 |
 | 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 2010Re: not sooner grammar
On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: > "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote > > > Think of "No sooner said than done" > > > Well, do you set 'No sooner said than done' at the same footing > > as the ordinary comparative sentence, for one, like, > > 'Done no sooner than said'? > > I've never heard that one. > > Ok. How about this one? > > 'No sooner than said, it was performed'. > > --Principles of English Grammar > by J.N. Patrick Nope. Whst is 'Nope? Isn't it the same as 'It was performed no sooner than said'? Well, what about this? Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again, no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup. This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume) A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen > On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume) > A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen "Nope" is an emphatic slang form of "no". She knew that Maud would be off again, immediately after she had taken her nose out of the cup. > On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: >> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> --Principles of English Grammar >> by J.N. Patrick > Nope. > Whst is 'Nope? > Isn't it the same as 'It was performed no sooner than said'? No, it is exactly the opposite. It is same as "done as soon as said" or "It was performed as soon as said" or "It was said no sooner than it was done." Of course this is almost never literally true. (It might be literally true when the request, command, or whatever was said has been anticipated.) > Well, what about this? > Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again, > no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup. What about it? The only question is whether the second 'she' and the 'her' refer to Maud or to the first 'she.' Is it: 1) no sooner than Maud had taken her nose out of the cup than Maud would be off again or 2) no sooner had she taken her nose out of the cup than she knew Maud would be off again ? 2) might be literally true. 1) would be the usual exaggeration mean Maud would leave very quickly after drinking the tea. > This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume) > A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen  SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 37 894.7 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II. Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change. > 2) might be literally true. 1) would be the usual exaggeration mean Maud > would leave very quickly after drinking the tea. Or (re)commence talking in a way that had previously irritated or bored or which was predictable. When my father started saying stuff like "When I was a boy, I knew the meaning of hard work!" etc, my mother or sister or aunt would say "He's off again!" This is fairly widepread colloquial usage. > chance broadcast on alt.usage.english: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 2) might be literally true. 1) would be the usual exaggeration > mean Maud would leave very quickly after drinking the tea. The usual phrasing would be "... as soon as she had taken her nose out of the cup". It seems to me that the author was using the negative form to emphasise Maud's preoccupation with what she was doing. She would be off again, but only after (not before, 'no sooner than') she was finished drinking. I have never read anything by Ms Sackville-West, but I wonder if the cup contained only tea. >> This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume) >> A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen >> chance broadcast on alt.usage.english: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > would be off again, but only after (not before, 'no sooner than') she > was finished drinking. You are a genius. You know the anatomy of the English langauge. Thank you for confirming the grammaticality of 'Done no sooner than said'. > I have never read anything by Ms Sackville-West, but I wonder if the > cup contained only tea. >>> This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume) >>> A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen > You are a genius. You know the anatomy of the English langauge. > Thank you for confirming the grammaticality of 'Done no sooner than said'. You have no interest in learning. English will not conform to your ideology. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 38 919.7 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II. Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change. >>> chance broadcast on alt.usage.english: >>> >>>> [Think of "No sooner said than done"] [...] > You are a genius. You know the anatomy of the English langauge. > Thank you for confirming the grammaticality of 'Done no sooner than > said'. You are almost too kind. I wasn't speaking to that question, though. As to the grammaticality of "Done no sooner than said", I agree that it is grammatically correct; but it isn't used much, because it doesn't mean anything very useful. Many people have already commented at length on that point. Here's another try: "no sooner than" and "as soon as" are two sides of the same coin. "Bill is no older than Chris" is parallel to "Chris is as old as Bill". Similarly, to say that something is "no sooner said than done" is another way of saying that it is "done as soon as (it is) said". "No sooner said than done" is an idiom, in the sense that it is a set expression meaning that an order is