Would any of you use the correct term "vaster", or the more colloquial "more vast" in a sentence. Although I know the the correct term, I find myself unable to put "vaster" down on a page, as it just strikes me as implausible.
Since I know everyone is likely to pick this to death, here's the preliminary draft of the sentence:
The world was not only more vast than they'd previously suspected, but it was more developed, with few wild, undeveloped areas.
CW,
I'd drop to a lesser value word if I was writing that. I try to limit the two to ten dollar words in a story. Go with something like greater breadth or much larger or more diverse type phrase would be easier for the readers.
I don't think I would have a problem writing "vaster," but in you sentence I'd go with "more vast" because of the parallel with "more developed."
I don't think I would have a problem writing "vaster," but in you sentence I'd go with "more vast" because of the parallel with "more developed."
Yeah, there's no such word as "developeder"!
Ernest, while "vast" (is that a two-dollar word) may not be as familiar to many, "greater breadth" or "much larger" runs into the same dilemma, as they seem to make the sentence more complex, rather than simplifying it. (ex: "The world not only had a greater breadth", just doesn't cut it.) Still, I'll consider alternatives if I have to worry about some readers scratching their heads over "vast" while others fret over my use of "more vast".
Ernest, while "vast" (is that a two-dollar word) may not be as familiar to many, "greater breadth" or "much larger" runs into the same dilemma, as they seem to make the sentence more complex, rather than simplifying it.
vast is one of those $2 words that isn't used much, and it's likely to have people stopping to work out what is meant. while breadth and large or larger of bigger will be more readily recognised by the readers.
edit to add; I don't see this as to what is the most correct English word, as what is the most recognised phrase.
I would never at all have thought of vast as anything other than a normal everyday word. It's in the description on Disney for their movie Moana, even!
I would never at all have thought of vast as anything other than a normal everyday word. It's in the description on Disney for their movie Moana, even!
This is a frequent topic of discussion in literary circles, as most traditional publishers (and their agents and most professional editors) strongly suggest never writing anything that's based on a higher than fifth-grade education.
"Vast" is a well-recognized word. It's just not commonly used, which is ... vastly different (as opposed to "more broadly"). 'D
If it's good enough for Disney—a company that markets to children—to use in their marketing material, it's good enough to be used in literature aiming at adults.
"Vast" is a well-recognized word. It's just not commonly used
Well, yeah, the scope implied is so large, that there aren't that many opportunities to use it. However, if it applies well in context (space is vast) then I wouldn't hesitate to use it.
The biggest problem is some people use it where it doesn't apply well, and they come off as sounding overly grandiose.
I think 'vast' is the best word choice to make. thesaurus.com lists 45 possible alternatives, and none sound right to me in your sentence.
I also see no reason to consider not using it on the grounds it may not be recognised by some readers.
* *
I would probably revise your sentence to avoid repeating 'developed' in the second part. I suggest, "..., with less wild, undeveloped areas than they had anticipated/expected."
EDIT TO ADD: You might prefer 'fewer' to 'less' in my suggested rewrite. CMOS insists 'less' is incorrect with a plural noun such as 'areas'.
* *
If you do go with 'more' in the second phrase, then SB is correct that you should prefer the parallel structure 'more vast' in the first part of the sentence too.
* *
I would dispute your classification of 'vaster' as "correct". I don't think I would consider any '...-er' form of a comparative adjective as being "correct". I would only ever consider them to be a valid alternative to the 'more ...' form.
I checked in dictionary.com and it dost list 'vaster' as valid/correct. Also, none of the long list of conditions in CMOS for when the '-er' form is not valid apply to the word 'vast'.
BUT, I hate the sound of 'vaster'. It just feels unnatural to me. I cannot imagine any native speaker not choosing to say 'more vast'.
I don't think I would consider any '...-er' form of a comparative adjective as being "correct". I would only ever consider them to be a valid alternative to the 'more ...' form.
Which is why the South Park movie has in its title "More Big" and "More Long"?
Which is why the South Park movie has in its title "More Big" and "More Long"?
OKAY, you got me.
There are some common adjectives for which only the '-er' form sounds natural.
Which is why the South Park movie has in its title "More Big" and "More Long"?
South Park...enough said.
It was the first title I could think of that used an -er comparative form of an adjective. :shrug:
I would dispute your classification of 'vaster' as "correct". I don't think I would consider any '...-er' form of a comparative adjective as being "correct".
I guess that's another occurrence where you need to be a native English speaker. 'More vast' sounds wrong to my non-native englich ear, whereas 'vaster' sounds correct. The same as stranger, deeper, fuller, prettier, faster, slower, quieter, louder, smarter, dumber, lower, higher, wider, narrower, wetter, dryer, taller, shorter ...
I guess that's another occurrence where you need to be a native English speaker.
I am not saying I think 'vaster' is wrong. There may be some contexts in which is does sound okay to me.
In this case, CW had the feeling than it just did not sound right in his sentence, but he could not see any reason why.
My opinion was there is no reason, but I agreed 'more vast' sounded much better.
I agree with your long list of adjectives too. I would generally use the '-er' form for all of them.
I am not saying I think 'vaster' is wrong. There may be some contexts in which is does sound okay to me.
My comment wasn't aimed especially at you. I just had to vent some general frustration. As a foreigner you learn something like:
For short adjectives (with one syllable or two syllables ending in -y or -le) and one-syllable adverbs, add the ending -er for the comparative and -est for the superlative.
But then the natives come along and tell you 'more vast' sounds much better than 'vaster'.
But then the natives come along and tell you 'more vast' sounds much better than 'vaster'.
It's context specific due to being place with another adjective that never takes the -er form.
It just sounds disharmonious to have an -er adjective paired with a more - adjective.
It sounds better to have both in the same form.
