 |
 | 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 / May 2010Another "on" problem
From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning and held on late for a 7-1 victory at Wrigley Field." I really don't like the use of "seized on" there. Brian  SignatureDay 478 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project. > From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago > Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning > and held on late for a 7-1 victory at Wrigley Field." > > I really don't like the use of "seized on" there. Good on you. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt > From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago > Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning and > held on late for a 7-1 victory at Wrigley Field." > > I really don't like the use of "seized on" there. I can't even guess what it means. The reference to runs suggests to me that the game in question is baseball. Did they grab him to prevent him from running? Somehow I doubt that the rules permit that. Ah, wait a minute. They also do quick runs in American football, don't they. OK, problem solved, because I know that tackling is permitted in that game. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago >> Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they. OK, problem solved, because I know that tackling is permitted in > that game. The stuff was written by a sports writer. Trying to be colorful, they often use pretty weird language. The article is talking about baseball, but I'm pretty sure you knew that. In any case, the whole sentence is very strange -- *holding on for a 7-1 victory* is doubly unusual. I could understand "holding on" for a 7-6 victory. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago >>> Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >strange -- *holding on for a 7-1 victory* is doubly unusual. I could >understand "holding on" for a 7-6 victory. The bulk of the runs were scored in the first inning. The Cardinals then held the Cubs from scoring in the later innings. They held on to their lead. I read the entire newspaper every day. I might question language in the news sections, or comment on usage in the news sections, but when I read the sports section I don't notice usage issues. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>> Chicago [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > then held the Cubs from scoring in the later innings. They held on to > their lead. Yes, they held on to their *lead*, but that's not what the sentence said. The word "lead" was not there, thus suggesting that a strong comeback by the opposing team may have threatened their victory and they really had to hold on to prevail. That possibility, of course, was negated by the final score. > I read the entire newspaper every day. I might question language in > the news sections, or comment on usage in the news sections, but when > I read the sports section I don't notice usage issues. Right. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>>> Chicago [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Right. The writer should be fired. It reads like one of those programs that generate text thats looks intelligible but is gibberish. >>>>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>>>> Chicago [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >It reads like one of those programs that generate text thats looks >intelligible but is gibberish. If writing gibberish is grounds for firing, then any sports writer who writes an account of a cricket match should be fired. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>>> Chicago [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >opposing team may have threatened their victory and they really had to hold >on to prevail. That possibility, of course, was negated by the final score. Why is "lead" necessary? If they scored "a blitz of quick runs" in the first inning, and the final score was 7-1, the Cards were in the lead. It doesn't need to be stated. The number of runs scored in the first inning isn't specified, but a "blitz of runs" has to be more than two or three even in sports writer talk. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>>>> Chicago [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Why is "lead" necessary? I addressed that in the above paragraph. > If they scored "a blitz of quick runs" in > the first inning, and the final score was 7-1, the Cards were in the > lead. It doesn't need to be stated. The number of runs scored in the > first inning isn't specified, but a "blitz of runs" has to be more > than two or three even in sports writer talk. All of that is true. It is just that "held on late for a 7-1 victory" is not an apt description of what really happened, especially the "late" part. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>>>>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>>>>> Chicago [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >All of that is true. It is just that "held on late for a 7-1 victory" is >not an apt description of what really happened, especially the "late" part. All victories occur late in the game. Right at the end, in fact. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>>>>>> Chicago Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > All victories occur late in the game. Right at the end, in fact. Very funny. ;) SignatureSkitt Seen it all, done it all, Can't remember most of it. > The bulk of the runs were scored in the first inning. The Cardinals > then held the Cubs from scoring in the later innings. They held on > to their lead. In my dialect, anyway, "seize on" does not mean "hold on to", lead or no lead. It means "make a desperate attempt to make use of (an unpromising opportunity)", e.g., "He seized on his accuser's inconsequential blunder in a last-ditch attempt to discredit him". Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: We have had artificial _foolishness_ for a long time. :|| >> The bulk of the runs were scored in the first inning. The Cardinals >> then held the Cubs from scoring in the later innings. They held on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >unpromising opportunity)", e.g., "He seized on his accuser's >inconsequential blunder in a last-ditch attempt to discredit him". I don't disagree. You've chopped this up so much that you give the impression that I said "seize on" means "hold on to". On the contrary, I used "seized on the bullpen's weakness" (or something like that) as an example. Much like your example. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> The bulk of the runs were scored in the first inning. The Cardinals >>> then held the Cubs from scoring in the later innings. They held on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > contrary, I used "seized on the bullpen's weakness" (or something like > that) as an example. Much like your example. I beg your pardon for misreading. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: You have to die of something. :|| >> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago >> Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that the game in question is baseball. Did they grab him to prevent him >from running? Somehow I doubt that the rules permit that. I would expect "seized" to be followed by "on", and then something else to follow: "The St Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago's thin bullpen...". That would mean that the Chicago team didn't have enough pitchers available in the bullpen so they were forced to stay with their starting pitcher. There's no actual hands-on in this type of seizing, but some condition is present that is seized on. >Ah, wait a minute. They also do quick runs in American football, don't >they. OK, problem solved, because I know that tackling is permitted in >that game. Encouraged, even. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago >>> Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Encouraged, even. Seized doesn't belong anywhere near this blurb. I'll wager the writer suffered a brain cramp and couldn't come up wirh pounced. >>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on Chicago >>>> Cubs starter Randy Wells with a blitz of quick runs in the first inning [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >I'll wager the writer suffered a brain cramp and couldn't come up wirh >pounced. Pounced? The Cards were playing the Cubs. Cardinals might peck, but they don't pounce. Matthew Welch wrote that the St Louis hitters "jumped all over" Wells. Then he went on to say that the Cards "banged out" six straight hits. Later in his article, he did have the Cards pouncing. The headline writer mixed sporting metaphors and made it a boxing match. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100528&content_id=10528316&vkey=recap& fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> From an online article today, "The St. Louis Cardinals seized on >>>>> Chicago [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100528&content_id=10528316&vkey=recap& fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb Sportswriters along with headline writers do use different rules than everybody else. The famed gunfighter Bat Masterson retired from being a peace officer to become a sportswriter. I'll have to look and see if any of his articles survive |
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.