 |
 | 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 / January 2007About article
Hi, Help me with those articles -He went out without a hat -I want some salad with the meat Why do they have article? Because of "preposition, WITH, WITHOUT?" Thanks  SignatureLes chiens ont des puces, mais ils n'ont pas de reseau. 6c > Help me with those articles > -He went out without a hat > -I want some salad with the meat > Why do they have article? Because of "preposition, WITH, WITHOUT?" English names the articles logically, viz. the definite article is THE and the indefinite article is A. Usage in these sentences is logical as well as correct. "A hat" in the first is indefinite in extent (i.e. he went out without any hat of any type.) "The meat" in the second is definite. This is what you say when you have already chosen what meat to eat (e.g. the mutton but not the pork, or vice versa) and chosen to have the salad served with the meat (and not as a separate course or separate dish.) The preposition with/without has no autonomous role in governing the syntax of either sentence. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> Help me with those articles >> -He went out without a hat [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > extent (i.e. he went out without any hat of any > type.) The logic of "He went out sans hat" must be different, then. (Admittedly it is a rare construction.) SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>> Help me with those articles >>> -He went out without a hat [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The logic of "He went out sans hat" must be different, then. (Admittedly it >is a rare construction.) Were you thinking of me as you wrote that? Personally, I probably could not resist putting an article in there, contrary to what RJ Valentine has been saying. daniel mcgrath SignatureDaniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende": for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com" Developmentally disabled; has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, & periodic bouts of depression. [This signature is under construction.] >>>> Help me with those articles >>>> -He went out without a hat [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Were you thinking of me as you wrote that? Yes -- well spotted! I was also thinking of other posters who, with you in mind, have gone slightly out of their way to work the words "sans" or "rare" into their posts or comment on those words when they occur. > Personally, I probably > could not resist putting an article in there, contrary to what RJ > Valentine has been saying. Somewhere around here I have a pair of "Sansabelt" trousers. I am happy to say that I've lost too much weight to wear them anymore. (Happy both because it's good for my health and because they are hideous trousers and they were uncomfortable to wear even when they did fit me better.) Whoever coined the brand name "Sansabelt" apparently had the same feeling about the article after "sans" that you have with regard to that sentence. So you are not alone. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > Somewhere around here I have a pair of "Sansabelt" trousers. I am happy to > say that I've lost too much weight to wear them anymore. (Happy both [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > article after "sans" that you have with regard to that sentence. So you > are not alone. WMHDTB, AIMBG, but I've always wondered whether "Sanka" is derived from "sans caffeine". SignatureSalvatore Volatile > > Somewhere around here I have a pair of "Sansabelt" trousers. I am > > happy to say that I've lost too much weight to wear them anymore. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > WMHDTB, AIMBG, but I've always wondered whether "Sanka" is derived > from "sans caffeine". Kraft Foods says that: "Shortly after, Roselius started a coffee company called Kaffee Hag and introduced his new product in Europe under various names in different countries. In France he named it Cafe Sanka, a contraction of the French phrase "sans caffeine." In 1923, Roselius brought the product to the United States as Sanka, founding the Sanka Coffee Corporation in New York." <http://www.kraft.com/100/founders/LRoselius.html> Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) } Roland Hutchinson wrote: }> Somewhere around here I have a pair of "Sansabelt" trousers. I am happy to }> say that I've lost too much weight to wear them anymore. (Happy both }> because it's good for my health and because they are hideous trousers and }> they were uncomfortable to wear even when they did fit me better.) Whoever }> coined the brand name "Sansabelt" apparently had the same feeling about the }> article after "sans" that you have with regard to that sentence. So you }> are not alone. } } WMHDTB, AIMBG, but I've always wondered whether "Sanka" is derived from } "sans caffeine". Daniel? Why are you blaming Daniel? In any case, you have to know that Sansabelt used the article on purpose just to irritate people, shen they could have just called them the generic "beltless" (and who would say "abeltless"?). Signaturerjv > Les chiens ont des puces, mais ils n'ont pas de reseau. Dog lovers unite. You have nothing to lose but your chiens. > Hi, > Help me with those articles (Please) help me with (the) articles in the following sentences: Maybe "these", but not "those". "Those" would refer to articles that have been previously mentioned. "These" refers to articles that will be mentioned. > -He went out without a hat Before going out,, he put on a coat, but he went out without a hat. No hat has been previously mentioned. Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his new hat, but he went out without the hat. Reference is to the particular hat he showed us. > Why do they have article? Why do they have (an) article? To make it clear whether the reference is to a previously unmentioned hat or to the particular hat that has been mentioned. > Because of "preposition, WITH, WITHOUT?" No, not directly. > -I want some salad with the meat Waiter, please bring me some meat and some potatoes, I would like some ketchup with the meat. Please don't overcook the meat. Please bring meat to my companion, also. The indefinite article "a" is in general used only with reference to countable items. You wouldn't say *"a water", but you would say "a bucket of water". You would in general never say "a meat", but there can be cases where it could be used. For example: Dieticians recommend that every meal should include a fruit or a vegetable, but not necessarily a meat. "A meat" refers to a number of possible items that fall into a category called "meat". Use of the definite article "the" is one of the most difficult things to explain about English usage. We could come up with examples where most native speakers would be unable to explain why "the" is or is not used. They would know for sure whether it sounds right with or without "the", but they wouldn't be able to give a reason why. We could also come up with examples where it doesn't matter whether or not you include "the". The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. Rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. "The" is optional before "rain", but necessary before "plain" unless a different meaning is intended. You could also say, with different meaning Rain in Spain falls mainly on a plain. Or Rain in Spain falls mainly on plains. > Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his > new hat, but he went out without the hat. > Reference is to the particular hat he showed us. Theodore, please do not think mine to be a critique of you, personally, rather an addition to your valid thoughts and help for another. Continuity in possession. "Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his new hat, but he went out without the hat." Continuity of possession is lost; "the hat." "The hat" could be any hat amongst a number of hats although "the" suggests a singular hat. "The hat" signals a special hat but this hat might not be his new hat; might be a favorite old hat. "Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his new hat, but he went out without his new hat." Possession is better maintained. Possession is set through inference. However, readers are still not instructed he wore no hat. "Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his new hat, but he went out without his new hat; his bare head braved cold weather." Continuity in possession is perfect. Readers know he has a new hat, he did not wear his new hat nor wear any other hat. However, continuity in activity is not maintained. "Before leaving us, he showed us his new coat...." "Before we left, he showed us his new coat...." This is still not clear because readers do not know who "he" is, amongst an inferred group of two or more people; suggested three people, minimum. "Before we leave to have dinner about, John proudly shows me his new coat and his new hat but he does not wear his new hat, nor any hat, as he closes our front door, leaving us both locked out from the warmth of our home." What of John's new coat? When writers give close attention to context continuity, activity continuity and unique topic continuity, this will prompt writers to construct elaborate and interesting sentences for readers. "Before the three of us leave to have dinner at a fancy café, John shows off his new coat and his new hat for Velmajean and me. His pride prevents John from taking a chance on soiling his new hard earned clothing; he hangs both his new coat and new hat upon proper places in our entryway closet, then slips on his old, thread bare but comforting coat, glances at his old hat but elects to brave cold weather bare headed." Purl Gurl > > Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his > > new hat, but he went out without the hat. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > signals a special hat but this hat might not be > his new hat; might be a favorite old hat. [snip more of the same] Just a warning to the other participants in this thread: A lot of what Purl Gurl says may seem not to make much sense. That's because a lot of what Purl Gurl says *doesn't* make much sense. There's nothing at all wrong with "the hat" (as opposed to "his hat") once the identity of the hat has been established, as in this case it has. We sometimes suspect that PG is importing Choctaw usages into her discussion of English. She will not doubt take this as the occasion for another lengthy rant. Don't let it bother you. SignatureBob Lieblich Guardian of the Innocent >>> Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his >>> new hat, but he went out without the hat. >>Continuity in possession. >>"Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his >> new hat, but he went out without the hat." >>Continuity of possession is lost; "the hat." > Just a warning to the other participants in this thread: A lot of what > Purl Gurl says may seem not to make much sense. That's because a lot [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suspect that PG is importing Choctaw usages into her discussion of > English. Bobby, you are such a funny boy! Ha! Ha! I sometimes suspect you are importing British stiff upper lip usage into your writings! * sticks out her tongue * As typical for a lawyer, or barrister over on your wrong side of the pond, you focus on details and miss the picture. You know, if you stare at a mule's butt, you are likely to be mule kicked for not paying attention to the big picture! My topic is maintaining continuity leads to writing longer, more interesting and significantly more comprehensible writings. You are focusing on "the hat" and I am focusing on story telling. Who wants to read about the hat? I want to read about what happens when John, Velmajean and I return home from dinner and drinks! Bound to be risqué! "Taha bought a new pair of underwear. She did