It's context specific due to being place with another adjective that never takes the -er form.
It just sounds disharmonious to have an -er adjective paired with a more - adjective.
It sounds better to have both in the same form.
I'M CURIOUS.
I definitely got it wrong above. My gut reaction was about 6 out of 7 people would always prefer 'more vast', but it is now clear that I am among the only 1 in 7 who do that.
Would you clarify what you meant with what I quoted above.
CW's original sentence was:
The world was not only more vast than they'd previously suspected, but it was more developed, with few wild, undeveloped areas.
Are you saying 'more vast' sounds better in that sentence because the comparison is being made with 'suspected' (which as a participle of a verb never takes the -er form)?
Are you saying 'more vast' sounds better in that sentence because the comparison is being made with 'suspected'
No, it has nothing to do with suspected.
You have three major adjectives in that sentence.
More Vast
More Developed
Few, wild, undeveloped.
Having the adjectives all in the same form, the sentence flows smoothly.
Change it to:
Vaster
More Developed
Fewer, wild undeveloped
and it makes the sentence jarring and disharmonious.
In the second iteration He changes to
More vast
fewer, wild undeveloped.
Again, to me, having the major adjectives in different forms makes the sentence jarring and disharmonious.
Again, to me, having the major adjectives in different forms makes the sentence jarring and disharmonious.
Just to test it out, I tried making the various adjectives consistent:
The world was not only vaster than they suspected, it was packed tightly with congested buildings, with few wild, undeveloped forests.
Sorry, but "vaster" doesn't sound any better in that context. Again, I'm not sure why, but something just ain't kosher with that set up!
Sorry, but "vaster" doesn't sound any better in that context.
Because you didn't make the adjectives consistent.
You switched more vast for vaster, but then swapped out fewer for few.
Consistent adjectives for the second draft would be:
The world was not only vaster than they suspected, it was packed tightly with congested buildings, with fewer wild, undeveloped forests.
Consistent adjectives for the second draft would be:
The world was not only vaster than they suspected, it was packed tightly with congested buildings, with fewer wild, undeveloped forests.
You're right, In that context, "vaster" does sound more natural. However, I still prefer "more vast" for some unexplained reason, once you account for the inconsistent adjectives.
So I still don't understand why I revolt at the prospect of using "vaster", even though I would use the term, "these plains seems vaster than those they'd just viewed". Any theories on why? Maybe it's the comparison (the contrast in the first one wasn't a direct comparison).
Any theories on why?
My only explanation is the more wordy form sounds better for describing something so large.
Perhaps 'more' is one of my "darlings"? I read my first draft of this post and decided 'more wordy' sounded better than 'wordier'.
My only explanation is the more wordy form sounds better for describing something so large.
Perhaps 'more' is one of my "darlings"? I read my first draft of this post and decided 'more wordy' sounded better than 'wordier'.
I concur (that's a three-dollar word if I've ever heard one), as that was my first theory on the subject, that "vast" seemed like a limitless adjective (ex: "the vast expanse of space"). If you are directly comparing two different things, than "vaster" (such as vistas) seems perfectly appropriate.
Maybe we should limit the Google analysis to science fiction novels, rather than all published books?
Any theories on why?
Nope, I have no theories about the inside of your head. :)
For me, I don't have any problem with either vaster, or more vast in general terms.
I just find sentences with -er adjectives against more - adjectives jarring and disharmonious.
It's an ascetics thing, and I doubt I could explain it even to my self.
It's an ascetics thing, and I doubt I could explain it even to my self.
In my case, they fit easily into an objective scale:
Most objectionable:
1) contrasting adjectives (-er vs more adjectives)
2) using -er with limitless adjectives (a "bigger" infinity!)
3) using -er in comparisons between different things (minor annoyance, but certainly nothing to stop me from doing it).
Sorry, but "vaster" doesn't sound any better in that context. Again, I'm not sure why, but something just ain't kosher with that set up!
Sorry, but I think our two ears are in a distinct minority here.
What would you choose if you left out the second part of the sentence?
(a) The world was vaster than they suspected.
(b) The world was more vast than they suspected.
I would choose (b) without any hesitation: the sound of (a) makes my skin crawl.
But apparently, six out of seven people would choose (a).
Sorry, but I think our two ears are in a distinct minority here.
What would you choose if you left out the second part of the sentence?
(a) The world was vaster than they suspected.
(b) The world was more vast than they suspected.
I would choose (b) without any hesitation: the sound of (a) makes my skin crawl.
But apparently, six out of seven people would choose (a).
Not necessarily. The Google search simply pointed out that "vaster" (in ALL contexts) is more common than "more vast". But that doesn't take context into account. This may just be the right context, for whatever reason.
I provided an example where I'd have no problem using "vaster", though I qualified it by saying I was more comfortable with "more vast", which is definitely a personal opinion, since I see nothing wrong with either one.
No, it has nothing to do with suspected.
Understood.
SB and I both used the expression 'parallel' structure, but we meant exactly the same point you are making. :-)
But then the natives come along and tell you 'more vast' sounds much better than 'vaster'.
Not all of us agree that 'more vast' sounds better than 'vaster'.
'Vaster' is a valid word. I recall a thread not too long ago in which many posters kept saying an Author should delete unnecessary words. Back then the posters were saying things like - don't use two (or more) words when one will suffice and brevity is better for there is less possibility of confusion.
Now 'more vast' may sound better to some people than 'vaster', but they mean the same thing and some of us feel 'vaster' sounds as good if not better than 'more vast'. I personally favor 'vaster' for 'more vast' seems pretentious to me.
Furthermore when I encounter something like 'more vast', I tend to stop and consider the relative vastness of the two items. The problem with that is it takes me out of the story. For whatever reason, when I encounter 'vaster', it seems like the Author is making a statement of fact that I can accept without further thought. In other words, 'more vast' causes me to pause and think, whereas 'vaster' results in immediate acceptance.
