prodigious vs. prolific

[s***@gmail.com]

Greetings.

I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

We bet on it. 10 euros. I went online and found hundreds of examples of
people using the phrase "prodigious author" followed by the reason they
were prodigious -- they had written many books, articles, what have
you.

On wordreference.com I found this definition:

3. extraordinary in bulk, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS

So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

Thanks!
Bob

[Lars Eighner]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Greetings.
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

"Prodigious" does in modern use sometimes mean enormous. That strikes me as
rather loose, but there it is. So prodigious authors would be those who are
enormous, in whose ranks I take second place to no one.

Otherwise, we must fall back on a sounder sense of "prodigious," by which a
prodigious author would be one who began publishing at a young age. Those
who have done so sometimes have become prolific, but very often the contrary
is the case.

Post by s***@gmail.com
We bet on it. 10 euros. I went online and found hundreds of examples of
people using the phrase "prodigious author" followed by the reason they
were prodigious -- they had written many books, articles, what have
you.

I'm sorry, but I reckon you are out 10 euros.

Post by s***@gmail.com
3. extraordinary in bulk, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS
So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

[s***@gmail.com]

Well I have to say I disagree with you, or at the very least think that
this is one of those cases where "officially" the definition is not
listed in the dictionary but in fact it is used in that way and through
use, becomes a definition. In Bill Bryson's book about the english
language he sites hundreds of examples of this happening.

Which is why, I suppose, I was able to find these links on a quick

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...
John O'Hara was a prodigious writer of short stories.
In THE NEW YORKER and other magazines he had
more than four hundred stories published.
A prodigious writer, he is the author of three popular >
science books and scores of articles ...
John Paul was not a prodigious writer of encyclicals ...
He wrote only 14 ...

It sure seems to me that prodigious can be used as a synonym for
prolific; I don't think any are referring to authors that started as a
young age, but rather that they ... well, were prolific.

Language is dynamic, alive, always changing. Gosh-darn it, I think I
won the bet!

Other opinions?

Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
Greetings.
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

"Prodigious" does in modern use sometimes mean enormous. That strikes me as
rather loose, but there it is. So prodigious authors would be those who are
enormous, in whose ranks I take second place to no one.
Otherwise, we must fall back on a sounder sense of "prodigious," by which a
prodigious author would be one who began publishing at a young age. Those
who have done so sometimes have become prolific, but very often the contrary
is the case.

Post by s***@gmail.com
We bet on it. 10 euros. I went online and found hundreds of examples of
people using the phrase "prodigious author" followed by the reason they
were prodigious -- they had written many books, articles, what have
you.

I'm sorry, but I reckon you are out 10 euros.

Post by s***@gmail.com
3. extraordinary in bulk, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS
So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. --William Pitt

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Well I have to say I disagree with you, or at the very least think that
this is one of those cases where "officially" the definition is not
listed in the dictionary but in fact it is used in that way and through
use, becomes a definition.

Then it's used incorrectly.

Post by s***@gmail.com
In Bill Bryson's book about the english
language he sites hundreds of examples of this happening.
Which is why, I suppose, I was able to find these links on a quick

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...
John O'Hara was a prodigious writer of short stories.
In THE NEW YORKER and other magazines he had
more than four hundred stories published.
A prodigious writer, he is the author of three popular >
science books and scores of articles ...
John Paul was not a prodigious writer of encyclicals ...
He wrote only 14 ...

It sure seems to me that prodigious can be used as a synonym for
prolific; I don't think any are referring to authors that started as a
young age, but rather that they ... well, were prolific.

Then use 'prolific'.

The fact that a mistake is common does not prohibit it from being a
mistake.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Language is dynamic, alive, always changing. Gosh-darn it, I think I
won the bet!

Nope. You lost.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Other opinions?
Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
Greetings.
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

"Prodigious" does in modern use sometimes mean enormous. That strikes me as
rather loose, but there it is. So prodigious authors would be those who are
enormous, in whose ranks I take second place to no one.
Otherwise, we must fall back on a sounder sense of "prodigious," by which a
prodigious author would be one who began publishing at a young age. Those
who have done so sometimes have become prolific, but very often the contrary
is the case.

Post by s***@gmail.com
We bet on it. 10 euros. I went online and found hundreds of examples of
people using the phrase "prodigious author" followed by the reason they
were prodigious -- they had written many books, articles, what have
you.

I'm sorry, but I reckon you are out 10 euros.

Post by s***@gmail.com
3. extraordinary in bulk, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS
So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. --William Pitt

[athel...@yahoo]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Well I have to say I disagree with you, or at the very least think that
this is one of those cases where "officially" the definition is not
listed in the dictionary but in fact it is used in that way and through
use, becomes a definition. In Bill Bryson's book about the english
language he sites hundreds of examples of this happening.
Which is why, I suppose, I was able to find these links on a quick

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

In this and your other examples you seem to be assuming that because
two statements occur consecutively they mean the same thing. It would
be perfectly possible for Galbraith to be a prodigious writer even if
he had only written one book (like Emily Brontë, for example), or to
fail to have been a prodigious writer despite writing a great deal
(Joseph Stalin springs to mind, but you might prefer L. Ron Hubbard or
Barbara Cartland). Thus it is possible that the person you quote was
simply stating two things about Galbraith with implying that one
followed from the other. Maybe the 48 books were intended to illustrate
the prodigious nature of Galbraith's writing, but in that case it is
curious that his activities as analyst and commentator get interposed:
how do the 48 books illustrate the prodigious nature of these?

Of course, words do change their meanings over time, but it's one thing
to accept that as an observed fact and quite another to say that there
are no rules at all and that any word can be used to mean anything.
You'll need to come back in 100 years time to see if broadening the
meaning of "prodigious" to mean prolific gets adopted into the
language, but in 2006 you lose your bet.

athel

[UC]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by s***@gmail.com
Well I have to say I disagree with you, or at the very least think that
this is one of those cases where "officially" the definition is not
listed in the dictionary but in fact it is used in that way and through
use, becomes a definition. In Bill Bryson's book about the english
language he sites hundreds of examples of this happening.
Which is why, I suppose, I was able to find these links on a quick

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

In this and your other examples you seem to be assuming that because
two statements occur consecutively they mean the same thing. It would
be perfectly possible for Galbraith to be a prodigious writer even if
he had only written one book (like Emily Brontë, for example), or to
fail to have been a prodigious writer despite writing a great deal
(Joseph Stalin springs to mind, but you might prefer L. Ron Hubbard or
Barbara Cartland). Thus it is possible that the person you quote was
simply stating two things about Galbraith with implying that one
followed from the other. Maybe the 48 books were intended to illustrate
the prodigious nature of Galbraith's writing, but in that case it is
how do the 48 books illustrate the prodigious nature of these?
Of course, words do change their meanings over time, but it's one thing
to accept that as an observed fact and quite another to say that there
are no rules at all and that any word can be used to mean anything.
You'll need to come back in 100 years time to see if broadening the
meaning of "prodigious" to mean prolific gets adopted into the
language, but in 2006 you lose your bet.
athel

Right. Mozart could be called 'prodigious' meaning he was a child
prodigy. He was also prolific because he wrote a lot of music. He
cannot be called 'prodigious' because he wrote a lot of music.


"Main Entry:prodigious
Function:adjective
Etymology:Latin prodigiosus, from prodigium omen, portent, monster +
-osus -ous * more at PRODIGY

1 a obsolete : having the nature of an omen : PORTENTOUS *never mole,
harelip, nor scar, nor mark prodigious T shall upon their children be
Shakespeare* b archaic : having the appearance of a prodigy :
ABNORMAL, STRANGE
2 : exciting amazement or wonder : causing one to marvel : AMAZING
*from childhood precocious and prodigious in everything Willa Cather*
*a prodigious vision Christopher Rand*
3 : extraordinary in bulk, extent, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS,
IMMENSE, VAST *a prodigious noise of wheels Elinor Wylie* *have done a
prodigious amount of work John Sparkman* *the amount of food provided
at a party of this kind was prodigious W.S.Maugham*
synonyms see MONSTROUS

[JF]

Post by UC
Right. Mozart could be called 'prodigious' meaning he was a child
prodigy. He was also prolific because he wrote a lot of music. He
cannot be called 'prodigious' because he wrote a lot of music.

Prodigious savants and idiot savants.

[s***@gmail.com]

This is just my point! Obviously prodigious is being used in these
examples as a synonym for prolific. You say it's wrong, ok. But that's
how it's being used. It doesn't make sense to write in the same
sentence that a writer is prodigious because he has written many books,
if you don't mean to say he was prolific.

As for losing the bet, because it's not in the dictionary, well,
language is always one step its documentors. In Bryson's book he talks
a lot about how it sometimes took centuries for a word to be printed in
the dictionary, long after its use was accepted. Shakespeare is
credited with inventing many words for the simple reason that they
don't appear in the dictionaries of that era. But researchers have
found many of these words in other documents from the era, so Old Bill
was 0,00001% less of a genius than we thought.

Anyway, it's been a fun chat!

Bob

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by s***@gmail.com
Well I have to say I disagree with you, or at the very least think that
this is one of those cases where "officially" the definition is not
listed in the dictionary but in fact it is used in that way and through
use, becomes a definition. In Bill Bryson's book about the english
language he sites hundreds of examples of this happening.
Which is why, I suppose, I was able to find these links on a quick

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

In this and your other examples you seem to be assuming that because
two statements occur consecutively they mean the same thing. It would
be perfectly possible for Galbraith to be a prodigious writer even if
he had only written one book (like Emily Brontë, for example), or to
fail to have been a prodigious writer despite writing a great deal
(Joseph Stalin springs to mind, but you might prefer L. Ron Hubbard or
Barbara Cartland). Thus it is possible that the person you quote was
simply stating two things about Galbraith with implying that one
followed from the other. Maybe the 48 books were intended to illustrate
the prodigious nature of Galbraith's writing, but in that case it is
how do the 48 books illustrate the prodigious nature of these?
Of course, words do change their meanings over time, but it's one thing
to accept that as an observed fact and quite another to say that there
are no rules at all and that any word can be used to mean anything.
You'll need to come back in 100 years time to see if broadening the
meaning of "prodigious" to mean prolific gets adopted into the
language, but in 2006 you lose your bet.
athel

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com
This is just my point! Obviously prodigious is being used in these
examples as a synonym for prolific. You say it's wrong, ok.

