Comments on: Most of them always men http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:21:58 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roxanne http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/comment-page-1/#comment-43679 Roxanne Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:40:57 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/?p=348#comment-43679 <p>nonxompositional.com, how do you do it?</p> nonxompositional.com, how do you do it?

]]> By: Milan Davidovic http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/comment-page-1/#comment-39578 Milan Davidovic Fri, 01 May 2009 14:58:25 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/?p=348#comment-39578 <p>Most of my friend are men. Most of my friends always have been men.</p> <p>Sweet...</p> Most of my friend are men. Most of my friends always have been men.

Sweet…

]]> By: have always been men « Arnold Zwicky’s Blog http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/comment-page-1/#comment-39461 have always been men « Arnold Zwicky’s Blog Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:26:00 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/?p=348#comment-39461 <p>[...] always been men By arnoldzwicky Recently on his blog, Russell Lee-Goldman looked at a moderately complex example that led to some discussion of (1) Most [...]</p> [...] always been men By arnoldzwicky Recently on his blog, Russell Lee-Goldman looked at a moderately complex example that led to some discussion of (1) Most [...]

]]> By: Russell http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/comment-page-1/#comment-39434 Russell Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:29:03 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/?p=348#comment-39434 <p>Well, my point wasn't about the clarity or obviousness of what she said, but rather that simple notions of the <em>grammar</em> of the sentence might be insufficient to capture the appropriateness of her statement (though now I am doubting that).</p> <p>At the same time, I note that what the woman wrote was "...always have been" whereas you have "have always been." Could be a fluke, but I wonder if there are any tendencies to interpret them in different ways.</p> <p>Consider a case where one maintains exactly three male friends at all times, the identities of whom change throughout one's life. Would it be equally idiomatic to say "three of my friends always have been men" or "three of my friends have always been men"?</p> <p>Actually, I find the latter more amenable to expressing a fact about three particular friends who have never undergone a sex change, with the former more amenable to there have always been three male friends in my life, whoever they have been.</p> Well, my point wasn’t about the clarity or obviousness of what she said, but rather that simple notions of the grammar of the sentence might be insufficient to capture the appropriateness of her statement (though now I am doubting that).

At the same time, I note that what the woman wrote was “…always have been” whereas you have “have always been.” Could be a fluke, but I wonder if there are any tendencies to interpret them in different ways.

Consider a case where one maintains exactly three male friends at all times, the identities of whom change throughout one’s life. Would it be equally idiomatic to say “three of my friends always have been men” or “three of my friends have always been men”?

Actually, I find the latter more amenable to expressing a fact about three particular friends who have never undergone a sex change, with the former more amenable to there have always been three male friends in my life, whoever they have been.

]]> By: erik http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/comment-page-1/#comment-39406 erik Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:03:36 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/?p=348#comment-39406 <p>I agree with PC. At first I was going to say that I think it is because having TG friends is less common than always having had men as friends, but actually I think it's the fact that the speaker is saying something about herself and how she relates to women and men, and that would imply to me that she's making a more thorough statement by saying something both about the present ("Most of my friends are ... men.") as well as the past ("Most of my friends ... have always been men."). Were she talking about TGs versus non-TGs, the other interpretation would seem more reasonable.</p> I agree with PC. At first I was going to say that I think it is because having TG friends is less common than always having had men as friends, but actually I think it’s the fact that the speaker is saying something about herself and how she relates to women and men, and that would imply to me that she’s making a more thorough statement by saying something both about the present (“Most of my friends are … men.”) as well as the past (“Most of my friends … have always been men.”). Were she talking about TGs versus non-TGs, the other interpretation would seem more reasonable.

]]> By: Russell http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/comment-page-1/#comment-39373 Russell Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:35:07 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/?p=348#comment-39373 <p>No claim from me that it's hard to get it, simply that naive (most?) views of coordination will understand this sentence to mean "...and most of my friends always have been men." Which invites one (or at least me) to imagine that some of her friends had a gender-change at some point.</p> No claim from me that it’s hard to get it, simply that naive (most?) views of coordination will understand this sentence to mean “…and most of my friends always have been men.” Which invites one (or at least me) to imagine that some of her friends had a gender-change at some point.

]]> By: pc http://noncompositional.com/2009/04/most-of-them-always-men/comment-page-1/#comment-39372 pc Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:25:32 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/?p=348#comment-39372 <p>"Most of my friends are men and it has always been the case that most of my friends are men." I have no trouble getting this read right off the bat.</p> “Most of my friends are men and it has always been the case that most of my friends are men.” I have no trouble getting this read right off the bat.

]]>