Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Article <-> Section

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Fiance - 12 Nov 2006 12:39 GMT
In general opinion, what is a smaller component of a contract: an
article or a section? In other words, is an article a part of a
subsection/section, or is a section part of an article?

Also, is a paragraph a part of an article?
dontbother - 12 Nov 2006 12:46 GMT
> In general opinion, what is a smaller component of a contract: an
> article or a section? In other words, is an article a part of a
> subsection/section, or is a section part of an article?
>
> Also, is a paragraph a part of an article?

The contract should be clear about that. It ought to clearly state
the heirarchy by mentioning one of them first and indenting the more
inclusive portion less than the included portions. I would imagine
that it goes like this:

CONTRACT

 Section One

   Article I
     
     Paragraph 1.
     Paragraph 2.

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."

Tony Cooper - 12 Nov 2006 13:54 GMT
>> In general opinion, what is a smaller component of a contract: an
>> article or a section? In other words, is an article a part of a
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>      Paragraph 1.
>      Paragraph 2.

I would use "Article 1, Section 1" with the Section a subdivision of
the Article.  However, the point is that - as you say - the contract
sets out the order.   The writer of the contract determines the
terminology for the divisions of the contract.

I wouldn't use "Paragraph" as a division title since either an Article
or a Section may contain more than one paragraph.  Using "Paragraph"
could lead to a question about what is meant in "paragraph two of
Paragraph 1".

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Millicent Tendency - 12 Nov 2006 14:26 GMT
>>> In general opinion, what is a smaller component of a contract: an
>>> article or a section? In other words, is an article a part of a
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>could lead to a question about what is meant in "paragraph two of
>Paragraph 1".

Current BrE usage is rather messier er I mean more flexible than that,
with "section", "clause" and "article" being in practice pretty much
interchangeable. However, in certain circumstances, one is preferred
over the other by convention -- although not in a nesting way, by
which I mean that articles are not necessarily larger chunks of text
than articles or clauses. For example, laws, rules and regulations
tend to be divided into "sections" (usually subdividided into
"subsections" and grouped, if at all, into "parts"), although
constitutions, treaties, conventions, orders, decrees, directives and
protocols often do have "articles" (as do -- logically enough --
articles of association), which may be grouped into "parts" or perhaps
"chapters". Many contracts, however, refer only to "clauses" and have
done with it.

See? Like I said -- it's messy. That said, if you're in doubt (for
example, when translating), you're unlikely to be criticised if you
follow the "part/section/subsection" format. (At least that's what
I've been doing for the last ten years and I've never been called to
task for it!)

As for your question about paragraphs, they're not really any more
valid in legal documents than "sentences" or "phrases" are as official
divisions of the text. So, to avoid confusion, it's a good idea to
number them ordinally rather than cardinally when using them to
delimit a piece of text -- as in "under the provisions set out in the
third paragraph of subsection 8.4(f) herein...".

Signature

Millicent Tendency
(TEFKATHE)

dontbother - 12 Nov 2006 15:24 GMT
>>> In general opinion, what is a smaller component of a contract:
>>> an article or a section? In other words, is an article a part
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> "Paragraph" could lead to a question about what is meant in
> "paragraph two of Paragraph 1".

I had some fat US laws in mind, and the US Code in particular.
Title IX, for example, is part of TITLE 20 USC[1]. It labels only
sections 1681-1688 in the excerpt below, but it does mention
"subsection (a)". Everything else is a numbered or lettered
paragraph that has to be referred to as, for example, Title 20 USC
Sect. 168 (a)(7)(B)(ii). I think that laws and constitutions as
well as complex contracts in the US generally number and/or letter
all their paragraphs just to avoid the easily avoidable problem of
having to mention a paragraph within a paragraph. In the contracts
that I've written for my schools and for my wife's companies, I
numbered and lettered everything just so there wouldn't be any
referencing problems.

[1] http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972

(Title 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1688)

-- Privacy and Security Statement --
-- DISCLAIMER --

Section 1681. Sex

(a) Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions. No person in
the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance, except that:

(1) Classes of educational institutions subject to prohibition

in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section
shall apply only to institutions of vocational education,
professional education, and graduate higher education, and to
public institutions of undergraduate higher education;

(2) Educational institutions commencing planned change in
admissions

in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section
shall not apply (A) for one year from June 23, 1972, nor for six
years after June 23, 1972, in the case of an educational
institution which has begun the process of changing from being an
institution which admits only students of one sex to being an
institution which admits students of both sexes, but only if it is
carrying out a plan for such a change which is approved by the
Secretary of Education or (B) for seven years from the date an
educational institution begins the process of changing from being
an institution which admists only students of one sex to being an
institution which admits students of both sexes, but only if it is
carrying out a plan for such a change which is approved by the
Secretary of Education, whichever is the later;

(3) Educational institutions of religious organizations with
contrary religious tenets

this section shall not apply to any educational institution which
is controlled by a religious organization if the application of
this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenents
of such organization;

(4) Educational institutions training individuals for military
services or merchant marine

this section shall not apply to an educational institution whose
primary purpose is the training of individuals for the military
services of the United States, or the merchant marine;

(5) Public educational institutions with traditional and continuing
admissions policy

in regard to admissions this section shall not apply to any public
institution of undergraduate higher education which is an
institution that traditionally and continually from its
establishment has had a policy of admitting only students of one
sex;

(6) Social fraternities or sororities; voluntary youth service
organizations

this section shall not apply to membership practices --

(A) of a social fraternity or social sorority which is exempt from
taxation under section 501(a) of Title 26, the active membership of
which consists primarily of students in attendance at an
institution of higher education, or

(B) of the Young Men's Christian Association, Young Women's
Christian Association; Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls,
and voluntary youth service organizations which are so exempt, the
membership of which has traditionally been limited to persons of
one sex and principally to persons of less than nineteen years of
age;

(7) Boy or Girl conferences

this section shall not apply to--

(A) any program or activity of the American Legion undertaken in
connection with the organization or operation of any Boys State
conference, Boys Nation conference, Girls State conference, or
Girls Nation conference; or

(B) any program or activity of any secondary school or educational
institution specifically for--

(i) the promotion of any Boys State conference, Boys Nation
conference, Girls State conference, or Girls Nation conference; or

(ii) the selection of students to attend any such conference;

(8) Father-son or mother-daughter activities at educational
institutions

this section shall not preclude father-son or mother-daughter
activities at an educational institution, but if such activities
are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably
comparable activities shall be provided for students of the other
sex; and

(9) Institutions of higher education scholarship awards in
"beauty" pageants

this section shall not apply with respect to any scholarship or
other financial assistance awarded by an institution of higher
education to any individual because such individual has received
such award in any pageant in which the attainment of such award is
based upon a combination of factors related to the personal
appearance, poise, and talent of such individual and in which
participation is limited to individuals of one sex only, so long as
such pageant is in compliance with other nondiscrimination
provisions of Federal law.

(b) Preferential or disparate treatment because of imbalance in
participation or receipt of Federal benefits; statistical evidence
of imbalance.

Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be
interpreted to require any educational institution to grant
preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on
account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total
number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or
receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or
activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of
persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other
area: Provided, that this subsection shall not be construed to
prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this
chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an
imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt
of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of
one sex.

(c) Educational institution defined.

For the purposes of this chapter an educational institution means
any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school,
or any institution of vocational, professional, or higher
education, except that in the case of an educational institution
composed of more than one school, college, or department which are
administratively separate units, such term means each such school,
college or department.

