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.

short

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dandelion - 14 Nov 2006 11:39 GMT
Are these sentences using 'short', 'short of', and 'short on' all
valid?  Is one better than the other?

Poll sites were short Chinese translator.
Poll sites were short of Chinese translator.
Poll sites were short on Chinese translator.

When shooting the basketball, the ball went in the hoop and not
touching the hoop, is that called a swoosh?
dontbother - 14 Nov 2006 12:21 GMT
> Are these sentences using 'short', 'short of', and 'short on' all
> valid?  Is one better than the other?

No. They're all ungrammatical because the last word has to be plural.

> Poll sites were short Chinese translator.
> Poll sites were short of Chinese translator.
> Poll sites were short on Chinese translator.

1. Poll sites were short Chinese translators.
2. Poll sites were short of Chinese translators.
3. Poll sites were short on Chinese translators.

Now they are all fine. Which one to choose is a matter of preference.
#2 is my first choice, #3 my second, and #1 ,y last.

> When shooting the basketball, the ball went in the hoop and not
> touching the hoop, is that called a swoosh?

A swish.

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."

Eric Walker - 14 Nov 2006 12:49 GMT
> > Are these sentences using 'short', 'short of', and 'short on' all
> > valid?  Is one better than the other?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Now they are all fine. Which one to choose is a matter of preference.

I suspect that there are fine shadings of sense there.  "Short on"
seems, from scanning some Google results, to want to go with some
divisible mass--one might be short on results, or short on charisma, or
short on quality, or the like.  "Short of" seems the term used for
enumerable things--a group might be short of men, or short of blank
ballots, or short of teachers; it also is used when the sense is of
physically or metaphorically not quite reaching a goal--they were a
yard short of a first down, they fell short of the targets set by the
accord, that sort of thing.

I don't pretend for a moment that those are bright-line distinctions or
anything close to--just that there seems to be in each case something
of a drift in those directions.  But I think that's why #2 seems the
better choice.

Bare "short" could, I suppose, be taken to be either form, though I
suspect a majority, given a fill-in-the-blank test, would supply "of"
as the elided word.  It's a form best avoided when there is any least
possibility of a reader seeing, even for an instant, a misreading with
"short" looking like an adjective modifying whatever noun or noun
phrase follows (which will be the case whenever that noun is something
that plausibly could be described as being "short").
R J Valentine - 14 Nov 2006 13:05 GMT
} dontbother wrote:
}
}> Dandelion <Dandelion@greenfield.com> wrote
}>
}> > Are these sentences using 'short', 'short of', and 'short on' all
}> > valid?  Is one better than the other?
}>
}> No. They're all ungrammatical because the last word has to be plural.
}>
}> > Poll sites were short Chinese translator.
}> > Poll sites were short of Chinese translator.
}> > Poll sites were short on Chinese translator.
}>
}> 1. Poll sites were short Chinese translators.
}> 2. Poll sites were short of Chinese translators.
}> 3. Poll sites were short on Chinese translators.
}>
}> Now they are all fine. Which one to choose is a matter of preference.
}
} I suspect that there are fine shadings of sense there.  "Short on"
} seems, from scanning some Google results, to want to go with some
} divisible mass--one might be short on results, or short on charisma, or
} short on quality, or the like.  "Short of" seems the term used for
} enumerable things--a group might be short of men, or short of blank
} ballots, or short of teachers; it also is used when the sense is of
} physically or metaphorically not quite reaching a goal--they were a
} yard short of a first down, they fell short of the targets set by the
} accord, that sort of thing.
}
} I don't pretend for a moment that those are bright-line distinctions or
} anything close to--just that there seems to be in each case something
} of a drift in those directions.  But I think that's why #2 seems the
} better choice.
}
} Bare "short" could, I suppose, be taken to be either form, though I
} suspect a majority, given a fill-in-the-blank test, would supply "of"
} as the elided word.  It's a form best avoided when there is any least
} possibility of a reader seeing, even for an instant, a misreading with
} "short" looking like an adjective modifying whatever noun or noun
} phrase follows (which will be the case whenever that noun is something
} that plausibly could be described as being "short").

The WordE of it is correct as far as it goes, but there's another version
that's hard to fit with a plural "Poll sites" (which in MLE ought to be
"Polling places"): "The polling place at the university was short a
Chinese translator."

