The word "rambling" is obviously not referenced in my dictionaries as a noun.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ramblings
Interesting usage, however, probably local? Maybe you should tag it appropriately...

It's a gerund formed from the verb "to ramble". See: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...webwn?s=gerund Nothing local about it; perfectly acceptable English.

>It's a gerund formed from the verb "to ramble". See: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...webwn?s=gerund Nothing local about it; perfectly acceptable English.

Thank you so much for teaching me what a gerund is. You're ever more condescending.

So, according to your theory, any english verb, in its gerund form, can be turned into a noun.
We could thus as well write:

This m'an's speakings
This man's discoursings
...
This man's bullshittings?

Fascinating antipodean theory, really!

> Thank you so much for teaching me what a gerund is.

Well, someone had to do it.

> So, according to your theory, any english verb, in its gerund form, can be turned into a noun.

Er, no. A gerund *is* a noun. Not my theory at all - just plain English grammar.

> We could thus as well write:
> This m'an's speakings
> ....

No, you can't. I could explain in detail, but most people don't need an explanation, and you'd ignore it.

>No, you can't.

So, you admit that the fact it is gerund is irrelevant to whether it can be used as a valid noun...
You so admit my question as to "rambling" was legitimate, since it can no more be found in a dictionary as a noun, than "speaking" and unlike "going" or "seeing" that are indeed referenced nouns (comings and goings)...

We subsequently clearly see that not any gerund can be used as a valid noun, and so your 1st comment explained nothing at all...what was exactly its purpose in that context?

>and you'd ignore it.

What you do here is what we name in French "procès d'intention", which is quite bad when you're supposed to be a moderator...

1) I asked a legitimate question because, obviously, there are 2 types of gerunds in English, some being referenced as nouns in dictionaries, and some NOT.
2) You preposterously declared that all gerunds are valid nouns, although dictionaries make a difference, and I found a counter-example that you acknowledge.
3) You hint that I would ignore an explanation, although I was the one to request it and you were the one to contemptuously try to shut it up, although there is obviously reason for debate and explanation...

Sigh.

>Sigh.

You're trying to sound cynical to hide your ineptitude.
You're just a rude individual!

To answer the initial question, it is certainly in common usage in British English in my experience. Also, wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rambling), whilst not the most reputable source, gives a definition, with no qualification as to geographical region.

Thank you!
I do not trust wiktionary. I could myself write entries there and that would prove nothing at all...

頑張って!

>頑張って!

A family affair, I suppose?

Thank you. I do not have a subscription to the OED but I do trust you.
I was just initially surprised that the word was nowhere to be found in my several dictionaries as a noun.

I think that any verb has a valid gerund, but not all take the plural. Ramblings works, speakings doesn't. If I had to guess, it's probably because certain gerunds already have good synonymous alternatives.

speakings --> speeches (or others)
bullshittings --> bullshit/nonsense

Can't think of a good one for ramblings, though, so the plural gerund probably comes in to fill the hole.

Another example would be "her coming and goings". Anyone with concrete grammar knowledge want to take a stab at this?

>I think that any verb has a valid gerund, but not all take the plural. Ramblings works, speakings doesn't. If I had to guess, it's probably because certain gerunds already have good synonymous alternatives.

>speakings --> speeches (or others)
bullshittings --> bullshit/nonsense

>Can't think of a good one for ramblings, though, so the plural gerund probably comes in to fill the hole.

>Another example would be "her coming and goings". Anyone with concrete grammar knowledge want to take a stab at this?

This proves my view that it is legitimate to question the validity of a gerund as a noun, especially when it is not to be found in popular dictionaries (my Collins, to start with...) and I can't see why somebody questioning this validity should be rudely rebuffed by an illiterate native posing as an expert.

Let's not go nuts, sc. Just because I said something doesn't prove anything.

Besides, I was talking about the validity of plural gerunds, not gerunds in general. Any verb I can think of can be made into a valid gerund (noun).

"I'm tired of all of his bullshitting."
"His speaking is easy to fall asleep to."

Both of these are valid, IMO. You can try to come up with challenges if you like, though.

>Besides, I was talking about the validity of plural gerunds, not gerunds in general. Any verb I can think of can be made into a valid gerund (noun).

