The winningest team

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:50 am

Apparently it is now common in the States to say something like "the Patriots have become the winningest team in NFL history!"

Somebody on CNN or the BBC remarked "This may not be the worstest word in the world, but it is certainly not the bestest."

We disagree though, right? We are sofistimicated linguists.

We think "My - what a colourful and spunky new addition to the language!"

Harzer · Post by **Harzer** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:45 pm

I find "winningest" quite acceptable, although it is unusual in being a two-syllable word taking the "X-est" superlative rather than the "most X" superlative.

It is generally only two-syllable adjectives ending in -y that take "-est", although there are exceptions, not many of which come to mind at the moment:

commonest; ?????

Harzer

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:13 pm

This could be one of these "acceptable to some native speakers but don't write it on an exam paper" constructions. It sounds pretty clumsy to me as I'd go by the rule of thumb that -ed and -ing forms take more and the most when used as adjectives in comparative and superlative.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:45 pm

I suspect the phrase was tongue-in-cheek. After all 'most winning' wouldn't be correct either.

On the other hand ironic constructions often enter the mainstream. Think of all the "mother of" constructions.

Harzer · Post by **Harzer** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:06 pm

The use of the superlative form "winningest' for an adjective that doesn't normally allow comparative and superlative (cf adjectives like 'eating' in "eating utensils" or 'managed' in "managed funds") is probably acceptable at the colloquial level because it avoids a clumsy circumlocution.

Harzer

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:13 am

The reason I started this thread was to see how you all feel about this expression. As a linguist, it is not appropriate to have any feelings about it.

But I suspect you do. The reason the TV channel ran the report, after all, is that it has a particular ability to grate on the ears.

visviva · Post by **visviva** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:59 am

As a language teacher ... I would put that form, and many others, in the "words which high-level learners should be able to understand, but need not be able to use" column. Since it's quite intuitive, I wouldn't anticipate actually needing to give this form more than glancing notice, if it ever came up. If I were teaching English for Sportscasting Purposes, of course, it might need special attention.

As a linguist ... it seems that this involves a small transformation in the lexicon, as "winning" becomes established as a free-standing adjective. Does this reflect a change in people's perceptions of what it means to succeed, at least in sports? Hmm... (my inner linguist says "hmm..." a lot).

As a language user... it doesn't bother me. After all, it's easy to understand, and it lets the speaker get right to the point. Anything that can make sports "news" broadcasts shorter is great in my book. But then, I'm not British.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:47 am

In our American dialect today, winningest is common and thoroughly acceptable in the field of sport(s). I think, however, that it is still more of a spoken word rather than a written one.

It has not yet entered the fields of politics or entertainment (for example, *She is the winningest Oscar nominee in history."), but I'm sure that's just around the corner ....

iconoclast · Post by **iconoclast** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:07 pm

It seems to be an American phenomenon restricted to sports - 'the winningest coach' - and, traditionally, to baddies - 'the meanest, toughest, baddest hombre on the block'. 'Winninger' and 'badder' would sound a bit unusual.

Teacher Discussion Forums

The winningest team

The winningest team

Baddest