Section 1682. Federal administrative enforcement; report to
Congressional committees

Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend
Federal financial assistance to any education program or activity,
by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of
insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the
provisions of section 1681 of this title with respect to such
program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of
general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of
the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance
in connection with which the action is taken. No such rule,
regulation, or order shall become effective unless and until
approved by the President. Compliance with any requirement adopted
pursuant to this section may be effected (l) by the termination of
or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or
activity to any recipient as to whom there has been an express
finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure
to comply with such requirement, but such termination or refusal
shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part
thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding has been
made, and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program,
or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found, or
(2) by any other means authorized by law: Provided, however, that
no such action shall be taken until the department or agency
concerned has advised the appropriate person or persons of the
failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that
compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. In the case of any
action terminating, or refusing to grant or continue, assistance
because of failure to comply with a requirement imposed pursuant to
this section, the head of the Federal department or agency shall
file with the committees of the House and Senate having legislative
jurisdiction over the program or activity involved a full written
report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action. No
such action shall become effective until thirty days have elapsed
after the filing of such report.

Section 1683. Judicial Review

Any department or agency action taken pursuant to section 1682 of
this title shall be subject to such judicial review as may
otherwise be provided by law for similar action taken by such
department or agency on other grounds. In the case of action, not
otherwise subject to judicial review, terminating or refusing to
grant or to continue financial assistance upon a finding of failure
to comply with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 1682 of
this title, any person aggrieved (including any State or political
subdivision thereof and any agency of either) may obtain judicial
review of such action in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5,
United States Code, and such action shall not be deemed committed
to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 701
of that title.

Section 1684. Blindness or visual impairment; prohibition against
discrimination

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of blindness or
severely impaired vision, be denied admission in any course of
study by a recipient of Federal financial assistance for any
education program or activity; but nothing herein shall be
construed to require any such institution to provide any special
services to such person because of his blindness or visual
impairment.

Section 1685. Authority under other laws unaffected

Nothing in this chaper shall add to or detract from any existing
authority with respect to any program or activity under which
Federal financial assistance is extended by way of a contract of
insurance or guaranty.

Section 1686. Interpretation with respect to living facilities

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this chapter,
nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit any
educational institution receiving funds under this Act, from
maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes.

Section 1687. Interpretation of "program or activity"

For the purposes of this title, the term "program or activity" and
"program" mean all of the operations of --

(l)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other
instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or

(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributed
such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other
State or local government entity) to which the assistance is
extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;

(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution,
or a public system of higher education; or

(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section2854(a)(10) of
this title, system of vocational education, or other school system;

(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private
organization, or an entire sole proprietorship --

(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership,
private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or

(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing
education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and
recreation; or

(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate
facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the
case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization,
or sole proprietorship; or

(4) any other entity which is established by two or more of the
entities described in paragraph (l), (2) or (3);

any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance, except
that such term does not include any operation of an entity which is
controlled by a religious organization if the application of
section 1681 if this title to such operation would not be
consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.

Section 1688. Neutrality with respect to abortion

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require or prohibit
any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any
benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an
abortion. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a
penalty to be imposed on any person or individual because such
person or individual is seeking or has received any benefit or
service related to a legal abortion.

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."

Peter Moylan - 13 Nov 2006 12:50 GMT
> (9) Institutions of higher education scholarship awards in "beauty"
> pageants
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> individuals of one sex only, so long as such pageant is in compliance
> with other nondiscrimination provisions of Federal law.

I've heard of football scholarships, but are bimbo scholarships so
common that they need a special exemption from the law? Do they exist at
all?

The exemption seems to say something rather uncomplimentary about the
university that awarded a degree to whoever framed this law.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

dontbother - 13 Nov 2006 14:29 GMT
> dontbother wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I've heard of football scholarships, but are bimbo scholarships
> so common that they need a special exemption from the law?

They're sexist. It's illegal to be sexist in America. Except under
certain provisions of Federal law, like the one that allows female
reporters into male atheletes' locker rooms but doesn't allow male
reporters into female athletes' locker rooms, and the one that
allows women's clubs but bans men's clubs.

> Do they exist at all?

If they didn't, there wouldn't be such a specific reference in the
U.S. Code. One way that beauty pageants attempt to legitimize
themselves is by awarding scholarships, if they can get schools to
offer them.

> The exemption seems to say something rather uncomplimentary
> about the university that awarded a degree to whoever framed
> this law.

I don't think so, but I could be wrong about that.

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."

Tony Cooper - 13 Nov 2006 15:06 GMT
>> dontbother wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>themselves is by awarding scholarships, if they can get schools to
>offer them.

What university offers a scholarship to a beauty pageant winner?  

The "Miss America" competition is known for awarding scholarships to
the winners, but the offer is from the pageant organizers and not any
university.  The funding is from the pageant organizers (and
indirectly by anyone in the general public who donates to the
organization's scholarship fund).  

There are thousands of scholarships and grants available that are
funded by private organizations.  Most of them are discriminatory in
some form...children of General Motors employees only, children of
members of the D.A.R. only, etc.  A private organization can provide
money for university education with any strings on eligibility they
want.

The university is not practicing any form of discrimination when they
accept tuition money for Winnie Winner even though the tuition money
comes from an organization that selects the scholarship applicant
based on a highly discriminatory set of requirements.

If you would like to donate to "Miss America" scholarship program, see
http://www.missamerica.org/ and click the red box at the top of the
page.  For specific information on how the scholarship monies are
distributed, see:
http://www.missamerica.org/scholarships/scholarship-directory.asp

>> The exemption seems to say something rather uncomplimentary
>> about the university that awarded a degree to whoever framed
>> this law.

The degree is not awarded based on the source of the tuition payments
for the courses taken.  The degree is awarded based on the
satisfactory completion of the courses by the student.

>I don't think so, but I could be wrong about that.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

dontbother - 13 Nov 2006 15:56 GMT
>>> dontbother wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> What university offers a scholarship to a beauty pageant winner?

I thought the U of Miami did that to go along with its legendary
underwater basketweaving BFA degree. But I guess I got my facts
wrong.

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."

Sara Lorimer - 13 Nov 2006 15:44 GMT
> It's illegal to be sexist in America. Except under
> certain provisions of Federal law, like the one that allows female
> reporters into male atheletes' locker rooms but doesn't allow male
> reporters into female athletes' locker rooms,

As far as I know, reporters are allowed in locker rooms regardless of
sex. Male reporters are allowed into the WNBA locker rooms, for example,
and the athletes wait until all the reporters have left before showering
and changing.

> and the one that
> allows women's clubs but bans men's clubs.

Did you miss the to-do over the Augusta National Golf Club? Ever heard
of the Masons? There are plenty of all-male clubs in the US.

Signature

SML

dontbother - 13 Nov 2006 16:22 GMT
> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> locker rooms, for example, and the athletes wait until all the
> reporters have left before showering and changing.

How genteel. Unlike those crude males who like to show off their
appurtenances to female interlopers.

>> and the one that
>> allows women's clubs but bans men's clubs.
>
> Did you miss the to-do over the Augusta National Golf Club?

It just whizzed right on by me. Both Georgia and Maine are on the
other side of the world, so what happens there is of little
interest, unless I can use it in a conversation class, but I don't
teach them anymore. I could care less about clubs that I wouldn't
want to join. I don't follow the Lions or Elks or Rotary clubs
either.

> Ever heard of the Masons?

My father is a Mason and my mother belonged to the Eastern Star. I
have no knowledge of those organizations beyond what I've read
recently in _The DaVinci Code_ and seen in a couple of stupid
movies. I understand that they are faith-based, which makes them
automatically uninteresting to me.

