Words you think English should have or bring back.

[Sizik]

'Shut up' might work in some cases.

[Eugo]

saying "i provided it," when you mean to indicate a past perfect action, sounds silly

Well, yeah, because that's a grammatically incorrect way to form the past perfect in English.

Also, why do you have this objection to "provided", but not to, say, every single other regular English verb?

Well, why stop here? Make them regular - invent new rules, so these would abide by them. If there's a rule about it, it's regular (as in "regulated"). Here's a brief list of what can be done in that respect: http://ndragan.com/lange/prought.html.

[Iulus Cofield]

English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

[Polydeuces of Fortinbras]

I would heartily support bringing back ymbe.

[gmalivuk]

English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

You sure about that?

[Lazar]

English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

I don't think so. Recent centuries have seen a number of regular verbs being made irregular, notably "dive", "hang", "sneak" and "plead". I even know a guy who uses the past participle "broughten".

[gmalivuk]

English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

I don't think so. Recent centuries have seen a number of regular verbs being made irregular, notably "dive", "hang", "sneak" and "plead". I even know a guy who uses the past participle "broughten".

As far as I know, catch/caught is another recent(ish) one.

If a language summarily got rid of *all* irregulars at once, then there wouldn't be any patterns people could use to make additional verbs irregular, but as long as there are still some, it seems people will continue to make others, even while regularizing a few of the less common ones that are already irregular.

[yves]

I would like to see xor come into usage, distinguishing between or and exclusive or. I would pronounce it [zɒr].

Also, let's say person 1 is talking to person 2, and there is someone not involved in the conversation called person 3. What if person 1 uses the word we in conversation? Is he referring to person 1 and person 2, person 1 and person 3, or person 1, 2, and 3? There needs to be a distinction.

[Eugo]

I would like to see xor come into usage, distinguishing between or and exclusive or. I would pronounce it [zɒr].

I agree. Or at least make either/or mandatory - and consider the regular or inclusive.

But, until then, the regular or seems to imply xor in a question. For example, some versions of windowses (if a windows is singular, then...) there's a dialog(ue) asking "do you want to copy or move files from this location: yes/no". Starts making sense if you consider it an inclusive or, but the tone of the question, at least to my ears, actually conveys a xor.

Which is fine with me, I usually answer the A xor B questions with a "yes".

Also, let's say person 1 is talking to person 2, and there is someone not involved in the conversation called person 3. What if person 1 uses the word we in conversation? Is he referring to person 1 and person 2, person 1 and person 3, or person 1, 2, and 3? There needs to be a distinction.

"Get out of my mind" seems to be all too common here, eh? In Serbian, "we" pretty much excludes the person addressed; in Russian, there's a distinction of "we with you" (my s toboy), even when the speaker and co-speaker (a word missing in English) are alone. In English, it seems ambiguous to me - in so many pop songs she tells him to "think about us" - us who, her and who else? To my ear, "us" doesn't apply "you and me" while I'm talking to you about you and me - it does only if we're talking about the rest of the Universe. Don't know other languages well enough to competently say anything on this matter.

Such minor differences often make me miss the substance of a sentence, because the speaker (or writer) and I don't always agree on the scope of "we". Or at least I get to scratch my head.

[Eebster the Great]

For example, some versions of windowses (if a windows is singular, then...)

As I understand it, you should be using the singular there anyway (cf. "some types of food," "some kinds of music").

[Derek]

Also, let's say person 1 is talking to person 2, and there is someone not involved in the conversation called person 3. What if person 1 uses the word we in conversation? Is he referring to person 1 and person 2, person 1 and person 3, or person 1, 2, and 3? There needs to be a distinction.

This is called inclusive/exclusive we. As Eugo mentioned, it exists in some languages.

As I understand it, you should be using the singular there anyway (cf. "some types of food," "some kinds of music").

Both of those examples are mass nouns. Compare "some kinds of dogs".

However I'm not entirely sure what he meant by "some versions of windows(es)" any ways. Does he mean Windows the Microsoft OS? Then it should be "some versions of Windows". I think the reason is because "Windows" is a mass noun, or at least behaves like one, but I'm not sure.

[Iulus Cofield]

I've only seen Windows used in the singular in formal writing, but this is tempered by it always being used with a counter, e.g., "versions of Windows", "copies of Windows".

[Eebster the Great]

Both of those examples are mass nouns.

And so is Windows, hence my point.

[Derek]

Sorry, I though you were making a more general claim. I think we've both come to the same conclusion then.

[Grop]

In my view, Windows is one product, which comes in several versions.

[12obin]

I think there should be an adjective meaning "excessively or unpleasantly salty". The salt equivalent of what "cloying" is to "sweet".
Because we need salt, but also shouldn't drink salt water or have a huge excess of salt, we have biological safeguards in place that tell us when there's too much salt. It's a distinct sensation common to pretty much everyone, and that's why I think it's a gap.

[Eebster the Great]

That's true. I can't think of words meaning "excessively bitter" or "sour" either, despite the fact that foods that have these flavors in the extreme taste distinctively and strongly unpleasant. Sweet has "cloying" and "saccharine" though, and probably others, despite the fact that excessively sweet tastes are much less common.