obeyed instantly, "as soon as" it is given. Other things that make it idiomatic are the inverted word order and the uncommon use of the word "said" to mean "ordered", or at least "spoken of". In my opinion, the phrase itself is grammatically correct, but its interpretation is idiomatic because the phrase is used as a whole to convey a special meaning, as I said above. The reversed phrase that you proposed, "done no sooner than said", would mean the same as "said as soon as done". That's not ungrammatical, but isn't often used, because there isn't much need for it. I suppose that, if I saw it written, I would understand it to mean that something was spoken of as soon as it was done. The crime was reported as soon as it was committed: it was done no sooner than it was said. That last expansion of your phrase points up the most important reason for calling the common phrase (no sooner said than done) idiomatic: people say it, and know what it means. People don't say "done no sooner than said", and would be puzzled to understand what it means. I don't think I will be able to carry this discussion further. My piece is no sooner said than I am done. >>>> chance broadcast on alt.usage.english: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I don't think I will be able to carry this discussion further. My > piece is no sooner said than I am done. Thanks. >On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: >> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> --Principles of English Grammar >> by J.N. Patrick "No sooner than" is an idiom meaning "as soon as" or "immediately". It is classified as an idiom because the meaning is not the literal meaning of the words. The Longman Dictionary of English Idioms explains: "no sooner said than done" something that one has been asked to do will be done as soon as the request or command is made. That phrase is used as "an expression of willingness to do something". >Nope. > >Whst is 'Nope? Nope is the opposite of Yep (which are colloquial versions of No and Yes). >Isn't it the same as 'It was performed no sooner than said'? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume) >A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen It means "she knew that Maud would be off again, as soon as (immediately) she had taken her nose out of the cup". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > >On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: > >> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > It means "she knew that Maud would be off again, as soon as > (immediately) she had taken her nose out of the cup". ATTENTION all participants in this thread. Chance Kim is almost as obsessed by "no sooner" as our friend Daniel is by the word meaning "very infrequently encountered." As evidence, I offer this thread from 2003, which is hardly the only one: <http://tinyurl.com/ye9cnjo>. God knows how many electrons have died that he might pursue his chimera. Chance has no interest in understanding the proper and idiomatic use of "no sooner." He wants, rather, to browbeat everyone into agreeing with him even though he has no grasp of how the phrase works in everyday language. Proceed at your peril. SignatureBob Lieblich The Voice of Experience >> >On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: >> >> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Proceed at your peril. Tell me, Bob. What is wrong with asking a question seeking an answer? Remember, you had asked for a fee for answering my question with regard to 'no sooner than'. I have been trying to find an answer for the question without paying the fee. You always paint some grammatically problematic sentences or phrases as 'idioms'. Your designated 'idioms' are, then, above and beyond grammar? Rather than blaming others for posting somewhat tough questions, you'd better wonder how to help solve them, contributing to the cause of this group, and how to stop dictating who is good or bad for this place as if you own it. [ ... ] > > Chance has no interest in understanding the proper and idiomatic use > > of "no sooner." He wants, rather, to browbeat everyone into agreeing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tell me, Bob. What is wrong with asking a question seeking an answer? Nothing, as long as the question has a possible answer. Yours doesn't. > Remember, you had asked for a fee for answering my question with regard to 'no sooner than'. No, I said I wasn't going to waste any more of my time on your question, because the research effort you wanted from me was equal to what I would ordinarily charge for. I never asked you for a fee, and I wouldn't have accepted one if you'd offered. The issue about which we had this little dialogue was, in any event, a digression that had nothing to do with the basic issue of "no wooner." I see that your grasp of English idiom has failed you yet again. > I have been trying to find an answer for the question without paying the fee. I have never wanted a fee from you. Why should I take money from you when I already know that I cannot find you the answer you want? Your question is nonsense. It assumes "facts" about usage that are falsehoods, not facts. You don't want the truth -- you want acquiescence, surrender even. I've never offered that to you, free or paid. > You always paint some grammatically problematic sentences or phrases as 'idioms'. > Your designated 'idioms' are, then, above and beyond grammar? Of course. What do you think "idiom" means? Ray Wise explained this to you years ago. (Well, let's say he gave it a good try; you never seem to accept the