> There are plenty of all-male clubs in the US.

Yeah, they don't usually make the headlines here in Taiwan. In any
case, I don't belong to any clubs and wouldn't want to, even if I
could get into one. I'm not very sociable.

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."

Charles Riggs - 21 Nov 2006 16:05 GMT
>> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>movies. I understand that they are faith-based, which makes them
>automatically uninteresting to me.

Good man.
Signature

Charles Riggs

R J Valentine - 21 Nov 2006 16:37 GMT
} On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:22:54 +0000 (UTC), dontbother
} <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
...
}>My father is a Mason and my mother belonged to the Eastern Star. I
}>have no knowledge of those organizations beyond what I've read
}>recently in _The DaVinci Code_ and seen in a couple of stupid
}>movies. I understand that they are faith-based, which makes them
}>automatically uninteresting to me.
}
} Good man.

You guys are missing a lot of fun.  Back in Laurel (Fourth Most Populous
Metropolitan Area in America) I knew a guy the holder of whose office has
been pictured as the devil incarnate in movies.  His kids were in 4-H with
my kids; he went to my church; and I'd pass the time of day with him when
I saw him in the grocery store.  But, if you want to enjoy the movies,
it's best to keep in mind the principle of the late great Johnny Carson:
"In for the premise, in for the bit."

If you want a good read, try to find a copy of _The Hawk[e]land Cache_ (I
forget who wrote it and I'm not sure about the "e"; my copy eludes me just
now).

There exist real things less probable than some of the things smart people
scorn as ridiculous.

Signature

rjv

Tony Cooper - 21 Nov 2006 17:18 GMT
>} On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:22:54 +0000 (UTC), dontbother
>} <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>You guys are missing a lot of fun.  

I've know several Masons, and none have joined for faith-based
reasons.  They've joined for social or business reasons.  Some people
like to belong to a group, and some people are joiners to make
business contacts.

While I was in a fraternity in college, I've never been one to join
organizations for social reasons.  I don't like being cheek-to-jowl
with people who are intent on passing me their business cards and
saying "If you ever want to sell your house..." or "I'd like to take a
look at your portfolio some time".  If they are a fellow member of
some organization you belong to, you are more-or-less required to be
friendly to them.

I also strongly reject the wearing of a name tag or calling someone
"Brother...".    I'm willing to shake hands with people, but I don't
like doing it en masse and certainly not with enthusiasm.

I think, basically, I'm rather anti-social.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Salvatore Volatile - 21 Nov 2006 16:45 GMT
> While I was in a fraternity in college, I've never been one to join
> organizations for social reasons.  

Wait, so why did you join the fraternity?

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Tony Cooper - 21 Nov 2006 20:59 GMT
>> While I was in a fraternity in college, I've never been one to join
>> organizations for social reasons.  
>
>Wait, so why did you join the fraternity?

Attitudes change over time, y'know.  What interested me socially when
I was 18 didn't interest me socially a few years later.  Besides, a
fraternity was more than a social group then.  It was a place to live,
a place to eat, and had social functions (social functions =
introduction to girls and a place to take them).  Dorm life didn't
appeal to me.  

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Salvatore Volatile - 21 Nov 2006 21:05 GMT
>>> While I was in a fraternity in college, I've never been one to join
>>> organizations for social reasons.  
>>
>>Wait, so why did you join the fraternity?
>
> Attitudes change over time, y'know.  

Agreed, but you did say "I've *never* been one to ..." (emphasis added).

> What interested me socially when
> I was 18 didn't interest me socially a few years later.  Besides, a
> fraternity was more than a social group then.  It was a place to live,
> a place to eat, and had social functions (social functions =
> introduction to girls and a place to take them).  

That's probably still true of the colleges and universities that have
frats, except that I doubt being in a frat means, anywhere today, that
you'd have a better chance at "introduction to girls" (special cases like
MIT possibly excepted, although my elder brother, who almost got duped
into joining a fraternity at MIT, married his MIT dormmate).  As for a
place to take them, I wouldn't have wanted to take a girl (=
Late1980sCampusPCE "woman") to any of the several frats that
existed at my undergrad college, although they did hold frequent parties,
open to the campus public for a nominal fee, which oddly provided a
substantial part of the campus social life.

Wasn't IU co-ed when you went there?  If so, why did you have to join a
frat to meet girls?  I can see why someone might have joined a frat for
that purpose at a single-sex school (or even a nominally co-ed school with
a marked gender imbalance).  What was the male-female ratio at IU
(assuming it was co-ed)?

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Tony Cooper - 21 Nov 2006 23:32 GMT
>>>> While I was in a fraternity in college, I've never been one to join
>>>> organizations for social reasons.  
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Agreed, but you did say "I've *never* been one to ..." (emphasis added).

"Never been one to..." does not equal "never has".  I can safely say
I've never been one to drink excessively, but that doesn't mean that
I'm saying that I have not been blind, staggering, pukingly drunk.

>> What interested me socially when
>> I was 18 didn't interest me socially a few years later.  Besides, a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>frats, except that I doubt being in a frat means, anywhere today, that
>you'd have a better chance at "introduction to girls"

Oh, yeah.  Even today, fraternity brothers introduce other fraternity
brothers to girls they know but don't date.  Girls from the same home
town, girlfriends of their girlfriend, etc.  That's not to say dorm
buddies don't do the same, but the circle is wider.  

A fraternity pledge class may be around 20 guys.  A person living in
the dorm wouldn't usually know 20 guys well enough to be a source of
introductions.  Fraternities have exchange functions with sororities.
Dorms might, but not weekly.

>(special cases like
>MIT possibly excepted, although my elder brother, who almost got duped
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>open to the campus public for a nominal fee, which oddly provided a
>substantial part of the campus social life.

If you call them "frats", you wouldn't fit in anyway.  You'd be marked
as a GDI.  We had the dances and the parties, but the real advantage
was being able to take your date over to the house for bridge or just
to hang out on nights when there was no party or dance.  My son had
the same experience at University of Alabama.
 
>Wasn't IU co-ed when you went there?  If so, why did you have to join a
>frat to meet girls?

It was just easier.  Between classes was always a rush, and walking up
to a table of girls, cold,  at The Commons was daunting.  I dated
girls that I met under different circumstances, but mostly girls I met
at sorority exchanges or by introduction by friends.

Unless you were really a "mover" (and I wasn't), you had to go for an
introduction or a fix-up.  I might see a girl who interested me in The
Commons, and wait weeks until I saw her with someone that I knew and
could get an introduction from.

> I can see why someone might have joined a frat for
>that purpose at a single-sex school (or even a nominally co-ed school with
>a marked gender imbalance).  What was the male-female ratio at IU
>(assuming it was co-ed)?

I really don't remember, but I'd guess maybe 60/40 male to female.
Remember, dating was a whole 'nother thing in those days.  Most dates
were "dates" where you called a girl and asked her out for a night
later in the week.  You didn't just "hook up" the way it's done now.
I don't remember ever, when I was in college,  meeting a girl in a bar
and leaving with her.  I met some and got some phone numbers, though.

I met my now-wife at a party (I was no longer in college, though), got
her phone number, and took her out for the first time a few weeks
later.  She would not have left the party with me or any other guy
she'd just met.  

BTW, "The Commons" is actually the Indiana University Memorial Union
Building, and - in this context - the part of that building where
there was a snack bar and maybe 100 or so tables.  Students went there
between classes and killed time, studied, or socialized.  I'm sure
every major university campus has such a place, but the term may be
different.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Salvatore Volatile - 21 Nov 2006 23:30 GMT
>>> What interested me socially when
>>> I was 18 didn't interest me socially a few years later.  Besides, a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> town, girlfriends of their girlfriend, etc.  That's not to say dorm
> buddies don't do the same, but the circle is wider.  

