Movies, Grammar and "Excitement's Crave"

[greenapple]

Feb 9, 2018 0:51:22 GMT rootbeerpies said:

A long shot, but then again, so is most EAR speculation (or, at least, so is most of mine) ;

In trying to shoehorn two topics into one, I'll get to the point.

Wikipedia tells us that two movies share the poem's title (one that never made much grammatical sense to me): "Ladies Crave Excitement" (1935) and "The Lady Craved Excitement" (1950).

"Excitement" is an adjective, yet, EAR misuses it as a possessive noun w/o a signifier.

Similarly, "crave" is a verb, yet EAR misuses it as an adjective, indicating a cognitive deficit and possible proof of an underlying mental disorder (as if his actions alone weren't sufficient).

Schizophrenics, e.g., (a stigmatizing term I dislike but use here for brevity) often demonstrate a linguistic inability to parse metaphoric meaning.

To my mind, EAR's title demonstrates a similar miscomprehension of language structure.

"Excitement's Crave" means "The Crave of Excitement," a meaningless phrase, suggesting "excitement" is a subject like "John" or "Ladies".

Who craves excitement? It only makes sense when we add a noun, e.g., "ladies crave excitement.

(Just because a sentence indicates possession, doesn't make it grammatically sound).

Thus, my point ;

Perhaps EAR misinterpreted and borrowed the phrase from elsewhere. Lo and behold, two movies indicate he might have!

Did he see one of them on TV as a child (or adult).

Is there a way to compile a database of every TV screening in America of either one from, say, 1950 to 1977?

Somehow, I doubt it, but you never know: this site is chocked full of investigative talent!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_Craved_Excitement

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_Crave_Excitement

Excitement is a noun; excited is an adjective. "Excitement's crave" is grammatically sound.

[greenapple]

Feb 9, 2018 3:09:14 GMT rootbeerpies said:

Note: "greenapple" punctured a hole in my analysis. Thus, I've corrected by thesis to incorporate his point. However, my thesis might still fall short as a logical proposition.

If it does, kindly ignore what I said and, instead, focus on what I meant.

Let us assume the phrase "Excitement's Crave" follows rules of grammatical structure, as greenapple contends (which I cannot for a second believe).

However, it makes no sense as articulated language (the type that bears meaning for people who speak it, namely humans!)

If, however, it does make sense to everyone (but me), then doubly-ignore my thesis!

However, I'll leave u w/ this: the phrase is so profoundly and cosmically stilted, inelegant and marble-mouthed that I wondered about its previous use in other forms, as a means of identifying a grammatical fingerprint. Of this last point, the phrase's inelegance, I stand firm.

ps: see how I used the possessive correctly, i.e., "the phrase's inelegance" or "the inelegance of the phrase" as opposed to "Excitement's Crave" or "the crave of the excitement."

BZZZZ. "Oh. I'm sorry, 'excitement's crave' is incorrect. White Castle's misappropriation of 'crave' as a noun has confused our contestants. Thanks for playing. Johnny, tell our contestant what he's won."

"Sure, Alex. All contestants win a case of Turtle Wax©. Turtle Wax©. For a beautiful, hard-shell shine, reach for Turtle Wax©".

It's as simple as noun + verb (Excitement's + Crave). There's nothing really unusual about it. One would think, unless they were trying to alter phrasing to suit their argument, that it would be read as "crave of excitement," not "crave of the excitement." The inclusion of the by you, yes, makes it read awkward, which is why I'm not sure why you'd do so.