOICED to VOICELESS results in a different wortd with a different meaning.
In English this is true for consonants in almost every position in a word. It's certainly true for consonants at the end of a word. Here are the English voiceless and voiced consonants.
GROUP A
- p (voiceless) / b (voiced) — rope androbe are different words
- t (voiceless) / d (voiced) — sat and sad are different words
- k (voiceless) / g (voiced) — pick and pig are different words
- f (voiceless) / v (voiced) — safe and save are different words
- θ (voiceless) / ð (voiced) — teeth and teethe are different words
GROUP B
- s (voiceless) / z (voiced) — fuss and fuzz are different words
- ʃ (voiceless) / ʒ (voiced) — douche and rouge do not rhyme
- ʧ (voiceless) / ʤ (voiced) — catch and cadge are different words
GROUP C
In English three consonants are produced with your mouth closed and the breath coming out through your nose.
To English ears they are all VOICED. If you produce one without letting your vocal cords vibrate, then either we won't understand you or we'll hear it as VOICED.
These 'nasal' consonants are
- m (voiced) — as in some
- n (voiced) — as in sun
- ŋ (voiced) — as in sung
GROUP D
In English these sounds happen only before or after a vowel sound.
Before a vowel sound they can be consonants.
After a vowel they merge together to make a single sound called a diphthong.
So the sounds can't occur as consonants at the end of a word.
In English we all hear one sound as always voiced.
- j (voiced) — as in Yale
In some accents of English we hear a difference
- ʍ (voiceless) / w (voiced) — whales and Wales are different in some accents
GROUP E
There's only one sound and the way we use it is complicated.
In all accents it can't occur after a consonant sound at the end of a word.
In many accents it can't occur after a vowel at the end of a word — unless immediately followed by a words stating with a vowel.
On other accents (e.g. Scottish, American) it can occur at eht end of a word, and also before a consonant sound.
So in some accents there can be a VOICED and VOICELESS pair, but we don't hear the difference.
There can be different r-sounds in cart and card in these accents, so that the two consonants are similar: [r̥t] (voiceless) [rd] (voiced).
For practical purposes, there is only one sound and it's voiced
- r (voiced) — as in beer in accents such as Scottish or American
GROUP F
Again only one sound. In English we never use it at the end of a word.
In fact we only use it before a vowel sound so the end of it may become voiced.
However, in English it starts as a voiceless sound, so that's how it's classified.
- h (voiceless)
GROUP G
There is only one sound, and not everybody uses it. And we use it only for words from another language — almost always the word loch, sometimes Bach.
- x (voiceless)
All English vowel sounds and all English diphthongs are voiced.
So we can divide the sounds at the end of a word into three:
- voiceless consonant sounds (from GROUP A and in some accents GROUP G)
- vowel sounds, diphthong sounds and voiced consonants (from GROUPS A, C, and in some accents E)
- voiced and voicedless consonants of GROUP B
The sounds for a regular plural are:
- s — ropes, cats, picks, safes, paths (and for some lochs)
- z — robes, cads, pigs, waves, lathes, sums, sons, rungs (and for some beers)
— plus all words ending in vowel sound or consonant sounds - ɪz — buses, causes, wishes, garages (for some speakers), matches, badges
Question 2.
It always depends on the last consonant — if it's the final sound.
The last vowel makes no difference — unless it's the final sound
Question 3.
Words with a spelling ending in -r are complicated because of the different accents of English. I'll post separately.
a review of/for
I know that it is correct to say "a review of a new musical". Is it also correct to say "a review for a new musical"?
The point is that I came across "There are mostly five-star reviews for the product on Amazon" in
https://housebeautiful.com/shopping/a26026219/shower-curtain-liner-holds-phone-ipad/
Helenej
Re: 'Might have been'
Sam, might have been is a FORM, not a PART OF SPEECH.
Yes, might is best described as a MODAL AUXILIARY VERB or, more simply, a MODAL VERB.
This is what could be termed a PART OF SPEECH, though I prefer the term WORD CLASS.
