I have to completely disagree. Poorly is an adverb, the meaning of 'Livia feels poorly' is 'Livia is bad at the act of feeling' while the intent of the sentence is to convey that her state of being/health/mood is bad. Further, I have never heard anyone use this phrase in either US or UK English. Livia feels bad/unwell/poor are all grammatically correct. The current phrase sounds poorly. It is not phrased goodly. Is my meaning clearly?
You're thinking about it incorrectly. The phrasing is fine because that's the intended structure of the TARGET language. In English, these are mostly interchangeable, but that's because in a descriptivist language like English people often don't use adverbs correctly. Consider your use of "goodly": that sentence SHOULD be "It is not phrased well" where "well" is the correct adjective. I get the point you were trying to make, but goodly isn't the adverbial form of good.
Moreover, the English does not matter so much as that you understand that in LATIN, this is how you use this type of phrase. That way, when you apply it to other phrases, you can use the correct form of the word, as it is intended in Latin.
I have a degree in linguistics and there is no such thing as a descriptive or prescriptive language. Those terms apply to how people approach the discussion/study/philosophy of language.
Prescriptivists/grammarians/snooty teachers will treat the standard dialect as though it is inherently superior and the only correct way to speak. They will teach the rules as though they are decrees handed down from on high, like "Thou shalt not eat fish on Friday."
Descriptivists/linguists/people who study languages know that languages have never been monolithic things. There is no such thing as not a dialect, and non-standard dialects are not the standard (prestige) dialect with errors. The rules of any given dialect are closer to laws of nature. Linguists analyze how native speakers talk and derive the rules from that, like "An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force."
Usually, "well" is an adverb, but it is an adjective in the context of health and well-being. Similarly, in some dialects, "poorly" can be an adjective in the context of health and well-being.
In the other direction, some words that look like adjectives can actually be adverbs: flat adverbs.
I agree with a part, but it seems a bit caricatural about "prescriptivists", sometimes prescription vs usage is good.
When we use a dictionary to check the right use, it's a prescription. If there hadn't prescription, we would just check that is the usage the more common, and stick to it, because it's the usage, a common usage, even if it's grammatically incorrect. Usage is Urban dictionary dictionary, Prescription is Oxford dictionary.
So, a balance needs to be found between prescription and usage.
It's not because many people make a mistake, that it makes it proper linguistically. The languages evolve, but their evolution also needs to be slow down. (I don't talk about the debate in the first post, just saying that prescription is not always bad or we should burn all our dictionaries and grammar rules, and just observe how the language is spoken in the streets or on the internet forums)
"Male" IS an adverb, the adverbial form of the adjective malus. Translating an adverb with an adverb is more accurate. Regarding English grammar, a verb, in this case "feels", is modified by and adverb not an adjective. You should really think about getting a book and learning some grammar!
I'm not an expert, but I don't think we should always translate an adverb with an adverb. It makes no sense when we see that adjectives are often used as adverbs, and vice versa, in Latin and English. So, sticking to the grammatical nature of the words, rather than the general meaning seems impossible to me. How do you do when the adjective is used like an adverb in Latin, and it's not the case in English (or whatever other configuration)? Do you translate it word by word like in Google translate?
"Feels" is modified by an adverb. Very good, Bert. Gold star for you. The problem, as I said in my post (which you might want to re-read and try harder to comprehend) is that Livia's ability to feel is not what is in question. Livia herself, a noun, is in a negative state of being. Nouns are modified by adjectives. Congratulations on figuring out that "male" is an adverb in Latin. I now encourage you to ask yourself if English grammar and Latin grammar are the same. The English sentence lacks the explicit reflexivity of the Latin. "You understood me poor." Wrong. It's "you understood me poorly", because your understanding of my comment was the problem, not you. On the other hand, "Bert seems pompously." Wrong. Bert himself, a noun, is the possessor of the bad attitude, not the innocent verb "seems". "Bert seems pompous." Now that sounds much more nicely... Ahem... NICE to me.
I wonder if "to feel" is really stative when talking about the health.
It's stative when it talks about feelings, emotions, ideas (I feel that: I believe that), or emotional states.
The verb feel in the meaning of ‘feel ill’ is not stative. We say ‘I’m feeling ill’ or ‘I feel ill’.
When ‘feel’ means ‘believe’, however, it is stative: ‘I feel it’s the right thing to do’, not ‘I’m feeling’.
Opinion confirmed here:
Don feels that the boss’s new plans are not conducive to the company’s progress. [ feels (Present Simple form of feel) as stative verb meaning to hold an opinion]
He is not feeling so good today. [ is not feeling (Present Progressive form of feel) as dynamic verb meaning physical bodily sensation]
The progressive form in -ing, would be impossible for a static use (I'm feeling good/well), according to these sites.
But Merriamster say that to feel, for health, is "a linking verb" so it's included in the "stative verbs". I cannot find an example of "feeling" used for health, considered as a stative verb though, they always give other uses for feels)
It seems ambiguous, as "feel good" and "feel well" don't have the same meaning.
