 |
 | 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 / August 2007Slovenly comparison
At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to mixed-breed dogs. -- American Scientist That is to say, At the genomic level, purebred dogs usually are less heterogeneous genetically than mixed-breed dogs. The first "level" is sensible, in that one imagines placement in a hierarchy of causation, including evolutionary, phenotypical, behavioral, and whatnot. "Levels of" is pure blather; it adds nothing to "reduced genetic heterogeneity" except (for the fastidious) the distraction of reflecting that levels are lowered, not reduced. "Usually" does not consort well with "characterized", which properly points to an exceptionally reliable means of distinguishing. Here, it is a warning that "are characterized by" is a mere circumlocution for "have" or "show" (or, if those count as four-letter words, then "possess" or "display"). But of course, without the circumlocution, the reader would be likely to notice the silliness of saying "show heterogeneity" instead of "are heterogeneous". Another four-letter word in mealy-mouthed technical parlance is "than". "Reduced" avoids the occasion to use it; but this author probably would recoil from it & use "compared to" even after "less". It would probably seem vulgar to such people to be told that the chief idiom for comparison in plain English is a comparative followed by "than", and if any other construction is chosen there had better be a good reason for it.  Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: If you don't hear the thunder, either the lightning was very :|| ||: far away or it struck you. :|| > At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by > reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to mixed-breed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >to "reduced genetic heterogeneity" except (for the fastidious) the >distraction of reflecting that levels are lowered, not reduced. When you're stating the obvious, the temptation to dress it up in fancy language is hard to resist. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > > At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by > > reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to mixed-breed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > When you're stating the obvious, the temptation to dress it up in fancy > language is hard to resist. Do you think the "American Scientist" writer was aware that he was stating the obvious? Perhaps he believed he hit upon a spectacular breakthrough like...reinventing the wheel? > On Aug 22, 10:33?pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > stating the obvious? Perhaps he believed he hit upon a spectacular > breakthrough like...reinventing the wheel? The American Scientist was fully aware that his statement was obvious, but he was unable to resist taking the easy way out of his writing problem: "Say whatever comes to mind, and if it sounds close enough to what I mean, then don't bother rewriting it because it takes too much time and effort". This is the norm for most native anglophones these days. This is what is meant by the dumbing down of the language. It has nothing to do with intellect, education, or social status but with the f.cked-up attitude that, to borrow a phrase from HSB Bank commercials, "close enough is good enough". SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "Democracy is merely an option that Iraqis are free to choose or reject." Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning in Iraq. > >> > At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by > >> > reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > social status but with the f.cked-up attitude that, to borrow a > phrase from HSB Bank commercials, "close enough is good enough". I'm not going to argue with you, the expert, about the bad editing of scientific prose. But I think it may also be a case of not seeing the forest from the trees. Arcadian Rises filted: >I'm not going to argue with you, the expert, about the bad editing of >scientific prose. But I think it may also be a case of not seeing the >forest from the trees. Sometimes I swear they do these things on purpose....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > forest from the trees. ObAUE: "forest for the trees". Cheers, Sage > > forest from the trees. > > ObAUE: "forest for the trees". It works, though, to denote an even deeper state of confusion. -- John >>> forest from the trees. >> ObAUE: "forest for the trees". > > It works, though, to denote an even deeper state of confusion. > -- > John If you mean "from within the trees" then I see what you mean. Cheers, Sage >>>> forest from the trees. >>> ObAUE: "forest for the trees". >> >> It works, though, to denote an even deeper state of confusion. >If you mean "from within the trees" then I see what you mean. No, I meant not being able to distinguish between the forest and the trees. Like, can't tell the shrimp from the elbow macaroni. SignatureJohn >>>>> forest from the trees. >>>> ObAUE: "forest for the trees". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, I meant not being able to distinguish between the forest and the > trees. Like, can't tell the shrimp from the elbow macaroni. Sorry; you've lost me ... admittedly, it's not too hard to do these days. Cheers, Sage >>>>>> forest from the trees. >>>>> ObAUE: "forest for the trees". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Sorry; you've lost me ... admittedly, it's not too hard to do these days. Maybe it's not a universal idiom- to tell A from B- distinguish between A and B. SignatureJohn >> At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by >> reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to mixed-breed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > When you're stating the obvious, the temptation to dress it up in fancy > language is hard to resist. It may be less obvious than it appears. It's probably true of dogs, but I don't believe it is obviously true. The point is that in selecting for particular characteristics breeders ignore many other sources of variation that may swamp variability due to the traits that are selected. I don't remember the details, but I believe a group of Russian breeders carried out an experiment in which they wanted to find out how many generations of selective breeding could produce a fox with dog-like characteristics (floppy ears, short waggy tail, not frightened of people ...) starting with wild foxes. They found it took fewer generations than they or any one else would have guessed, i.e. they were able to complete the experiment in a couple of decades. Yet at the end of this time almost all of the genetic variability of the wild ancestors would have been present in their tame descendants. (I think they used foxes rather than the more obvious choice of wolves to avoid any possibility of cheating.) Anyone looking at a collection of humans and a collection of chimpanzees (neither of them pure-bred, of course) will be tempted to regard it as obvious that there is more genetic variability among the humans than among the chimpanzees. But not only is it not obvious, it is extremely far from the truth, which is that humans are vastly more uniform under the skin than they seem to be to the eye, whereas wild chimpanzees, even within a small part of Africa, are vastly more variable. (Perhaps I should make it clear that I'm not talking about differences between chimpanzees and bonobos, but about differences within a single species.) Richard Lewontin has pointed out on numerous occasions that between variations