# I'm fool enough to love her.



## Anais Ninn

What is correct? - I'm fool enough to love her or I'm a fool enough to love her? If both, why so?

Thanks a lot?

Anais


----------



## Hockey13

Anais Ninn said:


> What is correct? - I'm fool enough to love her or I'm a fool enough to love her? If both, why so?
> 
> Thanks a lot?
> 
> Anais


 
I'm fool enough to love her.

It's just idiomatic.


----------



## Anais Ninn

Thanks for your reply. Is it wrong to say "I'm a fool enough to love her?"

Anais



Hockey13 said:


> I'm fool enough to love her.
> 
> It's just idiomatic.


----------



## GEmatt

You would need to say "I'm enough of a fool to love her," if you want to use the "a". But they both sound weird..


----------



## Anais Ninn

Really? Then, would you say, "He is a man enough to forgive her." or "He is man enough to forgive her?"

Anais



GEmatt said:


> You would need to say "I'm enough of a fool to love her," if you want to use the "a". But they both sound weird..


----------



## Hockey13

Anais Ninn said:


> Really? Then, would you say, "He is a man enough to forgive her." or "He is man enough to forgive her?"
> 
> Anais


 
He is man enough to forgive her.

Same reason as before.  

And you're welcome.


----------



## Anais Ninn

Wow, this is complete news to me. I always thought, "Jeez, another bad grammar." Thanks a lot!

Anais





Hockey13 said:


> He is man enough to forgive her.
> 
> Same reason as before.
> 
> And you're welcome.


----------



## SleepyMutt

Does any word not need the article in this phrase? 
This is word enough to be memorized. 
He is artist enough to be promoted.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

These don't work at all as they stand, Sleepy.
In the previous examples in this thread, "fool" and "man" are _functioning_ (in my opinion) as adjectives, like "brave enough", "good enough").  What *you* have is two nouns, "word" and "artist".


----------



## SleepyMutt

Enquiring Mind said:


> These don't work at all as they stand, Sleepy.
> In the previous examples in this thread, "fool" and "man" are _functioning_ (in my opinion) as adjectives, like "brave enough", "good enough").  What *you* have is two nouns, "word" and "artist".


If they are adjectives, what do they modify?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

They modify "I" and "he": I am fool enough, he is man enough, in the same way as _I am strong enough_ or _he is clever enough_.

_He is fool enough to believe everything people tell him. _(fool = stupid)
_This tool is no good for breaking up concrete. It's not man enough for the job. _(man = strong)


----------



## SleepyMutt

Enquiring Mind said:


> They modify "I" and "he": I am fool enough, he is man enough, in the same way as _I am strong enough_ or _he is clever enough_.
> 
> _He is fool enough to believe everything people tell him. _(fool = stupid)
> _This tool is no good for breaking up concrete. It's not man enough for the job. _(man = strong)


Would they be considered adjectives without being linked to enough?
He is man. 
He is fool.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

No.  Note that I specifically said in #9 that they are _functioning_ as adjectives.  How a word _functions _can affect the way in which it can be used.

In the way they're used here, "fool" and "man" can describe *qualities*.  But "word" and "artist" aren't qualities.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Enquiring Mind said:


> No.  Note that I specifically said in #9 that they are _functioning_ as adjectives.  How a word _functions _can affect the way in which it can be used.
> 
> In the way they're used here, "fool" and "man" can describe *qualities*.  But "word" and "artist" aren't qualities.



 For instance, I've said upon seeing a _very _large dog, "That thing's big enough to ride!"


----------



## Loob

I'd say "he's artist enough..." could work in the right context - here's an example:

Rebecca West's Literary Criticism - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › specials › west-ending
And she _is artist enough_ to understand how, in the last analysis, art is an inward thing deriving from the imagination of the artist rather than from the outward flux of life.


----------



## SleepyMutt

Enquiring Mind said:


> No.  Note that I specifically said in #9 that they are _functioning_ as adjectives.  How a word _functions _can affect the way in which it can be used.
> 
> In the way they're used here, "fool" and "man" can describe *qualities*.  But "word" and "artist" aren't qualities.


This is a word enough to be memorized. 
Makes sense?


----------



## velisarius

No, that one doesn't make sense.


----------



## SleepyMutt

velisarius said:


> No, that one doesn't make sense.


This is enough of a word to be memorized.


----------



## suzi br

SleepyMutt said:


> This is enough of a word to be memorized.


It doesn't work because there is no "quality" of "word-ness" that we share - the whole thing is meaningless. 

The originals are very different = compare "word"  to all the "meanings"  that go with concepts of human life such as masculinity or art!


----------



## SleepyMutt

suzi br said:


> It doesn't work because there is no "quality" of "word-ness" that we share - the whole thing is meaningless.
> 
> The originals are very different = compare "word"  to all the "meanings"  that go with concepts of human life such as masculinity or art!


I am afraid there can be an exception. If I say "dog" is not a word, I won't memorize it. But I am contradicted with this "Dog is a word enough to memorize. " This word is worth memorizing. No?


