 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / October 2006Common usage
In another thread here, there was constant reference to the fact that certain words and phrases (usage of) were in common usage (or, words to that effect). There are many example of "common usage" of incorrect words and phrases. I'll try to point out two or three: 1) You are listening to a phone conversation between someone in the room with you and a person, unknown to you, on the "other end". When your friend hangs up, you (or somebody) says "What did "they " want. Obviously, the question should have been "What did he, or she want?", but the usage of that disgraceful poor grammar is "common usage". 2) There is a TV commercial in the U.S., for an optical supplier, that says "In the future, everyone will protect their eyes with..." In the past, before "women's lib" the statement would have been "protect his eyes...". Now, we would say "protect his, or her eyes...." (I would think.) 3) The receptionist at your company answers the phone and the caller wants to speak with a salesman. The salesmen are all out making sales calls. She says "None are here right now." I would have said "none IS here right now". There are many examples of this. They are mistakes made by TV network writers and newspaper writers/editors. They are heard every day. They are all "common usage". Because of this, I hate to hear someone say that if an incorrect grammar usage is made by "The Times, or The Examiner. etc., it must be "OK". As far as I can see, the media ARE "dumbing us down." Am I wrong on any of the above? All of the above? WTF is going on here? Is Feb-RU-ary really Feb-U-ary now? Why was it Feb-RU-ary when I was a child in the 40's and 50's? "Common usage" means, to me, that when I say something using proper English, the average person is thinking that I can't speak the language. Jack (Texan removed from the language of my Kent ancestors since 1660) > In another thread here, there was constant reference to the fact that > certain words and phrases (usage of) were in common usage (or, words to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > calls. She says "None are here right now." I would have said "none IS > here right now". I feel your pain. 1 and 2 above are the same, the use of the plural to avoid the gender specific pronoun. On my high school's PA system "whoever lost their jacket, please come to the office." I was certain it was a boy's jacket, it was an all boys school. Some of this makes it into common usage, and I cringe as well. 'Irregardless' is becoming an accepted variant. What do you propose? How do we stop this? A coworker (one with whom I work, not someone who orks cows) used the word supposably (sic) and I mentioned this to her in private. "If I ever used a word in public and mangled it up, I'd hope someone would bring it to my attention. I'd never embarrass you in public, so I'm saying this in private, you pronounce the word 'supposedly' as though it were 'supposably'. I just though it kind to bring this to your attention. She responded with a sincere thank-you. But she is unique, and most people don't welcome that criticism. JOE "If I ever > used a word in public and mangled it up, I'd hope someone would bring it > to my attention. I'd never embarrass you in public, so I'm saying this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people don't welcome that criticism. > JOE A few sloppy (common) pronunciations: Tempeture Vetinarian Probly Comfterbul (this is the worst one, other than vetinarian) As far as "coworker" is concerned, I saw a post once where the writer placed a hyphen in the word to avoid problems. She placed the hyphen between "cow" and "orker" accidentally. Jack > "If I ever > > used a word in public and mangled it up, I'd hope someone would bring it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Probly > Comfterbul (this is the worst one, other than vetinarian) Others: intermural (intramural) crate (create) nalasis (analysis) terminable (interminable) etc. The first syllable of many words that begin with vowels is being clipped. > As far as "coworker" is concerned, I saw a post once where the writer > placed a hyphen in the word to avoid problems. She placed the hyphen > between "cow" and "orker" accidentally. > > Jack > "If I ever > > used a word in public and mangled it up, I'd hope someone would bring it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Jack Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. > Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife > pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. My whole post is about "accepted" pronunciations. Common usage and common mispronunciation bring about "accepted" pronunciations. At some point in the future, real-a-tor and nu-cu-lar may turn up as accepted pronunciations. Jack >>Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife >>pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jack Indeed, to my horror, nuke-U-lar is accepted. Homer Simpson has done this to us. [ ... ] > Indeed, to my horror, nuke-U-lar is accepted. > Homer Simpson has done this to us. No, Joe. It's generally agreed that the pronounciation was invented, or at least popularized, by Eisenhower during his presidency. You can find many prior threads and much enlightenment by searching for "nucular." If you want to have some fun, trace the etymology of "nuclear," then reflect on which pronunciation is etymologically correct. Here's a start: http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/N0188200.html  SignatureBob Lieblich Who says New-clee-ur > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/N0188200.html Bob, I trust that you are correct, but given the impact TV has on us, I tend toward believing there's a difference between etymological first citations and the cause for such pronunciations permeating the language. I'd have blamed Bush, but Homer's ratings have always been higher. JOE >> Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife >> pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > point in the future, real-a-tor and nu-cu-lar may turn up as accepted > pronunciations. Just as "Wensday" is today. Anyone who pronounces "Wednesday" so has no right to criticise other people's pronunciation. > >> Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife > >> pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Just as "Wensday" is today. Anyone who pronounces "Wednesday" so has no > right to criticise other people's pronunciation. Not to mention "often" and "interesting"? Ever hear anyone pronounce the latter with four full syllables? SignatureRobbie >Not to mention "often" and "interesting"? Ever hear anyone pronounce >the latter with four full syllables? You never watched "Laugh In"? Arte Johnson? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >Not to mention "often" and "interesting"? Ever hear anyone pronounce > >the latter with four full syllables? > > You never watched "Laugh In"? Arte Johnson? Not the same. He was pronouncing "interethting." SignatureBob Lieblich Sock it to me > Not to mention "often" and "interesting"? Ever hear anyone pronounce the > latter with four full syllables? I do. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. > > Not to mention "often" and "interesting"? Ever hear anyone pronounce the > > latter with four full syllables? > I do. That's it for you, John. Turn in your AUE mug and your OneLook ID card. We'll hold the drumming-out on Friday. SignatureBob Lieblich Good to see you back > > > Not to mention "often" and "interesting"? Ever hear anyone pronounce the > > > latter with four full syllables? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's it for you, John. Turn in your AUE mug and your OneLook ID > card. We'll hold the drumming-out on Friday. Oooer. I was about to say the same, but perhaps I shan't now! I'm a native English (for certain values of 'English') speaker, but I'm not from the UK *or* the US. I would certainly pronounce both words with their full complement of syllables, or perhaps I would abridge 'interesting' to 'int'resting' if I was in a hurry. I take it you expect the pronunciations to be 'offin' and 'innarestin'? I always hit t's, and I think most of my compatriots would too. I'm no sociolinguist though; even here 'data' is not the plural of 'anecdote'. (I was hoping that one of you would be able to deduct my origin from my writing style - "elementary, my dear Watson, from the calluses on his hands I knew he had worked as a seaman for many years..." - but Google Groups has quite spoiled the surprise) Lyall Morrison [ ... ] > I take it you expect the pronunciations to be 'offin' and 'innarestin'? Not so for the latter -- your version still has four syllables. The standard pronunciation of the word is "INtristing." > I always hit t's, and I think most of my compatriots would too. No quarrel there. It's that extra syllable between T and R to which I object. I base this objection on usage and suggest you consult dictionaries if you disagree. SignatureBob Lieblich Verrrry interethting [...] > The standard pronunciation of the word is "INtristing." I don't normally comment on pronunciation matters, believing that pronunciation is between a man, his God, and his audience, but this issue of what we might call (and doubtless experts have precise terms for the calling) condensed versus expanded pronunciation interests me. (IN'-TER-ESTS or IN'-TRESTS?) I agree that the condensed forms for many words are "standard", if we take that to mean both prevalent and unexceptionable. What I wonder is whether the expanded form would be found off-putting by any largely civilized audience. If one were to say to such an audience-- I find that conclusion both IN'-TER-EST-ING and COM'-FOR-TUH-BUL. --would it engender any cervical damage? Or even any superciliating?[1] I tend toward doubt. I myself try, with mixed results, to keep to the fuller forms, chiefly owing to a belief that they are simply easier to make out if the environment is less than ideal for speech (and if it isn't habit, we don't do it when we need to save in grotesquely needful cases like shouting). [1] c.f. contemporary thread "Parse "sooner". > > I take it you expect the pronunciations to be 'offin' and 'innarestin'? > > Not so for the latter -- your version still has four syllables. The > standard pronunciation of the word is "INtristing." INtr_e_sting, Shirley? Nonetheless, I believe always I pronounce all four syllables, though that between the 't' and the 'r' may be something of a /schwa/. > It's that extra syllable between T and R to which I > object. You object to it, or you object to the notion that people actually pronounce it? Cheers, Daniel. > > Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife > > pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jack Jack, I agree with you. We English-speakers might be forgiven for feeling a tad supercilious that we do not have to wrestle with gender-specific nouns. I think it would be a step forward if we also had a gender-neutral pronoun. In other words, if some word perhaps "their" became officially accepted as a substitute for "his or her" I mean, the language is already in a bit of difficulty when we note that the feminine equivalent of "his" could be "her" or "hers" depending on context. Your post brings a different smile to my face. I remember an incident long ago surrounding gender. I was in control of a prospectus and I was hand-delivering copies to selected stockbrokers. I came to a new firm that I was not famiiar with and approached the...um...women at the desk to hand them some prospectuses and a copy of the covering letter. The wimmin at the desk scowled and asked why I had assumed that I would find men in the office. "Dear Sirs" had offended this bunch of lesbians who had set up a female-client-and-staff-only brokerage. I scowled back and asked why did she assume that it had been I who wrote the letter. JoeTaxpayer: > 'Irregardless' is becoming an accepted variant. God, I hope not. Jack again: > As far as "coworker" is concerned, I saw a post once where the writer > placed a hyphen in the word to avoid problems. She placed the hyphen > between "cow" and "orker" accidentally. This is so funny. Unless the writer were saddled with a Windows PC (Talk about dumbing down!) whose* word-processing algorithms sometimes place a hyphen in a journalist's text to tidy up the end of a line. Then he/she edits the text further, moving the broken word to the middle of a line but the hyphen does not disappear. *highlighting another difficulty in English. Two, actually. First, there is a trend towards saying "the guy that wrote it..." when "who" is correct. Second, if I had not used "who" here, i would've been forced to write "the word-processing algorithms of which..." damned clumsy, in my opinion. So I use "who" even for inanimates and I don't blush. Then vorotyntsev@yahoo.com contributed: > Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife > pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. Well, in Australia, New Zealand and sometimes the UK, this is the common pronunciation among those who take a little care with their language. You need only say it a bit faster than usual and you end up with comf'table which is really the most common, I think. (I'm assuming hoping that you were never contemplating "com FOR table" which would really jangle my ears. But then I lately hear the BBC saying, more and more often, "Harris" when they mean "Harass" and a common Americanism that makes me grumpy "adverTISEment". Joe had the gloomiest news in the thread: > Indeed, to my horror, nuke-U-lar is accepted. > Homer Simpson has done this to us. Joe, I don't think it was Homer, i think it was Shrubya. "Statistics" is another word that some people consantly stumble on. Not to mention "Ceausescu". Well, while I'm on a roll, why does the BBC (indeed, most of the UK) insist on saying "nick-a-rag-you-uh" when the locals say something aspproaching "neec-a-rahh-gwah" with the "g" almost absent. I think we have an obligation to try to pronounce place-names the way the locals do. Th BBC sins again when they say "Tongga" Robert Lieblich had the last word: > Youse guys are just gonna hafta learn that English as She is Spoke That's Strine, right, Robert? Owyagoinmateorright? Oh no, the last word is mine: "mis-cheevious" [...] > First, there is a trend towards saying "the guy that wrote it..." when > "who" is correct. That is not so, twice. First, the use of "who" for "that" is relatively new in English--check the King James Bible ("He that hath clean hands") or someone as recent (and colloquial) as Don Marquis ("An optimist is a guy that has never had much experience"). In between you'll find such folk as Walt Whitman and Mark Twain (those are all examples that fell into hand from a single source). Second, there is no right or wrong on this matter. The use of "who" as a sort of politeness when a person is being referred to is a pleasantry, and one I myself happen to like, but "That" is never wrong, while "who" is, at least in some uses, dubious. Case in point: the style preferred by most careful writers is to use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictives: Geese that fly high are a risk to aviation. Geese, which fly high, are a risk to aviation. Simple, clear, and helpful. But now substitute a person and require a corresponding "who": Aviators who fly high experience many risks. Aviators, who fly high, experience many risks. Many thoughtful writers are not happy with the loss of distinction in those forms, and will use "that" in castings such as the first of those two sentences. But there are also questions of sheer felicity. On the one hand, "The man that was" puts two _th_ sounds (with which the tongue is over-supplied) in proximity, and has a sing-song quality; "the man who was" sounds and reads better. On the other hand, Marlowe's "Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?" would sound ungainly indeed with "who" in place of "that". In short, there are not, and never have been, clear-cut rules for choosing "who" over "that" or vice-versa. The choice is a matter of personal style and ear. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in English--check the King James Bible ("He that hath clean hands") or > someone as recent (and colloquial) as Don Marquis ("An optimist is a guy that > has never had much experience"). In between you'll find such folk as Walt > Whitman and Mark Twain (those are all examples that fell into hand from a > single source). I was brought up short this morning when dear Miss Manners wrote, "Keep them away from people whom they might embarrass." I would use "that" there. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. > > > Comfterbul is an accepted pronunciation of comfortable. My wife > > > pronounces it com-for-TAH-bul, which I think is cute. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > had a gender-neutral pronoun. In other words, if some word perhaps > "their" became officially accepted as a substitute for "his or her" You've just set an impossible standard of acceptability. No person, organization, or group is in charge of officially accepting a usage into the English language, so there can never be official acceptance. If people use a given word or phrase for a given purpose, and if, after a while, they use it without objection, then the usage has been accepted into the language. During the transition you are likely to encounter objections from some folk and acceptance from others, and sometimes, as I pointed out in an earlier post, a word or usage can get "skunked."[1] And sometimes a perfectly ordinary usage suddenly comes under fire; ending prepositions are one such example. But the language changes, so the process must work. Singular "they" seems to have passed without comment for centuries before coming under attack. The attack isn't completely irrational, but all it's done is leave the language with no good singular gender-free pronoun. The topic is such a chestnut on the usage groups that the AUE FAQ actually asks people not to bring it up. <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxguidel.html> (item 1). > I mean, the language is already in a bit of difficulty when we note > that the feminine equivalent of "his" could be "her" or "hers" > depending on context. What's weird about that? Different inflections, in English as in other languages, can have the same form or different forms. In many Latin declensions, the dative and ablative plural have the same form, and the neuter nominative and accusative always have the same form. In English, the nominative and accusative of "it" are both "it," but the corresponding forms for "he" are "he" and "him." First person genitive can be "my" or "mine" depending on position in the sentence, just as with "her" and "hers." No big whoop. We'll probably lose all case forms in another century or less anyway. [ ... ] > JoeTaxpayer: > > > 'Irregardless' is becoming an accepted variant. > > God, I hope not. I know there are some people who use it unself-consciously, but most people still edit it out or correct it in speech if they are entitled to correct the user. If one of my children had used it when young, I'd have told them to eschew it. On the other hand, you also encounter it in facetious use -- you'll find it so used in many posts to the usage groups. Here's an instance of me doing it: <http://tinyurl.com/yxfq9d>. You can find many more, from other participants, with a proper search. That doesn't mean that we don't also have discussions of whether it's "really" a word (whatever that means) and whether it ought to be used. Of course, the discussions are inevitably inconclusive. Like this one. > Jack again: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is so funny. "Cow-orker" is another standard facetious use in the usage groups. You might also want to look up "mizzled." > Unless the writer were "Was." It's not impossible for the writer to be saddled with a Windows PC. Indeed, it's quite likely. > saddled with a Windows PC (Talk about dumbing > down!) whose* word-processing algorithms sometimes place a hyphen in a > journalist's text to tidy up the end of a line. Only if you let them. I switch off almost all of MSWord's varoius electronic crutches. I decide whether a hpyhen is used and where, not some software. (I use MSWord because that's all my employer will let me use. At home I'm still humming along with WP6.1, which has never been bettered. > Then he/she edits the > text further, moving the broken word to the middle of a line but the > hyphen does not disappear. That's some really shitty software. > *highlighting another difficulty in English. Two, actually. > First, there is a trend towards saying "the guy that wrote it..." when > "who" is correct. > > Second, if I had not used "who" here, i would've been forced to write > "the word-processing algorithms of which..." damned clumsy, in my > opinion. So I use "who" even for inanimates and I don't blush. There's nothing wrong with "whose" here, even though some people think there is. And it doesn't depend on whether "who" would be appropriate; "whose" can be used for "of which" without blushing. Even H.W. Fowler found nothing objectionable about it. Eric Walker has said all else that needed saying about "that," "which," and "who." [ ... ] > But then I lately hear the BBC saying, more and more often, "Harris" > when they mean "Harass" and a common Americanism that makes me grumpy > "adverTISEment". Look up the pronounciation of "harass" in a British dictionary. Here's a start: <http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/harass?view=uk> You're objecting to something that's completely standcard. > Joe had the gloomiest news in the thread: > > > Indeed, to my horror, nuke-U-lar is accepted. > > Homer Simpson has done this to us. > > Joe, I don't think it was Homer, i think it was Shrubya. Eisenhower. See my prior post. "Statistics" is another word that some people consantly Typo, right? Surely you don't pronounce, let alone spell, it this way. > stumble on. Not to mention "Ceausescu". Foreign names follow their own rules. Try sometime to find as many English transliterations as you can of the name of Libya's ruler. Then look up the pronounciations of Lima, Ohio; Peru, Indiana; Cairo, Illinois; Buena Vista, Virginia: and Valparaiso, Indiana. > Well, while I'm on a roll, why does the BBC (indeed, most of the UK) > insist on saying "nick-a-rag-you-uh" when the locals say something > aspproaching "neec-a-rahh-gwah" with the "g" almost absent. Because that's how British speakers pronounce the word. Why don't BBC announcers say Paree and Bearleen and Mosskva and Roma and Varsavazza? > I think we > have an obligation to try to pronounce place-names the way the locals do. Not at all. This is another frequent usage group topic, and one on which there is a soldl consensus, which is that speakers of English are entitled to anglicize the pronunciation of any foreign name. And it's not just English speakers who domesticate foreign names: you might want to look up the terms used in other languages for the likes of England and London. > Robert Lieblich had the last word: > > > Youse guys are just gonna hafta learn that English as She is Spoke Hey, I wrote a complete sentence. Youse guys circumcised it. > That's Strine, right, Robert? Owyagoinmateorright? Not so. I'm a Murric'n. > Oh no, the last word is mine: "mis-cheevious" Homogenous, anyone? [1] Consider "decimate." Its etymological meaning is "destroy one-tenth," but it is commonly used simply to mean "destroy a large percentage." Some people insist on the literal meaning and object to the common usage, but even more people have never heard of the literal meaning and are quite content with the common usage. So whichever way you use it, some people are going to object (or at least be puzzled) and others will allow it to pass without comment. On top of which, in the case of "decimate" it's possible to use it so that people encountering it who know both meanings can't tell which is intended: "The battalion was decimated in the battle." If you want to aggravate (another skunked word) the situation, try "The battalion was literally decimated in the battle." SignatureBob Lieblich The Great Weight of Authority (but on a diet) [...] > The attack [on singular "they"] isn't completely irrational, but all it's done is > leave the language with no good singular gender-free pronoun. One could, of course, argue that it has never had one, and that prior uses of the form were as wrong then as now. Otto Jesperson, the famed linguist who, I believe, is beloved of modern descriptivists, observed that "In the third person it would have been very convenient to have a common-sex pronoun, but as a matter of fact English has none and must use . . . makeshift expedients . . ." (as quoted by Gowers in _The Complete Plain Words_). But much more to the point, the need is not a screaming one: the occasions on which it is impossible or even ungainly to avoid the thing are few indeed, and that being so[1] the infrequent use of the form "he or she" is not a major tax. [1] As demonstrated at http://owlcroft.com/english/they.shtml [snip] > Otto Jesperson, the famed linguist who, I believe, is beloved of > modern descriptivists "5. To bring out clearly one of these points I select at random, by way of contrast, a passage from the language of Hawaii: "I kona hiki ana aku ilaila ua hookipa ia mai la oia me ke aloha pumehana loa." Thus it goes on, no single word ends in a consonant, and a group of two of more consonants is never found. Can any one be in doubt that even if such a language sound pleasantly and be full of music and harmony the total impression is childlike and effeminate? You do not expect much vigour or energy in a people speaking such a language; it seems adapted only to inhabitants of sunny regions where the soil requires scarcely any labour on the part of man to yield him everything he wants, and where life therefore does not bear the stamp of a hard struggle against nature and against fellow creatures." [p.3] Jespersen, Otto. (1972) _Growth and Structure of the English Language_, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 9th edition. I'm not sure what exactly he's implying here, but it doesn't seem very complimentary to the Hawaiians. He further goes on to say that English, with its consonant and double-consonant rimes, requires a people who are strong and energetic. The rest of his book is great for its time and gives a very acceptable account of English's history, etc, but that section really made me step in surprise. Also note that it's "Jespersen" with an "e" not an "o" at the end. And I haven't forgotten about compiling the "The jug has water in it" results. Other things (including a delay in getting enough responses) has held me up. SignaturejohnF "We do not have to believe this stuff, just because it was said centuries or millennia ago by immensely famous men." -- _Educating Eve_, Geoffrey Sampson > [snip] > > > Otto Jesperson, the famed linguist who, I believe, is beloved of > > modern descriptivists [long quotation from Jespersen snipped here] > I'm not sure what exactly he's implying here, but it doesn't seem very > complimentary to the Hawaiians. He further goes on to say that English, > with its consonant and double-consonant rimes, requires a people who > are strong and energetic. The rest of his book is great for its time > and gives a very acceptable account of English's history, etc, but > that section really made me step in surprise. I am unclear what the point is. If it is to cast nasturtiums at Jespersen, I--being unfamiliar with the original works--am not in a position to agree or disagree, but think it not relevant whether Jespersen is brilliant or awful: the point is that he said what he said about the lack of a neuter personal pronoun and he is a source to whom many, perhaps most, of those who favor the singular use of "they" give credence, whether with good cause or not being, as I say, immaterial. Or, if it is to suggest that Jespersen is not after all beloved of modern descriptivists, I miss the connection. > Also note that it's "Jespersen" with an "e" not an "o" at the end. Absolutely. Haste makes waste. (When the wind is southerly, I can tell a Dane from a Swede.) > And I haven't forgotten about compiling the "The jug has water in it" > results. Other things (including a delay in getting enough responses) > has held me up. I know the feeling all too well. I still hope to resume the Burchfield/Fowler discussion. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > immaterial. Or, if it is to suggest that Jespersen is not after all > beloved of modern descriptivists, I miss the connection. My point was that -- because of some of the things he did write, and as with anyone -- he should not be held up as the Perfect Model of a Descriptivist with every word he ever wrote dripping with pure wisdom that should be lapped up without criticism. Your "beloved of modern descriptivists" is pushing too far towards the 'absolute worship' end of the Respect Spectrum, and the passage I quoted is one piece of evidence that his, as with anyone's, opinions are not beyond critical analysis. In short, I think you could have written the paragraph without the rather loaded "beloved of modern descriptivists" and still kept the non-emotional part of it intact. Or maybe I just wanted to show off that I'd read Jespersen's works. It's possibly a bit of both, since no one is devoid of ego. SignaturejohnF "In fact, the belief that neurophysiology is even relevant to the functioning of the mind is just a hypothesis." -- _Language and Thought_, Noam Chomsky (1993) [...] > My point was that -- because of some of the things he [Jespersen] did write, > and as with anyone -- he should not be held up as the Perfect Model of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > piece of evidence that his, as with anyone's, opinions are not beyond > critical analysis. True, no one can be accounted ever and always perfectly correct. But his work was almost purely description, and it is very widely respected for its scholarship, and that's what the man said on that subject. I am not sure his saying falls into the realm of "opinion" unless we want to refer to Einstein's Opinions on Relativity: Jespersen's pronouncement was the factual residuum of extensive gathering of data from the field. > In short, I think you could have written the paragraph without the rather > loaded "beloved of modern descriptivists" and still kept the non-emotional > part of it intact. But I think it is a fair characterization. That is not to class Jespersen, or many of the other diligent workers in his field, as himself a "descriptivist". There is an uncrossable chasm between the disinterested gathering and organizing of facts about who uses language how, where, and when and the advocacy involved in asserting that these or those data define "sound" or "right" uses (or the lack of them). > > Well, while I'm on a roll, why does the BBC (indeed, most of the UK) > > insist on saying "nick-a-rag-you-uh" when