Discussion:
having used to
(too old to reply)
g***@gmail.com
2019-11-30 23:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?

(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.

If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?

(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.

I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.

Thank you.
David Kleinecke
2019-12-01 03:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
(1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
(3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
(1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
(3) She is bothered by his having smoked.

I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.

But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
Rich Ulrich
2019-12-01 03:56:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:04 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
(1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
(3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
(1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
(3) She is bothered by his having smoked.
I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.
But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
But I would expect, "Having (once) been a smoker..."
--
Rich Ulrich
g***@gmail.com
2019-12-02 01:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:04 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
(1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
(3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
(1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
(3) She is bothered by his having smoked.
I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.
But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
Not to me. The are all highly ungrammatical, as far as I'm concerned.
How about this one?

(7) I didn't know about his having used to live there.

Meaning: I didn't know about the fact that he used to live there.
(Or: I didn't know that he used to live there.)
Post by Rich Ulrich
But I would expect, "Having (once) been a smoker..."
Yes, much better.
--
Ken
Ken Blake
2019-12-02 17:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:04 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
(1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
(3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
(1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
(3) She is bothered by his having smoked.
I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.
But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
Not to me. The are all highly ungrammatical, as far as I'm concerned.
How about this one?
(7) I didn't know about his having used to live there.
Meaning: I didn't know about the fact that he used to live there.
(Or: I didn't know that he used to live there.)
Still ungrammatical. "Having used to" doesn't work. It should be "I
didn't know about his having lived there."
--
Ken
g***@gmail.com
2019-12-02 21:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:04 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
(1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
(3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
(1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
(3) She is bothered by his having smoked.
I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.
But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
Not to me. The are all highly ungrammatical, as far as I'm concerned.
How about this one?
(7) I didn't know about his having used to live there.
Meaning: I didn't know about the fact that he used to live there.
(Or: I didn't know that he used to live there.)
Still ungrammatical. "Having used to" doesn't work.
For some reason it doesn't grate on my ear, and I seem to find
evidence that "having used to" used to be used. How about these?

From 1832: "The learned Father Paul had read over the Greek
Testament with so much exactness, that having used to mark
every word, when he had fully weighted the importance of it,
as he went through it; he had, by going often over it, and
observing what he had passed by in a former reading, grown up
to that at last, that every word of the whole New Testament
was marked; and when any new illustrations of passages were
suggested to him, he received them with transports of joy."
https://books.google.com/books?id=8xZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA348&dq=%22having+used+to%22&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOhL_N75fmAhVZIDQIHXAyBtEQ6AEwBHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22having%20used%20to%22&f=false