Yes, there is such a thing as a "common mistake". The fact that a
mistake is common does not mean that it is not a mistake.

Post by s***@gmail.com
But that's
how it's being used.

So? Bread fishes sleep dreams oddly familiar dregs. Who mistakes
severance pay litmus testing error?

Post by s***@gmail.com
It doesn't make sense to write in the same
sentence that a writer is prodigious because he has written many books,
if you don't mean to say he was prolific.

The fact that a mistake is common does not mean that it is not a
mistake.

Post by s***@gmail.com
As for losing the bet, because it's not in the dictionary, well,
language is always one step its documentors. In Bryson's book he talks
a lot about how it sometimes took centuries for a word to be printed in
the dictionary, long after its use was accepted. Shakespeare is
credited with inventing many words for the simple reason that they
don't appear in the dictionaries of that era. But researchers have
found many of these words in other documents from the era, so Old Bill
was 0,00001% less of a genius than we thought.
Anyway, it's been a fun chat!

No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Bob

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by s***@gmail.com
Well I have to say I disagree with you, or at the very least think that
this is one of those cases where "officially" the definition is not
listed in the dictionary but in fact it is used in that way and through
use, becomes a definition. In Bill Bryson's book about the english
language he sites hundreds of examples of this happening.
Which is why, I suppose, I was able to find these links on a quick

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

In this and your other examples you seem to be assuming that because
two statements occur consecutively they mean the same thing. It would
be perfectly possible for Galbraith to be a prodigious writer even if
he had only written one book (like Emily Brontë, for example), or to
fail to have been a prodigious writer despite writing a great deal
(Joseph Stalin springs to mind, but you might prefer L. Ron Hubbard or
Barbara Cartland). Thus it is possible that the person you quote was
simply stating two things about Galbraith with implying that one
followed from the other. Maybe the 48 books were intended to illustrate
the prodigious nature of Galbraith's writing, but in that case it is
how do the 48 books illustrate the prodigious nature of these?
Of course, words do change their meanings over time, but it's one thing
to accept that as an observed fact and quite another to say that there
are no rules at all and that any word can be used to mean anything.
You'll need to come back in 100 years time to see if broadening the
meaning of "prodigious" to mean prolific gets adopted into the
language, but in 2006 you lose your bet.
athel

[mb]

UC wrote:
...

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

You don't sound like a fun guy

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

fun:
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do

Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Cheers,
Bob

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

It never has been an adjective. That usage is wrong. It has been a verb
and a noun. It is listed as a verb and noun in the OED, second edition.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Cheers,
Bob

[mb]

Post by UC

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

It never has been an adjective. That usage is wrong. It has been a verb
and a noun. It is listed as a verb and noun in the OED, second edition.

Do you think that language gives a shit about what you think?

[UC]

Post by mb

Post by UC

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

It never has been an adjective. That usage is wrong. It has been a verb
and a noun. It is listed as a verb and noun in the OED, second edition.

Do you think that language gives a shit about what you think?

Hmmmm.....I did not know that the language has the capacity to think or
reason!

Fun is not and cannot be an adjective.

"Main Entry:1fun
Pronunciation:*f*n
Function:verb
Inflected Form:funned ; funned ; funning ; funs
Etymology:perhaps alteration of Middle English fonnen to fool, make a
fool of, from fonne fool, dupe

transitive verb , now dialect : HOAX, TEASE, TRICK, KID
intransitive verb [from 2fun] : to indulge in banter or play : speak
or act in fun : JOKE, FOOL *funning about the marriage* *passed the
time funning till others tired of his horseplay*


Main Entry:2fun
Pronunciation:*
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s

1 obsolete : a practical joke : TRICK, HOAX
2 : what provides amusement or enjoyment *a book that is fun to read*
*a fellow who is fun to have around* : enjoyable activity *the game was
no fun* *picnics are great fun* *didn't know hard study could be so
much fun* *sitting on the ground was part of the fun*; specifically
: playful often boisterous action or speech : JOCULARITY : RIDICULE
*made myself a fine figure of fun for someone outside Arthur Grimble*
3 : the disposition or mood to find or make a cause for amusement :
PLAYFULNESS *a carefree man who was always full of fun* *has a lot of
fun in him* *don't say that even in fun*
4 : AMUSEMENT, ENJOYMENT *play cards for fun* *have fun at the party*
*the baby had a lot of fun with the blocks* *robbed him just for the
fun of it* *never got any fun out of listening to serious music*
5 : violent or excited activity or argument : FIREWORKS *a rabbit
stampeded the herd and then the fun began* *just toss in the South as a
conversation piece and watch the fun James Street*
synonyms FUN, JEST, SPORT, GAME, and PLAY agree in designating what
provides diversion or amusement or is intended to arouse laughter. FUN
implies amusement or an engagement in what interests as an end in
itself or applies to what provides this amusement or interest, often
also implying a propensity for laughing or for finding a usually genial
cause for laughter or amusement *had such a zest for everything and
thought it all such fun O.E.R*lvaag* *make living more fun, life more
complete Printers' Ink* *a man full of fun* JEST occurs in phrases (as
in jest) or applies to activity or utterance not to be taken seriously,
sometimes carrying an implication of ridicule or hoaxing *a man given
to making his most significant remarks in jest* *make jest of very
serious problems* SPORT, often interchangeable with FUN *there is a
good deal of sport in many serious activities* or JEST *play a trick on
a friend for the sport of it* or GAME, although here usually generic or
applying to activity calling for a certain skill *go at sport as if it
were a way of life* *the sport of fly casting* *the sport of tennis*
can also imply amusement or provoking of laughter by putting someone or
something up to gentle or malicious ridicule *make sport of a
suggestion* *make a good deal of sport out of someone else's
misfortune* GAME in a now rare earlier sense of FUN implies a certain
ridicule *make GAME of an unfortunate rival* More commonly today it
applies to any activity engaged in for fun *a game of tennis* *games to
keep children amused* PLAY, a generic term for all games or amusements,
stresses in all senses an opposition to earnest, carrying no suggestion
of anything but an intent to divert or be diverted *play time in a
nursery* *made his work play by enjoying it thoroughly* *pretend to
spank a child in play*

x
4

[Stephen Calder]

Post by UC

Post by mb

Post by UC

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

It never has been an adjective. That usage is wrong. It has been a verb
and a noun. It is listed as a verb and noun in the OED, second edition.

Do you think that language gives a shit about what you think?

Hmmmm.....I did not know that the language has the capacity to think or
reason!
Fun is not and cannot be an adjective.

This is a newsgroup where information and facts are very useful, and
misleading opinions can be very confusing to those who are not native
speakers. It's very important to offer good models of English usage and
accurate accounts of how words are used, as far as possible.

Like most English nouns, "fun" can be attributively or as an adjective,
even if that is not its first function.

The OED does recognise this attributive use, which it describes as
"passing to adjectival" and quotes citations for it dating back to 1846.

So the statement "it never has been an adjective" is clearly refuted.

[mb]

Post by UC

Post by mb

Post by UC

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

It never has been an adjective. That usage is wrong. It has been a verb
and a noun. It is listed as a verb and noun in the OED, second edition.

Do you think that language gives a shit about what you think?

Hmmmm.....I did not know that the language has the capacity to think or
reason!

Of course not. You have even less of it.

Post by UC
Fun is not and cannot be an adjective.

Puppies bark, the caravan walks on.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

It never has been an adjective. That usage is wrong. It has been a verb
and a noun. It is listed as a verb and noun in the OED, second edition.

But it's much funner using it adjectively.

[Linz]

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Golly, this /is/ fun, element.

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Really?
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

It never has been an adjective. That usage is wrong. It has been a
verb and a noun. It is listed as a verb and noun in the OED, second
edition.

Try again.

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Cheers,
Bob

[Pat Durkin]

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

[UC]

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"

If fun was an adjective, why do we not say:

Fun, funner, funnest?

It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).

Can we do something "funly'? No!

[Pat Durkin]

Post by UC

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing
speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

Some folks do, some folks don't. I don't think, frankly, that it is in
my pattern of usage.

But when I have a problem with a word, I frequently look in more than
one source. OED is _not_, despite what you may think, the be-all and
the end-all of the words used in the English-speaking world.

But COED (online) has this (found via
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fun?view=uk )

" fun

. noun 1 light-hearted pleasure or amusement. 2 a source of
this. 3 playfulness or good humour.

. adjective informal enjoyable.

- PHRASES make fun of tease or laugh at in a mocking way.

- ORIGIN from obsolete fun to cheat or hoax, of unknown"

Think! Don't you ever use a noun to modify another noun? Horse apples!

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).
Can we do something "funly'? No!

[Stephen Calder]

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC
Fun, funner, funnest?

Some folks do, some folks don't. I don't think, frankly, that it is in
my pattern of usage.
But when I have a problem with a word, I frequently look in more than
one source. OED is _not_, despite what you may think, the be-all and
the end-all of the words used in the English-speaking world.

He's not even correct about what the OED says.

[UC]

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC
Fun, funner, funnest?

Some folks do, some folks don't. I don't think, frankly, that it is in
my pattern of usage.
But when I have a problem with a word, I frequently look in more than
one source. OED is _not_, despite what you may think, the be-all and
the end-all of the words used in the English-speaking world.

He's not even correct about what the OED says.

The OED, second edition, has two enties for 'fun': noun and verb. Show
me otherwise.

Post by Stephen Calder
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia

[Stephen Calder]

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder
He's not even correct about what the OED says.

The OED, second edition, has two enties for 'fun': noun and verb. Show
me otherwise.

Go back and read it again. I have the compact edition (1989) and it
takes some trouble to get it out. You have to use the magnifying glass
to read it.

I checked it before writing the above post and it clearly shows the
attributive or adjectival use with citations dating back to 1846.

[Skitt]

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder
He's not even correct about what the OED says.

The OED, second edition, has two enties for 'fun': noun and verb.
Show me otherwise.

Go back and read it again. I have the compact edition (1989) and it
takes some trouble to get it out. You have to use the magnifying glass
to read it.
I checked it before writing the above post and it clearly shows the
attributive or adjectival use with citations dating back to 1846.

So does MWCD10.

[dontbother]

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder
He's not even correct about what the OED says.