Back then the posters were saying things like - don't use two (or more) words when one will suffice and brevity is better for there is less possibility of confusion.
Not quite. If you've ever read anything that I've ever written (fiction, blogs or just mouthing off) you'll realize that I'm not one for brevity. I typically write very complex sentences, expressing very complex concepts.
Instead, the argument was that there are 'filler' (and related similar types) of words/phrases that add little to a sentence and merely add more words (like "that", "just", and "then") without adding any additional value to a sentence.
A prime example are sentences where you continually restate the subject (ex: "I drove Jack to school, I drove him to practice, and then I brought him home"). By cutting those 'filler' phrases that add no additional information to a sentence, you make otherwise complex sentences easier to read. (In the previous example, by only specifying the subject once, it shortens to "I drove Jack to school and practice before returning home").
In this latest discussion, my issue wasn't subtracting or adding words, instead I felt that something didn't seem 'right' about "vaster". After some analysis, I decided the subject described an infinite amount. In that single case, "vaster" didn't seem to fit. Instead "more vast" seemed more fitting.
As always whenever we have these discussions, NO ONE is dictating how YOU should write your own stories. You can write them however you want. Instead, we're simply trying to figure out what works, what doesn't, and why some things seem to work while others don't work quite as well.
All that said, if "more vast" yanks you out of the sentence, that IS a serious consideration, which deserves to be addressed.
The problem, whenever anyone suggests something, wanting to discuss it, we immediately break into competing camps, with the same people largely agreeing with one idea, another group taking another position, and a third group rejecting the entire discussion out of hand. Thus, while I get some decent feedback in the first handful of comments, there's truly little decent feedback after that.
If you pointed out that "more vast" takes you out of the story initially, instead of waiting until we'd hit 50+ posts in a day and a half, we'd be much further along. But even then, without any understanding of WHY it throws you out of the story, I'm left with a simple opinion which runs counter to every other voice.
As much as you all deride Ross, he at least tries to justify his positions, searching for WHY one version works, rather than simply saying "No how, no way, end of discussion!"
As much as you all deride Ross, he at least tries to justify his positions, searching for WHY one version works
THANK YOU.
And as I always try to do, but few others here ever will, I said so when I changed my opinion because of points others raise during a discussion.
My initial thought was few people would ever prefer 'vaster' over 'more vast'. That was totally wrong. The evidence showed most people usually people 'vaster'.
But I was still intrigued by CW's original question. There is something about his sentence which tends to suggest 'most vast' would be better. I think it is related to extra words sounding more natural when talking about something of almost limitless scope.
As for REP's post. I originally resisted the temptation to point out the vast hole in his argument, but I will now after being dragged into the discussion. If others care to examine that post they can see much of his argument is based on the assumption both expressions are exactly the same, but he then says they are not.
A prime example are sentences where you continually restate the subject (ex: "I drove Jack to school, I drove him to practice, and then I brought him home"). By cutting those 'filler' phrases that add no additional information to a sentence, you make otherwise complex sentences easier to read. (In the previous example, by only specifying the subject once, it shortens to "I drove Jack to school and practice before returning home").
Your shortened sentence does not contain the same information as the original.
The original sentence clearly states you brought him (Jack) home.
The shortened sentence is ambiguous. It can mean you left him there and you returned home without Jack.
BTW, even the original sentence doesn't really describe what you did. Did you stay there and wait or did you leave and later came back?
HM.
Your shortened sentence does not contain the same information as the original.
You are correct that the example sentence CW wrote fails to show the point he was trying to demonstrate.
How about this? I see examples of sentences like this here quite frequently, including by some high-scoring and respected authors:
I drove to the mall and did some shopping for clothes and then I returned home.
For something as mundane as that I would almost certainly write:
I drove to the mall, shopped for clothes, and returned home.
* *
If some here prefer to write with the first style, I don't care. When I see things like that too often I simply find another author to read.
I know there's no point in trying to explain to them why I find their style so loathsome.
But I share CW's frustration with some "debates" on these forums. For those who believe the second style is better - and are not telling others they should use it too - why cannot others leave us in peace to discuss the mechanics of using our preferred style?
Why is it with some issues, if we fail to say every second sentence that we know some others do not agree with our philosophy, the same people always jump up whenever those issues are mentioned to say they do not agree with that opinion? We already know that is their opinion; they already know we already know that is their opinion; why must they always say it?
I ask some here to ask themselves: what purpose do you think you are serving by never allowing others to express opinions you do not share without you jumping in, yet again, to state you have a contrary opinion?
I suggest for some the honest answer to that is: nothing more than stroking my fragile ego.
'Fragile egos' aside, I also would favorite
I drove to the mall, shopped for clothes, and returned home.
rather than,
I drove to the mall and did some shopping for clothes and then I returned home.
OTAH, tasked as an editor I would suggest:
I drove to the mall, did some shopping for clothes and then returned home.
It's a less intruding change of the original sentence.
tasked as an editor I would suggest ...
Tasked as an editor I follow whatever explicit agreements I have made with the author concerned.
I always have agreements with authors that my "changes" are only ever suggestions. I suggest what I think is best for their style of writing, but which they choose to accept is their responsibility.
I think that works better than editors attempting to second guess an author's opinions.
I think that works better than editors attempting to second guess an author's opinions.
It's not about guessing anything, it's about reserved changes, no matter whether your suggestion might be preferred by a vast majority of readers and authors. That an editor only 'suggests' doesn't need to be mentioned, it's a given.
it's about reserved changes
I'm not sure what you mean. I think that is showing restraint in the changes I suggest.
The restraint I try to show is looking for what I think is best - for their style of writing and any explicit instructions they've given to me.
