Grammar that makes you cringe

[Gareth Rees]

I dare say Gareth will be along in a minute to cite some 17th-century example

I'm glad to see that my message is getting through!

of good being used as an adverb

But this can't be right. In "I'm well" and "I'm good", "well" and "good" are adjectives, not adverbs. That's because you can say "I'm X" when X is an adjective ("I'm happy", "I'm busy") but not when X is an adverb ("*I'm happily", "*I'm busily").

In the OED the relevant senses are well adj. 5a ("Sound in health; free or recovered from sickness or infirmity") and good adj. 3c ("of state or condition, health, order, etc.: Such as should be desired or approved, right, satisfactory; sound, unimpaired. Of state of mind, courage, spirits: Not depressed or dejected.")

[citoyen]

In "I'm well" and "I'm good", "well" and "good" are adjectives, not adverbs. That's because you can say "I'm X" when X is an adjective ("I'm happy", "I'm busy") but not when X is an adverb ("*I'm happily", "*I'm busily").

I'm going to argue the toss on this one... In the intended sense (ie in answer to the question "How are you?"), good modifies the verb "to be", hence is an adverb.

But perhaps that's a specious distinction. In any case, it's not really important - what matters, as per Nuncio's comment, is the different meanings of "I'm good" and "I'm well". Substituting "good" for "well" in the latter example renders the sentence ambiguous... though admittedly only to the kind of pedant who goes looking for ambiguities of this kind.

[Gareth Rees]

In "I'm well" and "I'm good", "well" and "good" are adjectives, not adverbs. That's because you can say "I'm X" when X is an adjective ("I'm happy", "I'm busy") but not when X is an adverb ("*I'm happily", "*I'm busily").

I'm going to argue the toss on this one... In the intended sense (ie in answer to the question "How are you?"), good modifies the verb "to be", hence is an adverb.

You're arguing that the sentence "I am good" is to be understood as being parallel to "I walk slowly". But there are three reasons why I find this interpretation implausible. First, you can't substitute other adverbs for good (if you try, you get wholly ungrammatical sentences like "*I am happily" or "*I am busily"). Second, you can't substitute other verbs for am (if you try, you get sentences like "*I exist good" or "*I run good" — these are grammatical in some dialects and registers but not in formal British English). Third, the sentence "I am X" is perfectly grammatical when X is an adjective: you can say "I am tall" or "I am happy".

So my interpretation (in which good is an adjective) is straightforward and productive, whereas your interpretation (in which good is an adverb) is forced and unproductive.

You seem to be implicitly relying on a theory whereby a how question must be answered with an adverb, but surely you wouldn't answer "How was the meal?" with "*It was tastily."

[citoyen]

First, you can't substitute other adverbs for good (if you try, you get ungrammatical sentences like "*I am happily" or "*I am busily"). Second, you can't substitute other verbs for am (if you try, you get ungrammatical sentences like "*I exist good" or "*I run good"). Third, the sentence "I am X" is perfectly grammatical when X is an adjective: you can say "I am tall" or "I am happy".

The problem is not that the examples in the first case are ungrammatical, only that they make no sense in English. "I exist happily" works. More or less. The second case illustrates exactly why I believe "good" is being used as an adverb in the case under discussion - it's dictated by the form of the sentence.

The third case is an elliptical idiom, thus a quirk rather than a paradigm. What you are actually saying is: "I am [a] tall/happy [person]." Logically, the subject and object of the sentence are identical, hence don't need to be mentioned twice.

You seem to be implicitly relying on a theory whereby a how question must be answered with an adverb, but that's also wrong. You wouldn't answer "How was the meal?" with "*It was tastily."

That fails for the same reason as your first case above. In English, tastily is not an adverb that can apply to a state of being. (Tbh, I'm struggling to think of a verb that "tastily" could modify in a meaningful way.)

But like I said, I'm just arguing the toss on this one. For practical purposes, it doesn't matter if it's an adverb or an adjective.

The important point remains that "I am good" and "I am well" have distinct meanings in English.

[red marley]

As a parent who habitually responds with 'is that like safely or actually safely? In what way is it like?' I would happily appropriate that.

My advice to your offspring would be to indicate the ambiguity that results in making every statement a simile by ensuring every sentence is delivered with an interrogative inflection. If they wish to modify emphasis to indicate certainty, just insert the word 'literally' in front of 'like'.