The OED, second edition, has two enties for 'fun': noun and verb. Show
me otherwise.

Go back and read it again. I have the compact edition (1989) and it
takes some trouble to get it out. You have to use the magnifying glass
to read it.
I checked it before writing the above post and it clearly shows the
attributive or adjectival use with citations dating back to 1846.

W3NID: (admittedly, not the OED, but good enough for AmE)

Main Entry:3fun
Function:adjective
Etymology:2fun

1 : providing fun, entertainment, or amusement *a fun party* *fun hat*
2 : full of fun : PLEASANT *a fun night* *have a fun time*

[UC]

Post by dontbother

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder
He's not even correct about what the OED says.

The OED, second edition, has two enties for 'fun': noun and verb. Show
me otherwise.

Go back and read it again. I have the compact edition (1989) and it
takes some trouble to get it out. You have to use the magnifying glass
to read it.
I checked it before writing the above post and it clearly shows the
attributive or adjectival use with citations dating back to 1846.

W3NID: (admittedly, not the OED, but good enough for AmE)
Main Entry:3fun
Function:adjective
Etymology:2fun
1 : providing fun, entertainment, or amusement *a fun party* *fun hat*
2 : full of fun : PLEASANT *a fun night* *have a fun time*

So? People do all kinds of crazy things with language, and the
dictionary makers feel obligated to record all of this shit.

[UC]

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder
He's not even correct about what the OED says.

The OED, second edition, has two enties for 'fun': noun and verb. Show
me otherwise.

Go back and read it again. I have the compact edition (1989) and it
takes some trouble to get it out. You have to use the magnifying glass
to read it.
I checked it before writing the above post and it clearly shows the
attributive or adjectival use with citations dating back to 1846.
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia

The second edition shows entries for noun and verb only.

[Django Cat]

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC
Fun, funner, funnest?

Some folks do, some folks don't. I don't think, frankly, that
it is in my pattern of usage.
But when I have a problem with a word, I frequently look in more
than one source. OED is not, despite what you may think, the
be-all and the end-all of the words used in the English-speaking
world.

He's not even correct about what the OED says.

The OED, second edition, has two enties for 'fun': noun and verb. Show
me otherwise.

OED Online, entry 3 under fun /n/

" 3. a. Comb., as fun-loving adj. Also attrib., passing into adj. with
the sense ‘amusing, entertaining, enjoyable’.

1775 PRATT Liberal Opin. (1783) II. 119 This fun-loving Alicia. a1846
B. R. HAYDON Autobiogr. (1927) III. xvii. 358 There was a room at Holly
House called the ‘fun-room’, without chair or table. It was for dancing
and romping. 1853 N. P. WILLIS (title) Fun jottings; or, Laughs I have
taken pen to. 1892 Daily News 14 July 5/1 A fun-loving, jolly, prankish
elf of a woman. 1908 Daily Chron. 26 Dec. 4/4 The side~show is
blossoming out again at all points of the compass in ‘fun towns’ and
the like. 1959 J. OSBORNE World of Paul Slickey I. vii. 61 You'll
always be a Fun Person. 1962 Sat. Even. Post 13 Oct. 69 Some fur coats
are, however, just for fun. The ‘fun fur’ coat has given a big boost to
the industry. 1962 Sunday Express 16 Dec. 18/5 Nowadays you can't
rustle up enough fun people for a small party any more. 1965 New
Statesman 7 May 712/3 Millions have sampled the delights of St Tropez
and St Moritz and a lot more of the so-called ‘fun places’ for
themselves. 1965 Punch 18 Aug. 254/3 The cheap ‘fun furs’ acclaimed as
so young and amusing. 1968 A. DIMENT Bang Bang Birds x. 186, I was
remembering Marianne and the fun times we have had. 1968 J. IRONSIDE
Fashion Alphabet 151 The young have taken to ‘fun’ furs which may be
rabbit dyed to any colour under the sun. 1969 Listener 13 Feb. 221/3
Much better to give St Katharine Docks to Joan Littlewood for a fun
palace. 1971 New Yorker 8 May 107 We have the Osborns, the Beals, the
Hartungs, the Falmers, and us. Now let's think of someone fun."

For that matter the verb usage - as given in OED - is obsolete.

DC

[Robert Lieblich]

Django Cat wrote:

[re: fun]

Post by Django Cat
For that matter the verb usage - as given in OED - is obsolete.

I don't have access to OED, so I don't know what "verb usage" is
meant, but in such uses as "Are you funning mr?" (meaning "joking
with"), there's a verb usage of "fun" that's alive and well in the
US. M-W and AHD are among the dictionaries that report it.

[Skitt]

Post by UC

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing
speaker"; "a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

We don't?

M-W Online:
Main Entry: 3fun
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sometimes fun·ner sometimes fun·nest
1 : providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment <a fun party> <a fun
person to be with>
2 : full of fun : PLEASANT <a fun night> <have a fun time>

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).

You say something like that and expect others to believe that you know what
you are talking about?

[UC]

Post by Skitt

Post by UC

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing
speaker"; "a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

We don't?

No, WE don't. Perhaps others who are fucked in the head do...

Post by Skitt
Main Entry: 3fun
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sometimes fun·ner sometimes fun·nest
1 : providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment <a fun party> <a fun
person to be with>
2 : full of fun : PLEASANT <a fun night> <have a fun time>

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).

You say something like that and expect others to believe that you know what
you are talking about?

Yes, I do. Maybe you're one who is fucked in the head...

[Skitt]

Post by UC

Post by Skitt

Post by UC

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing
speaker"; "a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

We don't?

No, WE don't. Perhaps others who are fucked in the head do...

Post by Skitt
Main Entry: 3fun
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sometimes fun·ner sometimes fun·nest
1 : providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment <a fun party>
<a fun person to be with>
2 : full of fun : PLEASANT <a fun night> <have a fun time>

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).

You say something like that and expect others to believe that you
know what you are talking about?

Yes, I do. Maybe you're one who is fucked in the head...

Ah, you do suffer form the ad hominem syndrome when caught in a fallacy, it
seems. Sad, really. At least, Ms. Thistlebottom was civil when
pontificating.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by UC

Post by Skitt

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).

You say something like that and expect others to believe that you know what
you are talking about?

Yes, I do. Maybe you're one who is fucked in the head...

So, maybe you say "fuckedly"?

[UC]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by UC

Post by Skitt

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).

You say something like that and expect others to believe that you know what
you are talking about?

Yes, I do. Maybe you're one who is fucked in the head...

So, maybe you say "fuckedly"?

Fuck, fucker, fuckest?

Post by Robert Bannister
--
Rob Bannister

[Peter Duncanson]

On 17 Jul 2006 10:13:13 -0700, "UC"

Post by UC

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).
Can we do something "funly'? No!

It seems that some do:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003256.html

[UC]

Post by Peter Duncanson
On 17 Jul 2006 10:13:13 -0700, "UC"

Post by UC

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?

Really.

Post by s***@gmail.com
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?

Really.

Bull shit.

No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).
Can we do something "funly'? No!

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003256.html
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

The end days are upon us, I fear! Is nothing scared...er sacred??

[R H Draney]

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).
Can we do something "funly'? No!

That point was sillily conceived and uglily executed....r

[UC]

Post by R H Draney

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).
Can we do something "funly'? No!

That point was sillily conceived and uglily executed....r

But was it onlyly done?

Post by R H Draney
--
It's the crack on the wall and the stain on the cup that gets to you
in the very end...every cat has its fall when it runs out of luck,
so you can do with a touch of zen...cause when you're screwed,
you're screwed...and when it's blue, it's blue.

[Stephen Calder]

Post by UC
No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

Not all adjectives decline this way.

Yellow, yellower, yellowest?

Prolific, prolificker, prolifickest?

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).
Can we do something "funly'? No!

Not all adjectives convert into adverbs this way.

Redly?

It's clear that in matters of English usage you have not done your
homework and your incorrect statements are misleading to those who are
here to learn.

[UC]

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC
No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

Not all adjectives decline this way.
Yellow, yellower, yellowest?
Prolific, prolificker, prolifickest?

Monosylabic adjectives are (red, redder, reddest; fast, faster,
fastest; hot, hotter, hottest, etc). If 'fun' were an adjective, it
would be decined that way. The fact that we feel revulsion at 'funner',
'funnest' proves that it is not an adjective.

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC
It is blindingly obvious that 'fun' is not an adjective. Also, most
adjectives are also usable as adverbs, right? (e.g., harsh, harshly;
exact, exactly; cool, coolly; broad, broadly; heated, heatedly; etc.).
Can we do something "funly'? No!

Not all adjectives convert into adverbs this way.
Redly?
It's clear that in matters of English usage you have not done your
homework and your incorrect statements are misleading to those who are
here to learn.

My misleading statements? Ha! I never saw so much garbage advice as
here....

Post by Stephen Calder
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia

[Tim Luo]

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC
No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

Not all adjectives decline this way.
Yellow, yellower, yellowest?
Prolific, prolificker, prolifickest?

Monosylabic adjectives are (red, redder, reddest; fast, faster,
fastest; hot, hotter, hottest, etc). If 'fun' were an adjective, it
would be decined that way. The fact that we feel revulsion at 'funner',
'funnest' proves that it is not an adjective.

Atomic, atomic(k)er, atomic(k)est?
Atomic, more atomic, most atomic?

Tim

[Django Cat]

Post by Tim Luo

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC
No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

Not all adjectives decline this way.
Yellow, yellower, yellowest?
Prolific, prolificker, prolifickest?

Monosylabic adjectives are (red, redder, reddest; fast, faster,
fastest; hot, hotter, hottest, etc). If 'fun' were an adjective, it
would be decined that way. The fact that we feel revulsion at
'funner', 'funnest' proves that it is not an adjective.

Atomic, atomic(k)er, atomic(k)est?
Atomic, more atomic, most atomic?

Yabbut, there's a whole range of adjectives that theoretically could be
made into comparatives & superlatives, but aren't because they wouldn't
make sense.

And then there's "you can't qualify an absolute". So I offer:

* dead; deader; deadest, or
* alive; aliver; alivest

or that old fav

* pregnant; more pregnant; most pregnant.

The ability to create comps and supers can't be the test of whether a
word functions as an adjective or not.

DC

[UC]

Post by Tim Luo

Post by UC

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by UC
No, really. We say: "That was such fun!"
Fun, funner, funnest?

