A choice vs. two choices
Linemoves
you have three choices. What happened to two choices? It seems that the
expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are synonymous. Any thoughts, gals
and guys?
Jack Moore
Dale Houstman
Jack,
This doesn't appear to parse with me; you can "choose" between any number of
things: one can have a choice of three, seven, or ninety. I've even heard people
say (and obviously this is idiomatic; but idioms are a part of language) "you
have one choice" or "you have a choice of one" So I can't see how "choice" is
synonymous with "two choices" since the word "choice" is (by itself)
non-numeric. I think your concern is almost more of a semantic joke than a usage
concern, don't you think?
Dale H
George F. Hardy
> So I can't see how "choice" is synonymous with "two choices"
>since the word "choice" is (by itself) non-numeric.
Because the question was about whether "alternative", in the
singular, restricted the choices to two. For three or more
there would have to be at least two 'alternatives'.
GFH
janelaw
I don't use "choice" this way. To me, you have one "choice."
First the choice is between A and B. Then it is among A, B, and
C. You appear to be using the word "choice" to refer both to
the act of choosing (your first sentence) and to the things you
may choose (second sentence).
Dale Houstman
But that's the point isn't it; that you can use "choice" both ways? It seems
to me that you want to make language work logically, that it should be consistent.
But surely it's proven itself to be quite the opposite?
I understand the original point now (I think) but it still seems to be more of
a joke about semantics rather than an actual usage concern, because we all know
"choice" can be used (quite correctly) as representing the alternatives offered to
view and the act of selecting itself. Does this really cause problems for anyone?
It doesn't boggle my noodle, and so our analyses of it seems more of an autopsy.
"You have three choices to make" can mean merely that there are three options open
to your perusal or that you have a series of cognitive selections to make to
achieve some end: but the context of any conversation would make this clear,
wouldn't it? Of course: maybe I'm making the choice to be obtuse. In that case,
you have the choice to ignore me...
Dale H
JUST AN H
>> First the choice is between A and B. Then it is among A, B, and
>> C. You appear to be using the word "choice" to refer both to
>> the act of choosing (your first sentence) and to the things you
>> may choose (second sentence).
>
>
I would think a choice indicates more than one option: whether it be one or a
hundred.
J.
Andy Powney
<199809132248...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
A choice implies the selection of one or more options, chosen at one time.
Choices implies more than one choice.
e.g. Given a selection, A, B and C.
Choosing 1: My choice was A.
Choosing 2 at one time: My choice was A and B.
Choosing 2 at different times: My first choice was A, my second was B.
Therefore, my choices were A and B.
"The alternative" does mean "the other". Making the former plural therefore
makes the second plural. i.e. "The alternatives" means "the others".
I do prefer to use "the alternate" to indicate the binary, mutually
exclusive aspect.
Charles Riggs
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>> Linemoves wrote:
>> >
>> > So you have a choice to make between A and B. Later, C is also offered, and
>> > you have three choices. What happened to two choices? It seems that the
>> > expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are synonymous. Any thoughts, gals
>> > and guys?
>> >
>> > Jack Moore
>>
>> I don't use "choice" this way. To me, you have one "choice."
>> First the choice is between A and B. Then it is among A, B, and
>> C. You appear to be using the word "choice" to refer both to
>> the act of choosing (your first sentence) and to the things you
>> may choose (second sentence).
>
>
>
> But that's the point isn't it; that you can use "choice" both ways? It seems
>to me that you want to make language work logically, that it should be consistent.
>But surely it's proven itself to be quite the opposite?
>
> I understand the original point now (I think) but it still seems to be more of
>a joke about semantics rather than an actual usage concern, because we all know
>"choice" can be used (quite correctly) as representing the alternatives offered to
>view and the act of selecting itself. Does this really cause problems for anyone?
>It doesn't boggle my noodle, and so our analyses of it seems more of an autopsy.
