Buono! – Bravo Bravo (Tasuki Daisuki Blog)
P-A-T-I!!!! (strawberrie)
Bravo is the right word (Berryz Kobo Intl.)
This is one single/PV I know a lot of people have been looking forward to. Of all the groups in H!P, this is the one I look forward to the releases of the most. Although I was disappointed with Take it Easy, to me everything else has been a gem. That includes this single. Bravo☆Bravo brings back the “edge” that I loved so much in “My Boy”. And it sounds as if the consensus of bloggers wholeheartedly agree…
Tasukidaisuki is loving the song, and gets a kick out of the “juxtaposing” of Buono!’s two different images. TD could see this song performed by more hardcore acts like Avril Lavigne. BTW, that is exactly why I love this group! Strawberrie is counting the days until her copy arrives in the mail. She is loving Airi and Miyabi’s hair in the vid. She has linked the PV, as well as links all of the major buy sites’
Finally Zush is in love with the song and PV. Why wouldn’t he be? Miyabi is in it. He hypothesizes what it would look like if Buono! took the instrument playing seriously, took the stage one night and just ripped a song. Yeah…I think at that moment the girls would transcend awesomeness!
So whaddya think? Has H!P’s super sub-group put out another winner?
Comment by Kirarin☆Snow ☃ — 2009/12/02 @ 10:02 am
(1) “Of all the groups in H!P, this is the one I look forward to the releases of the most.”
I’m guessing this sentence doesn’t sound completely well formed to you. (But if it did, that would be very interesting.) To me, it sounds a bit better with to releases of (no the), but still awkward. Perhaps this is better?
(2) “Of all the groups in H!P, this is the one I look forward to releases from the most.”
Assuming transformational-generative grammar, we have in both cases movement of “the one” from after the preposition following “releases”. We might be able to explain the weirdness of (1) as following from a constraint on extraction.
(1), unlike (2), has a postnominal possessive. That is, the one is the possessor of releases (which we can also write as the one’s releases). For simplicity’s sake, we can talk about the analogous phrase Buono!’s releases (and also because I wrote the following few paragraphs thinking it was Buono! and not the one). Going with Kayne’s (1994) analysis*, if we assume that postnominal possessives start out as regular possessives, we first have Buono!’s releases, and then releases moves to the front, triggering the insertion of of:
(3) [[DP Buono!'s] [D'[D POSS] [NP releases]]]
(4) [[NP releases] [PP [P of] [[DP Buono!'s] [D'[D POSS] [NP t]]]]]
(This would explain why phrases like that crazy personality of Airi’s are grammatical despite not having any overt noun phrase after the possessive.)
The key point here is that Buono! (whether or not it’s marked with genitive case as Buono!’s) originates as the specifier of POSS, the possessive determiner. And there’s independent evidence that specifiers of POSS, at least in English, cannot be extracted:
(5) *Whose do you enjoy releases? (meaning “Whose releases do you enjoy?”)
So in (1), movement of the one to the front is disallowed because it originates as the specifier of POSS. We don’t have this in (2), and we also don’t have it in a similar sentence in which Buono! is the complement of of but not the possessor; for example, pictures of Buono! (meaning pictures taken of Buono! and not pictures owned by Buono!):
(6) “Of all the groups in H!P, this is the one I look forward to pictures of the most.”
Anyway, I’m not correcting your grammar, of course (most people who do that are largely uninformed and make wrong corrections, and the corrected are often largely uninformed themselves, which makes for a rather sad state of affairs, but I digress). Linguistics is just fascinating. ^_^
*Richard S. Kayne. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. I’m not following Kayne’s analysis exactly, but just borrowing the idea of movement in postnominal possessives.
Comment by CK♂ — 2009/12/02 @ 10:19 am
Errrr, I guess that’s why my English teacher only gave me a “C”.