I cannot see how not suggesting what I think is best can end up as anything other that guessing what the author's opinion will be, nor why allowing an author to choose between options will not work out better.
My comment was in no way meant as a critique on your work as an editor, which I hardly know. I simply used the examples you cited in your post to illustrate that there isn't only one good or bad decision possible.
I drove to the mall and did some shopping for clothes and then I returned home.
Is obviously a sentence in need of changes. But this change is more than I'd like as a suggestion from an editor:
I drove to the mall, shopped for clothes, and returned home.
So I cited what I think is a lesser intrusion regarding the original, but still a large improvement.
I drove to the mall, did some shopping for clothes and then returned home.
That's all; no hidden agenda, no snide remarks, no try to shut any kind of discussion down or whatever else some might suspect.
That's all; no ...
That is all I took it to be. No problems from me with you stating those opinions.
I was curious about what you expect from an editor and could not work in the way you suggest.
For those who believe the second style is better - and are not telling others they should use it too - why cannot others leave us in peace to discuss the mechanics of using our preferred style?
Proponents of either style (and I believe both have their place), should be very wary about zealots who are in a position to impose their views upon novice writers as if they're established fact.
If the discussion is in open forum, then it's correct and proper that it's open to scrutiny by all.
AJ
should be very wary about zealots who are in a position to impose their views upon novice writers as if they're established fact.
I agree with that, and accept that at times the honest answer some could have given to my question above was: I am not merely stroking my ego here; I deem this necessary to counter someone else being overly zealous.
If I thought that was common I would not have made my previous comments.
To start with CW, my post was a response to Robberhands. Since you apparently choose to take my comments personally, I will address your comments.
I have read a number of your stories and the complexity of your sentences has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I decided to use the word 'unnecessary' instead of 'filler'. What you said about the prior conversation is true and I do understand that aspect of the discussion. But there was more to the discussion than what you choose to comment on. You may also want to note that you defined that thread as an 'argument' and that means some of the posters had differing opinions and/or interpretations of the subject. In presenting their opinions, the 'argument' addressed more than just your 'filler' words.
Just because you were the OP does not mean you have the right to control what others choose to say in this or any other thread. Your 'issue' may not have been about subtracting or adding words, but I decided to comment on the use of 2 words when 1 would suffice. If you don't like my making that observation then that is your problem.
Your analysis is meaningless to me without my understanding the basis of the analysis and the results. As far as I know, you flipped a coin.
You used the phrases 'I felt', 'I decided', and 'seemed more fitting' in your post. To me, these phrases indicate that your opinion of 'more vast' being better than 'vaster' is a subjective opinion (i.e., a personal preference). Here's my opinion on the matter:
'Vast' indicates a large amount of something. 'More vast' and 'vaster' are both used to indicate that a comparison is being made between two somethings and one of them is larger than the other.
Your comment about analyzing the "subject" is ambiguous. What subject? The only thing in this thread that seems to qualify as your "subject" would be your sentence:
The world was not only more vast than they'd previously suspected, but it was more developed, with few wild, undeveloped areas.
In my opinion, worlds are very large but they are not infinite. Thus 'more vast' means bigger, not infinite. In fact, I can't think of any usage of 'more vast' that would qualify as infinite.
As always whenever we have these discussions, NO ONE is dictating how YOU should write your own stories.
I never thought that anyone was telling me how to write my stories, CW. You seem to use that basic comment with others frequently when they object to your telling them how to write their stories. Have you ever noticed the number of times you use examples of how you write your stories to illustrate your opinion of how the subject being discussed should be done. Personally, I consider that practice to be you telling people how to write their stories.
The problem, whenever anyone suggests something, wanting to discuss it, we immediately break into competing camps, ...
So what!
People expressing different views of a topic is the nature of such a discussion. The purpose of discussing a topic is not about us providing you with information. We all know you have relatively fixed opinions on most topics and reject almost everything that deviates from what you believe is correct. The point of the discussion is to share ideas and thoughts. In this Forum, discussions are typically done in a confrontational manner, but as I said so what; the ideas get shared.
If you pointed out that "more vast" takes you out of the story initially, instead of waiting until we'd hit 50+ posts in a day and a half, we'd be much further along.
If the only thing I had to do in a day was to sit here at my computer and read Forum posts, I would have contributed my post earlier. Since I had other things to do that day and evening, I didn't see Robberhands' remark until almost a day after it had been made. If I recall, you commented on more than one occasion about having the same problem with making late responses, so get off your High Horse.
But even then, without any understanding of WHY it throws you out of the story, I'm left with a simple opinion which runs counter to every other voice
Evidently, you failed to recognize my defining what takes me out of the story. I said:
Furthermore when I encounter something like 'more vast', I tend to stop and consider the relative vastness of the two items. The problem with that is it takes me out of the story.
Which part of 'stop and consider' was not clear. When a reader stops to consider what an Author said in a passage, they are no longer immersed in the flow of the text.
As much as you all deride Ross, he at least tries to justify his positions, searching for WHY one version works, rather than simply saying "No how, no way, end of discussion!"
Based on my recollection, people disagree with what he says – they don't deride him.
We don't say "No how, no way, end of discussion!" If we did, there would be a tenth or fewer posts in the threads. That may be your assessment of the overall result of having the discussion. Just because you believe you are right, doesn't mean we all have to agree with you. Many of us don't agree with what you believe. Your expressing your opinions as facts doesn't mean we have accept your opinion as fact, just because you phrased it that way.
I recall a thread not too long ago in which many posters kept saying an Author should delete unnecessary words.
I will admit to not being one of them.
I like to consider speed and cadence. IMO, the sentence CW is mulling over should be a slow one, so in this context I'd vote for the two words of 'more vast', even though 'vaster' is the same number of syllables.