Not all adjectives decline this way.
Yellow, yellower, yellowest?
Prolific, prolificker, prolifickest?

Monosylabic adjectives are (red, redder, reddest; fast, faster,
fastest; hot, hotter, hottest, etc). If 'fun' were an adjective, it
would be decined that way. The fact that we feel revulsion at 'funner',
'funnest' proves that it is not an adjective.

Atomic, atomic(k)er, atomic(k)est?
Atomic, more atomic, most atomic?
Tim

'Atomic' is not monosyllabic.

[Stephen Calder]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
No, 'fun' is not an adjective.

Really?
B adjective
1 amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)
providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker";
"a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do
Perhaps we should all stop using the word 'fun' as an adjective?
Cheers,
Bob

Now that UC has disallowed it I'll never use it that way again.

It used to be such fun too.

[athel...@yahoo]

Post by s***@gmail.com
This is just my point!

What is just your point? You are apparently replying to me, but nothing
that I said could be taken to confirm your point.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Obviously prodigious is being used in these
examples as a synonym for prolific. You say it's wrong, ok. But that's
how it's being used. It doesn't make sense to write in the same
sentence that a writer is prodigious because he has written many books,
if you don't mean to say he was prolific.

Putting your example back in context, so we can see what we're talking
about,

Post by s***@gmail.com

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

I see two sentences here (or, more exactly, one sentence and the
beginning of another). Moreover, the "48 books" are separated from the
"prodigious writer" by two other things that _cannot_ be illustrated by
the 48 books. Moreover, the text does _not_ say that he was prodigious
because he had written many books: the "because" is simply not there in
the text. If you want to assume it that's up to you, but it's an
assumption, not something in the text. It's not obvious at all that the
first sentence follows from the first (even if that is what the author
intended).

athel

[Robert Lieblich]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by s***@gmail.com
This is just my point!

What is just your point? You are apparently replying to me, but nothing
that I said could be taken to confirm your point.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Obviously prodigious is being used in these
examples as a synonym for prolific. You say it's wrong, ok. But that's
how it's being used. It doesn't make sense to write in the same
sentence that a writer is prodigious because he has written many books,
if you don't mean to say he was prolific.

Putting your example back in context, so we can see what we're talking
about,

Post by s***@gmail.com

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

I see two sentences here (or, more exactly, one sentence and the
beginning of another). Moreover, the "48 books" are separated from the
"prodigious writer" by two other things that _cannot_ be illustrated by
the 48 books. Moreover, the text does _not_ say that he was prodigious
because he had written many books: the "because" is simply not there in
the text.

OFCOL! Have we forgotten our seventh-grade (insert equivalent for
your country of residence) instruction on how to write a paragraph?
Start with a topic sentence, then develop the topic in subsequent
sentences. When a paragraph starts out: (1) Anthony Trollope was a
prodigious writer. (2) He turned out novels at a pace greater than
one per year, [etc.], what do you think the author of that paragraph
is up to? Okay, maybe all the author of the Galbraith paragraph meant
to tell us was that the late, lamented Ken was almost seven feet tall,
hence enormous, but somehow I think not. We're always screaming for
context around here. This time we have the context, but we go out of
our way to ignore it. Well, not exactly "we" -- I don't.

Post by ***@yahoo
If you want to assume it that's up to you, but it's an
assumption, not something in the text. It's not obvious at all that the
first sentence follows from the first (even if that is what the author
intended).

I'm sure you meant "second" doesn't follow from "first, and I strongly
disagree. If the author really intended as strong a disconnect (yeah,
disconnect) between the first sentence and the second, he'd have
inserted something -- at least an "also" or "in addition" -- to tell
us.

And what, while we're at it, do you think the author of the Galbraith
paragraph meant by "prodigious"? Why did he use it? Sheer stupidity,
or was it really Galbraith's height that inspired him? EMWTK

[UC]

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by s***@gmail.com
This is just my point!

What is just your point? You are apparently replying to me, but nothing
that I said could be taken to confirm your point.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Obviously prodigious is being used in these
examples as a synonym for prolific. You say it's wrong, ok. But that's
how it's being used. It doesn't make sense to write in the same
sentence that a writer is prodigious because he has written many books,
if you don't mean to say he was prolific.

Putting your example back in context, so we can see what we're talking
about,

Post by s***@gmail.com

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

I see two sentences here (or, more exactly, one sentence and the
beginning of another). Moreover, the "48 books" are separated from the
"prodigious writer" by two other things that _cannot_ be illustrated by
the 48 books. Moreover, the text does _not_ say that he was prodigious
because he had written many books: the "because" is simply not there in
the text.

OFCOL! Have we forgotten our seventh-grade (insert equivalent for
your country of residence) instruction on how to write a paragraph?
Start with a topic sentence, then develop the topic in subsequent
sentences. When a paragraph starts out: (1) Anthony Trollope was a
prodigious writer. (2) He turned out novels at a pace greater than
one per year, [etc.], what do you think the author of that paragraph
is up to? Okay, maybe all the author of the Galbraith paragraph meant
to tell us was that the late, lamented Ken was almost seven feet tall,
hence enormous, but somehow I think not. We're always screaming for
context around here. This time we have the context, but we go out of
our way to ignore it. Well, not exactly "we" -- I don't.

Post by ***@yahoo
If you want to assume it that's up to you, but it's an
assumption, not something in the text. It's not obvious at all that the
first sentence follows from the first (even if that is what the author
intended).

I'm sure you meant "second" doesn't follow from "first, and I strongly
disagree. If the author really intended as strong a disconnect (yeah,
disconnect) between the first sentence and the second, he'd have
inserted something -- at least an "also" or "in addition" -- to tell
us.
And what, while we're at it, do you think the author of the Galbraith
paragraph meant by "prodigious"? Why did he use it? Sheer stupidity,
or was it really Galbraith's height that inspired him? EMWTK
--
Bob Lieblich
Sometimes something really means what it seems to mean

It is an apparent error. There is a distinct difference in meaning
between prolific (fertile, abundant, productive) and prodigous
(enormous, stupendous, accomplished at a young age).

[Robert Lieblich]

[ ... ]

Post by UC

Post by Robert Lieblich
And what, while we're at it, do you think the author of the Galbraith
paragraph meant by "prodigious"? Why did he use it? Sheer stupidity,
or was it really Galbraith's height that inspired him? EMWTK

It is an apparent error. There is a distinct difference in meaning
between prolific (fertile, abundant, productive) and prodigous
(enormous, stupendous, accomplished at a young age).

Welcome to this subthread. Perhaps you noticed that I was addressing
the issue of how the word was actually used in the actual quotation
under discussion. It seems you agree with me that it was used as a
synonym of "prolific." Thank you for your support.

My position on the allowability of that particular usage appears in
another post.

[UC]

Post by Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]

Post by UC

Post by Robert Lieblich
And what, while we're at it, do you think the author of the Galbraith
paragraph meant by "prodigious"? Why did he use it? Sheer stupidity,
or was it really Galbraith's height that inspired him? EMWTK

It is an apparent error. There is a distinct difference in meaning
between prolific (fertile, abundant, productive) and prodigous
(enormous, stupendous, accomplished at a young age).

Welcome to this subthread. Perhaps you noticed that I was addressing
the issue of how the word was actually used in the actual quotation
under discussion. It seems you agree with me that it was used as a
synonym of "prolific." Thank you for your support.
My position on the allowability of that particular usage appears in
another post.
--
Bob Lieblich
Basking in the glow of agreement

WTF are you talking about? The words cannot be used as synonyms: they
mean different things.

[athel...@yahoo]

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by s***@gmail.com
This is just my point!

What is just your point? You are apparently replying to me, but nothing
that I said could be taken to confirm your point.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Obviously prodigious is being used in these
examples as a synonym for prolific. You say it's wrong, ok. But that's
how it's being used. It doesn't make sense to write in the same
sentence that a writer is prodigious because he has written many books,
if you don't mean to say he was prolific.

Putting your example back in context, so we can see what we're talking
about,

Post by s***@gmail.com

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

I see two sentences here (or, more exactly, one sentence and the
beginning of another). Moreover, the "48 books" are separated from the
"prodigious writer" by two other things that _cannot_ be illustrated by
the 48 books. Moreover, the text does _not_ say that he was prodigious
because he had written many books: the "because" is simply not there in
the text.

OFCOL!

What? I thought we tried to write our comments in English here. I've no
idea what "OFCOL" means.

Post by Robert Lieblich
Have we forgotten our seventh-grade (insert equivalent for
your country of residence) instruction on how to write a paragraph?
Start with a topic sentence, then develop the topic in subsequent
sentences. When a paragraph starts out: (1) Anthony Trollope was a
prodigious writer. (2) He turned out novels at a pace greater than
one per year, [etc.], what do you think the author of that paragraph
is up to? Okay, maybe all the author of the Galbraith paragraph meant
to tell us was that the late, lamented Ken was almost seven feet tall,
hence enormous, but somehow I think not. We're always screaming for
context around here. This time we have the context, but we go out of
our way to ignore it. Well, not exactly "we" -- I don't.

Perhaps yo'd like to explain how Galbraith's prodigiousness as an
analyst and commentator followed from the number of books he wrote.

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by ***@yahoo
If you want to assume it that's up to you, but it's an
assumption, not something in the text. It's not obvious at all that the
first sentence follows from the first (even if that is what the author
intended).

I'm sure you meant "second" doesn't follow from "first,

You seem to have forgotten to close your quotation here, but I'll
assume you meant to close it after the comma (though, for reasons that
have nothing to do with this thread, I'd have closed it before the
comma), but no, your certainty is misplaced; I meant what I wrote.
sygsix did not claim that the second sentence followed from the first
(i.e. that he wrote 48 books because he was a prodigious writer,
commentator and analyst); he claimed that one knew that "prodigious"
meant prolific because he wrote a lot of books, in other words that the
first statement follows from the second.

Post by Robert Lieblich
and I strongly
disagree. If the author really intended as strong a disconnect (yeah,
disconnect) between the first sentence and the second, he'd have
inserted something,

He did insert something, "analyst and commentator", that is not
illustrated by the 48 books.

Post by Robert Lieblich
-- at least an "also" or "in addition" -- to tell
us.
And what, while we're at it, do you think the author of the Galbraith
paragraph meant by "prodigious"?

