Redundant Comparatives

[Мастер]

As anyone capable of reading the words I am typing right now surely knows, English has two different ways to form comparative adjectives. Well, three, if we count irregular comparatives, but they are similar in spirit to one of the other methods. Something could be bigger, more interesting, and better, those being the comparatives of big, interesting, and good.

I have noticed, quite recently (months? maybe years, but not very many), a fourth form, the redundant comparative. I am hearing that things are, for example, "more better". In days gone by, I would have regarded this as uneducated speech, but I hear it now from people that I would regard as highly educated.

Has anyone else heard this one?

[Lance]

Yes.

[Enzo]

Yes, my mother used to correct anyone who said more better, and called them ignorant. SO I always associate the phrase with ignorance. You must travel in elite circles, I have heard more better and similar all my life.

But we also have other redundancies, like "really awesome." As in more awesome than just regular awesome. Not sure what I'd think if I heard something was "heinouser" than something else. Or would that be heinousser?

[Heid the Ba]

I hear this more and more.

I would go with "betterly".

[Arneb]

I dimly recall having read it once, and I took it to be said in irony. I mean, such a GLARING error couldn't be made by a native speaker in all seriousness, could it?

But what does a lingo-tard like me know.

[tubeswell]

'More better' sounds Orwellian - like 'double plus good' etc

[Arneb]

Yes, that's a connection I remember having noticed, too.

Sounds creepy. Or bombastic, in a hollow way.

[Heid the Ba]

I dimly recall having read it once, and I took it to be said in irony. I mean, such a GLARING error couldn't be made by a native speaker in all seriousness, could it?

Yes it could. I hear worse than that on a daily basis, and from relatively well educated people in some cases.

[Enzo]

It is not less good than nothing at all...

No glaring errors? Hah!

We have a stripe through the populace around here I call "themmers." They use the construct "them are" all the time. "Them are good bisquits." "Them are cool shoes." Grates on me, it does.

Then again, I am irritated by what I call "D-movers." Take a two syllable word, first syllable ends in D, but they move it to the beginning of the second syllable. So words like didn't, couldn't, student come out dih-dint or stew-dent. As opposed to STUDE-nt.

[Lance]

Then again, I am irritated by what I call "D-movers." Take a two syllable word, first syllable ends in D, but they move it to the beginning of the second syllable. So words like didn't, couldn't, student come out dih-dint or stew-dent. As opposed to STUDE-nt.

Them are goo dexamples.

[Мастер]

I remember Jeff Foxworthy mocking the phrase, "used to could", and just found the Wikipedia page on double modals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mo ... ble_modals

It mentions that they are used in Scots!

[Lianachan]

I often refer to things as "a little bit more better", but I'm intentionally using bad English and am pulling the piss. Isn't everybody? Christ, maybe I should stop!

[Heid the Ba]

It mentions that they are used in Scots!

Alas we have no Scots speakers here!

There is a largish crossover between Scots and some of the Scandewegian languages, I was surprised when I went to Norway the first time that I could understand some Norwegian.

[Lianachan]

Ah, but I'm a cunning linguist. I can't think of any Scots examples of a double modal that I've heard, though.

There are indeed many similarities between Scots and the Scandinavian languages - it's more that they share the same roots than it was influenced by our horny helmeted visitors. It's not a debased form of English, whatever some people will try to tell you.