Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

[ ... Semitic verbs ]

While I would subscribe to the "sometimes complicated" ways, I am sceptical
about "always strictly predictable", at least for the Hebrew. I have once
tried to write down the rules for myself in a more algorithmic manner than
is customary for grammars, and have soon given up.

An example of a rule which I was unable to write down in a way that it has
not multiple exceptions:

Rule for middle radical Waw or Yod: The 3sg-m form of the Piel depends
on the middle radical:

 * If the middle radical is Yod, the form consists of the first
   radical with Chireq, a Yod with Dagesh and Tsere, and the third
   radical. This is the same rule as for strong verbs.

 * If the middle radical is Waw, the form consists of the first
   radical with Cholam-gadol, the third radical with Tsere and the
   third radical reduplicated.

Exception for roots KWN ("intend", not "prepare"), DWX, KWC, RWX. The
Waw gets a Dagesh in the same way as a Yod would get, i.e. the form
consists of the first radical with Chireq, a Waw with Dagesh and
Tsere, and the third radical.

Exception for roots BW$, DWN, XWB. The middle radical, Waw, is changed
into Yod, and then the standard rule for Yod is applied.

Exception for roots BYN, &YX. The middle radical, Yod, is changed into
Waw, and then the standard rule for Waw is applied.

With more diachronic knowledge, the last two sets of exceptions could
perhaps be explained, but "always strictly predictable" seems to
underestimate the complexity.

He suggested it as a possibility.

His first two paragraphs are general in nature. They do not mention
the issues he addresses later:

   The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against
   preventable evils.  In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles
   which are deeply rooted in human nature.  One is that by the
   very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they
   have occurred:  at each stage in their onset there is room for
   doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary.  By the
   same token, they attract little attention in comparison with
   current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing:
   whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern
   itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
   **Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles
   for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles:  "If only,"
   they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it
   probably wouldn't happen."**

   Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the
   word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.  At
   all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now,
   avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the
   most necessary occupation for the politician.

**My emphasis.

I would find those statements very difficult to disagree with.

Of course many of those who vilified Powell gave very convincing
demonstrations of the sentence emphasised above.

I heard one radio interview with him. He explained that his comments
were based on information he had received from various people about
how things were developing "on the ground". He said that he was
simply making a prediction on the basis of that information

I accepted his account of how things were at the time with due
allowance for the summary nature of the speech. I found his
projections of "immigrant" population growth unconvincing.
I would certainly have questioned his proposed solutions.

One thing I did notice was that those who discussed the speech and
interviewed him on radio and TV generally fell far below his
intellectual level and were completely unable to hold a rational
discussion with him.

As someone deeply opposed to racism and other forms of unjustified
discrimination, I found it very sad that there was not a proper
debate about Powell's views. The country and intercommunal relations
might very well have been better for it.

Some twenty five years ago I was having a conversation with friends
here in Northern Ireland. Someone raised the issue of possible
difficulties in England between the growing immigrant Muslim
communities and the host communities. It was generally agreed that
there was a danger of Muslim communal isolation leading to friction
and conflict. After more discussion someone said, sadly, that it was
pointless trying to warn the English "because they are so
complacent, and look on us here who know about that sort of thing as
alien beings whom it would be dangerous to listen to".

...

If that is the actual quote, then he did not *always speak in written
style.

The generalization was something like, really smart people don't make
great elected officials. That was true of Mario Cuomo. If he hadn't
dithered over entering the presidential campaign in IIRC 1988, he would
likely have been nominated over Dukakis and would have cleaned up the
floor with GHWB in debates and other public appearances. (Remember John
Lovitz as Dukakis's famous line in an SNL debate parody, "I can't
believe I'm losing to this guy!") But he felt it was more important to
get an Albany budget settled than to go off campaigning.

Jimmy Carter is another -- a brilliant man, he saw the presidency as an
exercise in micro-management, which no one can do.

No, I mean exactly what I said: Bill Clinton, with a brilliant mind,
succeeded in politics.

If that means he _also_ has low cunning, so be it.

You'll have to take that up with Miss Tendency, a person who has never
leaked into sci.lang before.