But most dorms in most colleges and universities are co-ed.  Whereas most
frats are single-sex (at my college there was one co-ed fraternity
[with a gay-friendly reputation to some degree]) and one co-ed house that
was historically a fraternity but had evolved into a sort of punk-culture
special-interest house).

> A fraternity pledge class may be around 20 guys.  A person living in
> the dorm wouldn't usually know 20 guys well enough to be a source of
> introductions.  Fraternities have exchange functions with sororities.
> Dorms might, but not weekly.

Perhaps you're right about this, Coop.  It might depend, too, on the
social culture of the college or university in question.  Your implied
picture of dorms as non-social places seems odd to me, however (what I
disliked about dorms was that they were too social, among other things).

>  We had the dances and the parties, but the real advantage
> was being able to take your date over to the house for bridge

So that's why your generation loves to play bridge so much,
Coop -- it reminds you of your wild youth!

> I met my now-wife at a party (I was no longer in college, though), got
> her phone number, and took her out for the first time a few weeks
> later.  She would not have left the party with me or any other guy
> she'd just met.  

I wouldn't think otherwise, Coop.  

> BTW, "The Commons" is actually the Indiana University Memorial Union
> Building, and - in this context - the part of that building where
> there was a snack bar and maybe 100 or so tables.  Students went there
> between classes and killed time, studied, or socialized.  I'm sure
> every major university campus has such a place, but the term may be
> different.

I think they're most often called "student unions" at the big
public universities (the only one I had direct experience of, at the
University of M*ch*g*n, was called "The Union").  My undergrad college
had a basically lame place called the "campus center" which was built to
serve similar functions.  Not that M*ch*g*n's Union was such an
impressive place, apart from its size, though I think it did have several
fast food eateries and a coffee joint.  The thing I remember most about
the M*ch*g*n Union was the obnoxiously huge football flag with the big 'M'
that flew over the building.  Well, I guess football is an important part
of Midwestern culture, and we ought to respect that.

I'm not sure why they're called "student unions", come to think of it.  
Did that term originally refer to an *organization* ('the student union')
which met on the premises of the building that came to be known as the
student union?  

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Tony Cooper - 22 Nov 2006 02:06 GMT
>>>> What interested me socially when
>>>> I was 18 didn't interest me socially a few years later.  Besides, a
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>But most dorms in most colleges and universities are co-ed.

Yeah, but so's the university.  Just because there are members of the
opposite sex in the general vicinity doesn't mean you meet them.

>> A fraternity pledge class may be around 20 guys.  A person living in
>> the dorm wouldn't usually know 20 guys well enough to be a source of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>picture of dorms as non-social places seems odd to me, however (what I
>disliked about dorms was that they were too social, among other things).

I didn't say they were non-social.  I said a person...well, read it
yourself.  It's the paragraph above.  In the dorms I've visited (The
last when my daughter was in college.  She was in a sorority, but the
sororities at that college did not have live-in houses), there may be
20 separate small groups being social, but that's not the same as 20
people in one group.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Garrett Wollman - 22 Nov 2006 04:29 GMT
>Yeah, but so's the university.  Just because there are members of the
>opposite sex in the general vicinity doesn't mean you meet them.

Kind of hard to avoid it if the person across the hall, and half the
people on one's floor, is of the opposite sex.  (Well, at least
judging by the secondary characteristics -- I was not in a position
that year to observe the primary.)

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman   | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those   | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL.     | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

Robert Lieblich - 22 Nov 2006 14:21 GMT
> >Yeah, but so's the university.  Just because there are members of the
> >opposite sex in the general vicinity doesn't mean you meet them.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> judging by the secondary characteristics -- I was not in a position
> that year to observe the primary.)

Mrs. Bob and I were in the same law school at the same time for two
overlapping years (of the three that each of us attended)  We lived in
different dorms (neither coed back in those Neandert(h)al times) but
within a city block of each other.  We met at a meeting of the Naval
Reserve group we both joined, and soon we were car-pooling.  The rest
is history.

People are going to meet.  How they meet is Fate's little joke.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Forty years later

Salvatore Volatile - 22 Nov 2006 12:21 GMT
>>> Oh, yeah.  Even today, fraternity brothers introduce other fraternity
>>> brothers to girls they know but don't date.  Girls from the same home
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Yeah, but so's the university.  Just because there are members of the
> opposite sex in the general vicinity doesn't mean you meet them.

True, but in a dorm-like setting it's more intimate than "in the general
vicinity" -- again, something I didn't like about dorms.  It's like being
at Fort Leonardwood.

>>Perhaps you're right about this, Coop.  It might depend, too, on the
>>social culture of the college or university in question.  Your implied
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> 20 separate small groups being social, but that's not the same as 20
> people in one group.

True, and a good point. I just don't see why the fraternity/sorority is
inherently more social because the "group" is larger.  It's true, they
have the resources to throw parties, but that's the main difference as I
see it.

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Tony Cooper - 22 Nov 2006 14:52 GMT
>True, and a good point. I just don't see why the fraternity/sorority is
>inherently more social because the "group" is larger.  It's true, they
>have the resources to throw parties, but that's the main difference as I
>see it.

They are inherently more social because the reason they exist is to
promote social interaction.  While they offer a place to live and eat
on some campuses, the reason people join them is for the social
activities.

You think I joined one because there was a library in the house?

 
Signature


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Salvatore Volatile - 22 Nov 2006 14:50 GMT
>>True, and a good point. I just don't see why the fraternity/sorority is
>>inherently more social because the "group" is larger.  It's true, they
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> on some campuses, the reason people join them is for the social
> activities.

That seems to be circular reasoning, Coop, or something close thereto.  
The issue seems to be, do fraternities promote more social interaction
than dorms (or other available living arrangements) do, on campuses where
both possibilities exist?  I would argue that the reason colleges have
dorms is to promote social interaction (misguided as this goal may or may
not be).  Indeed, it may be argued that a primary selling point of all
non-commuter undergraduate colleges in the US is that they promote social
interaction.  This is often not acknowledged squarely on its face (except
in cases where one is actually considering whether to be a commuter
student or not).

> You think I joined one because there was a library in the house?

I can see how in your day a fraternity would have offered greater
opportunities for social interaction, by the standards of the day (which
regarded things like "keggers", toga parties, "road trips" to women's
colleges, hiring bands to play "Louie, Louie", "panty raids" [= BrE
"knickers blitzes"???], etc., as legitimate and useful forms of social
activity; I offer no view on any of that) than were available to those
who resided in dorms.  I question whether that was true any longer after
approximately 1970 at the sorts of colleges and universities we're talking
about.  

Actually, it's worth mentioning that during the 1970s fraternities and
sororities fell into disrepute, as can be seen in cultural materials of
the era (the high point might have been a film about a woman who gets
revenge on abusive sorority sisters through supernatural powers), and
their rehabilitation began again only with the release of the
wildly successful film _Animal House_ (which we ought to see as part of
the general 'retro' movement of the 1970s) and the general tilt towards
social and political conservatism in the US which culminated in the
election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  Truly.

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Tony Cooper - 22 Nov 2006 17:02 GMT
>>>True, and a good point. I just don't see why the fraternity/sorority is
>>>inherently more social because the "group" is larger.  It's true, they
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>That seems to be circular reasoning, Coop,

It's a circular question.  A "fraternity", in this usage, is a social
organization.  How else can I answer "How are they inherently social?"
Check "Define:  fraternity" in your search box.

