Is it possible to say:
- 'They are unlimitedly liable.' instead of
- 'They have unlimited liability.', which is the structure I prefer?
I sometimes hear my students use the first structure and I tend to correct it. But am I right to mark it wrong in a test for example?
Like Bill, I've never heard/read this adverb before, but as your students could point to the word in a dictionary you'd better let it go.
Just tell them it's not commonly used.
Thank you all.
[QUOTE=Julie17;816353]Is it possible to say:
- 'They are unlimitedly liable.'
NOT A TEACHER
(1) You and I have just read the replies from three of the best teachers at this helpline, so we would be wise to follow their excellent advice.
(2) As just an ordinary native speaker, I, too, had never heard of "to be unlimitedly liable." (Of course, the fact that I haven't heard of something means nothing!)
(3) I have just communicated with Professor Google, and I was astonished to discover that apparently "unlimitedly liable" is, indeed, quite common in some circles.
(4) Please google "unlimitedly liable" and click on its "books" results. Apparently, this
phrase is quite common in certain businesses.
(5) Yes, I most respectfully suggest that you NOT call this term "wrong." Otherwise, some odious know-it-all student could present you with numerous examples of its being used by reputable sources. You might want to remove that question from the test.
Just out of academic/linguistic interest: Can anyone think of any other past participles that can be transformed into adverbs? I've tried it with a few verbs, but nothing seems to work: *lovedly, *sently, *dividedly ......
NOT A TEACHER
(1) While reading some older posts here, I came across this word:
(2) I was wondering whether this would be "good" English:
Tom was not only rude, he was designedly rude. ( ? = rude by design; deliberately rude.)
(3) If it is correct, I give all the credit to a member who used it in an older post.
(4) If it is wrong, I accept all the blame and will delete this post.