 |
 | 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 2006a moment in time
Hi, I read another sentence as follows, It was a moment in time I could always call my own, no matter how they responded. Why the writer used "in time," which is kind of redundant. Or "in time" was used for a special purpose or meaning. Thanks, Gloria > I read another sentence as follows, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why the writer used "in time," which is kind of redundant. Or "in time" > was used for a special purpose or meaning. Yes, it is redundant. The charitable point of view is that the writer deliberately added the redundant phrase as a form of emphasis. But after the Watergate hearings--to borrow a phrase from Conan Doyle[1]--permanently defiled our well of English with "point in time", any like construction is highly suspect. [1] "His Last Bow". >> I read another sentence as follows, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > [1] "His Last Bow". Good grief! Ignore the arrogant idiot, Gloria -- he believes he owns the English language, and that everyone should speak exactly as the people whose style he childishly copies. "A moment in time" is so incredibly common that it is perfectly good English. There are history books and tracts that go by that name, written by people far more knowledgeable that Walker, there. > >> I read another sentence as follows, > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > English. There are history books and tracts that go by that name, > written by people far more knowledgeable that Walker, there. It's neither helpful nor logical to call someone an "arrogant idiot" just because you disagree with him, and I think it's sad that you you have to resort to insults rather than rationally arguing your case. In fact most teachers and writers would agree that "moment in time" is an ugly and unnecessary construction, especially in the written language. In speech, it's less of a problem because we do not always have time to cast our sentences perfectly, but surely it is right to encourage people to be more careful in their writing. Where would you draw the line? Would you regard the phrase,"I myself personally" (sometimes heard in the UK) as an acceptable subsititute for "I"? Roger >>>> I read another sentence as follows, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It's neither helpful nor logical to call someone an "arrogant idiot" > just because you disagree with him, I didn't. I called him an arrogant idiot because he is an arrogant idiot. The shoe fits like a glove. I've known Walker a long time. He has been just as bad for all that time, and constantly declares that English *must* be spoken according to his flavour-of-the-month style manual. English is not like that. It does not belong to Walker, and it most certainly should not be spoken of in such a Lordly manner in an international forum. > I didn't. I called him an arrogant idiot because he is an arrogant > idiot. The shoe fits like a glove. But that was not Roger's point and it won't be mine, either. Usenet is full of robust language and worse but usually from moronic trolls, a.sholes and fools. This particular group could be, should be and usually is a haven away from such people. Ad hominems are never appropriate in any debate though we all know they often arise. But please, not in here. If you don't like Eric, please just shut up. Let others form their own opinions. For example, he's never pissed me off. > I've known Walker a long time. He has been just as bad for all that > time, and constantly declares that English *must* be spoken according to > his flavour-of-the-month style manual. > > English is not like that. It does not belong to Walker, I've never read him do that but, if he does, I would tend to agree with you. (Although I've been disagreed with in here for suggesting that a common usage does not necessarily indicate a "correct" usage.) But I would not, in here, use the sort of hairy-chested language you just used. >> I didn't. I called him an arrogant idiot because he is an arrogant >> idiot. The shoe fits like a glove. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Usenet is full of robust language and worse but usually from moronic > trolls, a.sholes and fools. If that is the /only/ way someone knows how to speak or behave, it is not my problem. > This particular group could be, should be and usually is a haven away > from such people. I disagree. Honesty is worth a lot more than a convention that does not exist. Prescriptivists like Walker smugly insult people who do not conform to their ridiculous standards. I am honest when I insult prescriptivists -- especially the prescriptivists who, like Walker, have never studied English seriously, but base their Godly position on having read parts of a couple of antiquated style manuals. > Ad hominems are never appropriate in any debate though we all know they > often arise. Are you aware that hardly anyone knew what "ad hominem" meant, until someone used it on Usenet? Are you also aware that it is not a noun -- which is how you just used it? You are lucky that it is not covered by Walker's style manuals, or you would have been subjected to a thousand-word brow-beating for having used it "incorrectly". Me, I know what such things mean, and how they've been used over the centuries; but I also know that the recent Usenet usage is as valid as the usage of any English word or term, so I won't be the one to brow-beat you. Think yourself lucky that I'm the only one here who knows the difference. By contrast, look at Walker's contemptuous, smug responses to non-native speakers who come here. Do you find those acceptable, simply because he doesn't use terms like "sh.t-for-brains"? Arrogant smugness in such circumstances, and hiding bitchy meaning behind words that the object of them will not understand, is utterly contemptible, if not disgustingly childish. Calling someone who behaves like that an arrogant arsehole is honest, and comparatively decent behaviour. You approve of his behaving that way, yet take issue with my honest response? Remarkable. > But please, not in here. I will treat with contempt any badly educated fool who treats my language with contempt. I don't see anything wrong with that. > If you don't like Eric, please just shut up. Let others form their own > opinions. For example, he's never pissed me off. OK, so you don't mind giving him the right to ram garbage about English down your throat, but you take offence at people taking offence at his garbage. Sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, to me. >> I've known Walker a long time. He has been just as bad for all that >> time, and constantly declares that English *must* be spoken according to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've never read him do that but, You're not a fool, but it looks like you've been fooled. Look past his carefully-practised tone, and into what he actually says. He did not gain the cognomen "Wrong-Page Walker" for nothing. He talks in grand terms about what is *right* and what is *wrong*, but six times out of ten he is talking about the wrong thing altogether -- and people accept his proclamations because he has