shrink, shrank, shrunk
>><“calm, cool, and collective.”<< >
Isn't "collected" the right choice?<<
I was just saying that the phrase sounded fine grammatically there, not that that is what I myself would necessarily say. And yes, from what you are saying here (showing what you were actually asking for), "collected" is probably what one would want to use here.
Well, now you know that "backwards" is used as an adjective (as well as an adverb) in at least North American English dialects, whatever your dictionarie(s) may happen to say aside. One should not expect dictionaries to be the last word when it comes to this kind of matter; they are just a useful reference when one needs to get the meaning, pronunciation, or, if one has some idea, spelling of a word that one is not sure about.
<I was just saying that the phrase sounded fine grammatically there, not that that is what I myself would necessarily say. And yes, from what you are saying here (showing what you were actually asking for), "collected" is probably what one would want to use here.>
It's supposed to be one of the most common mistakes that NES make, but Kirk says that Nes don't make mistakes. Is that true?
>>It's supposed to be one of the most common mistakes that NES make, but Kirk says that Nes don't make mistakes. Is that true?<<
From a prescriptive standpoint, yes, some would call such a mistake, but the thing about such "mistakes" is that from a linguistic standpoint, what is correct is defined by native usage, and consequently individuals cannot be *incorrect* in their speech in their native language. Note that this is different from *mistakes* of various sorts (primarily misspeaking) which most individuals will automatically correct in their own speech in their native language.
As for "collected" versus "collective", though, I have not noticed such a use of "collective" much myself here in the Milwaukee area. However, there may likely be other areas of English-speaking world where such a usage is rather common.
<However, there may likely be other areas of English-speaking world where such a usage is rather common. >
And even in those areas it is a mistake. For goodness sake, the expression is "calm, cool and collected". It's nothing to do with prescriptivism. The use with "collective" makes no sense.
>>And even in those areas it is a mistake. For goodness sake, the expression is "calm, cool and collected". It's nothing to do with prescriptivism. The use with "collective" makes no sense.<<
The problem with such a position is this: for starters, fixed expressions do not necessarily "make sense" in a literal fashion to begin with, and secondly, the word "collective" could very well shift in meaning in various dialects so as to mean "collected" in certain senses.
<The problem with such a position is this: for starters, fixed expressions do not necessarily "make sense" in a literal fashion to begin with, and secondly, the word "collective" could very well shift in meaning in various dialects so as to mean "collected" in certain senses.>
Travis, you are making up stories just to cover your a*ss. Enough is enough.
I agree, with Tommie. You are winding us up here, Trav. Native speakers are not infallible when it comes to usage errors.
>>Travis, you are making up stories just to cover your a*ss. Enough is enough.<<
I was not making up any stories there, actually. What I said about fixed expressions was just a general statement about such things across the board, not just about this case. Also, I was saying about "collected" and "collective" was saying that such was a possibility, and such did not rule out the possibility of many instances of such just being slips of the tongue, which is a wholly different matter unto itself.
>>I agree, with Tommie. You are winding us up here, Trav. Native speakers are not infallible when it comes to usage errors.<<
Of course, there is a difference between a native speaker specifically intending to say something and them misspeaking, the latter being like anyone else doing so; in this case, if someone was really intending to say "collected" but accidentally said "collective", that would just be a slip of the tongue rather than anything else.
However, if certain usages are part of someone's native dialect, there is no way they can be called "errors", from a descriptive standpoint. Of course, if you are viewing things as "errors" on prescriptive grounds, such is reason alone to completely disregard such views, as prescriptivism has absolutely no place in any kind of linguistic matter, and to me at least prescriptivism discredits such views in and of itself alone to begin with.
I think you've missed the point, Clive. Nobody is praising prescriptivism here, but we are saying that it is nonsense to think that native speakers do not commit errors in usage.
>>I think you've missed the point, Clive. Nobody is praising prescriptivism here, but we are saying that it is nonsense to think that native speakers do not commit errors in usage.<<
As I said, they will misspeak, but that is a wholly different matter from native usages in their own dialects being "incorrect" in and of themselves. Usually, most native speakers will correct such instances if they catch them and have the chance to, which clearly indicates that they themselves perceive them as mistakes.
<<As I said, they will misspeak, but that is a wholly different matter from native usages in their own dialects being "incorrect" in and of themselves. Usually, most native speakers will correct such instances if they catch them and have the chance to, which clearly indicates that they themselves perceive them as mistakes.>>
Exactly. Native speakers may occasionally have a Spoonerism slip out--a la "Queer old dean" instead of "Dear old Queen" but the difference is that such momentary mistakes are readily perceived as "off" and not what the speaker intended. The speaker will then usually correct themself.
This is far different from a prescriptivist claiming that millions of boorish native speakers are going about their lives speaking "incorrectly" and not even realizing it. It doesn't work that way.
This difference is that prescriptivists claim that the underlying linguistic knowledge/competence of native speakers (who don't conform to their laundry list of preferred usages) is inherently faulty, when that is not the case. Mistakes such as those I mentioned above are not indicative of a lack of linguistic competence but relatively rare faults in production.
Travis and Kirk, what's your take on the use of "had've"?
>>Travis and Kirk, what's your take on the use of "had've"?<<
It is just fine to use in speech, even though I would not advise individuals to use such in formal writing. At the same time, I would say it sounds a bit awkward at times, for whatever reason (actually, the reasons are complex, and most likely deal with negative polarity items and things of that sort), which is likely related to its not being actually used that frequently in actual speech.
While I do still hear such at times, such is not nearly as frequent as a related form, commonly written "hadn't've", which is *extremely* common in speech at least here. In general, one is far more likely to actually encounter "hadn't've" than "had've" in NAE dialects (I recall reading an article somewhere about this specific subject myself). Of course, the same things go with "hadn't've" and formal writing compared to it in everyday speech, where I would be surprised if anyone but a horribly pedantic English teacher or professor or the occasional non-native English student far too wrapped up in notions of "correct English" would ever bat an eyelid at it.