explanation, no matter how correct.) > Rather than blaming others for posting somewhat tough questions, It's not a tough question, Chance, it's a nonsense question, on a par with asking why an eggplant doesn't have a yolk. > you'd better wonder > how to help solve them, contributing to the cause of this group, and how to stop > dictating who is good or bad for this place as if you own it. I'm not dictating. (*You* are dictating. You're telling me how to behave. I'm not trying to change your behavior -- I have no reason to think I can) I'm rxpressing an opinion -- of you and your obsession. No one is obliged to agree with me. If they find my opinion unpersuasive, they are free to disregard it. But they are also free to heed my warning and stop wasting time on you. I think my opinion has value as an explanation of your nigh incomprehensible conduct and a warning to others. . . . Chance, you won't listen to reason, and you won't accept what you're told no matter how many people tell you. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with "no sooner" that you have gone back to it over and over again over the past decade just in the newsgroups. I have ceased trying to reason with you because you can't be reasoned with. All I've attempted to do in my latest possts is help people come sooner to the realization that trying to explain to you the usage (and what matters is usage, not grammar) of the phrase with which you are so obsessed is a waste of time and effort. Anyway, the warning's been posted. Caveat poster. SignatureBob Lieblich Yeah, why doesn't an eggplant have a yolk? > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Anyway, the warning's been posted. Caveat poster. Let it be known simply that you believe the 'no sooner than' structure is beyond grammar because it is what you call an idiom, while I believe sentences, whatever some of them you may call, are not beyond grammar. Objects are over there. Why can't you seize them? [addressing yfc] > Let it be known simply that you believe the 'no sooner than' structure is beyond grammar > because it is what you call an idiom, while I believe sentences, whatever some of them > you may call, are not beyond grammar. Objects are over there. Why can't you seize them? You have accurately stated my "belief" in this matter. I don't see why you think you're scoring points by simply repeating what I say. I assume you have accurately stated yours "bel;ief." As many people have fruitlessly tried to tell you in one way or another, your "belief," correct or not, is irrelevant, for the reason that my belief is correct. As for seizing objects, I understand that to be a metaphor, and I have no problem with doing so as an abstract notion -- but when the object is poisonous to the touch, or offensive in some gross manner, I hope I am free not to seize it. That is the case here. No matter how many variations you may spin on "no sooner," the point is not which ones you can wedge into some category that you call (Not to mention that much of what you think "grammatical" isn't -- and that it all depends on what the meaning of "grammaticalty" is.) What matters is whether the particular locution under discussion is part of English as it is actually used -- grammatical of not. Indeed, to get back to that parenthetical sentence that may look facetious but isn't, many linguists take the position that usage governs grammaticality -- that if a given locution is common in English, a way must be found to include it within the scope of English grammar. (Alternatively, if it is common and doesn't fit someone else's differing notion of grammar, it's an idiom in the sense in which I use "idiom." It doesn't help that the definitional terms themselves have different meanings. At one end of that scale, there's a book of almost two thousand pages (two volumes), by the name of "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," whose purpose is to construct a grammar around English as actually used. At the other end, apparently, is Chance Kim. When you ask someone to construct a grammatical explanation of a phrase or clause that is almost never used seriously by a native speaker, you may be asking the impossible. If no one uses it, then in one sense at least it's ungrammatical by definition. Keep this up and you'll overtake and pass Daniel. SignatureBob Lieblich Enjoying the exercise -- to a point > [addressing yfc] > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," whose purpose is to > construct a grammar around English as actually used. Rubbish. Well, have you ever checked that book to see if it dismissed the no soooner than structure as to be beyond grammar because it is an idiom as you know it, let alone any authoratative grammars? If you have, name one. At the other > end, apparently, is Chance Kim. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Keep this up and you'll overtake and pass Daniel. Remember the miserableness the onlookers expereienced when you blubbered incoherently nonsense. >> [addressing yfc] >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > idiom as you know it, let alone any authoratative grammars? > If you have, name one. Compound modifiers generally need to be hyphenated, so make it "no-sooner-than structure". Bill in Kentucky [ ... ] > > Indeed, to get back to that parenthetical sentence that may look > > facetious but isn't, many linguists take the position that usage [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > because it is an idiom as you know it, let alone any authoratative grammars? > If you have, name one. Ah, once again I am invited to conduct a research project for your enlightenment. It's deja vu all over again. Okay, I'm haven't knocked myself out, but here are a few links. Enjoy: "IDIOMS: no sooner than" <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/soon> "No sooner said than done - idiom Accomplished immediately, as in He said we should leave and, no sooner said than done. This expression employs no sooner ... than in the sense of at once, a usage dating from the mid-1500s." <http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/no-sooner-said-than-done>, quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms. "GoEnglish.com teaches the meanings and uses of English idioms, idiomatic phrases and expressions such as no sooner said than done (...). Our goal for the lesson 'Today's Idiom = No Sooner Said Than Done' is for you to completely understand what no sooner said than done means, and to feel confident using 'no sooner said than done' correctly in conversation." <http://www.goenglish.com/Idioms/No+Sooner+Said+Than+Done.asp> The lesson itself must be paid for, and I'm not going to spend my own money for your benefit, but you might want to look at it. "Idioms . . . NO SOONER WHEN/NO SOONER THAN The phrase, 'No sooner had Paula stopped petting the cat when it began to yowl' should be instead, 'No sooner had Paula stopped petting the cat than it began to yowl.' <http://catindiaonline.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/idioms-gmat-sentence-correction-n otes-iii/> As for what idiom is: "idiom . . . 1 A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on. 2 The specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a given language." <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/idiom>, quoting AHD. Both definitions apply here. "idi·om noun 1.the language or dialect of a people, region, class, etc. 2.the usual way in which the words of a particular language are joined together to express thought 3.a phrase, construction, or expression that is recognized as a unit in the usage of a given language and either differs from the usual syntactic patterns or has a meaning that differs from the literal meaning of its parts taken together (Ex.: not a word did she say; she heard it straight from the horse's mouth)" <http://www.yourdictionary.com/idiom> Note in particular No. 3: "differs from the usual syntactic pattern." . . . . Now, if you consider that "no sooner said than done" is regarded as an idiom and that "idiom" means what the dictionary says it means, you might actually be able to get it through your think skull that you can't use "no sooner" as a free-floating phrase anywhere you please. In particular, in contexts where it sounds wrong to native speakers, it IS wrong, precisely because it sounds wrong. There's nothing grammatically wrong, for example, with saying "I am capable to play the piano" except that native English speakers don't say that. They say either "I am capable of playing ..." or "I am able to ...," but not "I am capable to ..." Therefore, "I am capable to ..." is unidiomatic, and being unidiomatic it is WRONG. In English usage, as Bun Mui might say. (And let's not forget that for many linguists, that which sounds wrong to the great mass of native speakers is, by definition, grammatically wrong. They would say that the grammar of English allows "of" and the present participle with "capable" but not "to" with the infinitive. I happen to sympathize with this usage of defining terms, but it's not necessary to my point.) I'm confident that none of this will do any good, but it's more fun than poking myself in the eye with a stick. No charge for the research. SignatureBob Lieblich Any linguists still paying attention? > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > than poking myself in the eye with a stick. No charge for the > research. Sure enough. The linguists, whom you know as such, may not, but others will. >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> Ah, once again I am invited to conduct a research project for your >> enlightenment. I almost forgot. Hasn't the question get through your think skull yet? Have you ever seen such a book as you have claimed as ' whose purpose is to construct a grammar around English as actually used' yet? Answer me. If not, you are a derelict and a liar. It's deja vu all over again. Okay, I'm haven't >> knocked myself out, but here are a few links. Enjoy: >> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >> than poking myself in the eye with a stick. No charge for the >> research. How pitiful you are that all that you can muster with your think skull is just it that you believe it something! > Sure enough. The linguists, whom you know as such, may not, > but others will. [ ... ] > Have you ever seen such a book as you have claimed > as ' whose purpose is to construct a grammar around English > as actually used' yet? Answer me. If not, you are a derelict > and a liar. The best-known current grammar of that sort is "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," by Huddlestone and Pullum. You can find it at amazon.com: <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=p ullum+cambridge+grammar&x=10&y=25>. . You can read the authors' own description of the book here: <http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Grammar-English-Language/dp/ 0521431468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263171093&sr=1-1>; tinyURL version: <http://tinyurl.com/yaynemv>. The earlier English grammar by George Curme adheres to the same principles. Here's an excerpt from the introduction (copied by me from the book; I don't think it's