Bilingual

I'm bilingual.
I'm a bilingual.
I'm a perfect bilingual.
I'm completely bilingual.
I'm perfectly bilingual.

I found all of them on Google.

But I couldn't find 'I'm a complete bilingual.'

Why?

Thanks
LiJ

"I'm a perfect bilingual" only has 2 results too, btw.

"I'm a complete bilingual" gives no results because when you are a bilingual, you are a person who can use 2 languages. When complete is used as the adjective, it modifies the person, not the ability, so this is the core source of the weirdness and why the expression is not used. But it could be used in special situations like for sarcastic effect, because there's the expression "I'm a complete individual" that is used when, for example, you have met the love of your life and you feel like you are complete, and this expression itself is a kind of play on words. In conclusion, the modifier for the degree of the ability to speak two languages should be applied to the ability, and that's why the expressions involving bilingual in the sense of the person don't return many results.

nona the brit

Bilingual is an adjective so both

I'm a bilingual.
I'm a perfect bilingual.

are incorrect. So is I''m a complete bilingual'.

Hi Nona

According to Webster's Dictionary biligual is also a noun: "bilingual: a bilingual person". I don't think I have ever seen it used that way, though.

Cheers

CB 

I don't think I have ever seen it used that way

I've not ever heard it as a noun either

Where does either refer in this case? I or heard?

Thanks
LiJ

Anonymous

Websters is more of a descriptive dictionary. Cambridge and Oxford are prescriptive. I think that explains why Webster's has it as a noun. As our language evolves (becomes degraded), the more we'll find things in Websters that aren't widesly accepted by grammarians.

I agree with your analysis regarding the character of the two dictionaries. If change equal degradation, English was ruined hundreds of years ago. There are countless examples of that: the use of the auxiliary do in questions and negations, the use of s as a nearly universal plural ending, the use of which and who as relative pronouns etc. Also, more than 99 percent of modern English spellings are incorrect compared with what they were 1200 years ago. The language is completely corrupt if we accept the premise that change equals degradation.

The funny thing is that most people don't consider past changes bad, only those that happen in their lifetime. I fail to understand the logic behind that reasoning. 

 CB