I think he probably meant what sygsix interpreted him to mean, i.e. he
was as ignorant as sygsix about what "prodigious" means. But so what?

Post by Robert Lieblich
Why did he use it? Sheer stupidity,
or was it really Galbraith's height that inspired him? EMWTK

Translation into English, please.

Incidentally, I notice that you've scrupulously avoided saying whether
you agree with sygsix that "prodigious" means "prolific".

a.

[dontbother]

[...]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by Robert Lieblich
OFCOL!

What? I thought we tried to write our comments in English here. I've
no idea what "OFCOL" means.

"Oh, for crying out loud!"

[Robert Lieblich]

[ ... ]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by Robert Lieblich
OFCOL!

What? I thought we tried to write our comments in English here. I've no
idea what "OFCOL" means.

Oh, for crying out loud~

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by Robert Lieblich
Have we forgotten our seventh-grade (insert equivalent for
your country of residence) instruction on how to write a paragraph?
Start with a topic sentence, then develop the topic in subsequent
sentences. When a paragraph starts out: (1) Anthony Trollope was a
prodigious writer. (2) He turned out novels at a pace greater than
one per year, [etc.], what do you think the author of that paragraph
is up to? Okay, maybe all the author of the Galbraith paragraph meant
to tell us was that the late, lamented Ken was almost seven feet tall,
hence enormous, but somehow I think not. We're always screaming for
context around here. This time we have the context, but we go out of
our way to ignore it. Well, not exactly "we" -- I don't.

Perhaps yo'd like to explain how Galbraith's prodigiousness as an
analyst and commentator followed from the number of books he wrote.

It did in the mind of the author of the text I was talking about.
It's not my job to psychoanalyze the author. I'm telling you what he
meant, and what he meant is quite clear from what he said. You can
call it anything from a malaprop[ism] to good usage, but I don't think
you can rationally deny what was meant by what was said. You seemed
to think otherwise.

FWIW, I'm on record as disliking the usage. But, as usual, no one's
going to pay any attention.

[ ... ]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by Robert Lieblich
And what, while we're at it, do you think the author of the Galbraith
paragraph meant by "prodigious"?

I think he probably meant what sygsix interpreted him to mean, i.e. he
was as ignorant as sygsix about what "prodigious" means. But so what?

So what? Perhaps I didn't understand what you were driving at, but it
seemed to me that you were denying the very thing you are now
conceding. Well, now we agree on that point.

[ ... ]

Incidentally, I notice that you've scrupulously avoided saying whether
you agree with sygsix that "prodigious" means "prolific".

It certainly means that to sysgix and the author of the item about
Galbraith. That meaning is slowly elbowing its way into the
dictionary. I don't like that usage myself, and I try not to use it
that way, but the language doesn't take my advice. In a few years
it'll be a shibboleth, like the American use of "momentarily" to mean
"in a short while," and not longer after that it'll vanish into
standard usage.

So it goes.

[Father Ignatius]

Post by Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by Robert Lieblich
OFCOL!

What? I thought we tried to write our comments in English here. I've no
idea what "OFCOL" means.

Oh, for crying out loud

Now what?

[Robert Lieblich]

Post by s***@gmail.com
This is just my point! Obviously prodigious is being used in these
examples as a synonym for prolific. You say it's wrong, ok. But that's
how it's being used. It doesn't make sense to write in the same
sentence that a writer is prodigious because he has written many books,
if you don't mean to say he was prolific.
As for losing the bet, because it's not in the dictionary,

Careful, there, friend (if you're still around). It's sneaking in the
side door even as we speak. Here's Cambridge, no less:

prodigious
adjective FORMAL
extremely great in ability, amount or strength:
She wrote a truly prodigious number of novels.
She was a prodigious musician.
He had a prodigious appetite for both women and drink

<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=63147&dict=CALD>

Several dictionaries give as one definition of "prodigious" something
like "great in amount, size, or extent." A prolific author's corpus
of work can be described as "prodigious" even under a relatively
cramped view of the definition of the word. Add a bit of hypallage
(transferred epithet) and voila! -- a prodigious author.

On the other hand, it's not as if we need a new sense of "prodigious"
to serve as a synonym to "prolific." If I made the rules, I'd
disallow it. But I don't make those rules. No one here does
(although some of our occasional AUE visitors, such as John Lawler and
Jesse Sheidlower come close).

Post by s***@gmail.com
well, language is always one step its documentors.

You can owe us a couple of words.

[ ... ]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Anyway, it's been a fun chat!

If only you'd stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten around to
top-posting.

Ah, well ...

[Don Phillipson]

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.

Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.

[s***@gmail.com]

So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...
Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?

... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?

A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong? I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.

Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip Dick was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?

I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!

Thanks for all responses,

Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.
Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com
So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...
Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?

... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?

A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong? I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.
Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip Dick was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?
I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!
Thanks for all responses,
Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.
Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

You lost the best, Bozo!

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com
So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...
Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?

... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?

A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong?

Yes, they are wrong. The word is 'prolific'. 'Prodigious' could refer
to their WORK, not to THEM.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.

Accepted by whom?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip Dick was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?

Nope.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!

And you're willing to cheat?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for all responses,
Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.
Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[s***@gmail.com]

I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".

All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers. The
fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of prodigious in
this way means that I am not crazy and not alone. Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think you
must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by some
people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they are wrong"
but I am afraid that with language it's not that simple. Who's to say
what's wrong?

I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to mean
"awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that now for
most people simply means "great". He thought this was "wrong" and
lamented the loss of the "proper" definition. Well, maybe it's wrong,
maybe it isn't. But most people you'd ask the definition of "awesome"
would say it means "great". And I'll just bet that 100 years ago that
definition was NOT in the dictionary.

So I don't really know whether I've lost or won. We'll probably just
give 5 euros each and have a couple beers and laugh about it. In the
meantime, I'll try to remember to use prolific, so as not to upset
anyone.

Bob

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...
Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?

... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?

A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong?

Yes, they are wrong. The word is 'prolific'. 'Prodigious' could refer
to their WORK, not to THEM.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.

Accepted by whom?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip Dick was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?

Nope.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!

And you're willing to cheat?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for all responses,
Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.
Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers. The
fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of prodigious in
this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common with
some other folks.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think you
must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by some
people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they are wrong"
but I am afraid that with language it's not that simple. Who's to say
what's wrong?

Perspiration meter goldfish run puppy whereas?

Post by s***@gmail.com
I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to mean
"awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that now for
most people simply means "great".

The word has become debased.

Post by s***@gmail.com
He thought this was "wrong" and
lamented the loss of the "proper" definition. Well, maybe it's wrong,
maybe it isn't. But most people you'd ask the definition of "awesome"
would say it means "great". And I'll just bet that 100 years ago that
definition was NOT in the dictionary.
So I don't really know whether I've lost or won. We'll probably just
give 5 euros each and have a couple beers and laugh about it. In the
meantime, I'll try to remember to use prolific, so as not to upset
anyone.
Bob

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...
Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?

... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?

A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong?

Yes, they are wrong. The word is 'prolific'. 'Prodigious' could refer
to their WORK, not to THEM.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.

Accepted by whom?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip Dick was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?

Nope.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!

And you're willing to cheat?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for all responses,
Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.
Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers. The
fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of prodigious in
this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common with
some other folks.

What if those "other folks" are in the majority? When does it become
acceptable to the Language Gods to accept a new definition?

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think you
must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by some
people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they are wrong"
but I am afraid that with language it's not that simple. Who's to say
what's wrong?

Perspiration meter goldfish run puppy whereas?

Your point?

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to mean
"awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that now for
most people simply means "great".

The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
He thought this was "wrong" and
lamented the loss of the "proper" definition. Well, maybe it's wrong,
maybe it isn't. But most people you'd ask the definition of "awesome"
would say it means "great". And I'll just bet that 100 years ago that
definition was NOT in the dictionary.
So I don't really know whether I've lost or won. We'll probably just
give 5 euros each and have a couple beers and laugh about it. In the
meantime, I'll try to remember to use prolific, so as not to upset
anyone.
Bob

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...
Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?

... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?

A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong?

Yes, they are wrong. The word is 'prolific'. 'Prodigious' could refer
to their WORK, not to THEM.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.

Accepted by whom?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip Dick was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?

Nope.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!

And you're willing to cheat?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for all responses,
Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.
Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Bob

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers. The
fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of prodigious in
this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common with
some other folks.

What if those "other folks" are in the majority? When does it become
acceptable to the Language Gods to accept a new definition?

When it is adopted by educated users, and not until. What matters is
WHO uses it, not how many use it. Even if every bum in Britain or the
US adopts certain usages, it does not matter: they have no influence.

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think you
must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by some
people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they are wrong"
but I am afraid that with language it's not that simple. Who's to say
what's wrong?

Perspiration meter goldfish run puppy whereas?

Your point?

Have gophers oxtail soup benenfit cloudiness reigns?

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to mean
"awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that now for
most people simply means "great".

The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?

Right. Debased. Do you know what 'debased' means?

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
He thought this was "wrong" and
lamented the loss of the "proper" definition. Well, maybe it's wrong,
maybe it isn't. But most people you'd ask the definition of "awesome"
would say it means "great". And I'll just bet that 100 years ago that
definition was NOT in the dictionary.
So I don't really know whether I've lost or won. We'll probably just
give 5 euros each and have a couple beers and laugh about it. In the
meantime, I'll try to remember to use prolific, so as not to upset
anyone.
Bob

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...
Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?

... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?

A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong?

Yes, they are wrong. The word is 'prolific'. 'Prodigious' could refer
to their WORK, not to THEM.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.

Accepted by whom?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip Dick was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?

Nope.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!

And you're willing to cheat?

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for all responses,
Bob

Post by s***@gmail.com
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.
Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Bob

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by UC
When it is adopted by educated users, and not until. What matters is
WHO uses it, not how many use it. Even if every bum in Britain or the
US adopts certain usages, it does not matter: they have no influence.

Wow, how wrong this is. Language doesn't exist for educated users, it
exists for everyone. And language has always changed BECAUSE normal
people, by the millions, changed it. Language does not change by
commitee. Do you think all of the differences in british and american
english came about because we appointed a Department of Language to
invent them? Of course not. It's from use by people, normal people.