not wear the underwear." Ok, which underwear? The new pair or an old pair? Sure, "the" connects to "new" but there is ambiguity which is a no-no in writing, unless you intend to develop mystery or suspense. Might be I chose to wear my favorite old underwear, the underwear, rather than my new underwear. "She bought new undies. She did not wear the undies right away." Ok, which undies? She bought multiple pairs. Which pair did she not wear right away? This case example mixes plural and singular. "new undies" is plural, "the undies" can be plural or singular when taken in a slang context. Ambiguity. Wait! Who the heck is she? I do not know. You do not know. Do not you want to know who is she? I sure do! Ambiguity. Hold on, there is more! Undies! We all love women's undies. What type of undies did "she" buy? I want to know! Ambiguity. That is not all, folks! How did she wear her undies, when did she wear her undies, for whom did she wear her undies? I want to know, stop with all this ambiguity crap! Written before, "the," "that," "there" and "it" are four words of many which should be avoided in language usage. Those are no-no words, those are overkill words, those are Lazy Tongue words, which annoy! My prior topic, Robert, is to encourage readers to invest more time and effort into both spoken and written language. My usage examples establish how a simple boring sentence can be painted a beautiful portrait simply by maintaining continuity in all "things" both spoken and written. That mule is going to kick you, Robert, if you do not pay attention to the entire mule, rather than its big butt. Observe: "Robert has an old hat. He bought a new hat. He did not wear the hat." Alright, Robert, is the mule kicking? Which hat did you not wear, your old hat or your new hat? My example sentence lacks any continuity of topic. Using "the hat" in closing only serves to create confusion. "Robert has an old hat. He bought a new hat. Between the two, he prefers wearing his new hat. He slips on the hat." Better continuity of topic but still confusing. Which hat are you now wearing? None know because "prefers" does not maintain continuity of topic. Get the picture or are you being kicked by a mule? Avoiding usage of "the" in language will prompt clearer, more precise sentences, vocal or written. This is my topic, not the mule's big butt. If you are to use "the" at least surround with modifiers to create a very clear picture of which "the thing" you are addressing. > She will not doubt take this as the occasion for another lengthy > rant. Don't let it bother you. I do not rant. I write creatively, alright, or all right, whichever. Good to learn I bother you; a mark of effective creative writing. Purl Gurl purlgurl@purlgurl.net had it: > Avoiding usage of "the" in language will prompt clearer, > more precise sentences, vocal or written. The Word! SignatureDavid ===== >>Avoiding usage of "the" in language will prompt clearer, >>more precise sentences, vocal or written. > The Word! Oh bothered brother! I instructed you to NOT use "the" in your writings. What a hodaddy! You are not hip to happenings. Today's in-crowd simply exclaim, "Word!" Pay attention lest you be thought L-7. Purl Gurl > purlgurl@purlgurl.net had it: > >> Avoiding usage of "the" in language will prompt clearer, >> more precise sentences, vocal or written. > > The Word! It's a beginning. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. my.spamtrap@verizon.net had it: > > purlgurl@purlgurl.net had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's a beginning. It *was* a beginning. I've been singing with an early music group in Chester today. At least I thought I was going to be singing but they got all moist at the word "bassoon" so I've spent half the day playing blasted continuo next to a rather delightful spinet. I'm plumb puffed out (the clue's in the name of the part). It's all right for bass viol players who only have to move their arms around a bit. I was starting to get absurdly grateful for a crotchet rest (=US quarter note, I think). Pachelbel. No, not that. A 4-part Magnificat and two double-choir motets, Singet dem Herrn and Jauchzet dem Herrn. SignatureDavid ===== > my.spamtrap@verizon.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It *was* a beginning. Thou sayest. > I've been singing with an early music group in Chester today. At > least I thought I was going to be singing but they got all moist at > the word "bassoon" so I've spent half the day playing blasted > continuo next to a rather delightful spinet. I'm plumb puffed out > (the clue's in the name of the part). It's all right for bass viol > players who only have to move their arms around a bit. That's precisely why I've found continuo viol playing to be an excellent prepartion for conducting. It's basically the same gig. You wave your arms around, define the beat, and get the ensemble to play in a way that makes musical sense by exerting your influence in subtle ways that they respond to but are not necessarily aware of. You also get to read every clef known to musical science, and you have to keep going no matter what. > I was > starting to get absurdly grateful for a crotchet rest (=US quarter > note, I think). Yes. (More precisely: "quarter note" for the note; "quarter rest" for the corresponding rest.) > Pachelbel. No, not that. A commentary on that that has been making the rounds here by e-mail among orchestra (and wedding reception) string players may be of interest: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1731941/ > A 4-part Magnificat and two double-choir > motets, Singet dem Herrn and Jauchzet dem Herrn. Good man, that Pachelbel. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. my.spamtrap@verizon.net had it: > > Pachelbel. No, not that. > > A commentary on that that has been making the rounds here by e-mail among > orchestra (and wedding reception) string players may be of interest: > > http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1731941/ Yes, I'd seen it - that's why I made the comment. But have you seen these virtuosos? http://youtube.com/watch?v=-jtSpe4YtW0 SignatureDavid ===== usenet.omrud@gmail.com had it: > my.spamtrap@verizon.