Lingusitics Pet Peeves of your native language

[Stephen Tashi]

But it's hard to imagine a consonant becoming a vowel.

Well, there are words ending in "le", such as "able", "table", "probable" etc. A vowel and consonant seem to change places. The "l" is sounded like "e" or "u" and the "e" is sounded like an "l".

 

[pinball1970]

Peeves in English - What a difference a single letter makes!

wretched - two syllables, accent on first
retched - one syllable

A very good example and with a further drop of a consonant this is etched on my mind

 

[fresh_42]

There are bound to be some German terms in scientific English. One that sticks out is 'eigen-', as in the awkward set of hybrids eigenvalue, eigenvector, eigenfunction etc. You occasionally see attempts at an English version like "proper-" "self-" or "auto-" even going back a long way, but they have not taken. I suspect they will in the end. Like you used to see in texts 'gegen-' as in 'gegen ion' now totally supplanted by 'counter-'.

I don't think so. The attempts are as old as the word is, i.e. more than a century by now. And if it didn't happen up to now, why should it happen at all? Also its status as hybrid is a bit artificial, because the German counterparts are Eigenwert (Wert=value), Eigenraum (Raum=space), Eigenvektor and Eigenfunktion, i.e. it is a literal adjustment.

Eigen fits better than proper, which is closest to its translation: Eigenschaft = property. But proper has been taken already by 'clean' and by 'not fake', so you would add a seemingly fourth meaning, although it factually is its first and forgotten (?) proper meaning of 'belongs to'. In addition it is easy to pronounce by English speakers: ighen, which I suppose is the real reason it made it into science.

However, there are also dreibein, vierbein and ansatz.

 

[fresh_42]

Well, there are words ending in "le", such as "able", "table", "probable" etc. A vowel and consonant seem to change places. The "l" is sounded like "e" or "u" and the "e" is sounded like an "l".

And this is really mean! I regularly write fibre instead of fiber because of this strange behavior elsewhere.

 

[fresh_42]

How do non-native speakers of US English feel about all its idioms? - for example, "pet peeve".

When I sense that I'm communicating with a non-native speaker, I tried to avoid idioms. However, this makes what I write sound unnatural.

This is actually the hardest part. I desperately miss all the short idioms which I do not know in English and which makes 90% of daily communication. E.g. we can say "wohl" (well) to mean yes with emphasis, or "doch" which is missing in English, meaning yes as an answer to no. The Hungarian say "but yes". So these many tiny phrases which constitutes communication can only be learned by acclimation and not by translation. I often wonder how a phrase in an American movie might have been in the original and I must admit that I have no idea, since what I would have said didn't fit the syllables. The German version can't be literally translated, so the English version remains unknown to me.

 

[pinball1970]

German isn't English either, but the list of German words in English is really long!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_expressions_in_English

This is actually the hardest part. I desperately miss all the short idioms which I do not know in English and which makes 90% of daily communication. E.g. we can say "wohl" (well) to mean yes with emphasis, or "doch" which is missing in English, meaning yes as an answer to no.

We have this too, please Google 'Yes we have no bananas.'

 

[fresh_42]

We have this too, please Google 'Yes we have no bananas.'

And I thought you had no milk since 1966.

 

[sysprog]

Eigen fits better than proper, which is closest to its translation: Eigenschaft = property. But proper has been taken already by 'clean' and by 'not fake', so you would add a seemingly fourth meaning, although it factually is its first and forgotten (?) proper meaning of 'belongs to'. In addition it is easy to pronounce by English speakers: ighen, which I suppose is the real reason it made it into science.

The German 'eigen' is well-translated as 'own', as in 'sein eigenes arm' = 'his own arm'; however, as an emergent word, 'own' is etymologically clumsy to use as a prefix, and reverting to one of the Old English-Saxon-Frisian-Norse progenitors of both 'eigen' and 'own', such as 'agan' or 'egan' is unnecessary when the modern German version is almost unchanged from the meaning-equivalents in those ancestor tongues, and means exactly what is wanted, so adopting it into modern English directly seems appropriate. Some may see the prepending of a German prefix to a word of Latin origin as jarring; however, it's not at all unusual in modern English.

