less than helpful --?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
darulaok - 09 Nov 2006 04:52 GMT Hi, everyone.
>From a dictionary, I got the following. less than helpful: not at all helpful In this dilemma, Eliot was less than helpful to his apologists.
The explanation for "less than helpful" is "not at all helpful". Dies it mean "completely unhelpful" or "not very helpful"?
Thanks for your comments.
dontbother - 09 Nov 2006 06:31 GMT > Hi, everyone. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The explanation for "less than helpful" is "not at all helpful". > Dies it mean "completely unhelpful" or "not very helpful"? "Not at all" means "completely un-". The implication is that if one is even the least bit helpful, then one is ungradedly helpful.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery."
Matthew Huntbach - 09 Nov 2006 09:33 GMT >>> From a dictionary, I got the following. >> less than helpful: not at all helpful >> In this dilemma, Eliot was less than helpful to his apologists. >> >> The explanation for "less than helpful" is "not at all helpful". >> Dies it mean "completely unhelpful" or "not very helpful"?
> "Not at all" means "completely un-". The implication is that if one > is even the least bit helpful, then one is ungradedly helpful. "Less than helpful" seems to me to imply a negative amount of help rather than just none. The implication is that misleading advice has been given, or something done which makes the problem worse than it was before, or something said which causes the person asking for help to feel upset.
Matthew Huntbach
Leslie Danks - 09 Nov 2006 09:58 GMT >>>> From a dictionary, I got the following. >>> less than helpful: not at all helpful [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > was before, or something said which causes the person asking for > help to feel upset. Yes, that's how I've always understood it.
 Signature Les
dontbother - 09 Nov 2006 12:22 GMT > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, dontbother wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > worse than it was before, or something said which causes the > person asking for help to feel upset. That's one way of looking at it, although in such a situation, I would probably say that "X was {decidedly unhelpful / the opposite of helpful}". If we imagine that someone is either helpful or not helpful, then "less than helpful" is a simple negative not laden with implications of deception, or "something said which causes the person asking for help to feel upset" (which sounds a bit like "hurtful" to me; hence, I find that it resembles a certain red Scandanavian fish more than a serious objection to anything), or even unintentionally misleading information.
As for the notion of "a negative amount of help", all I can say is "Hah! What an absurd description of 'a hinderance'." This is even funnier and intellectually crasser than the absurd blunderbluster "X is five times smaller than Y". Or maybe we should start calling women who have delivered babies recently "negatively pregnant", or those cured of diseases "negatively ill", or the recently redundant "negatively employed".
"Less than helpful" seems to me more idiomatic than not and so no open to such more or less logical analysis.
 Signature Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery."
Oleg Lego - 09 Nov 2006 06:43 GMT The darulaok entity posted thusly:
>>From a dictionary, I got the following. >less than helpful: not at all helpful >In this dilemma, Eliot was less than helpful to his apologists. > >The explanation for "less than helpful" is "not at all helpful". >Dies it mean "completely unhelpful" or "not very helpful"? Can there be degrees of helpful? Of course there can. However, "less than helpful" is not, by definition, included in the degrees of helpfulness. It is outside helpfulness. It is, therefore, "completely unhelpful", as well as "not at all helpful".
"not very helpful" would indicate that there was some degree of helpfulness present; how much we don't know
If I stopped to ask directions, and someone said "Follow this road until you get to the first traffic light, then turn left and go one block.", I would classify that as very helpful.
If the person said "Follow this road a ways, then turn right.", I would classify it as not very helpful, even though the directions are accurate, they are not explicit and clear.
If the person said "It's around here somewhere", I'd call that less than helpful, or unhelpful, or completely unhelpful.
Eric Walker - 09 Nov 2006 09:54 GMT > >From a dictionary, I got the following. > less than helpful: not at all helpful > In this dilemma, Eliot was less than helpful to his apologists. > > The explanation for "less than helpful" is "not at all helpful". > Dies it mean "completely unhelpful" or "not very helpful"? Dictionaries only have so much room for discussion of phrases, and when a phrase is idiomatic, some of the nuance can get lost.
"Was less than X" is a sarcasm roughly equal to "Was something much less than what one would call 'X'". What, in turn, "much less than" signifies depends on the degree of sarcasm intended, which can range from very mild to biting. One must simply try to judge from context.
