 |
 | 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 / September 2009Placement of "only"
Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: "Based on mtDNA, S. pyrrholaemus is placed within S. erythrothorax sensu lato, and consequently is only a species (rather than a subspecies of S. erythrothorax) if at least some of the taxonomy recommended in 1999 is followed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiphrornis_pyrrholaemus The "only" definitely belongs next to the thing it modifies (the "if" clause), not in the common place next to the verb. I'm about to fix it. -- Jerry Friedman > Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > clause), not in the common place next to the verb. I'm about to fix > it. Do you mean "... it is a species only ...", because I don't much like that either? The problem for me is that I don't think you can use "only" as a way of generalizing. If it said "only a species (rather than a genus..." I would understand it (the English, that is, not the biology), but it seems very odd as it is, because species include subspecies, and not vice versa. How would you find "he is only an American (rather than a New Yorker)"? Or "Pluto used to be only a planet (rather than an asteroid)"?  Signatureathel >> Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that either? The problem for me is that I don't think you can use "only" > as a way of generalizing. The meaning intended is that X is a species (not a sub-species) *only* in the case that the recommended taxonomy is followed. As it was placed, it said that X is *merely* a species &c &c Compare: I'm only a good ol' country boy if you've never been to the country. I'm a good ol' country boy only if you've never been to the country. Only (ahem) the second casting says what it means. > How would you find "he is only an American (rather than a New Yorker)"? I think the classic answer is "Turn left at Greenland." > Or "Pluto used to be only a planet (rather than an asteroid)"? That makes no sense, since a planetoid (or whatever misnomer they conceded) is a lesser thing than a planet. One might better say: Now Pluto is only a planetoid, rather than a planet. (The grounds for dropping it as a planet were, by the by, quite solid if only rarely explained properly: to oversimplify, a true planet gravitationally sweeps its orbit clean of other bodies and material.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the case that the recommended taxonomy is followed. As it was placed, it > said that X is *merely* a species &c &c Light dawns. Yes, you are right, though I don't like the idea that "a species" has meaning only in the context of particular recommendations are followed. A taxon should be a species, or not, independent of whether recommendations are followed. > Compare: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That makes no sense, since a planetoid (or whatever misnomer they > conceded) is a lesser thing than a planet. Yes, that was exactly the point my example was intended to illustrate. > One might better say: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only rarely explained properly: to oversimplify, a true planet > gravitationally sweeps its orbit clean of other bodies and material.) Signatureathel On Sep 29, 11:41 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > are followed. A taxon should be a species, or not, independent of > whether recommendations are followed. ... Good point. The article now says, "is considered a species only..." However, there's some doubt about your "should". As I recall, a lot of biologists say "species" is a convenient concept for humans that doesn't necessarily match anything "objective" in nature. -- Jerry Friedman >> The meaning intended is that X is a species (not a sub-species) *only* in >> the case that the recommended taxonomy is followed. As it was placed, it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > followed. A taxon should be a species, or not, independent of whether > recommendations are followed. Not quite as simple as that, and was not simple even in 1859 when Darwin published /The Origin of Species/. The problem that Darwin described was that there was then no clear distinction between the concept of "species" and that of "subspecies". In Darwin's time, there were occasional disputes between rival biologists working on the same "species/subspecies", the one classifying the specimens as separate species, the other classifying them as mere subspecies of each other. As a species in two isolated regions of the world evolves by natural selection, they begin to diverge. Individual differences (such as the personal differences between you and me) become, by subsequent evolution, the difference between two subspecies of the same species. Further evolution ensures the production of two separate species within the same genus. This whole process ensures that there are grey areas: at what precise point can we say that we have observed two subspecies? At what precise point do we have two separate species? The reason for the "recommendations" is that they (to some extent, at least) standardise the criteria by which biologists determine whether specimens are separate species, or mere subspecies. Even within a country as small as Britain, we have at least one case of a subspecies. The Wrens that live on St Kilda (a small Scottish island several tens of miles to the west of the Outer Hebrides) are described as a subspecies of the Wren that lives on mainland Britain. There are also, supposedly, over 50 different subspecies of Blackberry (Bramble) in Britain, but they all look the same to me. There have been futile disputes (the science clouded either by racial prejudice or by an over-zealous degree of political correctness) as to whether indigenous Africans, Chinese and Europeans should be classified as separate subspecies, or whether what we see are mere personal differences. The colour of the skin is not necessarily a determinant in this question. After all, I am not classified as a separate subspecies from my next-door neighbour simply because my hair is blond [1] and his is jet black. I think that my various examples show how difficult it is to state unequivocally whether observed differences between specimens indicate mere personal differences, the existence of subspecies, or two separate species. [1] (or was, before it became grey). Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > The problem that Darwin described was that there was then no clear > distinction between the concept of "species" and that of "subspecies". In > Darwin's time, there were occasional disputes between rival biologists > working on the same "species/subspecies", the one classifying the specimens > as separate species, the other classifying them as mere subspecies of each > other. It's a species if it has an army and a navy. It's a subspecies if it only has an underwater navy. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> The problem that Darwin described was that there was then no clear >> distinction between the concept of "species" and that of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's a species if it has an army and a navy. It's a subspecies if it > only has an underwater navy. What is it if it has a flotilla of yachts? Some sort of superclass? SignatureMaria Conlon On 29 Sep 2009, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote >> Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Do you mean "... it is a species only ...", because I don't much > like that either? I assumed he was plumping for "...is a species (rather than a subspecies of S. erythrothorax) only if at least some of the taxonomy..." SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 29 Sep 2009, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > subspecies of S. erythrothorax) only if at least some of the > taxonomy..." Yes, I said "next to the if clause". The parenthesis is helpful, since "It is a species only if the taxonomy recommended in 1999 is followed" could be ambiguous--though I don't think I'd have any trouble understanding that it's "only if", not "a species only". The parenthesis also makes the original placement of "only" worse (in violation of Zwicky's Law). -- Jerry Friedman > Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > clause), not in the common place next to the verb. I'm about to fix > it. A "species" is an entity more extreme than a "subspecies". For this reason, it seems unlikely that the aurhor really meant "only a species" when comparing this to the alternative, "a subspecies". So what did the author really intend? It seems to me that he could have meant either of the following, especially if English is his second language:- 1. "Based on mtDNA, S. pyrrholaemus is placed within S. erythrothorax sensu lato, and consequently **can only be a species ** (rather than a subspecies of S. erythrothorax) if at least some of the taxonomy recommended in 1999 is followed." 2. "Based on mtDNA, S. pyrrholaemus is placed within S. erythrothorax sensu lato, and consequently is ** ** a species (rather than a subspecies of S. erythrothorax) **only if** at least some of the taxonomy recommended in 1999 is followed." [The double asterisks mark the beginning and end of the changes from the original]. Since these two versions both have different meanings from the original, and have different meanings from each other, I would be inclined to refer the matter back to the original author for clarification. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. On Sep 29, 4:17 am, "Richard Chambers" <richard.chambers7_NoSp...@ntlworld.net> wrote: > > Sometimes prescriptivism gets you to the right place: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > meant either of the following, especially if English is his second > language:- Which I believe it is--good call. > 1. "Based on mtDNA, S. pyrrholaemus is placed within S. erythrothorax sensu > lato, and consequently **can only be a species ** (rather than a subspecies [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have different meanings from each other, I would be inclined to refer the > matter back to the original author for clarification. I think the meaning "only if" is clear from the discussion of the 1999 taxonomy. And I'm hoping the author, an ornithologist if I'm not mistaken, watches the article and will correct any mistakes I accidentally introduced. -- Jerry Friedman > On Sep 29, 4:17 am, "Richard Chambers" > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman Very interesting discussion. I was afraid I'd have to post on the "placement of 'only'" but that's not really the issue. I've long thought that "species" was a rather strange and somewhat artificial category, not least because its classic definition "a population between which and other populations there exists a barrier to breeding" is ungrammatical, since it violates the Coordinate Structure Constraint. -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler "Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
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.