Signature

rjv

Nick Atty - 14 Nov 2006 19:04 GMT
>> > Are these sentences using 'short', 'short of', and 'short on' all
>> > valid?  Is one better than the other?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
>> Now they are all fine. Which one to choose is a matter of preference.

Not in my (BrE) ideolect they aren't.   1 is simply impossible, 3 is not
likely and is probably marked to me as American, 2 is fine.

>I suspect that there are fine shadings of sense there.  "Short on"
>seems, from scanning some Google results, to want to go with some
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>yard short of a first down, they fell short of the targets set by the
>accord, that sort of thing.

But were "short on" to be part of my working vocab, this is how it feels
it would work for me.

Signature

On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon

Ian Noble - 14 Nov 2006 21:30 GMT
>>> > Are these sentences using 'short', 'short of', and 'short on' all
>>> > valid?  Is one better than the other?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Not in my (BrE) ideolect they aren't.   1 is simply impossible

Surreal, at least.

It's a description of a pubilicty stunt in which key locations on a
massive map were represented by individuals with particular
characteristics.  Airports were blonde German singers.  Police
stations were bald Latvian waiters.  Poll sites were short Chinese
translators.  And so on.

Cheers - Ian
Eric Walker - 15 Nov 2006 00:09 GMT
[...]

> Surreal, at least. . . .

Though, for reasons already adduced, it was a poor choice in this
particular casting, I am surprised to see anyone finding the general
form unusual.

Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five dollars"
sound bizarre usage?  (Assuming "one" had a referent.)  "Short" looks
like a simple predicate adjective, with its sense of "short in what
way?" supplied by the adverbial word or phrase following.  "The polling
place was short a qualified officer" seems unexceptionable; if it is,
then so is "The polling place was short qualified officers."

The form common enough, though whether Pondian I can't say.
Peter Moylan - 15 Nov 2006 01:09 GMT
> Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five dollars"
>  sound bizarre usage?  (Assuming "one" had a referent.)  "Short"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> if it is, then so is "The polling place was short qualified
> officers."

It appears to be pondian. All of your examples except the last sound
normal to me. In my usage, at least, the bare "short" requires some
answer to the question "short by how much?" Thus "short two officers" or
"short a qualified officer" sound OK, but "short qualified officers"
doesn't work in my dialect. If the number is indefinite, then it needs
to be "short _of_ qualified officers".

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.

Bob Cunningham - 15 Nov 2006 01:26 GMT

> > Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five dollars"
> >  sound bizarre usage?  (Assuming "one" had a referent.)  "Short"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > if it is, then so is "The polling place was short qualified
> > officers."

> It appears to be pondian. All of your examples except the last sound
> normal to me. In my usage, at least, the bare "short" requires some
> answer to the question "short by how much?" Thus "short two officers" or
> "short a qualified officer" sound OK, but "short qualified officers"
> doesn't work in my dialect. If the number is indefinite, then it needs
> to be "short _of_ qualified officers".

I don't know what pond you have in mind, but everything
you've said is in accord with American English as I use it.
Peter Moylan - 15 Nov 2006 10:09 GMT
>>> Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five
>>> dollars" sound bizarre usage?  (Assuming "one" had a referent.)
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> I don't know what pond you have in mind, but everything you've said
> is in accord with American English as I use it.

But not, apparently, as Eric uses it. Since I've gone and forgotten
where Eric lives, I can't say which pond.

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 - 15 Nov 2006 03:33 GMT
> Ian Noble wrote:
> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> this particular casting, I am surprised to see anyone finding
> the general form unusual.

To me, this is a common Americanism (obviously not popular with
Brits, so it's not a Briticism, it seems), but strictly informal
and spoken English only, which is why I wouldn't write it except in
dialogue.

I find all the objections to it as a colloquial more than risible.
It may not be in the idiolect or dialect of most AUE RRs, but that
doesn't justify its being more of a target than "between you and
I" and "every mother wants their child to succeed".

> Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five
> dollars" sound bizarre usage?  (Assuming "one" had a referent.)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> The form common enough, though whether Pondian I can't say.