How long after French, Spanish or Italian existed as seperate languages
was a dictionary for these langauges printed? If you had your way we'd
all still be speaking Latin I guess.

They have no influence? They (we all) are the only ones who have
influence. Language exists for the people, not the other way around.
That's just silly.

I'll cede that you are all correct, prodigious is not in the dictionary
and perhaps should not be used as a synonym for prolific. But if Google
results are any indication, it soon may be.

Post by UC
Have gophers oxtail soup benenfit cloudiness reigns?

I get it, ok? You're creating a nonsense sentence to prove your point.
Very funny, almost as funny as the other 3 people who did the same
thing. Very clever.

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?

Right. Debased. Do you know what 'debased' means?

Sure do. I'll alert the millions of people using the word awesome in
this way that they are using a debased word. I'm sure they'll give a
crap.

Bob

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
When it is adopted by educated users, and not until. What matters is
WHO uses it, not how many use it. Even if every bum in Britain or the
US adopts certain usages, it does not matter: they have no influence.

Wow, how wrong this is. Language doesn't exist for educated users, it
exists for everyone.

You miss the point. It's called PROPER usage when the King uses it, not
when the bums use it.

Post by s***@gmail.com
And language has always changed BECAUSE normal
people, by the millions, changed it. Language does not change by
commitee.

You just contradicted yourself.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Do you think all of the differences in british and american
english came about because we appointed a Department of Language to
invent them? Of course not. It's from use by people, normal people.

But what is TAUGHT is taught by people with authority.

Post by s***@gmail.com
How long after French, Spanish or Italian existed as seperate languages
was a dictionary for these langauges printed? If you had your way we'd
all still be speaking Latin I guess.

These languages came about because of the breakdown of the Roman
empire, and with it, the Roman system of education.

Post by s***@gmail.com
They have no influence? They (we all) are the only ones who have
influence. Language exists for the people, not the other way around.
That's just silly.

Wrong.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I'll cede that you are all correct, prodigious is not in the dictionary
and perhaps should not be used as a synonym for prolific. But if Google
results are any indication, it soon may be.

Post by UC
Have gophers oxtail soup benenfit cloudiness reigns?

I get it, ok? You're creating a nonsense sentence to prove your point.
Very funny, almost as funny as the other 3 people who did the same
thing. Very clever.

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?

Right. Debased. Do you know what 'debased' means?

Sure do. I'll alert the millions of people using the word awesome in
this way that they are using a debased word. I'm sure they'll give a
crap.

No, they are not using a "debased word". You're don't know what I mean.
They are debasing the word 'awesome' by using it to mean something that
is merely interesting or clever. When EVERYTHING is awesome, NOTHING
is. Get it?

Main Entry:debase
Pronunciation:d**b*s, d**-
Function:transitive verb
Inflected Form:-ed/-ing/-s
Etymology:de- + base (low, vile); after abase

1 obsolete : to lower in esteem by verbal attack : DISPARAGE, VILIFY
2 : to lower in status or esteem *debase himself by physical labor* :
put to a low or inferior use *a style debased by many imitators*
3 : to lower the quality or character of : cause to deteriorate
*struggle with Hannibal had T debased the Roman temper John Buchan*
4 a : to reduce the intrinsic value of (a coin) by increasing the
base-metal content b : to reduce the exchange value of (a monetary
unit) : DEPRECIATE
synonyms VITIATE, DEPRAVE, CORRUPT, DEBAUCH, PERVERT: DEBASE indicates
a drastic and regrettable lowering in worth, value, and dignity and a
loss of fine or good qualities *the human values cruelly and
systematically debased by the Nazis Vera M. Dean* *Strachey's attitude
toward a respected historical figure and his new techniques were soon
debased by a school of so-called debunking biographers J.D.Hart*
VITIATE is applicable to the introduction or effect of something
deleterious and the ensuing destruction of purity, impairment of
validity, or enervation of effectiveness *party jealousies vitiated the
whole military organization Times Literary Supplement* *his endless
muttering vitiated every effort I made to think out a line of action
H.G.Wells* DEPRAVE indicates moral deterioration into the obscene and
vicious *the servants, wicked and depraved, corrupt and deprave the
children; the children are bad, full of evil, to a sinister degree
Henry James *1916* CORRUPT indicates bringing about a loss of
soundness, purity, and integrity *at sixteen the girl was further
corrupted by a *perverse and wicked* young man Edmund Wilson* *the
ballot box, corrupted, no longer recorded the voice of the people Oscar
Handlin* *to corrupt their taste first and try to purify it afterwards
Bertrand Russell* DEBAUCH usually suggests corrupting and vulgarizing
through sensual pleasure or other indulgence with loss of sense of
morality, loyalty, duty, integrity, and resolution *she takes them to
an enchanted isle, where she debauches them with enervating delights
and renders them oblivious to their duty R.A.Hall b. 1911* *readers
debauched by sentimental and romantic liberalism and naturalism Douglas
Bush* PERVERT suggests a debasing twisting or contorting into an untrue
or abnormal condition *those who pervert good words to careless misuse
may be thought more often ludicrous than harmful J.M.Barzun* *those who
pervert honest criticism into falsification of fact F.D.Roosevelt*
*sexually perverted during his term in prison*
à,¦

Post by s***@gmail.com
Bob

[Peter Duncanson]

On 17 Jul 2006 09:28:12 -0700, "UC"

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
When it is adopted by educated users, and not until. What matters is
WHO uses it, not how many use it. Even if every bum in Britain or the
US adopts certain usages, it does not matter: they have no influence.

Wow, how wrong this is. Language doesn't exist for educated users, it
exists for everyone.

You miss the point. It's called PROPER usage when the King uses it, not
when the bums use it.

And in a republic, such as the US, where the monarch was replaced by
a president:

It's called PROPER usage when the President uses it, not when
the bums use it.

I hope I've got that right.

[UC]

Post by Peter Duncanson
On 17 Jul 2006 09:28:12 -0700, "UC"

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
When it is adopted by educated users, and not until. What matters is
WHO uses it, not how many use it. Even if every bum in Britain or the
US adopts certain usages, it does not matter: they have no influence.

Wow, how wrong this is. Language doesn't exist for educated users, it
exists for everyone.

You miss the point. It's called PROPER usage when the King uses it, not
when the bums use it.

And in a republic, such as the US, where the monarch was replaced by
It's called PROPER usage when the President uses it, not when
the bums use it.
I hope I've got that right.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

The point was that the norms are those established by persons of power
and influence.

'Prolific' means fertile, abundant, productive.

A composer who is prolific is one who composes a lot of material.
Remember 'prolific' is related to the verb 'to proliferate'.

'Prodigous' means stupendous, enormous, immense, or advanced for a
young age.

A "prodigous feat" is a man lifting 1000 pounds. (It would be an even
more prodigous feat for a woman.)

A composer could be 'prodigous' only in the sense that he began
composing at a young age (e.g., Mozart). Someone who saw this usage
with Mozart may have misunderstood what was meant, and repeated the
attribution with another composer who did not start at a young age.
That's how errors of usage proliferate.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
When it is adopted by educated users, and not until. What matters is
WHO uses it, not how many use it. Even if every bum in Britain or the
US adopts certain usages, it does not matter: they have no influence.

Wow, how wrong this is. Language doesn't exist for educated users, it
exists for everyone.

You miss the point. It's called PROPER usage when the King uses it, not
when the bums use it.

Er... I thought Elvis was dead.

[UC]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC
When it is adopted by educated users, and not until. What matters is
WHO uses it, not how many use it. Even if every bum in Britain or the
US adopts certain usages, it does not matter: they have no influence.

Wow, how wrong this is. Language doesn't exist for educated users, it
exists for everyone.

You miss the point. It's called PROPER usage when the King uses it, not
when the bums use it.

Er... I thought Elvis was dead.

No, I think he just left the building...

Post by Robert Bannister
--
Rob Bannister

[dontbother]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No
need to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding
of course when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.
The fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of
prodigious in this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common with
some other folks.

What if those "other folks" are in the majority? When does it become
acceptable to the Language Gods to accept a new definition?

Never, of course. The Language Gods don't accept anybody else's opinions,
and this one in particular assumes that he's always right and that anyone
who disagrees with him is always wrong.

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think
you must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by
some people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they
are wrong" but I am afraid that with language it's not that simple.
Who's to say what's wrong?

Perspiration meter goldfish run puppy whereas?

Your point?

It's ungrammatical. As a native speaker of English, you can say that it's
wrong. That's this Language God's point. He is a native speaker;
therefore, he knows what's right, even when other native speakers
disagree with him. That, of course, is what language-godliness is all
about: linguistic infallibility.

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to mean
"awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that now for
most people simply means "great".

The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?

It's just an additional meaning. Of course, it's an accepted definition.

[dontbother]

Post by dontbother

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No
need to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding
of course when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.
The fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of
prodigious in this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common
with some other folks.

What if those "other folks" are in the majority? When does it become
acceptable to the Language Gods to accept a new definition?

Never, of course. The Language Gods don't accept anybody else's
opinions, and this one in particular assumes that he's always right
and that anyone who disagrees with him is always wrong.

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think
you must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by
some people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they
are wrong" but I am afraid that with language it's not that
simple. Who's to say what's wrong?

Perspiration meter goldfish run puppy whereas?

Your point?

It's ungrammatical. As a native speaker of English, you can say that
it's wrong. That's this Language God's point. He is a native speaker;
therefore, he knows what's right, even when other native speakers
disagree with him. That, of course, is what language-godliness is all
about: linguistic infallibility.

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to
mean "awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that
now for most people simply means "great".

The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?

It's just an additional meaning. Of course, it's an accepted
definition.

Delete that last comma. It was a thinko.

[s***@gmail.com]

Thanks for injecting some humor into the argument.

Someone backs me up! Or are you messing with me?

Who cares!

Bob

Post by dontbother

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No
need to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding
of course when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.
The fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of
prodigious in this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common with
some other folks.

What if those "other folks" are in the majority? When does it become
acceptable to the Language Gods to accept a new definition?

Never, of course. The Language Gods don't accept anybody else's opinions,
and this one in particular assumes that he's always right and that anyone
who disagrees with him is always wrong.

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think
you must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by
some people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they
are wrong" but I am afraid that with language it's not that simple.
Who's to say what's wrong?

Perspiration meter goldfish run puppy whereas?

