c4countdown

Another shocking result:

http://www.whichisgayer.com/compare/cha ... ry+glitter

Ian Volante wrote:Another shocking result:

http://www.whichisgayer.com/compare/cha ... ry+glitter

I always thought that Gary Glitter was indiscriminate.

Ian Volante wrote:Another shocking result:
http://www.whichisgayer.com/compare/cha ... ry+glitter

I wonder if I was the only one who read "shocking" as meaning that Glitter had come out gayer than Charlie (you know, what with all this recent 'evidence')

Much to my astonishment, I found something gayer than Charlie. MUCH gayer, in fact.

Admittedly, it was 'gayness itself'.

Well, wait, there is hope here! A close contest between Charlie and a paragon of homosexuality!

Just a hunch here, but I'm guessing Charlie felt this joke had already worn rather thin about six hours ago.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Just a hunch here, but I'm guessing Charlie felt this joke had already worn rather thin about six hours ago.

Doesn't mean we have to stop though, does it?

It seems I've completely lost my gay edge

Dinos Sfyris wrote:It seems I've completely lost my gay edge

When did you last see it? Try looking in the last place you remember having it. If it's not there, call the police. Alternatively, PM me your home address and credit card details and I'll arrange for a new one to be sent to you.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Chris Corby wrote:I love the way George writes 'homosexuality' in the middle of a sentence as 'Homosexuality' - as in 'God'

Well, it did use to be a capital offence...

But...
Oh blimey, sorry Phil, can't resist, but is that a mistake there? Phew, Phil IS an imperfect human after all, like the rest of us!
BTW just listened to your showreel - you're voice is lovely.
Now off to continue reading the rest of the posts in this thread... page 2 of 4
Agreeing with and thanking Charlie for defending us and what he's created here.
And, George, I love you almost as much as Matt loves Phil.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Oh blimey, sorry Phil, can't resist, but is that a mistake there?

Is what a mistake where? I'm not immune to making mistakes (though it's nice to know I have a reputation for infallibility), but having re-read those particular nine words of mine several times, they seem fine to me. It does seem a bit perverse to say "is that a mistake" without actually giving some clue as to what you're talking about.

Pink Paper wrote:Countdown is no stranger to controversy. Last year mainstay presenter Carol Vorderman was sensationally fired following the sudden death of original compere, Richard Whitely.

Hmm, shall I? Yeah.

I'm pretty sure she left albeit under duress, plus when it says "following the sudden death" it actually means about three years later. Not mention that his name was Richard Whiteley.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Oh blimey, sorry Phil, can't resist, but is that a mistake there?

Is what a mistake where? I'm not immune to making mistakes (though it's nice to know I have a reputation for infallibility), but having re-read those particular nine words of mine several times, they seem fine to me. It does seem a bit perverse to say "is that a mistake" without actually giving some clue as to what you're talking about.

I think that you possibly did use the wrong tense.

Brian Moore wrote:I think that you possibly did use the wrong tense.

If you mean by dropping the d of "used to" when used in a clause with "did" (either for emphasis, as in my case, or to form a question or a negative - "did you use to...?", "I didn't use to..."), then not according to this and numerous other sources. Most authorities seem to fall into one of two camps: the majority say that "did use to" is correct, while a significant minority say that either "did use to" or "did used to" is acceptable in informal English, but formal writers should try to avoid using either.

There is an interesting (well, relatively interesting) discussion about it here.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:I think that you possibly did use the wrong tense.

If you mean by dropping the d of "used to" when used in a clause with "did" (either for emphasis, as in my case, or to form a question or a negative - "did you use to...?", "I didn't use to..."), then not according to this and numerous other sources. Most authorities seem to fall into one of two camps: the majority say that "did use to" is correct, while a significant minority say that either "did use to" or "did used to" is acceptable in informal English, but formal writers should try to avoid using either.

There is an interesting (well, relatively interesting) discussion about it here.

Yes, interesting thread, thanks Phil. I'd be in the used camp, as it were, but only through usage, not through any logical linguistic reasoning. I'd guess that it was that to which Lesley was referring anyway. I think I'll just avoid the phrase now out of pure paranoia. It wasn't one of my favourites in any case, so I won't miss it.

Brian Moore wrote:I'd guess that it was that to which Lesley was referring anyway.

It was, as we have subsequently confirmed by PM.

I think I'll just avoid the phrase now out of pure paranoia.

If nothing else, I am delighted to have discovered (via the second link I posted) that "used to" is "a defective quasimodal verb", a phrase I shall lose no time in dropping into conversation at the Cricketers' Arms.

