comparative

[aliii]

Hello,

.Have you ever been hit on by people much more older than you?

I couldn't understand that why 'more' is used at this sentence.

[Barb_D]

It should not be there.

[jahildebrandt]

Hello,

.Have you ever been hit on by people much more older than you?

I couldn't understand that why 'more' is used at this sentence.

Actually the same topic as this thread:
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...ative-adj.html

I'll copy my response:

This is true, however, when English is used colloquially, you'll often find examples like this. Consider it to be a dual modal, used to convey stronger meaning. On a scale it would look like this:

Much more older> much older > older

A prescriptivist would say that something can't be "more older" and that much older conveys the same meaning as the original. That's why it would be marked wrong.

"Much more older" is saying exceptionally older rather than much older or older.

[Raymott]

"Much more older" is saying exceptionally older rather than much older or older.

Surely not. Are you endorsing this usage for that meaning? Wouldn't the traditional phrasing of "very much older" be a much more gooder way of putting it?


PS: I can think of one possible usage. If a 40 year old man hits on a 20 year woman (to use the example given) he is older than her. A 50 year old man would be more older than her (than the 40 year old man) and a 70 year old would be much more older than her than either the 40 year old or the 50 year old. The comparison here not with the woman's age, but with the other men's ages.

[5jj]

aliii, please don't post the same question twice. It can lead to confusing responses. My response to jahildebrandt in the other thread was:

j: A prescriptivist would say that something can't be "more better" and that much better conveys the same meaning as the original. That's why it would be marked wrong.
5jj.No. It would be marked wrong because it is simply not accepted by most speakers as standard usage in the main varieties of English. I would strongly recommend that learners do not use this form.

[5jj]

: I can think of one possible usage. If a 40 year old man hits on a 20 year woman (to use the example given) he is older than her. A 50 year old man would be more older than her (than the 40 year old man) and a 70 year old would be much more older than her than either the 40 year old or the 50 year old. The comparison here not with the woman's age, but with the other men's ages.

I don't agree, even in theory. In practice I am sure we would express this differently - for example:

There is a greater age difference between A and C than between B and C.

[Raymott]

I don't agree, even in theory. In practice I am sure we would express this differently - for example:

There is a greater age difference between A and C than between B and C.

That's right. B is older than C, but A is more older than C than B is.
Both A and B are older than C, but A is more older than B.

I'm not suggesting that anyone use this construction. I'm sure we would express it differently. But I can't see the objection "in theory" to it. The fact that most people would become confused with this is a practical objection. Can you point out the theoretical objection?

[jahildebrandt]

I'm not advocating the construction of such a sentence. I'm merely pointing out the semantic differences that come up in colloquial, informal speech since not all English is formal.

[Raymott]

I'm not advocating the construction of such a sentence. I'm merely pointing out the semantic differences that come up in colloquial, informal speech since not all English is formal.

Yes, quite so.
Here, given that there are an a large number of ESL students, if a teacher or academic says "X is one way of saying Y", without qualification, it is too often taken to be an endorsement of its use. And while most of us try not to be too prescriptivist, that is part of giving advice to learners.

[5jj]

That's right. B is older than C, but A is more older than C than B is.
Both A and B are older than C, but A is more older than B.

I'm not suggesting that anyone use this construction. I'm sure we would express it differently. But I can't see the objection "in theory" to it. The fact that most people would become confused with this is a practical objection. Can you point out the theoretical objection?

I suppose that, if really pressed, I can't come up with a ttheoretical objection. It is just so unlikely, and so confusing, that I don't think any native speaker would say it. I'll stick with what you said in your last post: "... given that there are a large number of ESL students, if a teacher or academic says "X is one way of saying Y", without qualification, it is too often taken to be an endorsement of its use."