Apparently it is one of our tainted forms. Last year, one of the
British reviewers of an orthopedics article I revised for a British
medical journal complained to the editor about the obnoxious
"Americanisms" in the manuscript. When I revised the work a second
time --- after the British editor of the journal had slashed the
article by 50% and revised the style so that it reflected his own,
I took my name from the acknowledgments section (for editorial
assistance) and mentioned that the paper had been revised again by
a native speaker of American English, just so there wasn't any
mystery about where those "Americanisms" came from in a paper
written by a native speaker of Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese.

Goddamn, the cheek of linguistic nationalists (on all sides of the
pond, but especially on the non-American shores) is beyond belief.

On the other hand, I surfed the Net last night to find an online
version of the original _Treaure Island_, which I'm now reading to
my son. The version I found in the best bookstore we have in our
city is a "condensed and retold" in contemporary British English
version. I wanted to see how different it was. On one site, there
were reviews of the story from some rtecent first-time readers who
bitched and moaned about the poor language and the strange
vocabulary from more than one hundred years ago. The only word I
found strange in the first few chapters was in Captain Bill's "You
maught call me 'Captain'."

Both OED and W3NID have it as a noun meaning "power, ability", and
that would, it seems to me, square with translating it as "can". It
might also be the Captain's idiolectal or dialectal pronunciation
of "might" or "must". Whatever the case, it's easy enough to figure
out with little thinking. But some poor young illiterate Americans
just can't seem to raise their reading levels beyond the level of a
laundry list.

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 - 15 Nov 2006 10:16 GMT
> But some poor young illiterate Americans just can't seem to raise
> their reading levels beyond the level of a laundry list.

That's easy for you to say; I presume that you can read Chinese. For me
a laundry list is far more difficult than "Treasure Island".

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 - 15 Nov 2006 11:27 GMT
> dontbother wrote:
>
>> But some poor young illiterate Americans just can't seem to
>> raise their reading levels beyond the level of a laundry list.
>
> That's easy for you to say; I presume that you can read Chinese.

I can read a bit of French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese,
but I'm not a fluent reader of any of those languages. I used to be
able to read French anthropology textbooks quite easily, but not
French novels.

> For me a laundry list is far more difficult than "Treasure
> Island".

So that's one of the things it means to be an Australian man?

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 - 17 Nov 2006 05:01 GMT
>> For me a laundry list is far more difficult than "Treasure Island".
>
> So that's one of the things it means to be an Australian man?

Perhaps I should have added that the only laundry lists I've seen have
been from Chinese laundries. My last experience with one was in a hotel
in Singapore last year. OK, there was an English-language laundry list
in the hotel, but what kind of fool pays hotel laundry prices? I took my
clothes to "Washy Washy" across the road.

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 - 17 Nov 2006 06:42 GMT
> dontbother wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Perhaps I should have added that the only laundry lists I've
> seen have been from Chinese laundries.

That would have been helpful, yes.

> My last experience with
> one was in a hotel in Singapore last year. OK, there was an
> English-language laundry list in the hotel, but what kind of
> fool pays hotel laundry prices? I took my clothes to "Washy
> Washy" across the road.

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 Duncanson - 15 Nov 2006 12:16 GMT
>> Ian Noble wrote:
>> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> this particular casting, I am surprised to see anyone finding
>> the general form unusual.

<unsnip>
>Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five dollars"
>sound bizarre usage?

>To me, this is a common Americanism (obviously not popular with
>Brits, so it's not a Briticism, it seems), but strictly informal
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>doesn't justify its being more of a target than "between you and
>I" and "every mother wants their child to succeed".

The problem for some, if not all, of us Otherpondians with "was
short five dollars" is that it is that it is so "abnormal" as to
pull us up short in a way that "between you and I" and "every mother
wants their child to succeed" do not.

Frequently when hearing or reading "short" used as in "was short
five dollars" I find myself doing a conscious insertion of "of"
after "short".

BrE versions of your sentence would be:

"I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short of five dollars"

or

"I was thinking of buying a new one, but was five dollars short".

The second strikes me as more idiomatic in BrE that the first.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

dontbother - 15 Nov 2006 13:58 GMT
> dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote:
>>> Ian Noble wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>> Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five
>>> dollars" sound bizarre usage?
[I added a > to each of the two lines above because Eric asked that
question, not I.]