Your point?

It's ungrammatical. As a native speaker of English, you can say that it's
wrong. That's this Language God's point. He is a native speaker;
therefore, he knows what's right, even when other native speakers
disagree with him. That, of course, is what language-godliness is all
about: linguistic infallibility.

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to mean
"awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that now for
most people simply means "great".

The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?

It's just an additional meaning. Of course, it's an accepted definition.
--
Franke: EFL teacher and medical editor
Unmunged email: /at/hush.ai
Native speaker of American English, posting from Taiwan
It's all in the way you say it, innit?
"These days, in poignant ways, many different Beiruts are emerging, its
famous diversity proving its greatest curse." Anthony Shadid

[Default User]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for injecting some humor into the argument.

Please review the newsgroup FAQ section below:

<http://alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#Guidelinesforposting>


In particular, the section title "Responding" may be of use to you.




Brian

[dontbother]

***@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for injecting some humor into the argument.
Someone backs me up! Or are you messing with me?
Who cares!

I cared enough to post my reply. I'm backing you up and pointing out that
UC is a first-class jerk. Ignore him. I do, as do most of the other posters
here.

[UC]

Post by dontbother
[...]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks for injecting some humor into the argument.
Someone backs me up! Or are you messing with me?
Who cares!

I cared enough to post my reply. I'm backing you up and pointing out that
UC is a first-class jerk. Ignore him. I do, as do most of the other posters
here.

I am a native speaker, and what's more, a KNOWLEDGEABLE one.

[Linz]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No
need to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding
of course when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.
The fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of
prodigious in this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common with
some other folks.

What if those "other folks" are in the majority? When does it become
acceptable to the Language Gods to accept a new definition?

Ignore UC. He claims to be "a native speaker, and what's more, a
KNOWLEDGEABLE one" but he still won't tell us what he's a native speaker of.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.

Don't pay any attention to UC's replies. Replies from most of the
regulars here will either be a) informative and constructive, or, b) a
pun or at least an attempt at wit. UC is not a source for either
information or wit. He's a Jehovah's Witness of usage...full of
strange ideas and convinced that everyone else's views are wrong.

BTW, you used "site" to mean "cite" in another post. A "site" is a
location and a "cite" is a reference to something or a quote.

[UC]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.

Don't pay any attention to UC's replies. Replies from most of the
regulars here will either be a) informative and constructive, or, b) a
pun or at least an attempt at wit. UC is not a source for either
information or wit. He's a Jehovah's Witness of usage...full of
strange ideas and convinced that everyone else's views are wrong.

It is clear that you are an uninformed, useless twit. The difference
between "prolific' and 'prodigious' is clear and useful. To tell people
there is no difference is insufferable and callous: it is a lie.

Post by Tony Cooper
BTW, you used "site" to mean "cite" in another post. A "site" is a
location and a "cite" is a reference to something or a quote.

To whom are you addressing this?

Post by Tony Cooper
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

[Tony Cooper]

On 17 Jul 2006 09:59:26 -0700, "UC"

Post by UC

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.

Don't pay any attention to UC's replies. Replies from most of the
regulars here will either be a) informative and constructive, or, b) a
pun or at least an attempt at wit. UC is not a source for either
information or wit. He's a Jehovah's Witness of usage...full of
strange ideas and convinced that everyone else's views are wrong.

It is clear that you are an uninformed, useless twit. The difference
between "prolific' and 'prodigious' is clear and useful. To tell people
there is no difference is insufferable and callous: it is a lie.

Post by Tony Cooper
BTW, you used "site" to mean "cite" in another post. A "site" is a
location and a "cite" is a reference to something or a quote.

To whom are you addressing this?

My post was a reply to sygsix's post. With your prodigious mental
powers, see if you can work out to whom I was addressing.

[HVS]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the
argument. No need to go calling me a bozo or a cheater.
Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course when I say "I just want my
10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive
answers.

Don't pay any attention to UC's replies.

I don't even read 'em; he's just not a very fun guy.

[the Omrud]

In article <***@4ax.com>, tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.

Don't pay any attention to UC's replies. Replies from most of the
regulars here will either be a) informative and constructive, or, b) a
pun or at least an attempt at wit. UC is not a source for either
information or wit. He's a Jehovah's Witness of usage...full of
strange ideas and convinced that everyone else's views are wrong.
BTW, you used "site" to mean "cite" in another post. A "site" is a
location and a "cite" is a reference to something or a quote.

I like "to cite", but I am uncomfortable with "a cite" in the same way
that I am uncomfortable with "an invite". I cling to "a citation".

[Default User]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Tony Cooper
BTW, you used "site" to mean "cite" in another post. A "site" is a
location and a "cite" is a reference to something or a quote.

I like "to cite", but I am uncomfortable with "a cite" in the same
way that I am uncomfortable with "an invite". I cling to "a
citation".

At this point, most dictionaries agree with you. At dictionary.com,
there was only one reference for a noun version:

Main Entry: cite
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: citation
Usage: shortened form

Source: Webster's New MillenniumT Dictionary of English, Preview
Edition (v 0.9.6)



However, I think usage, due to the internet, is way ahead of that and
you're likely facing a losing battle.




Brian

[R H Draney]

Post by the Omrud
I like "to cite", but I am uncomfortable with "a cite" in the same way
that I am uncomfortable with "an invite". I cling to "a citation".

May I use that as a quote?...r

[Django Cat]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gmail.com
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No
need to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I am kidding of
course when I say "I just want my 10 euros".
All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers.

Don't pay any attention to UC's replies. Replies from most of the
regulars here will either be a) informative and constructive, or, b) a
pun or at least an attempt at wit.

c) both. A tall order, but some people gotta dream, it goes with the
territory, like a mention in 'Letter to Sis'.

DC

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Greetings.
I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific.

Wrong.

Post by s***@gmail.com
In describing the author Philip K. Dick I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.

Wrong.

Post by s***@gmail.com
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

Nope.

Post by s***@gmail.com
We bet on it. 10 euros. I went online and found hundreds of examples of
people using the phrase "prodigious author" followed by the reason they
were prodigious -- they had written many books, articles, what have
you.

Wrong.

Post by s***@gmail.com
3. extraordinary in bulk, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS
So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

No way. Prolific means present in large quantities. Fish are prolific.
Prodigious means:

"Main Entry:prodigious
Function:adjective
Etymology:Latin prodigiosus, from prodigium omen, portent, monster +
-osus -ous * more at PRODIGY

1 a obsolete : having the nature of an omen : PORTENTOUS *never mole,
harelip, nor scar, nor mark prodigious T shall upon their children be
Shakespeare* b archaic : having the appearance of a prodigy :
ABNORMAL, STRANGE
2 : exciting amazement or wonder : causing one to marvel : AMAZING
*from childhood precocious and prodigious in everything Willa Cather*
*a prodigious vision Christopher Rand*
3 : extraordinary in bulk, extent, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS,
IMMENSE, VAST *a prodigious noise of wheels Elinor Wylie* *have done a
prodigious amount of work John Sparkman* *the amount of food provided
at a party of this kind was prodigious W.S.Maugham*
synonyms see MONSTROUS

The AUTHOR cannot obviously be "extraordinary in bulk, extent,
quantity, or degree" though his WORK can be.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by s***@gmail.com
So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

What you said - an author can't be prodigious, but his output can.

[JF]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by s***@gmail.com
So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

What you said - an author can't be prodigious, but his output can.

Of which the author with the most prodigious output in the English
language was Charles St John Hamilton with a prose equivalent of around
1000 novels. Such was his extraordinary output that George Orwell was
convinced that Hamilton was running a syndicate of writers.

[s***@gmail.com]

Ok, I didn't realize that this WC guy is just a negative nancy who
contributes nothing but insults. Incidentally, saying that millions of
people define a language, that it isn't defined by committee, is not a
contradiction. By committee means by a finite group of people appointed
to perform a task. Language is defined AND changed as needed.

Which doesn't mean that everyone makes up their own rules. I have
nothing but respect for someone who speaks a language very well. The
english language well spoken is a beautiful thing to behold. But come
on, language changes! A couple words come to mind -- cool and wicked.
Neither one of these words meant 50 or even 25 years ago what they mean
today. And yet they changed. Against the will of some. But as one
poster said, I don't think language gives a sh*t about what you think.

This WC guy obviously knows zilch about the history of language.
Specifically about the spread of Latin in the Roman Empire. Then, as
now, the majority of your knowledge of a language comes from using it,
not being taught it. And most people in the Roman Empire outside the
city of Rome (and later Constantinople) didn't even speak Latin but
rather their local vernacular, which became, over centuries, the
Romance Languages. Only the elite (politicians, writers, priests) spoke
Latin, and Greek.

Anyway, this conversation has gone places I never intended it to go.
Who could imagine a flame war over something so silly?

Thanks again for all the great posts!
Bob

ps. Sorry about the site->cite thing. I am a web programmer and use the
word 'site' (as in web site) too much I guess ...

[UC]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, I didn't realize that this WC guy is just a negative nancy who
contributes nothing but insults. Incidentally, saying that millions of
people define a language, that it isn't defined by committee, is not a
contradiction. By committee means by a finite group of people appointed
to perform a task. Language is defined AND changed as needed.

Your ideas are hopelessly naive and romanticized. Language is very much
an indication of class and power. In Britain, your speech marks you
clearly as bower, gentleman, scholar, churchman, MP, or miner. Guess
who decides what is 'proper' speech? Hint: It ain't the miners or
bowers!

Post by s***@gmail.com
Which doesn't mean that everyone makes up their own rules.

'His', not 'their'. The noun 'one' or 'every one' takes the pronouns
'he' and 'his' and 'him', not 'their'.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I have
nothing but respect for someone who speaks a language very well. The
english language well spoken is a beautiful thing to behold.

'Behold' refers primarily to vision. You mean 'hear'.

Post by s***@gmail.com
But come
on, language changes!

Yes, and that usually is for the worse.

Post by s***@gmail.com
A couple words come to mind -- cool and wicked.
Neither one of these words meant 50 or even 25 years ago what they mean
today.

Yes, they did. 'Cool' was part of the beat generation in the 50's.
'Wicked', like 'bad', is used ironically along with several other terms
that date from the same era.

Post by s***@gmail.com
And yet they changed. Against the will of some. But as one
poster said, I don't think language gives a sh*t about what you think.