[Cudzoziemiec]

You come across older (18th/19th century?) examples such as "How was the meal?" "It tasted very well" where now we would say "It tasted very good". I'd say that "well" is an adverb here describing the way the meal tasted and "good" is an adjective describing the meal itself. In practice the meaning is the same in both cases.

[Gareth Rees]

The problem is not that the examples ("*I am happily" and "*I am busily") are ungrammatical, only that they make no sense in English.

If you think sentences of the form "I am ADVERB" are grammatical, then you should be able to illustrate it with examples (other than the ones we are disputing, of course). Here's a list of 100 common adverbs for consideration: which ones can appear in sentences of this form? Can any of them? Remember that you're the one making the claim that sentences of this form are grammatical, so it's really up to you to come up with convincing examples.

The third case is an elliptical idiom, thus a quirk rather than a paradigm. What you are actually saying is: "I am [a] tall/happy [person]." Logically, the subject and object of the sentence are identical, hence don't need to be mentioned twice.

The modern grammatical analysis of "I am X" is that X is a predicative expression — a clause which expresses a property of a noun (in this case the subject "I"). Predicative expressions can take several forms: they can be adjectives ("I am tall"), nouns ("I am a walrus"), prepositional clauses ("I am in trouble"), but they can't be adverbs like "happily".

This analysis seems more satisfactory than yours because (i) there's no need to invent a missing object (entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily); and (ii) even if you do invent a missing object this can change the meaning: for example "I am right" does not mean the same thing as "I am a right person".

That fails for the same reason as your first case above. In English, tastily is not an adverb that can apply to a state of being.

So, what adverb would be grammatical in "It was ADVERB" as a reply to "How was the meal?" Again, remember that you're the one claiming that sentences of this form are grammatical.

(Tbh, I'm struggling to think of a verb that "tastily" could modify in a meaningful way.)

From Living Like Indians by Allan A. Macfarlan:

One elementary mode of cooking was passed down from the prehistoric Indians to their descendants in all habitats, that of cooking directly on the hot coals and embers of a fire. This simple, non-utensil form of cooking, broiled meats tastily, evenly, and well.

[Gareth Rees]

You come across older (18th/19th century?) examples such as "How was the meal?" "It tasted very well" where now we would say "It tasted very good". I'd say that "well" is an adverb here describing the way the meal tasted and "good" is an adjective describing the meal itself. In practice the meaning is the same in both cases.

I agree with your analysis, but note that they said "It tasted very well" and not "*It was very well".

[L CC]

As a parent who habitually responds with 'is that like safely or actually safely? In what way is it like?' I would happily appropriate that.

My advice to your offspring would be to indicate the ambiguity that results in making every statement a simile by ensuring every sentence is delivered with an interrogative inflection. If they wish to modify emphasis to indicate certainty, just insert the word 'literally' in front of 'like'.

* fboab  removes jo from christmas list.

[Ham]

Isn't it time for a grandma that makes you cringe?

NSFW LINK

http://www.bizarremag.com/tattoos-and-bodyart/tattoos/6666/tattooed_granny.html

(actually while I'm quite glad she wasn't mine, I rather like her)

[red marley]

* fboab  removes jo from christmas list.

I'm literally like whatever?

[citoyen]

If you think sentences of the form "I am ADVERB" are grammatical, then you should be able to illustrate it with examples (other than the ones we are disputing, of course).

"I am poorly."

I'm making a distinction between grammatical and meaningful that relies on a definition of grammatical that roughly equates to "logically valid". But yeah, I know that's not how language works in practice.

The modern grammatical analysis of "I am X" is that X is a predicative expression — a clause which expresses a property of a noun (in this case the subject "I"). Predicative expressions can take several forms: they can be adjectives ("I am tall"), nouns ("I am a walrus"), prepositional clauses ("I am in trouble"), but they can't be adverbs like "happily".

OK, that works for me.

(Tbh, I'm struggling to think of a verb that "tastily" could modify in a meaningful way.)

From Living Like Indians by Allan A. Macfarlan:

One elementary mode of cooking was passed down from the prehistoric Indians to their descendants in all habitats, that of cooking directly on the hot coals and embers of a fire. This simple, non-utensil form of cooking, broiled meats tastily, evenly, and well.

OK, that'll do, thanks - the reason I couldn't think of one was because I tend to think of tastiness as a quality of eating, not of cooking, but the example makes a kind of sense.