Phil Reynolds wrote:If nothing else, I am delighted to have discovered (via the second link I posted) that "used to" is "a defective quasimodal verb", a phrase I shall lose no time in dropping into conversation at the Cricketers' Arms.

That catchy terminology caught my eye too. It's just the setting up of the conversation so that one can casually use it that's going to need some planning .... I just hope no-one asks me to explain the difference between a quasimodal verb and a defective quasimodal verb.

Hmm, I wonder if we've drifted semantically from the thread....

Brian Moore wrote:I just hope no-one asks me to explain the difference between a quasimodal verb and a defective quasimodal verb.

Careful! In this thread you are liable to be accused of quasimodo-phobia.

Normally a defective verb is one which has missing inflections, e.g. there is no infinitive of "can" (so you can't say "he wants to can to swim", you have to say "he wants to be able to swim.") But "use" doesn't seem to fit this. Can anyone clarify?

Charlie Reams wrote:Normally a defective verb is one which has missing inflections, e.g. there is no infinitive of "can" (so you can't say "he wants to can to swim", you have to say "he wants to be able to swim.") But "use" doesn't seem to fit this. Can anyone clarify?

So far as I am aware, "use" is perfectly normal, but "used to" only refers to the past so it is defective in that you can't say "I will have used to". Well, you could say it, just as you could say "he wants to can", but it wouldn't be considered correct.

Charlie Reams wrote:Normally a defective verb is one which has missing inflections, e.g. there is no infinitive of "can" (so you can't say "he wants to can to swim", you have to say "he wants to be able to swim.") But "use" doesn't seem to fit this. Can anyone clarify?

What Rosemary said. The forum I posted a link to seems (uniquely among Internet forums, it would appear) to be populated exclusively, and somewhat scarily, by people who know what they are talking about. As someone called Travis explains:

"Used to" seems to be a defective quasimodal verb; unlike other quasimodal forms, such as "have to" and "need to", it lacks a present form, and only has a preterite/past participle form ("used to") and an infinitive form ("use to").

It's worth a read if you're that interested.

I haven't read all of that but my understanding was that "I used to" is "standard" and fine, "I did use to" isn't "standard" but is quite common and "I did used to" is just weird.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I haven't read all of that but my understanding was that "I used to" is "standard" and fine, "I did use to" isn't "standard" but is quite common and "I did used to" is just weird.

Although I'm not even in the foothills of understanding linguistics (I probably haven't even got out of the airport), I think I've worked out why "I did use to ..." sounds so strange to me. I think it's because I'm hearing the whole "I used to ....." construction as a type of past tense, being neither finished ("I farted"), nor ongoing at the time ("I was farting"), but implying a past ongoing habit that has now stopped ("I used to fart"). If that is the case, neither "I did use to fart" nor "I did used to fart" makes any more sense than "I did farted" or "I did was farting". All of which proves nothing more than how little I know, as people do say "I did use(d) to ....". I think I'll read Phil's link again, even if only for the thrill of the 'defective quasimodal verb' reference.

Brian Moore wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I haven't read all of that but my understanding was that "I used to" is "standard" and fine, "I did use to" isn't "standard" but is quite common and "I did used to" is just weird.

Although I'm not even in the foothills of understanding linguistics (I probably haven't even got out of the airport), I think I've worked out why "I did use to ..." sounds so strange to me. I think it's because I'm hearing the whole "I used to ....." construction as a type of past tense, being neither finished ("I farted"), nor ongoing at the time ("I was farting"), but implying a past ongoing habit that has now stopped ("I used to fart"). If that is the case, neither "I did use to fart" nor "I did used to fart" makes any more sense than "I did farted" or "I did was farting". All of which proves nothing more than how little I know, as people do say "I did use(d) to ....". I think I'll read Phil's link again, even if only for the thrill of the 'defective quasimodal verb' reference.

I think when people say "I did use(d) to" they probably still are referring to an ongoing act in the past, but I think it often happens accidentally. Sometimes I find myself in a sentence that just goes that way, although I would never intentionally construct a sentence that went "I did use to". What happens if you find yourself in this conversation:

Person A: I used to eat gravel.
Person B: No you didn't.
Person A: Yes I did!
Person B: Just to recap - you did what?
Person A: I did...

While I would consider "used to" to be a stand-alone thing without other tenses, by saying "I did use to" it might open the floodgates for other uses as well. You would end up with the verb "to use to".

"I use to eat gravel" would simply mean "I currently eat gravel, generally speaking."

Then you've got "you use to" and "he/she uses to" as well as things like "I am using to". And if you wanted someone to play Countdown, but generally rather on a specific occasion, you might say "Use to play Countdown!"

Maybe I'll have a look at the thing Phil linked to. (Later)

I think Kate's sexuality has been thoroughly marginalised by now!

