However, it doesn't pass my “ear test.” I can't say that it's never used, but I'll warn that it's probably rarely used in contemporary contexts. Having done all that research, I can't find anything grammatically wrong with The definitions found at Wordnik are equally versatile. It would be as if the word food not only referred to what we ate, but also to the process of cooking it, and to the people preparing it as well – as if the word food could function as a synonym for chef and oven. I can't think of many words that are so adaptable.
As such, "many mischiefs" would refer to many different acts of mischief, while "much mischief" treats mischief as an uncountable noun. It's not labeled as a mass noun, but it can function as one. a person, esp a child, who is mischievous.injury or harm caused by a person or thing.a playful inclination to behave in this way or to tease or disturb.wayward but not malicious behaviour, usually of children, that causes trouble, irritation, etc.I did some research using Google's ngram tool and found all four phrases of those phrases could be found in published works, and that do mischief was apparently a much more popular phrase in the 19th century.Ĭollins indicates that the word can refer to: mischiefs), it's more a matter of convention: how the word is typically used and what verbs are generally associated with it.Īll pretty much mean the same thing: the stirring up of impish trouble. The difference here isn't so much the singular vs. Grammatically, though, it's an extremely flexible word – and you've done a “mischievous thing” by asking this vexing question!) (At least, that's how I typically hear the word used. We don't typically do mischiefs, we usually make mischief.
0 kommentar(er)