[citoyen]

Isn't it time for a grandma that makes you cringe?

I think that link needs an NSFW warning, Ham!

(Or even an NSFE warning - not safe for eyes!)

[Ham]

Sorry - you're right - fixed

[Tim Hall]

Have we done "can I get a tall skinny latte?"?  No, you can't, you're not allowed behind the counter. "I'd like a tall skinny latte please" is much nicer.

[clarion]

* fboab  removes jo from christmas list.

I'm literally like whatever?

Did you forget to add 'innit'? 

[Gareth Rees]

Have we done "can I get a tall skinny latte?"?  No, you can't, you're not allowed behind the counter.

Similarly,
"What grade did I get?" "You can't get a grade, you're not the examiner."
"Did you get a reply to your letter?" "I can't get a reply, I'm not the correspondent."

[Gareth Rees]

My dictionary includes to receive as one definition of get and uses I got a letter from my fiancé as the example sentence. If the examiner (or the marker) gives a grade then you receive or get a grade. Likewise, if you receive a reply it could be said that you get (or got) a reply.

So, if the barista makes you a latte, it could be said that you get a latte?

[Tim Hall]

Harrumph.  I think Gareth was gently pointing out where my original statement was wrong.

I'll not get upset about it.

[T42]

Harrumph.  I think Gareth was gently pointing out where my original statement was wrong.

I'll not get upset about it.

I didn't think it was wrong. Certainly, unless you have very long arms you can't get a latte from the only side of the counter you're allowed on.

However, the can I get construction used is a mixture of the confusion between can and may (which probably owes something to may sounding weaker than can) and an American usage of get, which probably in turn derives from German usage (immigrants had it dinned into them that ich bekomme does not mean I become but I get, in its easiest form, so the German ich bekomme einen Kaffee was most easily translated as I get a coffee, and passed from there into Murkan before leaking into English.)

[Ian H]

I didn't question Gareth's comment on the latte as I agreed with it. I was just advertising my ignorance by not understanding his two other examples using the word get. Time for bed, I think.

Yes. Get to bed.

[Ian H]

Do you have fine, limp, breaking hair?
With advice, help and support we can improve it
Call for an appointment

[Gareth Rees]

I didn't think it was wrong. Certainly, unless you have very long arms you can't get a latte from the only side of the counter you're allowed on.

Similarly, unless you have very long arms, you can't get a reply to a letter, right?

To be completely clear, one of the many meanings of get, one that is found in every good dictionary, is "to receive". This is sense 10a in the OED. It's perfectly standard English to get a grade, a letter, a tip, an answer, a reward, a gift. And if you can get all of these things, surely you can get a coffee? To complain about "can I get a latte?" on the grounds that the speaker's arms are not long enough, seems to me to show such wilful misunderstanding that I doubt it can be sincere. How can you call yourself a fluent English speaker if you have such trouble with this very minor ambiguity?

[T42]

I didn't think it was wrong. Certainly, unless you have very long arms you can't get a latte from the only side of the counter you're allowed on.

Similarly, unless you have very long arms, you can't get a reply to a letter, right?

To be completely clear, one of the many meanings of get, one that is found in every good dictionary, is "to receive". This is sense 10a in the OED. It's perfectly standard English to get a grade, a letter, a tip, an answer, a reward, a gift. And if you can get all of these things, surely you can get a coffee? To complain about "can I get a latte?" on the grounds that the speaker's arms are not long enough, seems to me to show such wilful misunderstanding that I doubt it can be sincere. How can you call yourself a fluent English speaker if you have such trouble with this very minor ambiguity?

Tut tut, dear chap, let us not descend to the personal.  I'm very much aware of the manifold meanings of get, verb as well as noun (which latter are not all scurrilous).

There is in fact no real problem in the instance given. The barista wilfully understands can meaning may as can meaning am I able to (i.e. he takes it literally) and get meaning receive as get meaning prepare.  The customer means one thing, the barista chooses to interpret his request differently - and indeed, more closely to the English we were taught at school, although we were taught to avoid get whenever possible as being inelegant.

Personally, I dislike the usage of get in this context. I would tend to use I would like or could I have: but then, I learned English before such Americanisms as can I get were imported.

[Gareth Rees]

I'm very much aware of the manifold meanings of get ... There is in fact no real problem in the instance given.

Then what did you mean by, "unless you have very long arms you can't get a latte"?