[12obin]

I think that bitter and sour are different in that those words on their own can imply an unpleasant taste, whereas sweet and salty are more generally desirable.

I mean lots of sour and bitter things are pleasant. But speaking linguistically, rather than culinarily.

Of the four, now that I'm thinking about it, salt is the most value neutral. Like in a poem or something, sweet, sour and bitter would all have clear metaphorical meanings.

Because that's what necessitates words like "cloying", I imagine: the fact that "sweet" is so strongly associated with "pleasant".

[ThirdParty]

My thesaurus recommends "brackish" for too salty, "acerbic" for too sour, and "acrid" for too bitter.

[12obin]

Mm acerbic is quite good.
Is that what brackish means? That's interesting! I always thought it meant like, swampy.

[Eebster the Great]

They aren't very close synonyms. Both "acrid" and "acerbic" could apply to either sour or bitter food, or generally any unpleasant taste

[Derek]

I don't think "brackish" works here. Brackish is applied to bodies of water, not to food.

[bigglesworth]

It works by analogy, and I find it very evocative.

[gmalivuk]

Except, brackish water is *less* salty than like 97% of the water on Earth, so I'm not sure how well the analogy holds up.

[ThirdParty]

I don't think "brackish" works here. Brackish is applied to bodies of water, not to food.

The American Heritage Dictionary gives two definitions for "brackish". Definition 2 is "Distasteful; unpalatable: a thin, brackish gruel." So it can totally be used for food.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Except, brackish water is *less* salty than like 97% of the water on Earth, so I'm not sure how well the analogy holds up.

Something like 99.9999% percent of things (by mass) are clearly uneatable (That should be how we spell "inedible"). A word for "Too salty to be pleasant to eat" would generally be used in the context of things one might potentially eat; in which case, brackish water is very salty. Brackish water also often has all the superficial appearances of fresh water.

That's all of course assuming we're using the a technically definition of brackish water. The word "Brackish" comes from a word for salty, which makes ocean water extremely brackish.

[Envelope Generator]

That's true. I can't think of words meaning "excessively bitter" or "sour" either, despite the fact that foods that have these flavors in the extreme taste distinctively and strongly unpleasant.

I'm not a native speaker but I've somewhere along the line picked up the idea that "puckering" can mean "extremely sour". Can it?

[12obin]

I don't know that I've ever heard "puckering" used that way. I would understand it but it would be sort of whimsical I think, not a common usage.

[gmalivuk]

I've definitely seen "mouth-puckering" used that way, but not "puckering" by itself.

[Eebster the Great]

Could spicy food therefore be described as "anus-puckering"?

[Derek]

I don't think "brackish" works here. Brackish is applied to bodies of water, not to food.

The American Heritage Dictionary gives two definitions for "brackish". Definition 2 is "Distasteful; unpalatable: a thin, brackish gruel." So it can totally be used for food.

Well I won't argue with a dictionary, but I don't think I've ever heard brackish used that way, and I would probably do a double take if I did.

[12obin]

Well I won't argue with a dictionary, 

You're no fun!

[Eebster the Great]

Arguing with a dictionary would be much more fun if the dictionary argued back.

[12obin]

Could spicy food therefore be described as "anus-puckering"?

Spicy lube.

[Derek]

Arguing with a dictionary would be much more fun if the dictionary argued back.

Yeah, that's why I post in N&A and SD.

[MWak]

Arguing with a dictionary would be much more fun if the dictionary argued back.

Just argue with an online dictionary and then click to a random word to see how it responds. Loads of fun

[Mega85]

English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

I don't think so. Recent centuries have seen a number of regular verbs being made irregular, notably "dive", "hang", "sneak" and "plead". I even know a guy who uses the past participle "broughten".

Do you mean "boughten"? I've occasionally heard people say "boughten" for the past participle of "buy". I've never heard "broughten" before.

[Eebster the Great]

The Grammarist claims "boughten" is an archaic form of the passive past participle of "buy," so it wouldn't really qualify as a regular verb being made irregular.

[Mega85]

The Grammarist claims "boughten" is an archaic form of the passive past participle of "buy," so it wouldn't really qualify as a regular verb being made irregular.

Oh. So the people who use "boughten" are actually preserving an historical form that's been lost for most speakers.

[Lazar]

Do you mean "boughten"? I've occasionally heard people say "boughten" for the past participle of "buy". I've never heard "broughten" before.

Both. He was this guy I knew from a language forum – he was from Wisconsin, and had a lot of interesting features in his dialect.

Such forms, especially ones other than "boughten", generally primarily show up when a past participle is being used with another particle such as "out" or "up"; for instance, in informal speech I would most likely say "I have caught it" and "I have brought it" (while also sporadically using "I have caughten it" or "I have broughten it") but would normally say "I have caughten up with it" or "I have broughten it in?". I really do not know how widespread this feature is myself, even though it is definitely a natural dialect usage for at least myself (like the use of "by" to mean "at").