alive vs. live

[Noelia]

So what's the difference between these two?

Why can't I say "alive languages" (or music) ?

Is it that you apply "alive" to creatures and "live" to objects that are not really "alive"?

[chrisbutler]

It is not because of the noun that you can't use alive in this way. You can say "The music of the Quilmes people is alive." or the "The language of the Quilmes people is alive."

What you can't do is use "alive" before a noun.

---

In English adjectives can be used either before a noun in order to qualify it ("attributive" adjectives) such as:-

• Poor Lump.
  
• Silly Noelia.
  
• Rich Pablo.

or they can also be used as a "predicate", which means that they have to be linked to the noun by a verb. The verb is usually 'to be", but it could be "to seem", "to become" or 100s of others.

Most (90%+) of adjectives can be used in either way; live is one of those. Some cannot; alive is one of those.

---

Some can only be used attributively, such as utter, sole, chief, very, atomic.

For example you can't say

"The stupidity, which those idiots cannot see, of the picture is utter."

you have to say

"Those idiots cannot see the utter stupidity of the picture."

---

Some adjectives can only be used predictively, such as: afraid, fond, alive, aware.

You can't say

"The afraid student waited for his next lesson.",

you can have to say

"The student waiting for his lesson was afraid."

(or, to keep the meaning 100% the same, "The student who was waiting for his lesson was afraid.").

---

Finally some adjectives (we keep these ones in reserve to test whether people are really English speakers or just very good students !) behave in different ways according to their meaning.

You can say

"The late pet, Lump"

but if you say

"The pet, Lump, is late."

you have very different meaning (explained by the fact he died 20 years ago).

Late is an easy example. Real also behaves differently for different meanings, but I can barely explain that to myself, let alone anyone else !!!

---

There is no rule to explain which adjective is which sort. The only tendency I can see is that the predicative adjectives are typically derived from verbs (alive is an example of that tendancy).

I hope that explanation is clear (or should that be "I hope that is a clear explanation ?").

[sendai]

Don't forget about "living", too. We usually say "living languages". The difference between alive, live and living is a bit subtle, I guess....

Also, Chris: we can say "my fondest memories", so it can also be used attributively.

[chrisbutler]

Thanks for reading what I wrote .... and even more, thinking about it. Sorry to have wasted some of your time, but fond was a typo for found !

Having said that, the more I say it, the more I could get used to "The found purse.", but I don't think it really is OK.

[Noelia]

I've been in bed the whole sunday and today. Give me a couple of days to recover and I will reply to this post, I promise!

[Noelia]

Hello Chris

Very interesting. There are, however, some things that I wanted to ask you:

You said:

You can't say:

"The stupidity, which those idiots cannot see, of the picture is utter."
"The afraid student waited for his next lesson.",


Though both sentences sound really formal to me, like something I would find in a book, or newspaper, they really sound good to me. Are they really wrong??

[Noelia]

OK no I made a mistake

"The stupidity, which those idiots cannot see, of the picture is utter."

this is obviously wrong, but how about this:

"The stupidity of the picture, which those idiots cannot see, is utter"

[Robie]

Lo siento pero me siento mal también. No se puede decir 'utter' como en tu oración. "Utter" no es una cosa que se puede "ser" / "estar". Pero sí es un palabra que se puede usar como describir la palabra 'stupidity' para dar enfasís.

[sendai]

"The stupidity of the picture, which those idiots cannot see, is utter"

This sentences sounds bad. Someone might utter it as a joke, but other than that I doubt someone would say it. Like Chris said, the word "utter" as an adjective should only be place directly before the noun it modifies.

It's like saying this in Spanish: Sos vos el que quiero estar con. It sounds like something is missing at the end.

[chrisbutler]

Noelia,

Yes they are both 'definitely' wrong. The thing is that the 'rules' of which adjectives are which sort ("attributive", "predicative" or both) are rules based on usage. There is nothing inherent in the adjective which determines its classification.

Therefore even if you use an adjective completely wrongly (as in the two sentences you quoted), the meaning is still crystal clear* and conforms to rules of grammar and syntax. To you they don't sound wrong exactly because no syntax or grammar rule has been broken. Native speakers know they are wrong (though they don't always know why).

Three further comments.

1) I chose examples where I think all English speakers would agree on the usage (as long as they are not drunk). Graeme, Robie and Sendai's replies support this (though I can't vouch for their sobriety !). Even then there is some (tiny) doubt in my mind that "the found ball" would always be judged 'wrong' by all English speakers. As you know English is infinitely flexible and we have no REA to lay down the rules so in 10 years the rules will have changed.

2) This is a classic problem for learning another language. In this case, the rules of usage are not written down anywhere, dictionaries do not list which adjectives are which type. The fundamental problem is that unless you've heard English for many many years, you would not realise that you had never heard "utter" being used predicatively. As a result it sounds OK to you when it is used that way. Noticing the absence of something is very, very difficult and requires years of exposure.

3) To be 100% accurate, I need to qualify the statement with the "*" in it (see above). For the very few adjectives which are "attributive" in some meanings, but "predicative" for others, misusing the adjective would lead to a misunderstanding, as in the example I gave of late. It's like some adjectives differ in meaning in Spanish and French depending on whether they come before of after the noun (though for English it is not the position that drives the difference, but the manner in which they are used). If this 'clarification' makes no sense, just ignore it - it's just me being very anal !

Finally, you said

OK no I made a mistake

"The stupidity, which those idiots cannot see, of the picture is utter."

this is obviously wrong, but how about this:

"The stupidity of the picture, which those idiots cannot see, is utter"

.

Though it sounds far worse, the first one is the grammatically more correct sentence (apart from the misuse of "utter"). It is the stupidity that the people cannot see; they can see the picture. In reality you are correct - 99% of English speakers would use the second sentence because the meaning is not really ambiguous, but if you wanted to be precise the first one is right (apart from the misuse of "utter"), but disgustingly ugly. Better would be

"The picture's stupidity, which those idiots cannot see, is utter."/

It still misuses "utter', but is accurate and not too ugly.


Don't you dare ask me whether it should be "... which those idiots ..." or "... that those idiots ..." !!!

[Noelia]

Chris... I've decided that you're just trying to get some revenge for the classes.

[chrisbutler]

Would that I were !