 

[fresh_42]

At the start of the 20th century, Hilbert studied the eigenvalues of integral operators by viewing the operators as infinite matrices. He was the first to use the German word eigen, which means "own", to denote eigenvalues and eigenvectors in 1904, though he may have been following a related usage by Helmholtz. For some time, the standard term in English was "proper value", but the more distinctive term "eigenvalue" is standard today.

(Wikipedia)
So if it didn't change then, it is unlikely it will now.

There is also a slightly different meaning nowadays between eigen and own. Own is clearly used to express possession today, whereas eigen has the connotation of a property. E.g. "Es war ihm eigen, dass er morgens betete." means "It was his habit that he prayed in the morning." This connotation isn't transported by own, but it reflects what eigen means: a certain habit.

 

[pinball1970]

And I thought you had no milk since 1966.

Yeah I never quite knew what he meant when I listened on my mum's radio as a young child.
No milk today? We have no milk OR no milk today please Mr milkman.
The tune was great so I never delved too much as a kid.

That was actually written by Graham Gouldman, later from 10CC, a Mancunian (actually Salford but close enough)
English and all its pet peeves, is a walk in the park compared to local language accents and dialects.
That is another topic thread though I think.

 

[fresh_42]

English and all its pet peeves, is a walk in the park compared to local language accents and dialects.
That is another topic thread though I think.

Oh yeah. I remember an interview on British tv when I was eighteen. I only knew my school's English and they interviewed - I think - a forward from Liverpool (gratulations by the way). Well, not-a-single-word.

 

[pinball1970]

Oh yeah. I remember an interview on British tv when I was eighteen. I only knew my school's English and they interviewed - I think - a forward from Liverpool (gratulations by the way). Well, not-a-single-word.

It is CONgratulations actually fresh and the plaudits should be reserved for our friends in Merseyside, I am not of that particular geography.
I am sure Mark 44 will cite proper use of 'gratulations' I do not care as I am British and know what is proper English. (Tongue in cheek- I am not keen on emojis)

 

[fresh_42]

It is CONgratulations actually fresh and the plaudits should be reserved for our friends in Merseyside, I am not of that particular geography.

United or City?

 

[sysprog]

There is also a slightly different meaning nowadays between eigen and own. Own is clearly used to express possession today, whereas eigen has the connotation of a property. E.g. "Es war ihm eigen, dass er morgens betete." means "It was his habit that he prayed in the morning." This connotation isn't transported by own, but it reflects what eigen means: a certain habit.

Ownership is distinct from possession. Whatever is my own belongs to me, but I can possess, i.e. have in my possession, that which belongs to another, i.e is another's own. A renter doesn't own the property he rents, but he possesses it, while it's owner doesn't possesses it, but still owns it. Own can also mean aver, as in 'though he wasn't there at that time, he later owned that he was'.

For the meaning of 'eigen' that you're distinguishing as 'habit', the latter word in English comes from the Latin verb 'habere', to have as one's own in the sense of to consist of, which is a cognate of the German verb 'haben', (the English word 'have' is more closely related to German 'kapieren'). The word 'custom' with the meaning of 'habit' in the sense to which you allude, is akin to Latin 'suus', one's own.

 

[fresh_42]

Ownership is distinct from possession. Whatever is my own belongs to me, but I can possess, i.e. have in my possession, that which belongs to another, i.e is another's own. A renter doesn't own the property he rents, but he possesses it, while it's owner doesn't possesses it, but still owns it. Own can also mean aver, as in 'though he wasn't there at that time, he later owned that he was'.

This is nit picking and jural. To own is then even stronger than to possess. And eigen is not own! There are certainly relations, as Eigentum is ownership, but Eigenschaft is property, and Eigenheit habit. These all show that eigen is far more variable than own or proper is. And it has a clear tendency towards a special property which makes it best fit for eigenvalues. A vector doesn't own his eigenvalue, nor is it a proper value. This would immediately raise the question about improper values.

For the meaning of 'eigen' that you're distinguishing as 'habit', the latter word in English comes from the Latin verb 'habere', to have as one's own in the sense of to consist of, which is a cognate of the German verb 'haben', (the English word 'have' is more closely related to German 'kapieren'). The word 'custom' with the meaning of 'habit' in the sense to which you allude, is akin to Latin 'suus', one's own.

These might be true, but words change their meaning over centuries. You cannot apply their original meaning one-to-one.