Comment by Kirarin☆Snow ☃ — 2009/12/02 @ 10:36 am
(Please ignore the above accidental comment snippet)
I’m sorry about your C. T_T
But I’m not correcting your grammar. It’s just that in this instance your sentence sounded a bit off to me, and it inspired me to try to explain why. Your judgments of the example sentences may agree with mine; they may not. In any case, there’s nothing wrong with writing an ungrammatical sentence if the sentence does what you want it to (usually, convey a meaning). Ungrammaticality, even in one’s own grammar rather than measured against some prescriptive standard, happens naturally as a result of the natural constraints that exist in language. And these constraints are quite fascinating, at least to anyone studying linguistics.
Comment by Meyouu — 2009/12/02 @ 1:17 pm
Oh, I didn’t know…
Though if and when I’m in doubt, I access the granted “proofread” thingy, which is equally lame.
My guess:
Insert “which” before the “I”…
Sorry for being OT, bye
Comment by Meyouu — 2009/12/02 @ 1:20 pm
“or when”, sorry…
Comment by Kirarin☆Snow ☃ — 2009/12/02 @ 2:09 pm
@Meyouu:
I started the off-topic-ness, so I should be the one to apologize.
“which” before “I” doesn’t change anything for me:
“Of all the groups in H!P, this is the one which I look forward to the releases of the most.”
Equally as odd as (1) above. And inserting “which” in (2) and (6) doesn’t change them; they’re fine with or without it.
The “proofread” tool has its advantages and disadvantages; it’s generally not capable of judging the complexities of natural language (though how to get closer to doing so is a hot topic in computational linguistics research). I wouldn’t recommend always following its advice when you’re in doubt.
Also, while there is a standard English dialect, it’s not defined by any organization, so it’s up to individual speakers to determine whether any phrase is grammatical or not. No one’s variety is “more correct” than anyone else’s, and there’s no single right way to say anything.
The prevalent obsession over “correct English” is a relatively recent phenomenon (over the last couple of centuries or so), and its proponents (those who are often misguided, citing principles that don’t actually apply, either historically or presently, and overall having the effect of terrorizing speakers into being unsure of things
Comment by Kirarin☆Snow ☃ — 2009/12/02 @ 2:25 pm
Agh, why do I keep hitting the “Submit Comment” button accidentally?
Please scratch the last paragraph above (“The prevalent obsession over…”), and continue with:
The prevalent obsession over “correct English” is a relatively recent phenomenon (emerging over the last couple of centuries or so), and those who bemoan the death of “proper English” in the younger generations, threaten retribution (in jest or seriousness) for supposed violations of various rules, and so forth, are often misguided, citing principles that don’t actually apply, either historically or presently, and overall having the effect of terrorizing speakers into being unsure of their own speech and writing when there’s really no reason to be.
This has unfortunately resulted in discussions of grammaticality often being interpreted as corrections of other people’s grammar, which doesn’t make for a nice atmosphere to discuss anything in, so I wanted to clarify that I’m not correcting CK’s or anyone else’s grammar. I just found sentence (1) to be particularly interesting, judge it to be ungrammatical or at least questionable in my own grammar, and hypothesize that it may actually be ungrammatical in CK’s grammar (just because one says something doesn’t mean it’s grammatical to the speaker who says it; I say things all the time that I immediately judge to be pretty bad after saying them — sometimes what you want to say just doesn’t lend itself to an appropriate grammatical construction, so what comes out might not be well formed).
In any case, sorry for going off topic, and for maybe being a bit too technical (though I know there are some linguistics enthusiasts in the readership). That one sentence just struck my fancy, so I wanted to understand why it was so interesting.
Comment by strawberrie — 2009/12/02 @ 5:53 pm
I think I’m going to start putting that I’m a female in all my post. I thought it was obvious since I been stating how much I love Jejung (TVXQ) lately LOL.
Comment by Amy — 2009/12/02 @ 6:59 pm
I love Jaejoong too!
he is … gorgeous. don’t worry about your gender (we just get confused a lot with so many bloggers 
), I thought you were a girl!