HELF with Grammer

October 6, 2006 8:07 AM

Grammer emergency. "I am unavailable to answer your call." Stop the madness.

The phrase "unavailable to" must be grammatically incorrect... but is it really?

posted by ewkpates to writing & language (46 comments total)

What makes you think it is?
posted by jjg at 8:12 AM on October 6, 2006

Would you be more comfortable with "I am not available to answer your call"? If so, why?
posted by rkent at 8:14 AM on October 6, 2006

The phrase "unavailable to" must be grammatically incorrect

I'm not sure if this helps, but don't think of "unavailable to" as a phrase. The two key phrases that I see are "I am unavailable" and "to answer," which both make perfect sense. I still don't know why you think this sounds odd, though, so maybe I'm way off-base in how I'm trying to explain it.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 8:17 AM on October 6, 2006

Grammer?

Anyway, it's completely correct. Substitute "happy", "available", "able", or any number of adjectives in its stead.
posted by mkultra at 8:24 AM on October 6, 2006

Or substitute "unable to" which reads and speaks a bit easier.
posted by pdb at 8:29 AM on October 6, 2006

Doofus and I think alike. It's two phrases: "I am not available" "to take your call."
posted by muddgirl at 8:32 AM on October 6, 2006

It sounds strange to me, too, ewkpates, but all kinds of parallel constructions are OK, so I guess we just have to live with it.
posted by jamjam at 8:36 AM on October 6, 2006

Anyway, it's completely correct. Substitute "happy", "available", "able", or any number of adjectives in its stead.

This trick doesn't work, though. You listed adjectives that work. I could suggest substituting "fast", "red", and "liquid". The problem is figuring out if unavailable is OK there (and moreso, the problem is figuring out if it is awkward there, I think, not just whether or not an adjective can go before an infinitive).

Asker: If you post to Ask Metafilter about it, then you've already identified it as awkward. Reword for your own sanity.
posted by mendel at 8:36 AM on October 6, 2006

Would you be more comfortable with "I am not available to answer your call"? If so, why?

Interesting question! I'm much more comfortable with "I am not available..." because I can visualize it. I can picture someone who is not available. I have a harder time picturing someone who is "unavailable to".

I'm not saying that "unavailable to" is grammatically incorrect. It isn't. I am making the subjective claim that, when possible, it's better to use language that is easy to visualize, that hooks into the senses.

I'm trying to figure out why it's easier for me to visualize "not available" than "unavailable." I think it's because I can't really visualize an absense of availability. But I can imagine someone being available and then I can mentally negate that. I know that's what the prefix "un" is doing, but I find it easier when the the negation is separated, as in "not available".
posted by grumblebee at 8:38 AM on October 6, 2006

I think it seems off because you are unavailable for things, not to them; so it's mixing "able to" with "unavailable for" and sounding confused as a result.
posted by stefanie at 8:46 AM on October 6, 2006

Grammar, however its spelled has LAWS people, LAWS.

Work with me.

Either this combination of words "unavailable to" is legal or it isn't. I will know.

Justice will be swift, and merciless. Without mercy. Containing 0 mercy.
posted by ewkpates at 8:52 AM on October 6, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

Don't look at it as < unavailable to answer>, it is actually .
posted by JJ86 at 8:59 AM on October 6, 2006

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the "<>".

The phrase is:

...unavailable "to answer"...

this is correct use.
posted by JJ86 at 9:00 AM on October 6, 2006

Grammar, however its spelled has LAWS people, LAWS.

Did you make these laws up? Are they different from the ones I learned? I think substituting in other words, as mentioned above, should convince you that it's OK.

Also it's it's not its.
posted by Science! at 9:03 AM on October 6, 2006

While I am no expert on this subject, the "laws" of grammar are not immutable. Since they are always slowly evolving, there is a range of what is considered acceptable, unacceptable, and somewhere in between.
posted by MrZero at 9:12 AM on October 6, 2006

Grammar, however its spelled has LAWS people, LAWS.
Actually, grammar's more of a rule thing, and it's pretty fluid one at that, and moreover it's based on mainly on intelligibity, once you enter the realm of descriptive grammar, rathar than prescriptive grammar.
The relevant phrase is not "un/available to". The "to" belongs to the "answer" in the infinitive. It's "I am _______ to take your call." Insert any adjective (that describes the "I") in there - willing, able, happy, lucky - and you'll see it's fine.
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:13 AM on October 6, 2006

Is this another ARG? Because that's the only reason I can come up with for this conversation continuing. Mudgirl, Doofus DenOfSizer are right -- I'm not available... to answer. Is it clumsy writing? Yes. Stylistically, it's a touch clunky. Does that make it bad grammar? Nope. End of story. That's it. I'll take my zero mercy, now.
posted by incessant at 9:27 AM on October 6, 2006

You could substitute the gerund, if you're stuck on the to/for thing: I am unavailable for answering calls.

