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.
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.
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?"Much more older" is saying exceptionally older rather than much older or older.
I don't agree, even in theory. In practice I am sure we would express this differently - for example:: 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.
That's right. B is older than C, but A is more older than C than B is.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.
Yes, quite so.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.
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."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?