AJ
Now 'more vast' may sound better to some people than 'vaster', but they mean the same thing and some of us feel 'vaster' sounds as good if not better than 'more vast'. I personally favor 'vaster' for 'more vast' seems pretentious to me.
Whist "vaster" would normally seem proper, IN THIS CASE I feel "more vast" is better because it ties in with the later "more developed". To me it reads that CW is giving a feeling of the superlative
I cannot think of a single word meaning "more developed" but if there is one it should be used with "vaster".
more developed
develop
image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.80/images/dictionaries/websters5.jpg
to cause to grow gradually in some way to build up or expand (a business, industry, etc.) to make stronger or more effective; strengthen (muscles) to bring (something latent or hypothetical) into activity or reality to cause (one's personality, a bud, etc.) to unfold or evolve gradually to make (housing, highways, etc.) more available or extensive
CHESS
to position (chessmen or a chessman) strategically in the early stages of a game
MUSIC
to elaborate (a theme) as by rhythmic or melodic changes
PHOTOG.
to immerse (an exposed film, plate, or printing paper) in various chemical solutions in order to make the picture visible
to make (a picture) visible by doing this
to show or work out by degrees to make (a theme or plot) known gradually to explain more clearly; enlarge upon
GEOM.
to change the form of (a surface); esp., to flatten out (a curved surface)
MATH.
to work out in detail or expand (a function or expression)
Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/develop#VdiWjRXxRwI02rEB.99
For photo development, more developed may be "overexposed".
to cause to grow gradually in some way to build up or expand (a business, industry, etc.) to make stronger or more effective; to unfold or evolve gradually to make (housing, highways, etc.) more available or extensive
I suggest that this is the use that CW intends.
However I read the original sentence as meaning that before arrival the MC had a specific impression of the place but when he/she arrived he/she found that it was ........... The "more" in each place indicates a comparison with and correction to the MC's previous belief
IN THIS CASE I feel "more vast" is better because it ties in with the later "more developed".
There is a lot to say in support of parallelism. However 'vast' is being used in the context of size and 'developed' is used in the context of advanced. So going with parallelism may not be appropriate.
I think it is what we are each comfortable with hearing and saying.
I guess that's another occurrence where you need to be a native English speaker.
According to CMOS (5.84 and 5.86) this geta very arbirary. :(
The general rule is one-syllable and some two-syllable adjectives 'take' the suffix -er, but most of those can also take 'more'.
(But CMOS lists real, right, and wrong as among some one-syllable adjectives that do not -er; and Geek of Ages pointed out that big and long are one-syllable adjectives than do not take 'more'.)
For two-syllable adjectives, most do not take -er, but those ending in ‑er, ‑le, ‑ow, ‑ure, or ‑y generally do.
(But CMOS lists eager, proper, and somber as two-syllable adjectives ending in -er that do not take -er.)
Note that prefixes such as -un are not counted when deciding whether an adjective is too long to take -er.
So, yeah. Welcome to our nightmare.
So, yeah. Welcome to our nightmare.
Yes, thank you very much! All the more, because it's a self-induced nightmare, which you so generously offer to share with the rest of the world.
(But CMOS lists eager, proper, and somber as two-syllable adjectives ending in -er that do not take -er.)
"Properer"? "Eagerer?" There's a good reason for not using an "-er" ending for those words!
"Properer"? "Eagerer?" There's a good reason for not using an "-er" ending for those words!
That is what CMOS said and I was repeating. "Do not take '-er' " meant you cannot form properer or eagerer.
Or were suggesting the "good reason" was you should not add a second '-er' to adjectives already ending in '-er'?
The Ox. Dict. & dict.com both say all of these are valid: cleverer, slenderer, tenderer.
The Ox. Dict. & dict.com both say all of these are valid: cleverer, slenderer, tenderer.
How about "tendereriser"? I can smell the A1 television ads now. 'D
I consider that unclevererish. :-)
Does that mean we can continue the discussion, since the final 'deadly pun' has yet to be issued, and no one has yet mentioned the dreaded N-word?
Does that mean we can continue the discussion
I've had enough ... Bring on the puns, Richard!
I probably would use, "This is vaster than that," but that is about it.
I guess I'm the freakiest of all on this one.
But CMOS lists real, right, and wrong as among some one-syllable adjectives that do not -er
Oh no, a certain superhero who's a 'righter of wrongs' has fallen foul of the grammar nazis :(
AJ
Oh no, a certain superhero who's a 'righter of wrongs' has fallen foul of the grammar nazis :(
The serious answer to your joke is that '-er' cannot be added to the adjective 'right' to create a comparative adjective; it can be added to the verb 'right' to create a noun meaning one who rights things.
Since you're in mansplaining mode, I'd be interested in your take on something I've been pondering. I wanted a word meaning 'in a kindly way' and, almost without thinking, I typed in kindlyly. A quick check found that didn't exist in any of the main dictionaries so I replaced it. But, IIRC, there are one or two few words ending in lyly which are effectively 'double adverbs', aren't there? However I can't remember any off the top of my head :(
AJ
...there are one or two few words ending in lyly which are effectively 'double adverbs', aren't there?
I seriously hope you just didn't get enough sleep and day dreamed that.
I seriously hope you just didn't get enough sleep and day dreamed that.
I guess you're hoping that Ross fails in his appointed mission ;)
AJ
I wanted a word meaning 'in a kindly way' and, almost without thinking, I typed in kindlyly. A quick check found that didn't exist in any of the main dictionaries so I replaced it.
Why don't you just use "kindly"? How is "kindlyly" any more kindly than plain kindly? I'm not sure I see the distinction you're trying to achieve. Are you suggesting that someone's kindliness isn't authentic, and that your -ly addition is a type of literary air-quotes around it?