But yes, the "to" is there not to go with the "unavailable," but because in English we have two-word infinitives. Those of you complaining about linking "unavailable" with "to" are not chunking the sentence elements correctly.
posted by occhiblu at 9:32 AM on October 6, 2006

I would say "[un]available to [person]", and "available for [action]". As in, "she was unavailable to him, and he was always available for talking about grammar."

I'm am unavailable for telephonic communications at this time. I am not available for phone calls. I am unavailable to you, since I will not answer this phone.
posted by sfenders at 9:41 AM on October 6, 2006

It is an awkward construction. It doesn't violate any specific laws, but should definitely be reworded. Saying "I'm unavailable" should get the message across without adding "to answer your call." The person is, after all, making a phone call.

I usually hear "I'm on another call or away from my desk (office)."
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 9:48 AM on October 6, 2006

I would say not available, because it sounds more like how actual people talk, but the sentence as you posted it is perfectly grammatical.

(The phone thing that drives me crazy is, "we are presently unavailable..." - I know presently has come to be synonymous with currently in the US, but as a Canadian, I always have a moment when I am thinking, "If you're presently unavailable, then you're still available now.")
posted by joannemerriam at 9:48 AM on October 6, 2006

I'm confused as to why you can picture 'not available' but not 'unavailable'. Can you picture 'uninteresting'? Or 'unconvinced'. I don't get why it is using 'un-' instead of 'not...' that is tripping you up.
posted by spicynuts at 9:49 AM on October 6, 2006

I read "I am unavailable to answer your call" as making "your call" the subject, as in "your call is not able to reach me." Which looks grammatically correct, but a bit weird.
posted by sfenders at 9:49 AM on October 6, 2006

"I" is the subject of the sentence. How does "your call" become the subject? I'm confused.
posted by occhiblu at 9:54 AM on October 6, 2006

AskMe: swift, and merciless. Without mercy. Containing 0 mercy.
posted by Famous at 9:55 AM on October 6, 2006

I could be wrong about this, but I believe this is why the sentence is grammatically correct:

I (pronoun and the subject of the sentence) + am (main verb) + unavailable to answer (adverb phrase, modifying "am") + your call (noun phrase, which acts a the direct object).
posted by moonbiter at 9:57 AM on October 6, 2006

Either this combination of words "unavailable to" is legal or it isn't.

"Legal"? Well, the citations grammar cops issue are harmless and unofficial; you can talk however you want. (Of course, you may not be understood if you go overboard.)

There's a range of thought regarding language and grammar. At either end are Descriptives who merely describe how people are talking now, and Prescriptives who live by the rules and get offended when they sense a violation. More at the wiki. For example, any given dictionary is merely a Description of the language at the time it was published, a snapshot. But language is changing all the time, much to the annoyance of the Prescriptives. That's why dictionary companies keep publishing revised updates.

But I disagree with what you think "must be grammatically incorrect."
posted by Rash at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2006

Grammar, however its spelled has LAWS people, LAWS.

No. It really doesn't. It has conventions. Some of them are strictly observed to serve a specific purpose — like capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, or using punctuation to mark a sentence's end — and others allow flexibility in how they're used, like deciding whether to separate two independent clauses with a period, a semicolon, a dash, etc. to establish various effects. As with any convention, these are subject to the discretion of good judgment.

If you're wondering, we teach grammatical rules to children for the same reason that we tell them "stealing is wrong" before they're old enough to understand Les Miserables.

The only law, as far as I'm aware, is that people who can't spell "grammar" and who mistake "its" for "it's" are automatically disqualified from complaining about anyone else's writing.
posted by cribcage at 10:04 AM on October 6, 2006

More basic info about infinitives. They just simply say, which I like and which directly address what we're talking about:

Some adjectives can be followed by an infinitive. Many of these adjectives describe a person’s emotions or mental state.

glad
happy
pleased
delighted
content
relieved
lucky
fortunate
sorry
sad
upset
disappointed
proud
ashamed
ready
prepared
anxious
eager
willing
motivated
determined
careful
hesitant
reluctant
afraid
surprised
amazed
astonished
shocked
stunned
posted by occhiblu at 10:11 AM on October 6, 2006

I'm confused as to why you can picture 'not available' but not 'unavailable'. Can you picture 'uninteresting'? Or 'unconvinced'. I don't get why it is using 'un-' instead of 'not...' that is tripping you up.

