Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: To expend words

Some time ago we discussed the expression "to spend (some) words on a
subject" [1]. All native speakers agreed that said expression was not
idiomatic; perhaps not wrong, but definitely not equivalent to the Italian
"spendere alcune parole". That should be "to say some words".
I think I've found an English expression which is a little more like the
Italian "spendere (alcune/molte/...) parole": "to expend (some/many/...)
words". Here is the web page where I found it:
QUOTE (
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/philip-roth/
)
He also employed his own writings and the public, and critical reaction to
them, as the focus of much of his later material. For example, in two of
his novels, Zuckerman Unbound (1981) and The Anatomy Lesson (1983), 
*Roth expended thousands of words on the question* of whether the novel he
may be best known for, Portnoy's Complaint (1969), could be considered
anti-Semitic.
UNQUOTE
That expression appears to be supported by dictionaries. So, I suppose you
can say "I would like to expend a few words on this", for example. You can
also expend time, ink etc.
[1] 
http://snipurl.com/9zk7
http://snipurl.com/9zk1
 
(threads appeared on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese)
http://snipurl.com/9zkb
 (thread appeared on alt.usage.english)
Bye, FB
-- 
Domanda: "Era il figlio di Iside e Osiride".
Risposta: "Thor".
(quiz televisivo)


I wouldn't call "expend some words" an idiomatic expression. It is the
author's choice.
By the way, do you know what the "complaint" was, in the novel
"Portnoy's  Complaint", later made into a film, which is cited in your
quote?."
Joe from Massachusetts

 quote?."
Not idiomatic, but akin to "spendere [...] parole", which, by the way, I
wouldn't say is idiomatic, just plausible and common. Anyway, you can say
"I'd like to expend a few words on the matter", can't you?
Bye, FB
-- 
Mrs. Palmer, in her way, was equally angry. 'She was determined to drop his
acquaintance immediately, and she was very thankful that she had never been
acquainted with him at all'. (Jane Austen)

 "I'd like to expend a few words on the matter", can't you?
Si può, si riece a capirlo, ma si dovrebbe? No. Un madrelingua non lo 
direbbe. 

 quote?."
I don't, but I mean to read something by P. Roth, whom someone says is the
greatest living writer.




Actually, google says it's not so common: just one occurrence of "expend
some words" and twenty of "expend a few words", some of which seem
reliable. I think I may say that "to expend [...] words" is not a common
expression, but if you write it one will just infer that you didn't use a
fixed expression but just put "expend" and "some words" together. Or would
one infer the writer is not a native speaker?
Bye, FB
-- 
Nasalization is just a part of life.
(Joey DoWop Dee on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese)

 one infer the writer is not a native speaker?
I intended to say that one would be able to understand what you meant, but a 
native speaker would never use 'expend' in that way. I didn't intend to say 
that it is common at all. 

 >> Si può, si riece a capirlo, ma si dovrebbe? No. Un madrelingua non lo

What Tony the ice man says goes for UK English , too ; but the sentence you
quoted about Roth is perfectly standard and correct : he expended thousands
of words , and the use of 'expend' in this way suggests a certain
exhaustiveness , so its use with 'a few words' is essentially contradictory
. Similarly , you can expend a lot of money , energy or time , but not a few
pence or a few minutes .
Mike

 pence or a few minutes .
I see. Then, it does not mean "spese molte parole", which doesn't
necessarily convey an idea of exhaustiveness; "vorrei spendere qualche
parola al riguardo" basically means "Let me linger over this subject for a
while". 
Is "he spent thousands of words" wrong, then, provided the meaning is the
same as "he expended thousands of words" and not as "spese migliaia di
parole" (this one doesn't sound quite right to me, by the way)?


 parole" (this one doesn't sound quite right to me, by the way)?
Can someone think of a proper translation of "expend thousands of words"?



'he spent thousands of words' is perfectly OK , though it won't mean
absolutely exactly the same as 'he expended ...' , since 'spend' is  neutral
and has no connotations in regard to the amount spent ; I can certainly talk
about 'spending a few quid' or 'spending a few minutes doing something' ,
just as I can talk about 'spending billions of pounds of public money with
nothing to show for it ' or about x (forgotten his name) 'spending seventeen
years of his life on his biography of Graham Greene' .
'Expend' can sometimes carry the suggestion of a profligate or excessive
spending of time , money etc.If I said x 'expended seventeen years of his
life on his biography of Greene' , I would certainly not be brutally saying
he'd wasted his time , but I would be calling a more particular attention to
the extraordinary extent of his commitment , and in a given context the very
fact of this emphasis , likely as it is to stimulate in the reader's mind
the question 'Was it justified ?' , might be interpreted as implying a
slight doubt on my part as to the answer to that question .
Mike

 slight doubt on my part as to the answer to that question .
Extremely clear. Thanks, Mike. So, since "spend" is neutral, would you ever
say "I'd like to expend a few words on the matter", instead of "I'd like to
say a few words on the matter"? I seem to recall in that discussion some
time ago they all agreed that "to spend [some/...] words" was just not
used, not idiomatic.
Bye, FB
-- 
Emily: "I'm going to Europe and I'm going to have a marvellous time. I'm
going to get up at ten and have two glasses of wine at lunch every single
day."
Richard: "Only prostitutes have two glasses of wine at lunch!"
(Gilmore Girls, 501)

 say a few words on the matter"?
Bye, FB
-- 
"Come, dear, we have already missed five, if not six, trains. To miss any
more might expose us to comment on the platform."
("The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde)

 greatest living writer.
... who ...
Scusami, ma dovevo farlo.
-- 
Xakero



You're right. I should have known!!! I can only say that "who" vs "whom" in
that kind of sentence is not so easy even for native speakers. They're
talking about it on alt.usage.english right now.


