 |
 | 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 / January 2010"All anyone"
Hi, I saw this sentence, "I was trying to get people to see the need for fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, spending. Yet all anyone focused on was taxes." In the last part, I feel it strange to say "all anyone", what is the function of "anyone" here? I don't know, if I have to add a word, I guess I would choose "everyone". Kevin in Hong Kong. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > here? I don't know, if I have to add a word, I guess I would choose > "everyone". "Anyone" is the subject of the subordinate clause "anyone focused on," which in turn modifies the subject of the sentence, which is "all." ("On" is traditionally regarded as an adverb in such contexts.) This would be clearer if the (properly) elided conjunctionn "that" had been inserted between "all" and "anyone." As for the semantic choice of "anyone" instead of "everyone" or something else again, the use of "anyone" in contexts like the exammple sentence is quite ordinary, at least in American English. It indicates that the several members of a group all behaved in the same manner. The preceding "all" is not essential to convey this meaning, but it definitely helps. "Everyone" is a proper substitute for "anyone" there, but it is not required.  SignatureBob Lieblich Who survived the holidays (he thinks) > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Bob Lieblich > Who survived the holidays (he thinks) Many thanks Bob, puzzle solved. Kevin >> > Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Many thanks Bob, puzzle solved. >Kevin Another way of wording the sentence is with a "that": "Yet all that anyone focused on was taxes." SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > Another way of wording the sentence is with a "that": > "Yet all that anyone focused on was taxes." Robert Lieblich said that above, which I snipped for brevity. > "Anyone" is the subject of the subordinate clause "anyone focused on," > which in turn modifies the subject of the sentence, which is "all." > ("On" is traditionally regarded as an adverb in such contexts.) This > would be clearer if the (properly) elided conjunctionn "that" had been > inserted between "all" and "anyone." 'That' wouldn't be a conjunction, it would be a relative article. > > "Anyone" is the subject of the subordinate clause "anyone focused on," > > which in turn modifies the subject of the sentence, which is "all." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 'That' wouldn't be a conjunction, it would be a relative article. I see that you know far more about this stuff than I do. I've never even heard the term "relative article." (I've encountered each of its two verbal components, but that hardly counts.) I have heard rumors that modern linquists are doing some recharacterizing and recategorizing of various traditional grammatical labels, and I guess that's what you're up to. Since the OP responded to my post saying he now understands, I'll defer to you on the most up-to-date terminology. SignatureBob Lieblich Luddite manque >>> "Anyone" is the subject of the subordinate clause "anyone focused on," >>> which in turn modifies the subject of the sentence, which is "all." >>> ("On" is traditionally regarded as an adverb in such contexts.) This >>> would be clearer if the (properly) elided conjunctionn "that" had been >>> inserted between "all" and "anyone." >> 'That' wouldn't be a conjunction, it would be a relative article. > I see that you know far more about this stuff than I do. I've never > even heard the term "relative article." (I've encountered each of > its two verbal components, but that hardly counts.) Some prefer the term 'relative pronoun'. The difference is that a relative article/pronoun links two clauses by standing in place of a noun, whereas a conjunction cannot replace a noun. > I have heard > rumors that modern linquists are doing some recharacterizing and > recategorizing of various traditional grammatical labels, and I guess > that's what you're up to. My main use of linguistics is to do with grammars of the earliest recorded Germanic languages, so I tend to use the terminology contained therein. They tend to use the more old fashioned words (e.g., 'preterite' where people tend to say 'past' these days) and there is little difference in terminology between grammars written in the 1920s and the latest editions in print today, for the most part. The standard definitions suit us well enough, I think. > Hi, > I saw this sentence, "I was trying to get people to see the need for > fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, > spending. Yet all anyone focused on was taxes." In the last part, I > feel it strange to say "all anyone", what is the function of "anyone" > here? I don't know, if I have to add a word, I guess I would choose > "everyone". Firstly, it should be 'more importantly', as this is modifying the verb 'encompassing'. 'All anyone...' is correct but I would prefer to say 'all that anyone...' as it seems more correct to me to use a relative article. In the context, I'd say that 'anyone' and 'everyone' are interchangeable but I would prefer 'anyone' because using 'everyone' implies either that everyone did focus on taxes or that there is a missing sub-clause that is understood implicitly. > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Firstly, it should be 'more importantly', as this is modifying the verb > 'encompassing'. There's a lot of useless controversy over the use of "more important" with or without the following "ly." As evidence, you might want to start with Burchfield's "revision" of Fowler (not online, but surely you have it), then check out Mark Liberman's views at <http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004302.html>. I'm not recommending that you agree with either, just pointing out that your pronouncement, definitive though it appears, ain't necessarily the only word on the subject. Actually, I think you could make the argument that in the OP's sentence (snipped along the way, but here iet is again: "I was trying to get people to see the need for fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, spending"), "more important" modifies "spending." "Spending" being a noun there, that