 |
 | 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 / November 2006their life
Hi, Matthew 4:4 in my Bible says People need more than bread for their life ... I was wondering why it is ``life'' instead of ``lives.'' Thank you! Wei > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thank you! > Wei IIRC, that verse is "Man shall not live by bread alone". You have an interesting translation. I don't know why they chose those words. JOE >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You have an interesting translation. I don't know why they chose those > words. I don't have a Bible here, but I've most often heard it quoted as: "Man cannot live on/by bread alone". It may be that Wei has a special translation, written to be used for language training, with a lot of the less-used constructions turned around to make them more understandable, when working from his native language. > Matthew 4:4 in my Bible says > People need more than bread for their life ... > > I was wondering why it is ``life'' instead of ``lives.'' Because the translator had a poor grasp of English. A *really* poor grasp. >> Matthew 4:4 in my Bible says >> People need more than bread for their life ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A *really* poor grasp. Ah, it's good to see that the old Walker pomposity and rudeness to perfectly civil strangers is still going strong, spreading felicity wherever he walks. Had you considered that it was because the translator (unlike you, apparently) realised that each person had only one life -- as opposed to two eyes, two arms, two-point-four children, etc? Using either "life" or "lives" in that context is perfectly good English. Go and look it up in Curme. . > Hi, > > Matthew 4:4 in my Bible says > People need more than bread for their life ... > > I was wondering why it is ``life'' instead of ``lives.'' Because each person only has one life, Wei. If talking about something that they had more than one of, you would have to use the plural: -- "The people had bread in their hands." But it is also normal (and just as logical) for people to say: -- "People need more than bread for their lives," so the writer chose one logical reason, rather than the other logical reason. >> Hi, >> >> Matthew 4:4 in my Bible says >> People need more than bread for their life ... >> >> I was wondering why it is ``life'' instead of ``lives.'' Thanks Mark for the explanation. Indeed, mine is a study Bible of New Living Translation. > Because each person only has one life, Wei. If talking about something > that they had more than one of, you would have to use the plural: > -- "The people had bread in their hands." But ``people'' certainly have more than one lives, don't they? > But it is also normal (and just as logical) for people to say: > -- "People need more than bread for their lives," > so the writer chose one logical reason, rather than the other logical > reason. I thought there were some significant differences between ``life'' and ``lives'' in this context. Wei >>> Hi, >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> -- "The people had bread in their hands." > But ``people'' certainly have more than one lives, don't they? Between them, yes, so it's logical both ways. >> But it is also normal (and just as logical) for people to say: >> -- "People need more than bread for their lives," [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I thought there were some significant differences between ``life'' and > ``lives'' in this context. No, I think it's just a choice the writer made -- and I agree with his choice. If it were important to stress that many lives were involved, I'd use the plural, but I think the stress here is on each man needing more than bread for his one life. If the writer had chosen "lives", though, I would not say that he had got it wrong. [...] > But ``people'' certainly have more than one lives, don't they? Yes, they indeed do, Wei, which is why you were and are correct to question that use. As Wilson Follett put it, "The axiom that if one person has one head, heart, or torso two persons have two seems to be a stumbling block to a good many writers." It certainly is to Mr. Wallace (for whom a hair across his path would be a stumbling block), whose credentials you would be wise to examine for yourself via Google before deciding how much mind to pay his words). One person, one life; many people, many lives. It's that simple. >I thought there were some significant differences between ``life'' and ``lives'' in this context. No; just error. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No; just error. We use "one" when the reference is not specific to a person. Ex. One should examine his tires for uneven wear on occasion. Likewise, we use "their" when referring to more than one. Ex. They say that communication is key. Ex. The man from the IRS said that they want their money. These are impersonal and passive structures. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > whose credentials you would be wise to examine for yourself via Google > before deciding how much mind to pay his words). Follet's personal view on the matter -- in a /style manual/ note, not a grammar -- is as meaningless as anyone else's personal view on the matter. What counts is usage. Intelligent native-English speakers the world over have voted on the topic. They have taken their pens, and put a big black cross through Follet's "rule". > One person, one life; many people, many lives. It's that simple. Yes, I can see why simplicity would appeal to you. Unfortunately, languages aren't simple things, so detailing them should not be left up to simple people. >> I thought there were some significant differences between ``life'' and > ``lives'' in this context. > > No; just error. Yes, the error of a pompous arse who believes he owns the English language, whilst slavishly following in the footsteps of similar pompous arses, and never having an original thought. [snip] > They have taken their pens, and put a big black cross through > Follet's "rule". But... you've just *followed* Follett's 'rule' in that sentence. "One person, one life; many persons, many lives." "One person, one pen; many person, many pens." So much for the big black cross being put through it.  