from 1736 (a dictionary entry): "SECTA molendini, &c. [in Law]:
a writ against him who, having used to grind his corn at one
mill, leaves it and goes to, another, L."
https://books.google.com/books?id=030pPyvwS9MC&pg=RA41-PA2&dq=%22having+used+to%22&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYybe085fmAhV_HjQIHYnBA_E4FBDoATAAegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=%22having%20used%20to%22&f=false
Post by Ken Blake
It should be "I
didn't know about his having lived there."
--
Ken
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-03 15:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Ken Blake
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:04 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
(1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
(3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
(1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
(3) She is bothered by his having smoked.
I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.
But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
Not to me. The are all highly ungrammatical, as far as I'm concerned.
How about this one?
(7) I didn't know about his having used to live there.
Meaning: I didn't know about the fact that he used to live there.
(Or: I didn't know that he used to live there.)
Still ungrammatical. "Having used to" doesn't work.
For some reason it doesn't grate on my ear, and I seem to find
evidence that "having used to" used to be used. How about these?
From 1832: "The learned Father Paul had read over the Greek
Testament with so much exactness, that having used to mark
every word, when he had fully weighted the importance of it,
as he went through it; he had, by going often over it, and
observing what he had passed by in a former reading, grown up
to that at last, that every word of the whole New Testament
was marked; and when any new illustrations of passages were
suggested to him, he received them with transports of joy."
https://books.google.com/books?id=8xZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA348&dq=%22having+used+to%22&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOhL_N75fmAhVZIDQIHXAyBtEQ6AEwBHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22having%20used%20to%22&f=false
a writ against him who, having used to grind his corn at one
mill, leaves it and goes to, another, L."
https://books.google.com/books?id=030pPyvwS9MC&pg=RA41-PA2&dq=%22having+used+to%22&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYybe085fmAhV_HjQIHYnBA_E4FBDoATAAegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=%22having%20used%20to%22&f=false
Post by Ken Blake
It should be "I
didn't know about his having lived there."
I don't think those are the modern sense of "used to," i.e. 'formerly
did but doesn't any more', but the old sense of 'had the habit of',
'that was the usual usage'.
Paul Carmichael
2019-12-02 10:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:04 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
 (1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
 (2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
 (3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
 (1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
 (2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
 (3) She is bothered by his having smoked.
I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.
But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
Not to me. The are all highly ungrammatical, as far as I'm concerned.
Post by Rich Ulrich
But I would expect, "Having (once) been a smoker..."
Yes, much better.
Or "being an ex smoker".
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Ken Blake
2019-12-02 17:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:04 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
Hm. Looks like "used to smoke" is a noun or adjective phrase
 (1) Having boils, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
 (2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having boils?
 (3) She is bothered by his having boils.
or
 (1) Having smoked, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
 (2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having smoked?
 (3) She is bothered by his having smoked.
I think the problem is that "have smoked" and "used to smoke"
assert the same thing with slightly different temporal nuances.
But (1) feels very close to acceptable.
Not to me. The are all highly ungrammatical, as far as I'm concerned.
Post by Rich Ulrich
But I would expect, "Having (once) been a smoker..."
Yes, much better.
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be "being an ex-smoker."
--
Ken
Paul Carmichael
2019-12-02 18:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Jerry Friedman
2019-12-03 15:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that. There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
--
Jerry Friedman
Joseph C. Fineman
2019-12-03 22:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that. There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like "former".
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general would
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney general
would be a general who was once an attorney.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Some things have to be believed to be seen. :||
Quinn C
2019-12-03 22:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that. There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like "former".
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general would
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney general
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
--
The average German would much rather salute a uniform than
have a vote ... The German is designed by history and nature
to provide mass material for dictatorship.
-- Stephen H. Roberts
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-12-04 10:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that. There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general would
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney general
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-04 10:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that. There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general
would
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney
general
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
After amining your post I find it traordinary. I can't tract any
meaning from it.
--
athel
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-04 11:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that.  There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general
would
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney
general
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
After amining your post I find it traordinary. I can't tract any meaning
from it.
Cellent, but maybe I should warn you that my abbreviated electronic
dictionary has 852 entries beginning "Ex" or "ex".

And my non-abbreviated dictionary has 2,892.

Worse, I have no doubt that there are people here with even bigger
dictionaries.

