Re: OT: Fun, was Re: First thoughts on Imperial
| From: | Herman Miller <hmiller@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, July 20, 2003, 2:33 |
|---|
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:21:12 -0400, Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Ian Spackman wrote:
>
>> At 22:54 19/07/03, Doug Dee <AmateurLinguist@...> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that "fun" was a noun and not an
>> >adjective for people within, say, the last century.
>
>I'd always wondered why 'fun' apparently broken the rule that monosyllabic
>adjectives tend to form the comparative and superlative with -er and -est.
>I've always used and heard it formed with 'more/most' unless someone was
>being funny. I don't think it works as a noun for me, and I can hardly
>think of a case where it could only be analysed as a noun. Such a useage
>would be interesting.
Lots of fun / *very fun
Not much fun / *not very fun
*Lots of enjoyable / very enjoyable
*Not much enjoyable / not very enjoyable
Great fun / *great enjoyable
Replies