 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Who?
From the BBC Sport Football Web site, http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : Despite failing to score in his last seven matches, Moyes still has faith in Johnson. From reading that statement in isolation, who would guess that it was Johnson who has failed to score, not Moyes? >From the BBC Sport Football Web site, >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >From reading that statement in isolation, who would guess >that it was Johnson who has failed to score, not Moyes? I see your usage point, but sentences like this are not seen in isolation. They are part of articles, and both Moyes and Johnson will be identified in the article. They don't really need to be, since readers of such articles know who Moyes (Everton's owner) and Johnson (Everton striker) are, but they are. Asking the question you ask is like asking "Who is 'he' in the sentence 'He has already lost striker James McFadden, starting a three-match ban, after being sent off by Graham Poll against Arsenal in midweek for foul language.'" It's not necessary or useful in an article like this to identify all references in every sentence.  SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >From the BBC Sport Football Web site, > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It's not necessary or useful in an article like this to identify all > references in every sentence. Your example doesn't look at all the same, Tony. In yours, "he" is someone who isn't mentioned at all. In Bob's, the clause with "failing" is supposed to apply to the next name, "Moyes," but the writer got it wrong. (If the old rules taught for years and years have not been tossed out.) SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > >From the BBC Sport Football Web site, > > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > wrong. (If the old rules taught for years and years have not been tossed > out.) That's perfectly well covered by Tony's upfront "I see your usage point, but sentences like this are not seen in isolation." Beware the easy "WCRHR" trap: C's R far more often than the glib phrase implies, and IMO he's _usually_ R. SignatureMike. >>From the BBC Sport Football Web site, >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > readers of such articles know who Moyes (Everton's owner) and Johnson > (Everton striker) are, but they are. Moyes is the Everton manager, not owner. SignatureRay UK > From the BBC Sport Football Web site, > http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > From reading that statement in isolation, who would guess > that it was Johnson who has failed to score, not Moyes? It was clear from the sense (one's failing to score can cause other people to lose faith in one, not the other way around), but I agree that it's bad writing. SignatureJerry Friedman >> From the BBC Sport Football Web site, >> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > people to lose faith in one, not the other way around), but I agree > that it's bad writing. Agreed. It's right up there with my other football favourite: "So-and-so scored twice before being substituted" - a remarkable achievement. Jonathan > >> From the BBC Sport Football Web site, > >> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : > >> Despite failing to score in his last seven matches, > >> Moyes still has faith in Johnson. > >> From reading that statement in isolation, who would guess > >> that it was Johnson who has failed to score, not Moyes? > > It was clear from the sense (one's failing to score can cause other > > people to lose faith in one, not the other way around), but I agree > > that it's bad writing. If I didn't know that Johnson is the player and Moyes is the manager, I would understand the statement to imply that Johnson has been coaching Moyes in how to score, and it's Moyes's failure to score that's causing him to lose faith in Johnson's coaching ability. It's quite impossible within the principles of good English usage to infer that "failing" is an antecedent of "Johnson". > Agreed. It's right up there with my other football favourite: "So-and-so > scored twice before being substituted" - a remarkable achievement. Then there's "the dead man had fired twice at the police". Weird activity for a dead man. ... } Then there's "the dead man had fired twice at the police". } Weird activity for a dead man. You know the old saying: "Fire at me once, shame on you. Fire at me twice, shame on me." Signaturerjv > Agreed. It's right up there with my other football favourite: > "So-and-so scored twice before being substituted" - a remarkable > achievement. Those footballers do seem to do better than average at attracting women. SignaturePeter 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. > > Agreed. It's right up there with my other football favourite: > > "So-and-so scored twice before being substituted" - a remarkable > > achievement. > > Those footballers do seem to do better than average at attracting women. "We'll pull you off at half-time." "Geez! At my last club we only got slices of orange!" SignatureMike. >>> From the BBC Sport Football Web site, >>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Agreed. It's right up there with my other football favourite: "So-and-so > scored twice before being substituted" - a remarkable achievement. I think this is different, in that it's a specific intransitive football verb "to substitute" where "Fred is substituted" means that Fred has been replaced, rather than Fred is the replacement. I think I can almost justify it, arguing that it's formed from the act of substitution, treating it like many others: In the shooting, X was shot -> In the substitution, X was substituted SignatureOn-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 > >>> From the BBC Sport Football Web site, > >>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : > >>> Despite failing to score in his last seven matches, > >>> Moyes still has faith in Johnson. > >>> From reading that statement in isolation, who would guess > >>> that it was Johnson who has failed to score, not Moyes? > >> It was clear from the sense (one's failing to score can cause other > >> people to lose faith in one, not the other way around), but I agree > >> that it's bad writing. > >Agreed. It's right up there with my other football favourite: "So-and-so > > scored twice before being substituted" - a remarkable achievement. > I think this is different, in that it's a specific intransitive football > verb "to substitute" where "Fred is substituted" means that Fred has > been replaced, rather than Fred is the replacement. > I think I can almost justify it, arguing that it's formed from the act > of substitution, treating it like many others: > In the shooting, X was shot -> In the substitution, X was substituted You'll look in vain for support for that meaning in the _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_. _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ has a definition that can be construed to support it: 3 : to replace with another *substitute yesterday's steady opinions with the latest fancies* *names like Jane are always substituted by the pronoun she R.A.Hall b. 1911* The online _Oxford English Dictionary_ has a definition that fits, but they call it "incorrect". But I think we should say that we are observing language evolution in action. Passive "substituted" in the sense of "replaced" was for a time incorrect, but it has become acceptable in the jargon of sports reporters. But it still sounds like an error to users of traditional English. ["substitute" for "replace"] > You'll look in vain for support for that meaning in the _New > Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > But it still sounds like an error to users of traditional > English. Agreed. The problem is that "substitute", when used as a noun, is permissible as a synonym for "replacement". I always liken the verb confusion to "imply" and "infer". Jonathan Jonathan Morton filted: >Agreed. The problem is that "substitute", when used as a noun, is >permissible as a synonym for "replacement". The corresponding verbs are both defined as built-in functions in a proprietary extension of PL/I I work in...this causes no end of trouble....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. This is a correction to one of my recent postings. [...] > > >Agreed. It's right up there with my other football favourite: "So-and-so > > > scored twice before being substituted" - a remarkable achievement. > > I think this is different, in that it's a specific intransitive football > > verb "to substitute" where "Fred is substituted" means that Fred has > > been replaced, rather than Fred is the replacement. > > I think I can almost justify it, arguing that it's formed from the act > > of substitution, treating it like many others: > > In the shooting, X was shot -> In the substitution, X was substituted > You'll look in vain for support for that meaning in the _New > Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_. Actually, you won;t look in vain, but you might overlook the appropriate definition, as I did, because of not reading carefully enough the following: 4 v.t. Put in the place of, replace by a substitute (foll. by by, with). Freq. in pass. L17. > From the BBC Sport Football Web site, > http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya539c : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > From reading that statement in isolation, who would guess > that it was Johnson who has failed to score, not Moyes? I would. The sentence wouldn't make any sense in isolation if Moyes was the one who failed to score. When a coaches or teammates are motivated to say that they still have faith in someone, it's typically after that someone has performed poorly. You rarely see Jack muck everything up for a few weeks, then comment to the press that he still has faith in his teammate Rudolf, who has been playing well. That would make Jack a smug bastard. On the plus side, a statement like that would rarely be in isolation because who the hell are Moyes and Johnson? What sort of matches are being playing so poorly? What is their relationship that Moyes would be called upon or feel inclined to defend Johnson? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.