couched them in such confident wording. Today, as (yet another) example, he went on for several hundred words about the use of the subjunctive, and how the subjunctive *must* be used, when the sentence he was challenging was *not* subjunctive, and the conclusion he reached, whilst the object sentence contained all the correct words, had nothing whatsoever to do with his Godly lecture. That was because he had decided that he preferred the word "could" in the sentence, rather than "can", so, rather than look at what the sentence really was, he went off into that world of his own, and concluded that if the sentence contained the word "could" then it had to be subjunctive (thank Curme, for that), and so built up a whole fantasy about the subjunctive, in an effort to make it cover that sentence, and portrayed it to the group in Lordly language, as if he was giving the definitive answer to the question. And everyone swallowed it! Do you not take offence at people who do that kind of thing to our language? I most certainly do. And he's been doing it for years. > if he does, I would tend to agree with > you. (Although I've been disagreed with in here for suggesting that a > common usage does not necessarily indicate a "correct" usage.) Hmm. That's trickier. There are modern common usages that I personally don't like, so I would say that I don't like them (while knowing that my personal preference is irrelevant). Some people are less diplomatic, and talk of new usages as if they were the end of civilisation as we know it. Human nature. > But I > would not, in here, use the sort of hairy-chested language you just > used. It's easy to get sick of a certain kind of arrogant, undereducated arsehole, especially if you have to put up with them as much as I do. I reserve the right to express such sickness, as necessity dictates. > >> I didn't. I called him an arrogant idiot because he is an arrogant > >> idiot. The shoe fits like a glove. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If that is the /only/ way someone knows how to speak or behave, it is > not my problem. Unless you happen to be the person we're talking about? > > This particular group could be, should be and usually is a haven away > > from such people. > > I disagree. Honesty is worth a lot more than a convention that does not > exist. Well, you can't disagree with "it could be" such a haven. If you disagree that "it should be" such a haven, then I think you label yourself, more than the group. If you disagree with "this group usually is" such a haven then I think you're wrong. Trollism, rudeness, hubris and other unattractive waffle is genuinely rare in here, compared with other places I hang out in. And I'm glad about that. If you want to lower the tone then some people will ignore you. > Prescriptivists like Walker smugly insult people who do not > conform to their ridiculous standards. I am honest when I insult > prescriptivists -- especially the prescriptivists who, like Walker, have > never studied English seriously, but base their Godly position on having > read parts of a couple of antiquated style manuals. To me, the motive is not as important as the method of delivery. But, I accept, neither is as important as the accuracy or veracity of the content. > > Ad hominems are never appropriate in any debate though we all know they > > often arise. > > Are you aware that hardly anyone knew what "ad hominem" meant, until > someone used it on Usenet? No, I wasn't. > Are you also aware that it is not a noun -- which is how you just used it? One of the joys of the language. It's as "organic" as you want to make it. There is an element of "gerundity" about it. Using it as a noun is convenient, succinct and descriptive. To me and to others that is justification enough for the usage. Or accept it for its adjectivity "ad hominem attack" > You are lucky that it is not covered by Walker's style manuals, or you > would have been subjected to a thousand-word brow-beating for having > used it "incorrectly". No, I do not regard that as luck. If you think that some other person's written authority gives you a right to use abusive language that is another thing we learn about you. Intolerance _and_ insecurity. A curious combination. And if, given such a third party opinion to which you can point, hands on hips, with proud pomposity, then this in nothing more than classic trollism. Do you really think a "thousand-word brow-beating" would earn you any respect? It would just put you in my kill-file. I do not need and do not respond well to such tirades. Express opinions by all means but and I find myself back at the beginning of the circle now if you do it in a rude, arrogant or otherwise objectionable way then, in my opinion, you do not fit in here with the general tone of the group. We've had other moronic, pus-filled trolls in here before. They never last long because the cold shoulder seems colder in a group where people are accustomed to discuss academic issues politely. Trolls, morons and abusive a.sholes never take kindly to low temperatures. > I won't be the one to > brow-beat you. Think yourself lucky that I'm the only one here who > knows the difference. Again, such hubris is most disappointing to read in here. Any attempt at "brow-beating" me would be a waste of both our times. > By contrast, look at Walker's contemptuous, smug responses to non-native > speakers who come here. Do you find those acceptable, simply because he > doesn't use terms like "sh.t-for-brains"? When in here, I don't carefully parse every poster's every word. I'm too busy to read everything and certainly too busy to build a mental dossier on individuals. But yes, I accept robust but polite discourse over "sh.t-for-brains" and do not disapprove even if I disagree with the opinion. Someone can express an opinion and others can agree or disagree. But there's a civilized way to disagree and then there's the "sh.t-for-brains" way. In other places, I give as good as I read. But not in here. I repeat: in my opinion, this should be a place where people can disagree, even robustly, but with politeness always honored and, in here, it seems to me that is common. > Arrogant smugness in such circumstances, and hiding bitchy meaning > behind words that the object of them will not understand, is utterly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You approve of his behaving that way, yet take issue with my honest > response? Remarkable. No, I don't think I've ever said I approve of his behaving that way. I said I haven't noticed him constantly declaring that English *must* be spoken according to his flavour-of-the-month style manual "but, if he does, I would tend to agree with you [that I disagree with him.]" > OK, so you don't mind giving him the right to ram garbage about English > down your throat, but you take offence at people taking offence at his > garbage. > > Sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, to me. That's because it is something I did not say. One thing I notice is common in usent is people "quoting" others then dumping on them for...things they did NOT say. Let me repeat for the hard-of-hearing: People can agree or disageree. I just take exception to disagreement