about how
JMK
As in:
"Sorenson's book is about how the Vikings conquered the Congo."
I'll admit that something like "Sorenson's book discussed the means by
which the Vikings conquered the Congo" sounds considerably better, but is
"about how" always patently a no-no?
Writer S
Well, there's no need to wrap oneself around like a pretzel, as you
did in your "better" example.
How about simply, "Sorenson's book is about the Vikings' conquest of
the Congo." Clean, neat, to the point, and no verbal contortions.
Remember the KISS rule.
Regards -
janelaw
>
> Is it considered bad grammar to use the phrase "about how" ?
>
> As in:
>
> "Sorenson's book is about how the Vikings conquered the Congo."
>
> I'll admit that something like "Sorenson's book discussed the means by
> which the Vikings conquered the Congo" sounds considerably better, but is
> "about how" always patently a no-no?
Yes.
P&DSchultz
> did in your "better" example.
>
> How about simply, "Sorenson's book is about the Vikings' conquest of
> the Congo." Clean, neat, to the point, and no verbal contortions.
But that leaves out the fact that it not only discusses the conquest;
it tells HOW they did it. It is easy to "improve" a text by altering
its meaning. That is a bad editor's first impulse.
//P. Schultz
JMK
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote in article
<35ED8AB7...@excite.com>...
> JMK wrote:
> >
> > Is it considered bad grammar to use the phrase "about how" ?
> >
> Yes.
>
I am fully prepared to believe you. But may I sheepishly inquire as to WHY
"about how" is evil?
You'll forgive my twitch of skepticism; I spent so many years trying not to
split my infinitives before a surly group of British linguists rudely
laughed "never mind!" And that was a really FAMOUS rule!
JMK
Writer S <pri...@not.given> wrote in article
<35ef7ea2.2409251@news-server>...
> On 2 Sep 1998 03:45:55 GMT, "JMK" <kayj...@flash.net> wrote:
> Remember the KISS rule.
You mean the one about "rocking and rolling all night and partying every
day?"
Behavior of this kind leaves me consistently tired and irritable. When
does one find time to sleep?
Writer S
wrote:
>> How about simply, "Sorenson's book is about the Vikings' conquest of
>> the Congo." Clean, neat, to the point, and no verbal contortions.
>
>But that leaves out the fact that it not only discusses the conquest;
>it tells HOW they did it.
If you re-read your sentence, as written and punctuated, I think
you'll find it makes no sense at all. And, in any event (if I follow
your meaning), I disagree. No discussion of a conquest would be
possible without discussing how it was accomplished.
Prove me wrong, if you can. Discuss the Allies' Normandy Invasion
without saying ANYTHING about how it was done.
I know what I wrote, and I still say it was sufficient and correct.
>It is easy to "improve" a text by altering
>its meaning.
I did no such thing. I responded with one of several possible
"improvements," each of which would be preferable to the original
offering.
>That is a bad editor's first impulse.
If you're suggesting I'm a bad editor, screw you. I offered an
alternative to the brain-twisting "alternative" written by the
original poster. I never said it could not be followed by clarifying
or amplifying statements.
If not, I suggest you go back to your sentence #1 and work on it a
little.
>//P. Schultz
Writer S
Well, that's the most idiotic thing I've encountered in a long time.
No, moron. The KISS rule says, "Keep It Simple, Stupid." A
latter-day Occam's razor, if you will. I suspect you knew that,
though.
If you're suffering from insomnia, see a doctor.
janelaw
Shoot! Put me on the spot, will you, you whippersnapper? Me,
the monosyllabic arbiter of acceptable grammar!
The truth is: It just sounds wrong. I think what jars me is
your use of an adverbial phrase as the object of a preposition.
After a preposition, I expect a noun or noun phrase.
To use your example, I would follow the preposition with "the
Viking conquest of the congo." Now that's a noun phrase.
I think this is all Louis L'Amour's fault.
P&DSchultz
On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:57:18 -0400, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com>
wrote:
> > ...
> If you re-read your sentence, as written and punctuated, I think
> you'll find it makes no sense at all. And, in any event (if I follow
> your meaning) ...
Oh, then it might have made sense?
>, I disagree. No discussion of a conquest would be
> possible without discussing how it was accomplished.
Nonsense. It's perfectly obvious that a long, involved treatment
full of dates, places, and personal names could discuss the subject
at length without ever touching on how it was done.
> Prove me wrong, if you can. Discuss the Allies' Normandy Invasion
> without saying ANYTHING about how it was done. ...
