I know there is a difference in some cases, like...that tastes GOOD (you wouldn't use well), but is it okay to say "We did really good." My mom always corrected me when I used the word good...I was to say I don't feel WELL, etc... ************************************************************ 08-10-04, 07:41 PM Sarai "Good" is an adjective. "Good" describes the food.
"Well" is an adverb. If it tastes "well" you would be describing the act of tasting, rather than the food itself. For example, a wine taster might taste well (he's got a knack for tasting things), but food, being an inanimate object, can't taste. Thus, "taste" is being used as a linking verb (like "am" and "are,"), linking the noun to its descriptor. Linking verbs call for an adjective, not an adverb, because the words that follow them are describing the object, not the action.
Words like "feels," "seems," "looks," "smells," "sounds" etc. can all be linking verbs, just like "am" and "are". In the sentences "You are happy" and "You look happy," "happy" is being used as an adjective. Thus, "You look good" is gramatically correct, because "good" is an adjective describing "you," not the act of "looking."
Just to make things complicated: in the "I feel good" vs. "I feel well" category, though, there is an exception. "Good" is a general feeling, whereas "well" is used to describe health. After someone yells at me, I don't feel good. But when I'm sick, I don't feel well. Likewise, if you say "You look good," you are describing overall appearance, but if you say "You look well," you are describing health.
08-10-04, 08:11 PM Professor When I catch a cold and my nose is congested, it's true that I don't smell very well. I hope it's false that I don't smell very good. Wink
08-10-04, 08:14 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by Professor: When I catch a cold and my nose is congested, it's true that I don't smell very well. I hope it's false that I don't smell very good. Wink
"Does your nose run? Do your feet smell? If you answered yes to both, you're built upside down."
Alan Moore
08-11-04, 02:41 AM FredPuli " We did really good" has an adjective 'good' where we expect an adverb, 'well'. We did really good... what ? Work? Essays? As it is, 'good' isn't attached to any noun.It just hangs there while we wait for what it describes as 'good' to turn up Smile So though it may be understood that the speaker means " We did really well" what is said does not comply with the rules of conventional grammar.
'Well' is not always an adverb:" They had been ill but he made them well again" .Unlike 'good' though it does have the specific meaning of 'in good health, free or recovered from illness' among others. According to the Oxford English Dictionary those include 'on terms of intimate friendship or familiarity with a woman' and '(of a ship)in a sound or undamaged state'. (Must start reviving some of these Smile )
08-11-04, 08:33 AM kittypal Thank you!!!!!!
You did a GOOD job explaining it! You explained it well!! Smile
08-11-04, 08:25 PM Professor "Good" is not always an adjective. It can be an abstract noun, as in: "Florence Nightingale did a lot of good in her lifetime;" "It's for the common good;" "What good would that do?" etc.
AMoore: Thanks for takng me back to the 6th grade! Smile
08-12-04, 12:24 AM FredPuli And Professor, we have that version of English, spoken only by our soccer coaches, which includes this puzzling concoction, approving a player's performance:
"The boy done good"
Is it an abstract noun, an adverb, an 'adjectival' noun, a bird a 'plane.....? Confused And in what form is the verb ?
08-12-04, 02:19 AM Ewood27 Well, I say "Good for you all" for explaining things so well. Fred, does that odd phrase only apply to footballers? Can it also apply to baseball players? Because you can take a pitcher to the well too often.
08-12-04, 10:28 AM Professor Wasn't there a line in "West Side Story" where somebody says, "Ya done good, buddy boy." ?
"done good" = "did well"
In the U.S., depending on your point of view, such constructions may demonstrate flagrant illiteracy, colorful local vernacular, or the wave of the future.Wink
08-12-04, 12:08 PM FredPuli Indeed Ewood. Of course that's baseball, with a pitcher. In cricket all they have is a good long bowl.
Yes, Professor it is an example of the simplification of English, which ought to be the coming thing now that English is the lingua franca (or should that be 'common tongue' ? It seems daft to have it in Latin in this context, the more so when the Latin literally means 'French Language' Big Grin ).
Britons on AP have already noted a North-South divide in simplification in (British) English which is:
Southern: I was [there/going/hitting etc ] You was [,, ,, ,, ] He/She/It was We was You was They was
Northern : I were You or Tha' (for 'thou') were [the accusative of Tha' is 'thee', incidentally; the old form of second person singular is still universal in some areas ] He/She/It were We were You were They were
Unfortunately this divide remains that, a division of opinion and practice, and both forms are is dismissed as incorrect (by old fashioned unhip reactionary snobs, of course )
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