David Roe wrote:I think Kate's sexuality has been thoroughly marginalised by now!

Brilliant.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:I just hope no-one asks me to explain the difference between a quasimodal verb and a defective quasimodal verb.

Careful! In this thread you are liable to be accused of quasimodo-phobia.

I think you're right. But it's just a hunch.

As as Scrabble player I kinda like defective verbs in French. Typically they are ones where you can't have all normal conjugated forms. For example:

Pleuvoir - only third person (it rains, it rained, it was raining) you can't say "I was raining" or "they were raining"

Then there are the really old verbs which lose conjugations over time. Ester can only be used in the infinitive, which is doubly confusing because of the nouns 'ester' (like polyester). Another like this is ravoir (to have again, I suppose). Don't confuse defective verbs with highly irregular verbs like mourir where virtually none of the inflected forms make any logical sense.

To get back to the point, use is clearly not defective, but 'used to' could be considered a modal verb, I don't see why not. And I suppose it is defective because how can you use it in the future? You can't. I didn't even know that there were defective verbs in English, now I do.

Incumbent is from the French incomber which only takes third-person forms, although without looking it up I don't know the exact meaning (the Conor principle in practice).

Martin Gardner wrote:I didn't even know that there were defective verbs in English, now I do.

What's so special about French that the verb for "to rain" is only used in the third person singular? Surely that's true in any language, including English.

True story: I once made a tit of myself at a wedding reception in France by confusing "pleuvoir" with "pleurer", so instead of asking whether it was likely to rain, I ended up asking the groom's mother if she thought he'd be crying later. How we laughed.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I didn't even know that there were defective verbs in English, now I do.

What's so special about French that the verb for "to rain" is only used in the third person singular? Surely that's true in any language, including English.

True story: I once made a tit of myself at a wedding reception in France by confusing "pleuvoir" with "pleurer", so instead of asking whether it was likely to rain, I ended up asking the groom's mother if she thought he'd be crying later. How we laughed.

Seems a bit odd to me as well. You might want to say poetically "I was the sky and I rained", which apparently you just can't say in French.

Charlie Reams wrote:You might want to say poetically "I was the sky and I rained", which apparently you just can't say in French.

I don't speak French, apart from the few rusty words left over from my schooldays, but a few years ago - presumably when a woman was first appointed to a professorship at a French university - I remember seeing a lot of fuss about the contrived construction "elle est belle, le professeur", which sexist academia preferred to coining a word like "professeuse". So at a push they might be willing to construct something like "moi, il pleuvait". (E&OE)

Heh - are we getting back on topic?

Charlie Reams wrote:You might want to say poetically "I was the sky and I rained"

True. Or perhaps, and (arguably) more plausibly: "My opponent thought he'd surged into the lead with ORCHESTRA for 9 but I rained on his parade by equalling him with CARTHORSE."

So Martin, are you saying that idioms like the above are actually impossible in French because the first and second person forms simply don't exist?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:You might want to say poetically "I was the sky and I rained"

True. Or perhaps, and (arguably) more plausibly: "My opponent thought he'd surged into the lead with ORCHESTRA for 9 but I rained on his parade by equalling him with CARTHORSE."

So Martin, are you saying that idioms like the above are actually impossible in French because the first and second person forms simply don't exist?

Basically yes. Same in Spanish as well I think. And professeure is now the somewhat theoretical feminine form of professeur. It's really a back formation from la prof as people use le prof as la prof.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I didn't even know that there were defective verbs in English, now I do.

What's so special about French that the verb for "to rain" is only used in the third person singular? Surely that's true in any language, including English.

True story: I once made a tit of myself at a wedding reception in France by confusing "pleuvoir" with "pleurer", so instead of asking whether it was likely to rain, I ended up asking the groom's mother if she thought he'd be crying later. How we laughed.

I confused the very near homophones se tromper and se tremper once. Instead of saying I made a mistake, I said "I soaked myself". Julian could confirm this, other than the fact he doesn't read anymore.

Yeah I've been thinking about this, and can and must don't have a future tense, a past participle or a present participle. Examples

To play - infinitive
Play - lots of different meanings
Plays - third person singular of the indicative present
Played - preterite (or simple past) and also the past participle (I played, I have played)
Playing - present participle, used to form the continuous or as some sort of adjectival phrase.
Will play - future of play, using the verb 'will'
Would play - conditional of play, using 'would'

Now let's do can, the modal verb not 'to can'
Can - infinitive, never takes the word 'to'. Also all the present forms, he can doesn't need an S.
Could - simple past and conditional - no 'would can'

The ones you can't have are the imperative (be able to) the past participle (have been able to) the present participle (am being able to), the future (will be able to). Voilà.

