3

We talked until late

Is this sentence correct? It sounds strange to me but I'm not sure what's grammatically wrong about it.

What about this?

We talked into the night

This sounds better to me. But is there a simpler way to put this that has the same meaning?

JSBձոգչ
  • 54,843
user31426
  • 297

1 Answers1

3

OED late sense 3 - Of the time of day: at or till a late hour (first citation 1400).

So there's no reason to suppose "We talked until late" (or, for example, "Go to bed! It's late!") are in any way "shortened" or "informal" versions of something longer and more "grammatical".

I would just say that "We talked late" (without until) sounds slightly "odd" to me, but that's probably because I assume the talking started earlier, and continued until late. I see nothing unusual about "We ate late", because I assume it means we didn't start eating until late.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • The only question I might have – which is why I mentioned "shortened" and "informal" in my comment – is the use of the preposition. I have no problem with "We talked late," but I wondered if a proofreader might have a problem with "We talked until late" in formal writing. (Conversationally, it's fine.) – J.R. Nov 27 '12 at 00:32
  • J.R.: I can't see any reason to think the preposition would make any difference to "formality". It could change the meaning a bit though - if you said "We ate until* late"* it implies you had a very long drawn-out meal. Without the preposition until, the implication is you didn't start until late, as I said. – FumbleFingers Nov 27 '12 at 00:42
  • FF: If late means "till a late hour", then "We talked until late" could be construed to mean "We talked until till a late hour." It just sounds a little awkward to me – not so awkward that I have a huge problem with it, but awkward enough that I'd seek more advice before using it in a formal paper. I probably wouldn't have brought it up at all, except the O.P. is also finding that it sounds a little "off." – J.R. Nov 27 '12 at 01:00
  • 1
    The issue is that until normally takes a noun or noun phrase, and late is not a noun. It sounds fine to me, but it is at least unusual, because late needs to stand for a noun phrase here, like a late hour, or late at night. We ate late is different: then you simply have a predicative adjective, no suggestion of nouns (you can't eat a late hour). We ate late is similar to we came first, and perhaps to we talked late at night too. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '12 at 01:18
  • @Cerberus: It's all just labels. Why not call until late an adverbial phrase? – FumbleFingers Nov 27 '12 at 03:10
  • @J.R.: I wouldn't have a problem with it. Adverbs (prepositions) can modify adjectives & other adverbs ("late") & adjective & adverb phrases: I studied until late in the morning. From Four Until Late, by Robert Johnson (1937) // From four until late, I was wringing my hands and cryin' (2x) // I believe to my soul that your daddy's Gulfport bound // –  Nov 27 '12 at 03:46
  • @Cerberus: Is late at night a noun phrase? Isn't it an adverb phrase? It tells when I do or did something. Anyway, even if late isn't a noun (it's not), why can't it function as one? Cogito ergo sum can be paraphrased as To think is to exist. Both subject and predicate are infinitives, but "to think" functions as a noun phrase here. –  Nov 27 '12 at 03:55
  • @BillFranke: I was hoping you'd weigh in. BTW, I also thought of From Four Until Late, but using song titles and lyrics is hardly a good guideline for formal writing (if I was writing a proposal for a research grant, e.g., I don't think I'd say, "I can't get no research funding"). :^) – J.R. Nov 27 '12 at 09:14
  • @J.R.: I use songs just to point out that some people will use English in ways unimaginable to the average Anglophone & that the artistic use of English doesn't depend on grammaticality. I use that Jagger line for other contexts, but I use my own judgment for formal writer, unless it's overridden by the required style manual. –  Nov 27 '12 at 09:53
  • @BillFranke: Agreed. I thought I tried pretty hard to say that I didn't have a problem with it, either – not in conversation, and not as "artistic English." Even in formal writing, I was at worst on-the-fence. – J.R. Nov 27 '12 at 10:00
  • @FumbleFingers: "Until late" is indeed an adverbial phrase, but "late" is not, not to me. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '12 at 10:08
  • 1
    @BillFranke: "Late at night" is to me an adverbial-phrase-turned-noun-phrase, because you can say, "late at night is not a good time". As to your "why can't it function as [a noun]", who said it couldn't? Not I. It obviously functions as one in the original sentence. I was just pointing out why it is unusual. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '12 at 10:12
  • @J.R.: I understood your position on it. I just wanted to clarify my position that unless I'm told by a style manual or a journal editor or a reviewer for a journal how something has to be said, I use my own judgment based on the sentence in which the word or phrase appears. You and I usually agree on these things, and where we disagree, you always have good reasons, as do most of the other people who give thoughtful answers. –  Nov 27 '12 at 10:34
  • 1
    @Cerberus: In Chomsky's terms, a phrase (NP, VP, AdjP, AdvP) can consist of a single word. I think the terminology sometimes clouds the issue. Those terms are a convenience for linguists, not anything for the rest of us to hold onto. The important point is how a word or phrase or clause functions, not what part of speech it's called. And because the "adverb" pigeonhole is generally considered a garbage can by linguists, that calls the entire nomenclature into question. Most terms for POS can be justified, but some are in those categories just because God and linguists work in mysterious ways. –  Nov 27 '12 at 10:41
  • @BillFranke: As to "noun phrase", I would technically include single words there, but we just use simply "noun" when it is a single word, so you will not often see single words referred to as such. As to adverbs, they are indeed a bit of a left-over category, but that is only because any word or phrase that doesn't modify any constituent in particular must then modify the predicate as a whole and is therefore called adverbial. I don't see how that is problematic: it seems rather convenient and useful... – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '12 at 11:15
  • @Cerberus: The only part that's problematic is that some folks get hung up on the fact that a particular word is called one POS but functions as another, and they can't grasp that it's possible. It's a necessary convenience for linguists and English teachers, yes. We need those terms as handles for explanations. When doing a Syntactic Structures analysis, one starts out with "S = NP + VP, NP = N. VP = V. S = John sang." (Not sure about the order here, whether the last S should be first.) –  Nov 27 '12 at 11:35
  • 3
    @BillFranke: Yeah, of course every model has to be a simplification. It becomes a whole lot less problematic if you recognise that the lines between the categories are often blurred, and that word can be in several categories at once. A participle is an adjective externally and a verb internally, for instance. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '12 at 12:30