individual humans within one supposedly homogeneous population include about 85% of the variations between individual in the entire human population. (I have some problems with exactly how the value of 85% is arrived at, and with exactly what it means, but no matter: the point is qualitatively valid.) Signatureathel > >> At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by > >> reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to mixed-breed [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > variation that may swamp variability due to the traits that are > selected. I'm sure it's not so obvious for an untrained eye to spot genetic variability. But even a mind untrained in genetics would know that a half-bred is more genetically diverse than a pure-bred. > I don't remember the details, but I believe a group of Russian breeders > carried out an experiment in which they wanted to find out how many [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by > reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to mixed-breed [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "than", and if any other construction is chosen there had better be a > good reason for it. Doesn't "At a genomic level,..." duplicate the information of the word "genetic", as well? -- John > Doesn't "At a genomic level,..." duplicate the information of the > word "genetic", as well? I rather suspect it does. However, it might be defended as announcing the topic in advance. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Programming should never be boring, because anything mundane :|| ||: and repetitive should be done by the computer. :|| > > Doesn't "At a genomic level,..." duplicate the information of the > > word "genetic", as well? > > I rather suspect it does. However, it might be defended as announcing > the topic in advance. By a redundancy? I beg to differ because I do not share your view and I do not agree with you. >> > Doesn't "At a genomic level,..." duplicate the information of the >> > word "genetic", as well? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I beg to differ because I do not share your view and I do not agree > with you. Cf. "And as to the legislative branch, I think Congress has been even more responsible than the President". Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: If ears could shut like eyes, or vomit like mouths, there :|| ||: would be no rock and roll. :|| > >> > Doesn't "At a genomic level,..." duplicate the information of the > >> > word "genetic", as well? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Cf. "And as to the legislative branch, I think Congress has been even > more responsible than the President". I'm sure the discussion you quoted was somehow about the three branches. Perhaps the same thing (specific differences within the same species/genre) applies to the previous discussion on genomic/genetic, or it doesn't, in which case you're right about announcing the topic. But one thing I know for sure: scientific writing stinks, and one reason is that many scientists (as in exact sciences) believe that language skills are for sissies. > > Doesn't "At a genomic level,..." duplicate the information of the > > word "genetic", as well? > > I rather suspect it does. However, it might be defended as announcing > the topic in advance. It also provides an opportunity to use "level" twice with different meanings in one sentence. How about, "Genetically, purebred dogs are usually less heterogeneous than mixed-breed dogs"? Or it might mean, "Genetically, most dog breeds are less heterogeneous than the mixed-breed population." -- Jerry Friedman Joe Fineman schrieb: > At a genomic level, purebred dogs are usually characterized by > reduced levels of genetic heterogeneity compared to mixed-breed [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "than", and if any other construction is chosen there had better be a > good reason for it. I agree that "reduced levels of... compared to" is yeuch. I don't much like the position of "genetically". I do see why you put it there, though. There's something much more basic that niggles at me in the sentence: what does it mean? Isn't it tautologous? Isn't the whole point of a purebred dog that the genes are restricted to a certain set, so that the dog will have certain characteristics? Sally sallytighe schrieb: > Joe Fineman schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Sally Done it again. Had no idea there were already answers to the original post. Any more of this and I'm back to Google. Sal [...] > Done it again. Had no idea there were already answers to the original > post. Any more of this and I'm back to Google. Does your newsreader /really/ not list the replies received? SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Mike Lyle schrieb: > [...] > >>Done it again. Had no idea there were already answers to the original >>post. Any more of this and I'm back to Google. > > Does your newsreader /really/ not list the replies received? It requires a click in precisely the correct position to make the whole thread visible rather than just the first posting. Click one or two microns off and it's more than its job's worth. Sally > Mike Lyle schrieb: >>> Done it again. Had no idea there were already answers to the >>> original post. Any more of this and I'm back to Google. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It requires a click in precisely the correct position to make the > whole thread visible rather than just the first posting. Is that difficult for you? > Click one or two microns off and it's more than its job's worth. Exaggerating, of course. SignatureSkitt Give a man a fish, and he will know where to come for fish. Teach a man to fish, and he will kill your market base. Skitt schrieb: >> Mike Lyle schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is that difficult for you? Are you disabled? >> Click one or two microns off and it's more than its job's worth. > > Exaggerating, of course. Sally > Skitt schrieb: >>> Mike Lyle schrieb: >>>>> Done it again. Had no idea there were already answers to the >>>>> original post. Any more of this and I'm back to Google. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Are you disabled? No, only old. Are you telling me that you are? If so, I understand. Sorry. SignatureSkitt Skitt schrieb: >> Skitt schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No, only old. Are you telling me that you are? If so, I understand. > Sorry. I'm not disabled, Skitt; I was just a bit pissed off. Apologies. Sally > Mike Lyle schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whole thread visible rather than just the first posting. Click one > or two microns off and it's more than its job's worth. Sally, there should be a menu option to expand or collapse all threads. In Thunderbird it is under View/Threads, or you can use the shortcut keys * and \. There was probably something similar in Netscape. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au John Holmes schrieb: >> Mike Lyle schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In Thunderbird it is under View/Threads, or you can use the shortcut > keys * and \. There was probably something similar in Netscape. Aaah, yes there is -- bless you! Sally > Joe Fineman schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > purebred dog that the genes are restricted to a certain set, so that the > dog will have certain characteristics? Maybe the loss of variability due to inbreeding is more than extensive than what is needed to cause the similarities of appearance? -- John |
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.