 

[pinball1970]

United or City?

Man u Fresh, it's been a difficult time for us recently...
Anyway something to celebrate though regarding the English language, I think that English football fans have so much more to call on in terms of song lyrics, prose, poetry, irony and often spontaneous humour.
They have a bad reputation on the whole but credit where it's due, they come up with some witty stuff and that is down to the language they have been immersed in since kids.
It's not a peeve it's a praise and I accept this so the mods should let this little one slide I think.

 

[fresh_42]

They have a bad reputation on the whole

I'm afraid to say, but if you ever saw English fans abroad and the next day Scottish ... I know whom I'd prefer to party with.

 

[sysprog]

To own is then even stronger than to possess.

As verbs, own is abstract, and possesses is physical.

And eigen is not own!

Is 'sehr eigenes arm' = 'his own arm' not correct?

There are certainly relations, as Eigentum is ownership, but Eigenschaft is property,
and Eigenheit habit.

In each of those words, 'eigen' contributes some sense of 'own', and each could be anglicized by 'own' prepended to a suffix: 'eigentum' ≈ 'owndom', 'eigenschaft' ≈ 'ownship', 'eigenheit' ≈ 'ownhood'.

These all show that eigen is far more variable than own or proper is.

I would own that contention to be founded on little more than an impropriation to yourself of a declaratory fiat on the matter.

And it has a clear tendency towards a special property which makes it best fit for eigenvalues.

I wouldn't disagree with the claim that it's a good choice.

A vector doesn't own his eigenvalue, nor is it a proper value.

In English, we wouldn't say of a thing that it owns (verb) anything, but we could refer to its own (adjective) characteristic value (not 'his own', because mathematical objects, quite properly (in the sense of 'rightfully') in my (own) opinion, don't have gender in English).

This would immediately raise the question about improper values.

Not if we don't improperly (i.e incorrectly in this instance) use the word 'proper' intransitively, and say instead that the value 'is proper to it', meaning 'belongs to it' or (more reachingly) 'is characteristic of it'.

These might be true, but words change their meaning over centuries. You cannot apply their original meaning one-to-one.

Of course that's true; however, ancestor languages being static, except perhaps when a previously lost ancient document is discovered, it is not wrong for us to consult the meanings of the ancient root words when constructing words for newly discovered characteristics.

 

[pinball1970]

I'm afraid to say, but if you ever saw English fans abroad and the next day Scottish ... I know whom I'd prefer to party with.

Not my experience when I encountered them in my city unfortunately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_UEFA_Cup_Final_riots
On the whole I am not a fan of football mentality besides the amusing songs.

 

[gmax137]

The talk about math (eigen...) and milk brought this one to mind. Why do we say, "this milk is homogenized" or "the population is homogeneous," but in (every) math class I ever was in, the differential equation is homogeneous (ho-mo-GEE-knee-us)? That always bugged me, but when I pronounced it hum-ODGE-in-us I got nothing but funny looks by everyone. After a few tries, I just went along with the ho-mo-GEE-knee-us crowd.

 

[sysprog]

The talk about math (eigen...) and milk brought this one to mind. Why do we say, "this milk is homogenized" or "the population is homogeneous," but in (every) math class I ever was in, the differential equation is homogeneous (ho-mo-GEE-knee-us)? That always bugged me, but when I pronounced it hum-ODGE-in-us I got nothing but funny looks by everyone. After a few tries, I just went along with the ho-mo-GEE-knee-us crowd.

The word 'homogenized' (the pronunciations hō-ˈmä-jə- nīzd or hə-ˈmä-jə- nīzd are correct for that word) refers to something that started out inhomogenous (milk with the cream floating on top) having been later subjected to a process by which it becomes homogenous (micro-mixed to a stable consistency that does not allow the cream to spontaneously re-agglomerate at the top, as simply shaking a bottle of unhomogenized milk would allow).

The words 'homogenous' and 'homogeneous' regarding mixtures are sometimes used interchangeably, but I've never seen 'homogenous' used in mathematics.

The pronunciations hō-ˈmä-jə-nəs or hə-ˈmä-jə-nəs are correct for 'homogenous', but not for 'homogeneous', for which the pronunciations hō-mə-ˈjē-nē-əs, hō-mō-ˈjē-nē-əs, or more rarely, -ˈjēn-yəs are correct.