online): "The purpose of the treatise is to describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express thought." The entire introduction is enlightening, even from the perspective of aomost 85 years ago, but as I said, I can't find it online. Why don't you buy a copy of the book (both volumes)? It's pretty cheap on Amazon, and it offers solid proof of what I've been telling you. The Cambridge Grammar is even better for this purpose, if only because it's so recent, but it isn't cheap. Needless to say, there are other books that undertake the same task -- a grammar describing the English language as actually used -- but Cambridge is the best current one, and Curme is a classic. I'd say those two suffice to acquit me of the charges of dereliction and lying. What? -- You think I'm making this stuff up? [snip lots of examples of "no sooner" treated as idiom, along with several definitions of the term "idiom"] > How pitiful you are that all that you can muster with your think skull > is just it that you believe it something! How pitiful that you thick so. Even more pitiable is your inability to confess error. This isn't a matter of belief; it's a matter of what is reality. The citations I gave you say what I am saying. If you're too thick ("think" was a typo, of course) to grasp that, at least offer something to the contrary said by someone other than you. I don't think the burden of proof is on me anymore. What have you got -- beyond bluster, that is? SignatureBob Lieblich Helmet tightly affixed > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I don't think the burden of proof is on me anymore. What have you got > -- beyond bluster, that is? Are you so thick that you can't see every sentence is subject to scrutiny? Curme dealt with the no sooner than structure by saying: I had no sooner done it than (still with temporal force as originally) I regretted it. Have you ever seen his books yet, your mentioning him notwithstanding? By the way, thanks for seasonal greetings. The same to you. I am coming into this late, and suspect that I am treading where angels fear to go, but could someone please state, succinctly, what the nub of the issue is? I have read all the posts my reader displays for this thread, and that base point is still unclear to me. I will, however, for now make a guess that it is whether or not the phrase "no sooner said than done" follows ordinary grammar or is idiomatic. I gather that a representative sentence here would be "The thing was no sooner said than done," or something much like. Let's start by considering a simpler sentence: speaking of some difficult task, one might say "That's sooner said than done." In such a casting, "soon" has the sense of "in the near future; shortly". It says that the thing in question can be said sooner--more quickly, implying more readily or easily--than it can be done; the "than" has its temporal sense, deriving from the older "then". That casting is not idiom because nothing in it is being used in a way at any notable angle from its normal use, and even one not familiar with English idioms should have no trouble extracting its sense. As the cited Dr. Curme put it, "'Than' is now used with [its older] temporal force only after 'no sooner'; where, however, it is quite natural since it follows a comparative." Note that "quite natural". From there, it is no great leap to "It was no sooner said than done." The "no" simply means "not"; again from Curme, "This [No] form is often used as a regular adverb, instead of 'not', before a comparative and sometimes elsewhere: He is no more to be trusted than you are." So the sentence is effectively "It was not sooner said than done," which in turn is elliptical for "It was not sooner said than [it was] done." That has the simple and rather clear meaning, without resort to idiom, that it was done as quickly as it was said. Granted, the direct interpretation means that the thing was done literally at the same instant as it was "said"--that is, as it was proposed or asked for; but I don't think a rather simple metaphorical interpretation requires resort to the class "idiom" for justification. If we say, oh, that so-and-so has an uphill battle before him, we are not required to invoke idiom to justify a reality that so-and-so is not engaged in martial combat with a person or persons physically elevated from him. Likewise with a remark that an act was performed in the same instant it was suggested or requested: we need not choose between a dead literal interpretation and "idiom". Was any of that on point? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > I am coming into this late, and suspect that I am treading where angels > fear to go, but could someone please state, succinctly, what the nub of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > idiomatic. I gather that a representative sentence here would be "The > thing was no sooner said than done," or something much like. [snip further discussion] > Was any of that on point? Not quite, but helpful anyway. Peter T. Daniels seems to have figured tthis thing out. Chance seems to know what the problem is, but he won't accept the only rational solution. The problem, simply put, is that Chance thinks --and for many years has thought -- that "no sooner" can be used not only in its idiomatic casting, with "than," but in a whole other collection of phrasings that are unidiomatic -- or, as Daniels the Linguist says, ungrammatical. It doesn't help that Chance seems incapable of understanding the two somewhat disparate meanings of "idiom" as (1) A phrase whose meaning is not the sum of the