Why don't you just use "kindly"?
Because I was thinking of it in its adjectival form and creating its related adverb in the usual way.
As I said, I replaced it with something else.
AJ
But, IIRC, there are one or two few words ending in lyly which are effectively 'double adverbs', aren't there? However I can't remember any off the top of my head :(
I cannot handily think of an example.
I wanted a word meaning 'in a kindly way' and, almost without thinking, I typed in kindlyly ...
But, IIRC, there are one or two few words ending in lyly which are effectively 'double adverbs', aren't there?
I had no idea what you were on about when I read your post, but I did a little research.
* *
I make NO PROMISES about the following comments. Use them at your own peril!
You get a multitude of sites if you try an internet search for 'words ending lyly', etc. Scrabble players use them.
* *
The only example I found which I consider valid is 'slyly'.
However there are quite a lot of words ending in 'lily' which derived from words ending in -ly being turned into adverbs.
I think 'sly' is different because it is the only one-syllable base word, and where 'li' appears in a word affects its pronunciation.
* *
I can find no evidence of an expression 'double adverbs' meaning anything like what you're thinking of. I found something which I would call 'repeated adverbs' instead. They are something I consider are usually very, very naughty.
* *
The -lyly or -lily words I found appear to be mostly adjectives (probably some nouns and verbs) ending in -ly, with another -ly added to create an adverb.
* *
It is possible that 'kindly' is something of an exception.
I know of a few words where the base word is an adjective, the base word plus -ly is an adverb, but there are ways in which the base word is also an adverb. One example is that both 'slowly' and 'slow' can be used as adverbs.
The base word 'kind' seems to do the reverse of that. The base word is still an adjective, the base word plus -ly is still an adverb, but the base word plus -ly is also an adjective.
* *
In my opinion, the adverbial form you should use from the adjective 'kindly' is 'kindly'. 'Graciously' and 'tenderly' seem like possible alternatives.
I think 'sly' is different because it is the only one-syllable base word, and where 'li' appears in a word affects its pronunciation.
So, 'slily' would look like both a silly mistake and a mistaken 'silly'.
Thanks for looking.
However there are quite a lot of words ending in 'lily' which derived from words ending in -ly being turned into adverbs.
I suspect that an adverb used as an adjective and then converted back to an adverb might be what I'm half-remembering.
I'll keep thinking about it. Perhaps it's still there somewhere, buried deep in one of my few remaining unrotted braincells.
AJ
In my opinion, the adverbial form you should use from the adjective 'kindly' is 'kindly'. 'Graciously' and 'tenderly' seem like possible alternatives.
Ha-ha. "kindly" sounds like Telling, whereas "graciously" and "tenderly" are (marginally) showing verbs. In the first, you're telling readers how the character is acting. With the other two, you're describing why they fit into that category.
Note: Never attempt to 'show' something in writing with single word solution, as they defeat the entire purpose of the exercise! 'D
Ha-ha. "kindly" sounds like Telling, whereas "graciously" and "tenderly" are (marginally) showing
WHY are you telling me this? ... or showing, I don't care!
1. AJ asked me a question. I answered that question as best I could.
2. Us GNs don't care if stories are good or bad. We just want the grammar to be correct! :-)
No, this is SOL, not FineStories
Maybe, but his attitude better fits a Geriatric Nurse.
Damn Kids! Get off my ward! :)
WHY are you telling me this? ... or showing, I don't care!
The "ha-ha" was a clue. I was teasing about how many of us keep harping on 'showing vs. telling', and purposely misapplied it to a single word choice, just to illustrate how obnoxious those discussion can sometimes be. Instead of enjoying the opportunity to laugh at or along with us, instead you choose to get offended at a joke not directed at you.
If you're offended, I'm sorry, but I'm NOT going to apologize for a misunderstanding of what "ha-ha" means.
I was teasing about how many of us keep harping on 'showing vs. telling'
I was not offended. I was teasing YOU for always harping on about 'showing vs. telling'.
My clue was I do care about whether stories are good or bad.
We both interpreted something literally, again, and neither of us needs to apologize. :-)
I guess that's another occurrence where you need to be a native English speaker. 'More vast' sounds wrong to my non-native englich ear, whereas 'vaster' sounds correct. The same as stranger, deeper, fuller, prettier, faster, slower, quieter, louder, smarter, dumber, lower, higher, wider, narrower, wetter, dryer, taller, shorter ...
I suspect "vaster" sounds wrong because "vast" is used more as an expansive term. If something is "vast", than how can it be "vaster" than "vast"? That's like saying the space on this side of the planet is "vaster" than the space on the other side. If it encompasses all you can see, then how can it be more so (in my example, it's "more vast" then they'd previously encountered). But I'm just guessing as to why it feels wrong.
I would probably revise your sentence to avoid repeating 'developed' in the second part. I suggest, "..., with less wild, undeveloped areas than they had anticipated/expected."
As I mentioned, the sentence was a first draft, but yeah, there's still a LOT I can clean up about it. Just off the cuff, I'd probably go with:
The world was not only more vast than they suspected, it was packed tight with congested buildings, with fewer wild, undeveloped areas than they'd anticipated.
But I wasn't looking for a final revision, just some clue why "vaster" seemed so wrong. (It sounds vaguely like something Trust would say surveying his newest hotel: "That's the vastest expanse of rooms of any hotel ever built!"
The world was not only more vast than they suspected, it was packed tight with congested buildings, with fewer wild, undeveloped areas than they'd anticipated.
This second iteration sill sounds off, pairing more vast with fewer causes the same kind of disharmony as having vaster with more developed.
The world was not only more vast than they suspected, it was packed tight with congested buildings, with fewer wild, undeveloped areas than they'd anticipated.