Seems to me that kind of treatment was the hallmark of my high school
history textbooks.
> >That is a bad editor's first impulse.
>
> If you're suggesting I'm a bad editor, screw you. ...
Ooooh! An *eloquent* editor!
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
>
> JMK wrote:
> >
> > janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote in article
> > <35ED8AB7...@excite.com>...
> > > JMK wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is it considered bad grammar to use the phrase "about how" ?
> > > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > I am fully prepared to believe you. But may I sheepishly inquire as to WHY
> > "about how" is evil?
> >
> > You'll forgive my twitch of skepticism; I spent so many years trying not to
> > split my infinitives before a surly group of British linguists rudely
> > laughed "never mind!" And that was a really FAMOUS rule!
>
> Shoot! Put me on the spot, will you, you whippersnapper? Me,
> the monosyllabic arbiter of acceptable grammar!
>
> The truth is: It just sounds wrong. I think what jars me is
> your use of an adverbial phrase as the object of a preposition.
> After a preposition, I expect a noun or noun phrase.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it in principle. We say
and write, "They were talking about where to go for dinner," and
"They argued over who was vice-president during the war." I think
the problem is that people tend to use "how," in a kind of substandard
way, as a substitute for "the fact that." In some dialects, people use
"where" in the same way. They will say, "I read in a magazine where it
was a cow that caused the Chicago fire."
When "how" really MEANS "how," I think it sounds fine, as in "Mary was
talking about how she makes quilts." So if the original writer really
meant *how* the Vikings made their conquest, (which he says he did
mean), then I think it's ok. But without any further clarification, it
sounds like it means "the fact that," in which case I don't think it is
in a formal register of written English.
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
>
> JMK wrote:
> >
> > janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote in article
> > <35ED8AB7...@excite.com>...
> > > JMK wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is it considered bad grammar to use the phrase "about how" ?
> > > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > I am fully prepared to believe you. But may I sheepishly inquire as to WHY
> > "about how" is evil?
> >
> > You'll forgive my twitch of skepticism; I spent so many years trying not to
> > split my infinitives before a surly group of British linguists rudely
> > laughed "never mind!" And that was a really FAMOUS rule!
>
> Shoot! Put me on the spot, will you, you whippersnapper? Me,
> the monosyllabic arbiter of acceptable grammar!
>
> The truth is: It just sounds wrong. I think what jars me is
> your use of an adverbial phrase as the object of a preposition.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it in principle.
We say and write, "They were talking about where to go for dinner,"
and "They argued about when Easter occurs this year."
I think the problem is that people tend to use "how," in a
kind of informal way, as a substitute for "the fact that." They will
say, "He talked about how he was valedictorian and all." Some people
use "where" in the same way. They will say, "I read in a magazine where
it was a cow that caused the Chicago fire."
When "how" really MEANS "how," I think it sounds fine, as in
"Mary was talking about how she makes quilts." So if the original
writer really meant *the manner in which* the Vikings made their
conquests, (which he says he did mean), then I think it's ok. But
without any further clarification, it sounds like the "the-fact-
that" kind of "how," in which case I don't think the sentence is in
a formal register of English. But it's still not "wrong." It's
genuine colloquial English.
//P. Schultz
Gord Murray
> On 2 Sep 1998 03:45:55 GMT, "JMK" <kayj...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >s it considered bad grammar to use the phrase "about how" ?
> >
> >As in:
> >
> >"Sorenson's book is about how the Vikings conquered the Congo."
> >
> >I'll admit that something like "Sorenson's book discussed the means by
> >which the Vikings conquered the Congo" sounds considerably better, but is
> >"about how" always patently a no-no?
>
> Well, there's no need to wrap oneself around like a pretzel, as you
> did in your "better" example.
>
> How about simply, "Sorenson's book is about the Vikings' conquest of
> the Congo." Clean, neat, to the point, and no verbal contortions.
>
> Remember the KISS rule.
>
> Regards -
It seems to me that while your wording sounds better, it has not the
same meaning.
The original title would have me anticipating the method of the conquest in
particular.
If I were perusing book shelves for edifying material, I would skip the
original title as suggesting a "clumsy" writer that would clog my neurons.
That's about how I do my book shopping, though.
Not exactly how I do it, but something like that.
{:^)
Writer S
wrote:
>..
>
>> If you re-read your sentence, as written and punctuated, I think
>> you'll find it makes no sense at all. And, in any event (if I follow
>> your meaning) ...
>
>Oh, then it might have made sense?