that uses offensive language. It's not the messager or the message, it's the chosen means of delivery I object to. If his opinions are, to you, garbage, then say so by all means but not by abusing him personally. Take your ire out on the opinion, not the poster. I don't think that is an unreasonable suggestion. (snipped) Can't you just feel the love here? [...] > To me, the motive is not as important as the method of delivery. > > But, I accept, neither is as important as the accuracy or veracity of > the content. What I find most remarkable about all this is the actual posting that began it. It is so brief that I feel no hesitation at repeating it in full: "Yes, it is redundant. The charitable point of view is that the writer deliberately added the redundant phrase as a form of emphasis. But after the Watergate hearings--to borrow a phrase from Conan Doyle--permanently defiled our well of English with 'point in time', any like construction is highly suspect." It agrees that the phrase "in time" is redundant; it notes that the writer may well have used it anyway as a form of literary emphasis; and it concludes by noting that it may instead simply have been influenced by another much-repeated redundancy. No condemnation of the redundancy, no calls for its being scrubbed, no volatile language. Compared to many things said by many people here, including me, I can scarcely imagine a less exciting post. But if the gunpowder is loaded and tamped, I suppose it doesn't matter how faint the spark. (If anyone cares, "a moment in time" has almost a million Google hits--but "a moment" *without* "a moment in time" appears 25 million times; the "in time" form is less than 4% of usages of "a moment"--proves nothing either way, but is interesting.) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > times; the "in time" form is less than 4% of usages of "a > moment"--proves nothing either way, but is interesting.) Yes, it transcends the limits of experience......('limits' is unnecssary) > No condemnation of the redundancy, no calls for its being scrubbed, no > volatile language. Which is all that need be said, so had you not made the inflammatory (and misplaced) remark "permanently defiled our well of English", there would have been no problem, would there? Get this into your head: "arrogant smugness is not endearing". > No condemnation of the redundancy, no calls for its being scrubbed, no > volatile language. Which is all that need be said, so had you not made the inflammatory (and grossly misplaced) remark "permanently defiled our well of English", there would have been no problem, would there? Get this into your head: "arrogant smugness is not endearing". >> No condemnation of the redundancy, no calls for its being scrubbed, no >> volatile language. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Get this into your head: "arrogant smugness is not endearing". I am getting /so/ sick of this Thunderbird. It waits ages before not posting (saying that it's failed, but often all it's done is fail to copy the sent file to my sent folder [!!!]), then refuses to send the posting (which it has told me it hasn't sent) on a second attempt, unless I /add/ a word (not subtract; that doesn't work); so I end up sending the same message twice, with one word added. Gimme back my bloody Microsoft. I'm off to the download site. On 15 Nov 2006, Mark Wallace wrote >>> No condemnation of the redundancy, no calls for its being >>> scrubbed, no volatile language. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I am getting /so/ sick of this Thunderbird. Then use a dedicated nntp client, instead of multi-purpose-I-can-do- it-all-for-ya-missus Mozilla or MS software. Problem solved.  SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van [...] > Then use a dedicated nntp client, instead of multi-purpose-I-can-do- > it-all-for-ya-missus Mozilla or MS software. > > Problem solved. For most, yes. Regrettably, some of us can't use newsreader software because our ISPs don't provide access to a usenet server. Yes, there are open-access public servers, but at least in my experience those change status and requirements too often to be practical. So we in that situation are more or less stuck with the Google interface. (One of the several prices to be paid for the pleasures of rural life.) (Though I thought Thunderbird was a dedicated new/mail reader? I don't think mixing news and mail is really making a Swiss Army Knife, and avoiding the complications and compromises of SAKs was just the reason that the Mozilla project peeled the original all-in-one browser apart into a standalone bare browser and a standalone news/mail reader.) Meanwhile, commenting indirectly on-- > >> Which is all that need be said, so had you not made the > >> inflammatory (and grossly misplaced) remark "permanently > >> defiled our well of English", there would have been no problem, > >> would there? --those with functional memories may remember the flooding river of complaint at the time of the long-running Watergate hearings over the endless repetition by the thugs testifying of the formulaic and tediously redundant "point in time", and the degree to which that scale of repetition had made the repellant phrase almost as hard to get out of one's head as the Wrigley Jingle. Many folk of sound judgement said at that time and for some while after things a deal harsher than that that phrase had "defiled our well of English" (which is a phrase Sherlock Holmes uses almost jestingly to Dr. Watson when, after a very lengthy period of posing as an American, he finds himself reflexively using a term that was, at the time, considered a tawdry Americanism). If one disagrees with that river of criticism of the Watergate remark, one is entitled to that opinion, but a modest dip from that river can scarcely be labelled "inflammatory". (Of course, one might have reading skills such that one did not grasp that the remark plainly applied to the Watergate phrase, not the proferred example--the whole idea being that the influence of the Watergate phrase was and remains so pernicious that it may yet be subconsciously influencing writers.) >For most, yes. Regrettably, some of us can't use newsreader software >because our ISPs don't provide access to a usenet server. Yes, there >are open-access public servers, but at least in my experience those >change status and requirements too often to be practical. So we in >that situation are more or less stuck with the Google interface. (One >of the several prices to be paid for the pleasures of rural life.) The German news server, news.individual.net, is dirt cheap and ultra-reliable (in the modern sense of 'ultra', of course). It is very much worth every penny. Then get yourself Forte Agent or similar, and away you go! > The German news server, news.individual.net, is dirt cheap and > ultra-reliable (in the modern sense of 'ultra', of course). It is very much > worth every penny. Then get yourself Forte Agent or similar, and away you > go! I've been sort of avaoiding pay-for servers, not so much from cheapness as from a vague philisophical distaste for paying for what it seems ought to be free. I may have to give up and go that way, though, unless Google