> or something close thereto.  
>The issue seems to be, do fraternities promote more social interaction
>than dorms (or other available living arrangements) do, on campuses where
>both possibilities exist?

The dorm's primary function is to house.  The fraternity's primary
function is to provide social activities.  A dorm may provide social
opportunities, but they are secondary to the primary function.  A
fraternity may provide housing, but it is a secondary function.

>I would argue that the reason colleges have
>dorms is to promote social interaction (misguided as this goal may or may
>not be).

No, they have dorms so the student don't have to sleep in the rain.

A student can live in a dorm and refuse to participate in any social
interaction.  A student who refuses to participate in social
interaction in a fraternity would not make it past his pledge status.
Dorms accept anyone who pays the fees.  Fraternities are not obligated
to accept the non-social.

>> You think I joined one because there was a library in the house?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>approximately 1970 at the sorts of colleges and universities we're talking
>about.  

I never heard of a panty raid when I was in college.  I think that's a
myth.  We had "keggers", but we called them "keg parties" or "blanket
parties" (because we often had them in the state parks around
Bloomington and took blankets to sit on).   We never made "road
trips", but I used to date a girl who went to William Woods College
(not co-ed at the time) who told me the University of Missouri guys
made road trips to WWC.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Eric Schwartz - 29 Nov 2006 20:07 GMT
> >But most dorms in most colleges and universities are co-ed.
>
> Yeah, but so's the university.  Just because there are members of the
> opposite sex in the general vicinity doesn't mean you meet them.

I find myself in the rare and surprising situation of agreeing with
Sal here.  It's a lot easier to meet someone when you can just say,
"Hi, mind if I sit here?" at the communal cafeteria, or in a study
area, or during Movie Night (played on the giant-screen TV downstairs)
or during the intramural volleyball tournament, or....

If someone introduced me to a girl at a party, I'd have been 1)
surprised, since I didn't go to many parties during college, and 2) a
bit flummoxed, not knowing what to say to them.  In a dorm, you have
all sorts of common ground-- that idiot who shaved his head for
charity, even though nobody asked (or wanted) him to, the guy down the
hall with the 30-inch woofer (semi-professional DJ), and whether or
not it would be odious to contract with a hit man to shut him the hell
up, or if we should enlist a volunteer in the cause of community
spirit to do the job, how nasty (or, in unusual circumstances, good)
the cafeteria food was...  possibilities were endless.  But then, I've
never enjoyed large, loud parties, so I'm undoubtedly atypical.

> I didn't say they were non-social.  I said a person...well, read it
> yourself.  It's the paragraph above.  In the dorms I've visited (The
> last when my daughter was in college.  She was in a sorority, but the
> sororities at that college did not have live-in houses), there may be
> 20 separate small groups being social, but that's not the same as 20
> people in one group.

Yeah, but that assumes you *like* "20 people in one group" parties.
Or rather, your description sounded more like "40 people in two
groups", which is arguably even worse, to me.  Besides, I found it
very easy to find the small groups I wanted in a dorm, and was a
member of multiple ones.  About all I needed to do to meet people was
to sit down and play the piano in the lobby for a bit, and depending
on what I was playing, different people would stop by and strike up a
conversation.  In fact, I stayed in the dorms through my college
years, specifically because I knew if I had my own apartment, I'd
probably never meet as many people, or go to as many social
activities.  As it turned out, once I graduated and moved out on my
own, I was right.

-=Eric
Tony Cooper - 30 Nov 2006 03:59 GMT
>> >But most dorms in most colleges and universities are co-ed.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>the cafeteria food was...  possibilities were endless.  But then, I've
>never enjoyed large, loud parties, so I'm undoubtedly atypical.

My experiences were always the opposite.  If I would sit down next to
a girl and say "Hi, mind if I sit here?", odds were good she'd reply
"Why?".

I was not good at striking up conversations about casual things.  If I
would comment about the idiot with the shaved head, it would turn out
that he was undergoing chemotherapy or that the charity was for some
cause that the girl's little brother was suffering from.  

If I would comment about the veal cutlet being either good or bad, I'd
get a "Really?" back.  Where do you go with "Really?"?  Invariably,I'd
go to some convoluted attempt at humor that would cause her to draw
back and survey the room for the presence of anyone, anyone, who could
extricate her from the conversation.  

I didn't work the large party scene well, either.  My voice is low -
not deep, just low - and evidently pitched to some level that escapes
the human female ear.  They would start up conversations with other
people before I finished my sentence.

Introductions worked best for me.  Preferably introductions where the
recommending party said "Give him some time.  He's not as dull as he
comes across in the first half-hour or so".

I did meet my now-wife at a party.  Not amidst the throng, but caught
her isolated in the hall outside the room.  I was blocking the door.

>> I didn't say they were non-social.  I said a person...well, read it
>> yourself.  It's the paragraph above.  In the dorms I've visited (The
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>-=Eric

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Eric Schwartz - 30 Nov 2006 07:04 GMT
> I was not good at striking up conversations about casual things.  If I
> would comment about the idiot with the shaved head, it would turn out
> that he was undergoing chemotherapy or that the charity was for some
> cause that the girl's little brother was suffering from.  

Well, really nobody liked the guy, and he only did it because someone
else[0], whom people *did* like, was doing it, and he had somehow
gotten it into his head that people would like him more if he did the
same thing.  They didn't, but the situation did, however, lead me to
the realization that some people have the sort of skulls that look
good bald, and some people don't.

But I take your meaning-- I had similar trouble for most of my life;
it's only in the last, oh, 7 or 8 years that I've developed the knack
of saying that sort of thing and not getting my teeth kicked in,
metaphorically speaking.  Unfortunately, I have no idea how that
happened.

> If I would comment about the veal cutlet being either good or bad, I'd
> get a "Really?" back.  Where do you go with "Really?"?

Usually, to the next person, or back to the book I brought with me in
case the conversation didn't pan out (admittedly, that was well over
50% of the time, but hey, if you don't play, you can't win).

>  Invariably,I'd go to some convoluted attempt at humor that would
> cause her to draw back and survey the room for the presence of
> anyone, anyone, who could extricate her from the conversation.

Actually, the only time that worked for me was when I had a Hawaiian
sort-of-roommate[1] who complained tirelessly and amusingly about the
dorm cafeteria's attempt to do a Hawaiian luau one night.  It sounded
a lot like SalVo talking about "pizza", now that I think about it,
only my roomie was funny.  I managed to remember a few of the jokes he
told about it, and actually managed to get a laugh or two out of it.

> I did meet my now-wife at a party.  Not amidst the throng, but caught
> her isolated in the hall outside the room.  I was blocking the door.

I met mine by offering to give her a lift to a dancing collegium we
were both attending-- as it turned out, she didn't need it, but she
noticed me there, and we hit it off.  But this was long after I'd had
the shy more or less surgically excised from my personality, though it
still pops up now and again.

-=Eric

[0] ObAUE: He was an SA-- Student Assistant-- i.e., a student who
   lived on the floor, and was employed by the university as someone
   to whom you could go if you had trouble with a roommate, or with
   your schoolwork, or just needed someone to talk to informally.
   Most other schools called them RAs-- Resident Assistants, but CSU
   used SA until the late '90s, when they switched to RA along with
   everyone else.

