hearing the radio the whole evening

[Verona_82]

Hello,

I'd appreciate it if somebody could tell me if my arguments are solid. I've got a sentence "He was hearing the radio the whole evening" and I need to explain why it is wrong.

Bearing in mind that 'hear' is a non-progressive verb, it should be rewritten as
"He was listening to the radio the whole evening".
That can be applied to a context when 'he' did that deliberately. However, there is a chance of hearing the sounds of the radio unintentionally ('he' couldn't help hearing the radio blaring from his neighbours' flat). In this case the sentence should be rewritten as
"He heard the radio the whole evening" (I don't like it and seems strange to me)
or
"He could hear the radio the whole evening"
or
"He couldn't but heard the radio the whole evening".

Thank you in advance.

 

[Barb_D]

I think the original might be okay with the idea of it being off and on.

He was hearing the radio off and on all evening, and it was driving him crazy.

 

[BobK]

:up:

Incidentally, '...couldn't but hear[no D]...' is archaic, and '..couldn't help but hear...' is dated. Use '...couldn't help hearing...'.

b

 

[Verona_82]

Thank you!
Am I right that "He heard the radio the whole evening" is strange?

 

[BobK]

Thank you!
Am I right that "He heard the radio the whole evening" is strange?

Just like that, yes. But as Barb said, when the noise is intermittent it's possible - in, say 'He kept hearing the radio off and on all evening' (that is, the noise of the radio kept making itself felt - maybe because the sound really was intermittent, or else because he was trying to concentrate on something else, and the noise kept interrupting his stream of thought).

But the short answer's yes, you're right. ;-)

b

 

[BobK]

:up:

Incidentally, '...couldn't but hear[no D]...' is archaic, and '..couldn't help but hear...' is dated. Use '...couldn't help hearing...'.

b

This reminds me of a useful bit of vocabulary, which can oil the wheels of conversation: when two strangers are discussing something, you can enter the conversation with the gambit: 'Excuse me, but I couldn't help overhearing that <point-of-common-interest>...'.

b

 

[nyota]

This reminds me of a useful bit of vocabulary, which can oil the wheels of conversation: when two strangers are discussing something, you can enter the conversation with the gambit: 'Excuse me, but I couldn't help overhearing that <point-of-common-interest>...'.

b

I found "gambit" and "oil the wheels of conversation" far more useful. :-D :up:

 

[freezeframe]

This reminds me of a useful bit of vocabulary, which can oil the wheels of conversation: when two strangers are discussing something, you can enter the conversation with the gambit: 'Excuse me, but I couldn't help overhearing that <point-of-common-interest>...'.

b

It can also backfire big time.

Anyway, don't you think the word gambit is misused here?

 

[SoothingDave]

Gambit | Define Gambit at Dictionary.com

Sounds like definition 3.

 

[freezeframe]

Gambit | Define Gambit at Dictionary.com

Sounds like definition 3.

mmmk I still don't think it's used properly here

 

[nyota]

mmmk I still don't think it's used properly here

Why does it sound wrong to you freeze? What do you make of the word?

 

[freezeframe]

Why does it sound wrong to you freeze? What do you make of the word?

I'll just concede to the experts. :roll:

 

[nyota]

I'll just concede to the experts. :roll:

I was just curious, but fair enough!

P.S. Somehow I don't like the basic 'smile' smiley in here :-(

 

[5jj]

I was just curious, but fair enough!

P.S. Somehow I don't like the basic 'smile' smiley in here :-(

I was curious, too........What's wrong with it?

 

[nyota]

I was curious, too........What's wrong with it?

I guess it's just more playful(?) than :flasings: (without the epilepsy-triggering flashing). Like you were saying "ha!". I could put them in this order: :flasings: --> --> :-D

 

[freezeframe]

I was just curious, but fair enough!

One can find more or less the same definition in a dictionary for two different words that, while semantically close, have different nuances in their meaning and are not always interchangeable. This is also the basic flaw of any thesaurus, as anyone who's graded undergraduate essays will know.

There are situations where such a phrase is a gambit, but, ordinarily, I don't see how it is.

 

[nyota]

Of course I'm able to spot the nuances only to some extent, that's why when native speakers don't agree on something, learners start digging - why why WHY?!

You disagreeing is potentially beneficial for me. Perhaps I should start cheering.

I also realise, it may be difficult to name or explain the subtle differences, but I don't think it'll ever stop me from asking.

 

[BobK]

One can find more or less the same definition in a dictionary for two different words that, while semantically close, have different nuances in their meaning and are not always interchangeable. This is also the basic flaw of any thesaurus, as anyone who's graded undergraduate essays will know.

There are situations where such a phrase is a gambit, but, ordinarily, I don't see how it is.

I didn't know there was a dictionary that would give my usage its imprimatur (if dictionaries can ever do that). I had in mind the chess connotation*. As you said, it can misfire big time, and that's the risk: you open yourself to a pretty fiery put-down, in order to gain an advantage (joining the conversation).

But for reasons that escape me this discussion seems to have triggered a certain amount of ill-feeling. So I'll say no more.

b

PS (Not quite 'no more'! ;-)) Specifically, it's an 'opening gambit'.

 

[freezeframe]

I didn't know there was a dictionary that would give my usage its imprimatur (if dictionaries can ever do that). I had in mind the chess connotation*. As you said, it can misfire big time, and that's the risk: you open yourself to a pretty fiery put-down, in order to gain an advantage (joining the conversation).

But for reasons that escape me this discussion seems to have triggered a certain amount of ill-feeling. So I'll say no more.

b

PS (Not quite 'no more'! ;-)) Specifically, it's an 'opening gambit'.

I could be wrong, but it seems that you're using gambit and gamble as synonyms. I also have in mind the chess usage, since that's the origin of the word. The risk isn't the same as in a gamble. Gamble does not have the connotation of a "tactical" move, a gambit is always tactical since if it's accepted, the player gains an advantage.

I guess I just don't see joining a conversation as gaining an advantage in that conversation... As I said earlier, this could be the case sometimes, but usually it's not.

 

[birdeen's call]

I could be wrong, but it seems that you're using gambit and gamble as synonyms. I also have in mind the chess usage, since that's the origin of the word. The risk isn't the same as in a gamble. Gamble does not have the connotation of a "tactical" move, a gambit is always tactical since if it's accepted, the player gains an advantage.

I guess I just don't see joining a conversation as gaining an advantage in that conversation... As I said earlier, this could be the case sometimes, but usually it's not.

This is not true. A gambit in chess may not give you any advantage. A gambit is a sacrifice that appears to give some kind of edge, made in hope of getting an advantage. Gambits are indeed similar to gambling frequently. They often lead to very complicated play with outcomes difficult to foresee.

Some gambits, especially opening gambits, have been studied so thoroughly that there is little or no risk in playing them indeed (at least at the highest levels). For example, the Queen's Gambit is a powerful opening move which whether accepted or declined leads to interesting and even games. Other gambits such as the Latvian Gambit are considered dubious. Accepting them seems beneficial for the accepting player.