 |
 | 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 / February 2009two or three measures?
The sentence below appears to have three "measures" to me, but the author of the sentence uses the phrase "two measures." What do you think? Should I use dashes around "the subsequent insurance of its very existence" to indicate that this is part of the previous "measure" and not its own measure? The stabilizing of the college’s finances, the subsequent insurance of its very existence, and the arranging of its priorities so that its academic core was more apparent and able to be used as a future building block are just two measures of the success of his presidency. > The sentence below appears to have three "measures" to me, but the > author of the sentence uses the phrase "two measures." What do you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > academic core was more apparent and able to be used as a future > building block are just two measures of the success of his presidency. I agree with your reading. Can you change the sentence to something like, "The stabilizing of the college's finances, ensuring its very existence,..."? (Not that that's great either.) Can you get the author fired? He or she can apply for a deanship at Oxford Brookes. -- Jerry Friedman > I agree with your reading. Can you change the sentence to something > like, "The stabilizing of the college's finances, ensuring its very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman Haha! Job security...I hope the publisher keeps him! > ... Can you get the > author fired? He or she can apply for a deanship at Oxford Brookes. Do I gather we have two honourable members from Oxford Brookes here? Or is this a reference to something that Laura said and I missed?  Signatureathel On Feb 26, 11:19 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > ... Can you get the > > author fired? He or she can apply for a deanship at Oxford Brookes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > athel Sad to say, I am not of said org...just a lowly freelance copyeditor... On Feb 26, 11:19 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > ... Can you get the > > author fired? He or she can apply for a deanship at Oxford Brookes. > > Do I gather we have two honourable members from Oxford Brookes here? Or > is this a reference to something that Laura said and I missed? I was thinking of this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_frm/thread/cdfcc5f399e1c31a/ -- Jerry Friedman > The sentence below appears to have three "measures" to me, but the > author of the sentence uses the phrase "two measures." What do you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > academic core was more apparent and able to be used as a future > building block are just two measures of the success of his presidency. I find that your counting is OK, but I'm not surprised that the original author got lost in such a cumbersome sentence. It seems to illustrate the idea that if you can't think clearly you can't write clearly. Signatureathel >> The sentence below appears to have three "measures" to me, but the >> author of the sentence uses the phrase "two measures." What do you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >illustrate the idea that if you can't think clearly you can't write >clearly. I agree. Only a rewrite could save that sentence. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Melissa filted: >The sentence below appears to have three "measures" to me, but the >author of the sentence uses the phrase "two measures." What do you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >academic core was more apparent and able to be used as a future >building block are just two measures of the success of his presidency. I agree with your fix, as the second apparent "measure" seems to be an appositive...parentheses might be even better than dashes.... As originally composed, the sentence is a bit of a trainwreck...have these people never heard of Rudolf Flesch?...r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > As originally composed, the sentence is a bit of a trainwreck...have these > people never heard of Rudolf Flesch?...r Speaking of trainwreck...here's a worse one I'm dealing with...trying to "fix" it in the most minimal way... One feature of the bully pulpit and by which presidents today and in the future will more and more be judged is their capacity as public intellectuals. > > As originally composed, the sentence is a bit of a trainwreck...have these > > people never heard of Rudolf Flesch?...r [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the future will more and more be judged is their capacity as public > intellectuals. I think what the author means is, "One capacity in which presidents appear In the bully pulpit is as public intellectuals, a capacity by which they will more and more be judged." The best I can do with a small change is, "One feature of the bully pulpit by which presidents will more and more be judged is their capacity as public intellectuals." This is not necessarily better--in keeping with Zwicky's law, taking out some verbiage has made it clearer that the feature is a capacity. -- Jerry Friedman On Feb 26, 1:27 pm, jerry_fried...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > As originally composed, the sentence is a bit of a trainwreck...have these > > > people never heard of Rudolf Flesch?...r [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > keeping with Zwicky's law, taking out some verbiage has made it > clearer that the feature is a capacity. Also, my suggestion is a bit garden-path-y (garden-pathetic?). Will presidents be judged by the feature or the pulpit? Maybe "One feature of the bully pulpit--one by which presidents will more and more be judged--is..." -- Jerry Friedman > > As originally composed, the sentence is a bit of a trainwreck...have these > > people never heard of Rudolf Flesch?...r [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the future will more and more be judged is their capacity as public > intellectuals. I think you need to put a match to this sentence. I hope they're paying you higher rates than normal; you're earning them. Or you could delete it and see if anyone notices. SignatureBob Lieblich Who's been there > I think you need to put a match to this sentence. I hope they're > paying you higher rates than normal; you're earning them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bob Lieblich > Who's been there I couldn't agree more with everything you've said, but I'm a novice in the copyediting world, so I have to take what I'm paid and not complain (although, I'll probably work double the hours I'm allowed to bill on this project). Oh well, can you put a price on experience? At least it boosts my ego (if not my bank account) to know I could never write this poorly. >> > As originally composed, the sentence is a bit of a trainwreck...have these >> > people never heard of Rudolf Flesch?...r [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Or you could delete it and see if anyone notices. If they did I doubt if they'd care, it is so bad. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Melissa wrote on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:15:58 -0800 (PST): >> As originally composed, the sentence is a bit of a >> trainwreck...have these people never heard of Rudolf >> Flesch?...r >> > Speaking of trainwreck...here's a worse one I'm dealing > with...trying to "fix" it in the most minimal way... >One feature of the bully pulpit and by which presidents today and in >the future will more and more be judged is their capacity as public >intellectuals. I have sometimes wondered what Theodore Roosevelt meant when he said "The White House is a bully pulpit". Perhaps, it was not the modern newspaper usage of a good place from which to bully people but "a great pulpit" since "Bully!" was a word of approval in his time. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not On Feb 26, 3:51 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote: > Melissa wrote on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:15:58 -0800 (PST): ... > > Speaking of trainwreck...here's a worse one I'm dealing > > with...trying to "fix" it in the most minimal way... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > newspaper usage of a good place from which to bully people but "a great > pulpit" since "Bully!" was a word of approval in his time. And said to be a favorite of T. R.'s. 'Colonel Roosevelt himself had no idea that he was seriously ill, and was full of interest in everything in the world and full of plans for the future. He was vexed over his two months of invalidism. When he was asked about his health by visitors his reply was a vigorous "Bully!"' [...] 'Bulletins of the Colonel's condition had come to the village from Sagamore Hill by word of mouth every day since he had been home, and the story always was that the patient had said he was feeling "bully" and "great."' "Theodore Roosevelt Dies Suddenly at Oyster Bay Home..." (/New York Times/, Jan. 1919) http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/NYTobit.htm I'm sure he meant "excellent". -- Jerry Friedman > On Feb 26, 3:51 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I'm sure he meant "excellent". Hard to come to any other conclusion, and OED agrees. But the Dictionary, with examples from up to 1993, doesn't seem to be aware of any use with negative connotation. (The expression "bully pulpit" is wholly new to me, by the way.) Strange word, really: pejorative and approving uses of the noun seem to have co-existed, though with the positive ones gradually fading away, while the adjective seems to have been mostly what one of my schoolmasters called a "hurrah" word rather than a "boo" one. I felt sure Emerson had used it to mean "a big strong man" in a complimentary way, but couldn't find a quotation to support that in OED. Maybe Ggl Books would bring it up... SignatureMike. Mike wrote on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:44:51 -0000: >> On Feb 26, 3:51 pm, "James Silverton" >> <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> I'm sure he meant "excellent". > Hard to come to any other conclusion, and OED agrees. But the > Dictionary, with examples from up to 1993, doesn't seem to be aware of > any use with negative connotation. (The expression > "bully pulpit" is wholly new to me, by the way.) "Bully pulpit" really is a favorite of reporters in the Washington Post. I see it about every week or two, often referring to someone taking advantage of their position to enforce their views. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >"Bully pulpit" really is a favorite of reporters in the Washington Post. >I see it about every week or two, often referring to someone taking >advantage of their position to enforce their views. I was beginning to wonder. The phrase is so familiar to me that I was surprised that it was unfamiliar to anyone. The newspaper here must carry Washington Post columnists. Novak, Will, and Broder are the most recognizable names at http://www.washpost.com/news_ed/editorial/opinion.shtml, but I'm not really sure that columnists are actually employed by a particular newspaper. Perhaps they are independent, syndicated, but write for a particular type of newspaper's readership. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >>"Bully pulpit" really is a favorite of reporters in the Washington Post. >>I see it about every week or two, often referring to someone taking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >newspaper. Perhaps they are independent, syndicated, but write for a >particular type of newspaper's readership. You can't expect people, or reporters for that matter, to recognize an expression that was common as muck only a hundred years ago...cf the "Peter Coffin's inn" debacle of (can it be?) a decade ago....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >>"Bully pulpit" really is a favorite of reporters in the Washington Post. >>I see it about every week or two, often referring to someone taking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >newspaper. Perhaps they are independent, syndicated, but write for a >particular type of newspaper's readership. As I recall, these three writers are syndicated, conservative swine, not writers on the staff of The Washington Post. They've been around for a long time. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > > I was beginning to wonder. The phrase is so familiar to me that I > > was surprised that it was unfamiliar to anyone. The newspaper here [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not writers on the staff of The Washington Post. They've been around > for a long time. Novak is purely syndicated, it would seem, distributed through Creator's Syndicate. Will and Broder are Washington Post columnists. Frequently columnists have a "home" publication, and their columns are syndicated from there to other publications. Brian SignatureDay 24 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project [ ... ] > Novak is purely syndicated, it would seem, distributed through Creator's Syndicate. Novak died a few months ago. He continued to turn in his column until a couple of weeks before his death. > Will and Broder are Washington Post columnists. > Frequently columnists have a "home" publication, and their columns are > syndicated from there to other publications. There's also the Washington Post Writers Group, which I believe syndicates most of the columns published regularly in the paper and some others as well. In case some of you haven't noticed, there's a major hoohah in progress in the blogosphere over a couple of recent Will columns (the second today, IIRC) in which he -- how to put this? -- stretches the truth in an effort to question, if not quite deny, the existence and effects of global warming. I think his ego has grown to the point where it no longer allows him to admit he's wrong, but the Post has made the big mistake of trying to back him up, or at least to argue that he's entitled to write whatever he wants. Here's one good place to start: <http://tinyurl.com/cpj4kc>. Hilzoy's take on the first column is particularly forceful. SignatureBob Lieblich Cooling it > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Novak died a few months ago. He continued to turn in his column until > a couple of weeks before his death. Robert Novak? His bio at Creator's doesn't indicate that: <http://www.creators.com/opinion/robert-novak-about.html> I see reports that he has a serious brain tumor, but nothing to indicate that he has died. Brian SignatureDay 24 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >> > I was beginning to wonder. The phrase is so familiar to me that I >> > was surprised that it was unfamiliar to anyone. The newspaper here [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Frequently columnists have a "home" publication, and their columns are >syndicated from there to other publications. My memory played tricks on me again. Although I occasionally sample their columns, I've avoided delving into the garbage Will and Broder generally write for so long, I forgot they had close ties to a paper I respect. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland |
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.