Are you a linguistic prude?

Post by s***@gmail.com
This WC guy obviously knows zilch about the history of language.

It's UC, not WC, and I know lots and lots and lots...

Post by s***@gmail.com
Specifically about the spread of Latin in the Roman Empire. Then, as
now, the majority of your knowledge of a language comes from using it,
not being taught it.

Ha ha ha ha ha....you amaze me with your insight...

Just how did those barbarians learn Latin? Maybe they were slaves who
were trained to teach their masters' children?

Post by s***@gmail.com
And most people in the Roman Empire outside the
city of Rome (and later Constantinople) didn't even speak Latin but
rather their local vernacular, which became, over centuries, the
Romance Languages. Only the elite (politicians, writers, priests) spoke
Latin, and Greek.

Much more complex than that, it was.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Anyway, this conversation has gone places I never intended it to go.
Who could imagine a flame war over something so silly?

You lost the bet, sonny boy.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks again for all the great posts!
Bob
ps. Sorry about the site->cite thing. I am a web programmer and use the
word 'site' (as in web site) too much I guess ...

[Tony Cooper]

Post by UC
Your ideas are hopelessly naive and romanticized. Language is very much
an indication of class and power. In Britain, your speech marks you
clearly as bower, gentleman, scholar, churchman, MP, or miner. Guess
who decides what is 'proper' speech? Hint: It ain't the miners or
bowers!

Bowers? Is there some archaic definition of "bower" that describes an
occupation? Or, do you have talking arbors in your area?

It is in the title of a song that I like: "Come to the Bower"

obAue: Is the "bower" here an arbor, a lady's bed, a garden seat, or
an anchor?


Will you come to the bower o'er the free boundless ocean
Where the stupendous waves roll in thundering motion,
Where the mermaids are seen and the fierce tempest gathers,
To loved Erin the green, the dear land of our fathers."
Will you come, will you, will you, will you come to the bower?

Chorus:
Will you come, will you, will you,
Will you come to the bower?

2. Will you come to the land of O'Neill and O'Donnell
Of Lord Lucan of old and immortal O'Connell.
Where Brian drove the Danes and Saint Patrick the vermin
And whose valleys remain still most beautiful and charming?
Chorus:

3. You can visit Benburb and the storied Blackwater,
Where Owen Roe met Munroe and his Chieftains did slaughter
Where the lambs skip and play on the mossy all over,
From those bright golden views to enchanting Rostrevor.
Chorus:

4. You can see Dublin city, and the fine groves of Blarney
The Bann, Boyne, and Liffey and the Lakes of Killarney,
You may ride on the tide on the broad majestic Shannon
You may sail round Loch Neagh and see storied Dungannon.
Chorus:

5. You can visit New Ross, gallant Wexford, and Gorey,
Where the green was last seen by proud Saxon and Tory,
Where the soil is sanctified by the blood of each true man
Where they died satisfied that their enemies they would not run from.
Chorus:

6. Will you come and awake our lost land from its slumber
And her fetters we'll break, links that long are encumbered.
And the air will resound with hosannahs to greet you
On the shore will be found gallant Irishmen to greet you.
Chorus:

[UC]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by UC
Your ideas are hopelessly naive and romanticized. Language is very much
an indication of class and power. In Britain, your speech marks you
clearly as bower, gentleman, scholar, churchman, MP, or miner. Guess
who decides what is 'proper' speech? Hint: It ain't the miners or
bowers!

Bowers? Is there some archaic definition of "bower" that describes an
occupation?

Tenant farmer.

Post by Tony Cooper
Or, do you have talking arbors in your area?
It is in the title of a song that I like: "Come to the Bower"
obAue: Is the "bower" here an arbor, a lady's bed, a garden seat, or
an anchor?
Will you come to the bower o'er the free boundless ocean
Where the stupendous waves roll in thundering motion,
Where the mermaids are seen and the fierce tempest gathers,
To loved Erin the green, the dear land of our fathers."
Will you come, will you, will you, will you come to the bower?
Will you come, will you, will you,
Will you come to the bower?
2. Will you come to the land of O'Neill and O'Donnell
Of Lord Lucan of old and immortal O'Connell.
Where Brian drove the Danes and Saint Patrick the vermin
And whose valleys remain still most beautiful and charming?
3. You can visit Benburb and the storied Blackwater,
Where Owen Roe met Munroe and his Chieftains did slaughter
Where the lambs skip and play on the mossy all over,
From those bright golden views to enchanting Rostrevor.
4. You can see Dublin city, and the fine groves of Blarney
The Bann, Boyne, and Liffey and the Lakes of Killarney,
You may ride on the tide on the broad majestic Shannon
You may sail round Loch Neagh and see storied Dungannon.
5. You can visit New Ross, gallant Wexford, and Gorey,
Where the green was last seen by proud Saxon and Tory,
Where the soil is sanctified by the blood of each true man
Where they died satisfied that their enemies they would not run from.
6. Will you come and awake our lost land from its slumber
And her fetters we'll break, links that long are encumbered.
And the air will resound with hosannahs to greet you
On the shore will be found gallant Irishmen to greet you.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

[Jacqui]

Post by UC

Post by Tony Cooper
Bowers? Is there some archaic definition of "bower" that describes an
occupation?

Tenant farmer.

Archaic would be right. If your speech genuinely marks you out as
living in the 15th century I'd be quite surprised, to put it mildly.

Jac

[Django Cat]

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, I didn't realize that this WC guy is just a negative nancy who
contributes nothing but insults. Incidentally, saying that millions
of people define a language, that it isn't defined by committee, is
not a contradiction. By committee means by a finite group of people
appointed to perform a task. Language is defined AND changed as
needed.

Your ideas are hopelessly naive and romanticized. Language is very
much an indication of class and power. In Britain, your speech marks
you clearly as bower, gentleman, scholar, churchman, MP, or miner.
Guess who decides what is 'proper' speech? Hint: It ain't the miners
or bowers!

You don't actually live in the UK, do you? Have you ever visited? Do
you have the remotest idea about the reality of our culture? Do you
refer to the World Game as "Soccer"? Do you have a fixation with the
Royal Family and especially Liz?

For a start, we don't have any miners left... or churchpeople for that
matter... And who exactly are these people deciding what 'proper'
speech is? What influence do they have? There's a few precriptivist
twats who write to right-wing newspapers when they get upset about
evolving usage, but they're ignored as the language gets happily on
morphing on its own.

Yes, speech patterns are a marker of region and class (whatever that
is) here. Big deal. So are clothes and what car you drive.

You want to be informed about BrE and British Society next time you
start pontificating? Start here:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/

DC, off to find a Shady Bower; no, that's not an obsequious West Indian.

[JF]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by Django Cat
You don't actually live in the UK, do you? Have you ever visited? Do
you have the remotest idea about the reality of our culture? Do you
refer to the World Game as "Soccer"? Do you have a fixation with the
Royal Family and especially Liz?

In the movie 'A Wish Called Fonda' Tony Curtis observed to Calvin Kline
that the London underground wasn't a subversive political movement.

[UC]

Post by Django Cat

Post by UC

Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, I didn't realize that this WC guy is just a negative nancy who
contributes nothing but insults. Incidentally, saying that millions
of people define a language, that it isn't defined by committee, is
not a contradiction. By committee means by a finite group of people
appointed to perform a task. Language is defined AND changed as
needed.

Your ideas are hopelessly naive and romanticized. Language is very
much an indication of class and power. In Britain, your speech marks
you clearly as bower, gentleman, scholar, churchman, MP, or miner.
Guess who decides what is 'proper' speech? Hint: It ain't the miners
or bowers!

You don't actually live in the UK, do you? Have you ever visited? Do
you have the remotest idea about the reality of our culture? Do you
refer to the World Game as "Soccer"? Do you have a fixation with the
Royal Family and especially Liz?

I've read gobs of British-English literature; my favourite is Trollope
(Anthony).

Post by Django Cat
For a start, we don't have any miners left...

What's that soot on your face, then, eh?

Post by Django Cat
or churchpeople for that
matter...

Churchmen, dearie...

Post by Django Cat
And who exactly are these people deciding what 'proper'
speech is?

The upper classes.

Post by Django Cat
What influence do they have?

A lot, really.

Post by Django Cat
There's a few precriptivist
twats who write to right-wing newspapers when they get upset about
evolving usage, but they're ignored as the language gets happily on
morphing on its own.
Yes, speech patterns are a marker of region and class (whatever that
is) here. Big deal. So are clothes and what car you drive.

True, then, innit?

Post by Django Cat
You want to be informed about BrE and British Society next time you
http://www.thesun.co.uk/
DC, off to find a Shady Bower; no, that's not an obsequious West Indian.

Lord Django, get thee a Webster's New International, 2nd edition, and
cast thine eyes upon the bottom of the page, where thou willst find
many a word that is obsolete....

[JF]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, I didn't realize that this WC guy is just a negative nancy who
contributes nothing but insults.

Who dat? Please provide context.

Post by s***@gmail.com
today. And yet they changed. Against the will of some. But as one
poster said, I don't think language gives a sh*t about what you think.

About who thinks? Please provide context.

Post by s***@gmail.com
This WC guy obviously knows zilch about the history of language.

Who is WC? Please provide context.

Post by s***@gmail.com
ps. Sorry about the site->cite thing.

What website (cite?) thing? Please provide context.

Post by s***@gmail.com
I am a web programmer

Really? And yet you don't appear to have a clue about effective posting
to the Usenet? Admittedly not the same as as the web. Next you'll be
telling me that you're a google groups user!

[R H Draney]

Post by JF

Post by s***@gmail.com
This WC guy obviously knows zilch about the history of language.

Who is WC? Please provide context.

Post by s***@gmail.com
ps. Sorry about the site->cite thing.

What website (cite?) thing? Please provide context.

Wow!...it's almost like having de781 back!...r

[Robert Bannister]

Post by s***@gmail.com
on, language changes! A couple words come to mind -- cool and wicked.
Neither one of these words meant 50 or even 25 years ago what they mean
today.

Not "wicked", but "cool" had a very similar meaning 50 or more years
ago. The main change seems to be that it did not indicate agreement.

[Stephen Calder]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by s***@gmail.com
So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?

What you said - an author can't be prodigious, but his output can.

I'd go along with that.