Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009

Raymond  wrote  on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:14:01 -0500:

I don't need to know what the reviewer meant but the operative word was
"donned" to me.

On 11 Jan 2009, Raymond O'Hara wrote

That's what was undoubtedly meant, but the writer didn't write that:  
he said she *donned* it while delivering her speech.

That observation, while true, doesn't shift the focus.  It just
reinforces that the problem lies with 'while'.  It is said that a
political superstar put on a fitted jacket and skirt while she was
delivering her speech.  A kind of contra-strip tease.

Beats farting while chewing gum any day.

Of course, but that's no fun.

the Omrud filted:

We gave it right back; "no thanks," we said, "we've already got one"....r

Fully agree. Same in AmE:

--------
while

Function: conjunction

3

a : at the same time that on the contrary : when on the other hand :
WHEREAS <for many people a line of ten words requires perhaps eight
fixations, while a good reader can grasp half a line as a unit --
Russell Cosper & Barriss Mills> <while her book shows the uneven hand
of a novice at writing, it frequently stops the reader by its poetic
simplicity -- Rose Feld>

b : in spite of the fact that : ALTHOUGH <while the evidence he has
obtained may be said to fit the theory, the importance of some of it
is questionable -- Notes & Queries> <while a magnificent organizer of
espionage, he was a poor observer himself -- Allen Upward>

M-W Unabridged
-----------

I prefer "whereas" whenever we have something that must be dealt with
logically.

Marius Hancu

Do we make any clear distinction between while and whilst?  I know we
use the latter of these more than other varieties of English, but while
(!) we could use one to mean "whereas" and the other only
"simultaneously" I don't think we do.

I agree with others about what is wrong with the quote.  It's that
journalistic "donned" rather than "wore" that's doing it.  No-one other
than a journo ever uses "donned", yet they cannot avoid it.

[...]

I find nothing wrong with it. On stylistic grounds, I don't like
"whereas" much. I'm not saying I'd go as far as Shakespeare, though: in
LLL, he has (per OED) "Painefully to poare vpon a Booke, To seeke the
light of truth, while truth the while Doth falsely blinde the eye-sight
of his looke." I haven't got his balls.

It would be both righter and more noticeable with a comma to set off
the subordinate clause, though.

I would always use "whilst" for the "whereas" meaning, while of course
reserving the right to use "whilst" for other meanings of "while" where
there is no possibility of ambiguity.

James Silverton:

"David":

This reminds me of Dave Willis, who writes the bridge column that
appears in the Toronto Star.  The man appears to believe that "as"
means "and then".  Here's the opening of Saturday's column (I'll
omit the hand diagram):

       Opening lead: heart 3

       South put up dummy's jack to continue with a low spade
       as East hopped with the king to return a heart.

This "as" sounds to me as though declarer (South) had led a low
spade from dummy and East had *simultaneously* played the king of
the same suit -- as if East had been about to lead the king out of
turn but was saved because declarer played quickly enough that the
two cards hit the table together.

Of course, this is not what Willis means.  He just means that East
took the spade trick with the king, played in the normal way.

No matter how common it is, several of us not only noticed it, we
implied it is sloppy writing that may have resulted from lazy
thinking.

I'd change "gave us" to "performed".

On Jan 11, 10:28 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

It is probably to be expected that a female politician in this day and
age would appear at the speaking platform without clothes and there
don something tight fitting, no?  Might get my vote, depending not on
Q and A, but T and A.
--
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego

No, the character is supposed to be a vice-presidential candidate, and
the running mate would the be presidential candidate.

I tracked down the full review, to be sure. The paragraph:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR200901
0802609.html

    Most impressive, however, is Downie's creation of Sen.
     Cameron, the fetching young political superstar who
    dons "a fitted royal blue jacket and skirt that
    subtly highlighted her figure" while delivering a
    convention speech that trashes her geriatric running
    mate's opponent. Either Downie is astonishingly
    prescient, writing this before the advent of Sarah
    Palin, or he managed to do it afterward, in which
    case he is astoundingly fast.

In fiction, she could try to improve her own national standing at the
cost of her running mate, to get her a foothold on the next presidential
race.

Anyway, "dons" seems to be reviewer Amidon's mistake, not the
novelist's.

On 12 Jan 2009, Steve Hayes wrote

"She donned the outfit while delivering a speech" doesn't strike you
as odd?

We're heading towards a skirt that simultaneously both highlighted her
figure and delivered her speech for her.