I'm confused too. Maybe it's just an odd quirk of my brain (that doesn't translate to other people). I know it's true, and the best explanation I can come up with -- though I'm pulling it out of my ass -- is that my brain likes the separation (the space) between "not" and "available." That seems more probable than a preference for "not" over "un."

In fact, I find "un available" more evocative than notavailable. As much as I'm able to monitor my own brain function, "un available" or "not available" feels like someone is writing "available" on my mental blackboard and then crossing it out. Whereas "unavailable" feels like a "finished" unit that I have to upack to parse.

I really don't have a problem with unavailable, and I doubt I would have noticed this effect if I hadn't seen the two possibilities side by side.

What I'm STRONGLY against is the "not un" formation (which was also hated by George Orwell). I'd much rather here someone say, "I'm interested" than "I'm not uninterested." The latter needs too much unpacking. I know that "not uninterested" has a slightly different meaning from "interested", but I think that meaning can be captured with a construction like "mildly interested" or "somewhat interested."

"Not uninterested" DOES capture a wry, ironic tone ("I'm not unattracted to you"), so I would use it if I was writing dialogue for a wry, ironic character in a script, but I'd prefer to be more direct in my other writing.
posted by grumblebee at 10:49 AM on October 6, 2006

I spent so much time as a child diagramming the Byzantine and complex sentences constructed by life-long English teachers that I automatically break the sentence down into: the prepositional phrase "to answer your call", the subject, a pronoun "I", a verb "am", and an adjective "unavailable".

I would argue that your problem with the sentence is not one of grammar, as much as it is one of vocabulary. You do not believe that the word unavailable can apply to the word I in this context.
posted by Megafly at 11:41 AM on October 6, 2006

No. It really doesn't. It has conventions. Some of them are strictly observed to serve a specific purpose — like capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, or using punctuation to mark a sentence's end — and others allow flexibility in how they're used, like deciding whether to separate two independent clauses with a period, a semicolon, a dash, etc. to establish various effects. As with any convention, these are subject to the discretion of good judgment.

You are confusing grammar with punctuation; the two are completely different (although the latter sometimes depends on the former). The actual rules of grammar are an inherent part of the language that nobody has to teach us (if you have doubts on that score, consider the many, many languages spoken by people who have never had the dubious benefit of courses in their own language, not to mention books analyzing it for their benefit, and yet manage to apply amazingly complex rules without thinking about it); the "rules" of grammar they try to pound into you in "grammar school" (like not ending sentences with prepositions or splitting infinitives) are bullshit made up to make people feel superior for knowing them. Here's a test: if you have to look it up, it's stylistic convention (or bullshit), not grammar.

Oh, and there's nothing grammatically wrong with the posted sentence.
posted by languagehat at 11:49 AM on October 6, 2006

I read "I am unavailable to answer your call" as making "your call" the subject

I guess "subject" may be the wrong word, and "answer your call" would be the thing you're supposedly "unavailable to". To what are you available, then?
posted by sfenders at 11:59 AM on October 6, 2006

English major reporting for duty! Alas, one of the few things for which my degree is actually applicable!

I'm gonna go with strangeleftydoublethink there and add that I think it is simply a redundancy. The fact that you're unavailable doesn't require explaining what you're unavailable to do. I would add that someone is generally "available for" something, rather than to.

Perhaps you're wanting: "I am currently incapable of answering your call," or "I am not available for answering calls right now."
posted by vanoakenfold at 12:05 PM on October 6, 2006

and "answer your call" would be the thing you're supposedly "unavailable to".

No, "to answer your call" would be the thing you're "unavailable for." But it would be silly to say "I'm unavailable for to answer your call" in English, so we drop the preposition and keep the two-word infinitive ("to answer") intact.