 

[gmax137]

so you're saying these are two different words!? well I learn something new every day. thanks!

 

[sysprog]

so you're saying these are two different words!? well I learn something new every day. thanks!

They're two closely related words that historically have been sometimes distinguished and sometimes conflated. Depending upon context, they could be used or interpreted as distinct words, or as different spellings of the same word, sometimes with slightly different emphasis. For example, the word 'homogenous' was used in biology to mean having apparently related characteristics, while in the argots of various industries, it was, and in some cases still is, used instead of 'homogeneous', with the same or almost the same meaning of uniform consistency of a composite material.

 

[DrClaude]

How do non-native speakers of US English feel about all its idioms? - for example, "pet peeve".

This reminds me of a book of illustrated idioms in French and English. You would have for instance "It's raining cats and dogs," with a drawing of cats and dogs falling down, and on the facing page you would have "Il pleut des cordes," with ropes "raining" down. Was very funny!

When I sense that I'm communicating with a non-native speaker, I tried to avoid idioms. However, this makes what I write sound unnatural.

Isn't it also a problem that idioms can be quite regional? Brits and Americans don't always use the same idioms.

Generally, I get the feeling that Americans speak much more in metaphors and idioms than other people. Am I wrong?

 

[sysprog]

Generally, I get the feeling that Americans speak much more in metaphors and idioms than other people. Am I wrong?

Could that impression be (at least partially) due to a tendency to take less notice of more locally (and consequently more frequently and familiarly) encountered examples?

 

[DrClaude]

Could that impression be (at least partially) due to a tendency to take less notice of more locally (and consequently more frequently and familiarly) encountered examples?

Not exactly. I am well-versed in colloquial American English and my observation comes from having to often explain to my kids things they read in books or hear in movies.

 

[sysprog]

Not exactly. I am well-versed in colloquial American English and my observation comes from having to often explain to my kids things they read in books or hear in movies.

Perhaps your kids aren't as well-versed in US English as you are, and the dynamic I suggested might apply to them, and thereby influence your perspective?

 

[pinball1970]

This reminds me of a book of illustrated idioms in French and English. You would have for instance "It's raining cats and dogs," with a drawing of cats and dogs falling down, and on the facing page you would have "Il pleut des cordes," with ropes "raining" down. Was very funny!
Isn't it also a problem that idioms can be quite regional? Brits and Americans don't always use the same idioms.

Generally, I get the feeling that Americans speak much more in metaphors and idioms than other people. Am I wrong?

I regularly speak to Americans and we often have to explain what we each mean in conversation. Sayings I think are well known, 'young pup' was one when I was referring to my niece, she had no idea I just meant when she was very young. The same American lady also requested that I did not 'dog' her on her YouTube page. This simply means to be nasty (we were discussing the evidence for evolution as she was a creationist, I had not been nasty just qualify she just wanted assurances!)
Dogged is stoic, to dog someone would be following? Tracking? A dog's dinner is a mess, a dog is a bad thing or attempt, a dog if it is a person is slang for unattractive. I would never associate 'dog''with being nasty.

 

[sysprog]

@pinball1970 "Don't be lookin' the dog at me" means don't stare confrontationally at me -- have you heard that one?

 

[DrClaude]

I regularly speak to Americans and we often have to explain what we each mean in conversation. Sayings I think are well known, 'young pup' was one when I was referring to my niece, she had no idea I just meant when she was very young. The same American lady also requested that I did not 'dog' her on her YouTube page. This simply means to be nasty (we were discussing the evidence for evolution as she was a creationist, I had not been nasty just qualify she just wanted assurances!)
Dogged is stoic, to dog someone would be following? Tracking? A dog's dinner is a mess, a dog is a bad thing or attempt, a dog if it is a person is slang for unattractive. I would never associate 'dog''with being nasty.

Was she barking up the wrong tree? Or is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? Or of man bites dog? Was this during the dogs days of summer?

 

[sysprog]

Was she barking up the wrong tree? Or is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? Or of man bites dog? Was this during the dogs days of summer?

 

[Mark44]

Some more examples that must greatly confuse non-native speakers of English:
tear - a rip, pronounced the same as tare
tear - a fluid produced by an eye, pronounced the same as tier (level)
tire - verb or noun (Am. Engl.), pronounced the same as tier (as in a tier of knots)

And then of course, I, eye, and aye, all pronounced the same but with different meanings.

