+0
1. He is much loved.

2. He is much interesting.

3. Your thoughts were much appreciated.

4. This is a much needed development.

5. His face is much red.

6. It was a very stimulating discussion.

7. It was a much stimulating discussion.

If 1, 3, 4, 6, why not 2, 5, 7?

MrP
1 2 3  5 6 7 » 21
Comments  (Page 4) 
...something is still wrong or remains unexplained by your hypothesis...
There do seem to be a few cracks.

Off to ponder.

MrP
I'd like to restate my earlier thought, before I venture into the labyrinth again:

"The conjunction [much + past participle] can be explained in terms of the nature of 'much' and the nature of the past participle. The conjunction [very + present participle] can be explained in terms of the nature of 'very' and the nature of the present participle."

MrP
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
... h'mm ...
(Three out of four Americans make up 75 percent of the population. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the former hypothesis was so bad, though.
 ... h'mm ...
Emotion: smile
"i.e. the current usage did not evolve randomly, but has an underlying logic."

MrP
Anonymous...how should we negate these sentences?

[1] He is much loved. [2] He is very loved. The answer seems obvious. Then ... the original sentences and negated sentences could be considered as 'stative' sentences; then what is quantified..?

Interestingly, 'he is not much loved' has an air of ironic understatement. It can be used to mean 'frankly, he is not at all loved'; 'actually, he is not loved to any great extent'. So the quantity still rests in 'much loved', but is denied by the negation.

'He is very loved' sounds a little odd to my ears; 'well loved' seems more usual. 'Very loved' has an air of novelty; it might be used for effect.

MrP

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hello, I'd like to leave your comment to more reliable hand of rvw. I think I can understand what you said.
So... you think, with a little modification in your statement, your hypothesis can be maintained.
I don't disagree.

I suspect that my question below belongs to another usage of 'much' ┈┈ much + uncountable noun ┈┈, so I feel sorry again, but I got curious about the difference between the two sentences (), so let me ask.

[1] It/This is very intriguing information.  
[2] It/This is much intriguing information.  

[3] There is very intriguing information.  
[4] There is much intriguing information.  

(How about their negations?)

I googled. Is there any preference in usage? (it seems to be)
I just got curious and asked, but you can ignore my question; I'd like to ask you again, later, then. (Just as a memorandum for myself .. to think about the relation between negation and quantity.)
Hello Roro

I'll judge your sentences as follows.



  • [1] It/This is very intriguing information.[o]



  • [2] It/This is much intriguing information.[x]



  • [3] There is [some] very intriguing information.[o]



  • [4] There is much intriguing information.[o]


  • The 'much' in #4 does not modify 'intriguing', but the whole of 'intriguing information'. "There is much information that is intriguing".

    paco
Hello paco! How's it going?
Actually I was completely ignorant of these problems before.
Thank you for your reply. I see, that is in [4] 'much' quantifies information.

You know, I got curious about why such an expression as 'be not much interesting/intriguing.' is normative. To state quite intuitively, there's an air of 'quantification of some feature', too.

Just curious!
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
RoroI got curious about why such an expression as 'be not much interesting/intriguing.' is normative.
Hello Roro

"There is not much interesting these days" Here 'much' is not an adverb but a noun.

paco
Show more