Tigers are my favourite animal

[kadioguy]

Me: Why not "animals"?

Friend: Just a colloquialism. That's not correct but native speakers say it anyway. However, he probably meant to say "Tigers are my favourite [type of] animal", which would work fine.
---
I agree with my friend but I'd would like to hear your opinions.

PS - [Another example] I like cheetahs. They're the fastest land animal in the world.
PPS - You might be also interested in this thread: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/tigers-are-a-dangerous-animal.3931574/

 

[Barque]

Me: Why not "animals"?

He's talking about the one animal that's his favourite. He could also have said "The tiger's my favourite animal".

PPS - You might be also interested in this thread: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/tigers-are-a-dangerous-animal.3931574/

HSS has got the right idea in post #6.

 

[kadioguy]

He's talking about the one animal that's his favourite. He could also have said "The tiger's my favourite animal".


HSS has got the right idea in post #6.

But tracer2 and Uncle Jack over there don't think this kind of construction is okay.

 

[Barque]

Your question was "Why not animals?" I answered it.

Have you read that thread in full? Uncle Jack over there acknowledges you'll hear that kind of construction. Tracer2 agrees it's common. They didn't just say "No, it's wrong".

And while it may not be perfect, I don't consider it really wrong.

People, even native speakers of a language, don't always speak in perfectly constructed, grammatical sentences. You'll often find people using constructions that aren't completely correct. You'll have to figure out which ones are common and therefore somewhat acceptable, and which ones are sub-standard.

 

[kadioguy]

Your question was "Why not animals?" I answered it.

Yes, you did. However, my question implies that the construction is questionable. That's why I referred to the thread in another forum.

Have you read that thread in full? Uncle Jack over there acknowledges you'll hear that kind of construction. Tracer2 agrees it's common. They didn't just say "No, it's wrong".

I have. And Uncle Jack said "Most careful writers/speakers will avoid it."

tracer2 said "No...#1 is not acceptable. It has to be Tigers are dangerous animals or A tiger is a dangerous animal. I've made the same mistake or similar quite often in my school days."

You'll have to figure out which ones are common and therefore somewhat acceptable, and which ones are sub-standard.

I suspect Uncle Jack and tracer2 would say that it is somewhat acceptable.

PS - To be honest, Barque, the question in red made me a little frustrated. How could I not have read that thread? If I were you, I would have said something which could get things better.

 

[5jj]

If I were you, I would have said something which could get things better.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[jutfrank]

There's a difficult wider question here, of what makes something 'right/wrong', or 'acceptable/unacceptable'. An appropriate answer would depend on whether one is taking a descriptive or prescriptive approach.

With you, kadioguy, I'd take a prescriptive approach and advise you not to use the sentence quoted in the original post. Instead, say The tiger is my favourite animal or Tigers are my favourite animals.

 

[Barque]

How could I not have read that thread?

I wouldn't know. I said that because I got the impression you hadn't read the qualifications Uncle Jack and Tracer2 made to their posts. Ok, maybe you had.

Let's look at a couple of your statements.
In post #3, you said "But tracer2 and Uncle Jack over there don't think this kind of construction is okay." (Sounds as if you think they disagree with this construction.)
Then in post #7, you said "I suspect Uncle Jack and tracer2 would say that it is somewhat acceptable." (Sounds as if you think they accept it partly.)

You've got to decide for yourself based on the answers you get, after a certain point.

Obviously you aren't satisfied with the answers on the WRF thread and that's why you started this thread. You don't seem satisfied with the answers here either. If you're looking for a situation where everyone is in complete agreement and gives you definite answers, that won't always happen.

 

[kadioguy]

What is that supposed to mean?

That was a critical remark. I wouldn't have said that.

Perhaps:

'Yes, they did. However, Uncle Jack over there acknowledges you'll hear that kind of construction. Tracer2 agrees it's common. They didn't just say "No, it's wrong".'

I think this way the listener would be more gladly convinced.

In post #3, you said "But tracer2 and Uncle Jack over there don't think this kind of construction is okay." (Sounds as if you think they disagree with this construction.)
Then in post #7, you said "I suspect Uncle Jack and tracer2 would say that it is somewhat acceptable." (Sounds as if you think they accept it partly.)

"I suspect Uncle Jack and tracer2 would say that it is somewhat acceptable."

That means "Would they say that? I suspect." I.e., I don't think Uncle Jack and tracer2 would say that.

 

[5jj]

That means "Would they say that? I suspect." I.e., I don't think Uncle Jack and tracer2 would say that.

I suspect means, roughly, I think. It does not mean I doubt. I suspect that you have been saying the opposite of what you mean.

 

[Barque]

That means "Would they say that? I suspect." I.e., I don't think Uncle Jack and tracer2 would say that.

I'm afraid you're wrong. It means "I think they would say that".

 

[kadioguy]

With you, kadioguy, I'd take a prescriptive approach and advise you not to use the sentence quoted in the original post.

Hi jutfrank,
If you don't mind, could you tell me why "with" is used here? Is the pattern "take something with someone"? How about "for"?

 

[Barque]

I'm not jutfrank, but it's an idiomatic way of saying "As far as you're concerned".

Not meant to be interpreted literally.

 

[kadioguy]

Hi jutfrank,
If you don't mind, could you tell me why "with" is used here? Is the pattern "take something with someone"? How about "for"?

Maybe this:

with
preposition
in connection with; in the case of

Be careful with the glasses.
Are you pleased with the result?
Don't be angry with her.
With these students it's pronunciation that's the problem.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/with?q=with

 

[Barque]

Yes.

But don't analyse it. Just figure out what the intended meaning is. If you analyse it too much, you won't make progress.

 

[Tarheel]

With you -- in your case

 

[jutfrank]

You can understand my use of with in its most basic sense: If I were working together with you (as your teacher), I'd take a prescriptive approach, as I nearly always do when teaching learners.

 

[5jj]

Maybe this:

with
preposition
in connection with; in the case of

Stop trying to pin the meanings of words tightly to dictionary definitions.

 

[Barque]

Stop trying to pin the meanings of words tightly to dictionary definitions.

Agreed. Dictionaries are only a guide. The actual meaning of a word lies in how it's customarily used.

 

[kadioguy]

Stop trying to pin the meanings of words tightly to dictionary definitions.

I'm afraid I have very few choices since I live in a non-English country. It's hard to expect that there's always someone to answer my questions while dictionaries are willing to tell as much in detail as they can.