"we don't do that anymore nowadays"

[Bob Cunningham]

When used in the positive sense, "anymore" means the same as
"nowadays", so it's interesting to see that Google returns
thousands of hits on the string "anymore nowadays". An
example, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php, is

Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don’t change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

Substituting the synonym "anymore" for the word "nowadays",
and correcting the apparent typo, we get

don't change into skate rinks anymore anymore

That wording, though it's doubtful that anyone would fire it
in anger, illustrates succinctly the difference in meaning
between positive and negative "anymore".

[Ted Schuerzinger]

Post by Bob Cunningham
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don’t change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

Since I don't have a good etymological dictionary lying around the house,
when did 'skate rings' become skating rinks?

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:45:57 -0000, Ted Schuerzinger

Somebody claiming to be Bob Cunningham

The reason that that's false is that I didn't quote Samuel
Pepys; I quoted an excerpt from a Web site that has his name
in its title but so far as I know didn't imply that Samuel
Pepys wrote what I quoted.

[Bob Cunningham quoted an excerpt from
http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php as follows:]

Post by Bob Cunningham
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don’t change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

Restoring a relevant portion of the posting Ted Schuerzinger

Post by Bob Cunningham
[Substituting the synonym "anymore" for the word "nowadays",
and correcting the apparent typo, we get
don't change into skate rinks anymore anymore ]

Since I don't have a good etymological dictionary lying
around the house, when did 'skate rings' become skating
rinks?

I suggest you address your query to the author of the text
at the Web site I quoted.

Meanwhile, please note that in the continuation of my
posting that you omitted and that I have restored, I used
the wording "apparent typo" in preference to "evident typo"
or "obvious typo". That was to allow for the fact that for
all I know maybe some people like to call an area used for
skating a skating ring, just as they call an area used for
boxing a boxing ring. I don't find any support for that
terminology in dictionaries, so I probably would have been
safe to say "evident typo" rather than "apparent typo".

[Chris Waigl]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:45:57 -0000, Ted Schuerzinger

Somebody claiming to be Bob Cunningham

The reason that that's false is that I didn't quote Samuel
Pepys; I quoted an excerpt from a Web site that has his name
in its title but so far as I know didn't imply that Samuel
Pepys wrote what I quoted.

It does. pepysdiary.com reposts Pepys' diary in blog form. I didn't
follow through with finding out what editorial works is being done, but
more is available here <http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/>.

So the statement isn't false after all.

Chris Waigl

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:15:20 +0200, Chris Waigl

Post by Chris Waigl

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:45:57 -0000, Ted Schuerzinger

Somebody claiming to be Bob Cunningham

The reason that that's false is that I didn't quote Samuel
Pepys; I quoted an excerpt from a Web site that has his name
in its title but so far as I know didn't imply that Samuel
Pepys wrote what I quoted.

It does. pepysdiary.com reposts Pepys' diary in blog form. I didn't
follow through with finding out what editorial works is being done, but
more is available here <http://www.pepysdiary.com/about/>.
So the statement isn't false after all.

Your statement that that statement isn't false is totally
untrue.

If you'll take a few moments to read some of the stuff st
the Web site I referenced, you'll find that it's for the
most part remarks by modern contributors discussing today's
weather patterns and how they relate to those of Pepys's
time. So far as I've seen, it never quotes Pepys or even
paraphrases any of his remarks.

Post by Chris Waigl
Chris Waigl

[John Bauman]

Post by Bob Cunningham
If you'll take a few moments to read some of the stuff st
the Web site I referenced, you'll find that it's for the
most part remarks by modern contributors discussing today's
weather patterns and how they relate to those of Pepys's
time. So far as I've seen, it never quotes Pepys or even
paraphrases any of his remarks.

That's odd. On a site that states, "A new entry written by Pepys will be
published each day over the course of several years," you would expect that
entries written by Pepys would have been published every day. I expect that
his diary ran out before you got there, but you never looked back to those
entries.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:08:34 -0400, "John Bauman"

Post by John Bauman

Post by Bob Cunningham
If you'll take a few moments to read some of the stuff st
the Web site I referenced, you'll find that it's for the
most part remarks by modern contributors discussing today's
weather patterns and how they relate to those of Pepys's
time. So far as I've seen, it never quotes Pepys or even
paraphrases any of his remarks.