[1] He wasn't really a roommate in that he had a girlfriend with a
   single, and pretty much lived there.  He got to live with her, and
   I got a single without paying for it, which was pretty much my
   goal.[2]  Ironically, someone else decided they liked that
   arrangement too, and convinced him to "move in" with them.  One
   week after the faux "move in" event, he broke up with her, and
   moved in with the other guy, and I kept my single without paying
   for it.[3]

[2] Other roommates responded well (for my definition of 'well', which
   involved them moving out) to my dressing in dark robes and
   pretending to be a Druid, or simply keeping normal CS hours, which
   were out-of-sync with "normal" student hours by about 6 hours.

[3] Ah, youthful drama.  I very nearly managed to escape it entirely
   by only having one girlfriend in college, and that for less than a
   year.
R J Valentine - 30 Nov 2006 17:38 GMT
...
} Actually, the only time that worked for me was when I had a Hawaiian
} sort-of-roommate[1] who complained tirelessly and amusingly about the
} dorm cafeteria's attempt to do a Hawaiian luau one night.  It sounded
} a lot like SalVo talking about "pizza", now that I think about it,
} only my roomie was funny.  

Now _that_ was cruel and uncalled-for.  Salvo is consistently almost as
funny as the Rons (Original and Other), and usually even funnier than
Sparky (and of course _way_ funnier than the late great Dr. Reinhold Aman,
Ph.D. [but that goes without saying]).

Signature

rjv

Eric Schwartz - 30 Nov 2006 18:55 GMT
> ...
> } Actually, the only time that worked for me was when I had a Hawaiian
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Sparky (and of course _way_ funnier than the late great Dr. Reinhold Aman,
> Ph.D. [but that goes without saying]).

True, but SalVo isn't trying, most of the time.  I'm not sure if that
makes it better or worse.

-=Eric
Maria - 22 Nov 2006 06:28 GMT
>> BTW, "The Commons" is actually the Indiana University Memorial Union
>> Building, and - in this context - the part of that building where
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> union') which met on the premises of the building that came to be
> known as the student union?

When I went to what is now called Oakland University* (in Rochester,
MI), the gathering place was called "the union." No capitals that I'm
aware of. (Actually, there was no sign.) So maybe that name is a Midwest
thing right along with football , though OU did not have a football team
then and I don't think it does now, either. ICBW since I don't keep up
with college sports all that much now that I don't have offspring in
college.

*Then called Michigan State University Oakland. It was started (founded,
established) in 1959 or thereabouts, and had very few buildings (and no
dorms) when I was commuting there in the early '60s.

Signature

Maria
Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee.
There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name.

dontbother - 22 Nov 2006 00:22 GMT
Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote
[...]
> "Never been one to..." does not equal "never has".  I can safely
> say I've never been one to drink excessively, but that doesn't
> mean that I'm saying that I have not been blind, staggering,
> pukingly drunk.

Thank you for this beautiful example of self-contradiction and
denial: "'Never' means 'never' except when I want it to mean 'not
regularly'." You might have had a chance of saying something
meaningful had you said something like this: "Since the first (and
last) time I was blind, staggering, pukingly drunk at the age of 18,
I've not been one to drink excessively." But putting that "never" in
there just turns your statement into typical pious (in its secular
sense of "4 a : marked by sham or hypocrisy" [MW11]) self-
congratulation.

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."

Tony Cooper - 22 Nov 2006 01:53 GMT
>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote
>[...]
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>sense of "4 a : marked by sham or hypocrisy" [MW11]) self-
>congratulation.

Usually you have a pretty good grasp on usage, but in this case you
look like a person trying to pick up a drop of mercury between thumb
and forefinger.

The "never" in "never been one to..." refers to the habits or the
expected actions of the person and not a specific action the person
may have taken.  You can read it as "never have been in the habit
of...".  It does not mean "never have ".  

Your example sentence is dependent on setting a time of the last
occurrence and requires too much qualification.  To do that is too
burdensome.

But I think you know exactly how "I've never been one" can be used to
mean "I'm not in the habit of", but you had that "pious" reference you
wanted to throw in some post.  

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Maria - 22 Nov 2006 06:47 GMT
>> [...]
>>> "Never been one to..." does not equal "never has".  I can safely
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> mean "I'm not in the habit of", but you had that "pious" reference you
> wanted to throw in some post.

"Pious" aside (that is, not commenting one way or the other on it), I do
think that the "I've never been one to" phrase does mean "never." If
someone says "I've never been one to drink black coffee" my assumption
would be that he or she never drank black coffee before. And I wouldn't
be surprised if "...but I think I'll try some now" followed the
statement. And if it did, I would think it was that person's first time
with black coffee.

(For "black coffee," insert any other item or action you like.)

However, it is also likely that someone could say "I've never been one
to drink black coffee" and be kidding about it, especially if the group
in attendance knew him or her to be an avid black-coffee drinker. The
statement would obviously be nothing more than japery. In that case,
"never" would not mean "never."

The phrases "I've never been one to" and "I've never been in the habit
of" do not mean quite the same thing to me.

Signature

Maria
There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name.

dontbother - 22 Nov 2006 13:54 GMT
> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
>>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> you look like a person trying to pick up a drop of mercury
> between thumb and forefinger.

Gosh. What a clever way to say "You're wrong". I wish I had as much
imagination as you do. But it seems to me that saying all of this was
probably much too burdensome for someone of your constitution. I hope
you had a good long nap after you wrote it.

> The "never" in "never been one to..." refers to the habits or
> the expected actions of the person and not a specific action the
> person may have taken.  You can read it as "never have been in
> the habit of...".  It does not mean "never have ".

Why did you not say what you meant? I don't buy your reading of "I
never have been one to X". To me that's just a verbosity for "I never
have Xed".  

> Your example sentence is dependent on setting a time of the last
> occurrence and requires too much qualification.

It was only an extended example, the kind I give my EFL students to
show them how they can use details to make their writing and speech
more interesting and specific. I certainly don't require them to be
as windy and specific as that sentence was.

>  To do that is too burdensome.

Okay. I'll chalk that up to the gerontological factor. I expect that
these days you shuffle across the floor of your house in your socks
or slippers and the sidewalks you grace with your presence because
lifting your feet to actually walk is too burdensome as well.

> But I think you know exactly how "I've never been one" can be
> used to mean "I'm not in the habit of",

No, I don't know what you think I know. You're just telling me what I
know and don't know, but that's about as sane and meaningful as
telling me what I like and don't like.

> but you had that "pious" reference you wanted to throw in some
> post.  

There you go again, only telling me what I wanted to do this time.
Who told you that I wanted to throw "that 'pious' reference in some
post"? Do you really think that I bother myself worrying about using
certain words "in some post" or other? And just what is it a
reference to? I thought it was an adjective that described your
character in this specific instance. I will let others judge whether
it can be more broadly applied in your case, but will forgo the
expression of my own opinion on this broader matter simply because I
have not made a serious study of your life and works for more than a
year now. You have become an unknown quantity, except post-by-post,
precious few of which I find interesting enough to read through much
less comment on.

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."

Salvatore Volatile - 22 Nov 2006 13:17 GMT
>>  To do that is too burdensome.
>
> Okay. I'll chalk that up to the gerontological factor. I expect that
> these days you shuffle across the floor of your house in your socks
> or slippers and the sidewalks you grace with your presence because
> lifting your feet to actually walk is too burdensome as well.

I don't believe there are any sidewalks where Coop lives.

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Tony Cooper - 22 Nov 2006 14:59 GMT
>> Usually you have a pretty good grasp on usage, but in this case
>> you look like a person trying to pick up a drop of mercury
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>never have been one to X". To me that's just a verbosity for "I never
>have Xed".  