To make a crude example, if a detective is questioning someone and feels he is being lied to on all significant matters, he might later--when reporting that--say that the subject was less than helpful; but if he tries to question someone and that person punches him or takes a shot at him, he could also later say that so-and-so was less than helpful, but--obviously--the degree of sarcasm is much greater.
The quoted sentence seems to mean that Eliot's conduct in or concerning the matter at issue was such as to make it especially hard for his apologists to justify it, probably meaning that it was flagrant or showed disdain for any critics of it.
"George Bush's first six years in office were less than helpful to the Republican party in the 2006 elections." Context is paramount.
Millicent Tendency - 09 Nov 2006 09:57 GMT >> >From a dictionary, I got the following. >> less than helpful: not at all helpful [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >"George Bush's first six years in office were less than helpful to the >Republican party in the 2006 elections." Context is paramount. Is there a name for this lame-o pussyfooty style of saying what's something wasn't ("less than helpful") rather than what it was ("a liability")?
If there isn't, how about "hypobole"?
 Signature Millicent Tendency (TEFKATHE)
Lars Eighner - 09 Nov 2006 10:49 GMT > Is there a name for this lame-o pussyfooty style of saying what's > something wasn't ("less than helpful") rather than what it was ("a > liability")?
> If there isn't, how about "hypobole"? This particular form of understatement is called litotes.
 Signature Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." -- Bush's Ambassador April Glaspie, giving Saddam Hussein the greenlight to invade Kuwait.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 09 Nov 2006 16:29 GMT >> Is there a name for this lame-o pussyfooty style of saying what's >> something wasn't ("less than helpful") rather than what it was ("a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This particular form of understatement is called litotes. I would've said that it was the opposite of litotes, which I think of as expressing a positive by denying a negative. "Not unhelpful" would be litotes, although an awkward one.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time?
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 09 Nov 2006 17:26 GMT > >> Is there a name for this lame-o pussyfooty style of saying what's > >> something wasn't ("less than helpful") rather than what it was ("a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as expressing a positive by denying a negative. "Not unhelpful" would > be litotes, although an awkward one. AHD says litotes is 'understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary (as in "not a bad singer" or "not unhappy").' Contraries aren't limited to negatives, so I'd say "not helpful" can be a litotes for "harmful". If that's right, the question is whether "less than" counts as a negative. Maybe it's an understatement for a negative, in which case "less than helpful" to mean "harmful" is a meiotic litotes.
 Signature Jerry Friedman hopes that is somewhat less than perfectly obscure.
Don Phillipson - 09 Nov 2006 14:04 GMT >From a dictionary, I got the following. > > less than helpful: not at all helpful > In this dilemma, Eliot was less than helpful to his apologists. > > The explanation for "less than helpful" is "not at all helpful". > Dies it mean "completely unhelpful" or "not very helpful"? You have missed the point -- which is not so much one of lexigraphy (dictionary meaning) but oratorical style viz. litotes (which you can look up.) It means implying XYZ by saying that it is not non-XYZ.
Litotes can also be employed as an intensifier. If your friend was a pathological liar you might say he did not often tell the truth -- meaning he always lied. T.S. Eliot engaged in literary polemics but was so vain he believed he could win any argument alone -- thus was "less than helpful" to his partisans. President Bush's recent attempt to get a new Republican governor elected in Florida was judged by Floridians to be less than helpful to his candidate -- meaning that Bush's intervention actually harmed the candidate.
 Signature Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson - 09 Nov 2006 16:18 GMT > Litotes can also be employed as an intensifier. If > your friend was a pathological liar you might say he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than helpful to his candidate -- meaning that Bush's > intervention actually harmed the candidate. Inexcusably I forgot the most notorious modern example. Giving evidence approx. 1985 before an Australian court concerned with espionage and security, the secretary of the British cabinet was caught lying, at least by omission. When challenged, he said he was being "economical with the truth."
 Signature Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Peter Duncanson - 09 Nov 2006 17:46 GMT >> Litotes can also be employed as an intensifier. If >> your friend was a pathological liar you might say he [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >at least by omission. When challenged, he said >he was being "economical with the truth." Another version in use in the UK, particularly in political comment, is "economical with la vérité" (usually spelled "verite").
The former British defence minister Alan Clark used his own version in court. He admitted that he had been "economic with the actualité".
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
|
|
|