>"You have three choices to make" can mean merely that there are three options open
>to your perusal or that you have a series of cognitive selections to make to
>achieve some end: but the context of any conversation would make this clear,
>wouldn't it? Of course: maybe I'm making the choice to be obtuse. In that case,
>you have the choice to ignore me...
>
>Dale H
"Doesn't boggle my noodle". I like that phrase very much - I'd never
heard it before. "Choice" should be used correctly. Them guys who use
it incorrectly must be corrected by us guys who know better.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>So you have a choice to make between A and B. Later, C is also offered, and
>you have three choices. What happened to two choices? It seems that the
>expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are synonymous. Any thoughts, gals
>and guys?
>
>Jack Moore
You have one choice: a choice among A, B and C. If my girlfriend says
"Would you like to go to the beach today and later follow it up with a
nice pint of Guinness?" then I have two choices to make. The
expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are so often confused that
they have nearly become synonymous, but they ain't.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>Linemoves wrote:
>>
>> So you have a choice to make between A and B. Later, C is also offered, and
>> you have three choices. What happened to two choices? It seems that the
>> expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are synonymous. Any thoughts, gals
>> and guys?
>>
>> Jack Moore
>
>I don't use "choice" this way. To me, you have one "choice."
>First the choice is between A and B. Then it is among A, B, and
>C. You appear to be using the word "choice" to refer both to
>the act of choosing (your first sentence) and to the things you
>may choose (second sentence).
By God, Jane Lawrence agreed with me on something - I think I'll go
have a pint to celebrate! :-)
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
No sir. Even if you are asked to pick one from a hundred things, you
have one choice. The number of alternatives doesn't enter into the
equation.
Charles
Dale Houstman
Charles Riggs:
"You have one choice: a choice among A, B and C. If my girlfriend says
'Would you like to go to the beach today and later follow it up with a
nice pint of Guinness?' then I have two choices to make. The
expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are so often confused that
they have nearly become synonymous, but they ain't."
I still don't see the problem here, and it doesn't strike me as a massive erosion
of human expression. There are problems and there are problems: "I been done
said to that it's not right for." is by any standard beyond awful. Common usage
will take care of that, but I don't see this "choice" "two choices" thing as being a
battle worth the tussle. This is a lot of hot air blown over an empty paper tube. How
in God's (or Eric Partridge's) name is this a threat to any comprehension at all.
Nobody is confused on this point at all: it's a purely intellectual chimaera. Kinda dopey
really.
But Hell, what do I know?
Dale H
Linemoves
> Nobody is confused on this point at all: it's a purely intellectual
chimaera.
>Kinda dopey
> really.
Maybe I'm just lazy, but I have always preferred the "purely intellectual" to
the practical. I'd rather talk about the difference between a fruit and a
vegetable than to work in the fields harvesting either. Dopey???
Jack Moore
janelaw
>
> > Linemoves wrote:
> > >
> > > So you have a choice to make between A and B. Later, C is also offered, and
> > > you have three choices. What happened to two choices? It seems that the
> > > expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are synonymous. Any thoughts, gals
> > > and guys?
> > >
> > > Jack Moore
> >
> > I don't use "choice" this way. To me, you have one "choice."
> > First the choice is between A and B. Then it is among A, B, and
> > C. You appear to be using the word "choice" to refer both to
> > the act of choosing (your first sentence) and to the things you
> > may choose (second sentence).
>
> to me that you want to make language work logically, that it should be consistent.
> But surely it's proven itself to be quite the opposite?
Are you talking to me? You think I want language to work
logically? Actually, deep down in my heart, I probably do. I
wish the mass were still in Latin, too. I'm perfectly willing
to sacrifice consistency for vibrancy, though.
>
> I understand the original point now (I think) but it still seems to be more of
> a joke about semantics rather than an actual usage concern, because we all know
> "choice" can be used (quite correctly) as representing the alternatives offered to
> view and the act of selecting itself.
I could not care less how Jack uses the word "choice." I
thought he was posing his question as a conundrum or puzzle.
You are not luring me into a discussion on "quite correct"
usage.
> Does this really cause problems for anyone?
> It doesn't boggle my noodle, and so our analyses of it seems more of an autopsy.
> "You have three choices to make" can mean merely that there are three options open
> to your perusal or that you have a series of cognitive selections to make to
> achieve some end: but the context of any conversation would make this clear,
> wouldn't it?
I don't think so. IMVE, "You have three choices to make," is
never used in your first sense. Where I live, even if "choice"
is used to mean "things one may choose," the sentence would
still come out, "You have three choices." You only *make* a
choice in the "act of choosing" sense.
George F. Hardy
>No sir. Even if you are asked to pick one from a hundred things, you
>have one choice. The number of alternatives doesn't enter into the
>equation.
Yes, it does. In the example you gave above, I have *one* choice, but
*a*hundred* alternatives.
GFH
janelaw
>
> On 13 Sep 1998 16:40:21 GMT, janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Linemoves wrote:
> >>
> >> So you have a choice to make between A and B. Later, C is also offered, and
> >> you have three choices. What happened to two choices? It seems that the
> >> expressions "a choice" and "two choices" are synonymous. Any thoughts, gals
> >> and guys?
> >>
> >> Jack Moore
> >
> >I don't use "choice" this way. To me, you have one "choice."
> >First the choice is between A and B. Then it is among A, B, and
> >C. You appear to be using the word "choice" to refer both to
> >the act of choosing (your first sentence) and to the things you
> >may choose (second sentence).
>
> have a pint to celebrate! :-)
>
> Charles
I know what you mean. I agree with everything you've posted
this morning. I'm getting a little nervous.
Dale Houstman
Jack Moore
"So is chess purely intellectual...I have always preferred the "purely intellectual" to the practical"I am as intellectual as the next guy (unless the "next guy" is one of the Three Stooges or, to bookend it: Gore Vidal), and I don't really see your dichotomy between between the "intellectual" and the "practical": this is more an insult hurled at thinkers, along the lines of "you got a lot of book learning but no common sense" (ah! I can hear my father as I write it): any intellectual realizes that his work is fully engaged with the real world, even down to its physical components.Chess isn't "purely intellectual": more "purely" logical; "intellectualism" as I understand it is a much more complex involvement with subject matter: one of the greatest (maybe the greatest) chess players, Bobby Fischer: can he be considered an intellectual? I don't see how...Also (by way of accepting your point) even in the "purely intellectual" field of chess there are wrong moves or (even more to the point) absurd or "pointless" moves, illegal moves even. So this doesn't work as a metaphor for this pursuit we're on.
I can "run" and I can go on two separate "runs": these are different uses (closely related, as are the two "choices"), I can can make one "selection" from a hundred "selections", I can "offer" many "offers": all of these are similar problems (I am certain you can come up with better examples); language might have evolved one word for the action of choice (for example: "choice"!) and another for a set of two choices: "grx" and another for a set of three choices: "prnf" and so on, or some such system. And (I imagine) such a system either exists or has existed, or will exist; but this very simple idea of signposting a correspondence between two very similar notions is an example of nature's elegant laziness. It may not be logical, but language isn't about logic: like chess is. The rules of chess change very slightly over time, it is not really a living system. Language is: it may be even that your notion about "choice" will become a new paradigm, though I doubt it.
Of course, look how much verbiage I'm spewing on the same concern! Intellectuals are such pissy little creatures...
Oh! I am sorry about the use of the word "dopey": I didn't mean it personally, and I certainly am not putting down intellectualism (that would not only be playing a game that is rampant in this country, but it would be self-immolation of a sort); it was meant amiably, if you can imagine?
From one Impractical to Another;
Dale H
Charles Riggs
I'm with you one hundred percent. I enjoy the impractical to the
practical and fantasy to nonfiction. "Purely intellectual" I take
literally: it is pure.
Charles