>
If you'll go back and read what I actually wrote, I said "as written
and punctuated." I can still pick up on what I ***think*** you meant.
>>, I disagree. No discussion of a conquest would be
>> possible without discussing how it was accomplished.
>
>Nonsense. It's perfectly obvious that a long, involved treatment
>full of dates, places, and personal names could discuss the subject
>at length without ever touching on how it was done.
>
But that's not a discussion. I can list all the Academy Award winners
without once describing the kinds of films involved. Read what I'm
actually writing.
>> Prove me wrong, if you can. Discuss the Allies' Normandy Invasion
>> without saying ANYTHING about how it was done. ...
>
>Seems to me that kind of treatment was the hallmark of my high school
>history textbooks.
>
Examples, please. I already asked for them. "History books" is hardly
specific enough.
>> >That is a bad editor's first impulse.
>>
>> If you're suggesting I'm a bad editor, screw you. ...
>
>Ooooh! An *eloquent* editor!
>//P. Schultz
As eloquent as your unprovoked attack on my editing, when that wasn't
even what I was dong.
My original points are intact.
JMK
> > your use of an adverbial phrase as the object of a preposition.
> > After a preposition, I expect a noun or noun phrase.
>
> talking about how she makes quilts." So if the original writer really
> in a formal register of written English.
> //P. Schultz
>
I thank you both for your prompt and informed input.
It still amazes me that the Internet exists, and that level-minded people
make themselves available for questions like the one I posed. Paul Simon
sings "These are the days of miracles and wonder," and he is entirely
correct. I feel lucky to live in such an era.
Thanks again.
JMK
> >day?"
> >
> >Behavior of this kind leaves me consistently tired and irritable. When
> >does one find time to sleep?
> >
>
>
> Well, that's the most idiotic thing I've encountered in a long time.
Ouch!
>
> No, moron.
Double ouch!
> The KISS rule says, "Keep It Simple, Stupid."
You're mean! And I'm telling Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley what you said
about their lyric! You're... in... trouble...
>
> If you're suffering from insomnia, see a doctor.
>
Insomnia is not part of the equation. If one rocks and rolls all night and
parties every day, one simply has no time to sleep. Try to keep up; this
is kind of important.
Writer S
wrote:
>> >"Sorenson's book is about how the Vikings conquered the Congo."
>> >
>> >I'll admit that something like "Sorenson's book discussed the means by
>> >which the Vikings conquered the Congo" sounds considerably better, but is
>> >"about how" always patently a no-no?
>>
>> Well, there's no need to wrap oneself around like a pretzel, as you
>> did in your "better" example.
>>
>> How about simply, "Sorenson's book is about the Vikings' conquest of
>> the Congo." Clean, neat, to the point, and no verbal contortions.
>>
>> Remember the KISS rule.
>>
>> Regards -
>
> It seems to me that while your wording sounds better, it has not the
>same meaning.
>The original title would have me anticipating the method of the conquest in
>particular.
>
First, I think it ***does*** convey the same meaning. How can a book
discuss the "means" of an historical event, without being "about" it?
In any event, I was offering an improvement on the convoluted example
the original author cited. I didn't claim it was the perfect
replacement.
P&DSchultz
>
> On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 02:02:39 GMT, Gord Murray <murr...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >"Sorenson's book is about how the Vikings conquered the Congo."
> >> >
> >> >I'll admit that something like "Sorenson's book discussed the means by
> >> >which the Vikings conquered the Congo" sounds considerably better, but is
> >> >"about how" always patently a no-no?
> >>
> >> Well, there's no need to wrap oneself around like a pretzel, as you
> >> did in your "better" example.
> >>
> >> How about simply, "Sorenson's book is about the Vikings' conquest of
> >> the Congo." Clean, neat, to the point, and no verbal contortions.
> >>
> >> Remember the KISS rule.
> >>
> >> Regards -
> >
> > It seems to me that while your wording sounds better, it has not the
> >same meaning.
> >The original title would have me anticipating the method of the conquest in
> >particular.
> >
>
> First, I think it ***does*** convey the same meaning.
You seem to be in a minority in your opinion of your editing.
I suggest you not charge much for your services.
//P. Schultz
Writer S
wrote:
>>
>> First, I think it ***does*** convey the same meaning.
>
>You seem to be in a minority in your opinion of your editing.
>I suggest you not charge much for your services.
>//P. Schultz
Oh, bite me.
You just can't admit I'm right. You're the one who chose to start the
insulting, and that's very low class.