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-jtSpe4YtW0 Oh my God. Sheer words cannot convey the admiration and naked jealousy I feel at the sight of this clip (note to those not enamoured by the subject - stick with it past 1:30). http://youtube.com/watch?v=cMhJV5u_OSE SignatureDavid ===== > my.spamtrap@verizon.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, I'd seen it - that's why I made the comment. I shoulda known. > But have you seen these virtuosos? > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-jtSpe4YtW0 Air bassoon? I didn't realize there was any other kind. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > > > Before going out, he showed us his new coat and his > > > new hat, but he went out without the hat. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > suspect that PG is importing Choctaw usages into her discussion of > English. I wonder about saying what she said made no sense. We can follow her reasoning and see why she came to the conclusion that she did, even though the reasoning was faulty and the conclusion was wrong. In that sense, what she says makes sense. Does makes sense necessarily imply that the sense something makes is true? That is, is there no difference in connotation between makes sense and rings true? > She will not doubt take this as the occasion for another lengthy > rant. Don't let it bother you. [ ... ] > Does makes sense necessarily imply that the sense something > makes is true? That is, is there no difference in > connotation between makes sense and rings true? I can't speak for the rest of the world, but to me there has to be some truth in a sentence if it to make sense. Consider these five examples: 1. Blerm globfers fleem vrempt higpils. 2. Green porcupines float nervy hiccups. 3. Cooling breezes bring intense heat. 4. Clever remarks elicit great admiration. 5. Beef stroganoff contains sour cream. The first is grammatical but is otherwise nonsense. I think we can agree that it doesn't make sense. The second is grammatical and contains English words, but I doubt that anyone will say that it makes sense. I'll get back to the third. The fourth is grammatical, contains English words, and states something with which most people are likely to agree. Surely there are some people somewhere in the world who don't admire clever remarks, who find them snotty or offensive. so the sentence says something that isn't invariably true. Still, you know what's being said, and it's a generally accurate approximation to reality. I'd say it makes sense. The fifth is grammatical, contains English words, and is about as true as a statement can be short of an exact tautology. Sour cream is one ingredient of beef stroganoff. Leave it out, and you don't have beef stroganoff any more (I leave aside imitations of beef stroganoff that contain other dairy products like yogurt.) There's no doubt that this one makes sense. Okay, the third. It's grammatical and contains English words, but what it says is factually wrong. It doesn't "ring true." Cooling breezes do not bring intense heat.[1] If you say to me that they do, my response is that you are speaking nonsense -- factual nonsense. You have said something that is not so. Suppose I give you driving directions that require you to drive east on a street that is one-way westbound. If you know that the street is one-way westbound, you may well say to me "Those directions make no sense." They're perfectly understandable, but they require you to do something dangerous and illegal. That makes no sense. IMO, when determining whether something makes sense, you should consider its semantic effect, not simply whether one can deduce what is being talked about. Ergo, it doesn't make sense to say that cooling breezes bring intense heat. I think most people would agree with me about this. Ultimately, of course, it is a matter of opinion. You now know mine. To me, PG's contribution to this thread falls somewhere betwenen 2 and 3. Some of it simply doesn't track at all, and most of the rest is wrong or pointless. However viewed, it doesn't "make sense." It may help to think of PG as AUE's correspondent from the planet Lovetron, sending us bulletins about how the English language is used all those light years away. Her words and phrases are in English (more or less), but what comes out is frequently hopeless as an attempted representation of reality. Strangely, when she's not discoursing on English she says some very interesting things, but for the most part the most interesting thing about her comments on English is the pathology behind them. Goodness! I didn't see all that coming when I started. Still, it's been typed, so I might as well post it. [1] Let's not have any grandiose meteorological disquisitions, please. I'm talking about the experience of the person on whom the breezes impinge. SignatureBob Lieblich Making about as much sense as usual > [ ... ] > > > Does makes sense necessarily imply that the sense something > > makes is true? That is, is there no difference in > > connotation between makes sense and rings true? Interesting and persuasive arguments omitted. Summarizing: No, it is not true that there is no difference. > 3. Cooling breezes bring intense heat. > Okay, the third. It's grammatical and contains English words, but > what it says is factually wrong. It doesn't "ring true." Cooling > breezes do not bring intense heat.[1] If you say to me that they do, > my response is that you are speaking nonsense -- factual nonsense. > You have said something that is not so. In all fairness, I think the listener should recognize that the speaker probably wouldn't say anything completely ridiculous and should consider the possibility that with a suitable context and with suitable definitions of the words, the statement may ring true. Picture a nearly deserted tropical beach on a hot summer day. The only occupants are a man and a woman who lie there, he in his very brief swimwear and she in her minimal bikini barely containing her voluptuous figure. They feel a strong inclination to fall into each other's arms and make vigorous love, but the weather inhibits the urge. Suddenly a cooling breeze comes over the water, and the more comfortable weather arouses in them intense heat of passion. The rest of the story is left to the reader's imagination. A cooling breeze has brought intense heat. > [1] Let's not have any grandiose meteorological > disquisitions, please. I'm talking about the > experience of the person on whom the breezes impinge. I think my disquisition has been neither grandiose nor truly meteorological, and I think I've talked about the experience of the persons upon whom the breezes have impinged. [ ... ] > I think my disquisition has been neither grandiose nor truly > meteorological, and I think I've talked about the experience > of the persons upon whom the breezes have impinged. This is AUE. Assert that "two plus two equals four" is true and someone will disagree and offer a counterexample. Your point is valid. No harm done. (To the rest of the world: If this post makes no sense, feel free to trace the references.) SignatureBob Lieblich Well beyond his depth but hanging on On 20 Jan 2007, Robert Lieblich wrote > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is AUE. Assert that "two plus two equals four" ObAuE. "Two plus two is four", or "two plus two are four"? SignatureCheers, Harvey (I know, I know....but it seemed apt....) Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> Algun Desconocido wrote: >>>I think my disquisition has been neither grandiose nor truly >>>meteorological, and I think I've talked about the experience >>>of the persons upon whom the breezes have impinged. >>This is AUE. Assert that "two plus two equals four" > ObAuE. "Two plus two is four", or "two plus two are four"? Two plus two is four. Two and two are four. Plus is to incorporate into a singular reference thing. And is to incorporate into a plural reference thing. Purl Gurl > Two and two are four. No. Two and two are not both four. >> Two and two are four. > No. Two and two are not both four. Gotcha! GOTCHA! Two girls and two boys are four people. For this case example you fell into an assumption trap rather than your previous "the" trap. You are assuming my words reference numbers, solely numbers. Once again I well exemplify this need for clarity in language. Once again I well exemplify this self-centered thinking which bites all of us on our butts, in my case, on my big fat butt. "Ok, girls and boys, line up for Taha's American Indian war dance lessons. I need four dancers in two pairs of girls and boys. You two girls, you two boys, come on over here," she points at two pairs with a leathery index finger, "there we are, two and two are four!" --- "Language is not what you make of language rather you are what language makes of you." - Taha Purl Gurl >>> Two and two are four. >> No. Two and two are not both four. > Two girls and two boys are four people. > "Language is not what you make of language rather you are > what language makes of you." > - Taha BEGIN Abstract Most psychological researchers now accept the premise that literary narratives have an effect on people's everyday lives. Contemporary research examines the types of psychological processes that give rise to literary impact. The article describes experiments in two broad areas. First, it supports a position called the willing construction of disbelief and relates that to readers' feelings of having been transported to narrative worlds. The data suggest that readers must expend strategic effort to reject the information they acquire from literary narratives. Second, the article discusses the ways in which the unfolding of causes and consequences in literary narratives affect readers' judgments and understanding of characters and outcomes. These experiments support the claim that readers may derive bodies of evidence from their literary experiences that they apply to their own life experiences. Gerrig, Richard J. "Psychological Processes Underlying Literary Impact" Poetics Today - Volume 25, Number 2, Summer 2004, pp. 265-281 Duke University Press END "...literary experiences...they apply to their own life experiences." Purl Gurl > >> Two and two are four. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rather than your previous "the" trap. You are assuming > my words reference numbers, solely numbers. Not really. I would question the merits of 'two girls and three girls are five girls,' because it implies that two girls are five girls and three girls are five girls. 'Two girls plus three girls is five girls' would be O.K. Your example 'Two girls and two boys are four people' is almost persuasive, but it can still be construed to be saying two girls are four people and two boys are four people. Better to remove doubt by saying 'two girls and two boys makes four people.' If you were to say 'two girls and two boys make four people,' you would invite questions about what sort of people the two girls and the two boys make. It would be almost as off-color as saying 'two boys make two girls.' > On 20 Jan 2007, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ObAuE. "Two plus two is four", or "two plus two are four"? Dammit, Harvey, now I have Danny Kaye in my head! SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >On 20 Jan 2007, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >ObAuE. "Two plus two is four", or "two plus two are four"? Let's make a rule: two plus two is four, but two and two are four. SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! > >On 20 Jan 2007, Robert Lieblich wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Let's make a rule: two plus two is four, but two and two are four. Okay, but the latter forces us to accept that two plus two is eight. >> >On 20 Jan 2007, Robert Lieblich wrote >> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Okay, but the latter forces us to accept that two plus two >is eight. Upon my honour, one pair of plus twos plus one pair of plus fours are two pairs of breeches. These may, however, be less honoured in the observance. SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! [ ... ] Mi dios! There's more than one. > [ ... ] > > Mi dios! There's more than one. Hay muchos desconocidos. ¿No es verdad? >> [ ... ] >> >> Mi dios! There's more than one. > >Hay muchos desconocidos. ¿No es verdad? Siempre mas y mas. > [ ... ] > > Mi dios! Mi chas. Pleased meet u, dios. There's more than one. That not what mi hear. > > [ ... ] > > > > Mi dios! > > Mi chas. Pleased meet u, dios. Yo! > There's more than one. > > That not what mi hear. Fa more. Have some ti. SignatureRoberto Lieblich >> Let's make a rule: two plus two is four, but two and two are four. > > Okay, but the latter forces us to accept that two plus two > is eight. With your arithmetic, you could go far. 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. > >> Let's make a rule: two plus two is four, but two and two are four. > > > > Okay, but the latter forces us to accept that two plus two > > is eight. > > With your arithmetic, you could go far. It's not really a matter of arithmetic. It has to do with what an assertion in plain English means. If I say apples and tomatoes are red, that means apples are red and tomatoes are red. Exactly parallel to that is 'two and three are five,' which clearly means that two is five and three is five. 'Two and three is five' leaves no doubt that the sum of two and three is meant. 'Two and two are four' is a hypercorrective mistake foisted on generations of innocent students by misguided teachers. > On 20 Jan 2007, Robert Lieblich wrote > > [ ... ] > >> I think my disquisition has been neither grandiose nor truly > >> meteorological, and I think I've talked about the experience [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ObAuE. "Two plus two is four", or "two plus two are four"? I, for one, can't accept the latter as acceptable English. "Two plus two" is a noun phrase that takes a singular verb. To use "are" you need two subjects where there is only one. I've often heard "two *and* two are four". That's even worse; it means that two is four and two is four, so two plus two would be eight. Bob Cunningham filted: >> ObAuE. "Two plus two is four", or "two plus two are four"? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >worse; it means that two is four and two is four, so two >plus two would be eight. Gaah!...Inchworm STS!...r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This is AUE. Assert that "two plus two equals four" is true and > someone will disagree and offer a counterexample. Yes, years ago someone challenged an AUE regular to disagree that two plus two equals four. The regular observed that two fluid ounces of solvent plus two fluid ounces of solute can equal much less than four fluid ounces of solution. Another responder remarked that in Boolean algebra two plus two equals two. > Your point is valid. No harm done. > > (To the rest of the world: If this post makes no sense, feel free to > trace the references.) If it does make sense, feel free anyway. >>[ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > meteorological, and I think I've talked about the experience > of the persons upon whom the breezes have impinged. Indeed, and i'm impressed. I wonder if you could apply your prodigious imagination to providing a similarly elegant illustration of the other causal misattributions discussed here recently in the "wet sidewalks" thread? And may I be so bold as to enquire about the origin of your name? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) [ ... ] > And may I be so bold as to enquire about the origin of your name? It's just some stranger. > [ ... ] > >>And may I be so bold as to enquire about the origin of your name? > > It's just some stranger. But I wondered if it might be one who had passed this way before. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > [ ... ] > >>And may I be so bold as to enquire about the origin of your name? > > > > It's just some stranger. > > But I wondered if it might be one who had passed this way before. However, a few weeks ago we pushed a perfectly good (though nervous) poster off the group by indulging in this sort of curiosity. I feel bad about that. We old-timers are not going to start demanding that all newcomers fill out applications, I hope. If they want to pretend they've never been here before, let's let them. The phrase "Code of the West" comes to mind, and indeed, that turns up an interesting page on this courtesy, and quotes the song: http://www.lahacal.org/gentleman/west.html Say what was your name in the States? Was it Johnson or Thompson or Bates? Did you murder your wife and flee for your life? Say what was your name in the States? Did you have to change your name? Was it Miller or Benton or James? Did you spend time in jail or ride on a rail? Say what was your name in the States? --A song of the Gold Rush, by "Anonymous" SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>>[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Say what was your name in the States? > --A song of the Gold Rush, by "Anonymous" Goodness, Donna, it was only passing curiosity. If you're looking for bad manners in aue, there are far worse examples. If posters choose to use names that attract interest, I think they can expect some enquiry. They don't have to respond if they don't want to. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>[ ... ] > >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > causal misattributions discussed here recently in the "wet sidewalks" > thread? I never did understand what that thread was about. I think it may have assumed some previous knowledge that I didn't have. Either that or I didn't give it enough time to sink in. How did the sidewalks get wet, and what's the importance of their having done so? > And may I be so bold as to enquire about the origin of your name? I think 'algun desconocido' is Spanish for 'some stranger.' That's who I choose to be, just some unidentified stranger who's hanging around. If my Spanish is faulty, I welcome correction. >> And may I be so bold as to enquire about the origin of your name? > >I think 'algun desconocido' is Spanish for 'some stranger.' >That's who I choose to be, just some unidentified stranger >who's hanging around. If my Spanish is faulty, I welcome >correction. No, it's fine. (Strictly speaking, "Algún" needs an accent over the "u", but on Usenet diacritics often cause more problems than they solve.) SignatureArchie Valparaiso (Me? I blame the weather.) (lots snipped, read thread for continuity) > I wonder about saying what she said made no sense. We can > follow her reasoning and see why she came to the conclusion > that she did, even though the reasoning was faulty and the > conclusion was wrong. In that sense, what she says makes > sense. Gotcha! GOTCHA! "the reasoning," and "the conclusion." Whose reasoning and conclusion? Yours? Robert's? Mine? You have fallen into "the" trap which is why you are unable to comprehend higher level thinking. Mine is not meant an insult rather meant a flagging of your thinking; typical. "her reasoning, her conclusion." I sincerely do not intend to insult you. Using your words as an example serves well to make my point. You are very average, very typical, no different than our majority. No insult is to be taken. This is what happens. We, all of us, are anthropocentric thinkers, moreover, we are self-centered by nature. When we think, speak or write, we think in terms of our own individual knowledge and individual thinking; we assume all think just like us, as individuals. Your thinking is, "When I write 'the reasoning' all know what this means because I know what this means. Everyone thinks just like me." Our inherent nature is to think just like you, all of us. No insult, we are all the same, in a this sense. We shortcut our personal language because we are typically lazy and avoid effort. We also assume others think like us and know what we know, as individuals. We assume too much. "Hey, did you see that!" See what? Typical thinking. The writer assumes others saw "that" because she saw "that." Reality is not such. I would exclaim, "Hey! Did you see that beautiful shooting star!" "Ay, there's the rub," my dear Billy. I do not think like you, others do not think like you. You assume all others do think like you, thus, "the reasoning" and "the conclusion" does not make a cow lick of sense to many readers; others do not think as you think. Usage "her reasoning" and "her conclusion" does make sense to ALL readers. You have fallen into "the" trap. Gotcha! --- My turn. "I wonder about saying what she said made no sense. We can follow her reasoning and see why she came to the conclusion that she did, even though the reasoning was faulty and the conclusion was wrong. In that sense, what she says makes sense." Very poor paragraph construction. "I wonder about saying what she said made no sense." Huh? Are you indicating you plan to say what I said? This is what I read. Maybe others are confused as well? Should not "made" be "makes" in your sentence? Read your sentence aloud to yourself; makes no sense! Very awkward, very backwards, very confusing. "We can follow her reasoning and see why she came to the conclusion that she did," You can or you did? Who are we? If you can follow, this indicates you have not yet followed. Why are you commenting in lieu of first understanding? You "can" follow directly indicates you have an ability to perform a task but have not yet performed. Do you mean, "I followed her reasoning....?" "...and see why she...." Did you actually "see" my reasoning? Chances are you "understand" my reasoning, yes? You see my written words, you understand my words' meaning. "...she came to the conclusion that she did," Get rid of "that" in your sentence; overkill, frivolous. Better understand why I write do not use "that?" "...she did...." Again, overkill, frivolous. She did what? You already wrote, "came to" so why do you write, "she did" which indicates another action by her is to follow. "...she came to her conclusion." Is this not more clear, more concise, more cohesive? "...even though the reasoning was faulty and the conclusion was wrong." Again, whose reasoning and whose conclusion? Yours, God's, mine? "...In that sense, what she says makes sense." Get rid of "that" use "this" instead. "That is at a distance. "This" is immediate, close, right now and right here. I did not "say" a single word. How is it you hear my voice? Have voices in your head? "...what she wrote makes sense." No need to continue my critique. This critique of mine exemplifies you should not be insulted. You have, personally, through your writing, categorized yourself as typical, as average, as like almost all others. This cannot be insulting, to you. I have exemplified, through analysis of writings, a good notion can be developed of relative intelligence and relative writing skills of a writer, not "the" writer, a writer. You exhibit many of the signals of a person who easily walks into "the" trap. Being sincere, my opinion is you are not qualified to comment upon nor critique my prior article. Climb out of your "the" trap, then we can engage in good dialog. Purl Gurl (lots snipped, read thread for continuity) I wrote, "...in a this sense." OH NO! No, no, no! Robert's Choctaw thinking! Of course I must brag about this superiority of Choctaw over English, but I will not although I must. In English, I write, "...in a sense." In Choctaw, I write, "...in this sense." Stirring up my thinking, "...in a this sense." How cute! Ain't