SignaturejohnF > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So much for the big black cross being put through it. Where have I said that using the plural is bad English? >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Where have I said that using the plural is bad English? By disparaging Follett's 'rule', you effectively threw out any solid guidance that the original questioner could look to. The original question was from a EFL/ESLer -- someone who doesn't have the native-speaker intuition that you are taking for granted by, apparently, deciding that 'rules' shouldn't be applied (or taken notice of). So, if the ESL/EFLer has no recourse to a 'rule' that apparently works in just about all situations, what is he meant to do? Flip a coin? Roll some dice? How is he to know that singular "life" is Wallace-approved but it's the plural that gets your _ex cathedra_ thumbs-up in the "pens" instance? It looks totally random to me, and in my experience students *really* do not like those arbitrary chunks of randomness in English. Sure, they're all over the language and there's no escaping them, but if there's a 'rule' that covers the majority of a certain bit of randomness, then why shouldn't it be used? Or is the fact it's Eric Walker who mentioned it the thing which makes it automatically a target for your scorn? SignaturejohnF >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > By disparaging Follett's 'rule', you effectively threw out any solid > guidance that the original questioner could look to. I have said, on more than one occasion, that I would not correct anyone who used plural or singular in any such sentence. You are trolling. > I have said, on more than one occasion, that I would not correct > anyone who used plural or singular in any such sentence. > > You are trolling. Why did you snip and refuse to address the rest of my post? The bit that contains the important point that relates to the original question- setter's situation. You reject a 'rule' that works and that helps someone choose a form that you admit you would not have any problem with (as you state above). So, without that 'rule' and without the intuition of being a native- speaker of English, how does he (the ESL.EFLer) decide whether to use plural or singular? The 'rule' you decided to ridicule actually answers the question to your own, admitted, satisfaction. Crazy. But, if your aim is to contradict everything a certain other poster says, it makes sense in a twisted way. SignaturejohnF >> I have said, on more than one occasion, that I would not correct >> anyone who used plural or singular in any such sentence. >> >> You are trolling. > > Why did you snip and refuse to address the rest of my post? You may have noticed, from our common experience with the worst of trolls in HK groups, that I know how to deal with such trolling: You make any point that *has to* be made, and ignore the rest of what they say and do (this is much more effective than your method of kowtowing to trolls, which only encourages them to stick around). I said, repeatedly, that neither usage is wrong, because both are in very common usage -- by people who follow different rules of logic (or who don't even consider logic). I am right. You complain that I do not follow what I have said. You are wrong. There is nothing to discuss, if all you have is to trollishly say is that I don't follow what I say, because I /do/ and /did/ follow what I say. >> Why did you snip and refuse to address the rest of my post? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > say and do (this is much more effective than your method of kowtowing > to trolls, which only encourages them to stick around). And your method *has* worked? Right, okay, whatever. And I've snipped the rest of your message because I've said all I wanted to say on the matter and any, um, inconvenient issues still hanging around, well, I'll just pretend they don't exist. What a great way to have a discussion, thanks! SignaturejohnF >>> Why did you snip and refuse to address the rest of my post? >> You may have noticed, from our common experience with the worst of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And your method *has* worked? Right, okay, whatever. Nothing will work, with you encouraging him. A bad dog needs his nose slapped, and to be sent to his basket. Engaging him as if he is a reasonable person is madness. In his eyes, it gives him carte blanche to continue his behaviour. He knows that he will be corrected, if he says something that could harm the students' education (except by you), and that he will be ignored by everyone (except you) when he is just trolling "harmlessly". He also knows that he will never be able to make any money out of the groups again, so he has no reason to stay -- unless he believes he can gain more of the trollish "victories" that your treatment of him provides. > And I've snipped the rest of your message because I've said all I > wanted to say on the matter and any, um, inconvenient issues still > hanging around, well, I'll just pretend they don't exist. What a > great way to have a discussion, thanks! You did not want a