the locals say something > > aspproaching "neec-a-rahh-gwah" with the "g" almost absent. > > Because that's how British speakers pronounce the word. Why don't BBC > announcers say Paree and Bearleen and Mosskva and Roma and Varsavazza? The BBC have a responsibility to their audience to use placename forms that the audience will understand -- there's no point in their saying "Firenze" for "Florence" or "Livorno" for "Leghorn" if nobody understands. Nevertheless, BBC newsreaders do nowadays say "Beijing" and "Mumbai" and a few others because they have been asked to. Whether the public at large understand that those are the same places as "Peking" and, er, "Bradford" (I think) is another matter ... Cheers, Daniel. [ ... ] > A few sloppy (common) pronunciations: > > Tempeture > Vetinarian > Probly > Comfterbul (this is the worst one, other than vetinarian) And it's the one that's in dictionaries: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=A&key=comfortable*1+0&ph=on http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/C0503000.html http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=comfortable > As far as "coworker" is concerned, I saw a post once where the writer > placed a hyphen in the word to avoid problems. She placed the hyphen > between "cow" and "orker" accidentally. Around here, we do it on purpose. Youse guys are just gonna hafta learn that English as She is Spoke (and Wrote) differs greatly from your idealized conception of it. All sorts of things go on in the name of English that I don't like, but I face reality, and you should as well. For example, there's a very real difference between an evolving usage and an outright error -- even if sometimes it's hard to tell whether a former error has turned into an evolving usage. Hence the notion of the "skunked word" (which you might want to look for in Google Groups. (Shouldn't be too hard -- one of you posts through it.) Much of what goes on here is disputation over where lines get drawn. The one thing to always be wary of[1] is an absolute statement that something is good or bad -- an error or a standard usage. Of all his annoying traits, UC's worst is his insistence that he alone has a pipeline to the truth. Don't fall into that trap. Otherwise, it's lotsa fun around here. Enjoy. [1] See what a virtuoso I am? -- a "split infinitive" and a trailing preposition in a single phrase. SignatureBob Lieblich Fun guy (just ask me) > A few sloppy (common) pronunciations: > > Tempeture > Vetinarian > Probly > Comfterbul (this is the worst one, other than vetinarian) Proply Plice Wensday Libry .. the list is endless. I've even seen people /write/ "prolly" for "probably". <sigh> Cheers, Daniel. >> A few sloppy (common) pronunciations: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Daniel. > I agree. They should write it "probly". SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia [ ... ] > A coworker (one with whom I work, not someone who orks cows) used the > word supposably (sic) and I mentioned this to her in private. "If I ever > used a word in public and mangled it up, I'd hope someone would bring it > to my attention. I'd never embarrass you in public, so I'm saying this > in private, you pronounce the word 'supposedly' as though it were > 'supposably'. I just though it kind to bring this to your attention. Tnen again, <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=supposably>.[1] [1] Yes, yes, different meaning. But it's a word. SignatureBob Lieblich > Jack Tyler wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > jacket, please come to the office." I was certain it was a boy's jacket, > it was an all boys school. You are both laboring under the very common misconception that this use of singular "they" involves gender uncertainty. It doesn't, as your second example clearly shows. What happens is this: Many, many English speakers have an unconscious perception that "he" and "she" should be used only to refer to some specific person, either an understood person or someone mentioned previously. If the antecedent is uncertain or unknown (and even if the antecedent's sex IS known), they will use "they". It very commonly occurs in locutions with "whoever," "anybody," "somebody," "no one," "whoever," "every," etc. It is also used by a speaker to distance himeself from the person referred to, implying that there is no relationship whatever. An example is, "Someone came to the door looking for you but they wouldn't say who they were." > A coworker ... used the word supposably (sic) ... There is nothing wrong with "supposably". NSOED records: | supposably adv. (chiefly US) as may be supposed; presumably: M19. Even if it lacked the repectability granted by an entry in the dictionary it would be a perfectly acceptable nonce-word. Note that word "may" in the definition. If something is "supposable" it is rather more hypothetical than if it were actually "supposed". Cheers, Daniel. > In another thread here, there was constant reference to the fact that > certain words and phrases (usage of) were in common usage (or, words to > that effect). There are many example of "common usage" of incorrect > words and phrases. . . . I feel we need to distinguish between commonly encountered errors and idiom. The sort of idiom that enshrines what would normally be simple error as acceptable is usually called "cast-iron idiom", signifying that using any but the received form is now the error. Some are just matters of quainterie[1]: "Sure as eggs is eggs". Others are not: "Aren't I?" (Not all cast-iron idioms are ungrammatical--many are just oddities, such as our inability to greet co-workers at the start of a night shift with "Good night" as a parallel with "Good morning" at the start of a day shift.) Whether this or that common error will evolve into cast-iron idiom seems to me a chancey thing: certain grammar errors have been very common for time out of mind yet have not become accepted forms. In passing, I would say that while in example #3--"None are here right now"--the singular would be preferred, there is no blinking that "none" can, at need (which is what is absent in that particular example), subsume the plural, no matter the original sense " no *one*". The arguments against the singular "they" are certainly clear and well known (as exemplified at http://owlcroft.com/english/they.shtml), but the school of thought that holds all usages to be inherently self-validating forever lobs bombs at them. That issue is practically the standard-bearer for modern descriptivism. [...] > They are mistakes made by TV network writers and newspaper writers/editors. > They are heard every day. Virtually every usage manual ever written takes for its examples of incorrect forms quotations from what one would normally think of as the best and highest sources--the whole point being that there is virtually no usage so foul that even careful users do not occasionally fall into it. (That is by no means to say that the common ruck of the news media are among the "best and highest"; but some of them are supposed to be.) > Because of this, I hate to hear someone say that if an incorrect grammar usage > is made by "The Times, or The Examiner. etc., it must be "OK". If one makes the argument that "sound English" is the sum of the forms generally used by infomed, careful writers and speakers, the opposing school of thought at once adduces a few examples of what most would call erroneous usages from this or that indubitably sound (in general) source and feels it has triumphantly exposed the "fallacy" of that definition of "sound English". But its argument relies wholly on the supposed assumption that good sources are perfect sources, a claim no one has ever made or ever would make. It is the very fact that virtually all of those sources would acknowledge the error as error were it pointed out to them that validates soundness so defined. > "Common usage" means, to me, that when I say something using proper > English, the average person is thinking that I can't speak the language. My own considerable experience is that no matter how poor a given person's ability to use English may be, that person will understand sound English with no trouble whatsoever, will readily recognize it as sound, and will feel no animus whatever toward the user. (Poor users usually also have small vocabularies, but not knowing this or that word is not the same as not being able to understand sound uses of known words.) [1] Not in the OED--of my coining, by analogy with "grotesquerie". >> In another thread here, there was constant reference to the fact that >> certain words and phrases (usage of) were in common usage (or, words to [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > [1] Not in the OED--of my coining, by analogy with "grotesquerie". Nicely written. The only thing I would take issue with is guess what? I'm a known descriptivist. Aren't I? SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia [...] > Nicely written. The only thing I would take issue with is > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Aren't I? If you say so. But, since I was responding to the original post by Mr. Tyler, the relevance of that to the points covered is unclear to me. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you say so. But, since I was responding to the original post by Mr. > Tyler, the relevance of that to the points covered is unclear to me. Is it just me? In reply to Mr Tyler, you said: I feel we need to distinguish between commonly encountered errors and idiom. The sort of idiom that enshrines what would normally be simple error as acceptable is usually called "cast-iron idiom", signifying that using any but the received form is now the error. Some are just matters of quainterie[1]: "Sure as eggs is eggs". Others are not: "Aren't I?" I said the only thing I would take issue with is..... "Aren't I?" Meaning I do not agree that "others are not" in the case of "aren't I?". But perhaps I misunderstood the gist of what you were saying (you seemed to imply that "aren't I?" is erroneous). Or perhaps my reply was so far removed from your substance that it was not clear, in which case, my apologies. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia [...] > In reply to Mr Tyler, you said: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Meaning I do not agree that "others are not" in the case of "aren't I?". Ah. Gotcha now. Sorry, I didn't properly follow the chain of connection. I daresay it's of no great importance to either of us, but it strikes me that things like "sure as eggs is eggs", even if they be genuine in their ultimate origins, enter the common tongue by way of self-conscious uses by folk who know full well the extent to which they deviate from the norms. They are, so to speak, the patter of "stage rurals" or some such thing. Forms like "Aren't I?" seem to me to be unconscious errors that simply became embalmed through constant repetition, rather than self-conscious quainterie. It is a belief in the reality of latter phenomenon that powers much resistance to sloppy uses even in "informal" contexts. Gresham's Law and all that. [ ... ] > I feel we need to distinguish between commonly encountered errors and > idiom. The sort of idiom that enshrines what would normally be simple > error as acceptable is usually called "cast-iron idiom", signifying > that using any but the received form is now the error. Some are just > matters of quainterie[1]: "Sure as eggs is eggs". Others are not: > "Aren't I?" > [1] Not in the OED--of my coining, by analogy with "grotesquerie". I snipped the rest. Most of it I agree with, and the disagreements have been aired many times. I respect Eric's positions and his concern for the language even when I disagree with his conclusions. SignatureBob Lieblich The Reasonable Man (on occasion) > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have been aired many times. I respect Eric's positions and his > concern for the language even when I disagree with his conclusions. Whoops! I also snipped my comment on "quainterie" during the editing process. I found exactly one instance of the word through Google, at <http://www.integralarchive.org/cosmo/Cosmopolis-43.pdf>, and it appears to be used the same as in Eric's comment above. It strikes me as a useful coinage. Let's see how far we can spread it. SignatureBob Lieblich The high-price spreader [...] > Whoops! I also snipped my comment on "quainterie" during the editing > process. I found exactly one instance of the word through Google, at > <http://www.integralarchive.org/cosmo/Cosmopolis-43.pdf>, and it > appears to be used the same as in Eric's comment above. It strikes me > as a useful coinage. Let's see how far we can spread it. Fascinating! "Cosmopolis" is a magazine devoted to appreciations of and comments on the fiction of Jack Vance. I am a huge Jack Vance enthusiast (http://greatsfandf.com/AUTHORS/JackVance.php), and that is *just* the sort of word he would coin (his genius at coinage is set forth in the collection _The Jack Vance Lexicon: From Ahulph to Zipangote : The Coined Words of Jack Vance_). I now wonder if he actually used it somewhere and it stuck in my subconscious (I have read all his non-criminous fiction many times over). But if he didn't, and I just made it up by parallels with his *sort* of coinage, he still deserves much credit. If the term ever become Word of the Week, I'll give all credit to Mr. Vance (with a nod to Mr. Lieblich). >There are many example of "common usage" of incorrect > words and phrases. I'll try to point out two or three:.... > Am I wrong on any of the above? Yes. > All of the above? Yes and no. > WTF is going on here? Change. > Is Feb-RU-ary really Feb-U-ary now? Yes, some places. > "Common usage" means, to me, that when I say something using proper > English, the average person is thinking that I can't speak the > language. Get used to it. RY > In another thread here, there was constant reference to the fact that > certain words and phrases (usage of) were in common usage (or, words to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Obviously, the question should have been "What did he, or she want?", > but the usage of that disgraceful poor grammar is "common usage". Nothing wrong with it. See M-W Dictionary of English Usage. > 2) There is a TV commercial in the U.S., for an optical supplier, that > says "In the future, everyone will protect their eyes with..." In the > past, before "women's lib" the statement would have been "protect his > eyes...". Now, we would say "protect his, or her eyes...." (I would > think.) "They" is perfectly all right. See M-W Dictionary of English Usage. > 3) The receptionist at your company answers the phone and the caller > wants to speak with a salesman. The salesmen are all out making sales > calls. She says "None are here right now." I would have said "none IS > here right now". Perfectly okay. See M-W Dictionary of English Usage. > There are many examples of this. They are mistakes made by TV network > writers and newspaper writers/editors. They are heard every day. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > WTF is going on here? Is Feb-RU-ary really Feb-U-ary now? Why was it > Feb-RU-ary when I was a child in the 40's and 50's? Language changes. Some people say forrid and some say forehead. Sometimes more than one usage can be correct. > "Common usage" means, to me, that when I say something using proper > English, the average person is thinking that I can't speak the > language. Could you rewrite this? The meaning is obscure to me. I think you're saying that if you use any of the usages you describe, you will be heard as non-standard or uneducated. Is that what you meant? > Jack > (Texan removed from the language of my Kent ancestors since 1660) SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > 1) You are listening to a phone conversation between someone in the > room with you and a person, unknown to you, on the "other end". When > your friend hangs up, you (or somebody) says you says?? > "What did "they " want. > Obviously, the question should have been "What did he, no comma > or she want?", > but the usage use > of that disgraceful comma > poor grammar is "common usage". Grammatically correct for donkey's years. > 2) There is a TV commercial in the U.S., for an optical supplier, that > says "In the future, everyone will protect their eyes with..." In the > past, before "women's lib" comma > the statement would have been "protect his > eyes...". Now, we would say "protect his, or her eyes...." (I would > think.) See above. Who is "we"? > 3) The receptionist at your company answers the phone and the caller > wants to speak with a salesman. The salesmen are all out making sales > calls. She says "None are here right now." Grammatically correct, period. Next! Adrian >> 1) You are listening to a phone conversation between someone in the >> room with you and a person, unknown to you, on the "other end". When >> your friend hangs up, you (or somebody) says > > you says?? Sez who? Sez I! (Ernie Boch!) Redundant question mark. >> "What did "they " want. >> Obviously, the question should have been "What did he, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > comma No comma is required. >> poor grammar is "common usage". > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > See above. Which thing above? You're not being specific enough. > Who is "we"? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Grammatically correct, period. Spelling out the name of the punctuation mark adds nothing, and is bad form. > Next! Indeed. You might do well to pick your own nits before offering the service to others. > Adrian > Indeed. You might do well to pick your own nits before > offering the service to others. *plonk* Adrian >>> of that disgraceful >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >>> poor grammar is "common usage". You use "disgraceful poor grammar"? Your "disgracefully poor" grammar would be fine, but in this case you're using "disgraceful, poor" grammar. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. She says "None are here right now." > Grammatically correct, period. > > Adrian "None" means "not one". How does that work with "are"? By the way, for a person who picks at commas all over the place, you didn't do a very good job of crafting a sentence in "Grammatically correct, period." Jack > She says "None are here right now." >> Grammatically correct, period. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jack SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia >> She says "None are here right now." >>> Grammatically correct, period. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> period." >> Jack I seem to have hit send without making a comment. Probably a good idea. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia >>> She says "None are here right now." >>>> Grammatically correct, period. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Probably a good idea. I often make spirited comments and then don't hit 'send'. An even better idea. SignatureRobin Herts, England [...] > "None" means "not one". How does that work with "are"? Not so very well, but that's because the transition period is not quite over. In the plural form, it roughly equates to "no two", "no few", "no several", "no fraction of many". That observation is from Wilson Follett, and a man more dedicated to the rule of order in English would be hard to find. Consider "None of the commentators agree on the meaning of this passage." That is perfectly clear--and sound--English. But very, very obviously it is impossible to read that "none" as literally meaning "no one". Were such a usage some new coinage, I'd be right at the front lines, firing away at it owing to its lack of logic. But at some point we have to shrug and say that a bad turn of style has become embedded, and that's that. The word "none" can no longer be taken as a contracted form of "no one" but has to be accepted as just a noise that has certain significances. Wise and caring lovers of the tongue pick their battles with care. Not realizing when a form has reached the stage of being what Fowler called a "sturdy indefensible" is a hallmark of pedantry. (As falsely believing that every neologism and solecism achieves instant status as a sturdy indefensible is a hallmark of folly.) > She says "None are here right now." > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "None" means "not one". How does that work with "are"? Eric has answered that -- and more temperedly than I would have. I'd have said something like: "That's a ridiculous statement followed by an even more ridiculous question" and gone on from there. Another way of putting it is that the use of "none" followed by a plural verb is 100-percent idiomatic in contemporary English. The superstition that "none" can take only a singular verb is just that -- a superstition. Etc. etc. > By the way, > for a person who picks at commas all over the place, you didn't do a > very good job of crafting a sentence in "Grammatically correct, > period." I read that one over several times to see if I could interpret it as a joke. But I kept coming to the conclusion that it was meant seriously. I'm not going to get into a pointless argument over what is or is not a "sentence," since there is a wide variety of answers to that question. You can call what Eric wrote a sentence, or a sentence fragment, or anything else you please. Whatever, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "Grammatically correct, period" as Eric wrote it in the context where he placed it. Or do you also object to the likes of "Yes," "Whatever," "Thank you," "No kidding," "The salt, please," and "Who, me?" Would you be happier if Eric had used a dash? "Grammatically correct -- period." Somehow I doubt it. SignatureBob Lieblich Temporarily unable to come up with a clever sig comment > Would you be happier if Eric had used a dash? "Grammatically correct > -- period." Somehow I doubt it. Deep down, we are probably all slightly enamoured with Eric's charmingly Olde Worlde view of English, and it may well resonate with whatever idealistic remnant of humanity resides in the cold heart of the most ardent descriptivist, but it was Adrian Bailey who wrote the sentence under discussion. SignaturejohnF > > Would you be happier if Eric had used a dash? "Grammatically correct > > -- period." Somehow I doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ardent descriptivist, but it was Adrian Bailey who wrote the sentence > under discussion. And a very fine sentence (if that's what it is) it is. Apologies to any and all offended by the misattribution. SignatureBob Lieblich Much too well acquainted with Miss Attribution [...] > Deep down, we are probably all slightly enamoured with Eric's charmingly > Olde Worlde view of English . . . . It is my hope that some at least are enamored _of_ it. > > She says "None are here right now." > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 100-percent idiomatic in contemporary English. The superstition that > "none" can take only a singular verb is just that -- a superstition. I have no idea what a 'superstition' is in a grammatical context. Using the term is ridiculous. There are 'rules' that are followed instinctively by all competent users of English who learn it at their mother's knee . Those who are young or come from another country must be taught the 'rules' in a prescriptive setting, even though the rules are based on a descriptive analysis of educated (!) speech. Educated users of English use 'none' as singular. The fact that many uneducated speakers (and even some educated speakers) use it as plural has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. It remains 'incorrect'. 'None' is a contraction for "not one". "Not one was there". You would not say "not one were there", would you? Your advice here is, as usual, wrong. Please, therefore, shut the f.ck up. [...] > I have no idea what a 'superstition' is in a grammatical context. Using > the term is ridiculous. It's pretty much what it is in any context: a belief or attitude based on ignorance that is inconsistent with what is generally considered true and rational. (That's adapted, by immaterial elisions, from a dictionary definition.) It is very much on point in the context. [...] > The fact that many uneducated speakers (and even some educated speakers) > use it as plural has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. It remains > 'incorrect'. Plural uses of "none" are and have been common at all levels of speech since at least the days of Alfred the Cake. It is not a matter of "even some" but of "almost all". And how are "correct" and "incorrect" established? By the common uses of educated speakers, that's how. Because the word still carries a sense on "one-ness" owing to its spelling, a careful user will employ it as a singular form wherever the sense will allow; there is no doubt that many people are sloppy about that and use a plural where a singular would fit well. But there remain many uses--as in the one quoted upthread--in which a plural construal is unavoidable, and those are, by definition, valid, sound uses. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > true and rational. (That's adapted, by immaterial elisions, from a > dictionary definition.) It is very much on point in the context. My point was that there are no "scientific truths" in Grammar. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Plural uses of "none" are and have been common at all levels of speech > since at least the days of Alfred the Cake. So f.cking what? I read "different to" in a book the other day! "Extinct Birds" by Errol Fuller http://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Birds-Comstock-Errol-Fuller/dp/080143954X/sr=8-1/q id=1161539030/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9264479-3132814?ie=UTF8 Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage? NO! Even educated writers make mistakes or follow poor usage. > It is not a matter of > "even some" but of "almost all". And how are "correct" and "incorrect" > established? By the common uses of educated speakers, that's how. No. By the BEST usage. > Because the word still carries a sense on "one-ness" owing to its > spelling, a careful user will employ it as a singular form wherever the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > construal is unavoidable, and those are, by definition, valid, sound > uses. > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > My point was that there are no "scientific truths" in Grammar. There is also no capital letter in "grammar." (Is your German affecting you?) As for whether there are "scientific truths" in grammar, it all depends on what you mean by "scientific truth." If you theorize that in Standard English grammar the grammatical present tense form of the verb "to be" used with the pronoun "you," both singular and plural, is "are," I think you can demonstrate that to be true by testing it against a large eenough corpus of the English language. Whether this makes it a "scientific truth" depends, as I said, on what you mean by the term. > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So f.cking what? I read "different to" in a book the other day! > Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage? Not all by itself. But, to repeat, it's commonplace in the UK and regarded as no worse than "different from." Let's call it "tied for best." > NO! Sorry, wrong again. > Even educated writers make mistakes or follow poor usage. True. I'm sure that if you look long enough you can find a good example of this. But neither "none are" nor "different to" qualifies. > > It is not a matter of > > "even some" but of "almost all". And how are "correct" and "incorrect" > > established? By the common uses of educated speakers, that's how. > > No. By the BEST usage. O, if only that were true. But it isn't. SignatureBob Lieblich On the side of reason and sanity > > Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage? > > Not all by itself. But, to repeat, it's commonplace in the UK and > regarded as no worse than "different from." Let's call it "tied for > best." I really hate to disagree with you, Bob, especially when you are disagreeing with UC, but: It's commonplace here (in the UK) but careful speakers regard it as incorrect and in insist on "different from". Even "different than" is regarded as at worst an Americanism and is more acceptable than "different to". Most people, of course, don't think enough about the way they speak to know or care that there is even a choice to be made. Cheers, Daniel. > > > Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's commonplace here (in the UK) but careful speakers regard it as > incorrect and in insist on "different from". YES! Whoo Whoo! >Even "different than" is > regarded as at worst an Americanism and is more acceptable than "different > to". > > Most people, of course, don't think enough about the way they speak to know > or care that there is even a choice to be made. Quite. > Cheers, > Daniel. > > > Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage? > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > regarded as at worst an Americanism and is more acceptable than "different > to". I would dearly like to believe all that, which is news to me. Are there any clear sources that would confirm it? Gowers, writing about twenty years ago (the most recent BrAm reference I possess), seems to waffle a bit, remarking that "There is good authority for _different to_, but _different from_ is today the established usage. _Different than_ is not unknown even in _The Times_." That's not what I would call decisive, though he does add that "this is condemned by the grammarians". >>>> Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage? >>> Not all by itself. But, to repeat, it's commonplace in the UK and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I would dearly like to believe all that, which is news to me. Are > there any clear sources that would confirm it? Here's where Burchfield would come in handy. He does accept "different to", but guardedly, noting that British users prefer "different from" and citing an argument based on logic that we don't say "differ to". He advises against using "different than" in writing for a British audience because it perceived as an Americanism. > Gowers, writing about twenty years ago (the most recent BrAm reference > I possess), seems to waffle a bit, remarking that "There is good > authority for _different to_, but _different from_ is today the > established usage. _Different than_ is not unknown even in _The > Times_." That's not what I would call decisive, though he does add > that "this is condemned by the grammarians". SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > > > [...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There is also no capital letter in "grammar." (Is your German > affecting you?) Mistake, OK? > As for whether there are "scientific truths" in grammar, it all > depends on what you mean by "scientific truth." If you theorize that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > makes it a "scientific truth" depends, as I said, on what you mean by > the term. What the f.ck do you mean by 'superstition' in grammar? > > > [...