That still doesn't account for why certain gerunds are listed as nouns in dictionaries and some are not...
JimBreen would probably argue that this is because the editors lacked space or time...or even paper...

> JimBreen would probably argue that this is because the editors lacked space or time...or even paper...

And maybe I wouldn't.

Dictionary editors don't often indicate whether sub-headwords are countable or have plural forms. There have to be limits on how many derived forms of words are listed.

Let me take another example: "ravings". It's a real word of course (about 3M hits in Google.) When I look it up in the OED, it is not included in the definitions; only the singular "raving" is there. However "ravings" occurs 33 times in quotations in the dictionary. Clearly the editors accept its existence; they just didn't think it necessary to include it in the definitions.

Google raw results are no authority. A lot of nonsense has millions of hits on Google...When Google rules a language you're already inept at, you'll be in big trouble, believe me!

In the case of "ramblings", not only the plural form can't be found in popular dictionaries but also the singular, as a noun... A lack of ink, probably, according to antipodean logic...

Since we are back with "ramblings" let me quote what the OED has to say on it. (I'm using the full 20-volume edition online.)

(a) it appears in two definitions: as a gloss for the word "peregrination", and in the gloss of one sense of "wandering" (incoherent ramblings).

(b) in the etymology of the word "Rumpelstiltskin" (...his noisy nocturnal ramblings ...)

(c) in 18 quotations, e.g. "reminiscent of the half-baked ramblings of a 19-year-old majoring in gender studies".

The OED gives "rambling" an entry, and defines it as: "The action of ramble v.; an instance of this. Also in pl.: incoherent talk or writings."

Note that "Also in pl.".

Several of the examples use the plural, e.g. "1956 A. Wilson Anglo-Saxon Attitudes ii. ii. 280 Yet, in and out of her ramblings, came clear threads of memory."

I hope this puts to rest any suggestion that "rambling" and "ramblings" are somehow not valid words in English.

I agree with your points about Google and Wiktionary not being 100% reliable. Unfortunately, wiktionary was the only free English dictionary I could think of off the top of my head. As for Google, I agree you get a lot of rubbish, but 3M hits has to be significant, and "ravings of a madman" is certainly a phrase in common usage.

And I think it's there that the problem lies. To quote http://blog.tatoeba.org/2010/02...eba.html#rule4 "We want sentences that really are what a native speaker would say." And native speakers would say ramblings, even if it might not technically be "correct" - a point of debate I don't want to get further embroiled in. For another example, in French, a native would often drop the "pleonastic ne" in certain subjunctive constructions (eg: avant qu'il n'y a...), or they would decide against using the imperfect subjunctive, substituting some other conjugation. In both cases, one example would be "grammatically correct", and one would be in common usage. For an example from vocabulary, instead of grammar, a lot of slang might not be found in dictionaries, but is in usage, so necessary for completeness for an corpus of a language. Eg. I went up the apples and pears. I doubt the OED would list "apples and pears" as an alternative for "stairs", but it is perfectly acceptable cockney rhyming slang.

In short, I agree that "ramblings" might not be official english, or whatever, but I feel that enough native speakers are acquainted with it, and use it naturally, that there should be no problem with its inclusion in this sentence. Especially as I think you would struggle to find an alternative with the same shade of meaning.

> but 3M hits has to be significant

So when 2% of the chinese population says a word is valid in English, it is?...

> Eg. I went up the apples and pears. I doubt the OED would list "apples and pears" as an alternative for "stairs", but it is perfectly acceptable cockney rhyming slang.

I suggest you complete your profile as recommended by Tatoeba's contributor's guide, so we can trust you are some kind of authority in Cockney...(Not that I doubt this one, I know it as well...)

I am no authority in cockney, coming from the Midlands, but merely know the phrase. I was just using a well known example of slang to illustrate my point. If you want another example, the phrase "I got to first base last night" would be interpreted by few teenagers to be referring to baseball. This is a common slang phrase, that I highly doubt will appear in any dictionary. But that doesn't mean the sentence is incorrect, or that it will not be understood.


>So when 2% of the chinese population says a word is valid in English, it is?...