This second iteration sill sounds off, pairing more vast with fewer causes the same kind of disharmony as having vaster with more developed.
Point taken. I switched it back to my previous "with few wild, undeveloped ..."
However, you'll notice, even without the "more developed", "vaster" still doesn't feel right.
As it turns out, Google has a tool to see what the usage has been over time:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=more+vast%2C+vaster&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmore%20vast%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvaster%3B%2Cc0
Google has a tool to see what the usage has been over time
THANKS.
I better start using it.
I was astonished when I saw that 'vaster' is used more frequently than 'more vast'.
I then thought, "This has to be a British v American thing. That can't be right!"
But the graph for both British and American are almost the same.
Live and learn ... but I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.
I even tried some tests hoping to prove the tool was useless. I tested 'more eager v eagerer', and almost nobody has ever used 'eagerer'. I then tried 'more wrong v wronger'. Apparently 'wronger' was used more often until the 18th Century, and only dropped out of common usage in the 20th Century.
As it turns out, Google has a tool to see what the usage has been over time:
Hmm, quite interesting to try this with various sex words/euphemisms.
For instance, "fuck" is considerably older than I thought it was, going at least back to the early 1600s and was much more popular than "make love", which goes back to the mid 1600s, until fuck fell out of favor in early 1800s. Of course, fuck makes a big comeback in the latter half of the 20th century.
ETA: forgot the link. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fuck%2Cmake+love&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfuck%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmake%20love%3B%2Cc0
For instance, "fuck" is considerably older than I thought it was, going at least back to the early 1600s and was much more popular than "make love", which goes back to the mid 1600s, until fuck fell out of favor in early 1800s. Of course, fuck makes a big comeback in the latter half of the 20th century.
That's easy to comprehend when you factor in the rise of Victorian culture in English society. They frowned on such 'vulgarities', whereas previously people fucking was as common as people throwing shit onto city streets. 'D
That's easy to comprehend when you factor in the rise of Victorian culture in English society.
That it fell out of favor is easy to comprehend. However, before I tried that, I had no idea "fuck" was that old. Silly me, I thought it was more recent.
I had no idea "fuck" was that old.
Basically all of our curse words are old. For various linguistic reasons, they don't mutate and shift as much as common vocabulary does over time.
http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Fuck
Even older is the venerable "cunt":
http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Cunt
Basically all of our curse words are old. For various linguistic reasons, they don't mutate and shift as much as common vocabulary does over time.
Once you have the ideal 4-letter word, why spoil it by making it either softer or adding unnecessary extra letters? Offensive stays offensive, even when society insists on basic civility.
As it turns out, Google has a tool to see what the usage has been over time:
Now that's fascinating, as it flies in the fact of what most of us are saying. Maybe it's the combination with the second "more developed" (an example of the anaphora I was teasing about in anther discussion recently). But beyond that, I'm really not sure why "vaster" seems invalid in this context. Which is the reason why I'm asking. I prefer knowing what I'm doing when I do something counter intuitive.
Vast, Vaster, Vastest. Super, Superior, Supreme. Unique (nothing can be more unique than unique, there can be only one if it is unique).
There aren't a lot of words with two opposites. Light is one of them, with Dark and Heavy. Morning comes close, with afternoon and evening the opposites for the time period and the opposite of wearing dark clothing in sorrow because someone has died might be Joy. Morning may be spelled a little different than Mourning, but it sounds the same to me.
Why don't we say Good aftermidnight? We say Good afternoon. AM is ante-meridie (Spelling?) before noon. PM is post meridie after noon. Forenoon isn't used much. Why say good morning, it sounds like good sorrow because someone died.
Why don't we say Good aftermidnight?
Because most of us are in bed asleep between midnight and dawn. Good aftermidnight.
Because most of us are in bed asleep between midnight and dawn. Good aftermidnight.
I spent almost 10 years of my life NOT doing that. The only redeeming thing about third shift was that I could do school things with my kids if I didn't mind missing sleep.
It was a real Vasterd of a time. (Just to keep it sort of on topic.)
Ahhh... vast, or half-vast. That is the question.
Or -- huge, extensive, expansive, broad, wide, sweeping, boundless, immeasurable, limitless, infinite; enormous, immense, great, massive, colossal, tremendous, mighty, prodigious, gigantic, gargantuan, mammoth, monumental; giant, towering, mountainous, titanic, Brobdingnagian; informal jumbo, mega, monster, whopping, humongous, astronomical, ginormous.
Or perhaps, big?
Ahhh... vast, or half-vast. That is the question.
I thought the question was Bee or two bees. :)
I thought the question was Bee or two bees. :)
You mean a mono-bee (a bee with mono?) or a binary B-tree?
Ahhh... vast, or half-vast. That is the question.
Avast there, me hearties! The puns have started.
AJ
gargantuan
"Gargantuaner", or "more monumental"? Humongouser, or more astronomical? None of these sound correct, because they describe limitless things. That's why, for me at least, I don't like "vaster" unless you're comparing two different things, comparing which is 'closer' to truly being vast.
In the same way, you wouldn't say "more infinite", but you could say "a more expansive infinity". Infinity describes everything that is, but if we compare our current infinity against the one which existed back when the Earth was first created, everyone except Bible thumpers would agree that our current one is much larger than the one back then.
If nothing else, that at least helps explain why we have problems with "vaster" vs. "more vast". It's not a matter of personal preference, it's purely context: what it's describing.
In my example sentence, the initial comparison is indirect, observing how this view is much closer to the truly vast than any city expanse back on Earth. Thus "more vast" seems less obnoxious than "vaster". It's similar to "a more expansive infinity".
That's my rationale, and I'm sticking with it—until someone changes my mind once again. ;D
Infinity describes everything that is, but if we compare our current infinity against the one which existed back when the Earth was first created, everyone except Bible thumpers would agree that our current one is much larger than the one back then.
