(just) as much ... as ... Prescriptive or Descriptive?

[MrPedantic]

Or 'much needed'. Adjectives formed from the past participle seem fine; but not adjectives formed from the present participle:

1. ?It is much exciting.
2. ?It is much interesting.
3. ?It is much stimulating.

But cf.

4. It is much more exciting.
5. It is much more interesting.
6. It is much more stimulating.

All fine; the 'much' qualifies the 'more'.

MrP

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

Or 'much needed'. Adjectives formed from the past participle seem fine; but not adjectives formed from the present participle:



MrP

That's true. Why do you think that is so?

[edinohio]

Originally Posted by mykwyner

Why is unnecessary ungradable? If necessity is gradable (think of Mazlow's heirarchy) why would its opposite be ungradable? If the word unnecessary can be used in a conditional or subjunctive construction, isn't it then being graded?

If an umbrella is only necessary on rainy days, it is unnecessary, but not completely unnecessary on fair days because the weather can change.

Hi everyone, first af all I's like to say that what I say here are just personal opinions (hopefully a little bit educated) and that I by no means want to imply that anything said here is wrong (though some things might be)

Well first of all the fact that necessity is gradable doesn't mean that the opposite is. Take usefulness for example, you can grade how useful something is but if something is useless, it's just that.

In the case of our comparison here, I'd never say as much unnecessary as.... Neither would I say very unnecessary. However I'd say totally unnecessary but just to stress the fact that it is unnecessary not as a modifier of how unnecessary it is. I know that you might think I am contradicting myself but I hope you get my idea.
On the other hand if we were talking about gradable adjectives, then I'd agree with Mr.P that the much adds an element of redundancy.

Finally I'd like to state that I never trust native speakers just for being native speakers since I've founf my english to be much better than that of many native speakers I see on a daily bases

Cheers
Ed

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by M56

That's true. Why do you think that is so?

Hmm.

The pedant is stumped.

MrP

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Mister Micawber

.
Personally, I would not touch #1 with a ten-foot parser. Isn't 'unnecessary' non-gradable (lexically speaking, that is)?

.

.

1. This is as much unnecessary as it is undesirable.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Do you think someone would sound stupid if they said it?

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by X Mode

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Do you think someone would sound stupid if they said it?

No, not at all.

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by X Mode

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Do you think someone would sound stupid if they said it?

Well, would it?

[MrPedantic]

'Stupid' seems a little harsh. I suppose much depends on the intended meaning.

1. It's as much X as Y.

If the speaker intends an adjustment to some previous statement, it's fine. In some of these googles, for instance –

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...&start=30&sa=N

– you find the parallel noun structure, e.g.

2. It is as much poetry as prose.

Here, the speaker is correcting an implied assessment: "you might describe it as prose, but in fact, it would be just as valid to describe it as poetry/it contains just as much poetry".

Similarly,

3. It's as much blues as country, with a raw, almost-rock energy...

This 'corrective' intent is also possible with the adjectival version:

4. It's not easy to describe a greenway because it is as much conceptual as concrete...

Again, an adjustment: "you might try to describe a greenway in concrete terms, but in fact, it would be just as valid to describe it in conceptual terms/it has just as much of a conceptual element to it".

But if the speaker intends simply to express equivalency, with the similar construction 'it's as X as it's Y', e.g.

5. It's as broad as it's long.

– there's no need for 'much'. For example:

6. [Scenario: a cricket ball is discovered among the headmaster's broken cucumber frames.]
"Q Minor! Come here, boy!"
"What, sir, me, sir?"
"Yes, sir, you, sir! Now then. What is the meaning of this outrage?"
"Outrage, sir?"
"Don't come the innocent with me, sir. I clearly saw you throw that cricket ball over the headmaster's wall."
"Not me, sir. I was playing football with P Major. Isn't that right, P?"
"Don't lie to me, boy! I saw you with my own eyes!"
"With all due respect, sir, your eyesight isn't as good as it was...And from such a distance – "
"Sir, you are as impertinent as you are irresponsible! Bend over this instant!"
etc etc

Here, the speaker isn't adjusting or correcting an assessment: rather, he's saying 'we already knew you were irresponsible, because of your behaviour with the cricket ball; and now we find that you are equally impertinent!"

This 'equivalency' is already expressed by 'as X as it's Y'; so the 'much' is redundant.

But it seems fairly venial to me.

MrP

[Steven D]

Yes, I think "stupid" is harsh, not just a little harsh. So, this one is a "can say". You can say it, and it's okay. It's correct.