No, obviously not. I should have used a longer explanation sorry. I was more saying that for a less common word, like ravings, 3M hits (closer to 4M when I searched) is a lot if it is always incorrect. Okay, so Google's hits counter is an estimate, but ravings has over three times more hits than my dad's home town (population 11000). I believe that you have to accept that as significant. What I'm trying to say is that 3M is a lot of times that people have used that word on the internet. For a relatively uncommon word, that suggests to me that a lot of native English speakers have used the word online. I simply find it impossible to believe that, even on the Internet, a word like that can have been used incorrectly 3M times.

I feel there is little point continuing this debate in these comments, as we are deviating hugely from the original topic. Yes, ramblings might not appear in certain dictionaries, but in the opinion of two native speakers, this usage is correct, and will be considered correct and understood by other speakers. I don't believe it is a purely local usage of the word, and I am unsure as to what tag would be appropriate.

>but in the opinion of two native speakers

How do I know you are not both Chinese?? According to your profile, you're still unborn in no land...

> I was more saying that for a less common word, like ravings, 3M hits (closer to 4M when I searched) is a lot if it is always incorrect.

The word "parmis" retrieves 8M+ result and is incorrect in French. The correct spelling is "parmi"...

Are you conscious that there are currently more people using English on internet in China or even Pakistan than in the UK ?
The entire British population represents a mere 1/25th of the chinese population...

> The word "parmis" retrieves 8M+ result and is incorrect in French. The correct spelling is "parmi"...

Does that include all the words that have nothing to do with French?

> Are you conscious that there are currently more people using English on internet in China or even Pakistan than in the UK ?

You might be right, but do you have a citation?

>Does that include all the words that have nothing to do with French?

Well, how do I know that "ramblings" doesn't mean "please" in Urdu or Tagalog?

>You might be right, but do you have a citation?

Well, you should know, since you've been teaching English in China according to your own declarations, don't you?

There are currently around 477 million internet users in China and 51.45 in the UK http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm#asia

Given that the people who learn English in China are mainly to be found among the upper castes having access to the internet and not ploughing land or digging mines as near-slaves, with children going to schools that collapse on their head at the first earth tremor and drink melanine-laced milk...

Even if 1 internet user in China in 8 writes in English on internet, that's still more than the UK internet users...

http://www.alibaba.com/

> ramblings vs. parmis

"ramblings" is an entire 3 letters longer. That makes its chances of being matched to a random word quite small by comparison to "parmis". Google shows this. Search both and compare the proportions of valid matches.

> Well, you should know, since you've been teaching English in China according to your own declarations, don't you?

That's why I asked if you had a citation, because I wasn't so sure.

1/8 would be quite high, IMO. In my experience, even those who study English stick to Baidu and other Chinese sites for most of their needs. Chinese internet being pretty advanced, there's little need to branch out to English-language websites. So, I'm curious as to whether or not you have a citation to back up these claims, instead of conjectures (because I don't believe them).

>"ramblings" is an entire 3 letters longer. That makes its chances of being matched to a random word quite small by comparison to "parmis". Google shows this. Search both and compare the proportions of valid matches.

OK, but on the other hand, French is a far less common language on Internet. 8 million hits in French is HUGE.

>1/8 would be quite high, IMO.

1/8 of internet users, not of all Chinese people...

>In my experience, even those who study English stick to Baidu and other Chinese sites

Baidu and Chinese sites are also indexed by Google spiders...

>there's little need to branch out to English-language websites.

Yes there is, because the chinese economy is an export-driven economy. Alibaba is chinese, and it's entirely translated into English along with many other chinese commercial websites, that are meant to swarm western markets with chinese made products and they are very successful at doing so...

Alibaba advertises through all web-marketing techniques (banners, back-links, affiliate catalogues, ...you name it) in western search engines and websites with BILLIONS of links that are indexed.

I will give tyou another example :

Nowadays, most western brands offer the possibility to the consumers to review the products they bought from their brands on their websites. Most of these customer testimonials are actually fake. They're written by cheaply paid editors in China, India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam...wherever labour is cheap.
And of course, most of them are written in "English"...
So when British consumers surf on British brands websites to inform themselves on supposedly "British" products, most of what they actually read and that is indexed by search engines to lure them there, is actually written by foreigners.

(I've reached my sacredceltic quota for the day.)

well, you can anticipate on your quota for the week-end...