 |
 | 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 / British English / January 2007Good style?
What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations like "to open an object"? For me, it sounds rather stupid and funny. In my language, such combinations are impossible. Because there is no logic in those. You can open a door as such, but you cannot open an object AS SUCH. I am not sure that you feel it right. However,: What do you think about it, and, if you know, then answer, please, what English stylistics says about it (if says whatever). >What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations >like "to open an object"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You can open a door as such, >but you cannot open an object AS SUCH. I think that "opening an object" is computer programming jargon, and the expression would not be used in any other context. I've never seen it used elsewhere, so I am surprised that you describe it as "frequently occurring". I agree that in "normal English" it would make no sense.  SignatureJohn Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat The subjects of the King, And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton: Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers" >>What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations >>like "to open an object"? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >used elsewhere, so I am surprised that you describe it as "frequently >occurring". I agree that in "normal English" it would make no sense. It is frequently occuring in computer games, but they always mean wardrobe, box or similar things. So I think that it is semi-(computer jargon). Not programming, at least. It's language fact of common life , rather than of professional activity. But I'm pleased that you understood my question and answered it as I... expected? suspected. Irritated Foreigner schrieb: >>>What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations >>>like "to open an object"? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > least. It's language fact of common life , rather than of professional > activity. It's not a case of opening an object in general - it's a case of opening a container - wardrobes, boxes, cases, briefcases, are containers and when they are closed it is impossible to access their contents, therefore you have to open them. this is quite normal English. And I must say that there are parallel phrases in the other [European] languages I know - nothing illogical as far as I can see. Einde O'Callaghan >Irritated Foreigner schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >must say that there are parallel phrases in the other [European] >languages I know - nothing illogical as far as I can see. Thank you for your reply. But my question was about word usage, not about meaning. I know what they mean, but how they write! If I use such word as "object", this usage must mean something. For example, if I call a cow "even-toed", the context must be zoology. In other contexts, usually, such usage is funny. Because the fact (that a cow is even-toed) is irrelevant. ("Even-toed, come here!") "Even-toed", as such, is not supposed to be summoned. So if you are going to open something, there is no contextual reason to call it "object". "Object", as such, is not supposed to be opened. That is the question. Semantic agreement. If the second case is normal, why the first is not? > Thank you for your reply. But my question was about word usage, not > about meaning. I know what they mean, but how they write! > If I use such word as "object", this usage must mean something. For > example, if I call a cow "even-toed", the context must be zoology. In > other contexts, usually, such usage is funny. Because the fact (that > a cow is even-toed) is irrelevant. ("Even-toed, come here!") > "Even-toed", as such, is not supposed to be summoned. > So if you are going to open something, there is no contextual reason > to call it "object". "Object", as such, is not supposed to be opened. > That is the question. Semantic agreement. If the second case is > normal, why the first is not? 'Objects' in a situation like a computer game (and also in other, day to day, situations) is merely a general purpose term for many different 'things'. Some 'objects' you can pick up and carry (for example: a knife, a key, a book, and many others); some objects you can read (a notice, a newspaper, a book, and many others) and some objects you can open (a door, a chest, a book, and many others). SignatureDavid - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/ >>>What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations >>>like "to open an object"? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >least. It's language fact of common life , rather than of professional >activity. I was thinking of programming in "object-oriented" languages. >But I'm pleased that you understood my question >and answered it as I... expected? suspected. "Expected" is correct there. SignatureJohn Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat The subjects of the King, And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton: Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers" > What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations > like "to open an object"? Never heard the phrase. > For me, it sounds rather stupid and funny. > In my language, such combinations are impossible. > Because there is no logic in those. Your language is logical? Which one is that? > You can open a door as such, > but you cannot open an object AS SUCH. Every time you stop using a collection of papers, you close the file. But that's not what the phrase "to close the file" means. And if I press my suit, it doesn't mean I look tidy for a change. Paul Burke >> What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations >> like "to open an object"? > >Never heard the phrase. You are lucky. >Your language is logical? If I don't overestimate you, you try to catch me. And don't underestimate me, please. I think we both undestand it right. So I used my phrase about logic in the right sense. If you don't mind. >> You can open a door as such, >> but you cannot open an object AS SUCH. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Paul Burke They always mean things like wardrobe or box. Unfortunately. >> Your language is logical? > If I don't overestimate you, you try to catch me. No catch. I'd like to know which language is logical, that's all. >>> Your language is logical? >> If I don't overestimate you, you try to catch me. > >No catch. I'd like to know which language is logical, that's all. In this sense, none. |
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.