Re: question about the degrees of the adjective

Ed Heil wrote:
>
> Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> > > Jim wrote:   I think Ed Heil's remarks about an "implicit standard" are
> > > useful here.
> > >
> >
> >         Where can I find them, I don't remember reading something like
> this?
>
> I think I may have accidentally replied privately to Jim instead of
> to the list.
>
> I pointed out that intensification is in fact comparison to an
> implicit standard.  "Tom is very big" means nothing more nor less than
> "Tom is bigger than the size which is implied by the term 'big' used
> without an intensive."  If you use the word "very," you are suggesting
> that there is a standard which would be implied if you did not use the
> word "very," and you now wish to exceed that standard.
>
        I think you're right there. This idea of an "inplied standard", I call
it "context" and often resort to it (like in Notya).

> This sort of thing is common enough.  Many bare adjectives display a
> similar phenomenon: if you say something is "big," you are saying that
> its size is greater than some implied standard of size.  Obviously
> this standard varies by context; there is a different implied standard
> when one talks about a "big earthworm" and a "big galaxy."  What is
> common is that in each there *is* an implicit standard and it is being
> exceeded.
>
        Yes, that's it.

> So in "very big" you have a standard of normal size, and that
> standard is exceeded because the object is "big", but the degree to
> which one would expect the standard to be exceeded is *itself*
> exceeded because the object is "*very* big."  Whew!
>
> Thanks, Jim, for your kind comments about this suggestion.
>
> If I understand the "absolute" correctly, the difference between it
> and a positive is that the absolute specifically suggests that the
> implicit standard within it is not exceeded, whereas the positive
> leaves the possibility open.  So the intensive "he is very big"
> contradicts the absolute "he is simply big," but neither of them
> contradicts the positive "he is big."  Is that right, or did I not
> quite get it?
>
        I think you nearly have it. The fact that "intensive" and "absolute"
are contradictory is true. The fact that the positive contradicts
neither of them is true also. I think there is something more, but I
still don't have it. But so far, your analysis is exact.

> Ed
--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com