I don't think that criticizing someone else for "verbosity" is
something that either you or I should do if we want to avoid being
"pious" (in its secular sense of "4 a : marked by sham or hypocrisy"
[MW11])


Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Robert Lieblich - 22 Nov 2006 16:04 GMT
[ ... ]

> > The "never" in "never been one to..." refers to the habits or
> > the expected actions of the person and not a specific action the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> never have been one to X". To me that's just a verbosity for "I never
> have Xed".

I gotta take Tony's side in this one.  I've encountered, and probably
uttered, sentences comparable to "I've never been one to enjoy opera,
but I saw a performance of *Carmen* the other night that knocked my
socks off."  I am an example of someone who drinks moderately but has
occasionally (maybe once a decade) allowed himself to get truly
snackered, and I can imagine myself saying "I've never been one to
drink to excess, but there was this time in Key West ..."  I can even
imagine introducing a discussion with "I've never been one to ... "
and maybe never getting around to the "but" and what follows.  So if
I'm the referee, Tony wins this one on points.

No comment on the other stuff.

[ ... ]
Signature

Bob Lieblich
Never one to shy away from posting

dontbother - 22 Nov 2006 16:57 GMT
> dontbother wrote:
> [ ... ]
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> getting around to the "but" and what follows.  So if I'm the
> referee, Tony wins this one on points.

Well, Your Honor, I can accept that we have different linguistic
traditions, especially because I never use the construction in
question. I'm more direct than that.

> No comment on the other stuff.

The other stuff, of course, was purely a gratuitous blast from the
past, included for the amusement of those who are easily amused by
cybershowers of slings and arrows.

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."

Robert Lieblich - 22 Nov 2006 17:36 GMT
[ ... ]

> The other stuff, of course, was purely a gratuitous blast from the
> past, included for the amusement of those who are easily amused by
> cybershowers of slings and arrows.

Reminds me of a former Navy employee with whom I worked on a
complicated lawsuit a few years ago.  His surname was, and I guess
still is, Fortune.  I waited for months until he said something truly
outrageous.

No need to post my reply, I assume.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
We take what opportunities we're given

Amethyst Deceiver - 22 Nov 2006 15:01 GMT
> Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote
> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> sense of "4 a : marked by sham or hypocrisy" [MW11]) self-
> congratulation.

"I've never been one to swear but when I hit my thumb with that hammer I
turned the air blue."

Would that really be completely unutterable to you?
dontbother - 22 Nov 2006 16:49 GMT
"Amethyst Deceiver" <spam@lindsayendell.co.uk> wrote
[...]
> "I've never been one to swear but when I hit my thumb with that
> hammer I turned the air blue."
>
> Would that really be completely unutterable to you?

Yes. I would have to say either "I usually don't swear" or "I never
swear". I don't use "I've never been one to X".

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."

R J Valentine - 21 Nov 2006 17:22 GMT
...
} I also strongly reject the wearing of a name tag or calling someone
} "Brother...".    I'm willing to shake hands with people, but I don't
} like doing it en masse and certainly not with enthusiasm.
}
} I think, basically, I'm rather anti-social.

Plus which, you're missing much of what there is to be learned.

Signature

rjv
But you did have lunch with Judge Lieblich, which is more than I can say.

Maria - 22 Nov 2006 06:48 GMT
> Tony Cooper wrote: ...

> } I also strongly reject the wearing of a name tag or calling someone
> } "Brother...".    I'm willing to shake hands with people, but I don't
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Plus which, you're missing much of what there is to be learned.

So, should he make an effort to get better acquainted with Brother
Martin?

Signature

Maria

Salvatore Volatile - 22 Nov 2006 12:22 GMT
>> Tony Cooper wrote: ...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> So, should he make an effort to get better acquainted with Brother
> Martin?

We all should do, as there is much to be learnt from him.

Signature

Salvatore Volatile

Robert Lieblich - 22 Nov 2006 14:24 GMT
> ...
> } I also strongly reject the wearing of a name tag or calling someone
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> rjv
> But you did have lunch with Judge Lieblich, which is more than I can say.

I tried to organize a couple of Greater Laurel boinks, RJ.  One (the
Jesse Sheidlower lecture and post-lecture dining) actually occurred.
You elected not to participate.  Coop may not be as anti-social as he
thinks he is.

Signature

Ex- (very ex-) Judge Lieblich

Paul Wolff - 21 Nov 2006 20:28 GMT
>>} On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:22:54 +0000 (UTC), dontbother
>>} <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>like to belong to a group, and some people are joiners to make
>business contacts.

Mainly it's social reasons, coupled with curiosity.  If they stay
members after the first few meetings, it's because they like taking time
out to dress up, join in formal amateur dramatics with moral overtones,
and fraternise with the chaps.  Underlying all that, a Masonic meeting
-- rather, the subsequent dining -- can seem rather like a
well-populated aue boink.

>While I was in a fraternity in college, I've never been one to join
>organizations for social reasons.  I don't like being cheek-to-jowl
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>some organization you belong to, you are more-or-less required to be
>friendly to them.

That's not Masonic, but I'm sure it happens.

>I think, basically, I'm rather anti-social.

I think I am too, but experience argues otherwise.  Heaven help me, but
I'm going to a business breakfast at 7.30 tomorrow morning.
Signature

Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

Will - 22 Nov 2006 14:27 GMT
[...]

> While I was in a fraternity in college, I've never been one to join
> organizations for social reasons.  I don't like being cheek-to-jowl

"cheek-TO-jowl"?  Is that a common AmE expression?  In BrE it's
normally rendered "cheek-BY-jowl".

Will.
Tony Cooper - 22 Nov 2006 15:04 GMT
>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>"cheek-TO-jowl"?  Is that a common AmE expression?  In BrE it's
>normally rendered "cheek-BY-jowl".

I dunno.  It's not common enough in either form for me to have noticed
it being used.  There are enough Googlehits for me to be comfortable
having used it.

We'll have to put it to the acid test:  Would "cheek-to-jowl" raise
Maria's hackles if used by a sports reporter?

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Maria - 22 Nov 2006 17:32 GMT
>> [...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> We'll have to put it to the acid test:  Would "cheek-to-jowl" raise
> Maria's hackles if used by a sports reporter?

Unlike "begs the question," which was being used incorrectly to mean
"raises the question," "cheek-to-jowl" means basically the same thing as
"cheek-by-jowl," which is the version I've usually heard.

Thus: "Cheek-to-jowl" is a phrase that might raise my eyebrows, but
probably not my hackles.

Signature

Maria

dontbother - 22 Nov 2006 16:44 GMT
> Tony Cooper wrote:
> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "cheek-TO-jowl"?  Is that a common AmE expression?  In BrE it's
> normally rendered "cheek-BY-jowl".

Same there in America: cheek-by-jowl is the standard.

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."

Tony Cooper - 22 Nov 2006 17:20 GMT
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Same there in America: cheek-by-jowl is the standard.

"Standard" except to those who do not think of it as "standard".

http://tinyurl.com/ygfcza  (first sentence)

http://tinyurl.com/yh6wwg (sub-head)

http://www.werent.com/sanfranciscoferrysl.htm  (third paragraph)

http://www.amazon.com/phrase/fall-chinook  (Rogue River No. 1 excerpt)

And many more.

You are nearing the Areffian Zone of what is, and what is not.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

dontbother - 22 Nov 2006 18:36 GMT
> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> "Standard" except to those who do not think of it as "standard".

I accept that the nessie-world is filled with those who deny
standards that are not of their own devise

> http://tinyurl.com/ygfcza  (first sentence)
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> You are nearing the Areffian Zone of what is, and what is not.