can pull its sagging socks up fairly soon. It's not that Google's interface is outright terrible, but: one, especially of late their usenet servers seem to be at or near capacity, often resulting in 500 and 502 messages that require re-posting (with the attendant risk of ending up unintentionally multiple-posting, as happened to me not so long ago); you cannot modify a post, only delete and re-post, which screws up threading; there is no provision for automatic sig blocks; and (small but very annoying) you cannot do a sticky change to the width of the over-narrow left column with the post threads in it--it requires re-sizing at every new screen. But none of those things require big fixes, so I'll probably wait a bit and see what develops. >> The German news server, news.individual.net, is dirt cheap and >> ultra-reliable (in the modern sense of 'ultra', of course). It is very much [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >those things require big fixes, so I'll probably wait a bit and see >what develops. I also resisted paying, but in the end I tried the German server for a year for about £8 or £10, and found it 100% reliable. Then I discovered news.readfreenews.net., which I am using now. It is free, but I rather think they are no longer accepting new subscribers - worth taking a look to check this. I couldn't bear to use Google! On 15 Nov 2006, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > >> Then use a dedicated nntp client, instead of >> multi-purpose-I-can-do- it-all-for-ya-missus Mozilla or MS >> software. >> Problem solved. -snip- > (Though I thought Thunderbird was a dedicated new/mail reader? > I don't think mixing news and mail is really making a Swiss Army > Knife, and avoiding the complications and compromises of SAKs > was just the reason that the Mozilla project peeled the original > all-in-one browser apart into a standalone bare browser and a > standalone news/mail reader.) Sort of, except that news and mail aren't the same thing, so a "standalone news/mail reader" doesn't, in my books, qualify as a "standalone" anything: it's a mail-slash-news client, which means "a pop/smtp client which can handle nntp as well". It's a personal thing, of course, but I much prefer true separate clients: a browser to browse (http); an ftp client for ftp; a mail client for mail (pop/smtp); and a newsreader for news (nntp). SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van [snip] > It's a personal thing, of course, but I much prefer true separate > clients: a browser to browse (http); an ftp client for ftp; a mail > client for mail (pop/smtp); and a newsreader for news (nntp). Agreement. But how about RSS feeds? Thunderbird (which I use only for emailing, not newsgrouping) has a built-in RSS reader and it's basically just like receiving emails, although it isn't, technically, email. SignaturejohnF On 15 Nov 2006, John Flynn wrote > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > basically just like receiving emails, although it isn't, > technically, email. I used a few RSS feeds about a year ago, but when I did I'm sure I used a standalone client. (Newsfeed?? -- something like that.) I'm not a hardliner on this -- whatever works, works -- but I like separate clients enough that if I decide to try RSS feeds again, I'll try to search out a client for it. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 15 Nov 2006, John Flynn wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I used a few RSS feeds about a year ago, but when I did I'm sure I >used a standalone client. (Newsfeed?? -- something like that.) I'm using FeedDemon (V1.11) from Bradbury Software. It cost GBP19.53 (inc VAT) in 2004. Bradbury Software, aka Nick Bradbury, is now part of NewsGator Technologies, Inc. The latest version costs $29.95. IIRC during the online checkout this is converted to GBP and VAT added. http://www.newsgator.com/NGOLProduct.aspx?ProdID=FeedDemon >I'm not a hardliner on this -- whatever works, works -- but I like >separate clients enough that if I decide to try RSS feeds again, I'll >try to search out a client for it. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > On 15 Nov 2006, Eric Walker wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > clients: a browser to browse (http); an ftp client for ftp; a mail > client for mail (pop/smtp); and a newsreader for news (nntp). Ftp client?!? Don't be silly! Get Xplorer2, and it not only replaces the God-awful Windows Explorer (with dual tabbed panes), but it takes care of your ftp as if the ftp directory were just another directory on your computer/network -- with drag'n'drop an' everything! > On 15 Nov 2006, Mark Wallace wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Problem solved. Wanna laugh? Following that dissatisfied remark, I found and installed a news-only client, which is terrific, and then went off into training for a couple of days. Coming back to my own laptop, after the training, I find that I don't remember what the client is called, or where I installed it, so I'm back on Thunderbird -- with several hundred unread messages in AEU. I'll give it ten minutes, then mark all as read, and uninstall. >>>> I didn't. I called him an arrogant idiot because he is an arrogant >>>> idiot. The shoe fits like a glove. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Unless you happen to be the person we're talking about? Ha! It most certainly is not the only way I know how to speak. Do your research. >>> This particular group could be, should be and usually is a haven away >>> from such people. >> I disagree. Honesty is worth a lot more than a convention that does not >> exist. > > Well, you can't disagree with "it could be" such a haven. I sure do, if you mean that it should be a place where people slyly stick knives in each other's backs, rather than settle their disagreements openly. > If you disagree that "it should be" such a haven, then I think you > label yourself, more than the group. As what? An honest, honourable man? No problem. > If you disagree with "this group usually is" such a haven then I think > you're wrong. Trollism, rudeness, hubris and other unattractive waffle > is genuinely rare in here, compared with other places I hang out in. > And I'm glad about that. If you want to lower the tone then some people > will ignore you. If you believe that starting threads about there being no limit to the stupidity in Usenet to be anything other than trolling, then I find I must disagree with you. You call people you have never met "stupid", based on a few words in a posting to a newsgroup. I find that intolerably bad behaviour. I tend to give people the chance to prove their talents, before condemning them. That you speak in "nice language" does not make you a nice person. You now need to prove to me that you have any decency in you, because you have offered pretty damned solid proof that you do not. It could well be that you need a lesson in manners. <snip> I can't be bothered to wade through the rest. [...] > It's neither helpful nor logical to call someone an "arrogant idiot" > just because you disagree with him, and I think it's sad that you you > have to resort to insults rather than rationally arguing your case. . . . In most threads, I would simply not read or respond to anything Mr. Wallace posts. But when he insists on barging into threads where people with real needs for assistance have posted questions merely so that he can vaunt his notorious and quite bizarre private theories of English, he does a gross disservice to those inquirers, who have no _a priori_ way of knowing who to trust. In the process, he invariably transforms--or tries to transform--every such thread into a clash of personalities instead of a rational debate in which sources are cited and logic is laid out. I have no taste for what the lawyers call "he said, she said" exchanges, but I feel some responsibility to those who come here looking for sound advice. I feel that the advice i offer is sound by the recognized standards of English use--else I would scarcely offer it--and I further try to distinguish between what I am confident is standard form and matters on which I am only offering an opinion (see "'quiet down' can be used in a passive voice?"). If I should be in error in any response, I welcome the opportunity to learn, and to see the inquirers better helped. I make no great claims for my own expertise, only for my ability and willingness to comb through recognized expert texts. I suppose that baiting him, like bear-baiting, is at bottom cruel, and I dislike it when I find myself doing it, hard as it is to resist. I more and more find that all I can say to the original posters on threads like this, after I have registered my initial response to their question, is that they do some homework on the posters who are answering them. I am more than willing that anyone interested look up my posting history, and I can only hope they will look up that of anyone they are considering granting credence to. Google is your friend. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > English, he does a gross disservice to those inquirers, who have no _a > priori_ way of knowing who to trust. "a priori" used incorrectly. 'Whom' to trust. > In the process, he invariably transforms--or tries to transform--every > such thread into a clash of personalities instead of a rational debate > in which sources are cited and logic is laid out. Logic is not "laid out" but 'followed'. >I have no taste for > what the lawyers call "he said, she said" exchanges, but I feel some > responsibility to those who come here looking for sound advice. I feel > that the advice i I > offer is sound by the recognized standards of English > use--else I would scarcely offer it-- Special pleading. > and I further try to distinguish > between what I am confident is standard form and matters on which I am > only offering an opinion (see "'quiet down' can be used in a passive > voice?"). If I should be in error in any response, "If I should err in what I say" is so much more elegant, don'cha think? > I welcome the > opportunity to learn, and to see the inquirers better helped. "better helped"? Wher'd ya git that? "Ainglaish 'R' Uss"? > I make > no great claims for my own expertise, only for my ability and > willingness to comb through recognized expert texts. Pshaw. > I suppose that baiting him, like bear-baiting, is at bottom cruel, and > I dislike it when I find myself doing it, hard as it is to resist. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anyone they are considering granting credence to. Google is your > friend. You amaze me with your arrogance and incompetence. [ ... ] > > In most threads, I would simply not read or respond to anything Mr. > > Wallace posts. But when he insists on barging into threads where [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "a priori" used incorrectly. Not so. His point is that one can only learn who to trust through experience -- a posteriori. Newcomers who have no experience with the various posters may lack any way to differentiate sense from nonsense. A sound point, soundly stated. > 'Whom' to trust. Sorry, too late. When even Eric Walker writes "who to trust," that battle is over. (I do hope he doesn't relent and apologize.) > > In the process, he invariably transforms--or tries to transform--every > > such thread into a clash of personalities instead of a rational debate > > in which sources are cited and logic is laid out. > Logic is not "laid out" but 'followed'. Not in this context. He means laying out the chain of logic you followed in order to enable others to see how you reached your conclusion. If they follow and agree, you have successfully communicated both your conclusion and how you reached it. Surely anything elided in "logic is laid out" as a way of describing this process can be readily supplied by the reader. > >I have no taste for > > what the lawyers call "he said, she said" exchanges, but I feel some > > responsibility to those who come here looking for sound advice. I feel > > that the advice i > I Okay, a twentieth of a point. With Eric it's obviously a typo. This conclusion follows a posteriori from my knowledge of Eric's writing and his attitude toward the language. > > offer is sound by the recognized standards of English > > use--else I would scarcely offer it-- > > Special pleading. Hardly. Do you know what "special pleading" means? See <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html>. [ ... ] That's enough. I feel a bit strange defending Eric Walker as it is. Hey, UC, have you met Mark Wallace? Youse guys would make great penpals. SignatureBob Lieblich > [ ... ] > That's enough. I feel a bit strange defending Eric Walker as it is. You've shocked me, Robbie. Forget the Christmas card. > Hey, UC, have you met Mark Wallace? Youse guys would make great > penpals. What makes you think I should prefer one prescriptivist over another? Let 'em fight to the death, that's what I say. [ ... ] > > That's enough. I feel a bit strange defending Eric Walker as it is. > > You've shocked me, Robbie. Forget the Christmas card. What do I care? Now if the missing card was for Hanukkah ... > > Hey, UC, have you met Mark Wallace? Youse guys would make great > > penpals. > > What makes you think I should prefer one prescriptivist over another? It's the gift that the two of you share -- that of talking erudite nonsense. I find it remarkable that two such masters of the art should appear in this little Usenet byway simultaneously. 'Twould be enough to give me pause, if I ever paused. > Let 'em fight to the death, that's what I say. First sensible thing you've said in a long time. That said, be sure to read UC's posts. The two of you could have lots of fun talking past each other. SignatureRob L. [...] > > 'Whom' to trust. > > Sorry, too late. When even Eric Walker writes "who to trust," that > battle is over. (I do hope he doesn't relent and apologize.) Of course he does. I saw that almost as soon as I had clicked "Post message", but Google is not tolerant of forehead-slapping--one would have to delete the entire message (that, at least, is possible) then re-post it. I reckoned it would brighten someone's day if it left it (a way of saying I was too lazy to do all that). I 'speck as how I was thinking of going on with "who's who in these matters" or some such, but swapped horses mid-stream. Inexcusable (save perhaps in speech). [...] > That's enough. I feel a bit strange defending Eric Walker as it is. Nonsense: you're honest and you're decent. Nothing strange, then. > Hey, UC, have you met Mark Wallace? Youse guys would make great > penpals. I almost posted a remark to the effect that I much regretted not having the ticket concession. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > "a priori" used incorrectly. Yes, so. Used as adjective, whereas it is adverb. > Not so. His point is that one can only learn who to trust through > experience -- a posteriori. Newcomers who have no experience with the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sorry, too late. When even Eric Walker writes "who to trust," that > battle is over. (I do hope he doesn't relent and apologize.) 'taint over yet. > > > In the process, he invariably transforms--or tries to transform--every > > > such thread into a clash of personalities instead of a rational debate [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Hardly. Do you know what "special pleading" means? Yes, I do. > See > <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html>. It is a form of special pleading. It says "It is true because I have said it, otherwise I would not have said it." > [ ... ] > > That's enough. I feel a bit strange defending Eric Walker as it is. > > Hey, UC, have you met Mark Wallace? Youse guys would make great > penpals. > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes, so. Used as adjective, whereas it is adverb. Au contraire, mon ami (or would you prefer "nicht wahr, mein Freund?) A priori" in English is an adjective that is sometimes used as an adverb. You could look it up, but of course you won't -- that might put a dent in your smug façade. [ ... ] > > > Special pleading. > > > > Hardly. Do you know what "special pleading" means? > > Yes, I do. No, you don't. > > See > > <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html>. > > It is a form of special pleading. It says "It is true because I have > said it, otherwise I would not have said it." That is not special pleading. I'd apply "ipse dixit" to that sort of statement. I don't concede that what Eric is saying is an ipse dixit (yes, it's a noun). SignatureBob Lieblich World King of Logic (and getting damned tired of all the work involved) > >> I read another sentence as follows, > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "A moment in time" is so incredibly common that it is perfectly good > English. "Good English" is "Bad English. Also, your statement is perfectly false. You don't have "monets in space" now do you? > There are history books and tracts that go by that name, > written by people far more knowledgeable that Walker, there. So what? Stupidity is contagious! [ ... ] > You don't have "monets in space" now do you? I visited the Art Institute of Chicago a few days ago. They have lots of Monets, all of which exist in space. Or were you interpolating some German? SignatureBob Lieblich Smart-a.s > >> I read another sentence as follows, > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "A moment in time" is so incredibly common that it is perfectly good > English. "Good English" is "Bad English. Also, your statement is perfectly false. You don't have "moments in space" now do you? > There are history books and tracts that go by that name, > written by people far more knowledgeable that Walker, there. So what? Stupidity is contagious! >> I read another sentence as follows, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > [1] "His Last Bow". I have to take issue with you here Eric. As a phrase, "a moment in time" fixes upon a particular episode. *Time* in this context, is the thing itself, and is different than an assertion like "time for lunch". There is no redundancy because of the frame of reference, and point is not a perfect synonym for *moment*. Joanne > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Gloria The sentence could be edited to read: It was a moment I could always call my own but the issue then becomes a matter of style, and not redundancy, as your knight Eric would assert. It is a matter of style, in fact, and not grammatical malfeasance. You might suggest to the student in question to trim for immediacy, which might have more of an impact on the reader. "Moment in time" also works, but aims for a degree of disengagement from the experience which is being described. It depends on what your pupil desires to evoke. Eric is an old school tactician. I am a writer. Sometimes the latter knows better than the former. Joanne > I am a writer. Hey! What have I missed while I've been away, J? Have you found someone daft enough to publish your stuff? >> I am a writer. > > Hey! What have I missed while I've been away, J? Have you found someone > daft enough to publish your stuff? The daft tend to outnumber everyone else, my dear. >>> I am a writer. >> Hey! What have I missed while I've been away, J? Have you found someone >> daft enough to publish your stuff? > > The daft tend to outnumber everyone else, my dear. Perhaps for the moment. In time, things will change. >It depends on what your pupil desires to evoke. I agree. Adding 'in time' produces a different effect, at least on me. To me it emphasises the smallness of a moment in comparison to the vastness of eternity. This does not mean I would use 'at this moment in time' in preference to 'now' (-: [...] > The sentence could be edited to read: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Eric is an old school tactician. I am a writer. Sometimes the latter knows > better than the former. Is the implication that being a published writer licenses one as a Special Master in style? If so, as a published author, I carry the needed license. In the course of acquiring it, I often encountered, in various forms, the advice succinctly given by the inimitable Will Strunk at point 13 of his classic little manual _The Elements of Style_, "Omit needless words", or perhaps even more succinctly in the catchy title of Jacque Barzun's style book _Simple & Direct_. Barzun and Strunk are also published authors, with--some might say--a reasonable claim to credence when addressing matters of auctorial style, claims perhaps even (though not wishing to argue _ad hominem_) greater than yours. (Also, if you are aware of moments *outside* time, you should communicate at once with the physics department at your nearest institution of higher learning.) Moreover, those who will trouble themselves sufficiently to read what I actually wrote will find this: "The charitable point of view is that the writer deliberately added the redundant phrase as a form of emphasis. But after the Watergate hearings--to borrow a phrase from Conan Doyle--permanently defiled our well of English with 'point in time', any like construction is highly suspect." Scarcely withering criticism. Redundancy or the lack of it *is* a matter of style--arguably close to the essence of style. Those whose sense of style accomodates the view that the redundant modifying phrase "in time" augments some aspect of the writer's presentation are fully welcome to that view, but must recognize that sufficiently qualified others will disagree with it. <obsfucating verbiage snipped> > Redundancy or the lack of it *is* a matter of style--arguably close to > the essence of style. Those whose sense of style accomodates the view > that the redundant modifying phrase "in time" augments some aspect of > the writer's presentation are fully welcome to that view, but must > recognize that sufficiently qualified others will disagree with it. All me saying, old man, is, it's a matter of context. I am not defending student excess, just the phrase. *A moment in time* is not redundant if time is a constant. Joanne > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Eric is an old school tactician. I am a writer. Sometimes the latter knows >> better than the former. <needless words omitted> Y'know, I knew there had to be /something/ useful in Strunk & White! *snip* > (Also, if you are aware of moments *outside* time, you should > communicate at once with the physics department at your nearest > institution of higher learning.) from m-w.com: ... 3 : importance in influence or effect <a matter of great moment> 4 obsolete : a cause or motive of action 5 : a stage in historical or logical development 6 a : tendency or measure of tendency to produce motion especially about a point or axis b : the product of quantity (as a force) and the distance to a particular axis or point 7 a : the mean of the nth powers of the deviations of the observed values in a set of statistical data from a fixed value b : the expected value of a power of the deviation of a random variable from a fixed value Dude, busted by the nitpick police. But I won't try and argue that it's difficult to tell 'a moment in time' from 'a moment of inertia' in context. As a reader, I would say that 'a moment in time' affects me by contrasting moment (syn. instant) with time (syn. eternity). I would also agree that the phrase is often used as a crutch with no stylistic intent. > *snip* > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > difficult to tell 'a moment in time' from 'a moment of inertia' in > context. I am unclear as to which of those constitute something that a person could plausibly speak of as owning ("It was a moment [in time] I could always call my own"). Dis here's my rotational inertia, buddy, keep yer mitts off of it. The only sense of "moment" that a person can, even metaphorically, "own" is the temporal "moment"; hence, a remark that "moments" outside time are oxymoronic cannot, I think, be construed as applying to any but temporal "moments". > As a reader, I would say that 'a moment in time' affects me by > contrasting moment (syn. instant) with time (syn. eternity). I would > also agree that the phrase is often used as a crutch with no stylistic > intent. I'd say that "a moment in eternity" is a reasonable or even good casting (though perhaps not as a one-for-one plugin in that exact sentence). It's not as if the original is vile--my exact comment was "Yes, it is redundant. The charitable point of view is that the writer deliberately added the redundant phrase as a form of emphasis." I did then suggest that the spurious attraction of "point in time" (which notorious phrase had nothing whatever to do with considering matters _sub specie aeternitas_) seemed suspiciously likely. That's all. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why the writer used "in time," which is kind of redundant. The most common reason is that he is paid by the word. At five cents a word, the two redundant words are worth a dime. GFH >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > GFH As far as I can make it out George, Gloria is an instructor somewhere in Asia who finds AEU an invaluable cheat sheet when teaching ESL courses; it seems she and Eric are on the fast track to a charming cyber romance. I don't think the ducklings in her charge worry about word rates. Joanne (who disapproves of teachers on the cheap) >As far as I can make it out George, Gloria is an instructor somewhere in >Asia who finds AEU an invaluable cheat sheet when teaching ESL courses; it >seems she and Eric are on the fast track to a charming cyber romance. Cheat sheet? A "cheat sheet" is a piece of paper you take into a class with the answers to expected questions on it. Gloria is using aeu as a learning source so she can do a better job of teaching. I admire her initiative. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>As far as I can make it out George, Gloria is an instructor somewhere in >>Asia who finds AEU an invaluable cheat sheet when teaching ESL courses; it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Gloria is using aeu as a learning source so she can do a better job of > teaching. I admire her initiative. That's because you're from Florida. I am old school enough to be concerned that Asian students are learning English according to Eric Walker. If Gloria really cared, she wouldn't be posting her problems in this newsgroup. We've been down this road before Tony and you aren't going to lessen my conviction by asserting my tropes don't quite meet the mark. Joanne [...] > I am old school enough to be concerned that Asian students are > learning English according to Eric Walker. What was that supposed to be in aid of? If ever I set forth here a principle or explanation not in excellent accordance with established and authoritative sources but not expressly labelled as one man's opinion, please do point it out to me. "English according to Eric Walker" is English according to H. W. Fowler, Ernest Gowers, Will Strunk, Eric Partridge, Theodore Bernstein, Jacques Barzun, Wilson Follett, Bryan Garner, and George Curme (among many others). What is the English according to Joanne Marinelli that Asian students should instead be learning, and how does it differ? Does this English according to Joanne Marinelli include moments that lie outside time? "*A moment in time* is not redundant if time is a constant." What is that if translated from Joanne Marinelli's English to Eric Walker's English? Are there moments in space instead? Are you referencing the monoblock? Or are you alluding to Everett-Wheeler-De Witt quantum theories? I would--not unreasonably, I think, in light of the remark above--like to know what is wrong with English according to Eric Walker, indeed I would. Do tell us. >Does this English according to Joanne Marinelli include moments that >lie outside time? I believe there are some theologians who would take the view that any Divine moment lies outside time. > >Does this English according to Joanne Marinelli include moments that > >lie outside time? > > I believe there are some theologians who would take the view that any > Divine moment lies outside time. Possibly so; but the utterance was not delivered by God. (I also believe it's not quite that simple, inasmuch as the question must arise of what "a moment" means in reference to a timeless, eternal being--but this is not the appropriate forum in which to explore such issues.) >[...] > >> I am old school enough to be concerned that Asian students are >> learning English according to Eric Walker. > >What was that supposed to be in aid of? The problem with Marinelli's comment is - like most of her comments, "tropes", and punctuation - that you have no idea what she means. Is she concerned because Asian students are learning English according to the Walker Principles? Or, is she concerned because Asian students are not learning English according to the Walker Principles? The sentence, as written, can be interpreted either way. Since you, Eric, seem decidedly old-school in your approach to English, I read the sentence to mean the complete opposite of what you evidently read into it. Lest you read my sentence wrongly, I don't particularly object to the old-school approach. I feel that it's too rigid for practical application, but only because it occasionally makes the acceptable dead-wrong. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >Is she concerned because Asian students are learning English according >to the Walker Principles? Or, is she concerned because Asian students >are not learning English according to the Walker Principles? The >sentence, as written, can be interpreted either way. She'd have used the subjunctive if she meant what you understood, shirley? >>>As far as I can make it out George, Gloria is an instructor somewhere in >>>Asia who finds AEU an invaluable cheat sheet when teaching ESL courses; it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >newsgroup. We've been down this road before Tony and you aren't going to >lessen my conviction by asserting my tropes don't quite meet the mark. Gloria is, herself, a former Asian student who has been ill-prepared. She is preparing herself as she goes along. You seem to have stopped far too early. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>>As far as I can make it out George, Gloria is an instructor somewhere in >>>>Asia who finds AEU an invaluable cheat sheet when teaching ESL courses; [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > She is preparing herself as she goes along. You seem to have stopped > far too early. Seem being the operative word. If I wanted to truly make the effort, I'd win a TKO in the fifth round with Eric. You'd be on the mat before the first bell. Joanne who despises governors who wear *Christianist* on their sleeves [...] > > Gloria is, herself, a former Asian student who has been ill-prepared. > > She is preparing herself as she goes along. You seem to have stopped [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a TKO in the fifth round with Eric. You'd be on the mat before the first > bell. First, the item you respond to was not posted by me. You seem to start by grasping that, but then switch the referent of your pronouns ("you'd be"). It would be helpful for us to have some vague idea of what you actually mean by what you say. Second, it is illuminating that you see posts here as a battle, rather than as quests for information. Third, I would never deny anyone their fantasies, no matter how unrealistic. But I would offer the observation that if you require a sense of triumph in a usenet group to validate your self-worth, you have problems deeper than any usenet group can aid with. > [...] > > Seem being the operative word. If I wanted to truly make the effort, I'd win > > a TKO in the fifth round with Eric. You'd be on the mat before the first > > bell. When one is right, one is right, but when one is wrong, one is wrong. On a third or fourth reading of that, I see the intended sense. It does not, as I wrongly said earlier, switch referents mid-stream. That said, the rest of my remarks remain. >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That said, the rest of my remarks remain. I have made a serious effort to restrain the shrill octaves of my mood disorder since I've returned to AEU, as, even if I did cringe in remorse, it would not do me much good, but I still get pissed off on occasion. This is one of those occasions, especially since you are the supposed conservative in this group, Eric. In keeping with that line of thought, I find it disheartening that you have no problem with a teacher using post-it notes on a bulletin board to make herself better at her job. I don't think it makes her better at her job. Nor do I believe your willingness to feed her answers without making an effort to help her learn those answers herself makes her better at her job. I used to respect your voice and your advice. No longer, and as you did to another poster years ago, I will no longer read your posts. One thing I would never do is string you along so that I could make my own responsibilities less taxing. Goodbye. > Second, it is illuminating that you see posts here as a battle, rather > than as quests for information. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sense of triumph in a usenet group to validate your self-worth, you > have problems deeper than any usenet group can aid with. This line of reasoning is too f.cking idiotic even for you--that you would even dare to goad anyone this way, even me. For shame! > . . . For shame! You feel comfortable writing "I am old school enough to be concerned that Asian students are learning English according to Eric Walker" and then (without ever addressing the gravamen of my reply to it) have the brass to post that? Well, well. You refer to a "mood disorder". Inasmuch as I don't regularly scrutinize your posts, I was unaware that you had one. But I am unsure what you intend by citing it. Do you intend to participate in this, or any, usenet group on the same basis as everyone else? If so, you must expect that what you write will be taken at face value. If not, you are saying in essence "you must disregard what I post". Which is it to be? I will be as pleased as the next to honor your wish on that, but I would like to know what that wish is, since you seem to feel entitled to use that condition as a club with which to assault anyone who takes your words at their face value. >> . . . For shame! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > scrutinize your posts, I was unaware that you had one. But I am unsure > what you intend by citing it. I cited it because when I first subscribed to AEU I went too far at times, and I feel sorry, but since there is no way to truly atone even if I wanted to for those negative instances, I do not try. With that qualification, I feel, in relation to what help Gloria needs, that raising a strenuous objection is justified--but I will trouble the issue no further. Do you intend to participate in this, or > any, usenet group on the same basis as everyone else? If so, you must > expect that what you write will be taken at face value. That depends. I was making an analogy to boxing. Your indignation might be merited, but to turn that on its head and say I need to win a usenet argument for self worth issues is stretching it. It is true I have tried to use Web communities to try to *belong*, given my real world isolation, but my self worth has been challenged by my kittens and nurses who make it difficult to stay within range of my daily writing goals -- and not so much if I best anyone in a usage group. If not, you > are saying in essence "you must disregard what I post". I don't see how you get this, but I am not ready to disavow my remarks from this morning so fully as to keep responding, not for now. Joanne |
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.