What? No, not at all. The set of integers has always been countably infinite, as long as the universe has been around. It hasn't gotten any bigger or any smaller in the time since. Same with the set of irrational numbers, or any other of the infinities. Math is constant.
The space-time continuum has gotten "bigger" over time, I'll grant, but not that infinity has. Aleph-null is the same size as it's always been.
The space-time continuum has gotten "bigger" over time, I'll grant, but not that infinity has. Aleph-null is the same size as it's always been.
Alright. I'll concede the point. Replace my reference to "a more expansive universe". Universe still means, everything that exists (unless you accept the multi-verse theories), so my stipulations still apply.
countably infinite
I love that term. I think mathematicians and scientists should invent many more dazzling oxymorons like that. Otherwise some day people might understand what the hell they are talking about.
I love that term. I think mathematicians and scientists should invent many more dazzling oxymorons like that. Otherwise some day people might understand what the hell they are talking about.
We should also point out that, while 'infinity' is a very 'real' thing for mathematicians, the concept doesn't exist at all in reality. It's merely an abstract thought created for the sole purpose of proving a point.
For the rest of us, all 'numeric infinity' means is Don't divide by zero on a calculator!!! It doesn't change the the problem we're trying to solve for. ;D
while 'infinity' is a very 'real' thing for mathematicians, the concept doesn't exist at all in reality
I have a sneaking suspicion that physicists—especially those that dabble in electromagnetics—might disagree.
I have a sneaking suspicion that physicists—especially those that dabble in electromagnetics—might disagree.
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but you'll never get far in physics UNLESS you start with mathematics. Thus you're talking apples and apples. Not all mathematicians are physicists, but all physicists are mathematicians. If not, they could never make sense of anything they study. However, even without mathematics, the universe continues to exist, but you can't say the same thing about mathematics. As they say on The Big Bang Theory: "It has a certain inherent consistency, but it's never been proven to exist in real life."
However, even without mathematics, the universe continues to exist, but you can't say the same thing about mathematics.
I do not agree that a mathematical concept needs to have a tangible reality to exist.
Every time I get on a plane, I rely on the existence of a number mathematicians write as i, which has the value of the square root of minus one. If i does not exist then nobody could know whether the shape of the plane's wings were adequate to keep it in the air.
[E]ven without mathematics, the universe continues to exist, but you can't say the same thing about mathematics
The mathematics of the universe exists regardless of whether or not we have invented notations and terms to describe it. The area under a curve was still F(b) - F(a) long before Leibniz and Newton were even ova and sperm in their parents' nethers.
But yes, I'm well aware that a solid grounding of mathematics is necessary for progressing in physics. The two are deeply intertwined, and frequently developments in one would lead to developments in the other, and vice versa.
I love that term. I think mathematicians and scientists should invent many more dazzling oxymorons like that. Otherwise some day people might understand what the hell they are talking about.
Transfinite numbers are great! Even greater than that! And pretty odd, too.
Otherwise some day people might understand what the hell they are talking about.
That's quite a casual disregard for the field of study that literally underpins the entirety of modern technology. How's about you lay off the snide remarks?
I love that term. I think mathematicians and scientists should invent many more dazzling oxymorons like that.
As something of a leader in my field, I get to make up jargon for new concepts. I never considered using oxymorons. Perhaps it's time I invented a couple ;)
AJ
I work in IT, my industry is full of oxymoronic jargon.
Artificial Intelligence
Help Desk
To name just two.
I work in IT, my industry is full of oxymoronic jargon.
Artificial Intelligence
Help Desk
To name just two.
IMO this forum would be improved by a facility to demonstrate having read and enjoyed a post but without having to clutter up the thread by making an unnecessary reply. Perhaps a thumbs-up?
AJ
IMO this forum would be improved by a facility to demonstrate having read and enjoyed a post but without having to clutter up the thread by making an unnecessary reply.
Stick->Mud :-P
As something of a leader in my field, I get to make up jargon for new concepts. I never considered using oxymorons. Perhaps it's time I invented a couple ;)
How about: "literary rules", or even "literary common sense"?
"Scientific Jargon"? It doesn't involve any regional phrasing at all, it mostly consists of Greek and Latin dead-language roots which are only meaningful to fellow scientists—who never live together in their own society, and thus don't qualify as a distinct 'community' (other than working on the same collage campuses).
There's only one CMOS that's of importance, especially to anyone using a computer, and that's this one here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMOS
Would any of you use the correct term "vaster", or the more colloquial "more vast" in a sentence. Although I know the the correct term, I find myself unable to put "vaster" down on a page, as it just strikes me as implausible.
A well-known story by Ursula Le Guin is "Vaster than Empires and More Slow". If it was good enough for Le Guin, it's good enough for me.
Of course, now we have to debate "More Slow" :-).
A well-known story by Ursula Le Guin is "Vaster than Empires and More Slow". If it was good enough for Le Guin, it's good enough for me.
Of course, now we have to debate "More Slow" :-).
That's a perfect example of the proper use of "vaster". It's a measurable thing, so "vaster" is appropriate. However, it breaks our 'consistent adjective form' consensus, but I think "more slow" works because it is so jarring, so it makes readers stop and consider the title, whereas with "slower" they might just keep walking. Since the first fits so well, the second one slows you down but doesn't stop you dead. Instead it makes you curious, which for authors is often the key to pushing stories.
Reminder: style guides are typically written for nonfiction text. Narrative is its own entirely different beast. What sounds good and what efficiently communicates information are frequently two different things.
The world was not only more vast than they'd previously suspected, but it was more developed, with few wild, undeveloped areas.
I'll accept using 'more' twice in constructing a parallel, but find a synonym for the second 'developed.'