would make its modifier an adjective. That's not the only reading, obviously, but then again, the availability of multiple reasons is why people are so often at loggerheads to begin with about whether to add the "ly" to "important." [ ... ] Bob Lieblich Most importantly >> I saw this sentence, "I was trying to get people to see the need for >> fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, >> spending. Yet all anyone focused on was taxes." . . . > Firstly, it should be 'more importantly', as this is modifying the verb > 'encompassing'. . . . First, it would be a so-called sentence adverb, modifying not this or that verb but the clause/thought as a whole; the placement alone, if nothing else, shows that. Second, we are nowadays experiencing a dire plague of adverbs, whose monotonous --ly recurrences in English sentences do little for their felicity ("Firstly" is a fine example) and, often, nothing for their meaning; we need fewer, not more, so there is no cause to replace the old standard "more important", which is simply elliptical for "what is more important" with yet another the-more-syllables-the-better needless adverbial form. Third, the sentence wants a comma after "but", inasmuch as whatever form is used to denote the importance, it is parenthetic. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> I saw this sentence, "I was trying to get people to see the need for >>> fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, >>> spending. Yet all anyone focused on was taxes." . . . >> Firstly, it should be 'more importantly', as this is modifying the verb >> 'encompassing'. . . . > First, it would be a so-called sentence adverb, modifying not this or > that verb but the clause/thought as a whole; the placement alone, if > nothing else, shows that. I'd say that it modifies the verb. > Second, we are nowadays experiencing a dire plague of adverbs, whose > monotonous --ly recurrences in English sentences do little for their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > important" with yet another the-more-syllables-the-better needless > adverbial form. 'More important' sounds incorrect to me. Perhaps it is acceptable in American English, where the adverbial form sounds stilted to some? > Third, the sentence wants a comma after "but", inasmuch as whatever form > is used to denote the importance, it is parenthetic. Yes, I missed that. >>>> I saw this sentence, "I was trying to get people to see the need for >>>> fiscal restraint, encompassing not just taxes but more important, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'd say that it modifies the verb. Come to actually look, I'd reckon that "encompassing" is a participle modifying the noun phrase "not just taxes but, more important, spending"; the entire structure being that of a predicate appositive (where "restraint" is the base predicate). Compare the simpler "I was promoting fiscal restraint, encompassing revenue". >> Second, we are nowadays experiencing a dire plague of adverbs, whose >> monotonous --ly recurrences in English sentences do little for their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 'More important' sounds incorrect to me. Perhaps it is acceptable in > American English, where the adverbial form sounds stilted to some? My, how times change. Once upon a time well within living memory, "more importantly" would have stood out in any sentence like a skunk in a perfume shop, and the near-universal form was the simple "more important", understood as elliptical for "what is more important". One could, here or there, find an example of the "importantly" form (I never heard or saw it, but research by others turns up occasional examples), but it was very far from the norm. I grant that one can get quite a heated argument on this point, but so far as I can see those who argue for the adverbial form have lost track of the simple status of the adjectival form as an ellipsis. "Importantly" should be reserved for the really rather rare instances when "in an important manner" is what is actually meant: "The king's messenger strode importantly across the court to the throne." Here are some relevant web citations: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/importantly.html http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/03/19/most-important-not-most- importantly/ http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/adverbs.aspx [at "An ‘Important’ Point"] http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs3/grammarlogs422.htm That last is a double-header, in that it also discusses essentially the first point above, about participial modifier phrases. >> Third, the sentence wants a comma after "but", inasmuch as whatever >> form is used to denote the importance, it is parenthetic. > > Yes, I missed that. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> 'More important' sounds incorrect to me. Perhaps it is acceptable in >> American English, where the adverbial form sounds stilted to some? > My, how times change. Once upon a time well within living memory, "more > importantly" would have stood out in any sentence like a skunk in a > perfume shop, and the near-universal form was the simple "more > important", understood as elliptical for "what is more important". I see. I would prefer to use 'what is more important'. > I grant that one can get quite a heated argument on this point, but so > far as I can see those who argue for the adverbial form have lost track > of the simple status of the adjectival form as an ellipsis. We could take the argument back further and say that the elliptical form is incorrect :) Hi, > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Kevin in Hong Kong. 1) Not a native speaker 2) All respondents have said that anyone and everyone are interchangeable (which is probably right) 3) To the degree that there is any difference between "anyone" and "everyone", could it be that "everyone" is a determined set (like "everyone who ventured an opinion") while "anyone" would serve to indicate a .... variety of backgrounds... = "whoever they were, in terms of politcal affiliation or views on the fundamentals of economy (no matter the relative frequency of opinions voiced), they all focused on /.../ taxes"...? ... T |
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.