Skip to main content

meaning - Explaining the comparative form of "numb"



The most common definition I have of numb is:




  1. "Deprived of the power of sensation."




  2. "Deprived of feeling or responsiveness."




These definitions show up in nearly the same form in multiple dictionaries, yet I see comparative and superlative forms "number" and "numbest" listed as well. I understand numb to mean complete deprivation of feeling, and so here's my question.


I had a student write the sentence: His fingers got number the longer he stayed outside. She asked if it was correct (because the spelling looked funny to her; it looked like number, as in "the number seven"), and I told her that numb didn't need a comparative form because it implied complete lack of sensation. I told her she could phrase a sentence His fingers slowly became numb... to signify that he was getting colder, but that she should not use numb in a comparative or superlative sense. Can somebody explain to me the reasoning for the comparative and superlative forms of this word. As well, I have the same problem with "wet, wetter, wettest."



Answer



There are two issues involved here.



  1. The pronunciation of final nasal-stop clusters like /-mb/ and /-ŋɡ/ with suffixes.

  2. The use of the comparative and superlative degrees, and their meanings.


(1) is the reason why the spelled word number (meaning more numb) "looked funny". In print, there is already a word spelled that way, though it's pronounced differently, so most people wouldn't notice it in real language, only in writing:



  • This is number /'nəmbər/ twenty-seven.

  • My left ring finger is number /'nəmər/ than my left index finger.


In other words, the one number /'nəmbər/ doesn't rhyme with the other number /'nəmər/. The same is true for singer, which doesn't rhyme with finger. And for the same reason; English words ending in /mb/ or /ŋɡ/ dropped the final stop and kept the nasal. Except /nd/, though that's elided to /n/ now most of the time; however, that isn't reflected in the spelling. Except on the internet.


There's even another minimal pair, both spelled longer:



  • The adjective long /lɔŋ/ plus the comparative -er produces /'lɔŋɡər/ 'more long', with /ɡ/

  • The verb long plus the agentive -er produces /'lɔŋər/ 'one who longs', without /ɡ/


That's issue (1).


Issue (2) has been adequately dealt with in the comments; the initial confusion seems to be due to the common mistake of expecting literal dictionary definitions of grammatical terms to say anything useful about how grammar actually works. Dictionaries list some meanings of some words in some contexts; but they don't tell you about grammar. For that, one consults a Grammar, not a Dictionary.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more