Watching a YouTube theme park attraction review video, the narrator said, of a certain attraction, that “this ride will make you laugh and sick.” That hit my ears wrong. “This ride will make you laugh and puke,” sure – two verbs. “This ride will make you happy and nauseated,” sure – two adjectives. But the mix of adjective and verb in there is just grating.
Does this hit the ear wrong for anyone else? Is this proper use of English? Would your 8th grade English teacher mark you down for writing this?
Use of sick as anything but an adjective sounds like a Britishism to me. Or possibly Canadian? Just guesses. Could be some sort of American regionalism too.
Or who knows, it could just be an awkward mix of a verb and adjective, as in “this ride will make you laugh and it will make you [feel] sick”.
The statement sort of makes sense, but is awkward; it appears to mean ‘make you laugh and [make you] sick’ and presumably the repeated words presumably dropped because repetition itself sometimes seems awkward.
But there are plenty of other sentences where that sort of construction would not seem so strange, like perhaps ‘I’m going to shower and sleep’.
I agree that it’s wrong and doesn’t work as a sentence, the reason being that the complements of the verb should be the same part of speech.
(adj) This ride will make you rich and happy: OK.
(n) This ride will make you breakfast and dinner: OK.
(vb) This ride will make you eat and drink: OK.
(mix): This ride will make you rich and dinner: not OK.
Sort of related: there is a humorous figure of speech (maybe called “syllepsis”) where the complements of a verb are a concrete noun and an abstract noun. For example “he kicked the ball with determination and his left foot”, or a line I remember from a children’s book “what is it [that you are reading in the newspaper] that brings such concentration to the brow and such ink to the nose?” These sentences are grammatical but they subvert expectations in a humorous way by combining a “lofty” abstract noun and a down-to-earth concrete noun.
I was about to tell you “scroll down a little” but I just checked that link and you’re right, there’s no verb definition there. I had checked a few definition sites and I guess I posted the wrong one.
Here you go- looks like my guess was right that “sick” as a verb is more of a British usage:
My mean-as-a-snake 8th grade English teacher would strongly disagree. Her ghost hovers over my left shoulder when I write. But yes, your point is taken.
a figure of speech in which a word applies to two others in different senses (e.g., John and his license expired last week ) or to two others of which it semantically suits only one (e.g., with weeping eyes and hearts ).
I like to loudly shout in these usage threads that any rule taught to you by a high school English teacher is wrong. Which is undoubtedly annoying, but may serve to remind people that usage changes year by year and that poor beleaguered teachers just want to stop pupils from totally botching the language and that’s easier if they’re given rules rather than complicated nuances. Much like people are taught arithmetic to have them get by and only later do some learn actual mathematics.
This sentence is probably British usage. But even if it isn’t, stringing words together in interesting ways is what makes language beautiful, meaningful, and lasting.
Written by Theodore Bernstein, the longtime head copyeditor of the New York Times. The book is a lot of fun and also harmful, as it freezes the language into usages that were to be obeyed by writers at the Times in the 1950s or so, even though it wasn’t written until 1971. HeyHomie’s English teacher would have loved it. Today those rules are about as meaningful as The New Yorker’s insistence on continuing the use of the diaeresis in words like coöperate.
True, but it also gets rid of a bunch of old grammar misconceptions and 'rules". It is outdated today, I will give you that, but there are too many people wanting to go back to the “rules” the book mocks.
I agree. I was one of them 50 years ago. I bought all the usage books and actually read them all the way through. Bernstein was one of the seemingly more up-to-date writers, and certainly more fun than most.
Then I went to the dark side and read all the books who explained how English truly worked and where many of the usage rules started (out of Victorian asses) and why careful, good writing did not have to adhere to arbitrary outdated rules. Yes, it’s true. I was ruined by a book. And I make my shame public whenever I can.