That's odd. On a site that states, "A new entry written by Pepys will be
published each day over the course of several years," you would expect that
entries written by Pepys would have been published every day. I expect that
his diary ran out before you got there, but you never looked back to those
entries.

I shouldn't have said "Web site". The link that I followed
went to one page of a Web site, and my remarks pertained
only to the contents of that page. Other pages at the site
do quote Pepys. In fact, I see now that there is a page
headed "Diary Archive" ( http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/
on which there are links to the diary itself for each month
starting with January 1659 and going through October 1662.

But all of that doesn't change the fact that I did not quote
Pepys, and the statement that I did was entirely false. The
poster who said I did took a giant and unwarranted leap
from a URL that had "Pepys" in it to an assumption that what
I quoted was something Pepys wrote.

In addition to providing the diary itself, the site also
publishes people's comments. The comments, like topics in
alt.usage.english, tend to wander away from the subject of
the diary, so that there are a great many entries that are
only remotely connected with anything Pepys wrote.

I quoted from one of them. It contains a link that doesn't
work, but I was able to take a piece of the URL and
eventually get to a picture (a copy of a painting by Pieter
Bruegel) showing people skating on a river in 1565. (Click
on "Image viewer" at
Loading Image....html
). The painting is related to Pepys only to the extent that
1565 was only a hundred years or so before the time Pepys
wrote his diary. (Pieter Bruegel was a famous Flemish
artist that I had never heard of. You can read about him at
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/bruegel.html )

They call the comments "annotations". There's a form at the
bottom of the page for anyone who feels like it to supply
his or her own annotation. So, in addition to being a place
to read the diary, the site is evidently also home to a
forum in which anything related to Pepys, to the time in
which he lived, or to topics in modern times that are
somehow related, or may be construed to be related, to his
time are acceptable subjects for discussion.

Incidentally, I see now that the page I cited (
http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php ) has a link, directly
under the heading, called "References in the diary".
Clicking on it takes us to the statement "There are no
references to this in the diary". But I'm not sure what
they mean by "this": The heading of the page is "Weather",
and I now know that Pepys had at least one mention of the
weather in his diary.

[Chris Waigl]

Post by Chris Waigl
So the statement isn't false after all.

Your statement that that statement isn't false is totally untrue.
If you'll take a few moments to read some of the stuff st the Web site I
referenced, you'll find that it's for the most part remarks by modern
contributors discussing today's weather patterns and how they relate to
those of Pepys's time. So far as I've seen, it never quotes Pepys or
even paraphrases any of his remarks.

My statement that your statement that Ted Schuerzinger's statement was
false, wasn't false, was untrue after all. How curious.

I slouch corrected and apologise.

While pepysdiary.com indeed publishes Samuel Pepys' diary an entry a day,
it also adds 21st century background information and notes. The particular
snipped you quoted appears to have been written by someone callled Dirk
Vandeputte in January 2003.

Ad 1: Pepys' Diary or Pepys's Diary? My refusal to put "'s" at the end of
names ending in s is a bit of a hold-out of the instruction I received.
But do you actually say [pipsiz] or [pips] for the possessive? I'd only
pronounce the possessive form of my first name [krIsiz] if particular
emphasis is required. Most of the time it's [DIs iz krIs bUk] etc. On a
different forum, some time ago, the two other Chris present there, both
native speakers, took the same stance.

Ad 2: For speakers who have "anymore" or "any more" only as a
negative-polarity item, wouldn't "anymore nowadays" be perfectly common?
For example, "We used to go on long hikes during summer vacation. But that
was before her illness worsened. We can't do this anymore nowadays."

This is maybe not very pretty, stylistically; and has an ugly rhythm to
it, which is why I'd prefer "Nowadays, we can't do this anymore."

Chris Waigl

[j***@yahoo.com]

Chris Waigl wrote:
...

