What's in a word?

<<<7 What meanings does consequence associate with? (semantic association) >>>

Both positive and negative meanings.

3) Something or someone [of consequence] is important or valuable.
positive.

If something or someone is [of no consequence], or [of little consequence], they are not important or valuable. (FORMAL)

negative.

4) If you tell someone that they must [take the consequences] or [face the consequences], you warn them that something unpleasant will happen to them if they do not stop behaving in a particular way.

negative.

<You can observe similar patterns in the example setences. It is not a big deal. The word "consequence" is used in many grammatical constructions. I showed you my demonstration above. >

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to prove by all this. What do you want to say?

"Consequence" has a very low likelihood of appearing as the object of a clause (i.e. following an action or possession verb) unlike other abstract nouns such as preference or use.

Why do you think that is, Guest?

<<<7 What meanings does consequence associate with? (semantic association) >>>

Here's a wider treatment of your answer to number 7:

"Consequence" has semantic associations with concepts of logic (perhaps unsurprisingly since its core meaning is that of a logical relation), with (un)expectedness, with negative evaluation and with markers of (in)significance:


logic: unavoidable, inevitable, inexorable, inescapable, ineluctable, direct, ultimate, long-term, immediate

(un)expectedness: likely, possible, probable, natural, unintended, odd, strange, planned-for

negative evaluation: awful, dire, appalling, sad

significance: serious, important, dramatic, enduring, prominent

<<8 What grammatical constructions does consequence like to appear in or with? (colligation) >>>

As above, and...

preposition + consequence (in consequence...)

conjunction + article + consequence (as a consequence...)

Did you know that "consequence" appears in sentence-initial position 50% of the time. So, "in sentence-initial position" seems to be a good answer to question 9: "What positions in a text does consequence like to appear in?".

I can learn the words much faster without knowing all of this bullshit just through observing the language. All of this 50% statistic is of little consequence to me. You still can see that a dictionary can provide all the neccessary info one needs to know in order to master the usage of the words. A student needs to know all the positions of a word in texts if he or she wants to use the word efficiently.

<All of this 50% statistic is of little consequence to me.>

But it may be of consequence to the student who is unsure about using "consequence" at the beginning of sentences.

<You still can see that a dictionary can provide all the neccessary info one needs to know in order to master the usage of the words. >

Some dictionaries can. I believe the pre-corpus dictionariies do not provide enough information for my students' needs. I prefer post-corpus dictionaries such as the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (MEDAL).

BTW, what does your dictionary say about this use of the word "breakfast"?


"He's so breakfast!"

(Hope you don't mind, Pos)

<<<You still can see that a dictionary can provide all the neccessary info one needs to know in order to master the usage of the words.Guest, can your dictionary help you answer this question?>>>

'Which would you say is more common when talking about past habit, "would" or "used to"?'

<<<You still can see that a dictionary can provide all the neccessary info one needs to know in order to master the usage of the words.>>

Guest, can your dictionary help you answer this question?

'Which would you say is more common when talking about past habit, "would" or "used to"?'

How about this, Mitch and Guest: does your dictionary tell you if the word "thing" is used more to refer to objects than it is to arguments, ideas and propositions?

<How about this, Mitch and Guest: does your dictionary tell you if the word "thing" is used more to refer to objects than it is to arguments, ideas and propositions?>

Nope. What's the answer?

<<<'Which would you say is more common when talking about past habit, "would" or "used to"?' >>>

I am not a lexicographer so I don't need such extraneous details to know for mastering the usage of a word. Yet, my dictionary shows more example sentences for "would" than "used to". So I think "would" is more common than "used to." If a word is less common, the wordbank of my dictionary does not show many example sentences for it, which indicates that it is not used very much by native speakers in real life.

<<"He's so breakfast!" >> One would say: He is so dinner!

Sounds bad English, Pos.

<How about this, Mitch and Guest: does your dictionary tell you if the word "thing" is used more to refer to objects than it is to arguments, ideas and propositions?>

Nope. What's the answer?


I have got better things to do than to find out answers to such stupid questions which don't help me much in my language endeavours. That's why, most teachers suck and their students suck even more.

<I am not a lexicographer so I don't need such extraneous details to know for mastering the usage of a word.>

So which would you use and if you have to talk about past habits, "used to" or "would"?