>>To me, this is a common Americanism (obviously not popular with
>>Brits, so it's not a Briticism, it seems), but strictly informal
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> five dollars" I find myself doing a conscious insertion of "of"
> after "short".

I always find myself inserting "the" to "He's in hospital", but I
have no objections to it. It's not American, but I know full well
that it's idiomatic British English. OTOH, Eric's sentence above
"Does [X]  sound bizarre usage?" sounds bizzare to me coming from
an American. I have to add "like". I don't know why Eric omitted
it. Perhaps he, like UC, has a taste for 19th-century Briticisms
that might have been popular among the American gentry 100+ years
ago. It's too genteel for me, but I'm not going to go on about it

> BrE versions of your sentence would be:
>
>  "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short of five
>  dollars"

This one sounds bizarre to my American ears. I could instantly
understand "short by five dollars" but prefer by far the next
sentence you offer. That's also good American English.

> or
>
>  "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was five dollars
>  short".
>
> The second strikes me as more idiomatic in BrE that the first.

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."

Eric Walker - 15 Nov 2006 22:24 GMT
[...]

> >>> Does "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short five
> >>> dollars" sound bizarre usage?

[...]

> OTOH, Eric's sentence above . . . sounds [bizarre] to me coming from
> an American. I have to add "like". I don't know why Eric omitted
> it. Perhaps he, like UC, has a taste for 19th-century Briticisms
> that might have been popular among the American gentry 100+ years
> ago. It's too genteel for me, but I'm not going to go on about it

There seems to have been a bit of drift here: I wasn't trying to
tabulate all sound ways of expressing the thought, or to reach the
optimal one: I was trying (as I usually do) to stay as close as
reasonably possible to the original poster's original questions and
examples.  One of those questioned examples, when minimally repaired,
was "Poll sites were short Chinese translators."  The derived question
was whether that is passable usage--not ideal or preferred or what this
or that person might use, but simply passable.

My feeling is that--

. "The polling place was short a qualified officer" is certainly
passable;

. "The polling place was short two qualified officers" is almost
certainly passable; and,

. "The polling place was short qualified officers" may be passable.

That last is, as I noted before, poor in that "officers" is a word
easily modified by "short", so that a comic first-glance misreading
almost surely pops to mind, but that is not, I think, the determining
factor.

I'd have said just "passable but poor", but Peter Moylan's remarks--

"[T]he bare 'short' requires some answer to the question 'short by how
much?' Thus 'short two officers' or 'short a qualified officer' sound
OK, but 'short qualified officers' doesn't work . . . .   If the number
is indefinite, then it needs to be 'short _of_ qualified officers'. "

--cast doubt in my mind as to whether it is, after all, passable.  But
that's the actual question now:  Is "The polling place was short
qualified officers" a *passable* (not optimal) form?

(I now think not, and that Peter correctly set forth the "why".)
Amethyst Deceiver - 19 Nov 2006 17:33 GMT
>The problem for some, if not all, of us Otherpondians with "was
>short five dollars" is that it is that it is so "abnormal" as to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> "I was thinking of buying a new one, but was short of five dollars"

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm quite okay with that sentence without
'of'. It's not uncommon for coffee room conversations to go "Oh, hang
on, I'm short 10p, I'll put the crisps back," "no, just remember it
tomorrow!".
Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

mUs1Ka - 19 Nov 2006 17:54 GMT
>>The problem for some, if not all, of us Otherpondians with "was
>>short five dollars" is that it is that it is so "abnormal" as to
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> on, I'm short 10p, I'll put the crisps back," "no, just remember it
> tomorrow!".

More natural to me would be "10p short".

Signature

Ray
UK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 0 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Ian Noble - 15 Nov 2006 08:02 GMT
>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>The form common enough, though whether Pondian I can't say.

I don't think it's entirely pondian, in that I've been known to use
that form as well, but let's test that, as I see a subtle difference
between (eg)  "I'm short a couple of quid" and "I'm short of a couple
of quid".

To me, the first has an elided "by", and suggests I have two quid less
than whatever sum is needed.  The second *might* mean that too, but
I'd bbe more likely to use it, or take it, to mean that the sum needed
is two quid, whilst I have some unspecified amount less.

Although "He's not short of a couple of quid" has a very different
meaning: "He's well off".

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Notts., Hants.)
 
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.