Post by Chris Waigl
Ad 1: Pepys' Diary or Pepys's Diary? My refusal to put "'s" at the end of
names ending in s is a bit of a hold-out of the instruction I received.
But do you actually say [pipsiz] or [pips] for the possessive?
I'd only
pronounce the possessive form of my first name [krIsiz] if particular
emphasis is required. Most of the time it's [DIs iz krIs bUk] etc. On a
different forum, some time ago, the two other Chris present there, both
native speakers, took the same stance.
Ad 2: For speakers who have "anymore" or "any more" only as a
negative-polarity item, wouldn't "anymore nowadays" be perfectly common?
For example, "We used to go on long hikes during summer vacation. But that
was before her illness worsened. We can't do this anymore nowadays."
This is maybe not very pretty, stylistically; and has an ugly rhythm to
it, which is why I'd prefer "Nowadays, we can't do this anymore."

Either sentence is fine with only one time expression. "Nowadays, we
can't do this" or "We can't do this any more." (I'm stodgy about that
space.) It's possible, though, that in speech I'd say something
redundant like "These days, we can't do that any more."

[Chris Waigl]

Post by j***@yahoo.com
...

Post by Chris Waigl
Ad 1: Pepys' Diary or Pepys's Diary? My refusal to put "'s" at the end of
names ending in s is a bit of a hold-out of the instruction I received.
But do you actually say [pipsiz] or [pips] for the possessive?
I'd only
pronounce the possessive form of my first name [krIsiz] if particular
emphasis is required. Most of the time it's [DIs iz krIs bUk] etc. On a
different forum, some time ago, the two other Chris present there, both
native speakers, took the same stance.

[My transcription is a bit off. This should have been [krIsIz], [Iz], and
[pipsIz]. I don't really use a tense, fronted [i] for these, and even the
I wondered about the plural, too. I've never said it before, but I guess
I'd tend to "the other two [krIsIz]".

Post by j***@yahoo.com

Post by Chris Waigl
Ad 2: For speakers who have "anymore" or "any more" only as a
negative-polarity item, wouldn't "anymore nowadays" be perfectly
common? For example, "We used to go on long hikes during summer
vacation. But that was before her illness worsened. We can't do this
anymore nowadays."
This is maybe not very pretty, stylistically; and has an ugly rhythm to
it, which is why I'd prefer "Nowadays, we can't do this anymore."

Either sentence is fine with only one time expression. "Nowadays, we
can't do this" or "We can't do this any more." (I'm stodgy about that
space.) It's possible, though, that in speech I'd say something
redundant like "These days, we can't do that any more."

Ah, and I took the space out because I got the impression it was starting
to be considered incorrect for the adverbial.

Chris Waigl
putting the space back in

[j***@yahoo.com]

...

Post by Chris Waigl

Post by j***@yahoo.com
Either sentence is fine with only one time expression. "Nowadays, we
can't do this" or "We can't do this any more." (I'm stodgy about that
space.) It's possible, though, that in speech I'd say something
redundant like "These days, we can't do that any more."

Ah, and I took the space out because I got the impression it was starting
to be considered incorrect for the adverbial.

I think it is. I don't hesitate to recommend usages here, but I didn't
mean "stodgy" as a recommendation.

[John Holmes]

Post by Chris Waigl
I'd only
pronounce the possessive form of my first name [krIsiz] if particular
emphasis is required. Most of the time it's [DIs iz krIs bUk] etc.
On a different forum, some time ago, the two other Chris present
there, both native speakers, took the same stance.

How about spelling it "Chrisses" instead. Otherwise it looks like
"crises", and there are too many of them already.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:57:02 +0200, Chris Waigl

Post by Chris Waigl

Post by Chris Waigl
So the statement isn't false after all.

Your statement that that statement isn't false is totally untrue.
If you'll take a few moments to read some of the stuff st the Web site I
referenced, you'll find that it's for the most part remarks by modern
contributors discussing today's weather patterns and how they relate to
those of Pepys's time. So far as I've seen, it never quotes Pepys or
even paraphrases any of his remarks.

My statement that your statement that Ted Schuerzinger's statement was
false, wasn't false, was untrue after all. How curious.

If you say so.

Post by Chris Waigl
I slouch corrected and apologise.

No harm done. Your point of view was quite understandable.

Post by Chris Waigl
While pepysdiary.com indeed publishes Samuel Pepys' diary an entry a day,
it also adds 21st century background information and notes. The particular
snipped you quoted appears to have been written by someone callled Dirk
Vandeputte in January 2003.

Yes, it has a link called "dirk" that doesn't work.

