Comments on: How do Syntax and Semantics Get Along?

By: Marla Katen

Marla Katen — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:52:52 +0000

Um those jeans could NOT look better on you. Amazing.

By: Rick Mastronardi

Rick Mastronardi — Sat, 31 May 2008 02:27:19 +0000

Dr. Goodword:
Thank you. That makes perfectly good sense to me. It affirms my opinion that by reducing the use of such subtle and fine expressions from our speech patterns in America we are becoming less accurate and complete in our ability to convey meaning. Curious as to your thoughts on the matter….

Is my conclusion that we no longer see or hear this expression a true one, or is it just that I am not in the more elite circle of communicators?
Thanks for the quick reply! Rick

By: rbeard

rbeard — Sun, 25 May 2008 03:44:53 +0000

Jere,

The spelling of “fiery” is just a quirk (vagary) of the English spelling system, one of the worst on Earth. It involves no rule; writers just have to know it.

Rick,

Prescriptive grammarians have railed in vain against these constructions for centuries. As usual, like all linguists who like to prescribe rules of grammar based on logic, these are wrong, too.

In point of fact, “not uncommon” does not mean the same thing as “common”, any more than “not common” means the same thing as “uncommon”.

Negation works in an odd way in the world’s languages. Negative constructions are sometime positive. In this case, “not common” implies something slightly more common than uncommon but not “uncommon”. “Not uncommon” implies something less common than “common”, but not common.

The result is a gradation of commonness:

common
not uncommon
not common
uncommon

It works especially clearly with antonyms like “good” and “bad”:

This icecream is good.
This icecream is not bad. (= pretty good)
This icecream is not good. (= pretty bad)
This icecream is bad.

Notice how the negative expressions overlap, with “not bad” actually implying something rather good and something “not good” implying something rather bad.

So “not uncommon” does not mean “common” nor does “not common” mean “uncommon”. We need all four expressions to make four relatively fine distinctions in the quality of things.

By: Jere Mitchum

Jere Mitchum — Sat, 24 May 2008 18:20:29 +0000

Thanks for your reply to my previous question about placement of “only” which was more detailed than I had expected. Here’s another that a friend asked me, but I was unable to answer to her satisfaction:
I am contemplating the two root word nouns, “fire” and “wire.” If I want to turn them into adjectives, I would drop the “e” and add a “y.” True with “wiry,” but how is it that the should-be-dropped “e” in fire simply shifts left and becomes “fiery”? Is it just the vagaries of the language or is there a rule?

By: Rick Mastronardi

Rick Mastronardi — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:00:40 +0000

Just found your site and was hoping for an explanation about the common use of the the adjective “not” before a term “inexpensive” that is “not uncommon” usage in 18th century writing. Why “not inexpensive” instead of plain ol’ “expensive.”