that crazy Injun quaint? Next when a person says "how" to me, I will respond, How? Me not know how. Me too old to remember how." * screams * Reminds me of Cravin Ashalintubbi, a hard drinking, knife fighting, ornery Choctaw elder. Cravin enjoys two daughters, one of whom is Bessie, the most beautiful raven haired Indian gal around Pankibok. All farm boys are after Bessie like dogs sniffing after a bitch in heat. Cravin, bless his knife fight scarred body and heart, catches Bessie and her lover, going at it. Cravin speaks, "You pusha girl, you marry girl." Her lover did just such, they enjoy children and a long good marriage; a very happy couple of high community respect. Cravin, long gone, is a Choctaw elder of antiquity. Quite the legend and quite the man. He taught all of us, well. One of his grandsons became a teacher and our school board president, for many years. Cravin emphasized this critical importance of learning to speak English and to speak English well, least when he was not busy with a barroom bloody knife fight. In Choctaw, we do not have a word for sex nor the f-word nor other expressions for sex acts, except fornication, for which we have eight different expressions, none of which you would understand, least not without becoming a Choctaw. We categorize fornication by typical generic fornication, a fornication, to commit fornication and to be a fornicatress, a word which does not exist in English. How would Anglos possibly understand this depth and deep meaning of being a fornicatress? Being such, is a mortal sin which can lead to banishment from tribal lands. Yes, we have no word for a Choctaw man equal to a fornicatress. However, today, everyone fornicates and few really care about moral implications in our modern world, in a this sense. Purl Gurl Chakaba a écrit : > Hi, > Help me with those articles Another exemple: He is away ON a trip SignatureLes chiens ont des puces, mais ils n'ont pas de reseau. 6c > Help me with those articles > -He went out without a hat > -I want some salad with the meat > Why do they have article? Because of "preposition, WITH, WITHOUT?" If one is referring to a particular item of the class of items described by the noun, one must in most cases use an article. The article "a" ("an" before a noun) is used if the item is being newly introduced as a topic, "the" is used if the item has already been introduced although that may be by assumption. So: "He went out without a hat" has "a" because "hat" needs an article. We assume here there has been no previous mention of a particular hat. If there had been such a mention, the article would have been "the": "He had a favourite hat he liked to wear, but today he went out without the hat". In this case, "the hat" refers to the previously introduced "favourite hat". Note that it doesn't necessarily mean he went out hatless, he could have worn another hat. However, had it been: "He had a favourite hat he liked to wear, but today he went out without a hat". then "without a hat" means without any hat, not just the previously mentioned hat. An article is not used when the item is introduced with a possessive, so: "He went out without his hat" is correct. But "He went out without hat" is not correct. As an example of an item introduced only by assumption, consider: "He went to the house, he knocked on the door" No door was previously mentioned, but the assumption is that it is the front door of the house, mentioning the house brings its front door into existence as something that has the article "the". Note if it was: "He went to the house, he knocked on a door" one immediately has the image of a big house with several doors, that "a" implies there cannot just be one door. Your "I want some salad with the meat" is interesting because "meat" can be a mass noun i.e. it describes something which comes in an amount of the substance rather than as a particualr example of one item of it. "I want some salad with meat" is fine, it means you want an amount of meat with your salad, maybe there is a choice of salads, some which has meat with it, some which doesn't. But "I want some salad with the meat" implies there is an existing piece of meat you want the salad with, maybe you have a piece of meat on your plate and want to add some salad to it. You can also use "the meat" in circumstances where there is a choice of dishes, only one of which is mainly meat. So, let us suppose there are three main choice diashes, one which is mainly fish, one which is mainly meat and one which is vegetarian. Then "I want some salad with the meat" implies you want the dish which is mainly meat, and you want it accompanied with salad. Note also, "salad" can be both a count noun and a mass noun. If there is just a bowl of salad, then it's a mass noun, no article required with it. But you could say "the salad" to mean the sort of salad in the bowl. If there is a choice of salad dishes, then "a salad" would refer to a particular one of them. Matthew Huntbach > Note also, "salad" can be both a count noun and a mass noun. If there is > just a bowl of salad, then it's a mass noun, no article required with it. > But you could say "the salad" to mean the sort of salad in the bowl. > If there is a choice of salad dishes, then "a salad" would refer to a > particular one of them. Let's also note that in BrE "salad" evidently can mean "lettuce and tomato subset of the filling of a sandwich"; such a usage is entirely unknown in AmE. SignatureSalvatore Volatile Salvatore Volatile a écrit : >> Note also, "salad" can be both a count noun and a mass noun. If there is >> just a bowl of salad, then it's a mass noun, no article required with it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tomato subset of the filling of a sandwich"; such a usage is entirely > unknown in AmE. The rule is, after "without" article my be put. SignatureLes chiens ont des puces, mais ils n'ont pas de reseau. 6c |
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.