discussion. You did not even want to make your point and tell me to shut up. You wanted an argument. I don't put up with sh.t like that, any more. From anyone. [...] > What a great way to have a discussion, thanks! Rather than reproduce an entire relevant but lengthy post from another contemporary thread, I'll give a web URL for it: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.english.usage/msg/e8a183dd22511f79?hl=en& (Note that the poster I am responding to there is addressing Mr. Wallace, not me.) Here you go, Walker. Co-incidentally, I just posted this to another newsgroup: -- "~~ which is great for us, because it means that lots of cities have a "Chinatown" in them." Try to tell me that it makes sense to say that lots of cities have Chinatowns in them. "Lots of" applies to the cities. The "Chinatowns" are enumerated separately. But I still wouldn't penalise anyone for using the plural, because the error is so common that it is idiomatic. Good example! > Here you go, Walker. Co-incidentally, I just posted this to another > newsgroup: > > -- "~~ which is great for us, because it means that lots of cities have > a "Chinatown" in them." This sounds correct in meaning but not easy in grammar. > Try to tell me that it makes sense to say that lots of cities have > Chinatowns in them. This doesn't sound right in meaning to me since, automatically, I would assume that there are more than one Chinatown in each city. > "Lots of" applies to the cities. The "Chinatowns" are enumerated > separately. > > But I still wouldn't penalise anyone for using the plural, because the > error is so common that it is idiomatic. To me, the singular case would be easier to accept as idiomatic. Thanks. Wei > Here you go, Walker. Co-incidentally, I just posted this to another > newsgroup: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But I still wouldn't penalise anyone for using the plural, because the > error is so common that it is idiomatic. The meaning here is different: the singular indicates it's one Chinatown per city, not several. "Lots of cities have a Chinatown in them. Their Chinatowns have their own mayors." My favourite example is the commonly-seen sign, "Cars parked at owner's risk". As the cars can't all have the same owner, I reckon "owner's" must refer to the owner of the property, who is kindly taking responsibility for the cars parked there. Chris R "ChrisR" <chris@delete.cirobinson.everyotherword.plus.frommy.com.address> wrote \ <...> > My favourite example is the commonly-seen sign, "Cars parked at owner's > risk". <...> It applies to all the cars, so "cars" is plural. But the owners are not responsible as a group; rather, each owner is individually responsible, so "owner's" is singular. (For those without native-language intuition, I point out the otherwise obvious fact that the word "each" is implied before the word "owner's"). So, in fact, not only is the grammar of the notice impeccable, but wording it otherwise would have been inaccurate. > Here you go, Walker. Co-incidentally, I just posted this to another > newsgroup: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Try to tell me that it makes sense to say that lots of cities have > Chinatowns in them. If "Follet's personal view on the matter -- in a /style manual/ note, not a grammar -- is as meaningless as anyone else's personal view on the matter" weren't enough to settle any question of your competence, then surely your belief that what you quote above is parallel to the original inquiry would complete the reckoning. Since you obviously cannot understand the issue, then be aware that the sentence you put forth is elliptical for ". . . lots of cities [each] have a 'Chinatown' in them". Compare that to "People need more than bread for their lives." Your strident claim that people do not have lives would be hard to credit were it not there plain to read. I thus remind you (yet again) of the wisdom in the old saying that there is no harm in being a fool--harm is in being a fool at the top of your lungs. >> Here you go, Walker. Co-incidentally, I just posted this to another >> newsgroup: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > then surely your belief that what you quote above is parallel to the > original inquiry would complete the reckoning. It is not parallel to the enquiry, because the enquiry is a question, not the construction /in/ question. Speak English, why don't you? > Since you obviously cannot understand the issue, then "Since... then"? Which of your Sainted style-manual authors suggested that that construction is good English? > be aware that the > sentence you put forth is elliptical for ". . . lots of cities [each] > have a 'Chinatown' in them". Compare that to "People need more than > bread for their lives." Sure. -- "(any number you like of) People each need more than bread for their life." Try studying English, rather than the arrogant opinions of long-dead grammarians. > Your strident claim that people do not have lives would be hard to > credit were it not there plain to read. Nothing in /that/ sentence is plain to read. Kindly re-cast it into good English. > I thus Look up the usages of "thus", eh? And use "therefore" where "therefore" is needed. > remind you (yet again) > of the wisdom in the old saying that there is no harm in being a > fool--harm is in being a fool at the top of your lungs. "harm is in being a fool"? Translate that into English for us too, will you? Talk about ENGLISH, Walker, not antiquated opinion -- and try to do so in correct English, for a change. Jeeze, what an expert! (X being the unknown quantity, and a spurt being a drip under pressure). [...] Sad. |
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.