"Marry off" | Imamother

amother

Silver

Wed, Feb 14 2024, 5:08 pm

ittsamother wrote:

I've been looking into transitive and intransitive verbs more. While a transitive verb requires an object, does the object have to be specified in the sentence to be complete? For example.
"She saw a huge spider on her table. She slapped! She killed! She disposed!"
We all get the context right there, clearly she's doing it all to the spider. Are those three last sentences all incorrect, and it must be written as "She slapped it! She killed it! She disposed of it!" or are they technically correct, just slightly awkward.

Grammar is not my thing but I'm ROFL. If my teachers had used examples like that, maybe grammar would be my thing lol.

imaima ↓

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 3:52 am

tigerwife wrote:

It’s a grammatical question, IIUC.
If “married off” is an acceptable term, then it still needs to be in relation to a subject that gets affected by that verb phrase.
Correct: “I married off a daughter last week.”
Incorrect: “I married off last week.” (Missing subject related to verb. I is the main subject in the sentence.)
But since the entire verb phrase is questionable as well, I’m not sure any of these rules apply. Very Happy

It’s called direct object. The verb asks for direct object and there isn’t any

↑ imaima

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 3:56 am

octopus wrote:

I'm not a grammarian so maybe some other grammar experts can weigh in. I'm not entirely convinced you can call the word "off" a verb. I'm not convinced what you are saying is correct.

Marry off is a phrasal verb (verb+ preposition)

amother

Ballota

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 4:19 am

The expression used without an object is Yinglish. Standard English requires stating who was married off. Leaving out this detail is jarring to the educated ear, but so are many colloquial expressions peculiar to certain demographic groups. They're fine to use within the group, provided one uses the standard form outside the group.

amother

↑ OP ↓

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 6:25 am

amother Honeysuckle wrote:

Op was this for the view? Tongue Out

No.
I heard this expression from someone, and told her that it gives away her city of origin, because it's not used elsewhere. That led us to discuss the grammar of this phrase. I wanted to hear what the grammar experts on Ima had to say.

What happened at the view?

cbsp

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 8:54 am

ittsamother wrote:

This thread (and your examples) reminded me of a phrasing that I don't remember hearing (whether in our frum enclaves or secular circles). I started hearing it around 10 or so years ago and thought maybe it was a regional thing, but I now more recently heard it in NYC (I think it was a news broadcast) which can not be confused with the Midwest.

Statement:
"we're going to [pick your exotic destination]"

Olden days reply:
"nice, I've never been there"

Nowadays reply:
"nice, I've never been"

The first time I heard it I thought I was missing something, now it seems the "there" is superfluous to the point of being incorrect. When did this shift happen?

penguin

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 9:04 am

I noticed someone saying "it was redolent". Don't you need to sat redolent with something?

As in, "the woods were redolent with the smell of pine trees" or "the kitchen was redolent with the smell of the wine used to cook the meat"?

amother

↑ Honeysuckle

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 10:37 am

amother OP wrote:

The Monsey view - a free weekly magazine. The theme this week is about marrying off and the phrase is used very many times (every time who was married off is included. )
A very weird coincidence.

I think you can see it online themonseyview.com

bsy

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 1:24 pm

cbsp wrote:

Drives me CRAZY. Another one like this is "I didn't want to leave her home so I went with." Or "I didn't want to leave her so I took her with." Drives me crazy

amother

↑ Hyacinth

Sun, Feb 18 2024, 5:31 pm

amother Honeysuckle wrote:

lol I thought it was on THE View. Like the talk show.