It's debatable whether may and might should be seen as two Modal Verbs or two FORMS (PRESENT AND PAST) of the same verb. Either way, might have been is a PERFECT FORM.
Personally, I tend to think of might have been as a MODAL PAST PERFECT of be.
An important book on the English Verb by FR Palmer uses the term SECONDARY rather than MODAL.
From this point of view
PRIMARY had been
corresponds to
SECONDARY might have been/could have been/would have been/should have been.
Had been is unquestionably PAST PERFECT, so I prefer to think of might have been etc as also PAST PERFECT, but there's clearly a contrary argument which does not recognise it as a PAST form.
In my speech and for many other speakers — though perhaps not for everybody
- may have been means 'was perhaps, I don't know but it's a possibility'
- might have been can have at least these meanings:
—1. 'was perhaps, I'm not really sure'
—2. 'had been previously perhaps, I'm not really sure'
—3. 'wasn't, as it happens, but if conditions had been different could have been'
—4. 'hadn't been previously, as it happens, but if conditions had been different could have been'
Some speakers, not me, can use may have been for meaning [3].
My meaning [1] would support 'I don't really know what Stone Age houses were like, but this is a possibility'.
My meaning [3] would support 'If there had been Stone Age houses, they would have been like this'.
As with modal verbs in general, the modality — in this case POSSIBILITY (technically epistemic modality) — may be attached to different aspects of the proposition.
PRESENT JUDGEMENT OF POSSIBILITY ABOUT THE PAST — e.g._ may have been, might have been, will have been, would have been_
This would cover your meaning (i) — a present judgement that it's possible, though dubious, that a Stone Age house like this existedJUDGEMENT OF POSSIBILITY AT THE TIME (IN THE PAST) — e.g. might have been, could have been, would have been, should have been but not_ may have been, can have been, will have been, shall have been_
This would cover your meaning (ii) — judgement that this represents a possible design for a house in the Stone Age.
Re: (Translation practice) Hantavirus pneumonia: why in some cases it could be deadly
...the outbreak that develops in the south presented...
Up to here, the text has all been in the PRESENT. The sudden PAST SIMPLE presented is very confusing. It seems to me that you you are writing about
A. VERB FORMS
1. GENERAL TRUTHS
* The disease produces in the country more than 100 cases per year
* the long-tailed colilargo is the principal vector for the virus
For these, PRESENT SIMPLE is normal
2. SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED BEFORE NOW
* the outbreak ... presented the particular ...
The outbreak is has not finished, so use PRESENT PERFECT
the outbreak ... has presented particular ...
3. CURRENT SITUATION —POSSIBLY
* the outbreak that develops in the south
* put in danger the patients life
If this is an ongoing process, then use PRESENT PROGRESSIVE
the outbreak that is developing in the south
are putting in danger
Alternatively
If the process is complete, then use PRESENT PERFECT
_ the outbreak that has developed in the south_
have put in danger
B. ARTICLES
* the lack of oxygen and _the circulator collapse_
Because these are general not specific symptoms don't use the
C. WORD ORDER
* The disease produces in the country more than 100 cases per year
You need a good reason to put something between the VERB and its OBJECT.
I don't think there's a reason here, so I'd prefer
The disease produces more than 100 cases per year in the country
* put in danger the the patient life
With two-word verbs like put in, the rule is different.
You need a good reason not to put the OBJECT between the first word and the PARTICLE.
There isn't a good reason here, so it should be
put the life in danger
C. VOCABULARY
* presented the particularity of
present in a medical sense is used for e.g. the patient presented [symptoms]
particularity is rare, except in the plural your/his etc particularities = 'distinguishing personal characteristics'
Even when used in the singular, I don't think we'd say or write the particularity of X.
There are various possibilities e.g.
is distinguished by
put in danger
As I've said, there are problems of word order.
In any case, the one-word verb endanger is better in this style.
D. EXPRESSING POSSESSION
* the patient life
You must use either of or an APOSTROPHE
Since you've chosen the SINGULAR form life, it must be
the patient's life
or
the life of the patient
As a generalisation, you could also write
patients' lives
or
the lives of patients.
In this text you could write simply:
may endanger life