Post by Chris Waigl
Ad 1: Pepys' Diary or Pepys's Diary? My refusal to put "'s" at the end of
names ending in s is a bit of a hold-out of the instruction I received.
But do you actually say [pipsiz] or [pips] for the possessive?

When I went to school, we were sheltered from any writings
that contained anything that could be construed to be off
color. I assume that's the reason I was never exposed to
anything Pepys wrote. I had seen the name, and in the
absence of instruction to the contrary I mentally pronounced
it ['pi:pi:z] ("peepees"). It was not until several years
later that someone told me the preferred pronunciation was
[pi:ps] ("peeps"). (However, I now see with mild amusement
that in one dictionary one of four pronunciations is
['pi:pIs] ("PEEpiss").)

[...]

Post by Chris Waigl
Ad 2: For speakers who have "anymore" or "any more" only as a
negative-polarity item, wouldn't "anymore nowadays" be perfectly common?

It's common enough for Google to find thousands of hits on
it. But an undetermined number of those hits is for
[anymore. Nowadays]. The Google search engine would be
ever so much nicer if it didn't ignore punctuation in search
strings.

Post by Chris Waigl
For example, "We used to go on long hikes during summer vacation. But that
was before her illness worsened. We can't do this anymore nowadays."
This is maybe not very pretty, stylistically; and has an ugly rhythm to
it,

Bit it's not as bad as "We can't do this anymore anymore",
which says the same thing.

Post by Chris Waigl
which is why I'd prefer "Nowadays, we can't do this anymore."

And I would prefer (over the "anymore anymore" phrasing) to
say "Anymore, we can't do this anymore", except that I don't
think I ever use positive "anymore" anyplace but in
alt.usage.english.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob Cunningham
When used in the positive sense, "anymore" means the same as
"nowadays", so it's interesting to see that Google returns
thousands of hits on the string "anymore nowadays". An
example, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php, is
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don’t change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

But that is not the positive sense but the negative sense. It's a bit
tautologous, yes, but more of a redundancy than a tautology.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:30:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Bob Cunningham
When used in the positive sense, "anymore" means the same as
"nowadays", so it's interesting to see that Google returns
thousands of hits on the string "anymore nowadays". An
example, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php, is
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don't change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

But that is not the positive sense but the negative sense. It's a bit
tautologous, yes, but more of a redundancy than a tautology.

It's the negative sense of "anymore", but "nowadays" is
positive sense, which is more evident when you change the
word order to get the fully equivalent statement "[...]
nowadays rivers don't change into skate [rinks] anymore".

The following statements are fully equivalent and contain
"anymore" in both negative and positive senses:

Rivers don't do that anymore anymore.
Anymore rivers don't do that anymore.

Note that the intonation of the second "anymore" in the
first statement above shows that it's the positive sense.
The intonation goes up from "any" to the beginning of
"more", and "more" finishes with a downward intonation.
Also, "more" gets the primary stress in the second
"anymore".

In the negative sense, the first "anymore" in the first
example, the intonation goes down from "any" to "more" and
stays down, while "any" and "more" have equal stress.
.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:17:52 GMT, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
The following statements are fully equivalent and contain
Rivers don't do that anymore anymore.
Anymore rivers don't do that anymore.
Note that the intonation of the second "anymore" in the
first statement above shows that it's the positive sense.
The intonation goes up from "any" to the beginning of
"more", and "more" finishes with a downward intonation.
Also, "more" gets the primary stress in the second
"anymore".
In the negative sense, the first "anymore" in the first
example, the intonation goes down from "any" to "more" and
stays down, while "any" and "more" have equal stress.

I've long felt that it's too bad we don't have a concise way
to indicate intonation when discussing pronunciation. It
now occurs to me that maybe all we need is to use the
forward slash for upward intonation and back slash for
downward.

Like, "any/MO\re" for the intonation pattern I laboriously
described above, the caps denoting stress

Another example would be "NOW \they\tell\us", where the
intonation descends with each word after the first. Here,
though, the intonation of "now" is higher than might be
expected, but maybe strictly speaking we can't use the
forward slash to show that, because there's nothing for the
intonation to rise from. I think I would use the forward
slash anyway. I think the meaning would be clear.