As to what you're available for, well, lots of things, presumably, as long as they don't involve the phone.
posted by occhiblu at 12:48 PM on October 6, 2006

(Or if I'm missing the nuance in your question, then you'd be available to answer questions, available to make coffee, available to pass notes... "available to verb" also works with the infinitive.)
posted by occhiblu at 12:50 PM on October 6, 2006

Subject: "I."
Verb: state of being verb "am."
Predicate adjective describing subject: "unavailable."
Infinitive verb modifying "unavailable" in a dependent clause: "to answer."
Direct object of the verb "to answer:" "call."
Possessive adjective modifying "call:" "your."

In no way is the word "to" being used here as a preposition. It is, instead, an indivisible part of an infinitive verb.

There. Bam! It's all legit. Now let's kick it up a notch:

It's common to have introducing words (that, for) to introduce a dependent clause, but in this case with an infinitive, it's not necessary. However, you'll often find non-native English speakers using them anyway: "I am unavailable for to take your call."

Ways to do this that do include introductory words to begin the clause:

"I am unavailable for taking your call." (taking: gerund, used as object of prepositional phrase.)

"I am unavailable that I could take your call." (that: introduces dependent clause. could take: contrary-to-fact subjunctive mood.) This is even worse sounding but it is strictly grammatical.

Grammar, however it's spelled, has Laws, people. LAWS.

Grammar: subject.
However: introduces dependent clause, which is correctly demarcated by commas.
It's: Contraction of "it is." Not the same as "its"
Spelled: Past participle of verb "to spell," used as predicate adjective modifying "it."
Has: verb.
Laws: Direct object.
People: Appositive noun (noun used in apposition, separated from main sentence by comma.)

LAWS: This is strictly a noun, but here it would be a sentence fragment, so it is serving as an interjection used for emphasis.

I applaud your interest in grammar. Keep learning.
posted by ikkyu2 at 1:50 PM on October 6, 2006

Damn tags.
posted by ikkyu2 at 1:51 PM on October 6, 2006

Hmm. "Available to answer questions" looks normal to me, but "unavailable to answer your call" didn't at first glance. I take the former as specifying why you're available; to answer questions. I see its use this other way as wrong because "I'm not available to answer your call" becomes potentially ambiguous. It could mean you're available, but not for the purpose of answering the call. (Or, less likely, that you've made yourself unavailable so that you can asnwer the call.)

But I guess there's nothing grammatically wrong with it.
posted by sfenders at 2:01 PM on October 6, 2006

It could mean you're available, but not for the purpose of answering the call.

Well, yes, exactly. I can't in any way imagine a situation in which one would not be available for anything. Unless one were dead. In which case leaving a voicemail is probably pointless.
posted by occhiblu at 2:14 PM on October 6, 2006

um, okay, but it'd be sort of impolite to say in your answering machine message, "yes, I'm available right now, but not for you!"
posted by sfenders at 3:04 PM on October 6, 2006

There. Bam! It's all legit.

ikkyu2: Thanks. I was having second thoughts about my breakdown and was just doing some reading to figure out why. You nailed it.
posted by moonbiter at 3:10 PM on October 6, 2006

To clarify... I was thinking of "to" as short for "in order to", where it could mean that instead of being an "indivisible part of an infinitive verb." I can't think of anywhere it could be used both ways other than coming after "available".

I'm happy to eat, I eat to be happy. My brain is temporarily unavailable for further consideration of grammer.
posted by sfenders at 3:13 PM on October 6, 2006

I think perhaps you're tripped up by the redundant explicitness of "unavailable to answer"; it's more elegant to say either "I am unavailable" or simply "I cannot answer your call". Could that be it?
posted by clockzero at 8:19 PM on October 6, 2006

I was thinking of "to" as short for "in order to",

Ah. I now understand your confusion, kind of, but if one is saying "I have made myself unavailable to others so that I may take your call," but one is doing so on a voicemail greeting rather than by answering the phone oneself, one would simply be broadcasting one's incompetence at the task of fending off others in order to better communicate with the caller. So I think you'd always have to go with the simpler explanation -- "I'm not available to you" -- given the context, which pretty much eliminates the ambiguity.
posted by occhiblu at 2:27 PM on October 7, 2006

Excellent. I am more powerful then ever before. Plus now I found this:

The prefix un– attaches only to gradient adjectives.

Which a fancy way of bringing up what's been touched on already: Is "available" a gradient adjective"?

I will argue that it is not, and that this is the root of the problem.

You may not be "partially available" with regard to your availability to answer the phone. Whether or not you are available for anything else is moot. You are either available to answer to phone, or you are not available. You can't be unavailable.
posted by ewkpates at 6:16 AM on October 12, 2006