put his cloak over a mud puddle

taraa

Senior Member
Persian
Hi
Why is it "mud"? Is "muddy" wrong?
" I enjoyed reading the story of the man who put his cloak over a mud puddle so that the queen would not dirty her feet."
 
  • Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    No, "muddy" is the correct word to use here. A "mud puddle" would be a puddle that is composed entirely of mud. I am pretty certain that the puddle in question was mostly water.

    (For context, this is a well-known story in Britain: the man was Sir Walter Raleigh and the queen was Elizabeth I of England. I have no idea whether or not it actually happened).
     

    taraa

    Senior Member
    Persian
    No, "muddy" is the correct word to use here. A "mud puddle" would be a puddle that is composed entirely of mud. I am pretty certain that the puddle in question was mostly water.

    (For context, this is a well-known story in Britain: the man was Sir Walter Raleigh and the queen was Elizabeth I of England. I have no idea whether or not it actually happened).
    It could have been a mud puddle though: a puddle composed of mud. That's equally good grammar.
    Thanks to both of you very much
    How can we use "noun + noun (mud puddle)" instead of "adjective + noun (muddy puddle)" please?
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    Where did the quote with the word 'mud' come from?
    Anyway, we often use nouns as adjectives. It's a feature of English. Sometimes the nouns are joined together to make a compound noun, like 'classroom' other times they are separate, like church clock.
    I have it on good authority that there was was no mud involved. Walt wasn't going to ruin a perfectly good cloak by getting it covered in mud.
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    How can we use "noun + noun (mud puddle)" instead of "adjective + noun (muddy puddle)" please?
    While muddy is the adjective formed from the noun mud, the noun itself can also be used in the same way as an adjective (a mud pie, a mud bath, etc.), in which case it’s described as an attributive noun.
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    While muddy is the adjective formed from the noun mud, the noun itself can also be used in the same way as an adjective (a mud pie, a mud bath, etc.), in which case it’s described as an attributive noun.
    Note that a mud pie and mud bath consist entirely of mud; this happens to be the way "mud" is used, with "muddy" being used to mean "containing mud" (or perhaps "contaminated with mud" would be a better way of putting it), but this isn't the case with all words. A beef stew or a pork sausage could (in Britain at any rate) contain very little beef or pork, where the adjectives "beefy" and "porky" are used primarily to describe the taste of something, not that it contains beef or pork.
     
    Last edited:

    Tyrion Lann

    Senior Member
    INDIA -Hindi
    I don't know why but mud puddle sounds good to my ears. Like ash trays which are not made of / out of ashes, though they are made for ashes.
     

    taraa

    Senior Member
    Persian
    Where did the quote with the word 'mud' come from?
    Anyway, we often use nouns as adjectives. It's a feature of English. Sometimes the nouns are joined together to make a compound noun, like 'classroom' other times they are separate, like church clock.
    I have it on good authority that there was was no mud involved. Walt wasn't going to ruin a perfectly good cloak by getting it covered in mud.
    While muddy is the adjective formed from the noun mud, the noun itself can also be used in the same way as an adjective (a mud pie, a mud bath, etc.), in which case it’s described as an attributive noun.
    Note that a mud pie and mud bath consist entirely of mud; this happens to be the way "mud" is used, with "muddy" being used to mean "containing mud" (or perhaps "contaminated with mud" would be a better way of putting it), but this isn't the case with all words. A beef stew or a pork sausage could (in Britain at any rate) contain very little beef or pork, where the adjectives "beefy" and "porky" are used primarily to describe the taste of something, not that it contains beef or pork.
    I don't know why but mud puddle sounds good to my ears. Like ash trays which are not made of / out of ashes, though they are made for ashes.
    It's from the book "504 Absolutely Essential Words."

    Thanks to all of you very much
     

    taraa

    Senior Member
    Persian
    Just curious. Which of the words 'mud', muddy' or 'puddle' do the authors consider to be absolutely essential? Or was it 'queen'?
    None of them. Every lesson has 12\13\14 essential words. At the end of each lesson there is a text that contains the essential words in it. All words in the texts aren't essential But they contain essential words.
     
    Last edited:

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    Plagiarism rules! This same text is scattered across the internet on at least 20 sites for English learners. There's many sites that link Sir Walter to a "mud puddle" and also many many that refer to a "muddy puddle". Fortunately for my sanity, this ngram makes the preferred version clear. Google Ngram Viewer
     

    Trochfa

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    I agree with Uncle Jack. My own feeling is that "mud puddle" is very much AmE and "muddy puddle" is BrE.

    Even if you look at the BrE books and articles on the Ngrams link which Andy posted in #13 you will see that all the instances of "mud puddle" are by American/Canadian authors or appear in American/Canadian books/articles/periodicals (which I often find happens when you try to use Ngrams to see what BrE uses).

    In BrE, the graph shows even despite all these AmE/CE inclusions of "mud puddle" that "muddy puddle" is the usual combination. However, many of the "muddy puddle" examples in BrE still seem to be from AmE publications!
    Google Ngram Viewer

    Google Ngram Viewer

    I think the usual collocation in that story in BrE would simply be either "a puddle" or " a muddy puddle". A "mud puddle" sounds extremely AmE to me and jars strongly in that context. It obviously works in AmE.
     
    Last edited:

    taraa

    Senior Member
    Persian
    Plagiarism rules! This same text is scattered across the internet on at least 20 sites for English learners. There's many sites that link Sir Walter to a "mud puddle" and also many many that refer to a "muddy puddle". Fortunately for my sanity, this ngram makes the preferred version clear. Google Ngram Viewer
    I agree with Uncle Jack. My own feeling is that "mud puddle" is very much AmE and "muddy puddle" is BrE.

    Even if you look at the BrE books and articles on the Ngrams link which Andy posted in #13 you will see that all the instances of "mud puddle" are by American/Canadian authors or appear in American/Canadian books/articles/periodicals (which I often find happens when you try to use Ngrams to see what BrE uses).

    In BrE, the graph shows even despite all these AmE/CE inclusions of "mud puddle" that "muddy puddle" is the usual combination. However, many of the "muddy puddle" examples in BrE still seem to be from AmE publications!
    Google Ngram Viewer

    Google Ngram Viewer

    I think the usual collocation in that story in BrE would simply be either "a puddle" or " a muddy puddle". A "mud puddle" sounds extremely AmE to me and jars strongly in that context. It obviously works in AmE.
    Thank you both very much
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top