Comments?
.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:30:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Bob Cunningham
When used in the positive sense, "anymore" means the same as
"nowadays", so it's interesting to see that Google returns
thousands of hits on the string "anymore nowadays". An
example, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php, is
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don't change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

But that is not the positive sense but the negative sense. It's a bit
tautologous, yes, but more of a redundancy than a tautology.

It's the negative sense of "anymore", but "nowadays" is
positive sense, which is more evident when you change the
word order to get the fully equivalent statement "[...]
nowadays rivers don't change into skate [rinks] anymore".
The following statements are fully equivalent and contain
Rivers don't do that anymore anymore.
Anymore rivers don't do that anymore.

I'm not sure what the "anymore" at the end is there for.

If you cut them out, thyen fir first sentence is meaningful and the second is
meaningless, but if you added something to the beginning the second it might
make syntactic of not semantic sense:

Up to three rivers will do that; any more rivers don't do that.

Post by Bob Cunningham
Note that the intonation of the second "anymore" in the
first statement above shows that it's the positive sense.
The intonation goes up from "any" to the beginning of
"more", and "more" finishes with a downward intonation.
Also, "more" gets the primary stress in the second
"anymore".

However, I don't see how the second anymore fits in however.

Post by Bob Cunningham
In the negative sense, the first "anymore" in the first
example, the intonation goes down from "any" to "more" and
stays down, while "any" and "more" have equal stress.

Sorry, you've lost me there completely sorry.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Bob Cunningham
When used in the positive sense, "anymore" means the same as
"nowadays", so it's interesting to see that Google returns
thousands of hits on the string "anymore nowadays". An
example, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php, is
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don’t change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

But that is not the positive sense but the negative sense. It's a bit
tautologous, yes, but more of a redundancy than a tautology.

Is it totally redundant? Aren't there contrasts between "We can't do
this anymore on Mondays / in Winter / during the mating season / since
John passed away / nowadays?

[Maria Conlon]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Bob Cunningham
When used in the positive sense, "anymore" means the same as
"nowadays", so it's interesting to see that Google returns
thousands of hits on the string "anymore nowadays". An
example, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php, is
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don’t change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…

But that is not the positive sense but the negative sense. It's a bit
tautologous, yes, but more of a redundancy than a tautology.

Is it totally redundant? Aren't there contrasts between "We can't do
this anymore on Mondays / in Winter / during the mating season / since
John passed away / nowadays?

For me, it's redundant; I would leave "nowadays" off.

And I would usually write "any longer" or "any more" (except, possibly,
for the negative).

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Robert Bannister
Is it totally redundant? Aren't there contrasts between "We can't do
this anymore on Mondays / in Winter / during the mating season / since
John passed away / nowadays?

Winters are warmer nowadays.

Winters are not cold any more (AmE = anymore).

But I suppose you could say

As of this moment in time winters are warmer nowadays and not as cold as they
used to be anymore anyway nohow, as it were so to speak.


.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Bob Cunningham
When used in the positive sense, "anymore" means the same as
"nowadays", so it's interesting to see that Google returns
thousands of hits on the string "anymore nowadays". An
example, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/562.php, is
Those of us who have crossed the channel to Holland
or Belgium in the heart of winter will have noticed
that as a rule rivers don’t change into skate rings
anymore nowadays…
Substituting the synonym "anymore" for the word "nowadays",
and correcting the apparent typo, we get

This is getting to the heart of the matter. This is what is "wrong" with
positive "anymore": it just is not a synonym for "nowadays". "Not...
anymore" is, however, a synonym for "not any longer". (I was going to
write the more usual "no longer", but realised I would get picked on
for not choosing an exact synonym.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:20:03 +0800, Robert Bannister

Post by Robert Bannister
This is what is "wrong" with
positive "anymore": it just is not a synonym for "nowadays".

Oh, but it is.

[R J Valentine]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:53:25 GMT Bob Cunningham <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

} On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:20:03 +0800, Robert Bannister
} <***@it.net.au> said:
}
}> This is what is "wrong" with
}> positive "anymore": it just is not a synonym for "nowadays".
}
} Oh, but it is.

Mr. Cunningham is correct, but I may disagree with him (though he may come
to agree with me at some point [ObBrE: in time]).

"Synonym [for]" is thought by some to mean "a word that means exactly the
same thing [as]". Nebbahatchee, G.I., with the possible exception of
"disaster" and "catastrophe" in some sections of the Midwest.