----------



## Loob

No, sorry.

(1) Note that all the others indicated possible qualities of a person.
(2) They also had no article: _be a man enough be man enough_


----------



## velisarius

"Dog" is a word important enough to memorise. (Grammatically correct but stilted.)


----------



## elroy

Loob said:


> (1) Note that all the others indicated possible qualities of a person.
> (2) They also had no article: _be a man enough be man enough_


They are also gradable: you can be more foolish or less foolish, more brave or less brave, more of an artist or less of an artist.  But there aren’t degrees of “word-ness.”


----------



## suzi br

SleepyMutt said:


> I am afraid there can be an exception. If I say "dog" is not a word, I won't memorize it. But I am contradicted with this "Dog is a word enough to memorize. " This word is worth memorizing. No?


It seems that  you really haven't understood the basic structure -  so the things you are trying to do are not successful. 
Memorise doesn't fit in this structure either!


----------



## SleepyMutt

suzi br said:


> It seems that  you really haven't understood the basic structure -  so the things you are trying to do are not successful.
> Memorise doesn't fit in this structure either!


Do you mean it should be "to be memorized" provided the rest of the problem was resolved?


----------



## suzi br

SleepyMutt said:


> Do you mean it should be "to be memorized" provided the rest of the problem was resolved?


No - I mean the concept of memorising is nothing like the sort of thing we use for this idiom.


----------



## SleepyMutt

I bumped into this thread 


Enquiring Mind said:


> These don't work at all as they stand, Sleepy.
> In the previous examples in this thread, "fool" and "man" are _functioning_ (in my opinion) as adjectives, like "brave enough", "good enough").  What *you* have is two nouns, "word" and "artist".


This is word enough for me.
It seems that this sentence is approved of there. " This is word enough for me". How come?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Have you read the thread? The responders say it is "unusual", "uncommon", "rather restricted in its use", "I would think you were saying it in jest", "doesn't work in a 'serious' way". So yes, there may be a very contrived context in which it might be used, but it's not at all clear what it means. How much "word" is "enough"?

There's little point in arguing about the validity of a sentence with no context.


----------



## suzi br

SleepyMutt said:


> I bumped into this thread
> 
> This is word enough for me.
> It seems that this sentence is approved of there. " This is word enough for me". How come?


Probably because in that thread the intention is to be slightly funny and *not* trying to do something very  serious.  As Enquiring Mind says, it's a bit futile with no real context,

There are lots of nuances at play here, for sure. 

If you are obsessed with this rarely used corner of English, then fine, go ahead and use it in unorthodox / ludicrous ways. You'll probably either be misunderstood or laughed at.  If laughter is your goal - then way to go.  Job's a good 'un.


----------



## SleepyMutt

suzi br said:


> Probably because in that thread the intention is to be slightly funny and *not* trying to do something very  serious.  As Enquiring Mind says, it's a bit futile with no real context,
> 
> There are lots of nuances at play here, for sure.
> 
> If you are obsessed with this rarely used corner of English, then fine, go ahead and use it in unorthodox / ludicrous ways. You'll probably either be misunderstood or laughed at.  If laughter is your goal - then way to go.  Job's a good 'un.


I don't follow your reasoning. If one wants to sound funny, does it make an ungrammatical usage grammatical? You are focused on me here, but actually it's not about me but about this piece of grammar. My goal is to sort it out. It can't be grammatically correct on the basis of being funny, or it can't be grammatically wrong on the basis of being serious. If it's ungrammatical as you say, it's ungrammatical upon any circumstances. 


entangledbank said:


> 'Word enough' would also work because it echoes one of the most famous lines in English poetry, the opening of Andrew Marvell's 'To His Coy Mistress':
> 
> Had we but world enough and time,
> This coyness, lady, were no crime.


I find it confusing to have two opposite answers in two different threads on the same subject.


----------



## velisarius

If it had been "Had I but words enough..." (if I had enough words...) I would be in agreement with entangledbank on this.

"This is word enough..." just doesn't make sense, so why are we discussing it? It's q common enough construction when we are talking about people: "He is man enough to admit he's wrong", "I was fool/foolish enough to go along with it".


----------



## SleepyMutt

velisarius said:


> If it had been "Had I but words enough..." (if I had enough words...) I would be in agreement with entangledbank on this.
> 
> "This is word enough..." just doesn't make sense, so why are we discussing it? It's q common enough construction when we are talking about people: "He is man enough to admit he's wrong", "I was fool/foolish enough to go along with it".


Isn't the fact that there is not a unanimous assessment of this phenomenon on the part of native speakers a good reason to discuss the issue? After all this is what this thread is for. I feel you would feel the same if you received two incompatible answers on the same count.


----------



## velisarius

Some members are more elastic as to what is acceptable. Perhaps they are naturally agreeable people, which is not a bad thing.

I prefer to be more realistic: weird but "maybe possible in some contrived contexts" constructions are not going to be very useful to most members who come here with the aim of improving their English.