Is this really a hill we all want to pire on?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-12-04 13:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that.  There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and
the version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general
would
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney
general
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
After amining your post I find it traordinary. I can't tract any
meaning from it.
Cellent, but maybe I should warn you that my abbreviated electronic
dictionary has 852 entries beginning "Ex" or "ex".
And my non-abbreviated dictionary has 2,892.
Worse, I have no doubt that there are people here with even bigger
dictionaries.
Is this really a hill we all want to pire on?
An emplary post.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
John Dunlop
2019-12-04 14:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
...
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general
would
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney
general
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
After amining your post I find it traordinary. I can't tract any
meaning from it.
Cellent, but maybe I should warn you that my abbreviated electronic
dictionary has 852 entries beginning "Ex" or "ex".
And my non-abbreviated dictionary has 2,892.
Worse, I have no doubt that there are people here with even bigger
dictionaries.
Is this really a hill we all want to pire on?
You'd be surprised at the tents people will go to.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
An emplary post.
Don't get cited.
--
John
Katy Jennison
2019-12-04 14:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
...
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general
would
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney
general
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
After amining your post I find it traordinary. I can't tract any
meaning from it.
Cellent, but maybe I should warn you that my abbreviated electronic
dictionary has 852 entries beginning "Ex" or "ex".
And my non-abbreviated dictionary has 2,892.
Worse, I have no doubt that there are people here with even bigger
dictionaries.
Is this really a hill we all want to pire on?
You'd be surprised at the tents people will go to.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
An emplary post.
Don't get cited.
I agree with RH. We should all it the thread now.
--
Katy Jennison
Mack A. Damia
2019-12-04 16:08:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:49:20 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
...
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general
would
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney
general
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
After amining your post I find it traordinary. I can't tract any
meaning from it.
Cellent, but maybe I should warn you that my abbreviated electronic
dictionary has 852 entries beginning "Ex" or "ex".
And my non-abbreviated dictionary has 2,892.
Worse, I have no doubt that there are people here with even bigger
dictionaries.
Is this really a hill we all want to pire on?
You'd be surprised at the tents people will go to.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
An emplary post.
Don't get cited.
I agree with RH. We should all it the thread now.
Eggsactly. Time for brekkie.
b***@shaw.ca
2019-12-04 18:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 22:42:41 GMT, Quinn C
...
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like
"former".
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general
would
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney
general
Post by Quinn C
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Very ex-acting.
A most ex-halted reply, not hilerating. I'm hausted.
After amining your post I find it traordinary. I can't tract any
meaning from it.
Cellent, but maybe I should warn you that my abbreviated electronic
dictionary has 852 entries beginning "Ex" or "ex".
And my non-abbreviated dictionary has 2,892.
Worse, I have no doubt that there are people here with even bigger
dictionaries.
Is this really a hill we all want to pire on?
You'd be surprised at the tents people will go to.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
An emplary post.
Don't get cited.
I agree with RH. We should all it the thread now.
I don't know how we tricated into the thread in the first place.

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-04 15:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that. There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like "former".
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general would
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney general
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Not quite ... we have one ex-president (hopefully soon two), and 43
former presidents.

And the US Marines (and the elite services?) insist that there are no
"former Marines."
Sam Plusnet
2019-12-04 21:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Or "being an ex smoker".
In my view, that should be  "being an ex-smoker."
Exactly. Someone that smokes exes.
To me, "being an ex smoker" could mean that. There's more of a
possibility of ambiguity with something like "ex slanderer", and the
version with the hyphen clearly means "former".
If I were dictator, I would reparse "ex" as an adjective like "former".
Then an ex smoker would be a former smoker, an ex attorney general would
be someone who was once an attorney general, and an ex-attorney general
would be a general who was once an attorney.
Not quite ... we have one ex-president (hopefully soon two), and 43
former presidents.
And the US Marines (and the elite services?) insist that there are no
"former Marines."
I wonder if that thinking would include anyone given a dishonourable
discharge?
--
Sam Plusnet
Jerry Friedman
2019-12-04 21:42:05 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And the US Marines (and the elite services?) insist that there are no
"former Marines."
I wonder if that thinking would include anyone given a dishonourable
discharge?
You can see some disagreement on that topic at

https://www.usmclife.com/2017/07/marine-always-marine/

if you scroll down past the ads.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-04 22:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And the US Marines (and the elite services?) insist that there are no
"former Marines."
I wonder if that thinking would include anyone given a dishonourable
discharge?
You can see some disagreement on that topic at
https://www.usmclife.com/2017/07/marine-always-marine/
The slogan only goes all the way back to 2010?!

But Commenter Ted says it's a lot older than that.

Jerry Friedman
2019-12-04 22:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Do you find the following sentences grammatically acceptable?
(1) Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(2) When you came out of a coma, did you remember having used to smoke?
(3) She is bothered by his having used to smoke.
Nope.
Post by g***@gmail.com
If not, would you agree that they're much better than these nonperfectives?
(4) *Using to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette.
(5) *When you out of a coma, did you remember using to smoke?
(6) *She is bothered by his using to smoke.
Maybe slightly better.
Post by g***@gmail.com
I've taken the liberty of adding ungrammaticality asterisks to those three.
I'd offer three more asterisks.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...