 |
 | 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 2007This just has to be wrong
This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? Paedophile spared jail after advice "Public protection is our priority and there is absolutely no question that serious, persistent and violent offenders should not get a custodial sentence. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for courts." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6370915,00.html TOF > This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue > (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6370915,00.html Interesting. I'd like to know what Tony thinks.  SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue > > (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Interesting. I'd like to know what Tony thinks. There is no doubt in my mind that he has a choice. Not with his wife standing next to him. >> This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue >> (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Interesting. I'd like to know what Tony thinks. That's an alarming statement! I wonder why I have been singled out to express my opinion on the treatment of paedophiles. However, dealing with the sentence (the one that is a string of words, and not the one that is a string of months) I do see the intended meaning and that it is neither typo nor slip of the tongue. A poor choice of construction, perhaps, but not an error. The meaning is: The question of whether or not a custodial sentence should be imposed should not arise. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue >>>(or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's an alarming statement! I wonder why I have been singled out to > express my opinion on the treatment of paedophiles. As I'm sure you understand, I wasn't thinking of the content but of the recent discussions about what may or may not be double negatives, in which you expressed an interpretation that seemed to differ from that of others. I find that thinking about these constructions has the same effect on my brain as staring at something until you go cross-eyed. > However, dealing with the sentence (the one that is a string of words, > and not the one that is a string of months) I do see the intended [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The meaning is: The question of whether or not a custodial sentence > should be imposed should not arise. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) TOF (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <1169757244.736405.26330@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue > (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > TOF Too many negatives, perhaps he was thinking "no reason why" and changed it at the last second to "no question that" without realising that the latter introduces the desirable option while the former introduces the undesirable. There is much opportunity for confusion by getting "not" and "now" muxed ip but I don't think that applies here. SignatureTerms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status. Contains moderate language. Always read the label. Keep out of children. Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue > (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6370915,00.html Maybe he'd prefer they do hard time rather than janitorial work? --Jeff SignatureI believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man. It is us. -Konrad Lorenz > This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue > (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > custodial sentence. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for > courts." The statement is neither ambiguous nor in apparent error, but it does need to be read carefully to avoid misunderstanding. It says in effect that whether the offenders should not get a custodial sentence should not be a question to be seriously considered. In other words Q. Should we discuss the possibility that the offenders should not get a custodial sentence? A. No, that question is not even worthy of discussion. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6370915,00.html On Jan 26, 8:30 am, Algun Desconocido <desconoc...@earthlionk.net> wrote: > > This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue > > (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > A. No, that question is not even worthy of discussion. Perhaps it's just too convoluted. In my opinion, introduction of multiple negatives into statements should be avoided whereaver possible. In this case, he might simply have said: "Public protection is our priority. Serious, persistent and violent offenders should get a custodial sentence. TOF >> This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the >> tongue (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6370915,00.html Agreed. We have "There is no question of parole", meaning "We must not grant parole". "There is no question of doing x" means "We must not do x". "There is no question that x" means "Certainly x". "That we should x is beyond question" is also clear. The problem arises when we chuck in another negative in the "There is no question that" form: it makes the reader or hearer do a double, triple, multiple take. I think that's because the extra negative makes us wonder if "question" here has its other meaning of "doubt", which also takes the "There is no doubt.that. . ." construction. Now, if Xah Lee had chosen to attack this Glorious Language of Ours on _this_ ground . . . SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Now, if Xah Lee had chosen to attack this Glorious Language of Ours on > _this_ ground . . . Seriously, Mike? Don't give him any ideas. Mind you, he wouldn't know what to do with one if he had it, but if he started throwing it around, somebody might get hurt. Remember, it's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt. Then it's a sport. -=Eric > Paedophile spared jail after advice > > "Public protection is our priority and there is absolutely no > question that serious, persistent and violent offenders should not > get a custodial sentence. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter > for courts." One problem with stating things in terms of negatives is that the reader is required to guess what the alternative is. Saddam Hussein, for example, failed to get a custodial sentence. The problem with the present example is that "no question" and "should not" make bad partners. The sentence should have had either "there is no question ... as to whether" or "there is no doubt that ... should not". 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. >> Paedophile spared jail after advice >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > no question ... as to whether" or "there is no doubt that ... should > not". I see the word "not" as the problem. In most any version of the above, removing "not" would result in a clearer statement. A pondial (any pond) difference? SignatureMaria 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. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) >>> Paedophile spared jail after advice >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >A pondial (any pond) difference? But, as Mike Lyle has pointed out, this would reverse the meaning to that of such offenders never getting such a sentence. Don. >>>> Paedophile spared jail after advice >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > But, as Mike Lyle has pointed out, this would reverse the meaning to > that of such offenders never getting such a sentence. Hmm. I'm not sure now. Perhaps it should be: "Public protection is our priority and there is absolutely no doubt that serious, persistent and violent offenders should get a custodial sentence." The use of not in "should _not_ get a custodial sentence" seems (to me) to convey the idea that no "custodial sentence" should be given. Btw, as mentioned by someone else earlier, "custodial sentence" is an odd term, as least to some Americans. I suppose it means "jail sentence" or "prison sentence." Note: We used to have "custodians" in school (rather than "janitors"). They performed "custodial" duties; they were in custody of the janitorial services. But they were not in anyone's custody. SignatureMaria There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) [...] > Btw, as mentioned by someone else earlier, "custodial sentence" is an > odd term, as least to some Americans. I suppose it means "jail sentence" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They performed "custodial" duties; they were in custody of the > janitorial services. But they were not in anyone's custody. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" we cry. But surely the jannies (that's Scottish) have custody of the building, that is, it's in _their_ custody. I think most English and Welsh schools have "school keepers", but everybody knows what a janitor is. Cf college "porter": janitors and porters historically have charge of the doors. NTBCW railway, hospital, or market porters, who don't guard doors but carry things. A traditionally designed college or similar building will have a porters' lodge by the main entrance. There's a kind of chair called a "porter's chair": in theory it stood by the entrance and protected the porter from draughts. See: http://images.google.co.uk/images? hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=porter%27s+chair&btnG=Search +Images or http://tinyurl.com/32sjgc -- Mike. >[...] >> Btw, as mentioned by someone else earlier, "custodial sentence" is an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >_their_ custody. I think most English and Welsh schools have "school >keepers", but everybody knows what a janitor is. Only because they were exposed to The Beano in their youth. I don't think the word has ever been used in England. Before they were schoolkeepers they were caretakers, which is another odd expression. > Cf college "porter": >janitors and porters historically have charge of the doors. NTBCW >railway, hospital, or market porters, who don't guard doors but carry >things. Then there are coalporters, who were originally colporteurs, and have nothing to do with coal. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" [ ... ] > Then there are coalporters, who were originally colporteurs, and have > nothing to do with coal. Anything Goes. SignatureBob Lieblich Let's Do It On 27 Jan 2007, Maria wrote > Btw, as mentioned by someone else earlier, "custodial sentence" > is an odd term, as least to some Americans. I suppose it means > "jail sentence" or "prison sentence." More or less, but it's slightly broader than that -- I think it could include sentences to juvenile institutions, secure mental hospitals, that sort of thing. "Custody" obviously implies _de facto_ imprisonment, but not necessarily to a place which is classified as a prison. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > This just has to be wrong ... Surely the "not" is a slip of the tongue > (or perhaps be substituted for "must"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > custodial sentence. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for > courts." After reading all the learned opinions that have already appeared, I come back to what I'd have written at the outset if I'd written anything at all. In my experience the meaning of a sentence beginning "there is no question that..." is completely unaffected by whether "not" is put in the rest of the sentence or left out. The meaning has to be deduced according to common sense rather than by strict logical interpretation of all the words. athel On Jan 25, 1:34 pm, "TOF" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> quoted: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6370915,00.html (...) > "Public protection is our priority and there is absolutely no question > that serious, persistent and violent offenders should ... get a > custodial sentence. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for > courts." (...) I would quote it that way to indicate that I had omitted something, but with lawyers, you never know. Lawyers are either good or rich, and I wish I could afford a rich one. _______ The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. |
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.