I admit to having no difficulty identifying with the language usage
opinions of a man whose English is as good as Richard's rather than  
with those of one who denies that phrases are not illustrative of
one's facility with the language because facility with the language
is restricted to something (I forget what that first term was) and
vocabulary, thereby denying that phrases (iow "idioms") are part of
the vocabulary of the language. Presumably, the latter man means that
"vocabulary consists of a list of individual words but not of stock
phrases (iow 'idioms') that are other than the sum of their
individual words". I don't understand how the latter man can claim
that "kicked the bucket" and "dead" or "came a cropper" and "failed"
aren't all vocabulary (MW11: "1 : a list or collection of words or of
words and phrases usually alphabetically arranged and explained or
defined  : LEXICON". Cf. [1]) items.

[1] "vocabulary entry" (more from MW11)
Main Entry:vocabulary entry [NB: This is a two-word open compound
that is called a "noun", not a "phrase" or even a "noun phrase"]
Function:noun
Date:circa 1934

: a word (as the noun 'book'), hyphenated or open compound (as the
verb 'book-match' or the noun 'book review'), word element (as the
affix 'pro-'), abbreviation (as 'agt'), verbalized symbol (as 'Na'),
or term (as 'man in the street') entered alphabetically in a
dictionary for the purpose of definition or identification or
expressly included as an inflected form (as the noun 'mice' or the
verb 'saw') or as a derived form (as the noun 'godlessness' or the
adverb 'globally') or related phrase (as 'one for the book') run on
at its base word and usually set in a type (as boldface) readily
distinguishable from that of the lightface running text which
defines, explains, or identifies the entry

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."

rzed - 21 Nov 2006 18:18 GMT
> } On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:22:54 +0000 (UTC), dontbother
> } <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> best to keep in mind the principle of the late great Johnny
> Carson: "In for the premise, in for the bit."

That would be the RJV restatement of the Carson Principle, I
assume. If you're quoting JC, you really should phrase it as "buy
the premise" and "buy the bit". The buy is important when a snake
oil salesman has a live one. He might have said, "if you buy the
premise, you buy the bit," although "you" might have been "they"
on occasion.

Signature

rzed
"You" was often "me"

Evan Kirshenbaum - 13 Nov 2006 16:09 GMT
> They're sexist. It's illegal to be sexist in America. Except under
> certain provisions of Federal law, like the one that allows female
> reporters into male atheletes' locker rooms but doesn't allow male
> reporters into female athletes' locker rooms,

Which one would that be?  I recall an argument that it was
impermissible to bar female reporters from access to places that male
reporters can go to interview athletes, but my understanding was that
that was held to be entirely symmetric.  The assymmetry was that, most
reporters being male, female athletes had already tended not to give
interviews in their locker rooms (but rather gave them before or after
changing) while male athletes did.  And that most colleges, at least,
solved the problem by simply not allowing any reporters into the
locker rooms for either sex.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Any programming problem can be
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |solved by adding another layer of
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |indirection.  Any performance
                                      |problem can be solved by removing
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |one.
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

dontbother - 13 Nov 2006 16:18 GMT
> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> writes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Which one would that be?

I have no idea, but if female athletes didn't allow male reporters
into their locker rooms, then they must have had some law that
permitted it. You seem to be referring to it below.

> I recall an argument that it was
> impermissible to bar female reporters from access to places that
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> solved the problem by simply not allowing any reporters into the
> locker rooms for either sex.

Good solution.

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."

Evan Kirshenbaum - 13 Nov 2006 16:59 GMT
>> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> writes:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> into their locker rooms, then they must have had some law that
> permitted it. You seem to be referring to it below.

Of course.  Female athletes had the same right to keep reporters out
of their locker rooms that male athletes had to keep reporters out of
their locker rooms.  That one group chose to exercise this right while
another didn't doesn't negate it.  What the courts said was that you
don't have the right to decide based on sex *which* reporters get to
come in when you're granting interviews.  Either admit them all or
keep them all out.

>> I recall an argument that it was impermissible to bar female
>> reporters from access to places that male reporters can go to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Good solution.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The great thing about Microsoft
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |dominating the world is that
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |there's no shortage of support
                                      |opportunities.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |              Sam Alvis
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Tony Cooper - 13 Nov 2006 14:29 GMT
>> (9) Institutions of higher education scholarship awards in "beauty"
>> pageants
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>The exemption seems to say something rather uncomplimentary about the
>university that awarded a degree to whoever framed this law.

Beauty pageants in the US do offer the winners university
scholarships.  However, the scholarships are offered by the pageant
organization and not by the university.  It is just prize money in the
form of funds that can be used for university costs.

Athletic scholarships are offered by the university, but they are
usually funded by the university's athletic department using funds
donated by "boosters" or supporters of the university.  

In most cases, the athletic programs at larger universities turn a
profit for the university.  The direct proceeds of the football
program are usually greater than the costs of the football programs.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Don Phillipson - 12 Nov 2006 13:41 GMT
> In general opinion, what is a smaller component of a contract: an
> article or a section? In other words, is an article a part of a
> subsection/section, or is a section part of an article?
> Also, is a paragraph a part of an article?

"Contract" tells us this is a question in law rather
than language.   So either:
1.  Contract law already answers these questions
(for the jurisdiction concerned);  or
2.  The contracting parties may decide for themselves
(by saying so in the contract) whether an article is part of a
subsection/section, or a section is part of an article, for
the purposes of this contract.

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Fiance - 12 Nov 2006 16:15 GMT
Don Phillipson ra?e:
> "Contract" tells us this is a question in law rather
> than language.   So either:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> subsection/section, or a section is part of an article, for
> the purposes of this contract.

Thanks! I was actually posing a question of language. I never inquiry
on legal issues in this forum because it would be off-topic.

As far as I understand, there is no "general opinion" or convention
that section, from the standpoint of the regular (non-legal) English
language, may not be a part of the article. I was trying to verify
whether this was as clear as that "chapter" of a document is definitely
something bigger than an article or section, purely linguistically.
Eric Walker - 12 Nov 2006 23:43 GMT
> In general opinion, what is a smaller component of a contract: an
> article or a section? In other words, is an article a part of a
> subsection/section, or is a section part of an article?
>
> Also, is a paragraph a part of an article?

A contract should always contain within itself the definitions of any
terms not defined in a standard dictionary with utterly unique
definiteness.  Here is the opening of the contract our business has
used for over twenty years, and which opening I (*not* an attorney)
have used in many other contracts:

------------------

1.  These Provision Headings Are For Convenience Only.
The numbering, heading, and order of presentation of the provisions of
this Contract are for convenience only, and are not to be construed as
giving any provision any effect beyond that inherent in its wording
exclusive of its heading.

2.  Certain Terms Used In This Contract Are Clarified.
In interpreting this Contract: the word &c. &c.

-------------------

It is wise to not even use such terms as "article", "section", or
"paragraph", but to simply refer generally to the "provisions" of the
contract.  Any reference backward or forward should be of sufficient
particularity that any numbering or naming is immaterial in recognizing
to what it refers.  Example:

". . . you will owe us a fee which is separate from the hourly
compensation specified in this Contract for persons we refer to you who
perform for you as independent contractors."

That is far superior to something like "a fee which is separate from
that set forth in article 6, section c": it makes clear right at the
spot what is being discussed, and it drastically minimizes potential
problems that otherwise loom every time a draft contract is revised
(such that "sections" or "articles" take on new numbers).
Marius Hancu - 13 Nov 2006 16:05 GMT
You may want to have a look at this forum:

http://www.englishforums.com/English/LegalEnglish/Forum34.htm
or post there.

Marius Hancu
 
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.