 

[pinball1970]

@pinball1970 "Don't be lookin' the dog at me" means don't stare confrontationally at me -- have you heard that one?

Dog ear, hang dog, hair of the dog, dog leg, raining cats and dogs,working like a dog and the 'the dogs 'anatomy'' that is prone to teratomas in some species but the saying actually means very good. It sounds amusing but that one unlike the others does not make sense, I would have thought that horses work harder than dogs too.

 

[gmax137]

I would have thought that horses work harder than dogs too.

Maybe yes, maybe no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnspit_dog

 

[fresh_42]

My observation is, that English as a code is really bad in error correcting: you can often change a single letter and receive again a valid word of a completely different meaning, beside the many, many multiple meanings of a single word.

Just today I've read a joke about nuns and rude teenagers. The clue was the double meaning of cross as a noun and as an adjective.

And fresh from a PM: I almost made a typo and missed the 'o' in count. So my complaints about error correcting have a real life cause.

 

[sysprog]

Dog ear, hang dog, hair of the dog, dog leg, raining cats and dogs,working like a dog and the 'the dogs 'anatomy'' that is prone to teratomas in some species but the saying actually means very good. It sounds amusing but that one unlike the others does not make sense, I would have thought that horses work harder than dogs too.

Perhaps 'that one' (the 'very good' canio-anatomic feature) is a reference to the canine baculum, which, compared to the corresponding human hydrostatic-only mechanism, is highly efficient.

 

[pinball1970]

Perhaps 'that one' (the 'very good' canio-anatomic feature) is a reference to the canine baculum, which, compared to the corresponding human hydrostatic-only mechanism, is highly efficient.

Baculum is a good word, I studied biology and until now, was not aware of it.
Anyway I was referring to the two veg not the meat in the analogy. Another metaphor that is very British and makes no sense whatsoever other than numbers.
(SCC or BCC not teratoma for that region btw -rare luckily)

 

[epenguin]

Many years ago when I lived in Paris, I happened to tune in quite a few times on short wave radio to a University course for French students in British Life and language. “Mes chers élèves…” the lesson always started. From them I learned quite a few things about these. Nothing I didn't know already – but I didn't know I knew.

There was one explicitly and carefully spelt out rule I had never realized according to which an adverb changes its meaning according to its placement in an English sentence. If the adverb follows an action verbt it qualifies the manner of action. If it precedes the verb it describes something more overall, I’m not sure how to express this, but it could include the intention of an action. For example if I say “I learned French stupidly” then that was my inefficient manner of learning it, whereas if I said “I stupidly learned French” it means the whole idea of doing so was a mistake or waste of time. Ah, but then in the manner of grammatical rules in languages there is a further rule - that this rule applies only to adverbs ending in -ly! And in the manner of grammatical rules, I think there are exceptions to that rule.

So I knew the rule in that I would never use one word order if I meant what was implied by the other, but I had no idea that there was any such rule, and I think that native English speakers are never taught it, they just know.

Without knowing that they do.

 

[pinball1970]

Many years ago when I lived in Paris, I happened to tune in quite a few times on short wave radio to a University course for French students in British Life and language. “Mes chers élèves…” the lesson always started. From them I learned quite a few things about these. Nothing I didn't know already – but I didn't know I knew.

There was one explicitly and carefully spelt out rule I had never realized according to which an adverb changes its meaning according to its placement in an English sentence. If the adverb follows an action verbt it qualifies the manner of action. If it precedes the verb it describes something more overall, I’m not sure how to express this, but it could include the intention of an action. For example if I say “I learned French stupidly” then that was my inefficient manner of learning it, whereas if I said “I stupidly learned French” it means the whole idea of doing so was a mistake or waste of time. Ah, but then in the manner of grammatical rules in languages there is a further rule - that this rule applies only to adverbs ending in -ly! And in the manner of grammatical rules, I think there are exceptions to that rule.

So I knew the rule in that I would never use one word order if I meant what was implied by the other, but I had no idea that there was any such rule, and I think that native English speakers are never taught it, they just know.

I never really considered this.
I think punctuation can change the meaning here possibly.
'I learned French stupidly,' for me is not the same as, 'l learned French, stupidly.'

