 |
 | 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 / July 2009What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ?
What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? > What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? IMO, the first offers a point for mental focus/support/reference, the 2nd a (circular) zone. Both work in published books. See at Google Books: 894 on "discussion * centered around" http://books.google.com/books?q=%22discussion+*+centered+around%22&btnG=Search+Books 1,092 on "discussion * centered on" http://books.google.com/books?q=%22discussion+*+centered+on%22&btnG=Search+Books where "*" is a catch-all for that respective search engine. Marius Hancu > What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? The first is a simple descriptive statement, the second a madman's nonsense.  SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? The first is correct, and the second is just wrong. The counts from Marius are with the American spelling "centered". With the British spelling "centred", and searching UK web sites, I got about 1.9 million hits for "centred on" and 240 thousand for "centred around". Of course it's very comforting for a BrE user to find such solid evidence that AmE users are less literate... -- Centred on means centre centred. Centred around means circumference centred. 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 > What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? They mean the same thing. The latter is often considered to be a solecism. Adrian >> What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? > > They mean the same thing. The latter is often considered to be a > solecism. "Often considered"? A center is, by definition, a point (even the metaphorical extensions, such as "city center", are conceptually point- like). How do you wrap a zero-dimensional concept "around" anything? The phrase is just gibberish from folk who dump words out of their mouths with little regard for what those words actually mean--"sounds sorta like" is considered close enough by them, no matter how ludicrous the error (hence "imply" for "infer" and vice-versa). SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >like" is considered close enough by them, no matter how ludicrous the >error (hence "imply" for "infer" and vice-versa). And yet I see a difference. It could be because I'm an uneducated dolt who finds gibberish acceptable, or it could be because I listen to people with the intent of understanding *what* they are communicating even if I don't necessarily agree with *how* they are saying it. Two sentences: Chapter 6 is centered on architecture in the 1950s. Chapter 6 is centered around architecture in the 1950s. The first sentence indicates a very specific topic. I would expect Chapter 6 to deal only with architecture in the 1950s. The second sentence indicates that the topic is architecture in the 1950s but the chapter could also include such things as the reasons that certain types of architecture gained or lost popularity in the 1950s. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > chapter could also include such things as the reasons that certain types > of architecture gained or lost popularity in the 1950s. For those to whom English is a friend instead of an enemy, the corresponding phrase are "centered on" and "revolves around". The ignorami[1] conflate the two to produce the linguistic equivalent of a slasher horror movie. [1] Much to my after-the-fact amazement, that seems to be an actual word. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>>>> What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >ignorami[1] conflate the two to produce the linguistic equivalent of a >slasher horror movie. Given the choice of having a conversation with someone who considers the use of "centers around" an indication that the speaker is of the ignorami and someone who says "centers around", the choice would be clear to me. Now go back there and correct "phrase are" and stop talking gibberish. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >>For those to whom English is a friend instead of an enemy, the >>corresponding phrase are "centered on" and "revolves around". The >>ignorami[1] conflate the two to produce the linguistic equivalent of a >>slasher horror movie. > >Now go back there and correct "phrase are" and stop talking gibberish. Maybe Eric thinks one phrae is as good as another....r (to whom English is a friend, with benefits) SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? [...] > Given the choice of having a conversation with someone who considers the > use of "centers around" an indication that the speaker is of the > ignorami and someone who says "centers around", the choice would be > clear to me. And what, pray tell, does use of the phrase indicate save ignorance? Knowledge? > Now go back there and correct "phrase are" and stop talking gibberish. Reduced to criticizing on the basis of typos, are we? I thought this group was above that. And if you think that the idea that "centers around" arose elsewhere than from a conflating of "centers on" and "revolves around", perhaps you will explain whence? And why the idea is "gibberish"? That is not what I would call a reasoned response. SignatureEric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Reduced to criticizing on the basis of typos, are we? I thought this > group was above that. You thought wrong. Typos are pointed out because we're expected to make an effort not to make them. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary [...] the basis of typos, are we? I thought this >> group was above that. > > You thought wrong. Typos are pointed out because we're expected to make > an effort not to make them. There is--to me, at least--a difference between pointing out typos and using them as the basis of criticism, implicit or explicit, of the propositions in which they may be embedded. For what little it may be worth, I also do not see the merit in pointing out typos unless they are of the sort that cause confusion or doubt about either what was meant or the poster's command of the subject. If someone types "I odubt that", what is end served by pointing it out, other than one-upsmanship? Presumably we all make reasonable efforts to avoid silly typos, but, in my experience, it is hard to find pencils without erasers in the shops (or keyboards without BackSpace keys). SignatureEric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >using them as the basis of criticism, implicit or explicit, of the >propositions in which they may be embedded. It depends, Eric. When I see a balloon, I don't normally reach for a pin. However, some over-inflated things do encourage that response. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [...] >>There is--to me, at least--a difference between pointing out typos and >>using them as the basis of criticism, implicit or explicit, of the >>propositions in which they may be embedded. > > It depends, Eric. When I see a balloon, I don't normally reach for a > pin. However, some over-inflated things do encourage that response. If you think that my classing people who use "center around" as ignoramuses is being "over-inflated", be aware that I regard it as charitable. I adamantly regard the following two propositions as true: 1. No native speaker of English past early childhood is ignorant of the meaning of the simple word "center". 2. Nobody walking around without a keeper is so stupid that he or she would not, after not over seven consecutive seconds thinking about it, realize that the idea of a center going around something else is a ludicrously impossible one. If, as I hold, those things are so, then people who say or write "center around" are demonstrating neither ignorance nor stupidity but rather manifesting gross mental laziness, a characteristic inability or refusal to pay any attention to what they say or write--are folk who snatch vaguely at whatever loose linguistic fancies fly by them, and expect as a matter of course their listeners or readers to do for them most of the work that they should have done in sorting whatever concepts they have into something resembling words that might communicate those concepts. Such folk have a dim sense of having heard both "center on" and "revolve around" in some sort of association with the idea of connection, and so treat us to "center around"; others pick it up and parrot it without the expense of those few seconds that would reveal starkly what an impossible nonsense it is. The OP would seem to be a person who detected something puzzling in the use of both "center on" and "center around", and asked here, all of which is reasonable and sound: when puzzled, ask. Were the use a manifestation of simple incomprehension--as with, oh, to pick a term *quite* at random, "is comprised of"--one could not reasonably maintain a blanket condemnation of all who use it: many just won't know what the term properly means, and that is probably not their fault. But that's not the case here: saying "centers around" makes as much sense as referring to the corners of a sphere, and anyone not a child should grasp that--and would, did he or she take the aforementioned few seconds to consider their words. What gravels me, then, is not use of the phrase (that annoys, which is a lesser thing), but rather attempts to justify the nonsense rather than recognize it for what it is: sheer mental laziness. SignatureEric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [ ... ] > For those to whom English is a friend instead of an enemy, the > corresponding phrase are "centered on" and "revolves around". The > ignorami[1] conflate the two to produce the linguistic equivalent of a > slasher horror movie. > > [1] Much to my after-the-fact amazement, that seems to be an actual word. For what it's worth I find "ignorami" more unpleasant than "centred around" -- the latter is just the normal evolution of the language, which we need to get used to; the former is the sort of thing that emerges from the pens of the half-educated who like to show off their half-remembered Latin. Signatureathel >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > emerges from the pens of the half-educated who like to show off their > half-remembered Latin. At least in this case, the word was made up in wry jest; only afterward did I find that, at least in some places, it is reckoned a real word. I have no Latin, half or other, but suppose the correct English plural to follow the model of octopus/octopuses (checking, I see that is the only form my desk dictionary shows). (Naturally, Merriam is one of those places.) These may amuse: http://historymike.blogspot.com/2007/10/ignorami-versus-ignoramuses.html http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorami But, back at the ranch, how can "centered around" be an "evolution of the language"? Has "center" acquired some radically new meaning lately? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >But, back at the ranch, how can "centered around" be an "evolution of the >language"? Has "center" acquired some radically new meaning lately? Be thankful for samll mercies, Eric. "Epicentered around" might be evolving secretly somewhere. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Be thankful for samll mercies, Eric. "Epicentered around" might be > evolving secretly somewhere. Sixty-six Google hits so far, including at least a couple in journal articles. A few Google Books hits, going back to The pain of both disorders is generally characterized by sharp or aching pain as described as either "deep in the ear" or epicentered around the tragus or TMJ. Jennifer Jordan and Peter Roland, "Disorders of the Auditory System", in Roeser, Valente, and Hosford-Dunn, _Audiology_, [2000] SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The vast majority of humans have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |more than the average number of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |legs. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Be thankful for samll mercies, Eric. "Epicentered around" might be >> evolving secretly somewhere. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Roeser, Valente, and Hosford-Dunn, > _Audiology_, [2000] Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh! SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> Be thankful for samll mercies, Eric. "Epicentered around" might be >> evolving secretly somewhere. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Roeser, Valente, and Hosford-Dunn, > _Audiology_, [2000] You can't take the mickey any more. No sooner do you invent a ridiculous usage than you find that someone has already used it seriously. A friend of mine was once teaching English to second-langauage speakers at a theological seminary, and she sometimes theatened to take utterances of the lecturers and use them as examples of how NOT to speak English. She gave one not unrelated to this thread. One of the theological jargon words du jour was "contextual", and in a discussion of future patterns of teaching one college pincipal insisted that "the teaching must be context-centred". My friend pointed out that this was nonsense. "The context is what comes before and after, so how can something be 'context-centred'?" she said. Another popular piece of theological jargon at the time was "marginalised", and another friend and I decided to have some fun, and wrote a spoof review of a bogus book, "Towards a circumference-centred theology" by Prof Citronella Bumbleshank, published by Doublespeak & Co. In the review we noted that Prof Bumbleshank argued that to be context-centred was not enough, it was far too linear to just follow the text from the top to the bottom of the [page, and it was marginalising the margins, so a circumference-centred theology was called for. A couple of months later my friend informed me that we had been pipped at the post by a Japanese theologian who had written a book on just that topic, though not with that exact title. So you can't take the mickey. 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 > My friend pointed out that this was nonsense. "The context is what comes > before and after, so how can something be 'context-centred'?" she said. Contrariwise! How can anything _not_ be centered in its context? SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> My friend pointed out that this was nonsense. "The context is what comes >> before and after, so how can something be 'context-centred'?" she said. > >Contrariwise! How can anything _not_ be centered in its context? Everything is a Klein bottle? 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 >>> My friend pointed out that this was nonsense. "The context is what comes >>> before and after, so how can something be 'context-centred'?" she said. >> >>Contrariwise! How can anything _not_ be centered in its context? > > Everything is a Klein bottle? Perhaps. There are manifold ways of looking at it. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> Be thankful for samll mercies, Eric. "Epicentered around" might be >> evolving secretly somewhere. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Roeser, Valente, and Hosford-Dunn, > _Audiology_, [2000] If "epicentered" is being used correctly--here, to signify what part of the body lies above the apparent internal source of the pain--then possibly "around" might signify "in the vicinity of". If so, it transforms the dreadful into merely the poorly phrased. (That is, if the meaning is something like "The epicenter of the pain is described as being in the vicinity of the tragus or of the TMJ.") SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> Be thankful for samll mercies, Eric. "Epicentered around" might be >>> evolving secretly somewhere. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pain is described as being in the vicinity of the tragus or of the > TMJ.") The problem is that while the tragus is a surface feature, the TMJ is a joint below the surface. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] >>>> Be thankful for samll mercies, Eric. "Epicentered around" might be >>>> evolving secretly somewhere. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The problem is that while the tragus is a surface feature, the TMJ is a > joint below the surface. Still trying to make sense of the thing, possibly the pain is perceived as coming from beneath where the TMJ (temporomandibular joint, jaw joint) runs. I agree it's a bit of a stretch, but I find myself unable to credit the authors with mistaking "epicentered around" for "centered on"; perhaps, in the light of other teratoid phrasings in learned journals, I am being too optimistic, but hope springs eternal . . . . SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >perhaps, in the light of other teratoid phrasings in learned journals, I >am being too optimistic, but hope springs eternal . . . . Ignoring the issue over "epicenter", as a person who suffered greatly with TMJ for several years, I can personally attest that the sufferer cannot really determine the source of the pain. In the onset of an episode, the pain radiates from the ear but it soon becomes so pervasive that the entire head area is the source of pain. Any movement of the head or jaw causes increased pain. My problem started before TMJ was a widely recognized disorder. It was known, but many physicians were not up to date. I went to three different otolaryngologists who were completely baffled by why I had "earaches" that turned into fiercely painful sessions. Finally, a neurosurgeon* steered me to a dentist who specialized in TMJ disorders. After almost a year of having my teeth ground, clamping down on a wooden pencil at onset, and wearing a mouth insert, the problem went away. In my case, I was a "clencher" under tension and with an uneven bite. (Bruxism is another cause, but not mine) *I wasn't even his patient. I was setting up an operation microscope that I had sold a hospital when I had an episode. The neurosurgeon, for whom the microscope had been purchased, stopped in the room, asked me what was wrong, and - after listening to my description - recommended the dentist. He had recently read a journal article on TMJ disorders. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [...] > Ignoring the issue over "epicenter", as a person who suffered greatly > with TMJ for several years, I can personally attest that the sufferer > cannot really determine the source of the pain. . . . You have my sympathy. I have heard TMJ described more than once as the worst pain a human can experience. (Of course, they say that of not a few things--including "icepick headaches", which I have had, but which Indomethecin controls just about perfectly--but likely they are all horrible). I am deeply pleased to hear that you have been able to beat it back; without looking it up, the impression I am under is that not all sufferers are able to do do. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You have my sympathy. I have heard TMJ described more than once as the > worst pain a human can experience. Must have been a man who said that. I suffer periodically from TMJ and giving birth was more painful. (Of course, they say that of not a > few things--including "icepick headaches", which I have had, but which > Indomethecin controls just about perfectly--but likely they are all > horrible). I am deeply pleased to hear that you have been able to beat > it back; without looking it up, the impression I am under is that not all > sufferers are able to do do. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Must have been a man who said that. I suffer periodically from TMJ and >giving birth was more painful. I winced when I read that. I have described the pain as excruciating, but I would never claim it to be "the worst pain a human can experience". Saying so just encourages people to discuss childbirth, kidney stones, and dry sockets. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > experience". Saying so just encourages people to discuss childbirth, > kidney stones, and dry sockets. I wasn't prepared to let the assertion stand unchallenged but comparisons of relative pain are of course unhelpful as each individual experiences pain differently. My father seemed to have a much higher pain threshold than normal: when eventually hospitalised with acute appendicitis and peritonitis, doctors could not believe that he had only been experiencing what he described as discomfort. This tolerance level was not a good thing as it probably contributed to the delay in diagnosing the condition which led to his death years later. Husband, too, seems to describe as discomfort what most people experience as severe pain. And the pain of childbirth usually has a positive side. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Must have been a man who said that. I suffer periodically from TMJ and > giving birth was more painful. I was told by a friend who has children that kidney stones are far worse than labour and delivery. And for such a small outcome. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > At least in this case, the word was made up in wry jest; I guessed that! > only afterward > did I find that, at least in some places, it is reckoned a real word. I > have no Latin, half or other, but suppose the correct English plural to > follow the model of octopus/octopuses (checking, I see that is the only > form my desk dictionary shows). Not really: in Latin "ignoramus" is plural already: it's a verb meaning "we don't know". One could argue that it's already moved far enough in meaning in English that there is not much point in treating it as a Latin at all. "Octopus" is a bit different; It's certainly singular, but (if I remember rightly: I don't have a dictionary handy, but doubtless someone will sort me out if I get it all wrong) I think it's a Latinized version of a word formed on Greek roots (though "octo" will do as either Latin or Greek), and its pedantic plural "octopods" is more Greek- than Latin-looking. I pluralize it as "octopuses". > (Naturally, Merriam is one of those places.) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But, back at the ranch, how can "centered around" be an "evolution of the > language"? Has "center" acquired some radically new meaning lately? No, but prepositions change their meanings all the time. That's why they're often the most difficult words to translate, even between closely related languages. French pour and par occupy much the same territory as Spanish para and por but they carve it up differently. Signatureathel Quoth Eric Walker <email@owlcroft.com>, and I quote: >>>>> What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >ignorami[1] conflate the two to produce the linguistic equivalent of a >slasher horror movie. The OED has a whole section devoted to the phrase: "to centre (or be centred) about, around or round: to have (something) as one's or its centre or focus; to move or revolve round (something) as a centre; to be concentrated on, to turn on (see TURN v. 3); to be mainly concerned with." Here are some of the nineteenth-century examples. I rewrite each one with "on" just to see what they sound like: 1868 FREEMAN Norm. Conq. (1876) II. viii. 262 It is around the King..that the main storm of battle is made to centre. "It is on the King..that the main storm of battle is made to centre" 1878 Harper's Mag. 308/2 The real interest of the story centres about the lives of four personages. "The real interest of the story centres on the lives of four personages" 1893 KIPLING Day's Work (1898) 7 The little cluster of huts where he and his gang lived centred round the tattered dwelling of a sea-priest. "The little cluster of huts where he and his gang lived centred on the tattered dwelling of a sea-priest." >[1] Much to my after-the-fact amazement, that seems to be an actual word. Albeit an incorrect word, used only by those who are equally inimical to English and Latin. SignatureJames Hi, My professor had a book-report assignment, for which I picked /Little Women/ by Louisa May Alcott. A sentence I wrote goes: "The plot centers around those four girls of the March family, namely Meg (Margaret), Jo (Josephine), Beth (Elizabeth), and Amy, listed in age order." Is the proposition "around" suitable here? Do my words read like a madman speaking? Sincerely, Tacia > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Is the proposition "around" suitable here? > Do my words read like a madman speaking? I'd change "those" to "the" and "in age order" to "in order of age". Apart from those changes, the sentence could have been written by a native speaker. "The plot centers around" seems perfectly idiomatic to me. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > > A sentence I wrote goes: > > "The plot centers around those four girls of the March family, namely > > Meg (Margaret), Jo (Josephine), Beth (Elizabeth), and Amy, listed in > > age order." > I'd change "those" to "the" and "in age order" to "in order of age". > > Apart from those changes, the sentence could have been written by a native > speaker. "The plot centers around" seems perfectly idiomatic to me. Thanks for remarking. >>> A sentence I wrote goes: >>> "The plot centers around those four girls of the March family, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks for remarking. Oh, oh -- there goes the "native speaker" image ... SignatureSkitt (AmE) No NESsie, but oh, so close ... > > "The plot centers around those four girls of the March family, namely > > Meg (Margaret), Jo (Josephine), Beth (Elizabeth), and Amy, listed in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Apart from those changes, the sentence could have been written by a native > speaker. "The plot centers around" seems perfectly idiomatic to me. Yes (alas), "centers around" is current American idiom. It was however widely condemned up to at least 1961 (e.g. by Prof. Salter of UA, Edmonton) as a sloppy solecism. 1. The center is a point, he used to insist. If we want to describe a zone we should use "middle" or something similar. 2. More generally, if a book is about four girls we should not be ashamed to write "the book is about four girls. . . " "Centers around" adduces extraneous ideas (of geometry or geography) that convey no information about the book (i.e. may distract the reader, like the clause about age order.) In brief, the sentence breaks no grammar but is bad style. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) Don Phillipson filted: >Yes (alas), "centers around" is current American idiom. It was however >widely condemned up to at least 1961 (e.g. by Prof. Salter of UA, Edmonton) >as a sloppy solecism. >1. The center is a point, he used to insist. If we want to describe a >zone we should use "middle" or something similar. In the world of Microsoft and its "align" commands for drawings, the center is a vertical line through a group of objects; the middle is a horizontal line through a group of objects....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Don Phillipson filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > center is a vertical line through a group of objects; the middle is a > horizontal line through a group of objects....r I thought this group was about _English_ usage. I don't know what language Microsoft thinks it is using, but it sure ain't English. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Roland Hutchinson filted: >> In the world of Microsoft and its "align" commands for drawings, the >> center is a vertical line through a group of objects; the middle is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I don't know what language Microsoft thinks it is using, but it sure ain't >English. It looks like you're trying to rant about a commercial software product; would you like some help? ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Roland Hutchinson filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It looks like you're trying to rant about a commercial software product; > would you like some help? Rant? I'm just warming up. (Another false positive from the spawn of Clippy!) SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I'd change "those" to "the" and "in age order" to "in order of age". It still seems ambiguous to me. Decreasing or increasing age? >Apart from those changes, the sentence could have been written by a native >speaker. "The plot centers around" seems perfectly idiomatic to me. SignatureJohn > My professor had a book-report assignment, for which I picked /Little > Women/ by Louisa May Alcott. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Is the proposition "around" suitable here? Do my words read like a > madman speaking? I find it perplexing that this post appears near the (current) end of a very, very long and heated thread on the question. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > My professor had a book-report assignment, for which I picked /Little > > Women/ by Louisa May Alcott. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I find it perplexing that this post appears near the (current) end of a > very, very long and heated thread on the question. Ah, sorry. This question have hung on my mind after I saw the original posting. At first, I decided to wait for more replies. But today I made up my mind to pop out the question. No offense is intended! Sincerely, Tacia >> > My professor had a book-report assignment, for which I picked /Little >> > Women/ by Louisa May Alcott. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > posting. At first, I decided to wait for more replies. But today I made > up my mind to pop out the question. No offense is intended! No, no: no offense sensed or taken--just curiosity. But, tedious as it would be, you probably ought to read the entire thread. To answer your original question _de novo_, however, till the language has "evolved" (as one poster put it) to the stage where "center" means what the word "circumference" is usually taken to signify--which stage I, for one, reckon it has not yet "evolved" to--the phrase "center around" does indeed sound like a madman speaking (it can't read like a madman speaking, only sound like it--though it could read like a madman writing). SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> > My professor had a book-report assignment, for which I picked /Little >>> > Women/ by Louisa May Alcott. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > does indeed sound like a madman speaking (it can't read like a madman > speaking, only sound like it--though it could read like a madman writing). And, to summarise even more, in that context "centres around" can be replaced by either "centres on" or "revolves around" (of which the latter sounds very slightly better to me). SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > My professor had a book-report assignment, for which I picked /Little > >> > Women/ by Louisa May Alcott. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > does indeed sound like a madman speaking (it can't read like a madman > speaking, only sound like it--though it could read like a madman writing). In your humble opinion. Tacia, the language has, to quote Eric, evolved. He may not recognise that, but that doesn't make your sentence in any way unidiomatic. Your use of "centers around" works fine. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary [...] >> To answer your original question _de novo_, however, till the language >> has "evolved" (as one poster put it) to the stage where "center" means [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that, but that doesn't make your sentence in any way unidiomatic. Your > use of "centers around" works fine. In the opinions, humble or not, of every significant usage authority (I believe I cited 8 or 10 such upthread), _without exception_ (not even Saint Burchfield), and most dictionaries. The language has ***not*** "evolved" to the point that "center" means "circumference". What has evolved are the capacities for some individuals to excuse every sort of laziness and ineptitude in usage with the idea that the language has "evolved" to the point where black means white or red or green or whatever it is that they sort of mean but cannot or will not figure out how to say in simple, clear English. But now we are replaying the thread. As with most of the nonsenses associated with the "whatever" school of usage, the fact remains that using the normal, accepted form will leave you always fully and clearly understood, with no one puzzled or vexed, whereas using whatever is the current cheapjack slang will normally leave not a few readers or listeners puzzled or vexed (or both). That is the joy and wonder of their position, if one can so dignify it: it almost without exception serves no purpose whatever. It is rarely if ever a coining or change that fills a previously unmet need for expression, or that in any way more precisely or more elegantly states what can already be well said in plain, honest English as can be found in any non-Merriam dictionary or usage manual. SignatureEric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] >>> To answer your original question _de novo_, however, till the language [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >be well said in plain, honest English as can be found in any non-Merriam >dictionary or usage manual. Bravo! SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Quoth Tacia <outofdejavu@gmail.com>, and I quote: >Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Is the proposition "around" suitable here? >Do my words read like a madman speaking? Since you have repeated your question, I'll repeat my answer. The phrase "centre around" is perfectly acceptable in English. The OED has a whole section devoted to it, with this definition: "to centre (or be centred) about, around or round: to have (something) as one's or its centre or focus; to move or revolve round (something) as a centre; to be concentrated on, to turn on (see TURN v. 3); to be mainly concerned with." Here are some of the nineteenth-century examples. 1868 FREEMAN Norm. Conq. (1876) II. viii. 262 It is around the King..that the main storm of battle is made to centre. 1878 Harper's Mag. 308/2 The real interest of the story centres about the lives of four personages. 1893 KIPLING Day's Work (1898) 7 The little cluster of huts where he and his gang lived centred round the tattered dwelling of a sea-priest. None of these writers could be termed madmen. SignatureJames [...] > None of these writers could be termed madmen. Is the phrase "even Homer nodded" known? Virtually every usage manual ever written takes care to choose its examples of wrong uses--often grossly wrong uses--from the works of writers not only famous in the general sense, but often famous for normally fastidiously correct use: the entire point of such examples being that even the best can, at times, err from simple carelessness. Sound usage is what the majority of good writers write the majority of the time. Finding the occasional lapse from sense does not invalidate sense. (I for one would wager a day's wages that could one translate Rudyard Kipling to this time and place and ask him about that use, he would shudder and amend it on the instant.) SignatureEric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > >> What's the difference between "centered on" and "centered around" ? > > > They mean the same thing. The latter is often considered to be a > > solecism. > > "Often considered"? Yes sir. Your consideration was only one of many I had in mind. Adrian http://idlish.blogspot.com/ |
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.