 |
 | 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 / February 2009Usage of "absent"
Here's another usage that I have a real problem with. "Absent your protestations on this matter, we will proceed with the vote to elect our treasurer." "Absent Johnnny's intervention, the project will be approved soon." I know the word absent has crept up on standard English usage, but the word is just imprecise and awkward. How do people feel about this? > Here's another usage that I have a real problem with. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I know the word absent has crept up on standard English usage, but the > word is just imprecise and awkward. How do people feel about this? I suppose a word can be standard English usage and still be "imprecise and awkward." But "absent" in this prepositional usage is certainly precise. It's a shortcut for "In the absence of." Whether it's awkward is a matter of opinion. I'd think that someone who acknowledges it as standard English wouldn't find it awkward. I don't. You seem to have a lot of problems with the language that could be easily dispelled if you would simply relax and accept current standard usage for what it is.  SignatureBob Lieblich So relaxed he's barely awake >> Here's another usage that I have a real problem with. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > acknowledges it as standard English wouldn't find it awkward. I > don't. [...] This use of "absent" isn't standard English English, I think, though lawyers may perhaps use it. I've seen or heard it only in educated Scottish or American English. Alan Jones >>> "Absent your protestations on this matter, we will proceed with the >>> vote to elect our treasurer." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> I know the word absent has crept up on standard English usage, but the >>> word is just imprecise and awkward. How do people feel about this? > This use of "absent" isn't standard English English, I think, though > lawyers may perhaps use it. I've seen or heard it only in educated > Scottish or American English. Oxford labels it [N. Amer.] in COD10 and later. It is missing from COD5-9 and SOED5. I don't know if it has crept into SOED6. Chambers (2003) still had not heard of it. Since COD10 & later label it [N. Amer.], it seems worthwhile to turn to an Oxford dictionary for "N. Amer." use. NOAD1 labels it [Formal]. I don't know if that has changed in NOAD2. AHD4 has no geoographic or register label. Its example of use, "Absent a legislative fix, this is an invitation for years of litigation" (Brian E. O'Neill), is from the right domain but doesn't seem particularly formal. And I find "invitation for" a bit off. On Feb 24, 6:28 pm, i are an english speaker <grammar...@english.usage.com> wrote: > Here's another usage that I have a real problem with. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I know the word absent has crept up on standard English usage, but the > word is just imprecise and awkward. How do people feel about this? Broadly, the term is considered synononymous with "without", lacking", "in the absence of"; in that usage, Garner calls it unnecessary jargon. My own sense is that if that was so a decade ago, it is not so now. The word seems--to me--to say something a hair different from mere "lacking": it conveys a subtle sense that the thing lacking is rather unlikely to turn up. "Absent a change in attitude by most of the developing nations, controlling CO2 emissions will be a monstrous problem." One could substitue "without" or "lacking" there, but to my ears there would be a faint but perceptible shift in sense. Some further discussions of interest (try Googling "absent preposition") show varying views: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absent#Preposition http://volokh.com/posts/1152422787.shtml http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA5&vq=absent&source=gbs_search _r&cad=0_1 [starting in lower right of page] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6DB1439F93BA15750C0A964948260 But just mindlessly plugging the word in for a simple "without"--as in the examples given--is indeed poor usage. (Indeed, the first sentence doesn't measure up to much with either word: it badly needs recasting.) It is unnecessary jargon alright. I believe it was considered so about 20 years ago. Now, it has become so commonplace that the usage is actually considered hip and actively encouraged in the business world. I do agree that the usage has evolved so that what's being referred to as "absent" is a prevailing condition. The condition isn't likely to change. "Absent a change in attitude by most of the developing nations, controlling CO2 emissions will be a monstrous problem." How about changing this to: "Unless the developing nations change their attitudes with regard to the emission of CO2 gas, it will continue to be a monstrous problem. This makes it stronger highlights that changing the status quo requires your intervention. Perhaps the usage is appropriate, then, as long as it has evolved os that it's distinguishable from "without." >Broadly, the term is considered synononymous with "without", lacking", >"in the absence of"; in that usage, Garner calls it unnecessary [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >doesn't measure up to much with either word: it badly needs >recasting.) > "Absent a change in attitude by most of the developing nations, > controlling CO2 emissions will be a monstrous problem." > How about changing this to: > "Unless the developing nations change their attitudes with regard to > the emission of CO2 gas, it will continue to be a monstrous problem. And change monstrous to big. >> "Absent a change in attitude by most of the developing nations, >> controlling CO2 emissions will be a monstrous problem." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And change monstrous to big. Or "enormous". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) On Feb 26, 2:24 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >> "Absent a change in attitude by most of the developing nations, > >> controlling CO2 emissions will be a monstrous problem." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> "Unless the developing nations change their attitudes with regard to > >> the emission of CO2 gas, it will continue to be a monstrous problem. Is that supposed to be an improvement? It is notably wordier and correspondingly less crisp. > >And change monstrous to big. > > Or "enormous". Why? "Monstrous: 1. abnormally or prodigiously large; huge; enormous." That rather seems to cover the ground, with the added benefit of conveying not merely size but hideous unpleasantness. >>>> "Absent a change in attitude by most of the developing nations, >>>> controlling CO2 emissions will be a monstrous problem." >>>> How about changing this to: >>>> "Unless the developing nations change their attitudes with regard to >>>> the emission of CO2 gas, it will continue to be a monstrous problem. > Is that supposed to be an improvement? It is notably wordier and > correspondingly less crisp. >>> And change monstrous to big. >> Or "enormous". > Why? "Monstrous: 1. abnormally or prodigiously large; huge; > enormous." That rather seems to cover the ground, with the added > benefit of conveying not merely size but hideous unpleasantness. 'The developing nations must limit their carbon dioxide emissions' will do. > >>>> "Absent a change in attitude by most of the developing nations, > >>>> controlling CO2 emissions will be a monstrous problem." > >>>> How about changing this to: > >>>> "Unless the developing nations change their attitudes with regard to > >>>> the emission of CO2 gas, it will continue to be a monstrous problem. > > Is that supposed to be an improvement? It is notably wordier and > > correspondingly less crisp. > >>> And change monstrous to big. > >> Or "enormous". > > Why? "Monstrous: 1. abnormally or prodigiously large; huge; > > enormous." That rather seems to cover the ground, with the added > > benefit of conveying not merely size but hideous unpleasantness. > > 'The developing nations must limit their carbon dioxide > emissions' will do. It may be so, but it is saying something different from the original. The original states that if they don't, there's a big problem; "must" (or even "should"), however, goes a shade beyond that by passing an implicit moral or practical judgement. I, and I suspect many others, would agree with that judgement, but that's not the point. |
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.