Only now managed to catch up reading the other three pages on this topic. Ditto to the praise for Nicky's post.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:I'd guess that it was that to which Lesley was referring anyway.

It was, as we have subsequently confirmed by PM.

I think I'll just avoid the phrase now out of pure paranoia.

If nothing else, I am delighted to have discovered (via the second link I posted) that "used to" is "a defective quasimodal verb", a phrase I shall lose no time in dropping into conversation at the Cricketers' Arms.

Aw Phil, you've outed my ignorance! But seeing as how Brian guessed what I was refering to, and how it prompted an interesting investigation among(st) (whatever Phil says is right is what I meant to type ) you, then that's a good thing.

Phil Reynolds wrote:There is an interesting (well, relatively interesting) discussion about it here.

Just read the link.

""Did used to" is also considered non-standard English. In a formal document, I would avoid it -- but not by using "did use to" instead. Rather, I would prefer to reword it altogether and avoid the problem. Anyway, despite its non-standard status, "did used to" appears to be much more common, and it's the form that looks more natural to me. I think it's OK to use it in colloquial writing, but that's only my opinion. "

I guess this has been my solution too, seeing as how this use of use / used is new to me. I'm likely to have writen "did used to" in my time, felt it didn't sound right, so restructured the sentence.

This all makes sense! Now that we're onto grammar, a quick question- does English still have a subjunctive? If so, how/when do you use it? In some languages it has a definite use, e.g. in French to express doubt, but is there something similar in English? Someone tried to use it in English and I believe they came up with something like "If I were you" and various sentences involving substitutions of the correct form of "to be". In fact, now I've mentioned an infinitive, it makes me think of other languages- why is it that in various foreign languages their infinitives are one word, e.g. "avoir" meaning to be, yet in English we always use two words, e.g. "to play"? Does it seem slightly unwieldy in comparison?

Hannah O wrote:This all makes sense! Now that we're onto grammar, a quick question- does English still have a subjunctive? If so, how/when do you use it? In some languages it has a definite use, e.g. in French to express doubt, but is there something similar in English? Someone tried to use it in English and I believe they came up with something like "If I were you" and various sentences involving substitutions of the correct form of "to be". In fact, now I've mentioned an infinitive, it makes me think of other languages- why is it that in various foreign languages their infinitives are one word, e.g. "avoir" meaning to be, yet in English we always use two words, e.g. "to play"? Does it seem slightly unwieldy in comparison?

Yes, "to be" is the only verb in English which has a distinct subjunctive, so most of the time you can just ignore it. It's used to denote a kind of uncertainty or hypotheticality, e.g. "If he were to win, he would be the greatest ever."

I guess the reason we have a two-word infinitive is that English is generally not big on inflections, we prefer to use extra words. It's not that much worse to stick a word on the front than an extra syllable on the back, really.

Charlie Reams wrote:Yes, "to be" is the only verb in English which has a distinct subjunctive, so most of the time you can just ignore it. It's used to denote a kind of uncertainty or hypotheticality, e.g. "If he were to win, he would be the greatest ever."

Don't we also use the subjunctive in a similar way to the French use of 'falloir' - as in "il faut qu'il finisse..." ("it is necessary that he finish...")? It always strikes me odd that the subjunctive is used in such apparently contrasting ways - to denote both uncertainty and obligation. I think that sometimes I deliberately don't use subjunctive formulations in informal speech because of the danger of sounding like a pedantic prat, even if, deep down, I really am one. I guess that I do use the "were" formulation, though, from time to time - I rather like it, and it doesn't sound too prattish, IMHO.

I used to think that I knew a little about grammar, but now I'm used to knowing that I know very little. And the more I try to penetrate linguistics, the more I realise how little I know. That's my excuse, if I'm completely wrong.

Hannah O wrote:This all makes sense! Now that we're onto grammar, a quick question- does English still have a subjunctive? If so, how/when do you use it? In some languages it has a definite use, e.g. in French to express doubt, but is there something similar in English? Someone tried to use it in English and I believe they came up with something like "If I were you" and various sentences involving substitutions of the correct form of "to be". In fact, now I've mentioned an infinitive, it makes me think of other languages- why is it that in various foreign languages their infinitives are one word, e.g. "avoir" meaning to be, yet in English we always use two words, e.g. "to play"? Does it seem slightly unwieldy in comparison?

I answered this here.

Thanks, Martin and Charlie- that also teaches me to look before I post! In some French sentences, phrases like "bien que" (although) use the subjunctive despite not looking like an obvious sign for it- is this because of impending doubt or uncertainty at the end of the sentence?