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > example of this. But neither "none are" nor "different to" > qualifies. Says who? > > > It is not a matter of > > > "even some" but of "almost all". And how are "correct" and "incorrect" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But it isn't. Read Trollope. > What the f.ck do you mean by 'superstition' in grammar? "Split infinitives are impossible in English because German doesn't allow them." SignaturejohnF > > What the f.ck do you mean by 'superstition' in grammar? > > "Split infinitives are impossible in English because German doesn't > allow them." Uhh...nope. My argument is this: If they seem so desirable, how does German (or Dutch) get along without them? >>> What the f.ck do you mean by 'superstition' in grammar? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Uhh...nope. My argument is this: If they seem so desirable, how does > German (or Dutch) get along without them? I'm not getting dragged into that one again. But anyway, no one agreed with you, you didn't manage to find even one reference that agreed with you, and sometimes even your own arguments didn't agree with you. Also: find out what "sarcasm" is. SignaturejohnF > >>> What the f.ck do you mean by 'superstition' in grammar? > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Also: find out what "sarcasm" is. Explain what "to ever" means, please, or "to never" or "to quickly and easily". > Explain what "to ever" means, please, or "to never" or "to quickly > and easily". Okay, so in the first two examples, you combined the "to" and the first word that immediately followed it to create a unit that you expect has some meaning. But why, in the third example, did you take the first three words after "to"? Why did you not look at the first three words after the "to" in the first two examples? You *must* have known that the word you deliberately missed off in each phrase was the verb that goes with the "to" or else why the arbitrary cut-off points in each of your examples? In short, you're asking stupid questions with the mistaken belief that you're actually proving a point. There *is* no point. You're presenting some crazy _reductio ad absurdum_ strawmen. You're not very good, are you? SignaturejohnF > > Explain what "to ever" means, please, or "to never" or "to quickly > > and easily". > > Okay, so in the first two examples, you combined the "to" and the first > word that immediately followed it to create a unit that you expect has > some meaning. What is "to further"? What about "to further further"? > But why, in the third example, did you take the first three words after > "to"? Why did you not look at the first three words after the "to" in > the first two examples? Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' (just like in German). >You *must* have known that the word you deliberately > missed off in each phrase was the verb that goes with the "to" or else why > the arbitrary cut-off points in each of your examples? What is "to immediately"? > In short, you're asking stupid questions with the mistaken belief that > you're actually proving a point. There *is* no point. You're presenting > some crazy _reductio ad absurdum_ strawmen. > > You're not very good, are you? The word following 'to' is supposed to be a verb, don't you know? Have you never been confused by 'to further' or 'to please', where 'further' and 'please' were used adverbally? "Ask them to please sit down". WRONG "They were compelled, at the risk of their necks, to please the king". "They were required to further process the samples". WRONG "They were determined to further the interests of the monarchy". Is "To further further test the possibility of bilateral represetnation in central vision, a new paradigm is proposed" a typo? Look how many show up in a search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22to+further+further%22&btnG=Search > Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' I now understand your problem. You can only parse language as if it were a Markov process, never being able to look ahead or refer back and only taking the current word into consideration to determine the next word. How limiting for you, but it does explain a few things. SignaturejohnF > > Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' > > I now understand your problem. You can only parse language as if it > were a Markov process, never being able to look ahead or refer back > and only taking the current word into consideration to determine the > next word. How limiting for you, but it does explain a few things. No. It's merely a question of proper form. Is this a properly formed English sentence?: "He then went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to set his father free". How about this one: "Then he went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to set his father free". Or this one: "Then went he to seek the king, for he, and he alone, to set his father free had the power". Or this one: "Went then the king he to seek, for he, he alone and, the power to set his father free had". You see, the word order matters. A certain flexibility is built into the language, but it has always been somewhat limited. The word 'to' in English, just like 'zu' in German and 'te' in Dutch 'marks' a verb (among other uses). Since English long ago lost much of its sythetic characteristics, word order has become much more important than it was when inflection indicated relationships. Modern German retains much of this flexibility in word order, but the verb + zu is absolutely inseparable. "Den König gang er zu suchen..." (The king went he to seek) "Er gang den König zu suchen..." (He went the king to seek) "Gleichzeitig jedoch begann er um seinen Thron zu fürchten. Er befahl den weisen Männern, den König zu suchen und ihm zu sagen, wo er zu finden sei." Translation: "Simultaneously he began to fear for his throne. He ordered the wise men to seek out the king and to tell him where to find him." There are four infinitives with 'zu': "(um) zu fürchten": "to fear for" "zu suchen": "to seek out" "zu sagen": "to tell" "zu finden": "to find". This last is also translatable as "where he can be/is to be found". http://www.theater-grashuepfer.de/Bethlehem.html Not one of these is "splittable". MOST 'slpiiting' of the infinitive in English is wholly unnecessary. It is the reulst of an excess of modification, fueled by a desire for exaggeration in everything. > No. It's merely a question of proper form. Is this a properly formed > English sentence?: > > "He then went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to > set his father free". [etc] You tried all that before and no one said that it was convincing. Your argumentation is weak, your analogies are flawed, you're sitting in the corner by yourself on this one. For the rest of the reply and this thread, I refer you to the first sentence of my message <Xns98658ED4678BCjpf@216.196.109.145>. SignaturejohnF > > No. It's merely a question of proper form. Is this a properly formed > > English sentence?: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > johnF You have refused to answer this: If the split infinitive is so great, how is it that Dutch and German get along quite nicely without them? On 23 Oct 2006, UC wrote Morphing your ID like this only gets by the filters one post at a time.... > On 23 Oct 2006, UC wrote > > Morphing your ID like this only gets by the filters one post at a > time.... What ever are you talking about? > > > Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "He then went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to > set his father free". No. > How about this one: > > "Then he went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to > set his father free". No. > Or this one: > > "Then went he to seek the king, for he, and he alone, to set his father > free had the power". No. > Or this one: > > "Went then the king he to seek, for he, he alone and, the power to set > his father free had". No. <A lot of irrelevent stuff, which was about German, was snipped> Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address > > > > Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > "Then he went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to > > set his father free". What's wrong with it? > No. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No. Yes, indeed. So is "to immediately..." or "to ever...." or "to simply...." > > > > > Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' > > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What's wrong with it? The period belongs inside the quotation marks. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address > > > > > > Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The period belongs inside the quotation marks. OK, so what? > Bill > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address > > > > > > > Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > OK, so what? That's what's wrong with it. Your question was (and I'm copying from above) "Is this a properly formed English sentence?" With the period where you put it, the answer is "no", which is the answer I gave. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address > "Ask them to please sit down". WRONG It certainly is not wrong. In fact, this construction is the only way to express the exact meaning that it carries. In the two obvious alternatives: Ask them, please, to sit down. Ask them to sit down please. the "please" appears to go with "ask" rather than "sit". IOW it is a polite request to ask some people to sit down, rather than a request to ask them politely to do so. It is precisely because one can make this distinction in English that it is so powerful and flexible a language (on the tongues of thoughtful speakers). To attempt to proscribe such usage is to hamstring the language -- and that does good service to noöne. I think most careful writers would agree that they tend to avoid split infinitives -- not because they are wrong, but because they often lead to sentences with awkward and hard-to-understand structures. That does not make split infinitives wrong, nor does it mean that they are never the best construction to use -- just that there are usually better. Cheers, Daniel. > > "Ask them to please sit down". WRONG > > It certainly is not wrong. In fact, this construction is the only way to > express the exact meaning that it carries. How so? > In the two obvious alternatives: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > request to ask some people to sit down, rather than a request to ask them > politely to do so. "Please, sit down" is the direct quote one wouuld utter to the guests. If you ask someone else to do it, you say "please ask them to sit down", in which case the 'please' is directed to the intermediary. The 'please' cannot be 'transferred' as it were thriough the intermediary. It is up to him to do that, and if he is a good butler or secretary, he will know enough to say "please sit down" on his own. But perhaps you are unfamiliar with polite society. > It is precisely because one can make this distinction in English that it is > so powerful and flexible a language (on the tongues of thoughtful > speakers). To attempt to proscribe such usage is to hamstring the language > -- and that does good service to noöne. But 'please' is a verb. "To please" means to do what someone wishes. Uttering 'please' before a request is an idiom. The 'please' is short for "if you please". It was also used with 'to' formerly, as quoted in W3NI: As an intransitive verb: "3: archaic : to have the pleasure or kindness *stranger, please to taste these bounties John Milton* *will you please to enter the carriage Charles Dickens*" Also, as a transitive verb: "3 : to be the will or pleasure of used impersonally *many boys, please God, will make the venture J.H.Wilson* *may it please your Majesty*" As many niceties of language are lost, we forget what part the remnants played in the whole. May people don't know how 'please' was used in the past, and thus misuse it. > I think most careful writers would agree that they tend to avoid split > infinitives -- not because they are wrong, but because they often lead to > sentences with awkward and hard-to-understand structures. That does not > make split infinitives wrong, nor does it mean that they are never the best > construction to use -- just that there are usually better. Always better. [ ... ] > What the f.ck do you mean by 'superstition' in grammar? I mean a belief that some locution is or is not properly used in a given dialect of English when there is no justification [1] for that belief. Among the most widespread superstitions concerning Standard English are these: - Infinitives cannot be "split" (Don't start up again; I've read the rest of the thread) - A sentence cannot end with a preposition - "None" cannot govern a plural verb - "That" cannot be used as defining relative when the antecedent is a person or group of persons That should suffice. Please don't reopen these particular sores. You won't persuade anyone not already persuaded, and you may confuse the naive lurker. [ ... ] [1] The category "no justification" includes purported justifications that don't actually work. SignatureBob Lieblich Next question > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Bob Lieblich > Next question Jesus f.cking Christ. You're a moron! Superstitions have to do with what is or is not (or will or won't happen), not about what should be or should happen. There are superstitions that something will bring you bad luck, but not that something SHOULD bring you bad luck. [ ... ] [addressing me] > Jesus f.cking Christ. You're a moron! I'm pleased to see how civilized our dialogue can be. I wonder how long you can maintain this high standard. > Superstitions have to do with what is or is not (or will or won't > happen), not about what should be or should happen. This is an archetypal semantic quibble. "A sentence cannot end with a preposition" is but one way of saying "Something that purports to be a sentence but ends with a preposition is not properly formed according to the rules of English grammar." Note the main verb of my sentence: "is." Feel free to reformulate my other statements so that they are in whatever verb tense you think most characteristic of superstitions. > There are > superstitions that something will bring you bad luck, but not that > something SHOULD bring you bad luck. There are superstitions that say you should or should not do something: "You shouldn't walk under a ladder -- it will bring you bad luck." "You shouldn't let a black cat cross your path." "You should avoid long discussions of English grammar and usage with anyone who calls himself UraniumCommittee." Etc., etc. Really, UC, you aren't living up to even your own abysmally low standards. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "is." Feel free to reformulate my other statements so that they are > in whatever verb tense you think most characteristic of superstitions. You're beyond help. > > There are > > superstitions that something will bring you bad luck, but not that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > something: "You shouldn't walk under a ladder -- it will bring you bad > luck." The superstition is that it WILL bring you bad luck. There is no 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will cause you to lose your hair or break a leg, now is there? The term 'superstition' is wholly inappropriate in discussions of grammar. > "You shouldn't let a black cat cross your path." "You should > avoid long discussions of English grammar and usage with anyone who > calls himself UraniumCommittee." Etc., etc. > > Really, UC, you aren't living up to even your own abysmally low > standards. > The superstition is that it WILL bring you bad luck. There is no > 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will cause you to lose > your hair or break a leg, now is there? "You can split them in German too, but people will laugh in your face!" <1161640629.698510.254590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Your message. SignaturejohnF > > The superstition is that it WILL bring you bad luck. There is no > > 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will cause you to lose > > your hair or break a leg, now is there? > > "You can split them in German too, but people will laugh in your face!" I suppose they might do that, or they might simply look at you funny, if you said "Ich habe es sehr gern, zu schell gehen" instead of "schnell zu gehen". >>> The superstition is that it WILL bring you bad luck. There is no >>> 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will cause you to lose [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if you said "Ich habe es sehr gern, zu schell gehen" instead of > "schnell zu gehen". Okay, let's see if you can follow this (I do realize your grasp on logic is shaky at best, but I'm optimistic, if nothing else): SUPERSTITION: - If you walk under a ladder, you will bring bad luck on yourself. NOT SUPERSTITION: - If you split an infinitive, you will bring laughter on yourself. How does that work? Not the actual "laughing" part, but the way that you define one as a superstition and the other as not? SignaturejohnF > >>> The superstition is that it WILL bring you bad luck. There is no > >>> 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will cause you to lose [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > How does that work? Not the actual "laughing" part, but the way that > you define one as a superstition and the other as not? Because the 'laughter' is quite possibly real, dumbass! The "bad luck" is entirely irrational. >>>>> The superstition is that it WILL bring you bad luck. There is no >>>>> 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will cause you to lose [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Because the 'laughter' is quite possibly real, dumbass! The "bad luck" > is entirely irrational. Okay, that's for German. Now, show me how the 'laughter' for a split infinitive in English is real. I'm willing to bet big money that I could split many infinitives in front of many people and get very few reactions of 'laughter' or even, as you predict for German above, funny looks. Or how about when the opening credits of _Star Trek_ come on... shouldn't the sound editors add a laugh-track to that at the appropriate place? SignaturejohnF > >>>>> The superstition is that it WILL bring you bad luck. There is no > >>>>> 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will cause you to lose [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > in front of many people and get very few reactions of 'laughter' or > even, as you predict for German above, funny looks. I cringe. Does that count? > Or how about when > the opening credits of _Star Trek_ come on... Why would you consider "Star Trek" an exemplar of good English usage? >shouldn't the sound editors > add a laugh-track to that at the appropriate place? I would suppose I would have to ever, or perhaps to quickly and easily, for you to immediately my point. >> Or how about when the opening credits of _Star Trek_ come on... > > Why would you consider "Star Trek" an exemplar of good English > usage? I'm not. But you made a prediction (well, kind of) that a split infinitive in German would produce laughter with optional funny looks. Your argument has been throughout this whole painful, months-long ordeal that what happens in German should set the stage for how English performs (or else why are you quoting yard after yard of German and trying to show that "to" and "zu" are cognate?). Therefore, if the split infinitive produces laughter/funny looks in German (as you claim it does) and English and German share this particular aspect of grammar, one testable prediction is that the split infinitive should also produce laughter/funny looks in English, too. The opening credits to _Star Trek_ has been seen by thousands of people thousands of times. That's a grammaticality/acceptability judgement test on a scale that linguists would have wet-dreams about. How many people laugh and/or produce funny looks when those opening credits come on? As a percentage of all that have seen it, I mean. Just replying "Well, I do." is hardly the kind of sample size that will suffice. SignaturejohnF > >> Or how about when the opening credits of _Star Trek_ come on... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > infinitive in German would produce laughter with optional funny > looks. Which has nothing to do with 'superstition'. Dig? > Your argument has been throughout this whole painful, months-long > ordeal that what happens in German should set the stage for how > English performs (or else why are you quoting yard after yard of > German and trying to show that "to" and "zu" are cognate?). My point is this: if German does just fine without it, why do we need it in English? > Therefore, if the split infinitive produces laughter/funny looks > in German (as you claim it does) and English and German share this > particular aspect of grammar, one testable prediction is that the > split infinitive should also produce laughter/funny looks in > English, too. I cringe. Does that count? > The opening credits to _Star Trek_ has been seen by thousands of > people thousands of times. That's a grammaticality/acceptability [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > seen it, I mean. Just replying "Well, I do." is hardly the kind > of sample size that will suffice. Cringe. Groan. *snip* > > Your argument has been throughout this whole painful, months-long > > ordeal that what happens in German should set the stage for how [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My point is this: if German does just fine without it, why do we need > it in English? What German does is irrelevant. If German jumped off a bridge would you do it too? German does just fine without the entire English language, shall we all chuck it in and speak German instead? Conversely, if English does just fine with split infinitives, why should German go without? Why prohibit a perfectly comprehensible variation in word order? I'm no trained linguist, perhaps someone here is and would care to comment? My intuition is that when infinitives are split they always bracket any modifiers to the verb in the verb phrase. Consider: VP = [[to go] [quickly]] VP' = [to [quickly] go] It is plausible to me that splitting the infinitive leads to easier comprehension in complicated sentences by more clearly marking which modifiers are attached to the verb. This is mere speculation, of course. However, I do offer this as evidence that splitting infinitives is not *obviously* pointless. Lacking stronger objections, like the intrepid James T. Kirk I will continue to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before! Lyall Morrison > *snip* > > > Your argument has been throughout this whole painful, months-long [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What German does is irrelevant. Why? The construction "zu + infinitive" is EXACTLY the same as in English. > If German jumped off a bridge would you > do it too? German does just fine without the entire English language, > shall we all chuck it in and speak German instead? You obviously don't understand my argument. Dismissing it is not an adequate response. > Conversely, if English does just fine with split infinitives, why > should German go without? Why prohibit a perfectly comprehensible > variation in word order? Try it and see what happens! > I'm no trained linguist, perhaps someone here is and would care to > comment? My intuition is that when infinitives are split they always [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > comprehension in complicated sentences by more clearly marking which > modifiers are attached to the verb. 'Tis better to avoid the adverb to begin with, if possible. Most are 'junk', unncesessary noise addded to a perfectly fine sentence. Instead of saying "to quicly go", why not say "to speed" or "to hurry"? A lot of adverbs are used due to a limited vocabulary. > This is mere speculation, of > course. However, I do offer this as evidence that splitting infinitives [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lyall Morrison > A lot of adverbs are used due to a limited vocabulary. No, that's what they about swearing. SignaturejohnF >> A lot of adverbs are used due to a limited vocabulary. > > No, that's what they about swearing. "... they say about..." Limited vocabulary, sorry. SignaturejohnF > >> A lot of adverbs are used due to a limited vocabulary. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Limited vocabulary, sorry. I suppose you have intended that comment for me? I assure you that I have a splendid vocabulary, but I reserve its use for the situations where it could be appreciated. Here, I must needs adapt my speech to the impoverishment of intellect > > >> A lot of adverbs are used due to a limited vocabulary. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I suppose you have intended that comment for me? Your rabbit ears are showing, UC. I took the remark as a bit of mock self-derision occasioned by John's correction of his omission of a word. Since "limited vocabulary' was just a couple of lines up the page, he adated it to that use. You, sad to say, are by now such a target of abuse that you see abuse even when none is intended. > I assure you that I have a splendid vocabulary, It pleases me immeasurably to know this. > but I reserve its use for the situations > where it could be appreciated. I do believe you used "could" where "can" would be better. But I'm only a moron, so I must be wrong. Well, you certainly wouldn't want to show your splendid vocabularly off in a group whose topic is -- wait a minute while I double-check -- the usage of the English language. No likelihood of finding any appreciation there. > Here, I must needs adapt my speech to the impoverishment of intellect And the paucity of ending punctuation? Dr. Spock could get whole books out of a hundred words or so. I doubt you're in his class. SignatureNo sig > > > >> A lot of adverbs are used due to a limited vocabulary. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I do believe you used "could" where "can" would be better. But I'm > only a moron, so I must be wrong. "May be" is even better, on second thought. > Well, you certainly wouldn't want to show your splendid vocabularly > off in a group whose topic is -- wait a minute while I double-check -- > the usage of the English language. No likelihood of finding any > appreciation there. Why say "quietly go out" when the verb 'steal (away)' is available? Why say "quickly go" when 'hurry' and 'speed' are available? There are numerous verbs languishing. Read Austen, Trollope, Dickens, Collins, Stoker, or any older writer. The books are full of them. > > Here, I must needs adapt my speech to the impoverishment of intellect > > And the paucity of ending punctuation? I am a bad typist. OK? > Dr. Spock could get whole books out of a hundred words or so. I doubt > you're in his class. Certainly hope not. *snip* > >shouldn't the sound editors > > add a laugh-track to that at the appropriate place? > > I would suppose I would have to ever, or perhaps to quickly and easily, > for you to immediately my point. UC, I hope you will admit that you're not splitting an infinitive there. Call it a dangling infinitive, if no better term exists. > *snip* > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > UC, I hope you will admit that you're not splitting an infinitive > there. Call it a dangling infinitive, if no better term exists. Wha?????? You obviously don't "get it". > > *snip* > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Wha?????? You obviously don't "get it". One of us clearly doesn't. A split infinitive is a matter of word placement, not word omission. I imagine you would like to complain that a split infinitive is messy because there are two words which rely on each other, but with some arbitrary other words in between them. I'm sorry if this offends your delicate sensibilities. Do you also object to the 'ne ... pas' construction in French? I hope you do, we could put you in a room with the Académie française and lock the door until only one remains. Ah, daydreams. Lyall Morrison > > > *snip* > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > each other, but with some arbitrary other words in between them. I'm > sorry if this offends your delicate sensibilities. It just happens to be 'wrong'. > Do you also object to the 'ne ... pas' construction in French? I know nothing about F_____, and plan never to learn. F_____ is corrupt. F_____ wines suck, the F_____ people are dolts, and the F_____ government is made up of a bunch of cowards. > I hope > you do, we could put you in a room with the Académie française and > lock the door until only one remains. Ah, daydreams. > > Lyall Morrison > > One of us clearly doesn't. A split infinitive is a matter of word > > placement, not word omission. I imagine you would like to complain that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It just happens to be 'wrong'. Indeed. Remind me which stone tablet that was engraved upon? > > Do you also object to the 'ne ... pas' construction in French? > > I know nothing about F_____, and plan never to learn. F_____ is > corrupt. F_____ wines suck, the F_____ people are dolts, and the F_____ > government is made up of a bunch of cowards. That's certainly a pity considering how much of the English language was acquired by way of French. You really are missing out. UC disgorged in another branch of this thread: > > What German does is irrelevant. > > Why? The construction "zu + infinitive" is EXACTLY the same as in > English. Clearly it is not, or you would not need to so doggedly and artlessly prosecute your crusade against split infinitives. You assert without support that "zu + infinitive" in German should be considered the model and rule for infinitives in English. Like others who hold strong religions beliefs, you clearly consider this a matter of faith and will not be swayed by mere evidence or logic, so I see no profit in discussing it further. Lyall Morrison > > > One of us clearly doesn't. A split infinitive is a matter of word > > > placement, not word omission. I imagine you would like to complain that [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Lyall Morrison It is the corresponding construction, used in exactly the same way. Why do you doubt this? *snip* >> [split infinitives] > > It is the corresponding construction, used in exactly the same way. Why > do you doubt this? I reject the alleged exact correspondence, as does everyone else here except you. English certainly has Germanic roots, but people are not chimpanzees, even though we shared a common ancestor. "[UC was] increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans." (I only offer an award of three points for the origin of this (butchered) passage, it's just too well known.) Lyall Morrison > (I only offer an award of three points for the origin of this > (butchered) passage, it's just too well known.) Then I shall not bother to identify it as HHGTTG. Cheers, Daniel. > *snip* > >> [split infinitives] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I reject the alleged exact correspondence, as does everyone else here > except you. On what basis? Are you unacquainted with comparative grammar? The constructions are identically parallel. > > *snip* > > >> [split infinitives] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > On what basis? Are you unacquainted with comparative grammar? The > constructions are identically parallel. Then why don't English dependent clauses end with the verb form? > > > *snip* > > > >> [split infinitives] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Then why don't English dependent clauses end with the verb form? Because they don't. The things that are parallel in German and English are exactly parallel; where they differ, the difference are often large. It's just the way it is. Can you not see how 'must'/'müßen', 'can'/'kann', 'may'/'mögen', etc. behave identically in the two languages? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb can können kunnen shall sollen zullen will wollen willen must müssen moeten may mögen mogen dare dürfen > > > > *snip* > > > > >> [split infinitives] [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > are exactly parallel; where they differ, the difference are often > large. It's just the way it is. And sometimes the differences are small, as when English allows a word or phrase between "to" and an infinitive form but German does not do so in the corresponding structure with "zu." I wonder how you are able to adhere so inflexibly to such a nonsensical position. Have you actually rationalized yourself into such a corner, or is this a test to see how long you can hold a pose?[1] > Can you not see how 'must'/'müßen', 'can'/'kann', 'may'/'mögen', > etc. behave identically in the two languages? Translate this into German: "He told me that he can speak both English and German fluently." Note the position and word order of "sprechen kann." Tell me how that corresponds to the position and word order of "can speak" in the English version. Explain how that proves that they "behave identically." You're the intellectual whizbang here. Enlighten we ignorami. [1] If this is still getting past any kill-files, here's why I keep going: I just gotta get the answer to this question. How *does* he do it? The rest is just embroidery. SignatureBob Lieblich EMWTK -- Enquiring morons want to know > > > > > *snip* > > > > > >> [split infinitives] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > or phrase between "to" and an infinitive form but German does not do > so in the corresponding structure with "zu." But that's begging the question. > I wonder how you are able to adhere so inflexibly to such a > nonsensical position. Begging the question. > Have you actually rationalized yourself into > such a corner, or is this a test to see how long you can hold a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Translate this into German: "He told me that he can speak both English > and German fluently." "Er hat es mir gesagt, daß er beide Englisch und Deutch gut sprechen kann." > Note the position and word order of "sprechen > kann." Tell me how that corresponds to the position and word order of > "can speak" in the English version. The word 'daß' ois subordinating, and this forces the verb to the end. > Explain how that proves that they > "behave identically." WHEN English and German use modals, the verbs are in the 'bare' form. "Er sagte mr, daß ich dieses machen muss." "He told me that I must do it." When they don't, they use the prepositional forms ('zu' and 'to'). "Um dieses zu bekommen..." "In order to receive this..." Here, 'um' is equivalent to "in order". > You're the intellectual whizbang here. > Enlighten we ignorami. > > [1] If this is still getting past any kill-files, here's why I keep > going: I just gotta get the answer to this question. How *does* he > do it? The rest is just embroidery. You talkin' to me? [ ... ] > > Translate this into German: "He told me that he can speak both English > > and German fluently." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The word 'daß' ois subordinating, and this forces the verb to the end. Auf Deutsch, not in English. That's the point. > > Explain how that proves that they "behave identically." > > WHEN English and German use modals, the verbs are in the 'bare' form. > > "Er sagte mr, daß ich dieses machen muss." > "He told me that I must do it." But the issue of the split infinitive is ultimately one of word order: Where does the adverb go? I accept that German doesn't allow an adverb between "zu" and the following infinitive form. But neither does German allow the verb to precede the direct object in a dependent clause. Yet the German word order involving "zu" and the infinitive is somehow mandatory for English (in your view) while the German word order of subject, object, and verb in dependent clauses is wildly different from that of English and yet it is only English "to" plus infinitive, and only that construction (it would appear) that you would force into your German-made procrustean bed. English doesn't have sentences like "He told me that be both English and German well speak can." If we don't pattern the word order of our dependent clauses on German, why should we be required to pattern the word order of "to"/adverb/infinitive on German? I'm sure you'll have an answer. I'm sure it'll be as persuasive as all your prior ones. > When they don't, they use the prepositional forms ('zu' and 'to'). > > "Um dieses zu bekommen..." > "In order to receive this..." > > Here, 'um' is equivalent to "in order". Danke schön. Irrelevant, however. > > You're the intellectual whizbang here. > > Enlighten we ignorami. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You talkin' to me? Playin' to the crowd. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > But the issue of the split infinitive is ultimately one of word order: > Where does the adverb go? In German and in English, the adverbs are placed basically identically. Here is a bit of Kant, with my translation below. In diese Verlegenheit gerät sie ohne ihre Schuld. Sie fängt von Grundsätzen an, deren Gebrauch im Laufe der Erfahrung unvermeidlich und zugleich durch diese hinreichend bewährt ist. Mit diesem steigt sie (wie es auch ihre Natur mit sich bringt) immer höher, zu entfernteren Bedingungen. Da sie aber gewahr wird, daß auf diese Art ihr Geschäft jederzeit unvollendet bleiben müsse, weil die Fragen niemals aufhören, so sieht sie sich genötigt, zu Grundsätzen ihre Zuflucht zu nehmen, die allen möglichen Erfahrungsgebrauch überschreiten und gleichwohl so unverdächtig scheinen, daß auch die gemeine Menschenvernunft damit im Einverständnisse steht. Dadurch aber stürzt sie sich in Dunkelheit und Widersprüche, aus welchen sie zwar abnehmen kann, daß irgendwo verborgene Irrtümer zum Grunde liegen müssen, die sie aber nicht entdecken kann, weil die Grundsätze, deren die sich bedient, da sie über die Grenze aller Erfahrung hinausgehen, keinen Probierstein der Erfahrung mehr anerkennen. Der Kampfplatz dieser endlosen Streitigkeiten heißt nun Metaphysik. Es war eine Zeit, in welcher sie die Königin aller Wissenschaften genannt wurde, und wenn man den Willen für die Tat nimmt, so verdiente sie, wegen der vorzüglichen Wichtigkeit ihres Gegenstandes, allerdings diesen Ehrennamen. Jetzt bringt es der Modeton des Zeitalters so mit sich, ihre alle Verachtung zu beweisen und die Matrone klagt, verstoßen und verlassen, wie Hecuba: modo maxima rerum, tot generis natisque potens - nunc trahor exul, inops - Ovid. Metam. Yet no blame lies upon Reason for falling into this embarrassment. It begins with principles whose employment is unavoidable in experience, and sufficiently proved by experience. Borne up with these principles (and as demand by its nature), it ascends higher and higher, to ever more remote conditions. Because Reason discovers, though, that if performed in this manner, its work can never be completed-as the questions never cease-Reason is driven to seek refuge in principles which, though transcending any possible application to experience, seem so innocent that common sense accepts them. Reason then finds itself plunged into darkness and contradictions, from which it can only infer that somewhere must be lurking errors that it cannot detect, be-cause the principles which Reason employs, as they transcend all experience, will not submit to any trial by that experience. The battle-field of these endless conflicts is called Metaphysics. At one time, she was acknowledged as the Queen of the Sciences, and if the Will were taken for the Deed, the preëminence of her domain would accord her this noble title. Now, though, it is the fashion to display for her nothing but contempt, and the matron Metaphysics, forsaken and for-lorn, laments, like Hecuba: Modo maxima rerum, to generis natisque potens - nunc trahor exul, inops. (Ovid. Metamorphoses [xiii. 508-510]) If you can, try to follow the structural transpositions. "In diese Verlegenheit gerät sie ohne ihre Schuld." = "Into this predicament falls she without her fault" "Sie fängt von Grundsätzen an, deren Gebrauch im Laufe der Erfahrung unvermeidlich und zugleich durch diese hinreichend bewährt ist.". "She starts from principles whose use in the course of experience unavoidable and at the same time through this [experience] sufficiently proved is." About the only odd thing here is the position of the verb. "She starts from principles whose use in the course of experience is unavoidable and at the same time sufficiently proved through this [experience]." My version is a bit more elegant: "It begins with principles whose employment is unavoidable in experience, and sufficiently proved by experience." Continuing: "Mit diesem steigt sie (wie es auch ihre Natur mit sich bringt) immer höher, zu entfernteren Bedingungen." "Borne up with these principles (and as demand by its nature), it ascends higher and higher, to ever more remote conditions. The structural similarities are striking. > I accept that German doesn't allow an > adverb between "zu" and the following infinitive form. But neither [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > infinitive, and only that construction (it would appear) that you > would force into your German-made procrustean bed. German preserves a condition that is becoming corrupt in English. I believe there are good reasons NOT to split the infinitive. For one thing, it's ugly. > English doesn't > have sentences like "He told me that he both English and German well > speak can." The only 'odd' thing from an English-speaker's perspective is the relocation of the verb to the end. Read the translations above and you'll see that. > If we don't pattern the word order of our dependent > clauses on German, why should we be required to pattern the word order > of "to"/adverb/infinitive on German? > > I'm sure you'll have an answer. I'm sure it'll be as persuasive as > all your prior ones. See above. > > When they don't, they use the prepositional forms ('zu' and 'to'). > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Danke schön. Irrelevant, however. Why is it irrelevant? > > > You're the intellectual whizbang here. > > > Enlighten we ignorami. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Playin' to the crowd. [ ... ] > The structural similarities are striking. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not qualified to engage in a discourse ranging over the entire field of German and English word order. That's why I picked what I thought was an obvious example and sought to deal specifically with it. > > I accept that German doesn't allow an > > adverb between "zu" and the following infinitive form. But neither [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > German preserves a condition that is becoming corrupt in English. Once again, you are dreaming of a past Arcadia that never existed. Adverbs (and occasionally other words) have intruded between "to" and the infinitive in English since at least the 14th Century. (I got this item of information from MWDEU, which I believe you also have. I didn't track it to the sources they cite, but what they say certainlylooks reliable.) The "corruption," in other words, is more than 500 years old. Okay, Hooray for German. In case you haven't noticed lately, German isn't English. This is the point I've been trying to get you to acknowledge with specific reference to the "split infinitive." > I believe there are good reasons NOT to split the infinitive. For one > thing, it's ugly. So are lots of women out there. They're allowed to live out their lives in peace. At any rate, aesthetic preferences are of little avail against usage. Not to mention that plenty of usages now accepted without cavil were once thought ugly. > > English doesn't > > have sentences like "He told me that he both English and German well > > speak can." > The only 'odd' thing from an English-speaker's perspective is the > relocation of the verb to the end. Read the translations above and > you'll see that. And the only odd thing about the Tower of Pisa is that it's not quite perpendicular to the ground. And the only odd thing about the "split infinitive" is that the adverb moves to the position between "to" and the infinitive form. That's a lot less disruption than moving the verb to the end. > > If we don't pattern the word order of our dependent > > clauses on German, why should we be required to pattern the word order [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > See above. That's it? This isn't a fair fight. I declare myself the victor, and not because I'm losing. SignatureBob Lieblich Moron Triumphans > [ ... ] > > > The structural similarities are striking. > > I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not qualified to engage in a discourse > ranging over the entire field of German and English word order. In some ways they are the same, in some ways different. the LOCATION of the verb is different when there is subordination; otherwise, no. > That's why I picked what I thought was an obvious example and sought > to deal specifically with it. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Adverbs (and occasionally other words) have intruded between "to" and > the infinitive in English since at least the 14th Century. Not one in Shakespeare? >(I got > this item of information from MWDEU, which I believe you also have. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Okay, Hooray for German. In case you haven't noticed lately, German > isn't English. Not relavant. > This is the point I've been trying to get you to > acknowledge with specific reference to the "split infinitive." If it's such a grand idea, why and how does German get along without it? > > I believe there are good reasons NOT to split the infinitive. For one > > thing, it's ugly. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I declare myself the victor, and not because I'm losing. Victor Frankenstein? > [ ... ] > > > The structural similarities are striking. > > I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not qualified to engage in a discourse > ranging over the entire field of German and English word order. In some ways they are the same, in some ways different. the LOCATION of the verb is different when there is subordination; otherwise, no. > That's why I picked what I thought was an obvious example and sought > to deal specifically with it. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Adverbs (and occasionally other words) have intruded between "to" and > the infinitive in English since at least the 14th Century. Not one in Shakespeare? >(I got > this item of information from MWDEU, which I believe you also have. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Okay, Hooray for German. In case you haven't noticed lately, German > isn't English. Not relavant. > This is the point I've been trying to get you to > acknowledge with specific reference to the "split infinitive." If it's such a grand idea, why and how does German get along without it? > > I believe there are good reasons NOT to split the infinitive. For one > > thing, it's ugly. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I declare myself the victor, and not because I'm losing. Victor Frankenstein? [ ... ] > > Okay, Hooray for German. In case you haven't noticed lately, German > > isn't English. > > Not relavant. It's the whole point. Don't bother denying this again; we understand your position -- and why it's ludicrous. > > This is the point I've been trying to get you to > > acknowledge with specific reference to the "split infinitive." > > If it's such a grand idea, why and how does German get along without > it? If moving verbs to the end of dependent clauses is such a good idea, how does English get along without it? You've run out of arguments, haven't you. The ones you have are transparently inadequate. Hey, Stephen Calder, wait for me. >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Not one in Shakespeare? "Thy pity may deserve to pitied be." This is relevent because it's English. > >> [ ... ] > >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > This is relevent because it's English. It's irrelevant because it's poetry, not prose. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > I declare myself the victor, and not because I'm losing. Victor Frankenstein? *snip UC* > ... Explain how that proves that they > "behave identically." You're the intellectual whizbang here. > Enlighten we ignorami. I would definitely include myself as one of those paper cranes you mention. I'm slightly embarrassed at how much time I've spent bickering with UC, especially given that I'm out of my depth as soon as any proper linguistic argument is raised. It's lucky for me he didn't raise any. At this point I will cede the floor and return to my lurking; the argument that English is not German is in better hands than mine. > [1] If this is still getting past any kill-files, here's why I keep > going: I just gotta get the answer to this question. How *does* he > do it? The rest is just embroidery. Seconded. Lyall Morrison > *snip UC* > > ... Explain how that proves that they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > going: I just gotta get the answer to this question. How *does* he > > do it? The rest is just embroidery. Men are not women, but that does not mean that both do not have the same sort of eyes or lungs or legs, now does it? > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > - Infinitives cannot be "split" (Don't start up again; I've read the > rest of the thread) They SHOULD not be split, MORON! You can split them in German too, but people will laugh in your face! > - A sentence cannot end with a preposition > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please don't reopen these particular sores. You won't persuade anyone > not already persuaded, and you may confuse the naive lurker. You are a despicable piece of sh.t. You don't even understand what 'superstition' means. Go f.ck yourself, a.shole. > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Go f.ck yourself, a.shole. Why, UC, I do believe I am getting under your skin. It's very uncomfortable there, as I'm sure you noticed long ago. I'm sorry if my constant demonstrations of your errors annoy you. There's a relatively simple cure. > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > given dialect of English when there is no justification [1] for that > > belief. *snip* > You are a despicable piece of sh.t. You don't even understand what > 'superstition' means. > > Go f.ck yourself, a.shole. >From m-w.com: Superstition 1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary I consider the imagined prohibition of (or should I say against?) split infinitives to be an *excellent* target for the word 'superstition' - a fine choice by Robert Lieblich. It succinctly communicates that there is no authority enforcing the prohibition and no penalty for breaching it, but that the ignorant and confused maintain the practice because they heard a rumour once that it was a good thing to do. Futhermore, there is the connotation that these people believe correct sentence formation to be a 'black art'; there is no logic or pattern, but performing the correct gestures and incantations will produce the desired result. Robert, I salute you for your excellent choice. To pack a paragraph's worth of meaning into a single word is a height to which I aspire, but so rarely reach. morri...@lsd.net.nz wrote: >(snip) > >From m-w.com: > Superstition [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > infinitives to be an *excellent* target for the word 'superstition' - a > fine choice by Robert Lieblich. How so? > It succinctly communicates that there > is no authority enforcing the prohibition and no penalty for breaching > it, but that the ignorant and confused maintain the practice because > they heard a rumour once that it was a good thing to do. That's not the essence of 'superstition'. The fundament of 'superstition' is that there is nothing supporting the belief whatsoever, that it is causeless. Furthermore, 'superstition' has nothing to do with what one 'should' do, only with the unfortunate circumstances that will occur if one does them. There is no 'superstition' that splitting an infinitive will bring you bad luck or misfortune. There is no 'superstition' that ending a sentence with a preposition will cause your children to die. It is misleading and quite odd, in fact, to call certain language practices 'superstitions', becaus ethere is nothing concerning cause and effect about them. It is entirely a matter of "proper behaviour". Do you refrain from urinating at the altar of your church? Do you stop at red lights? Why? Because it's considered 'proper' behaviour and nothing else. In just the same way, German speakers refrain from sticking anything between 'zu' and the infinitive. It's simply not done, and for no reason than that it's simply not done. People who are brought up properly don't urinate at the altar and don't split infinitives. It's simply a mark of good upbringing. > Futhermore, > there is the connotation that these people believe correct sentence [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > worth of meaning into a single word is a height to which I aspire, but > so rarely reach. Too bad: he didn't even originate that usage. It was Fowler. > morri...@lsd.net.nz wrote: [ ... ] > > Robert, I salute you for your excellent choice. To pack a paragraph's > > worth of meaning into a single word is a height to which I aspire, but > > so rarely reach. > > Too bad: he didn't even originate that usage. It was Fowler. Absolutely right. I stole it from Fowler. I chose to use the same word to mean the same thing. I guess Fowler's a moron, too. *snip* > > > Robert, I salute you for your excellent choice. To pack a paragraph's > > > worth of meaning into a single word is a height to which I aspire, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I guess Fowler's a moron, too. There I go, displaying my lack of book learnin'. At least I will know how to attribute it when I steal the usage at the next available opportunity! Lyall Morrison > > morri...@lsd.net.nz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I guess Fowler's a moron, too. In this case, let's say he was 'nodding'. Using 'superstition' in the context of usage is simply silly. *snip* > It is > entirely a matter of "proper behaviour". Do you refrain from urinating [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the altar and don't split infinitives. It's simply a mark of good > upbringing. How quaint! As it happens, outside Germany we don't urinate on altars either, but we *do* split infinitives. Who would have thought that our cultures would differ so? Lyall Morrison [...] > > Plural uses of "none" are and have been common at all levels of speech > > since at least the days of Alfred the Cake. > > So f.cking what? I read "different to" in a book the other day! And thereby extended your learning to encompass the fact that British writers and speakers commonly use that form and consider it unexceptionable. > Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage? NO! Even educated > writers make mistakes or follow poor usage. Just so. But that is not an example. For myself, I don't like it, but the function of language is not to be likeable but to allow us to place thoughts in the minds of others with precision and elegance. The drawback to "different to" (and "different than") is not that it is imprecise or inelegant, but that it is one of three forms (with "different from") all competing for the same function. We English speakers ought to pick one and settle on it, but over centuries have not done so. The objection to "different than" is that "than" is normally a word of _comparison of degree_: it is hotter than [it was] yesterday." The recommendation for "different from" is that the mandatory preposition with "differs" is "from", and the parallelism is strong. But the choice of preposition in English forms is, to put it mildly, quirky, almost wholly arbitrary idiom. So long as a substantial block of knowledgeable, careful writers persists in using "different to", however much I might wish they would stop doing so, it remains a sound usage. [...] > > And how are "correct" and "incorrect" established? By the common uses of > > educated speakers, that's how. > > No. By the BEST usage. When you receive the patent on your new Bestometer, let us know. >> > She says "None are here right now." >> > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Your advice here is, as usual, wrong. Please, therefore, shut the f.ck > up. Is it at this point we sing "give a dog a bone?" Here is the passage on usage bartleby offers: USAGE NOTE: It is widely asserted that none is equivalent to no one, and hence requires a singular verb and singular pronoun: None of the prisoners was given his soup. It is true that none is etymologically derived from the Old English word n, "one," but the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today. Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial. When none is modified by almost, however, it is difficult to avoid treating the word as a plural: Almost none of the officials were (not was) interviewed by the committee. None can only be plural in its use in sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story. http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/N0138200.html Now you can shut the f.ck up. Joanne >>> She says "None are here right now." >>>> Grammatically correct, period. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Your advice here is, as usual, wrong. Please, therefore, shut the f.ck > up. None are as blind as those who will not see. None are as deaf as those who will not hear. We have had a few posters here who were wrong, but none of them were ever as wrong as you. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia Stephen Calder wrote [addressing UC}:] [ ... ] > We have had a few posters here who were wrong, but none of them were > ever as wrong as you. - Dr Jai M*h*r*j - D. Hencer Spines - Chance Kim - Tomoyuki Tanaka Usenet brings us many riches. UC definitely belongs in their company. SignatureBob Lieblich Who flatters himself that he does not > Stephen Calder wrote [addressing UC}:] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Dr Jai M*h*r*j UC is not Jai. I shudder at the mere mention of Jai. Joanne shame on Bob > Eric has answered that -- and more temperedly than I would have. I'd > have said something like: "That's a ridiculous statement followed by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bob Lieblich > Temporarily unable to come up with a clever sig comment Possibly, Eric was attempting to answer my questions so I might learn something, Possibly, he chose not to be an a.shole. Possibly, a person (attempting to learn to use the language better) might stumble into a nest of insufferable jerks who were here merely to demonstrate their perfection and their intolerance for those who aren't that way. I really don't know... however, I am always thankful for those who answer my questions more temperedly than *you* would have. At least I got all of my questions answered. I'm a better man for having "met" you. It IS an interesting group, though. Thanks to all. Very best regards, Jack > > Eric has answered that -- and more temperedly than I would have. I'd > > have said something like: "That's a ridiculous statement followed by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "none" can take only a singular verb is just that -- a superstition. > > Etc. etc. > Possibly, Eric was attempting to answer my questions so I might learn > something, Possibly, he chose not to be an a.shole. Possibly, a person [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > really don't know... however, I am always thankful for those who answer > my questions more temperedly than *you* would have. Reflect on the statement that prompted my remark. Here it is again: > "None" means "not one". How does that work with "are"? The more staunchly wrong someone appears, the stronger the reaction that results. As Eric pointed out, "none" has been used with plural verbs since the days of Old English. As I pointed out, the notion that it means only "no one," or that it can only be singular, is pure superstition. If you're going to be as wrong as you were, you ought to expect strong language in response. It frequently takes industrial-strength language to shake people loose from their pet errors. Note that I didn't call *you* ridiculous, only the statement you made. If you can get beyond taking something personally that wasn't so intended, you may be able to realize that I was right. I've made some ridiculous statements myself over the years, and elicited some strong language in response, which upon reflection I have taken as deserved. Contrariwise, when I get a strong response to something I think is right, I reserve the right of reply. It seems to have served me fairly well over my nine-plus years in the usage groups. > At least I got all of my questions answered. I'm a better man for > having "met" you. It IS an interesting group, though. Thanks to all. I can't tell whether this means you'll be taking your thin skin elsewhere. (Yes, that one was personal. I'm still well short of "a.shole.") There's lots more to learn here than (1) "none" can take a plural verb and (2) some people use strong language for emphasis. Your choice. SignatureBob Lieblich Not quite as vicious as he may appear > At least I got all of my questions answered. I'm a better man for having > "met" you. It IS an interesting group, though. Thanks to all. Don't slam the door on your way out. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.