"Feeling well" refers to feeling healthy, not being sick, etc. If someone asks "How are you feeling?", they are generally inquiring about your health, so it's appropriate to answer this way.
"Feeling good": a general state of mind, so "I'm feeling good" can refer to someone feeling happy, proud, etc. if someone says "How are you?" and you want to describe a general good mood, you can say "I'm feeling good"
Using poorly as an adjective means "unwell" or "somewhat ill," and you can certainly say "I feel poorly" to mean the same thing as "I feel ill."
Confusion in the use of bad versus badly usually has to do with verbs called copulas, such as feel or seem. Thus, standard usage calls for I feel bad, not I feel badly. As a precise speaker or writer would explain, I feel badly means "I do not have a good sense of touch."
Note: I feel poorly is considered as wrong by Oxford, but its colloquial use exists:
In colloquial English English, as opposed to American English, "I feel poorly" means "I feel ill." It is connected exclusively to one's health. If, for example, it were used to express poor tactile sense it would have some qualifying word or phrase; eg. "I feel things very poorly with my fingers."
Since this was posted over a month ago and a minor war ensued over it spamming me with notifications, I wanted to come back and comment a follow up.
I did check around after writing my initial comment and I acknowledge now that poorly is used as an adjective in some dialects in the UK. Also, to be clear, I had no issue understanding the meaning when I read it. I don't think anyone did. Further, I did not and do not want to start name dropping linguistic jargon on the point to try to shut down everyone else.
The primary issue is that the suffix -ly turns nouns into adjectives and adjectives into adverbs. Friend is a noun. Friendly is an adjective. Quick is an adjective. Quickly is an adverb. This is a pattern that exists with unusual consistency in English. In fact, it's so consistent that the suffix gets a page in some dictionaries saying precisely that:
Poor is an adjective, so following standard English, appending the suffix -ly at the end would imply that it's an adverb. Poorly used as a Britishism as in the above sentence bluntly breaks this consistent pattern. That's why so many people read it and feel that it sounds incorrect even if they can't tell why. It's because it violates a pattern that is very consistent in English aside from that one word in that one dialect. Maybe it slowly became standard to use it that way in some regions of the UK just like "y'all" is slowly becoming normal in some regions even outside of the Southern US.
I don't speak the same way that I write. But if I were to write an educational course, I'd try writing it in the most standardized language variant possible. That excludes both obvious slang like Southern US "ain't" or British "innit" AND regional colloquialisms like "poorly" which clearly violate linguistic patterns that hold in virtually every other case in most other dialects.
-ly often turns an adjective into an adverb. But not always.
Don't forget "costly", as in "Forgetting to lock his front door was a costly mistake that led to a burglar stealing his prized possessions."
Or "daily", as in "Studying on Duolingo is a daily event for me."
And let's not forget Dorothy's good friend the Cowardly Lion.
It's not as "unusually consistent" as you think. The adjectival use of "poorly", while non-standard, has clear precedent within standard English and should not be so quickly written off.
As a native English person who has lived in many parts of the country, and learnt their dialects, and now lives in Wales and has learnt their English dialect as well as the Welsh language, I can assure you that "I feel poorly today" is understood all over the UK as meaning "I feel unwell".
If one used instead "I feel unwell", one would be looked at slightly oddly and thought a bit snobbish! More usual would be "I don't feel well", which wouldn't work as a translation here as it changes the emphasis and the Latin is using "male" rather "non est".
Perhaps we could simply agree that "I feel poorly" is a standard British English idiom :o)
Actually, I think "feel" in this context is equivalent to "is" or "seems;" in other words, it's a linking verb, and so using an adjective with it is correct. "Livia feels/is/seems bad."
In this sentence, we're not discussing how well she FEELS something else, for which we'd want an adverb (like "poorly"): "She feels bad / poorly" does not, in other words, mean that she is (for example) feeling (or handling) an animal badly.
It is the reflexive 3rd person singular pronoun.
Since "habet" is a transitive verb ( = needs a direct object), the accusative "sē" is serving as that object; and, since it's reflexive, it indicates that the same person, "Livia," is both the subject and the object of the verb.
"Mē male habeō" would mean "I'm not doing well," and "Tē male habēs" would mean "You're not doing well," and so forth.
It is the accusative form of the personal pronoun. It can be used in various ways. In this case it affects the meaning just as se in haberse, but in Latin it is never considered to be a part of the actual verb. It's more of an extra that means the action is directed to the subject.
You wrote that "There are dialects of British English where "poorly" is used as an adjective". I understood this to mean regional dialects. Now you are saying that standard British English is a dialect, which is fair enough. But it doesn't explain which "dialects of British English" you were referring to initially. All British English, or only some forms of it?
I don't think so, no.
As far as I know, the idiom is "(subject) sē habēre", meaning "(the subject) keeps itself in a certain condition" (or simply "IS in a certain condition"), with the condition specified by the adverb (male, "badly, poorly," etc., as here).
The direct object in the accusative case (here, the 3rd person reflexive pronoun sē) is necessary. If Livia speaks to us, she might say "Mē male habeō" (with the 1st person reflexive pronoun in the accusative case).