4

In what case you would say "I speak things" instead of "I say things"?

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

I speak things means something like I proclaim things, pertaining authority, like I speak things into existence. I say things is way of normal discourse.

  • Canadians say things like "a" every second word.
  • I speak things I do not see as though they were.
  • I speak to my dog and he obeys.

but

I speak things faster than I think.

Which is only a problem if the things I speak have certain authority or effect. Usually I would use this phrase if the things I spoke had a proclaiming character and hurt a situation or person.

Improve this answer
4
  • Thank You soooo much, Ralph, for these explanations. "I would use this phrase if the things I spoke had a proclaiming character and hurt a situation or person" - Do You think a situation when I give a toast at my friend's birthday party or a case with a professor teaching (lecturing) from a platform (lecturing desk) would also fall into that kind of category?
    – brilliant
    Commented Nov 28, 2010 at 16:06
  • 1
    @brilliant - What I meant is that speaking faster than I think usually hurts. A toast is a perfect situation to speak things - proclaim positive things over the future of a person. It is, if you are not careful and speak faster than you think, a perfect situation to intimidate or hurt that person. So both could apply.
    – malach
    Commented Nov 28, 2010 at 17:06
  • 1
    Are you suggesting that I could say "my best man spoke wonderful things at my wedding" or "today the professor spoke things I could not understand"? Those are awkward at best, or even potentially non-native sounding. Even "I speak things faster than I think" sounds awkward to me and "I speak things I do not see..." is certainly archaic.
    – Kosmonaut
    Commented Nov 29, 2010 at 17:25
  • @kosmonaut - not archaic, biblical and therefore most up to date (Heb 11:1). ;-) Unusual, I agree.
    – malach
    Commented Nov 29, 2010 at 17:28
2

In ordinary speech, "speak" does not take a direct object. You can be speaking, you can speak to somebody, but to "speak words" or "speak a message" is unusual and I would say literary. (I except idioms like "speak my mind" and "speak the truth", and also the construction "Speak English", where the language looks syntactically like a direct object, but I actually think it is a verbal modifier, like an adverb).

Improve this answer
11
  • Well, Colin, I know that all too well, but what really interests me here is in what case people would say exactly this word-combination "speak things" (not "speak my mind", "speak the truth", etc.) I know "speak" usually doesn't take a direct object and it sounds a little strange or literary, yet I still want(ed) to know in what case people would still say "speak things". I think Ralph already answered my question quite well.
    – brilliant
    Commented Nov 29, 2010 at 16:30
  • 2
    Well, I would never say "I speak things" unless I was being deliberately pompous or archaic.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Nov 29, 2010 at 17:08
  • @brilliant: I am inclined to agree with Coline Fine. Per your question, I would (almost?) never say "speak things" at all. I might write "speak things", but even that would be potentially archaic and certainly affected writing.
    – Kosmonaut
    Commented Nov 29, 2010 at 17:18
  • 1
    @brilliant: I would laugh... but if I retold it I would replace "speak things" with "speak" or "say things" :)
    – Kosmonaut
    Commented Nov 30, 2010 at 19:55
  • 1
    For me, "speaking things" is not something that even a professor would say to himself to mean "saying things in public". It simply does not have that meaning for me, without considerably more context.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Dec 2, 2010 at 12:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .