 |
 | 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 / January 2010Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country.
From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country". Can countries prescribe antibiotics or is that the sole province of human beings? Would this be too cumbersome: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than do their colleagues in any other country"? > From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than > any other country". > Can countries prescribe antibiotics or is that the sole province of > human beings? > Would this be too cumbersome: > "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than do their > colleagues in any other country"? That would be correct, but the quoted one, though ugly, is comprehensible, With best wishes, Peter.  SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk Bob James: > From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than > any other country". > > Can countries prescribe antibiotics or is that the sole province of > human beings? Hmm. If this is headline language I'm not bothered by it, though really it should be "any other country's". > Would this be too cumbersome: > > "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than do their > colleagues in any other country"? Yes! It should at least be reduced to "Doctors in Norway prescribe fewer antibiotics than in any other country". Or shorter yet, "Doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics in Norway than any other country". Of course, these are not precisely equivalent -- the first two versions refer to the doctors by nationality, the third by location, and the fourth by the location where they prescribe. But I think the last two are functionally equivalent and are *more* likely to be what is meant. In addition, of course, "prescribe fewer antibiotics" (referring to the number of different drugs) should almost certainly be "prescribe less antibiotics" (more likely referring to quantity) or, more likely yet, "prescribe antibiotics less" (referring to frequency of prescribing). SignatureMark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily msb@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer My text in this article is in the public domain. > Yes! It should at least be reduced to "Doctors in Norway prescribe > fewer antibiotics than in any other country". Or shorter yet, > "Doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics in Norway than any other country". The first version suggests that doctors in Norway prescribe antibiotics in other countries also. And the second one compares doctors with countries and still implies that countries can prescribe antibiotics. >> Yes! It should at least be reduced to "Doctors in Norway prescribe >> fewer antibiotics than in any other country". Or shorter yet, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And the second one compares doctors with countries and still implies > that countries can prescribe antibiotics. You could keep the original form and meaning, and eliminate the problem, with "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than *those of* any other country." If you find 'those" ambiguous, substitute "the doctors". > And the second one compares doctors with countries and still implies > that countries can prescribe antibiotics. Countries can go to war, win Olympic medals, etc. I don't see why they shouldn't be able to prescribe antibiotics, too. It's just a form of metonymy. SignatureChristian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de Bob G skrev: > "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than do their > colleagues in any other country"? Would that be doctors who are born, raised, and working in Norway, norwegian doctors all over the world, or just doctors working in Norway? My point is that perfection is not always practical. SignatureBertel, Denmark > Bob G skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Norway, norwegian doctors all over the world, or just doctors > working in Norway? I think it probably means doctors working in Norway, in which case it would be true. The moral is that if you ever get infected by a hospital-strain of Staphylococcus aureus it would be best to have it happen in Norway, and not, say, in Thailand. Signatureathel > From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than > any other country". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than do their colleagues > in any other country"? Why not--sticking to headlinesque brevity--"Fewer antibiotics are prescribed in Norway than in any other country"? (By chance, exact same character count.) Presumably even the average newspaper reader will grasp (if it matters) that only doctors prescribe controlled medications. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [...] > "Fewer antibiotics are prescribed in Norway than in any other > country"? . . . It only occurred to me afterwards that that retains a silly ambiguity from the original. Better: Antibiotics are prescribed less often in Norway than in any other country Or even, falling back to real headlinese: Antibiotics are less-prescribed in Norway than any other country ("Fewer" could mean that a more restricted range of types is used.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Eric Walker skrev: > Why not--sticking to headlinesque brevity--"Fewer antibiotics are > prescribed in Norway than in any other country"? (I have seen your own corrections) The news service might want to stress the human factor. In that case "doctors" must be used. SignatureBertel, Denmark >Eric Walker skrev: >> Why not--sticking to headlinesque brevity--"Fewer antibiotics are >> prescribed in Norway than in any other country"? >The news service might want to stress the human factor. In that >case "doctors" must be used. Then: "Doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics in Norway than in any other country". (I am not one of those who fashionably abominate the passive voice.) SignatureRoger BW - BrE >>Eric Walker skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then: "Doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics in Norway than in any other > country". This begins to resemble that old tale about the leash-law wording debate. At least in principle, the suggestion above could mean that as doctors move from country to country prescribing antibiotics, they do so less often while in Norway. I still like: "Antibiotics [are] less-prescribed in Norway than any other country". If for some reason we need a focus on the prescribing physicians, perhaps "Norwegian doctors least likely to prescribe antibiotics". Whether the question of "least likely of what population?" is a credible ambiguity (I think it perfectly clear that the ellipsis is for "Norwegian doctors [as compared to other nations' doctors] least likely to prescribe antibiotics") each must judge individually; I reckon it significantly less credible than the already unlikely ambiguity I mentioned above. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Eric Walker skrev: > I still like: "Antibiotics [are] less-prescribed in Norway than any other > country". How does that exclude random doctors passing through the country? Just to be on the safe side: I do not think there is anything wrong with the original headline. Headlines are seldom precise in the sense that they can survive pedantic crossexamination - nor should they be. Much everyday language would fall apart under the same scrutiny that is exercised here. SignatureBertel, Denmark > Eric Walker skrev: > >> I still like: "Antibiotics [are] less-prescribed in Norway than any >> other country". > > How does that exclude random doctors passing through the country? It needn't: even taking at face value the idea that someone would interpret the presumptive prescribers to include visiting physicians-- which, for all we know of the data involved, it could--their percentage contribution to the data would be down in the statistical-noise region. > Just to be on the safe side: > > I do not think there is anything wrong with the original headline. But there is: as noted, with comical obviousness, countries do not issue medical prescriptions. > Headlines are seldom precise in the sense that they can survive pedantic > crossexamination - nor should they be. Part 1: yes; part 2: no. Newspapers, with their enslavement to the width of a printed column, have probably done more to corrupt language--at least the English language--over at least the past century than all other sources of corruption combined (and considering what academia has wrought all by itself, that's saying a mouthful). > Much everyday language would fall apart under the same scrutiny that is > exercised here. It would; it does. The point being . . . ? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Bertel Hansen: > I do not think there is anything wrong with the original > headline. Headlines are seldom precise in the sense that they can > survive pedantic crossexamination... I agree, but all the same, there *are* several things wrong with it if you think about it, as we've been doing. SignatureMark Brader, Short words good; sesquipedalian verbalizations undesirable Toronto, msb@vex.net -- after George Orwell On 31 Dec 2009, Eric Walker wrote >> From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer >> antibiotics than any other country". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are prescribed in Norway than in any other country"? (By > chance, exact same character count.) In headline English, "are" would often be dropped, as well. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than >> any other country". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > character count.) Presumably even the average newspaper reader will > grasp (if it matters) that only doctors prescribe controlled medications. But it's quite natural that fewer antibiotics are prescribed in Norway than in, for example, the US, if only because there are fewer Norwegians than Americans. I think it's clearer if the doctors are mentioned, as in one of the earlier posts. SignatureCheryl Cheryl skrev: > But it's quite natural that fewer antibiotics are prescribed in Norway > than in, for example, the US, if only because there are fewer Norwegians > than Americans. I think it's clearer if the doctors are mentioned, as in > one of the earlier posts. I think it is understood in such headlines that the numbers are relative to the population. Otherwise it makes no sense - The Faroes ought then to be the country that prescribes the least number of doses of similar size and strength of antibiotics. Isn't precision a wonderful thing? SignatureBertel, Denmark Cheryl Perkins: > But it's quite natural that fewer antibiotics are prescribed in Norway > than ... Less, dammit. It's bad enough when people object to "8 items or less", where either word is correct. "Fewer" is more specific and is almost certainly *not* the word required here. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Asps. Very dangerous. You go first." msb@vex.net -- Raiders of the Lost Ark [...] > Less, dammit. > > It's bad enough when people object to "8 items or less", where either > word is correct. "Fewer" is more specific and is almost certainly *not* > the word required here. I disagree. Consider the original: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country". It is ambiguous in at least a couple of significant ways. It might mean that doctors in Norway, by habit or necessity, prescribe from a range of antibiotic medications more restricted than in other nations, as if certain types of antibiotic were unavailable or disdained. In that case, "fewer" would certainly be correct. But I doubt that that was what was meant by the inept editor. But granted that we are speaking of the prescriptions themselves, there are still two possible interpretations: Norwegian doctors less often prescribe antibiotics, or when they do prescribe them they prescribe lower doses. The latter seems unlikely, but is the only case in which "less" might fit better. That is because in the alternative, which I and I imagine most readers take to be the case--that Norwegian doctors less often prescribe antibiotics--the word "antibiotics" is elliptical for "doses of antibiotic medication". They are not prescribing less antibiotic (which singular would, I think, have to be the form were "antibiotic" to be considered mass rather than count) but fewer _doses of_ antibiotics. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Mark Brader: > > Less, dammit. Eric Walker: > I disagree. Consider the original: > > "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country". > > It is ambiguous in at least a couple of significant ways. Well, the *intent* is. > It might mean that doctors in Norway, (Well, it says Norwegian doctors, but the intent is probably doctors in Norway.) > by habit or necessity, prescribe from a range of > antibiotic medications more restricted than in other nations, as if > certain types of antibiotic were unavailable or disdained. In that case, > "fewer" would certainly be correct. But I doubt that that was what was > meant by the inept editor. Exactly -- but that *is* what "fewer" implies. > But granted that we are speaking of the prescriptions themselves, there > are still two possible interpretations: Norwegian doctors less often > prescribe antibiotics, or when they do prescribe them they prescribe > lower doses. The latter seems unlikely, Agreed. > but is the only case in which "less" might fit better. No, "less" is correct for either case. What is less is not the number of antibiotics, but the quantity. (And as someone else said, *really* it's presumably quantity per capita, but never mind *that*!) > That is because in the alternative, which I and I imagine most readers > take to be the case--that Norwegian doctors less often prescribe > antibiotics--the word "antibiotics" is elliptical for "doses of > antibiotic medication". That seems to be the intent, but it is wrong. > They are not prescribing less antibiotic (which > singular would, I think, have to be the form were "antibiotic" to be > considered mass rather than count) As you know, a mass noun can become a count noun when talking about types of the stuff, like Hawaiian and Colombian coffees. But it is still possible to talk about the total quantity even in such a case: "Our coffees are some of our most popular products. Some weeks we sell 50 kg of coffees per day." If they ran out of one type yesterday, then they sold fewer coffees or less coffees. But if the store closed early and sales were down for that reason, then they sold less coffees, not fewer. Same with "less antibiotics". SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Whatever you are, be out and out, msb@vex.net | not divided or in doubt." -- Brand (Ibsen) My text in this article is in the public domain. [...] > As you know, a mass noun can become a count noun when talking about > types of the stuff, like Hawaiian and Colombian coffees. But it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and sales were down for that reason, then they sold less coffees, not > fewer. Same with "less antibiotics". One: I would be shocked to find a native speaker saying, in the adduced case, "We sell 50 kg of coffees per day"; the word used would be coffee, because, in that example, they are selling coffee beans and are thus conceiving "coffee" as a mass noun. (There could be exceptions: one could say these nine types are our standard lines and these five are our premium lines; we sell 50 kg of premium coffees a day.") Two: that is an incorrect analogy. A correct analogy is a shop selling prepared coffee by the cup, not beans by weight. If such a shop closed early, they'd say "Today we sold fewer coffees than usual." Same with "fewer antibiotics", because--as noted in the original--in that usage "antibiotics" is simply elliptical for "doses of antibiotic medication". SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >That is because in the alternative, which I and I imagine most readers >take to be the case--that Norwegian doctors less often prescribe >antibiotics--the word "antibiotics" is elliptical for "doses of >antibiotic medication". They are not prescribing less antibiotic (which >singular would, I think, have to be the form were "antibiotic" to be >considered mass rather than count) but fewer _doses of_ antibiotics. Perhaps it means that they prescribe medicine rather than the cocktail of different drugs that "medication" implies. 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 >> That is because in the alternative, which I and I imagine most readers >> take to be the case--that Norwegian doctors less often prescribe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps it means that they prescribe medicine rather than the cocktail of > different drugs that "medication" implies. I've been hearing more people use "medication" to refer to a single drug. In fact, I think it's becoming more common to use "medication" in such senses as "Did you take your medication?" and "Would you drop me at the drugstore so I can pick up my medication?" although "pick up my prescription' would be common as well in the second case. That's odd, because you actually drop off your prescription and pick up your pills. "Take your medicine" seems to be used mostly to mean "accept your punishment". SignatureCheryl >>> That is because in the alternative, which I and I imagine most readers >>> take to be the case--that Norwegian doctors less often prescribe [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >prescription' would be common as well in the second case. That's odd, >because you actually drop off your prescription and pick up your pills. Well, I've always understood "medication" to mean a regime of medicines. >"Take your medicine" seems to be used mostly to mean "accept your >punishment". In our household it is usually shortened to "muti" and means taking your pills. 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 Steve Hayes filted: >>I've been hearing more people use "medication" to refer to a single >>drug. In fact, I think it's becoming more common to use "medication" in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >In our household it is usually shortened to "muti" and means taking your >pills. Yet another Tshwane oddity...over here the conventional shortening is "meds", plural in form even when it's only a single pill a day...(sample uses: "If we're going to be out past six, I need to bring my meds"; "what's wrong with you? Off your meds again?")...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>In our household it is usually shortened to "muti" and means taking your >>pills. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >going to be out past six, I need to bring my meds"; "what's wrong with you? Off >your meds again?")...r Actually it comes from growing up in KZN, and comes from Zulu "umuthi", meaning tree or medicine (plural "imithi"). Much Zulu traditional medicine was made from the bark of trees. It's been Anglicised as "muti" and is recognised as an English word in my Collins dictionary, as are other borrowings from Zulu, like "fundi" (AmE=guru, BrE=boffin). 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 Bob G <mrbobjames@yahoo.com>: >From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than >any other country". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than do their >colleagues in any other country"? I don't know that "colleagues" is quite right. "Counterparts" might be better. I suspect that what they really mean is "In Norway fewer antibiotics are prescribed per person than in any other country". Though you'd have to ask about how they counted cases where the patient didn't collect the prescription. In the UK it's not uncommon to issue a prescription for antibiotics to be used only if the ailment doesn't clear of its own accord within, say, a week. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >From a news item: "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than >any other country". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than do their >colleagues in any other country"? Try "Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than those of any other country". It doesn't do much to improve the ambiguity in "fewer antibiotics" though -- does it mean fewer prescriptions, or a smaller range of antibiotics? 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 |
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.