 |
 | 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 2010Einstein is a genius
Hello: Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? 1. Einstein is a genius. 2. Einstein was a genius. BTW, I think that: 3. Einstein's work is the work of a genius. 4. Einstein's work was the work of a genius. are both OK. -- Thanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > are both OK. All are OK.  SignaturePat Durkin durkinpa at msn.com Wisconsin >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > All are OK. I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>> Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead. Ditto. >>> Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead. His body of work exists in time. It's all relative. Pat Durkin filted: >>>> Hello: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >His body of work exists in time. It's all relative. Albert Einstein still lives, and he's still a genius...but he did change his name for professional reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Brooks ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>> Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead. That turns on whether or not the sentence can be held to be expressing a general, universal, or timeless truth, as #3 does (as in "Columbus proved that the world *is* round.") I am inclined to not think of #1 that way, but that's the issue. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> "Marius Hancu" <marius.hancu@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f-80ed- [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that the world *is* round.") I am inclined to not think of #1 that way, > but that's the issue. "Columbus proved that the world is round" is a completely different kettle of fish from "Einstein is a genius". The world still exists, Einstein doesn't. Einstein was a person, and was quite distinct from (the results of) his work, which still exist(s). SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>>> "Marius Hancu" <marius.hancu@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f-80ed- [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Einstein doesn't. Einstein was a person, and was quite distinct from > (the results of) his work, which still exist(s). "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other grounds. SignatureJames >>>>> "Marius Hancu" <marius.hancu@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f-80ed- [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other > grounds. Well, duh! I missed that. Forest and trees, so to speak. Skitt lives! > "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other > grounds. Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into (islands off of) a previously unknown contient when past your point of no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you thought was a lot closer)? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth. |Enormous effort and elaborate kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this (650)857-7572 |much money | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other >> grounds. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you thought > was a lot closer)? He was indeed what the Spaniards call "un bastardo confituroso". SignatureJames >> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other >> grounds. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you thought > was a lot closer)? Depends on whether you are talking before or after the event. Bearing in mind the extent of North and South America, he could hardly have failed to find landfall somewhere, approximately 40% of the way to his destination. His stroke of luck was to find winds that would take him back to Europe. He used the Trade Winds (blowing from the north-east towards the south west) to take him to America, and then had the insight to travel north to pick up the North Atlantic westerlies to take him back home. As described by Iain Stewart in a recent BBC programme. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >>> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other >>> grounds. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > could hardly have failed to find landfall somewhere, approximately > 40% of the way to his destination. In hindsight, but running into something that would save you from essentially certain death, when neither you nor anybody else had any reason to believe that it existed, counts as "blind luck" in my book. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most |punctilious compliance with the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do (650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking |well. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger Evan Kirshenbaum: > Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into > (islands off of) a previously unknown contient when past your point > of no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you > thought was a lot closer)? Well, here's most of article <1994Sep29.133929.19969@tron.bwi.wec.com>, posted in 1994 to comp.lang.c by one jcb@pcd.wec.com (reformatted): | We had a program that worked 'flawlessly' until I found that a | static array declared in a header was being multiply declared in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | to say, I used that constant to play the lottery for *months* | afterward. :-} Didn't win though. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "...This is due to the Coincidence effect, msb@vex.net | more so than the Coriolis." -- Cindy Kandolf Mark Brader <msb@vex.net>: >Evan Kirshenbaum: >> Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >| to say, I used that constant to play the lottery for *months* >| afterward. :-} Didn't win though. That seems so lucky that I'd be wondering whether it really was luck, or whether it was deliberate obfuscation, possibly with some humorous or dark motive. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Mark Brader <msb@vex.net>: >>Evan Kirshenbaum: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > whether it was deliberate obfuscation, possibly with some humorous or > dark motive. Or, perhaps more likely, whether the code that made the first mistake had also, somewhere, managed to commit another that resulted in storing the value there, some sort of s = sizeof(some_big_struct); ... /* forget, as above, that s was the size rather than a pointer that * was supposed to hold it */ *s = sizeof(some_big_struct); So two similar errors that happened to cancel each other out. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > "Columbus proved that the world is round" is a completely different > kettle of fish from "Einstein is a genius". The world still exists, > Einstein doesn't. Einstein was a person, and was quite distinct from > (the results of) his work, which still exist(s). I am inclined to agree, as I tried to make clear, but do recognize the argument that the statement can be taken as a general truth. People, even those who can read without moving their lips, do still say things such as "Shakespeare is one of our greatest writers," or "Ghandi is the very model of a secular saint." Propositions so put, as with the Einstein one, are intended as statements of timeless verities. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > very model of a secular saint." Propositions so put, as with the > Einstein one, are intended as statements of timeless verities. Gandhi! SignatureJames >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Gandhi! Part of whom is now in the sea off Durban, South Africa: http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/jan/310110-mahatma-gandhi-ashes-scattered.htm SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > > I am inclined to agree, as I tried to make clear, but do recognize the > > argument that the statement can be taken as a general truth. People, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gandhi! Say hi to Gandhi. Other mnemonic creations furnished on request. Isn't it nice that no one gives us grief about Shakespere, Shakespear, Shakspeare, Shackspeare, Shakspere, Shackespeare, Shackspere, Shackespere, Shaxspere, etc. Somehow we all go for the same one. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>> I am inclined to agree, as I tried to make clear, but do >>> recognize the argument that the statement can be taken as a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Other mnemonic creations furnished on request. I remember the spelling by observing Grassman's Law, which states that if an aspirated consonant in Greek or Sanskrit is followed by another aspirated consonant in the next syllable, the first one loses the aspiration. Which is why the Greek word "thrix" gives us "trichologist". But "Say hi to Gandhi" is easier. SignatureJames Eric Walker: >> People, even those who can read without moving their lips, do still >> say things such as "Shakespeare is one of our greatest writers," or >> "Ghandi is the very model of a secular saint." ... James Hogg: > Gandhi! Well, of course that was the man's *actual name*, but Eric, ever fastidious, was reporting what *people say*. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Just because it's correct doesn't msb@vex.net make it right!" -- Jonas Schlein > >>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that the world *is* round.") I am inclined to not think of #1 that way, > but that's the issue. My main interest is 1, thus I'd appreciate more feedback on it from you and others. I think one may touch on religious and metaphysical things here. To me, "genius," when talking about the very person (as in 1) is related to its living embodiment, thus it can be used only during his life, except if you're very religious. Thank you all. Marius Hancu >> >>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >related to its living embodiment, thus it can be used only during his >life, except if you're very religious. This may not help - Einstein lives on in his work. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> >>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > his > life, except if you're very religious. I think the context should demonstrate whether the remark should be taken as a historical present tense. If we are counting off points in a logical argument, then I think "is" fits just fine. a. Hitler wins the election b. Einstein leaves Germany. (please don't insist on historical accuracy!) c. Einstein moves to the US d. Einstein is a genius e. The US develops the A-Bomb! f. All faw down go boom! > >> >>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > taken as a historical present tense. If we are counting off points > in a logical argument, then I think "is" fits just fine. > a. Hitler wins the election > b. Einstein leaves Germany. (please don't insist on historical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > e. The US develops the A-Bomb! > f. All faw down go boom! The above are OK. However, let's say that we're _not_ using the present narrative. How about it then? Thanks. Marius Hancu >> >> >>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > The above are OK. However, let's say that we're _not_ using the > present narrative. How about it then? You still have to use expressions in context. Mainly, however, unless you are writing some formal essay, you might choose simple past, or whatever the situation demands--is the guy alive or dead? Jeremiah was a bullfrog. (song lyric). But he lives in a very lively song! Jesus lives! God is dead. > Jesus lives! God is dead. "God is dead." -- Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead." -- God Jesus saves; Moses invests. Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Rey wrote: >> Jesus lives! God is dead. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Jesus saves; Moses invests. There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet. -- Pauli > > Jesus lives! God is dead. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jesus saves; Moses invests. Jesus saves sinners, and redeems them for valuable cash prizes. >>> Jesus lives! God is dead. >> "God is dead." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jesus saves sinners, and redeems them for valuable cash prizes. Jesus saves, and Esposito scores on the rebound. Jesus saves, and takes half damage. Save the whales, collect the whole set. --Jeff SignatureIs man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's? --Friedrich Nietzsche Marius Hancu asks about: >>> 1. Einstein is a genius. >>> 2. Einstein was a genius. "Annily", among others, writes: > I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead. I also agree with this. The present tense is okay in something like "Einstein, in his most famous paper, writes..."; but this anachronistic usage does not extend to his personal characteristics. 1 is wrong. SignatureMark Brader | The way the Giants are playing this season, Newton Toronto | would have been better off standing on the wings msb@vex.net | of the Cardinals. --Richard Tanzer > Marius Hancu asks about: > > >>> 1.Einstein is a genius. > >>> 2.Einstein was a genius. > "Annily", among others, writes: > > I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead. > > I also agree with this. The present tense is okay in something like > "Einstein, in his most famous paper, writes..."; but this anachronistic > usage does not extend to his personal characteristics. 1 is wrong. That's my point too. Marius Hancu > > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > All are OK. Oh, really? Define "genius"! >> > Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Define "genius"! I think Marcus could have written "Einstein's is/was a work of genius". While examples 3 and 4 are correct and used, I find the repetition of "work" a bit ponderous. >>> Hello: >>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Define "genius"! "A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." SignatureJames >>>> Hello: >>>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." But does this remain true in any non-accelerating frame? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. |
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.