If it is the case that Mr. Cunningham is saying that positive "anymore"
means exactly the same thing as "nowadays", then he is wrong. Positive
"anymore" includes an assertion that it used to be different, where
"nowadays" permits a denial of that change, as in "Nowadays there are
people who use a washboard to wash their clothes", but not [= LingWienE
"*"] "Anymore there are people who use a washboard to wash their clothes".

"Nowadays" is "anymore" sans negativity.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by R J Valentine
} On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:20:03 +0800, Robert Bannister
}
}> This is what is "wrong" with
}> positive "anymore": it just is not a synonym for "nowadays".
}
} Oh, but it is.
Mr. Cunningham is correct, but I may disagree with him (though he may come
to agree with me at some point [ObBrE: in time]).

[Sigh] Yes. I thought about this after I had sent it. I wasn't keeping
positive and negative "anymore" distinct enough in my head, because, of
course, I do not use the former. It's like one of the "ne... pas" French
expressions: I can't think "anymore" without some kind of negative in
front of it.

Post by R J Valentine
"Synonym [for]" is thought by some to mean "a word that means exactly the
same thing [as]". Nebbahatchee, G.I., with the possible exception of
"disaster" and "catastrophe" in some sections of the Midwest.
If it is the case that Mr. Cunningham is saying that positive "anymore"
means exactly the same thing as "nowadays", then he is wrong. Positive
"anymore" includes an assertion that it used to be different, where
"nowadays" permits a denial of that change, as in "Nowadays there are
people who use a washboard to wash their clothes", but not [= LingWienE
"*"] "Anymore there are people who use a washboard to wash their clothes".
"Nowadays" is "anymore" sans negativity.

A cunning technical point, which, unfortunately, does not make my
statement any more correct.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:22:55 +0800, Robert Bannister
[...]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R J Valentine
"Nowadays" is "anymore" sans negativity.

A cunning technical point,

But not true in general. In the following pair, "nowadays"
and "anymore" are synonymous and each of them has negative
sense.

We don't do that nowadays.
We don't do that anymore.

From _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_:

Main Entry:anymore
Function:adverb
Etymology:3any + more

: at the present time : NOWADAYS, CURRENTLY, NOW
used only in a negative context
<I am not lucky anymore - Ernest Hemingway>
or a statement with negative implication
<he rarely comes here [anymore]>
except in dialect
<used to be I had to ... carry my own whiskey out of
the Hollow, but anymore I'm such a good customer
they tote it up here ... for me - Charley Robertson>
<every time I even smile at a man anymore the
papers have me practically married to him - Betty
Grable>

I suppose it could be true that "anymore" is used more in
negative sense than in positive, while "nowadays" is used
more in positive than in negative. I wouldn't know for
sure, though: it's just a guess based on an impression.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:22:55 +0800, Robert Bannister
[...]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R J Valentine
"Nowadays" is "anymore" sans negativity.

A cunning technical point,

But not true in general. In the following pair, "nowadays"
and "anymore" are synonymous and each of them has negative
sense.
We don't do that nowadays.
We don't do that anymore.

Difficult. For myself, I just don't see these as synonyms. "Not...
anymore" is definitely a synonym for "not... any longer", although the
latter feels slightly more formal, but "nowadays" seems to me to stress
the present day - that is to say, "We don't do that nowadays" suggests
that the practice is old-fashioned, while "We don't do that anymore"
places the stress on the cessation - we gave it up because it is a
disgusting, filthy habit or because someone or something prevented us
from doing it.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 07:50:04 +0800, Robert Bannister

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:22:55 +0800, Robert Bannister

[...]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Bob Cunningham
In the following pair, "nowadays"
and "anymore" are synonymous and each of them has negative
sense.
We don't do that nowadays.
We don't do that anymore.

Difficult. For myself, I just don't see these as synonyms. "Not...
anymore" is definitely a synonym for "not... any longer", although the
latter feels slightly more formal, but "nowadays" seems to me to stress
the present day - that is to say, "We don't do that nowadays" suggests
that the practice is old-fashioned, while "We don't do that anymore"
places the stress on the cessation - we gave it up because it is a
disgusting, filthy habit or because someone or something prevented us
from doing it.

Yes, there are probably very few English statements that
can't be interpreted in a variety of different ways.