"about", "at the thought of" or nothing?

Question

Hi,Which sounds best and why?"Are you sure you only want roses? I feel rather cheap about / at the thought of / [nothing] buying you something as ephemeral as flowers for your birthday."Is there anything else you would word differently?

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

All OK, not much difference at all.

Clive

Thomas Tompion · Answer

I feel rather cheap about buying you something as ephemeral as flowers. - I don't think one often feels cheap about something. It's clumsy. You've bought the flowers

I feel rather cheap at the thought of buying you something as ephemeral as flowers. - So you are thinking of it and it makes you feel cheap. You haven't bought the flowers yet.

I feel rather cheap buying you something as ephemeral as flowers. - fine: you've certainly bought the flowers.

So they mean different things: in one case you haven't bought the flowers; in the others you have.

There's another problem with the sentence: flowers are plural; something is singular. To say 'something as ephemeral as flowers' is clumsy because of the singular/plural clash. I'd try to find a way round that.

MarvinTheMartian · Answer

Thomas TompionThere's another problem with the sentence: flowers are plural; something is singular. To say 'something as ephemeral as flowers' is clumsy because of the singular/plural clash. I'd try to find a way round that.

How? "I feel rather cheap buying things as ephemeral as flowers" sounds even more awkward to me. As for "I feel rather cheap buying ephemeral things like flowers", it just doesn't cut it - not "flowerly" enough I guess (no pun intended.) I still prefer my original wording (i.e. "I feel rather cheap buying something as ephemeral as flowers.) Do you have a better suggestion short of changing every word in the sentence?

Thanks in advance.

Thomas Tompion · Answer

MarvinTheMartian
Thomas TompionThere's another problem with the sentence: flowers are plural; something is singular. To say 'something as ephemeral as flowers' is clumsy because of the singular/plural clash. I'd try to find a way round that.
How? "I feel rather cheap buying things as ephemeral as flowers" sounds even more awkward to me. As for "I feel rather cheap buying ephemeral things like flowers", it just doesn't cut it - not "flowerly" enough I guess (no pun intended.) I still prefer my original wording (i.e. "I feel rather cheap buying something as ephemeral as flowers.) Do you have a better suggestion short of changing every word in the sentence?

Thanks in advance.

Hello Marvin,

Do you recognize that there is a problem, that the singular/plural clash is disconcerting? For me your original sentence cuts it less than I feel rather cheap buying ephemeral things like flowers. I probably didn't suggest anything because I couldn't see an easy way out and I prefer a personal sentence, like yours, to any impersonal alternative to get round the problem.

Would you reject two sentences? Flowers are so emphemeral. I feel cheap buying them. I prefer that to your original.

Raen · Answer

Hi Thomas,

I was reading this thread and found the discussion very interesting. I have a question of my own regarding the plural/singular clash you mentioned. And I hope nobody minds me joining in the discussion?

My question: I still don't see why "something" can't be used because of the plural "flowers". Doesn't "something" collectively represent singular and plural. For instance,

"Do all you want. Just don't go out and start drinking then come back crying, that's something I wouldn't do if I were you." (multiple actions vs. something)

Don't we use "something" all the time and not think about plurality or what not? Could you shed some more light on this grammar rule? Thanks a lot

Raen

Thomas Tompion · Answer

RaenHi Thomas,

I was reading this thread and found the discussion very interesting. I have a question of my own regarding the plural/singular clash you mentioned. And I hope nobody minds me joining in the discussion?

My question: I still don't see why "something" can't be used because of the plural "flowers". Doesn't "something" collectively represent singular and plural. For instance,

"Do all you want. Just don't go out and start drinking then come back crying, that's something I wouldn't do if I were you." (multiple actions vs. something) Hello Raen, I feel the point here is that going out, starting drinking and coming back crying, is a package, and if you say those are things you are rejecting each indiviual item, rather than the combination - so you would change the meaning.

Don't we use "something" all the time and not think about plurality or what not? Could you shed some more light on this grammar rule? Thanks a lot The point for me is that obviously something comes from some thing (singular), and when it is used in a simile with a plural (something like flowers) what I've called the singular/plural clash screams at me. It's not something I could happily say.

He came in a car which was something like a tank
He put on something like wings to make him look like an angel.
He put on some things like wings to make him look like an angel.

So I don't think we do use something, glibly forgetting about whether what we are talking of is plural or singular. I hope I don't.

I ought perhaps to add that I speak BE and come from Manchester.

Raen

MarvinTheMartian · Answer

Thomas TompionHello Marvin,

Do you recognize that there is a problem, that the singular/plural clash is disconcerting? For me your original sentence cuts it less than I feel rather cheap buying ephemeral things like flowers. I probably didn't suggest anything because I couldn't see an easy way out and I prefer a personal sentence, like yours, to any impersonal alternative to get round the problem.

Would you reject two sentences? Flowers are so emphemeral. I feel cheap buying them. I prefer that to your original.

Put that way, I suppose it is a bit disconcerting. Nevertheless, grammatical or not, I could swear I've encountered the form "something as [insert adjective here] as" followed by a plural noun at least a thousand times in books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Oh well, since you insist it's wrong, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Still, it's depressing to realize how limited and inflexible the English language - or any language for that matter - really is. It's times like this I wish man had the ability to communicate telepathically. Everything I say - every sentence - feels like a compromise. It makes me wonder - was grammar invented to prevent people from accurately expressing their thoughts and feelings?

Raen · Answer

MarvinTheMartian it's depressing to realize how limited and inflexible the English language - or any language for that matter - really is. It's times like this I wish man had the ability to communicate telepathically. Everything I say - every sentence - feels like a compromise. It makes me wonder - was grammar invented to prevent people from accurately expressing their thoughts and feelings

This could be a very good topic open for discussion. I can definitely relate to how you feel, during my 2-weeks intensive study of grammar, I constantly had to question the true purpose of learning the grammar. Some of them, I feel like, are perfect exmaples of "the means defeats the purpose", a purpose that is ultimately to communicate. When pundits or scholars argue over whether a clause serves as a "appositive adjectival clause" or "adverbial clause", all the while the sentence stands jus the same, without its meaning being affected one way or the other. I have to wonder if it's worth investing all your time and energy and intellect in learning those hard, ambigous and obscure rules of grammar. I don't know, just a thought. What's everyone else's opinions and thoughts? anyone?

Raen

MarvinTheMartian · Answer

Raen, I couldn't agree more with you. I sure hope more people join this thread. I think I'm more confused now than I was when I started this thread... <img src="http://www.EnglishForward.com/emoticons/emotion-8.gif"/>

Thomas Tompion · Answer

A few points might be worth considering:

1. Most native English speakers have no idea whether they are using appositive nominative phrases, or adverbial clauses of time.
2. If there were no rules, no conventions about how words fit together, there would be no language. And no point in this forum.
3. Most native English speakers distinguish between plurals and singulars, between past and present, even between subjunctive and indicative forms. Common errors of uneducated speech in certain parts of the country, like double-negatives (I didn't see nobody for I didn't see anybody), or of regular verb forms (He has went for he has gone) are an irritation to many.

I think you need to decide how best you learn a language: some learn best from talking, others from books. As a learner you need to find out if you learn best from the ear or the eye, but never think that the conventions (rules) can go out of the window, because they are essential to the accurate communication of ideas, which is what we are concerned with here.

I think the question raised in this thread is about distinguishing between plural and singular; that's a pretty basic distinction.

"about", "at the thought of" or nothing?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions