 |
 | 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 2010someone's word against another person's
someone's word against another person's It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who harrassed you and not the other way around. (The Last Precinct ) context: No particular need to put, it's as you read. question: From context, it's clear that your word reprsents the content in the "that clause". "Your word" is that it was she who harrassed you and not the other way around. So, my question is, is it the only intrepretation GRAMATICALLY, or no room to take "that clause" asa murdered policewoman's word? Or, either intrepretation is possible gramatically, so depends on context? "Masa" asks about: > It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who > harrassed you and not the other way around. (The Last Precinct ) This has only one possible meaning: you say that she harrassed you. The policeman said it was you who harrassed her. And there's nothing else that would help determine who's right.  SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "These days UNIX isn't very UNIX-like" msb@vex.net -- Doug Gwyn > "Masa" asks about: >> It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who >> harrassed you and not the other way around. (The Last Precinct ) harassed > This has only one possible meaning: you say that she harrassed you. harassed > The policeman said it was you who harrassed her. harassed > And there's nothing else that would help determine who's right. -- ~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ My text in this article is in the pubic domain. > > "Masa" asks about: > >> It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > harassed policewoman > > And there's nothing else that would help determine who's right. > > -- > ~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ > My text in this article is in the pubic domain. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>> "Masa" asks about: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > policewoman Heh-heh. Close, pero no cigarro: son and grandson of Chiefs of Police. Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Let me put my motive for posing this question. It's your word against mine that he came here yesterday. Looking at this sentence, what came to me at first is: which word is this? Which said that "it's your word against mine that he came here yesterday"? I couldn't decide soon. Just from sentence structure, I simply thought it could be either your word or my word. So I have no idea how you could be sure it is "your word" in this example sentence. > Let me put my motive for posing this question. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So I have no idea how you could be sure it is "your word" in this > example sentence. You can't really tell without the context. Mary says "Mike came yesterday" John says "Mike didn't come yesterday" Mary says "It's your word against mine that Mike came yesterday (or: that Mike didn't come yesterday)" or John says "It's your word against mine that he came yesterday (or: that he didn't come yesterday)" It might be a bit more common (and a bit clearer) for John, who claims that Mike didn't come to say "It's your word against mine that Mike came yesterday" and for Mary, who claims that Mike did come to say "It's your word against mine that Mike didn't come yesterday", but in casual speech you might hear either, or simply "It's your word against mine", which gets the main idea across - that Mary and John have different opinions about what happened, and there is no proof which one is honest or correct. Both are 'giving their word' (in the sense of making a solemn statement, almost like an oath in court) that his or her version of events is correct. SignatureCheryl > Let me put my motive for posing this question. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So I have no idea how you could be sure it is "your word" in this > example sentence. http://www.onelook.com/?w=word&ls=a Read the sidebar for a brief analysis of how "word" means many different things. Or choose the first reference listed for many more interpretations. Even more briefly: In your example, "your word (or mine)" is your statement or claim or testimony as compared with my (word) testimony. When you say you can't decide "soon", you mean "quickly". Masa filted: >Let me put my motive for posing this question. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So I have no idea how you could be sure it is "your word" in this >example sentence. I'm all for repeating Peter Moylan's advice: think of "against mine" as parenthetical....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > "Masa" asks about: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Mark Brader, Toronto "These days UNIX isn't very UNIX-like" > m...@vex.net -- Doug Gwyn Let me ask otherwide to make clearer my point. If what is said there is more neutral in content like the following: It's your word against mine that he came here yesterday In this case, the content is supposed to be by you, not me, or no room for vice versa? "Masa": > If what is said there is more neutral in content like the following: > > It's your word against mine that he came here yesterday There is still only one meaning. "You" are the one saying "that he came here yesterday". SignatureMark Brader | Up until now, you have been told never to use Toronto | the Goto. I use it. I use a revolver too, but msb@vex.net | I don't give it to my children. --a Prof. Baird > On 2月9日, 午後1:16, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Let me ask otherwide to make clearer my point. Not clearer at all for me! I can't for the life of me figure out what it is you want to know. > If what is said there is more neutral in content like the following: > > It's your word against mine that he came here yesterday > > In this case, the content is supposed to be by you, not me, or no > room for vice versa? This is especially obscure. What content? Maybe you should write the whole sentence three times in what you see as three unambiguous ways. For me the sentence is already unambiguous (as was your original one), but apapparently isn't for you. Signatureathel On 09 Feb 2010, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote >> On 2月9æ—¥, åˆå¾Œ1:16, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > unambiguous ways. For me the sentence is already unambiguous (as > was your original one), but apapparently isn't for you. What he's asking is this: Take the statement: "It's X's word against Y's that Z happened". Was the original claim -- that "Z happened" made by "X", or could that claim have been made by either "X" or "Y"? In other words, is "It's your word against mine that Z happened" potentially interchangeable with "It's my word against yours that Z happened"? (The answer, I submit, is "no".) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Feb 2010, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote [ ... ] >>> It's your word against mine that he came here yesterday >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > potentially interchangeable with "It's my word against yours that Z > happened"? OK. Thanks. Although he didn't choose the clearest way of expressing it, that does seem to be what he meant. So, to answer my own question, the possibilities are a. X says that Z happened, but it's his word against Y's. b. Y says that Z happened, but it's her word against X's. c. X and Y don't agree about whether Z happened. > (The answer, I submit, is "no".) Agreed. Signatureathel > Let me ask otherwide to make clearer my point. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In this case, the content is supposed to be by you, not me, or no > room for vice versa? That depends on what you mean by "vice versa". The situation is completely symmetrical: - It's your word against mine that he came here yesterday. - It's my word against yours that he did not come here yesterday. Perhaps it would help if you thought of the "against Y" part as a parenthetical comment. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >"Masa" asks about: >> It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The policeman said it was you who harrassed her. And there's nothing >else that would help determine who's right. Not to mention that the policewoman is dead and unable to further defend her comments. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * "Masa" asked about: >>> It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who >>> harrassed you and not the other way around. (The Last Precinct ) I (Mark Brader) wrote: >> This has only one possible meaning: you say that she harrassed you. >> The policeman said it was you who harrassed her. And there's nothing >> else that would help determine who's right. Dave Hatunen adds: > Not to mention that the policewoman is dead and unable to further > defend her comments. Huh. Did you notice I changed "policewoman" to "policeman"? That's because I *misread* "policewoman" as "policeman", and assumed that "her" was referring to a third person. Dave's right, of course. "Policewoman" is not im my active vocabulary, and comes across to me as almost as archaic as "poetess" -- a remnant of the transitional period when a female police officer was something that one came across from time to time, but it was unusual and worthy of a special term. SignatureMark Brader | "I always pass on good advice. It's the only thing Toronto | to do with it. It is never any use to oneself." msb@vex.net | -- Lord Goring (Oscar Wilde: An Ideal Husband) My text in this article is in the public domain. >"Masa" asked about: >>>> It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >period when a female police officer was something that one came across >from time to time, but it was unusual and worthy of a special term. I agree with you there, but for consistency that would require the disuse of "policeman"; "police officer" seems a bit klunky. Personally, I prefer the gender-neutral "cop". Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Mark Brader: >> Huh. Did you notice I changed "policewoman" to "policeman"? That's >> because I *misread* "policewoman" as "policeman", and assumed that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> period when a female police officer was something that one came across >> from time to time, but it was unusual and worthy of a special term. Dave Hatunen: > I agree with you there, but for consistency that would require > the disuse of "policeman"; Well, that one has a role in historical contexts. > "police officer" seems a bit klunky. I know what you mean. Of course, in some dialects "police" itself can have that meaning, but not in ours. > Personally, I prefer the gender-neutral "cop". That works for me too. SignatureMark Brader "Men are animals." Toronto "What are women? Plants, birds, fish?" msb@vex.net -- Spider Robinson, "Night of Power" My text in this article is in the public domain. >>"Masa" asked about: >>>>> It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >the disuse of "policeman"; "police officer" seems a bit klunky. >Personally, I prefer the gender-neutral "cop". All a matter of personal preference. In this instance referring to her as a "policewoman" personalises the reference, which seems reasonably under the circumstances. If you prefer that a specific police officer be referred to in a gender neutral way such as "cop" do you also prefer that a person he or she is dealing with should be referred to as a "person", or as a "man" or "woman" as appropriate? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>"Masa" asked about: >>>>>> It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >dealing with should be referred to as a "person", or as a "man" or >"woman" as appropriate? "Perp" seems pretty neutral. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > someone's word against another person's > > It's your word against a murdered policewoman's that it was she who > harrassed you > and not the other way around. (The Last Precinct ) I'm having a little trouble understanding how a murdered policewoman could even produce any words. She didn't come back to life, did she? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> someone's word against another person's >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I'm having a little trouble understanding how a murdered policewoman >could even produce any words. She didn't come back to life, did she? Not unless she had been on an advanced training course. More seriously, if the death was not instant the policewoman might have been able to say what had happened. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> someone's word against another person's >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > More seriously, if the death was not instant the policewoman might > have been able to say what had happened. The policewoman made the accusations of harassment when she was still fully capable of talking. She "told people before her murder that I had confronted her on several occasions and had bullied and threatened her." SignatureJames [...] > The policewoman made the accusations of harassment when she was still > fully capable of talking. She "told people before her murder that I had > confronted her on several occasions and had bullied and threatened her." Phew! What with speed reading and "mature" eyesight I overlooked the first inverted commas first time round. SignatureLes (BrE) |
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.