----------



## suzi br

ref #30

Because comedy is OFTEN derived from word play which can include grammatical variation.  Being "not the usual grammar" is part of the joke. Loads of humour is based on slight shifts AWAY  from the norm.
However, humour is not very receptive to close scrutiny - it's like trying to work out how butterflies fly by cutting off their wings - messy and not very instructional.

Actually, for your information, I don't think entangledbank and I are disagreeing - we are exploring angles on how our minds work as native speakers with cultural references such as this well known poem to draw on - the mention of that made me smile more - because  I see the wit in it. Not saying yay or nay to any idea, but looking at it and discussing it.

Keeping to your original question about  how and when to use this construction - the best advice is still to only use it it traditional ways - like this: if you are scholar enough to learn. (Here's a valid example for you).

And it IS about you because you are banging on with excess attention to "odd" ones instead of building up a set of obviously "right" applications which you could use.


----------



## SleepyMutt

No, it's not about me. It's about someone who wants to get me into the habit of brushing things under the carpet. If I get a controversial answer I don't blame myself and anyone else for asking to eloborate it. I don't see anything offbeat about it.


----------



## suzi br

No one has brushed anything under any carpet. You have had long and thoughtful answers. 
Not the answers you want but answers enough for real learning.


----------



## Jezuz

Enquiring Mind said:


> No.  Note that I specifically said in #9 that they are _functioning_ as adjectives.  How a word _functions _can affect the way in which it can be used.
> 
> In the way they're used here, "fool" and "man" can describe *qualities*.  But "word" and "artist" aren't qualities.


What if we entertained a strictly hypothetical situation where two people are having a debate on whether or not "ish" is a word. Then if one said "No, ish is not a word, it's a suffix at best, and at worst it's an abomination", couldn't the other person reply to that "It's word enough for me!". True, if a word is a word, it's not a word a little bit, it is a word all the way. But in case the word's status as a word is questionable, wouldn't this usage be rather warranted?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Yes, the other person *could* say "it's word enough for me". That's a clear (though "contrived", as I noted) context, but even so I doubt that it would be the first choice of wording to express that idea partly because the "word enough" collocation is more formal than conversational. "That's enough of a word for me", or "that's enough to qualify as a word for me", or "that counts as enough of a word for me" sound more natural.

In my original reply, we were commenting on the acceptability (or lack of it) of "this is word enough to be memorised" (#8).

I have to say I'm not a great fan of rather sterile threads where someone cobbles together a collection of English words with no context, and wonders out loud if they can say it, and we native speakers have to scratch our heads and wonder if, in the real world, anyone would ever *want* to say it in that particular wording (because there are other more natural ways of conveying the intended idea), and what it might mean.


----------



## Jezuz

Enquiring Mind said:


> Yes, the other person *could* say "it's word enough for me". That's a clear (though "contrived", as I noted) context, but even so I doubt that it would be the first choice of wording to express that idea partly because the "word enough" collocation is more formal than conversational. "That's enough of a word for me", or "that's enough to qualify as a word for me", or "that counts as enough of a word for me" sound more natural.
> 
> In my original reply, we were commenting on the acceptability (or lack of it) of "this is word enough to be memorised" (#8).
> 
> I have to say I'm not a great fan of rather sterile threads where someone cobbles together a collection of English words with no context, and wonders out loud if they can say it, and we native speakers have to scratch our heads and wonder if, in the real world, anyone would ever *want* to say it in that particular wording (because there are other more natural ways of cionveying the intended idea), and what it might mean.


Thank you. Now that we have established the semi-marginal validity of this wording, would you have any ideas about its origin? Could it be a lingering archaism? Or extrapolated from certain fixed expressions? It has some very curious grammar, but I have found nothing to explain it. Not even in Quirk's "Comprehensive grammar". And yet, collocations like this do occur and in some respectable texts too.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

I think it boils down to what I basically said in #9, 11 and 13, that "enough" has to collocate (semantically) with a *quality* (e.g. "big enough", "tough enough" or a noun that is being used metaphorically and can semantically denote a perceived quality in the context in which it's being used, such as "this tool is not *man* (= strong) enough for the job", and I don't think there are many nouns in that category.

You'll note that the original collocation being asked about was "fool enough", and "fool" (as an animate noun) clearly has the connotation "silly" or "stupid", and "man enough" can have the connotation "strong", "brave", etc. "Word", on the other hand, is an *in*animate noun and does not normally have any connotations of any particular quality or characteristic. So apart from the rather contextually contrived occasionalism that we've just allowed in "this is word enough for me" (which, though not impossible, is not a likely way to convey the idea) we can't take the example of "fool enough" (animate noun), graft it onto a phrase with an *in*animate noun ("word enough") and expect it to sound idiomatic or even make sense.

"Fool enough"  - enough silliness, "man enough" - enough strength, "word enough" - enough ??? (what?).


----------



## Myridon

In other words, men are manly over a range of manliness, fools are foolish over a range of foolishness, but words are not wordly(?) or wordish(?) over a range of "wordliness."  Some words are not "wordlier" than others so you can't say a word is "wordly" enough.


----------