 talking about it on alt.usage.english right now.
And I do appreciate that kind of remark(s?).
Bye, FB
-- 
In any case, if you say 'I gotta go' at an important job interview you're
contributing to being allowed just that privilege.
(Tony the ice man on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese)

 that kind of sentence is not so easy even for native speakers.
"...Roth, of whom someone says he is..." andrebbe bene, forse un po' più
convoluto.
Nei giornali inglesi vedo spesso "who" al posto di "whom" e sta, infatti,
diventando la regola, ma mi sconvolge ogni volta . Ai giornalisti, lo
perdono, ma a te...  :-)
-- 
Xakero


Greatest? I don't know about that.
He's pretty good, and the reviews of his latest book, "The Plot
Against America", are good, 35 years after his "Portnoy's Complaint",
and 45 years after the publication of "Goodbye, Columbus".
Joe from Massachusetts

 Greatest? I don't know about that.
I've never read any of his books, but I intend to because there's this
Italian journalist who has been declaring P. Roth is a genius, the greatest
living writer etc. for years.
I obviously don't know whether he's the greatest living writer, but if he's
not, who is? Perhaps he's not Austen or Shakespeare, but I don't know of
any contemporary Austens or Shakespeares.
Bye, FB
-- 
Locked from the inside. That can only mean one thing, and I don't know what
it is.
(Murder by Death)

 any contemporary Austens or Shakespeares.
Maybe Francesco Totti can satisfy your eagerness to discover brilliant
contermporary writers with his famous "libro delle barzellette", give it a
go *g*
-- 
Yeah, whatever...


Sorry , I mis-clicked and sent my reply direct to FB . Briefly , for anyone
else not quite sure , the answer is 'No' . In theory it should be OK , but
it's just a quirk of usage that we (in the UK) wouldn't say it (as seems to
have been the consensus in the earlier thread FB mentioned) .
Mike

 talking about it on alt.usage.english right now.
Ci sono andato a vedere e mi sono buttato dentro. Interessante a vedere
come fanno fatica a capire a che cosa il who/whom si riferisce.
-- 
Xakero



If I'm not mistaken, it isn't even possible to write "P. Roth, who someone
says is the greatest living writer" in German. It is in Italian, though,
but the relative pronoun never changes in the accusative:
*n. che    il quale*
*a. che    il quale*
d. (a) cui   al quale
g. di cui     del quale


 but the relative pronoun never changes in the accusative:
Non sono un esperta del tedesco ma conosco qualcuno che lo è ed egli mi
dice che sia possibile, con l'uso di tante virgole (benché con la loro
nuova ortografia, mi dice, molte virgole sono ormai facoltative)
"...P. Roth, der, sagt jemand, der größte zeitgenössische Autor sei."
-- 
Xakero

 "...P. Roth, der, sagt jemand, der größte zeitgenössische Autor sei."
Interesting; I didn't know. Could you ask your friend how you can say "I
like this book, which I hope will be published again". I think you do have
to recast it somehow in this case.


> "...P. Roth, who someone says is the greatest living writer" 
Nel discorso, tu faresti delle pause prima e dopo "someone says"? Io, sì,
ma questo è probabilmente dovuto al mio invecchiamento progressivo, e nel
scitto ci avrei messo delle virgole, dovuto al fatto che imparai l'inglese
tanti decenni fa. (Riconosco di essere "old-fashioned", e non me ne
vergogno. Vedi che sono propenso verso la virgola anche nell'italiano.)
-- 
Xakero

 vergogno. Vedi che sono propenso verso la virgola anche nell'italiano.)
Perhaps that's the key. When you add the comma, the sentence becomes quite
clear:
"P. Roth who, (as) someone says, is the greatest living writer"
In Italian, I'd say "P.Roth, che qualcuno dice essere il piů grande
scrittore vivente" (or a simpler "che qualcuno considera/reputa/ritiene il
piů grande scrittore vivente"); I've never heard "P. Roth, che qualcuno
dice che č il piů [...]", I'd say it's wrong.


 to recast it somehow in this case.
Il maestro che s'impegna ad insegnare il tedesco a un mio amico a Tel Aviv
mi ha dato questa traduzione (testo tedesco copiato dal suo messaggio
elettronico):
Variazione 1, con avverbio: Mir gefällt dieses Buch, welches hoffentlich
wieder gedruckt wird.
Variazione 2, con verbo: Mir gefällt dieses Buch und ich hoffe, dass es
wieder gedruckt wird. (Più probabile della variazione 1)
Variazione 3, con verbo (più probabile nello scritto che nel parlato): Mir
gefällt dieses Buch, welches -- so hoffe ich -- wieder gedruckt wird.
-- 
Xakero

 gefällt dieses Buch, welches -- so hoffe ich -- wieder gedruckt wird.
Grazie a te, al tuo amico e al suo insegnante.
Ciao, FB
-- 
Conversation like television set on honeymoon: unnecessary.
(Murder by Death)

  zerstört haben, anzeigen, werden belohnt."
Spediteure, die vor einem Schocoladen Laden laden, laden Ladenmächen zum
Tanz.
-- 
The preceding is my opinion of modern, colloquial, American English. I
point this out to avoid confusion; references to British English may appear
to contradict the foregoing.
If you feel the need to e-mail me, un-not my address first.