TimR

@DelphicOracle Time to change your name if you've got to ask. :-)

In the US those particular "potato chips" were introduced under the brand name "Ruffles" and the early TV commercials had the tagline "Ruffles have ridges" with the leading [r] in both words trilled in a very exaggerated manner.

@pacoverflow: But ChatGPT has no way of knowing in this instance whether the opinions it is mish-mashing are those of native speakers exclusively, and even if they are all native speakers, it has no way of knowing what dialect of English they speak. I will start giving credence to AI knowledge of language when Siri does not type "I smell a with [sic] of lavender" when I dictate "I smell a whiff of lavender". AI might be able to learn those things, but when its learning is crowd-sourced, how to keep it from devolving into ConspiracyTheoryGPT?

@MikeB There are probably dialect differences here as well as generational ones. For all of the 20th c. in AmE, "slept in" has referred to a deliberate choice: "Tomorrow's Saturday and I can sleep in." This dude (writing in 1919) seems to think the Scots "confuse" a lot of things :-) See Page 205. google.com/books/edition/A_Guide_to_the_English_Language/…

@Mari-LouA The noun ofer-slǽp (excessive sleep) appears in the Old English Leechdoms.

Who gives a flying you-know-what what ChatGPT says? It has no knowledge of anything but is a mish-mash of opinion

There's even one here, "he babied the closet door open". google.com/…

That's their shortcoming, not mine.

That is just one of the meanings, to which I referred when I wrote "or too gently, when used as a criticism".

I'm sure there are many. Look around for "to baby {something}".

He closed the door. implies normal closing, neither rough nor gentle. Are you looking for a word that means "more gently than is usually necessary", as when someone is trying to close a door and not wake a baby?

We can say He babied the door shut. To baby something means to treat it very gently (or too gently, when used as a criticism). It would be analogous to Mick's ease the door shut, though babied is a more colorful usage. Mick's ease is natural/neutral.

How about "quiet"?

@Jason Bassford: Those are "old school" terms formerly applied to forms of the verb, which are now being used as labels for clauses employing those verb forms.

Can you give us an example of the interrogative clause as subordinate clause? Are you regarding the embedded interrogative with its word-order un-inversion as "interrogative"?

I'd say that only don't you is correct. When the assertion is about the listener, not about the world, what the speaker is asking confirmation of is the truth of the assertion about the listener. You really hate castor oil, don't you? You think castor oil tastes awful, don't you?

You think a rule of thumb is a good thing to have: a) isn't it ... or b) don't you ?

I think it's going to be cold today, isn't it? asks the listener for confirmation. I think it's cold today, don't you? is how we would ask for the listener's opinion. The tag can agree with the verb in I think's content-clause when confirmation is sought. He's German, isn't he? or I think he's German, isn't he?

@Yuri "I've heard" is not an expression of opinion. It is rumor. And your sentence is again not idiomatic. Doesn't he have a big firm overseas? or He has a big firm overseas, doesn't | hasn't he?

@Yuri Your example about it being cold today is not idiomatic, IMO. It's cold today, isn't it. is what a native speaker would say, not "I think it's cold today, isn't it."

You are mistaken, Yuri, aren't you. I think you are mistaken, Yuri, don't I.

One might question your sample size.

"some"? My very first comment says that the singular possessive is used a lot more often than the plural. So you're basically saying that what the vast majority of people do here is wrong.

Do you consider the act of writing your thoughts on the page an act of transcription?

I agree that Book's cover is interesting is ungrammatical. I spent all my money on book's covers is not grammatical. But I spent all my money on doctor's bills is grammatical. Why? You'll have to ask doctor.

The situations are not at all analogous. In the possessive doctor's bills the word doctor's functions as a specifier, which is precisely what is lacking in "Book is interesting", a specifier.

BTW, I would guess that maybe 1 speaker in 10,000 would say or write "book's covers".

I'm afraid you will have to remain in that state of wonder.

People hearing this phrase do not glean from it the number of doctors involved, no matter how you choose to make the possessive.

It's not the same thing at all. I would say student safety. No possessive. And we also do this with doctor bills.

I disagree. It is a kind of bill, an area of expenditure. If you thought it was dubious, say so to begin with. Your questions are crappy.

The singular possessive is used a lot more often than the plural in this phrase.

@Lambie: We're talking of predicated states here, not attributive adjectives.

@Lambie: IMO, with past participles of transitive verbs there is always a potential for functional ambiguity when that verbal form is predicated of the predicand using was or were. With It is broken the word broken is clearly a stative adjective, absent other context such as: Bread is broken at meals as a symbol of amity.. But with It was broken we can understand this to be a statement about the action or about the result of the action.

@Lambie: A part of speech is merely a convenient label for the word's function in situ.

@Lambie, dude, you don't need to school me on this. If you would take the time to read the comments, you will see that I introduced the "There is" version to OP above: There were three apples left. With that existential construction, "There were", the past participle left refers to the existential state of the apples, and that is usually labeled "adjectival".

@Lambie. The question originally had apples on plate not cars in a lot, and it was about a rule of thumb the OP had developed for slapping labels on the word left. I don't think there's any "bad faith" just a mutating question where small changes can make a major difference.

Also, a complement can change your view of things: The apples were left to rot. There, left means "abandoned". It's not a pure adjective. And it shows you that the rule of thumb is not air-tight.

I think @BillJ is addressing were left on the table not had been left on the table. Actually, the question has been edited to talk about "cars were left in the lot" (the apples are gone) but it's the same , cars were left in the lot vs cars had been left in the lot. with were the word left can be a stative adjective or a passive, but with had been the word left is not adjectival.

Yes, you have to assess the predication. There were three apples left. With that existential construction, "There were", the past participle left refers to the existential state of the apples, and that is usually labeled "adjectival". Three apples are left. Again, their existential state is referred to. Three apples had been left would refer to an act that resulted in them being there, and there left is a perfective verbal. The perfective with transitive verbs and the state the perfective entails are flip sides of the same coin.

It is still ambiguous with the copula. Three people were left in the room. could mean "Three people had not departed yet" and thus left refers to their state of remaining, or it could mean something like "Three people had not been fetched from the room" (perhaps by a nurse who was showing patients in to an examination room and had forgotten to show them in). But Three people had been left in the room is clearly a case of them not having been fetched from the room.

As a native speaker, I understand had been left to refer to a past act of placing the apples on the plate, whereas were left to refer either to a past act of placing the apples on the plate or to the current state of the apples, that is, they are "remaining". The copula were with past participle is ambiguous to me in a way that had been left is not. I do not think that is an idiosyncratic understanding on my part; I think it would be shared by most native speakers.

Sorry that was a typo. Should be "I am asking if you find that sentence ambiguous". Only five apples had been left on the plate. Do you think left is possibly an adjective there?

Well then there's little use having a conversation with you about something far more complex than my question. My question is a yes or no question.

Imagine I wrote cars instead of apples and lot instead of plate. Your change is irrelevant.

No, I'm asking if find that sentence ambiguous.

You rule of thumb is for situations involving the copula. Do you find the following ambiguous? Only five apples had been left on the plate. It doesn't mention any agent who left them there.

@userr2684291 I gave one at the top of this chat thread: Fourth helpings was more than even he could manage. That might be said of a person with a hearty appetite.

@eques "second breakfast" is the name for that meal in the canonical sequence of hobbit meals. That's what is "special" about it. There's no article there. It's not "a second breakfast".

@eques So you see no nuanced difference between "a fourth helping at every meal" and "fourth helpings at every meal"? There's nothing going on here that is at all reminiscent of "second breakfast" or "elevenses" in The Fellowship of the Ring?