 

[sysprog]

Baculum is a good word, I studied biology and until now, was not aware of it.

If you think that's a good word, let's please not forget its female counterpart: baubellum, as in os baubellum felis lea, the clitoridal bone of the lioness.

 

[Mark44]

There was one explicitly and carefully spelt out rule I had never realized according to which an adverb changes its meaning according to its placement in an English sentence. If the adverb follows an action verbt it qualifies the manner of action. If it precedes the verb it describes something more overall, I’m not sure how to express this, but it could include the intention of an action.

Because I worked as a (technical) writer for quite a few years, this is a rule I'm familiar with, but many people aren't.
Compare these two sentences:
1. He only plays the piano. (adverb "only" precedes the verb)
2. She plays only the piano. (adverb "only" follows the verb)

In sentence 1, the implication is that he doesn't move the piano, polish the piano, tune the piano, or perform any other operations on the piano.
In sentence 2, the implication is that she doesn't play any other instrument.

I think punctuation can change the meaning here possibly.

Yes, I think so. "He, only, plays the piano." -- No one else plays it. For even more emphasis, "He, and he only, plays the piano."

 

[fresh_42]

Is it possible to say: "He plays the piano only."?
(He only plays only the only piano.)

 

[sysprog]

Is it possible to say: "He plays the piano only."?
(He only plays only the only piano.)

"He plays the piano only", without other information, would mean only that the piano is the only instrument that he plays; it would not mean that there is only one piano available for his piano playing.

 

[pinball1970]

Because I worked as a (technical) writer for quite a few years, this is a rule I'm familiar with, but many people aren't.
Compare these two sentences:
1. He only plays the piano. (adverb "only" precedes the verb)
2. She plays only the piano. (adverb "only" follows the verb)

In sentence 1, the implication is that he doesn't move the piano, polish the piano, tune the piano, or perform any other operations on the piano.
In sentence 2, the implication is that she doesn't play any other instrument.Yes, I think so. "He, only, plays the piano." -- No one else plays it. For even more emphasis, "He, and he only, plays the piano."

Interesting, I would use the first one for both, the second does not quite feel right even if it's grammatically correct.
I would use inflection in speech and italics writing it out to distinguish between the two.
Plays and piano, not polishes and violin.

 

[pinball1970]

Is it possible to say: "He plays the piano only."?
(He only plays only the only piano.)

Too many 'only's.'

 

[pinball1970]

If you think that's a good word, let's please not forget its female counterpart: baubellum, as in os baubellum felis lea, the clitoridal bone of the lioness.

That sounds hideous.

 

[mjc123]

Many years ago when I lived in Paris, I happened to tune in quite a few times on short wave radio to a University course for French students in British Life and language. “Mes chers élèves…” the lesson always started. From them I learned quite a few things about these. Nothing I didn't know already – but I didn't know I knew.

“Mes chers élèves…” reminds me of an English idiom that gave a French translator trouble. In the program notes to a CD of Schubert's Moments musicaux, it says that the first edition was published with the misspelt title Momens musicals due to the publisher's "schoolboy French". The French translator evidently misunderstood this, and says that the title Moments musicaux (the correct spelling shows that he missed the point) was given by the publisher's "élève francais", a person previously unknown.

 

[epenguin]

I never really considered this.
I think punctuation can change the meaning here possibly.
'I learned French stupidly,' for me is not the same as, 'l learned French, stupidly.'

Yes that is an alternative. Along with it, and this is the sort of thing that doesn't get into the textbooks that people learn from, you would pronounce 'Stupidly' in those two formulations with different tones. The non- mothertongue speaker almost never is taught and not often learns this sort of thing I believe.

 

[sysprog]

That sounds hideous.

Maybe some might regard it as ostensible.

 

[Mark44]

Interesting, I would use the first one for both, the second does not quite feel right even if it's grammatically correct.

Like I said, a lot of people don't understand the rule about placing modifiers close to what they modify.

I would use inflection in speech and italics writing it out to distinguish between the two.

Probably wouldn't make much of a difference.
"I nearly made $50 today" vs. "I nearly made $50 today."

Compare those two with the following:
"I made nearly $50 today."

The choice in the first two examples is between making some money and making no money at all because the adverb is modifying the verb, not the money amount that was earned.