individual words; and (2) The standard ways in which a given language phrases things, the latter exemplified by my "capable to learn"/"able of learning" example. Contrary to all my professional training, I have allowed Chance to bait me into trying to prove myself right and him wrong. He's been clever enough not to respond in kind, choosing instead to assign straw men to me and attack them. So I amass all these citations proving that I am right, and he responds with beside-the-point vitriol, generating such heat that his own grammar fails him. Peter Daniels, a professional linguist, has beaten Chance quite thorougnly over the head in a recent post, and it's probably time to declare victory and go home. But thanks for joining in. Words of wisdom never hurt. None of this will stop Chance, of course. SignatureBob Lieblich Too fatigued to sig > I am coming into this late, and suspect that I am treading where angels > fear to go, but could someone please state, succinctly, what the nub of > the issue is? I have read all the posts my reader displays for this > thread, and that base point is still unclear to me. I'd summarise it as follows. Chance understands, correctly, that there are some idiomatically correct English-language locutions of the form "No sooner X than Y". On this basis, Chance has constructed some other sentences containing "no sooner" that seem to make sense to him/her. So far, so good. Someone learning a second or later language will, on seeing a certain construct, attempt to extrapolate it to new situations. I've done this myself. It's one way of improving our knowledge of the language. We try these new combinations, and then ask whether native speakers understand and accept them. Where the discussion has gone off the rails has been when Chance has proposed a sample sentence, and native speakers of English have said that the example is not idiomatically correct English. It then boils down to an argument where (a) Chance has suggested that a certain utterance could be correct English. (b) Various native speakers have said that the example utterance is not correct English. (c) Chance has asserted that the native speakers are wrong. In other words, it keeps turning into a debate as to whether native speakers of English understand their own language. Various people have chipped in with their own opinion. As I recall it, we've had at least one linguist, a couple of grammarians; and, most of all, many owners of "native speaker intuition". They have all disagreed with Chance. The new question, then, is whether Chance understands English better than all of the above. Laura S, IIRC, has suggested that Bob L is hitting his head against a brick wall when he's attempted to explain the matter to Chance. I'm inclined to agree. There's correctable ignorance, and then again there's invincible ignorance. (The English language really needs a new word that's a combination of arrogance and ignorance. On the other hand, "invincible ignorance" seems to do the job already.) Aside to Chance: if you think I have the above summary wrong, you're welcome to rebut my points. But if you limit yourself to ad hominem attacks, as you've done with other people, you won't score any points. [Yes, I know that the preceding paragraph is a difficult one for a non-native speaker of English to understand, even though native speakers will understand it. I make no apology for this. It's clear that Chance is a very advanced learner of English, someone who can understand the words I've used. Which makes it all the more surprising that he/she keeps failing to understand expert opinion.] SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > (The English language really needs a new word that's a combination of > arrogance and ignorance. On the other hand, "invincible ignorance" seems > to do the job already.) Another of our nonnative speakers long ago created the useful term "ignarrogant." Presumably the all-caps he uses aren't entirely necessary for the full effect. >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> those two suffice to acquit me of the charges of dereliction and >> lying. What? -- You think I'm making this stuff up? I almost forgot. Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express thought'? Name the source, from which what you describe as an enlightening introduction comes. If you can't, you are a liar. >> [snip lots of examples of "no sooner" treated as idiom, along with >> several definitions of the term "idiom"] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > By the way, thanks for seasonal greetings. The same to you. [...] > Where did you copy Curme say, 'The purpose of the treatise is to > describe fully the parts of speech and their changes of form to express > thought'? Name the source, from which what you describe as an > enlightening introduction comes. If you can't, you are a liar. If you're looking yourself and not finding, be aware that Curme's great work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume > set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version. Thanks. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume > set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version. Is there any evidence that vol. 1 of the work, Hans Kurath's treatment of English phonology, ever appeared? [...] > Is there any evidence that vol. 1 of the work, Hans Kurath's treatment > of English phonology, ever appeared? Before I finish this post, I'll check Google a bit, but I'm pretty sure it did not. Several search results refer to Kurath and Curme, but at least the Verbatim Press reprint of Volume II (my Volume I copy is still on order) makes no reference to Kurath in the front pages. The Brittanica's Curme article referes to "the third and second volumes respectively of A Grammar of the English Language by Curme and Hans Kurath", but their article on Kurath makes no mention at all of the work. Questia turns up what appears to be a list of the three volumes of the work, but the actual contents displayed start with Curme's established work. Wikipedia's Kurath article is likewise silent on that book. Google books refers to the three volumes, but has information only on the supposed second and third. In sum, it seems it never saw light. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > work is to be found in multiple versions, from the full-blown, two-volume > set to the condensed (but still highly useful) "College Outline" version. I thought I made it clear that I was quoting directly from the book -- Curme's grammar, written by him -- because I could not find the text onine. Chance's facility with English seems to vary in proportion to the degree of his outrage. So, lest any doubt remain: Chance -- I copied the quotation in question directly and verbatim from the Introduction written by Curme and appearing at the beginning of Volume 1 of his complete two-volume grammar of the English language. I have both volumes in my bookcase at home. I cannot cite an appearance of Curme's introduction on the Web because I cannot find one. I told you previously, and repeat, that the entire two-volume work is available on the Web, and it would do you a great deal of good to purchase a copy (which you can do relatively cheaply) and study it -- starting with the introduction. If you simply want to confirm the accuracy of my quotation, just find the book in a library. What bizarre twist of your mind leads you to accuse me of making this stuff up? I'm not. What I *am* doing is bearing out Laura's comment. In fact, I'm going to have to replace my very beat-up helmet if this keeps up. SignatureBob Lieblich Whose helmets are not made of tin >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of Volume 1 of his complete two-volume grammar of the English > language. I have both volumes in my bookcase at home. Sorry for doubting your claim about the case of copying part of Curme's introduction. The citation sounded familiar to me somewhat, though I thought that is irrelevant to the points of contetnion between us. I cannot cite > an appearance of Curme's introduction on the Web because I cannot find > one. I told you previously, and repeat, that the entire two-volume [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In fact, I'm going to have to replace my very beat-up helmet if this > keeps up. >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> In fact, I'm going to have to replace my very beat-up helmet if this >> keeps up. Let it be known, however, that I am leaving the debate at that, forgoing pursuing it till the issue is being put to rest, out of not the fault of my foolishness, which may have been taken to be so in view of overlooking your glossing over and evading points of contention but out of the sense of the wisdom of not following the policy of taking no prisoners. [...] > I told you previously, and repeat, that the entire two-volume work is > available on the Web, and it would do you a great deal of good to > purchase a copy (which you can do relatively cheaply) and study it -- > starting with the introduction. . . . I believe you can get the pair, in decent shape, for about $25 (plus shipping). But if that's pricey, the shortened "College Outline Series" paperback is a perfectly satisfactory alternative and is priced so low that the shipping will doubtless be more than the book price. (The COS version does not leave out much, if any, actual text: it was created largely, if I understand it aright, by dropping some of the many copious examples of usages that Curme gives in the full version. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > largely, if I understand it aright, by dropping some of the many copious > examples of usages that Curme gives in the full version. Thanks. > Now, if you consider that "no sooner said than done" is regarded as an > idiom and that "idiom" means what the dictionary says it means, you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > grammatically wrong, for example, with saying "I am capable to play > the piano" except that native English speakers don't say that. They Of course it's grammatically wrong! > say either "I am capable of playing ..." or "I am able to ...," but > not "I am capable to ..." Therefore, "I am capable to ..." is > unidiomatic, and being unidiomatic it is WRONG. In English usage, as > Bun Mui might say. It's not "unidiomatic" in the sense of "idiom" that chance cannot grasp. > (And let's not forget that for many linguists, that which sounds wrong > to the great mass of native speakers is, by definition, grammatically [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Bob Lieblich > Any linguists still paying attention?- Of course. For some reason, (s)he crossposted to sci.lang. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Anyway, the warning's been posted. Caveat poster. What a funny joke that is falling flat! chance wrote (09-01-2010 05:37): > Tell me, Bob. What is wrong with asking a question seeking an answer? > Remember, you had asked for a fee for answering my question with regard > to 'no sooner than'. > I have been trying to find an answer for the question without paying the > fee. Miser. |
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.