The fish Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Huh, strange, "love" is definitely dynamic for me. How many of Dowty's tests fail for you? For me they all pass: Forms a progressive: I am loving. Is a complement of "force": She forced me to love her. Occurs in imperatives: Love me! Can be pseudo-clefted: What I did was love her. Although my judgements are going a bit after a day of reading syntax papers. I think your girlfriend will be a little bit annoyed if you tell her that "you are loving her". If you actually love something, you do so eternally. And, yes, I'm perfectly aware that language is developed by usage, but I'll be dammed if McDonald's has anything to do with a major shift in the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 "I love it" and "I am loving it" hold different meanings, though. While a lot can be attributed by colloquial/cultural use (Cheers, McD) the two terms are still distinct. If my friend cooked me a rabbit stew after I told her I normally hate rabbit, and I said "I love it" then she may infer several things; that her meal has changed my mind, even. Whereas if I had said "I am loving it" it retains the original notion of there being a normative state for my opinion on rabbit, to which her meal has not altered, even though I am expressing my enjoyment of the meal. My opinion of rabbit, therefore, alters, depending on which phrase I have used. While my example is not thorough nor completely correct, I hope it serves as purpose to show why the phrase is totally fine. I don't think I ever really grasped the structure of language during my studies. I certainly didn't remember any of the correct labels or anything, but I still think I know how to phrase myself and make myself understood. Well, except for my grammar/spelling/vocab issues. Anyway, going to thread-rip our sideshow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 Lol, grunch. I was just ticking the boxes to do this exact thing. Will move over my latest post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Now you forgot Jayseven :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 "I love it" and "I am loving it" hold different meanings, though. While a lot can be attributed by colloquial/cultural use (Cheers, McD) the two terms are still distinct. If my friend cooked me a rabbit stew after I told her I normally hate rabbit, and I said "I love it" then she may infer several things; that her meal has changed my mind, even. Whereas if I had said "I am loving it" it retains the original notion of there being a normative state for my opinion on rabbit, to which her meal has not altered, even though I am expressing my enjoyment of the meal. My opinion of rabbit, therefore, alters, depending on which phrase I have used. While my example is not thorough nor completely correct, I hope it serves as purpose to show why the phrase is totally fine. Even so, you're talking about that meal, and you continually love that meal - you're not going to stop loving it in 15 seconds time. If, for some reason, you did, you'd be correct saying "I don't love this meal any more", not "I'm not loving this any more". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) I think your girlfriend will be a little bit annoyed if you tell her that "you are loving her". If you actually love something, you do so eternally. And, yes, I'm perfectly aware that language is developed by usage, but I'll be dammed if McDonald's has anything to do with a major shift in the English language. Is it McDonald's? I think it's more likely that they based their slogan on an already emerging usage, but I could be wrong. Anyway, sematically speaking, it's surely okay to say you're loving someone so long as you accept that love can be temporary, and it seems pretty accepted today that love isn't something that's always eternal, else divorce would be less common. Although it may be that there's some kind of layering going on, with a dynamic "love" for, e.g. concepts and a stative "love" for people. Edit: Yes, I think jayseven's point about the difference in meaning could back up this layering idea. Edited October 26, 2010 by Supergrunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Is it McDonald's? I think it's more likely that they based their slogan on an already emerging usage, but I could be wrong. Anyway, sematically speaking, it's surely okay to say you're loving someone so long as you accept that love can be temporary, and it seems pretty accepted today that love isn't something that's always eternal, else divorce would be less common. Although it may be that there's some kind of layering going on, with a dynamic "love" for, e.g. concepts and a stative "love" for people. I shall address this tomorrow, as right now I'm being tired and need to go to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) EDIT: Bullshit argument :p Edited October 26, 2010 by chairdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 So I found this when I was googling to see if any papers had been written about this new dynamic form. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 I think you have a very specific idea of what the word 'love' can imply. "I'm loving this meal" in itself is not a continual phrase - it is rather fixed in teh time-frame of the meal itself! The meal stops existing after I've eaten it. Thus surely it'd switch to I loved that meal," or, more to relate to the phrase we're debating; "I was loving that meal [but now it's over so I'm sad]." I'm meaning to draw attention to the "I am" in this, I think, but I'm 6 ciders down and I'm starting to feel like I need to read my old text books because I've clearly not remembered anything from uni. It's a verb thing. Grunch? Oh god, I had to stop reading that pretty quick, Grunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 "I'm loving it" as the slogan for McDonald's makes sense, because if someone asked you "How's the burger?", the natural response would be "I'm hating loving it.", as opposed to "I love it", because in a few minutes it will be no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 In progressive constructions like all of those "be" is just an auxiliary, there for the syntax really. Obviously this use of "love" does imply a time-frame, but that doesn't mean it's just for things that are transitory. You could, for instance really like breeze blocks, but then later go off them - "In the Autumn of 1983, I was loving breeze blocks, but now I'm loving tiles." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Does anyone love tiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Yes, everyone who doesn't love breeze blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I'm going to google what a Breeze Block is. It seems to be a cement block. Why don't they just call it that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 Portuguese love tiles. [/stereotype thread crossover] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Ughhhh. Men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 This thread..it's hurting my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Ughhhh. Men. Leave you're erotic fantasies out of this thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 God, I love N-E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 But what if you're only loving it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Ughhhh. Men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 This thread wins at everything, ever! And it is winning, as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 A little clarification: love is a stative verb (that's one of those pesky 'fact' things). The rules and usage regarding stative verbs, however, are changing. I find the change irritating to my ear as no action is taken to love something. To love something is not progressive - you have no intention of ceasing to love something at a future point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I am read this thread and loving the content. All of this wordigenousness is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts