When to use "affect" vs "effect" (lay vs lie, who vs whom, fewer vs less), etc.
Orak Listalavostok
For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs "less" with:
"Less crime; fewer police"
(i.e., use "fewer" when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as in:
"Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him"
(i.e., use "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
A third example is "lay" vs "lie", as in:
"The boots now lie where the body lay"
(this one comes from a National Geographic article on the Titanic & Ballard).
Back to the original question:
Q: Do you have a sentence which clearly exemplifies the difference between
the useage (usage?) of "affect" vs "effect"?
Orak Listalavostok
Carmen L. Abruzzi
The effect of this will affect many.
This affects many things, but will not effect any change.
>
> Orak Listalavostok
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
"affect" = 'influence'; "effect" = 'bring about', and is quite rare.
Conversely, the noun "effect" is very common, the noun "affect" is
extremely rare.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Christopher Adams
> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
>
> For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs "less" with:
> "Less crime; fewer police"
> (i.e., use "fewer" when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
I'm going to have to support Carmen Abruzzi's "The effect of this change will
affect many".
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
You're not a bad person. You're a terrific person. You're my favorite person.
But every once in a while you just can be a real cunt.
- Bill
LEE Sau Dan
Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
Orak> properly?
Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
Theorem: A sentence uses them properly if and only if it is
grammatical.
Examples:
The price rise is an effect of the shortage.
The shortage affects the price.
Orak> For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs
Orak> "less" with: "Less crime; fewer police" (i.e., use "fewer"
Orak> when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
You use "few" with a negative sense.
You use "less" with a positive sense.
e.g.
A: Did many people came to the party?
B: No, fewer than expected. (Pessimistic)
B: Yes, (although) less than expcted. (Optimistic)
Orak> Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as
Orak> in: "Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him" (i.e., use
Orak> "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
Right. Those aren't distinguished anymore in American usage.
Orak> A third example is "lay" vs "lie", as in: "The boots now lie
Orak> where the body lay" (this one comes from a National
Orak> Geographic article on the Titanic & Ballard).
"to lay", "to raise" are transitive.
"to lie", "to rise" are intransitive.
Orak> Back to the original question: Q: Do you have a sentence
Orak> which clearly exemplifies the difference between the useage
Orak> (usage?) of "affect" vs "effect"?
See above.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Dreamer
"LEE Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:m3d6302...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
Here's a science-y one:
"Failure to allow for the Hall Effect negatively affected the outcome of the
experiment."
Effect is used as a noun, affect is used as a verb. A simpler general
statement would be:
"An unexpected effect can affect the result."
D
Christopher Adams
>>>>>> "Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
> Orak> properly?
>
> Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
Ah, not quite true. "Affect" is also a noun in the sense of a behaviour which is
deliberately "put on" - "he had a very foppish affect", for example. "Effect" is
also a verb in the sense of working to produce change - "I will have to effect
an alteration in his behaviour", for example.
Matt Ruff
>
> Conversely, the noun "effect" is very common, the noun "affect" is
> extremely rare.
You could say there's a general lack of affect...
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff
>>>>>>"Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>
> Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
> Orak> properly?
>
> Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
Actually, both words can function as either noun or verb.
-- M. Ruff
Peter T. Daniels
>
> LEE Sau Dan wrote:
> >>>>>> "Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
> > Orak> properly?
> >
> > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>
> Ah, not quite true. "Affect" is also a noun in the sense of a behaviour which is
> deliberately "put on" - "he had a very foppish affect", for example. "Effect" is
No, "affect" is a technical term in psychology and "foppish" isn't, so
that collocation is very highly unlikely.
> also a verb in the sense of working to produce change - "I will have to effect
> an alteration in his behaviour", for example.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Coby
> Orak Listalavostok wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
>
> "affect" = 'influence'; "effect" = 'bring about', and is quite rare.
>
> Conversely, the noun "effect" is very common, the noun "affect" is
> extremely rare.
Except in a Psychology course.
--
Coby
"Every year civilization is invaded by millions of tiny barbarians-
they are called children." Hannah Arendt
Lars Eighner
<m3d6302...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
the lovely and talented LEE Sau Dan
broadcast on misc.writing:
>>>>>> "Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
> Orak> properly?
> Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
> Theorem: A sentence uses them properly if and only if it is
> grammatical.
> Examples:
> The price rise is an effect of the shortage.
> The shortage affects the price.
Elimination of the import quota effected a price reduction.
Elimination of the import quota affected the price.
It depends upon what you mean. Open a dictionary.
"Affect" is also a noun, but it is rare outside of psychological
literature.
> Orak> For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs
> Orak> "less" with: "Less crime; fewer police" (i.e., use "fewer"
> Orak> when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
> You use "few" with a negative sense.
> You use "less" with a positive sense.
> e.g.
> A: Did many people came to the party?
> B: No, fewer than expected. (Pessimistic)
> B: Yes, (although) less than expcted. (Optimistic)
Dead wrong. Use "fewer" with (or to stand for) countable nouns,
and "less" with (or for) uncountable nouns.
Ten items or fewer.
A tablespoon of salt or less.
> Orak> Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as
> Orak> in: "Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him" (i.e., use
> Orak> "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
> Right. Those aren't distinguished anymore in American usage.
Not precisely right. "Whom" is moribund in spoken English and
not entirely well in formal English. However, "who" and "whom"
are not interchangeable. In doubt, use "who."
> Orak> A third example is "lay" vs "lie", as in: "The boots now lie
> Orak> where the body lay" (this one comes from a National
> Orak> Geographic article on the Titanic & Ballard).
> "to lay", "to raise" are transitive.
> "to lie", "to rise" are intransitive.
True enough, but the point of the example is that "lay" is (also) the
past tense of "lie." The example is correct and uses two tenses of
the verb "to lie."
"Lay the boots where the body lay."
Present (imperative) of "lay" and past of "lie."
> Orak> Back to the original question: Q: Do you have a sentence
> Orak> which clearly exemplifies the difference between the useage
> Orak> (usage?) of "affect" vs "effect"?
> See above.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"The very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no
standard by which to judge it." --Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person
Wayne Throop
:: between the useage (usage?) of "affect" vs "effect"?
: "Carmen L. Abruzzi" <carmenl...@yahoo.com>
: The effect of this will affect many.
: This affects many things, but will not effect any change.
One effect of this drug is to produce a flattened affect.
Can we do "insure" and "ensure"?
Your job is to ensure that this is insured.
Or mismatched tripples?
"Either it flams, or it doesn't."
--- George Carlin
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
:: "Less crime; fewer police" (i.e., use "fewer" when you can actually
:: count; use "less" otherwise).
Fewer crimes; less policing.
Wayne Throop
: You use "few" with a negative sense.
: You use "less" with a positive sense.
:
: e.g.
: A: Did many people came to the party?
: B: No, fewer than expected. (Pessimistic)
: B: Yes, (although) less than expcted. (Optimistic)
Huh? No. You use (or perhaps,"I use") "few" for discrete quantities,
and "less" for continuous quantities.
Fewer people came to the party, so it was less festive.
Which would make "less <people> than expected" incorrect.
So. Fewer people, less attendance.
Anyhoo, I never heard that optimistic/pessimistic one before.
Where did that come from?
Alexander Magidow
Peter T. Daniels
>
> :: Q: Do you have a sentence which clearly exemplifies the difference
> :: between the useage (usage?) of "affect" vs "effect"?
>
> : "Carmen L. Abruzzi" <carmenl...@yahoo.com>
> : The effect of this will affect many.
> : This affects many things, but will not effect any change.
>
> One effect of this drug is to produce a flattened affect.
>
> Can we do "insure" and "ensure"?
What do you want to do with them? They are absolutely, totally
interchangeable (though there seem to be different preferences in US and
UK).
> Your job is to ensure that this is insured.
>
> Or mismatched tripples?
Hunh?
Lin Digs Books
> Orak Listalavostok wrote:
>
> > Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
> >
Affect is a verb only, nothing else (unless you're a psychologist,
i.e. "flat affect")
Effect can be either verb or noun.
According to the American heritage Dict. usage note:
These words have no senses in common; therefore the tendency to
confuse the words must be guarded against closely.
As verbs, affect is used principally n the senses of influence (how
smoking affects health) and pretense or imitation (affecting
nochalance to hide fear), whereas effect applies only to
accomplishment or execution (means adopted to effect an end).
Effect as noun:(1) result. (2) way in which something acts upon or
influences an object (effect of a drug). (3) outcome. (4) power to
achieve a desired result. (5) being in full force (comes into effect).
Synonyms: consequence, result, outcome, upshot, sequel, consummation.
So, for example:
I affected him slightly but had no lasting effect.
Cordially
Lindig
Ross TenEyck
>"Carmen L. Abruzzi" <carmenl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2lhmeoF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> Orak Listalavostok wrote:
>> > Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
>Affect is a verb only, nothing else (unless you're a psychologist,
>i.e. "flat affect")
The noun "affect" may be rare outside of psychology, but it's still
common enough that people should know about it.
>Effect can be either verb or noun.
>According to the American heritage Dict. usage note:
>These words have no senses in common; therefore the tendency to
>confuse the words must be guarded against closely.
>As verbs, affect is used principally n the senses of influence (how
>smoking affects health) and pretense or imitation (affecting
>nochalance to hide fear), whereas effect applies only to
>accomplishment or execution (means adopted to effect an end).
However, there are some cases where either "affect" or "effect" could
be used in the same sentence, producing subtly different meanings:
"I affected the election of the chairman" means "I had some influence
on the election."
"I effected the election of the chairman" means "I caused the election
to come about."
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Ron Henry
news:9042bbc1.04071...@posting.google.com...
> Affect is a verb only, nothing else (unless you're a psychologist,
> i.e. "flat affect")
Funny, I hear "affect" used as a noun by non-psychologists frequently,
both in the phrase you cite, which is hardly technical jargon, and in
the construction "affectless."
Ron Henry
Wayne Throop
: "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net>
: What do you want to do with them? They are absolutely, totally
: interchangeable (though there seem to be different preferences in US
: and UK).
Each has a secondary meaning of the other, when used as "to act so as to
make something more likely" but not full overlap. Or... do you mean
"ensure" is used to mean "pay money to an underwriter to compensate any
losses" in UK? If so, I did not know that.
:: Or mismatched tripples?
: Hunh?
Flammable, inflammable, nonflammable.
Edible, inedible, nonedible.
And is "unionized" talking about ions or unions?
And for that matter, are uncharged particles "unions"?
And if some set of people cannot exist at some place,
then there is no their they're there.
Which reminds me I'm supposed to read "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves".
David Tate
> Orak Listalavostok wrote:
> > Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
> >
> > For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs "less" with:
> > "Less crime; fewer police"
> > (i.e., use "fewer" when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
>
> I'm going to have to support Carmen Abruzzi's "The effect of this change will
> affect many".
But that's a solecism; it isn't the effect that will affect them, it's
the change itself that will affect them.
Try this one:
"When you affect the world around you, do you enjoy having that
effect?"
Or, as a semi-grammatical mnemonic:
"Affect blithely, causing dire effects." (a-b-c-d-e)
That's better for keeping straight which is which.
David Tate
Linda Donovan
> > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
> Actually, both words can function as either noun or verb.
My favorite way to assure myself of the difference (rightly or
wrongly) is to repeat the simple expression below to myself whenever
in doubt:
"Will it affect the effect?"
I can't say if this is correct, but, my personal opinion of the
difference is:
o affect ====> influence
o effect ====> result
If my assessement is too simple (or misleading in corner cases),
please let me know as I can always learn new tricks.
On the lay and lie topic, I can NEVER get those two straight. They
seem to be totally different words, yet, one of them is the past tense
of the other. I'm 35 years old and I STILL don't understand the
difference between lay and lie, nor can I remember the dictionary
definitions. I even shockingly remember, about ten years ago, a
Florida newspaper writing something like:
"William Kennedy Smith admitted laying on the grass with the woman"
yet, a sentence or two later they professed he never admitted having
sex!
The whole point of using words properly is contextual reinforcement.
That newspaper blew it.
Basically, the effect is that I have to rewrite this sentence in my
mind to affect any sense out of it (did I do ok?).
Same thing with "who" vs "whom". The contextual reinforcement is
destroyed when people don't use "whom" when they obviously should. I
find myself mentally rewriting every sentence uttered by Pleistocenes
who can't tell the difference between basic personal pronouns such as
"him" and "he" or "she" and "her" (which follow the same
plain-as-your-nose usage rules as "who" & "whom".
On the "usage" vs "useage", short of looking it up every single time
in the dictionary (which means I really don't get it), I can never
figure that out either.
Linda Donovan
Linda Donovan
> > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>
> Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
I'm confused. Is this what you mean by using "effect" as a verb?
Can you effect the change?
Linda Donovan
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In our last episode,
><m3d6302...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
>the lovely and talented LEE Sau Dan
>broadcast on misc.writing:
>
>>>>>>> "Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
>> Orak> properly?
>
>> Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>> Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>
>Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
It's not perfectly good. It's reasonably objectionable. You'd be well
advised to use it with extreme caution if at all.
>
>
>> Theorem: A sentence uses them properly if and only if it is
>> grammatical.
>
>> Examples:
>> The price rise is an effect of the shortage.
>> The shortage affects the price.
>
>Elimination of the import quota effected a price reduction.
Only a buffoon would even consider such a monstrosity.
>Elimination of the import quota affected the price.
Eliminating. It's far more dynamic.
You are a natural bureaucrat, Lars. You truly missed your calling.
>
>It depends upon what you mean. Open a dictionary.
Even with a dictionary you write like an oaf.
>
>"Affect" is also a noun, but it is rare outside of psychological
>literature.
Yes. So we can, I think, disregard it.
>
>> Orak> For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs
>> Orak> "less" with: "Less crime; fewer police" (i.e., use "fewer"
>> Orak> when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
>
>> You use "few" with a negative sense.
>> You use "less" with a positive sense.
>
>> e.g.
>> A: Did many people came to the party?
>> B: No, fewer than expected. (Pessimistic)
>> B: Yes, (although) less than expcted. (Optimistic)
>
>Dead wrong. Use "fewer" with (or to stand for) countable nouns,
>and "less" with (or for) uncountable nouns.
>
>Ten items or fewer.
Try telling the local supermarket that!
>A tablespoon of salt or less.
>
>> Orak> Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as
>> Orak> in: "Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him" (i.e., use
>> Orak> "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
>
>> Right. Those aren't distinguished anymore in American usage.
>
>Not precisely right. "Whom" is moribund in spoken English and
>not entirely well in formal English. However, "who" and "whom"
>are not interchangeable. In doubt, use "who."
Just use "who".
>> Orak> A third example is "lay" vs "lie", as in: "The boots now lie
>> Orak> where the body lay" (this one comes from a National
>> Orak> Geographic article on the Titanic & Ballard).
>
>> "to lay", "to raise" are transitive.
>> "to lie", "to rise" are intransitive.
>
>True enough, but the point of the example is that "lay" is (also) the
>past tense of "lie." The example is correct and uses two tenses of
>the verb "to lie."
>
>"Lay the boots where the body lay."
> Present (imperative) of "lay" and past of "lie."
>
>
>> Orak> Back to the original question: Q: Do you have a sentence
>> Orak> which clearly exemplifies the difference between the useage
>> Orak> (usage?) of "affect" vs "effect"?
>
>> See above.
Way to muddy the waters, Lars.
Zen
Robert Lieblich
[all snipped]
He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.
Dr Zen
wrote:
>: LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
>: You use "few" with a negative sense.
>: You use "less" with a positive sense.
>:
>: e.g.
>: A: Did many people came to the party?
>: B: No, fewer than expected. (Pessimistic)
>: B: Yes, (although) less than expcted. (Optimistic)
>
>Huh? No. You use (or perhaps,"I use") "few" for discrete quantities,
>and "less" for continuous quantities.
>
You what?
Do you think you could have found a less intelligible way to put it
while remaining more or less correct?
What, though, is a "continuous quantity"?
I have less money than him.
In what sense is my money "continuous"?
It's a noun that isn't countable, that's clear. You can't have three
moneys. (The homonym meaning "currency of a nation etc" is a countable
noun though.) But how is it continuous?
Believe you me, my money is rarely continuous. It is sometimes more on
the discrete side, consisting of a brass razoo.
> Fewer people came to the party, so it was less festive.
>
>Which would make "less <people> than expected" incorrect.
>So. Fewer people, less attendance.
>
>Anyhoo, I never heard that optimistic/pessimistic one before.
>Where did that come from?
>
My money's on drink, but I think hard drugs are a strong runner too.
Zen
Bill Snyder
The Dr Zen that can be spoken about is not the real Dr Zen.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
artyw
> > Your job is to ensure that this is insured.
> >
> > Or mismatched tripples?
>
> Hunh?
Maybe he is trying to explain the trouble with tripples.
Matt Hughes
> Q: Do you have a sentence which clearly exemplifies the difference between
> the useage (usage?) of "affect" vs "effect"?
I tried to affect his affect but was unable to effect an effect.
Affectionately yours,
Matt Hughes
www.archonate.com/
meirman
Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>Christopher Adams wrote:
>>
>> LEE Sau Dan wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >
>> > Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
>> > Orak> properly?
>> >
>> > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>> > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>>
>> Ah, not quite true. "Affect" is also a noun in the sense of a behaviour which is
>> deliberately "put on" - "he had a very foppish affect", for example. "Effect" is
>
>No, "affect" is a technical term in psychology and "foppish" isn't, so
>that collocation is very highly unlikely.
It may be a technical term in psych but lots of people outside of
psych know the word in that sense. Although I never use the word
foppish at all, for one who does, the sentence is not that unlikely.
If you had just said "Yes, but...", I wouldn't have replied.
>> also a verb in the sense of working to produce change - "I will have to effect
>> an alteration in his behaviour", for example.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
John Atkinson
"Linda Donovan" <linda1...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> On the lay and lie topic, I can NEVER get those two straight. They
> seem to be totally different words, yet, one of them is the past tense
> of the other. I'm 35 years old and I STILL don't understand the
> difference between lay and lie, nor can I remember the dictionary
> definitions. I even shockingly remember, about ten years ago, a
> Florida newspaper writing something like:
> "William Kennedy Smith admitted laying on the grass with the woman"
> yet, a sentence or two later they professed he never admitted having
> sex!
In many colloquial varieties of English (including mine, and, presumably,
this reporter's), "lay/laid" can be used where "lie/lay" would be used in
the standard language.
> The whole point of using words properly is contextual reinforcement.
> That newspaper blew it.
>
> Basically, the effect is that I have to rewrite this sentence in my
> mind to affect any sense out of it (did I do ok?).
>
>
> On the "usage" vs "useage", short of looking it up every single time
> in the dictionary (which means I really don't get it), I can never
> figure that out either.
My dictionary (Shorter Oxford) has never heard of "useage". What does your
dictionary say it means?
John.
meirman
linda1...@yahoo.com (Linda Donovan) posted:
>Matt Ruff <storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>> > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>> Actually, both words can function as either noun or verb.
>
>My favorite way to assure myself of the difference (rightly or
>wrongly) is to repeat the simple expression below to myself whenever
>in doubt:
> "Will it affect the effect?"
>
>I can't say if this is correct, but, my personal opinion of the
>difference is:
> o affect ====> influence
> o effect ====> result
These are fine but don't forget, they are only for the more common
meanings of the each word.
Since you are replying to Matt, who pointed out that each word...
Well maybe you didn't realize that when each word is used in the less
common way, and as a different part of speech (noun vs. verb or the
reverse), that they have related but different meanings from their
respective (much) more common usages.
>If my assessement is too simple (or misleading in corner cases),
>please let me know as I can always learn new tricks.
>
>On the lay and lie topic, I can NEVER get those two straight. They
>seem to be totally different words, yet, one of them is the past tense
>of the other. I'm 35 years old and I STILL don't understand the
>difference between lay and lie, nor can I remember the dictionary
>definitions.
My advice for you and the original poster is to memorize the three
principal parts of these and other irregular verbs (verbs whose past
or past participle is not formed by adding -ed.)
I've heard that schools didn't make people your age do this. Is that
true? It only takes a couple hours total to try to memorize all of
them and to succeed in all but two or three cases. Maybe it will take
a cumulative 3 or 4 hours 25 years later. (You should have done this
when you were 10 or 12.)
For example, lie, lay, lain
lay, laid, laid.
Just memorize them. You don't need any context. Then you can note
that one lies on a bed, but he lays a dish on the table.
If it helps, you can note that lie is intransitive and lay is
transitive. One has to lay *something*. "He laid" doesn't make
sense, (unless one goes out of his way to construct a situation where
it does. "The suicide counselor said 'Shoot or lay the gun on the
table'. He laid." That makes sense but it still sounds terrible.
There is also lie, lied, lied, but that refers to telling a falsehood.
>I even shockingly remember, about ten years ago, a
>Florida newspaper writing something like:
> "William Kennedy Smith admitted laying on the grass with the woman"
>yet, a sentence or two later they professed he never admitted having
>sex!
>
>The whole point of using words properly is contextual reinforcement.
>That newspaper blew it.
True. And I'm glad you noticed.
>Basically, the effect is that I have to rewrite this sentence in my
>mind to affect any sense out of it (did I do ok?).
No. I would say "extract". If not that, "to effect an understanding
of it." meaning creating an understanding (for yourself).
Here is the AHD4 def of the verb effect: transitive
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect.
>Same thing with "who" vs "whom". The contextual reinforcement is
>destroyed when people don't use "whom" when they obviously should. I
>find myself mentally rewriting every sentence uttered by Pleistocenes
>who can't tell the difference between basic personal pronouns such as
>"him" and "he" or "she" and "her" (which follow the same
>plain-as-your-nose usage rules as "who" & "whom".
>
>On the "usage" vs "useage", short of looking it up every single time
>in the dictionary (which means I really don't get it), I can never
>figure that out either.
My thought, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, is that
the e is preserved when omitting it will lead to an incorrect
pronunciation and not otherwise. Thus changeable, to make sure the
word change is said, and it is not read as chang abull.
But since usage... well, I guess it *could* be pronounced as us udge,
so I guess this won't help you here. Never mind.
> Linda Donovan
meirman
<gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:53:43 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In our last episode,
>><m3d6302...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
>>the lovely and talented LEE Sau Dan
>>broadcast on misc.writing:
>>
>>>>>>>> "Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
>>> Orak> properly?
>>
>>> Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>>> Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>>
>>Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
>
>It's not perfectly good. It's reasonably objectionable. You'd be well
>advised to use it with extreme caution if at all.
It's a perfectly good word, including as a verb, and not at all
objectionable. One should use it with extreme caution or better yet
he shouldn't use it at all if he doesn't now how to use it. Based on
what you just said, that seems to be your situation.
>
The rest of your post really contributed nothing.
Towse
meirman wrote:
> My advice for you and the original poster is to memorize the three
> principal parts of these and other irregular verbs (verbs whose past
> or past participle is not formed by adding -ed.)
>
> I've heard that schools didn't make people your age do this. Is that
> true? It only takes a couple hours total to try to memorize all of
> them and to succeed in all but two or three cases. Maybe it will take
> a cumulative 3 or 4 hours 25 years later. (You should have done this
> when you were 10 or 12.)
>
> For example, lie, lay, lain
> lay, laid, laid.
>
> Just memorize them. You don't need any context. Then you can note
> that one lies on a bed, but he lays a dish on the table.
Lie, lady, lie. Lie across my big brass bed.
Hm.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
meirman
<gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>I have less money than him.
I guess you have 100 pounds British Sterling and 190 pounds of him.
Unless you meant to say, "I have less money that he", or "...than he
does".
meirman
>> > Your job is to ensure that this is insured.
>> >
>> > Or mismatched tripples?
I've heard of Linda Tripples, but otherwise 'triples'.
>> Hunh?
>
>Maybe he is trying to explain the trouble with tripples.
meirman
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) posted:
>lin...@mindspring.com (Lin Digs Books) writes:
>>"Carmen L. Abruzzi" <carmenl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2lhmeoF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>> Orak Listalavostok wrote:
>
>>> > Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
>
>>Affect is a verb only, nothing else (unless you're a psychologist,
>>i.e. "flat affect")
>
>The noun "affect" may be rare outside of psychology, but it's still
>common enough that people should know about it.
And not only that, it's a noun even if they don't know about it.
Just like phenypropanolamine is a noun even if someone is not a
chemist and is 2 years old.
I do appreciate your posting the usage note, Lin.
>>Effect can be either verb or noun.
>
>>According to the American heritage Dict. usage note:
>
>>These words have no senses in common; therefore the tendency to
>>confuse the words must be guarded against closely.
>>As verbs, affect is used principally n the senses of influence (how
>>smoking affects health) and pretense or imitation (affecting
>>nochalance to hide fear), whereas effect applies only to
>>accomplishment or execution (means adopted to effect an end).
>
>However, there are some cases where either "affect" or "effect" could
>be used in the same sentence, producing subtly different meanings:
>
>"I affected the election of the chairman" means "I had some influence
>on the election."
>
>"I effected the election of the chairman" means "I caused the election
>to come about."
meirman
<ronh...@blahblahblah.clarityconnectcom> posted:
Maybe that is "a feckless ...". :)
>Ron Henry
Dr Zen
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
You are the living disproof of it, Robet.
Zen
Dr Zen
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:40:58 -0400, Robert Lieblich
><Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Dr Zen wrote:
>>
>>[all snipped]
>>
>>He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.
>
>The Dr Zen that can be spoken about is not the real Dr Zen.
Hey, I like that. Could someone put that in my file to be used at a
later date?
Zen
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:35:43 +1000 Dr Zen
><gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:53:43 -0500, Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In our last episode,
>>><m3d6302...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
>>>the lovely and talented LEE Sau Dan
>>>broadcast on misc.writing:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Orak" == Orak Listalavostok <orakl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Orak> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect"
>>>> Orak> properly?
>>>
>>>> Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>>>> Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>>>
>>>Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
>>
>>It's not perfectly good. It's reasonably objectionable. You'd be well
>>advised to use it with extreme caution if at all.
>
>It's a perfectly good word, including as a verb, and not at all
>objectionable.
I objected to it. Did you not notice?
Do you think that was unreasonable?
> One should use it with extreme caution or better yet
>he shouldn't use it at all if he doesn't now how to use it. Based on
>what you just said, that seems to be your situation.
How can you base that conclusion on what I just said?
How dare you make presumptions about my ability to use words when you
cannot spell and don't know not to change subject midsentence. "One...
one... one" or "he.. he... he" (the latter sounding remarkably similar
to my laughing in your face).
"Effect" is a rubbish verb. It's a civil servant's word. It's "do" in
a silk tie.
>>
>The rest of your post really contributed nothing.
It made me happy.
Zen
meirman
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> posted:
>
> Orak> Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as
> Orak> in: "Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him" (i.e., use
> Orak> "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
>
>Right. Those aren't distinguished anymore in American usage.
Yes they are. Both in print and verbally, in formal talks and
informal chitchat. Not by everyone, but for people who know how they
are to be used, sometimes the errors that other people make are
shockingly apparent and grating to the ear. Some poor uses of either
word are not grating and sometimes barely noticed.
Please don't assume that everyone uses words the way you or the people
you know do.
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:39:58 +1000 Dr Zen
><gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>>
>>I have less money than him.
>
>I guess you have 100 pounds British Sterling and 190 pounds of him.
>
Maybe you're not a native speaker of English, I don't know. Perhaps
you are simply an obtuse pedant. I write my posts in colloquial
English and this is a common idiom.
>Unless you meant to say, "I have less money that he", or "...than he
>does".
No. I meant to say exactly what I said.
>
>s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
>say if you are posting the same response.
I am not emailing. Just thought I'd let you know.
>
>Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
> Indianapolis, 7 years
> Chicago, 6 years
> Brooklyn NY 12 years
> Baltimore 20 years
That makes you 55 and still a fuckwit. Tragic.
Zen
Garrett Wollman
Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Effect" is a rubbish verb. It's a civil servant's word. It's "do" in
>a silk tie.
Bullshit.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on 13 Jul 2004 16:35:32 -0700
>linda1...@yahoo.com (Linda Donovan) posted:
>
>>Matt Ruff <storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>>> > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>>> Actually, both words can function as either noun or verb.
>>
>>My favorite way to assure myself of the difference (rightly or
>>wrongly) is to repeat the simple expression below to myself whenever
>>in doubt:
>> "Will it affect the effect?"
>>
>>I can't say if this is correct, but, my personal opinion of the
>>difference is:
>> o affect ====> influence
>> o effect ====> result
>
>These are fine but don't forget, they are only for the more common
>meanings of the each word.
>
>Since you are replying to Matt, who pointed out that each word...
>Well maybe you didn't realize that when each word is used in the less
>common way, and as a different part of speech (noun vs. verb or the
>reverse), that they have related but different meanings from their
>respective (much) more common usages.
>
What is a "related meaning from their more common usage"?
Try "meanings related to but different from".
You should take care not to grammar-lame other posters if you are
going to write this sloppily.
>>If my assessement is too simple (or misleading in corner cases),
>>please let me know as I can always learn new tricks.
>>
>>On the lay and lie topic, I can NEVER get those two straight. They
>>seem to be totally different words, yet, one of them is the past tense
>>of the other. I'm 35 years old and I STILL don't understand the
>>difference between lay and lie, nor can I remember the dictionary
>>definitions.
>
>My advice for you and the original poster is to memorize the three
>principal parts of these and other irregular verbs (verbs whose past
>or past participle is not formed by adding -ed.)
>
>I've heard that schools didn't make people your age do this. Is that
>true?
Schools where? There's a whole world full of them and they all do
different things.
> It only takes a couple hours total to try to memorize all of
>them and to succeed in all but two or three cases. Maybe it will take
>a cumulative 3 or 4 hours 25 years later. (You should have done this
>when you were 10 or 12.)
>
>For example, lie, lay, lain
> lay, laid, laid.
>
>Just memorize them. You don't need any context. Then you can note
>that one lies on a bed, but he lays a dish on the table.
>
>If it helps, you can note that lie is intransitive and lay is
>transitive. One has to lay *something*. "He laid" doesn't make
>sense, (unless one goes out of his way to construct a situation where
>it does. "The suicide counselor said 'Shoot or lay the gun on the
>table'. He laid." That makes sense but it still sounds terrible.
>
I am picturing a guy squeezing out an egg.
>There is also lie, lied, lied, but that refers to telling a falsehood.
>
>>I even shockingly remember, about ten years ago, a
>>Florida newspaper writing something like:
>> "William Kennedy Smith admitted laying on the grass with the woman"
>>yet, a sentence or two later they professed he never admitted having
>>sex!
>>
>>The whole point of using words properly is contextual reinforcement.
Eh?
The whole point of words, full stop, is "contextual reinforcement".
Talking shit in polysyllables is still talking shit.
>>That newspaper blew it.
>
>True. And I'm glad you noticed.
>
>>Basically, the effect is that I have to rewrite this sentence in my
>>mind to affect any sense out of it (did I do ok?).
>
>No. I would say "extract". If not that, "to effect an understanding
>of it." meaning creating an understanding (for yourself).
No way. If you have to explain what it means, your context is not
sufficiently reinforced.
>
>Here is the AHD4 def of the verb effect: transitive
> 1. To bring into existence.
> 2. To produce as a result.
> 3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect.
Away with your dictionary. Do you not grasp that it doesn't *feel*
good.
>>Same thing with "who" vs "whom". The contextual reinforcement is
>>destroyed when people don't use "whom" when they obviously should. I
>>find myself mentally rewriting every sentence uttered by Pleistocenes
>>who can't tell the difference between basic personal pronouns such as
>>"him" and "he" or "she" and "her" (which follow the same
>>plain-as-your-nose usage rules as "who" & "whom".
>>
>>On the "usage" vs "useage", short of looking it up every single time
>>in the dictionary (which means I really don't get it), I can never
>>figure that out either.
>
>My thought, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, is that
>the e is preserved when omitting it will lead to an incorrect
>pronunciation and not otherwise. Thus changeable, to make sure the
>word change is said, and it is not read as chang abull.
Whereas the "e" is necessary in "changeable, manageable" to give the
soft "g" sound, and in "traceable, placeable", which have the soft
"c", it is optional in "loveable, moveable" and must not be used in
"adorable".
So you're mostly right.
>But since usage... well, I guess it *could* be pronounced as us udge,
>so I guess this won't help you here. Never mind.
>
If you pronounce "usage" as "udge", you are doing it wrong.
Zen
Dr Zen
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <dlb9f0l1k453k12h5...@4ax.com>,
>Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Effect" is a rubbish verb. It's a civil servant's word. It's "do" in
>>a silk tie.
>
>Bullshit.
>
Get fucked. It is.
No one who writes with any style is going to "effect" anything.
If all you have to say is "bullshit", bite me, cunt.
Zen
meirman
<se...@towse.com> posted:
>
>
>meirman wrote:
>
>> My advice for you and the original poster is to memorize the three
>> principal parts of these and other irregular verbs (verbs whose past
>> or past participle is not formed by adding -ed.)
>>
>> I've heard that schools didn't make people your age do this. Is that
>> true? It only takes a couple hours total to try to memorize all of
>> them and to succeed in all but two or three cases. Maybe it will take
>> a cumulative 3 or 4 hours 25 years later. (You should have done this
>> when you were 10 or 12.)
>>
>> For example, lie, lay, lain
>> lay, laid, laid.
>>
>> Just memorize them. You don't need any context. Then you can note
>> that one lies on a bed, but he lays a dish on the table.
>
>Lie, lady, lie. Lie across my big brass bed.
>
>Hm.
Do you learn your English from pop song writers? Do you also use the
word "delovely" as if it were standard English?
He either liked the long a in lay and lady, or he was trying to
discreetly call up the sexual meaning of the word lay. One may call
that poetic license, but that means here license to write something
that is syntactically incorrect.
meirman
<gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:35:21 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:39:58 +1000 Dr Zen
>><gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>>>
>>>I have less money than him.
>>
>>I guess you have 100 pounds British Sterling and 190 pounds of him.
>>
>
>Maybe you're not a native speaker of English, I don't know. Perhaps
>you are simply an obtuse pedant. I write my posts in colloquial
>English and this is a common idiom.
It's a common mistake. How old are you? Where did you learn English?
In school or from your friends?
David M. Palmer
wrote:
> :: Can we do "insure" and "ensure"?
>
> : "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net>
> : What do you want to do with them? They are absolutely, totally
> : interchangeable (though there seem to be different preferences in US
> : and UK).
>
> Each has a secondary meaning of the other, when used as "to act so as to
> make something more likely" but not full overlap. Or... do you mean
> "ensure" is used to mean "pay money to an underwriter to compensate any
> losses" in UK? If so, I did not know that.
>
> :: Or mismatched tripples?
> : Hunh?
>
> Flammable, inflammable, nonflammable.
> Edible, inedible, nonedible.
>
> And is "unionized" talking about ions or unions?
> And for that matter, are uncharged particles "unions"?
And are 'shelled nuts' the ones that have shells or the ones that don't?
(The latter, as it turns out. 'shelled' is a verb not an adjective.)
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Odysseus
>
> Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote in message news:<slrncf816t....@goodwill.io.com>...
> > > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> > > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
> >
>
>
> Can you effect the change?
>
Yes; it means pretty much the same as "put/bring into effect", but
it's more concise.
--
Odysseus
Matt Ruff
>
> I'm confused. Is this what you mean by using "effect" as a verb?
>
> Can you effect the change?
Yep. And if you really want to confuse matters, you can say, referring
to the part of the brain that controls emotional expression, that it
effects the affect...
-- M. Ruff
meirman
<storyt...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
BTW, for those for whom this usage is new affect as a noun is stressed
on the first syllable, AFF fect. The other meaning and both meanings
of effect on the second syllable.
>
>-- M. Ruff
Bonnie Stantini
> I'm going to have to support Carmen Abruzzi's
> "The effect of this change will affect many".
Carmen Abruzzi also wins my vote (she *is* an Italiana :)
"The effect will affect me."
It's well & good we discuss & defend the proper use of our English
language.
Some of these pinpoint topics are merely decisions which could have
gone either way. For example, the punctuation period properly lands
inside the quotation mark, not outside. Why? I do not know. Doesn't
make any sense to me. But that's the way it is. We just have to accept
it. Some of these rules are merely decisions. Pure and simple.
Like "it's" vs "its." Personally, I prefer "its'" for the possessive
case. But nobody is asking me. Somebody made a call. Who? I don't
know. It's the way it is.
Or the capitalization (in the USA anyway) of any mention of a people
who live in a location. Americans. Australians. Italians. (Is a Brit a
Britisher?) It's just the way it is. Somebody made a decison. That's
the way it will be. Accept it.
On the other hand, some situations are our own fault.
Take "who" vs "whom". Even though it's trivial to use whom correctly,
its usage by native-born Americans is currently bastardized because
Americans just can't handle whom/him/her/them having a logically
consistent rule set. What made sense and that which could have
remained so simple, is now more complex. Why? I do not know. Maybe
it's because these Americans (at least those who use who for whom) are
lazy or stupid (or both). Or is there some other reason? You tell me.
It pains my ears to hear it. But I can't do anything about it.
All I know is that, in the end, it is we who allow those who are lazy
or stupid (or both) to use our words incorrectly. Our penalty is that
the incorrect usage becomes accepted usage. In the end, we (always)
lose.
Similarly with "lend" vs "loan". It should be obvious that lend is a
verb and loan is a noun, as in: "I lent her money & she paid back my
loan." But time and time again, when people are stupid or lazy (or
both) the wrong approach becomes (ever so insiduously) actually
accepted by the proles & patricians alike as the accepted approach.
Whether or not it makes any sense at all.
Yes, I know this doesn't make any more sense than the fact that only
Spanish people can't learn English. Why? I don't know. Every time I
call an airline or a government office, I am forced to listen to the
message "If you're Spanish and if you're too lazy or stupid to learn
English, press 1." Maybe most Spanish people are lazy or stupid (or
both). Everyone else learns English. My parents did. I did. My Korean
next door neighbor did. My Indian co-worker did (sorry, cowworker just
doesn't cut it for me). But not Spaniards. My point is the penalty
isn't just the fact that you have to press "1" ten thousand times in
your life to skip past the message for the lazy or stupid Spaniards
(or both). The penalty, (wait and see), of allowing English to decline
is that you'll be forced to speak your language the way you are
currently allowed those who are lazy or stupid (or both) to.
Either way, you can't do anything about it. You just have to accept
it.
Bonnie S.
Lars Eighner
<9b5f3f18.04071...@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Linda Donovan
broadcast on misc.writing:
> Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote in message news:<slrncf816t....@goodwill.io.com>...
>> > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>> > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>>
>> Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
> I'm confused. Is this what you mean by using "effect" as a verb?
> Can you effect the change?
Yes, that is a perfect example of the use of "effect" as a verb.
To see whether you really mean "effect" or "affect" consult
a dictionary near you.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"The very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no
standard by which to judge it." --Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:32:43 -0700 Towse
><se...@towse.com> posted:
>
>>
>>
>>meirman wrote:
>>
>>> My advice for you and the original poster is to memorize the three
>>> principal parts of these and other irregular verbs (verbs whose past
>>> or past participle is not formed by adding -ed.)
>>>
>>> I've heard that schools didn't make people your age do this. Is that
>>> true? It only takes a couple hours total to try to memorize all of
>>> them and to succeed in all but two or three cases. Maybe it will take
>>> a cumulative 3 or 4 hours 25 years later. (You should have done this
>>> when you were 10 or 12.)
>>>
>>> For example, lie, lay, lain
>>> lay, laid, laid.
>>>
>>> Just memorize them. You don't need any context. Then you can note
>>> that one lies on a bed, but he lays a dish on the table.
>>
>>Lie, lady, lie. Lie across my big brass bed.
>>
>>Hm.
>
>Do you learn your English from pop song writers? Do you also use the
>word "delovely" as if it were standard English?
>
>He either liked the long a in lay and lady, or he was trying to
>discreetly call up the sexual meaning of the word lay. One may call
>that poetic license, but that means here license to write something
>that is syntactically incorrect.
>
Don't use words you don't understand. "Lay, lady, lay" is
"syntactically" correct. However, it is "lexically" incorrect.
Dylan was simply using an idiom common to many. I say "lay down on the
bed" (whatever I write) and I'm not alone.
Am I?
Zen
Leo Talbot
> "Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > I'm going to have to support Carmen Abruzzi's
> > "The effect of this change will affect many".
> Carmen Abruzzi also wins my vote (she *is* an Italiana :)
> "The effect will affect me."
> It's well & good we discuss & defend the proper use of our English
> language.
> Like "it's" vs "its." Personally, I prefer "its'" for the possessive
> case. But nobody is asking me. Somebody made a call. Who? I don't
> know. It's the way it is.
Quite simple actually. Pronouns don't use an apostrophe, nouns do. Hence
yours, its, his, hers, ours, theirs. But Leo's, Bonnie's, poster's.
> Or the capitalization (in the USA anyway) of any mention of a people
> who live in a location. Americans. Australians. Italians. (Is a Brit a
> Britisher?) It's just the way it is. Somebody made a decison. That's
> the way it will be. Accept it.
I think the correct version here may be Briton, but it's very rarely
used.
Leo
--
I've got green eyes, red hair, and I'm left handed. A hundred
years ago, I'd have been considered in league with the Devil.
PGP: 0xD4225B61 fp=141B83BE A6F44EEF 8E379887 F6338DE7 D4225B61
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:03:18 +1000 Dr Zen
><gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:35:21 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:39:58 +1000 Dr Zen
>>><gol...@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have less money than him.
>>>
>>>I guess you have 100 pounds British Sterling and 190 pounds of him.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe you're not a native speaker of English, I don't know. Perhaps
>>you are simply an obtuse pedant. I write my posts in colloquial
>>English and this is a common idiom.
>
>It's a common mistake.
It's not a mistake at all.
> How old are you?
Old enough.
> Where did you learn English?
At my mother's knee.
>In school or from your friends?
What are you talking about? I'm a native speaker. I learned it in the
usual way.
What I did learn in school was the story of King Canute. He was the
guy who tried to hold back the tide. Pedants who insist that common
colloquialisms are "mistakes" often remind me of him.
Using "than" as a preposition was good enough for Shakespeare and it's
good enough for me.
You use AHD, yes? Look up "than".
For those who want to know what the fuss is about, you can refer to:
http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page30.html
If this were formal writing and not a Usenet post (where the
convention is to use colloquial English), I would obey the dictates of
Fowler and use "than" only as a conjunction, but it isn't, and I
don't.
Zen
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on 13 Jul 2004 10:53:57 +0200 LEE Sau Dan
><dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> posted:
>
>>
>> Orak> Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as
>> Orak> in: "Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him" (i.e., use
>> Orak> "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
>>
>>Right. Those aren't distinguished anymore in American usage.
>
>Yes they are. Both in print and verbally, in formal talks and
>informal chitchat. Not by everyone, but for people who know how they
>are to be used, sometimes the errors that other people make are
>shockingly apparent and grating to the ear. Some poor uses of either
>word are not grating and sometimes barely noticed.
>
>Please don't assume that everyone uses words the way you or the people
>you know do.
>>
Because to do so would be to forget that around every corner lurks a
grimacing pedant, waiting to pounce.
Zen
Dr Zen
Stantini) wrote:
>"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>> I'm going to have to support Carmen Abruzzi's
>> "The effect of this change will affect many".
>
>Carmen Abruzzi also wins my vote (she *is* an Italiana :)
> "The effect will affect me."
Yuk.
>
>It's well & good we discuss & defend the proper use of our English
>language.
So long as we're clear what the "proper" use is.
>
>Some of these pinpoint topics are merely decisions which could have
>gone either way. For example, the punctuation period properly lands
>inside the quotation mark, not outside.
In the States.
> Why? I do not know. Doesn't
>make any sense to me. But that's the way it is. We just have to accept
>it. Some of these rules are merely decisions. Pure and simple.
>
*All* of these "rules" are merely decisions. English doesn't have an
Academie to arbitrate.
>Like "it's" vs "its." Personally, I prefer "its'" for the possessive
>case.
That's good.
>But nobody is asking me. Somebody made a call. Who? I don't
>know. It's the way it is.
>
It's older than using the apostrophe is.
>Or the capitalization (in the USA anyway) of any mention of a people
>who live in a location. Americans. Australians. Italians. (Is a Brit a
>Britisher?)
No. A Brit's a Brit.
> It's just the way it is. Somebody made a decison. That's
>the way it will be. Accept it.
>
The decisions change, largely because they are decided by majority
vote.
>On the other hand, some situations are our own fault.
Oh.
>
>Take "who" vs "whom". Even though it's trivial to use whom correctly,
>its usage by native-born Americans is currently bastardized because
>Americans just can't handle whom/him/her/them having a logically
>consistent rule set.
That isn't why.
It's much simpler than that. In just about every sentence, you can
substitute "who" for "whom" without apparently changing the meaning.
IOW, "who" can be used for both cases without any problem.
What has happened is that "who" is used in a similar paradigm to that
of "the dog" rather than that of "I, he" etc.
As is "you", you might note. Which rhymes with who.
Languages often pare away the redundant. "Whom" is being pared.
Pedants resist, as is their wont, but the people speak, and soon
"whom" will be consigned to the dustbin of linguistic history,
unmissed, unloved.
> What made sense and that which could have
>remained so simple, is now more complex.
It is no more complex.
Would it be simpler to use "youm" for the objective case of "you"? No,
it wouldn't.
Because word order serves to mark the relationship between words in
English to a far greater extent than it does in the analytic languages
that pedants mistake English for, marking case is largely unnecessary.
In time, who knows, we may stop using "us", "him", "them" etc and
start using one word for all cases. (There would be a small loss if we
did, with the distinction between "I love you more than him" and "I
love you more than he" lost -- but let's face it, the latter is not
much in evidence outside black and white films.)
>Why? I do not know. Maybe
>it's because these Americans (at least those who use who for whom) are
>lazy or stupid (or both). Or is there some other reason? You tell me.
I just did.
>It pains my ears to hear it. But I can't do anything about it.
You can whine and bitch on the Uselessnet.
>All I know is that, in the end, it is we who allow those who are lazy
>or stupid (or both) to use our words incorrectly.
There is nothing lazy or stupid about it.
We don't use an objective case for "you". Are we lazy not to? Stupid?
Hardly.
German has one. Latin had one. But English gets by without one. We
must all be stupid not to bother with it.
> Our penalty is that
>the incorrect usage becomes accepted usage.
Why is that a "penalty"?
The correct usage is the one people use! That's what a usage is.
> In the end, we (always)
>lose.
>
What do you lose?
You haven't at any point described what is lost by simply discarding
"whom". Give an example of a meaning lost.
I say we lose nothing. It is occasionally useful for the sake of
euphony, but otherwise, it is a dead letter.
>Similarly with "lend" vs "loan". It should be obvious that lend is a
>verb and loan is a noun, as in: "I lent her money & she paid back my
>loan."
Why? The dictionary on my desk has "loan" as a verb, and rightly so,
because that is how people use it. (Checking on Google, AHD says it
"cannot be considered incorrect".)
It gives as a usage: "loaned to the gallery by an unnamed owner". I'm
not sure that you could comfortably replace it with "lent" in this
sentence.
In the following, "lent" sounds very wrong:
Bristol City loaned Smith out to Rovers.
> But time and time again, when people are stupid or lazy (or
>both)
What? You mean too stupid or lazy to check in a dictionary?
> the wrong approach becomes (ever so insiduously)
I think it can be insidious or not, but not "ever so" insidiously.
Insidiously rather implies an "ever so".
> actually
>accepted by the proles & patricians alike
The plebes.
You are mixing your metaphor. It was the plebeians and the patricians.
>as the accepted approach.
That was one too many "accepted"s.
>Whether or not it makes any sense at all.
Not a new sentence. No need for "or not".
[snip racist bilge]
Certainly laziness and stupidity are two things you're well acquainted
with and you deserve to be thanked for sharing your expertise.
Zen
Dr Zen
I'm not at all sure that this is right.
You could effect the will of the people, and this would have the
meaning you suggest.
But in Linda's sentence, "effect" is meant purely as a synonym for
"make". This should be fiercely frowned upon on account of its
breaking one of Fowler's golden rules, which remain, to my mind, the
best guide to word choice.
Zen
Daniel James
> Each has a secondary meaning of the other, when used as "to act
> so as to make something more likely" but not full overlap.
> Or... do you mean "ensure" is used to mean "pay money to an
> underwriter to compensate any losses" in UK? If so, I did not
> know that.
No, quite the other way around. In the UK the "insure" spelling is
always used for the taking out of insurance (and so paying money to
an underwriter - usually using a broker as an intermediary) and the
"ensure" spelling is always used for other meanings.
It is in the US that the spellings have become confused and one finds
- in particular - "insure" used to mean "make sure that it happens".
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
> And are 'shelled nuts' the ones that have shells or the ones
> that don't?
.. or nuts that have been subjected to artillery bombardment?
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
> A: Did many people came to the party?
> B: No, fewer than expected. (Pessimistic)
> B: Yes, (although) less than expcted. (Optimistic)
(A) should be "did many people come..." (or, perhaps, "how many
people came...")
In (B): "No, fewer than expected" is the usual correct form for the
response, and means that the number of people was smaller than
expected.
"Yes, (although) less than expcted" is an oft-made error. It would
be correct if one meant that the number of people attending the
party was as expected, but the actual people were in some way
"less" than expected. They might all have been midgets, for
example; or might have been common people when nobility or film
stars were expected.
The sense of optimism/pessimism you claim to find in these two
forms is not generally recognized.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
> In rec.arts.sf.written Bonnie Stantini <bonnies...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm going to have to support Carmen Abruzzi's
>>>"The effect of this change will affect many".
>
>
>>Carmen Abruzzi also wins my vote (she *is* an Italiana :)
>> "The effect will affect me."
I'm an honorary Italiana.
>
>
>>It's well & good we discuss & defend the proper use of our English
>>language.
Yes, why cannot an effect affect? It isn't necessary that
the action that effects the effect affect directly; the
effect itself may well affect those affected by the effect.
>
>
>>Like "it's" vs "its." Personally, I prefer "its'" for the possessive
>>case. But nobody is asking me. Somebody made a call. Who? I don't
>>know. It's the way it is.
>
> Quite simple actually. Pronouns don't use an apostrophe, nouns do. Hence
> yours, its, his, hers, ours, theirs. But Leo's, Bonnie's, poster's.
anyones? everyones? somebodys? No, I don't think so.
*Personal* pronouns don't use an apostrophe. It's an
arbitrary, but yet comprehensive, thingy.
>
>
>>Or the capitalization (in the USA anyway) of any mention of a people
>>who live in a location. Americans. Australians. Italians. (Is a Brit a
>>Britisher?) It's just the way it is. Somebody made a decison. That's
>>the way it will be. Accept it.
I would love to accept a decison, if I could get one cheap.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:09:56 GMT, Odysseus
> <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>
> >Linda Donovan wrote:
> >>
> >> Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote in message news:<slrncf816t....@goodwill.io.com>...
> >> > > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
> >> > > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
> >> >
> >> > Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
> >>
> >> I'm confused. Is this what you mean by using "effect" as a verb?
> >>
> >> Can you effect the change?
> >>
> >Yes; it means pretty much the same as "put/bring into effect", but
> >it's more concise.
>
> I'm not at all sure that this is right.
>
> You could effect the will of the people, and this would have the
> meaning you suggest.
No, you couldn't. The verb "effect," as I said in my reply to the very
first posting in this thread, means 'bring about'.
> But in Linda's sentence, "effect" is meant purely as a synonym for
> "make".
It most certainly is not.
> This should be fiercely frowned upon on account of its
> breaking one of Fowler's golden rules, which remain, to my mind, the
> best guide to word choice.
Far be it from you, however, to quote this "golden rule."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
George Hardy
> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
His presence affected the outcome of the game; the effect
was upsetting. (affected -- changed, altered) (effect --
the resulting impact)
> For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs "less" with:
> "Less crime; fewer police"
> (i.e., use "fewer" when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
Fewer when you can count the individuals.
> Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as in:
> "Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him"
> (i.e., use "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
Who is nominative; whom is dative or accusative.
> A third example is "lay" vs "lie", as in:
> "The boots now lie where the body lay"
> (this one comes from a National Geographic article on the Titanic & Ballard).
Lay is transitive -- takes a direct object. Lie is intransitive.
There are a large number of these verb pairs. Frequently misused
today.
GFH
meirman
<waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> posted:
I'm not even sure how one would be optimistic while saying "less than
expected". Having the hope that more people would come next time? Or
thinking fewer people came but because of that, the ones who did had a
better time than if it had been crowded.
And what if the question was, Did your car paint get a lot of chips on
the gravel roads of the road rally? Then would fewer or less be the
optimistic answer? Since fewer chips is good while more people at a
party is usually good.
I"ve never heard one word described as optimistic and the other word
as an opposite. My mother always served spinach with spaghetti. Maybe
someone the poster knows commonly used one word in some optimistic
situation and another in the opposite, because one had countable items
and the other didn't.
>
>Cheers,
> Daniel.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>I'm not even sure how one would be optimistic while saying "less than
>expected". Having the hope that more people would come next time? Or
>thinking fewer people came but because of that, the ones who did had a
>better time than if it had been crowded.
Less is appropriate only for continuous quantities, fewer for discrete
quantities.
Less beer, fewer hamburgers.
They aren't interchangeable terms.
"Less than expected" means you were expecting something that could only
be measured, not counted. "Fewer than expected" means that you were
expecting something that could be counted.
Optimism or pessimism doesn't have anything at all to do with it.
--
The Assault Weapons Ban expires in:
60 days, 14 hours and 56 minutes
Richard R. Hershberger
> On 13 Jul 2004 23:38:49 -0700, bonnies...@yahoo.com (Bonnie
> Stantini) wrote:
>
> >Take "who" vs "whom". Even though it's trivial to use whom correctly,
> >its usage by native-born Americans is currently bastardized because
> >Americans just can't handle whom/him/her/them having a logically
> >consistent rule set.
>
> That isn't why.
>
> It's much simpler than that. In just about every sentence, you can
> substitute "who" for "whom" without apparently changing the meaning.
> IOW, "who" can be used for both cases without any problem.
>
> What has happened is that "who" is used in a similar paradigm to that
> of "the dog" rather than that of "I, he" etc.
>
> As is "you", you might note. Which rhymes with who.
>
> Languages often pare away the redundant. "Whom" is being pared.
> Pedants resist, as is their wont, but the people speak, and soon
> "whom" will be consigned to the dustbin of linguistic history,
> unmissed, unloved.
>
> > What made sense and that which could have
> >remained so simple, is now more complex.
>
> It is no more complex.
Well, I suppose one could make an argument that, for those people who
sometimes use "whom" but not always, the usage is more complex. The
majority usage of never using "whom" at all is admirably simple and,
as you point out, loses no clarity.
>
> >Similarly with "lend" vs "loan". It should be obvious that lend is a
> >verb and loan is a noun, as in: "I lent her money & she paid back my
> >loan."
>
> Why? The dictionary on my desk has "loan" as a verb, and rightly so,
> because that is how people use it. (Checking on Google, AHD says it
> "cannot be considered incorrect".)
This is my favorite item from Bonnie's rant. Why indeed? Is there
some morphological clue hidden to you and me, but obvious to Bonnie?
This is the funniest of the bunch because "loan" has always been a
verb throughout the history of Modern English. This usage died out in
some British dialects but not in America. Some 19th century American
usage commentators assumed for no good reason that the verb use was an
American innovation and therefore condemned it. That would-be pedants
have followed suit ever since is the triumph of ignorant elitism.
>
> Certainly laziness and stupidity are two things you're well acquainted
> with and you deserve to be thanked for sharing your expertise.
Want to take a guess which of the four groups this message was
cross-posted to she comes from?
Richard R. Hershberger
Nathan Sanders
jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
> Less is appropriate only for continuous quantities, fewer for discrete
> quantities.
>
> Less beer, fewer hamburgers.
>
> They aren't interchangeable terms.
(1) Next time, I'll order less pizza.
(2) Next time, I'll order fewer pizzas.
Arguably, they *are* interchangeable, with <less> requiring the bare
noun and <fewer> triggering a plural marker.
In fact, it's a difference between somewhat arbitrary nouns types,
labelled "mass nouns" and "count nouns", which aren't necessarily
linked to notions of discreteness, continuity, or countability
(furniture versus chair, time versus future, gossip versus rumor,
evidence versus fact), and many nouns can be either mass or count in
certain interpretations (pizza, hair, freedom, etc.).
> "Less than expected" means you were expecting something that could only
> be measured, not counted.
Counting *is* a type of measurement!
> Optimism or pessimism doesn't have anything at all to do with it.
I agree.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program nsan...@wso.williams.edu
Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders
Williamstown, MA 01267
Lin Digs Books
> >gone either way. For example, the punctuation period properly lands
> >inside the quotation mark, not outside.
>
> In the States.
>
Speaking as a professional typesetter (which I was for 20 years), we
put periods and commas inside quote marks so they don't "get lost" and
look like specks on the page. That's the only reason I ever heard. If
you have really good paper, a decently weighted font, and a good
printing method, you can put them outside.
Other punctuation marks follow the sense of the sentence, so colons
and semi-colons go outside the quotes, but screamers (!) and question
marks go inside if they belong to the quote and outside if they belong
to the sentence the quote is in.
See? Simple.
Lindig
George Hardy
> Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
The effect (impact) of his program affected (changed) the
students.
> For example, I remember the difference between "few" vs "less" with:
> "Less crime; fewer police"
> (i.e., use "fewer" when you can actually count; use "less" otherwise).
Correct.
> Another example is the personal pronoun "who" vs "whom" as in:
> "Who is chasing whom; he is chasing him"
> (i.e., use "whom" just like you already know how to use "him").
No. Who is nominative (the subject of a sentence); whom is
dative (indirect object) or accusative (direct object) or the
object of a preposition.
> A third example is "lay" vs "lie", as in:
> "The boots now lie where the body lay"
OK. There is a little confusion here. Lay can be either
the present tense of the verb to lay or the past tense of
the verb to lie. Lie, lay, lain and lay, laid, laid. Lie
is intransitive; lay is transitive.
GFH
Peter T. Daniels
>
> orakl...@yahoo.com (Orak Listalavostok) wrote in message news:<44d113e9.04071...@posting.google.com>...
> > Do you have a sentence that uses "effect" & "affect" properly?
>
> The effect (impact) of his program affected (changed) the
> students.
No, his program affected the students -- it had an effect on them.
meirman
<nsanders...@wso.williams.edu> posted:
>In article <slrncfafet...@jdege.visi.com>,
> jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>
>> Less is appropriate only for continuous quantities, fewer for discrete
>> quantities.
>>
>> Less beer, fewer hamburgers.
>>
>> They aren't interchangeable terms.
>
>(1) Next time, I'll order less pizza.
>(2) Next time, I'll order fewer pizzas.
>
>Arguably, they *are* interchangeable, with <less> requiring the bare
>noun and <fewer> triggering a plural marker.
How is that interchangeable?
>In fact, it's a difference between somewhat arbitrary nouns types,
>labelled "mass nouns" and "count nouns", which aren't necessarily
>linked to notions of discreteness, continuity, or countability
>(furniture versus chair, time versus future, gossip versus rumor,
>evidence versus fact), and many nouns can be either mass or count in
>certain interpretations (pizza, hair, freedom, etc.).
>
>> "Less than expected" means you were expecting something that could only
>> be measured, not counted.
>
>Counting *is* a type of measurement!
>
>> Optimism or pessimism doesn't have anything at all to do with it.
>
>I agree.
I do too.
>Nathan
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> >It's a common mistake.
> It's not a mistake at all.
Perhaps Meirman used "common mistake" in place of its synonymous
phrase: "good usage."[1]
[ ... ]
> Using "than" as a preposition was good enough for Shakespeare and it's
> good enough for me.
In sooth, thou speakest most cleverly.
Dr. Zen, not being an AEU regular, may be unaware that the issue of
"than" as proposition, conjunction, or whatever has been beaten to
and beyond death in that group and the larger group
alt.usage.english.[2]
>
> You use AHD, yes? Look up "than".
>
> For those who want to know what the fuss is about, you can refer to:
> http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page30.html
>
> If this were formal writing and not a Usenet post (where the
> convention is to use colloquial English), I would obey the dictates of
> Fowler and use "than" only as a conjunction, but it isn't, and I
> don't.
Even in formal writing, "than" shows up as a preposition. Fowler
might have considered the tenor of his comments on the split
inifinitive before taking such an adamant stance on "than."
[1] Note, however, that (1) the mistake must indeed be common and
(2) certain kinds of common mistakes remain mistakes because they
don't concern usage, e.g., spelling errors (spelling being a matter
of convention).
[2] No, I won't explain why there are two alt. groups on English
usage.[3]
[3] I can't explain. There are various surmises, but no one
actually knows.
--
Bob Lieblich
Than whom no one has more whomer
Carmen L. Abruzzi
>
> Take "who" vs "whom". Even though it's trivial to use whom correctly,
> its usage by native-born Americans is currently bastardized because
> Americans just can't handle whom/him/her/them having a logically
> consistent rule set. What made sense and that which could have
> remained so simple, is now more complex. Why? I do not know. Maybe
> it's because these Americans (at least those who use who for whom) are
> lazy or stupid (or both). Or is there some other reason? You tell me.
> It pains my ears to hear it. But I can't do anything about it.
>
> All I know is that, in the end, it is we who allow those who are lazy
> or stupid (or both) to use our words incorrectly. Our penalty is that
> the incorrect usage becomes accepted usage. In the end, we (always)
> lose.
>
How would you feel about the use of the datives "whom" and
"him" as accusatives?
Would bringing back "whone" and "hine" make things simpler?
meirman
Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
It depends on the situation. In some cases a program affects students
directly and in other cases with a different sort of program, it is
the effect of the program that more clearly affects them.
If a city councilman comes up with a program to tear down slums that
are supposed to be vacant but have squatters who commit crimes in the
area, and build new apartments with good tenants, and the crime rate
goes down in the area
An indirect situation like this is probably less common than direct
effects, but to give a flat "no" to Orak's example, I don't think is
good. Orak's sentence was grammatical and illustrated both words.
Yours would be better at most for reasonableness or likelihood.
phil hunt
>>
>> Can we do "insure" and "ensure"?
>
>What do you want to do with them? They are absolutely, totally
>interchangeable
So, in your opinion, "I ensured my life for a million pounds" is a
good English sentence?
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
Brandon
phil hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:59:51 GMT, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>Can we do "insure" and "ensure"?
>>
>>What do you want to do with them? They are absolutely, totally
>>interchangeable
>
>
> So, in your opinion, "I ensured my life for a million pounds" is a
> good English sentence?
>
>
In American usage, yes. I just checked my unabridged (most
recently updated in the mid-80s, so it's not a new change)
to make sure I hadn't been wrong all these years.
Peter T. Daniels
Note that some insurance companies have "Assurance" in their names. I
have no idea whether that at some point bore some significance.
Towse
Brandon wrote:
In American usage, no.
"Insure" can have both the "arrange insurance" and "make sure, certain"
meanings, but "ensure" has only the "make sure, certain" meaning.
"Ensure you get insured!" and all that.
<http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/035.html>
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Towse
meirman wrote:
> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:32:43 -0700 Towse
> <se...@towse.com> posted:
>
>>meirman wrote:
>>
>>>My advice for you and the original poster is to memorize the three
>>>principal parts of these and other irregular verbs (verbs whose past
>>>or past participle is not formed by adding -ed.)
>>>
>>>I've heard that schools didn't make people your age do this. Is that
>>>true? It only takes a couple hours total to try to memorize all of
>>>them and to succeed in all but two or three cases. Maybe it will take
>>>a cumulative 3 or 4 hours 25 years later. (You should have done this
>>>when you were 10 or 12.)
>>>
>>>For example, lie, lay, lain
>>> lay, laid, laid.
>>>
>>>Just memorize them. You don't need any context. Then you can note
>>>that one lies on a bed, but he lays a dish on the table.
>>
>>Lie, lady, lie. Lie across my big brass bed.
>>
>>Hm.
>
> Do you learn your English from pop song writers? Do you also use the
> word "delovely" as if it were standard English?
Are those rhetorical questions?
I'm sitting in the railway station.
Got a ticket for my destination.
On a tour of one-night stands my suitcase and guitar in hand.
And ev'ry stop is neatly planned for a poet and a one-man band.
Homeward bound,
I wish I was,
Homeward bound.
Does that "was" grate?
> He either liked the long a in lay and lady, or he was trying to
> discreetly call up the sexual meaning of the word lay. One may call
> that poetic license, but that means here license to write something
> that is syntactically incorrect.
Oh. Is _that what poetic license means.
Towse
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:28:47 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.english.usage on Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:32:43 -0700 Towse
>><se...@towse.com> posted:
>>>
>>>meirman wrote:
>>>
>>>>My advice for you and the original poster is to memorize the three
>>>>principal parts of these and other irregular verbs (verbs whose past
>>>>or past participle is not formed by adding -ed.)
>>>>
>>>>I've heard that schools didn't make people your age do this. Is that
>>>>true? It only takes a couple hours total to try to memorize all of
>>>>them and to succeed in all but two or three cases. Maybe it will take
>>>>a cumulative 3 or 4 hours 25 years later. (You should have done this
>>>>when you were 10 or 12.)
>>>>
>>>>For example, lie, lay, lain
>>>> lay, laid, laid.
>>>>
>>>>Just memorize them. You don't need any context. Then you can note
>>>>that one lies on a bed, but he lays a dish on the table.
>>>
>>>Lie, lady, lie. Lie across my big brass bed.
>>>
>>>Hm.
>>
>>Do you learn your English from pop song writers? Do you also use the
>>word "delovely" as if it were standard English?
>>
>>He either liked the long a in lay and lady, or he was trying to
>>discreetly call up the sexual meaning of the word lay. One may call
>>that poetic license, but that means here license to write something
>>that is syntactically incorrect.
>
> Don't use words you don't understand. "Lay, lady, lay" is
> "syntactically" correct. However, it is "lexically" incorrect.
>
> Dylan was simply using an idiom common to many. I say "lay down on the
> bed" (whatever I write) and I'm not alone.
>
> Am I?
Not if you're saying, "Lay down on the bed."
Unless ... do you talk to yourself?
Now I lay me down to sleep.
Ja. Ja. I know. "Now I lay me down to sleep." is different from "Now I
lie down to sleep." because there's something being laid down even if
it's only "me."
Nathan Sanders
meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >Arguably, they *are* interchangeable, with <less> requiring the bare
> >noun and <fewer> triggering a plural marker.
>
> How is that interchangeable?
Well, I did say "arguably"! Try:
(1) Next time, I'll order less fish (sixteen pounds was too much).
(2) Next time, I'll order fewer fish (sixteen was too many).
where the plural marker on the count noun in (2) is pronounced the
same as the singular marker on the mass noun in (1).
Dr Zen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Dr Zen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:09:56 GMT, Odysseus
>> <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Linda Donovan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote in message news:<slrncf816t....@goodwill.io.com>...
>> >> > > Definition 1: "effect" is a noun.
>> >> > > Definition 2: "affect" is a verb.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not reliable. "Effect" is also a perfectly good verb.
>> >>
>> >> I'm confused. Is this what you mean by using "effect" as a verb?
>> >>
>> >> Can you effect the change?
>> >>
>> >Yes; it means pretty much the same as "put/bring into effect", but
>> >it's more concise.
>>
>> I'm not at all sure that this is right.
>>
>> You could effect the will of the people, and this would have the
>> meaning you suggest.
>
>No, you couldn't. The verb "effect," as I said in my reply to the very
>first posting in this thread, means 'bring about'.
>
It also means "put into effect" if you're not just using the junior
dictionary.
You don't "bring about" a change. There is a change you desire and you
make it happen.
>> But in Linda's sentence, "effect" is meant purely as a synonym for
>> "make".
>
>It most certainly is not.
It most certainly is, Mr Wolf.
>
>> This should be fiercely frowned upon on account of its
>> breaking one of Fowler's golden rules, which remain, to my mind, the
>> best guide to word choice.
>
>Far be it from you, however, to quote this "golden rule."
Not to a guy who can't spot a plural when one's put in front of him.
Zen
Wayne Throop
:: good English sentence?
: Brandon <jch...@avalon.net>
: In American usage, yes. I just checked my unabridged (most recently
: updated in the mid-80s, so it's not a new change) to make sure I
: hadn't been wrong all these years.
Well. I dunno exactly what your source says, but these google
results give some indication
Results 1 - 10 of about 21,900 for "insurance underwriter" [definition].
Results 1 - 2 of about 6 for "ensurance underwriter".
Did you mean: "insurance underwriter"
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,570,000 for "life insurance" [definition].
Results 1 - 10 of about 888 for "life ensurance".
Results 1 - 10 of about 929,000 for "insurance agent" [definition].
Results 1 - 7 of about 18 for "ensurance agent".
Did you mean: "insurance agent"
A one in several thousands rate is quite reasonally attributed to error,
not a viable usage pattern.
Plus, a quickie look at http://www.m-w.com/ finds a mention that insure
and ensure "are interchangeable in many contexts where they indicate
the making certain or inevitable of an outcome, but INSURE sometimes
stresses the taking of necessary measures beforehand".
"Interchangeable in many contexts", plus with differing connotations.
Which is not at all the same thing as "absolutely, totally
interchangeable" as claimed upthread.
Plus, the usage of "insure" as in "bet money with a special type of bookie
called an "underwriter" that something happens and be happy to lose most
of the time", is listed as a separate usage of insure, but not of ensure.
YMMV, but I find it convincing: usage like "life ensurance" is an error.
Even "in American usage". And personally, I find "insure meeting a
deadline" quite iffy, since it smacks far too much of arranging for
compensation if it is missed rather than making certain it is met.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Paul J Kriha
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40F5C5...@worldnet.att.net...
I don't know about the US usage of "assurance". In some English
speaking countries "assurance" is a different kind of deal from "insurance".
"Assurance" has an additional feature to an "insurance" deal. If you take up
an "assurance" you get a lump sum at the end of the agreed term
even if you are still alive and uninjured :-)
PJK
raymond o'hara
"Towse" <> "Ensure you get insured!" and all that.
Most assuredly.
meirman
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> posted:
I think that's called term life insurance here.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>>> Note that some insurance companies have "Assurance" in their names. I
>>> have no idea whether that at some point bore some significance.
>>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels
>>
>>I don't know about the US usage of "assurance". In some English
>>speaking countries "assurance" is a different kind of deal from "insurance".
>>"Assurance" has an additional feature to an "insurance" deal. If you take up
>>an "assurance" you get a lump sum at the end of the agreed term
>>even if you are still alive and uninjured :-)
>>
>>PJK
>
>I think that's called term life insurance here.
No. It would be more like an annuity, but with a lump sum payout
instead of a payout over time.
Term insurance just means that you are covered for the term (as long
as you pay the premiums) but acquire no equity. There is no cash
value to a term insurance policy.
meirman
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> posted:
>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:22:53 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> Note that some insurance companies have "Assurance" in their names. I
>>>> have no idea whether that at some point bore some significance.
>>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels
>>>
>>>I don't know about the US usage of "assurance". In some English
>>>speaking countries "assurance" is a different kind of deal from "insurance".
>>>"Assurance" has an additional feature to an "insurance" deal. If you take up
>>>an "assurance" you get a lump sum at the end of the agreed term
>>>even if you are still alive and uninjured :-)
>>>
>>>PJK
>>
>>I think that's called term life insurance here.
>
>
>No. It would be more like an annuity, but with a lump sum payout
>instead of a payout over time.
OK, but there's another name for it that has insurance in the name.
>Term insurance just means that you are covered for the term (as long
>as you pay the premiums) but acquire no equity. There is no cash
>value to a term insurance policy.
Oh, yeah. I've never had life insurance and still can't keep it
straight.
Paul J Kriha
Tony Cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ac2cf09u4okdpa98h...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:22:53 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>> Note that some insurance companies have "Assurance" in their names. I
> >>> have no idea whether that at some point bore some significance.
> >>>
> >>> Peter T. Daniels
> >>
> >>I don't know about the US usage of "assurance". In some English
> >>speaking countries "assurance" is a different kind of deal from "insurance".
> >>"Assurance" has an additional feature to an "insurance" deal. If you take up
> >>an "assurance" you get a lump sum at the end of the agreed term
> >>even if you are still alive and uninjured :-)
> >>
> >>PJK
> >
> >I think that's called term life insurance here.
>
> No. It would be more like an annuity, but with a lump sum payout
> instead of a payout over time.
Yes, it's like an 'annuity' with a lump sum payout (i.e. nothing
annual in it at all), however, it also has some term insurance features.
You receive the whole amount immediately if you die early and
you get smaller amounts for various types of injuries. I think,
though, that the word was used in this sense more often thirty
years ago than it is today.
PJK
Bonnie Stantini
> Other punctuation marks follow the sense of the sentence, so colons
> and semi-colons go outside the quotes, but screamers (!) and question
> marks go inside if they belong to the quote and outside if they belong
> to the sentence the quote is in.
Screamers (!) I like that.
Nobody seems to call a note of exclamation an exclamation mark in my
field either.
Where I was educated, we rarely employed the (!) for punctuation
purposes; so, like you, we denominate the common (!) as a "bang". All
my colleagues would likely express the following series of standard
marks (_ - . !) as "dit dash dot bang."
I've also heard the bang called a "pling" as in "dit dash dot pling."
Inexplicably, these same co-workers often confuse the slash (/) with
the backslash (\). Why? I don't know. The carat (^) doesn't cause them
any stress; but the pound sign (#) goes by a different name every time
someone mentions it. I guess some professions have their markup
language all figured out while others don't. Mine is half-way there.
Luckily, the effect of the bang is not affected by the moniker we give
it.
Thank you for the education. I just love the learning we all gain from
each other on God's usenet!
Bonnie S.
My new favorite (since Carmin was so mean to me :)
What effect is affected?
Bonnie Stantini
> > Is a Brit a Britisher?
> No. A Brit's a Brit.
Seems too colloquial to me. Sort of like being labelled a Yank. Not as
pejorative as being styled as a Wop; less disparaging than hoots of
laughter and cries of "Gringa" (while I sneak that box of Cohiba
Esplendidos across the border to sell at a handsome profit once back
in the US sector).
> >Americans just can't handle whom/him/her/them having a logically
> >consistent rule set.
> It's much simpler than that.
> Languages often pare away the redundant. "Whom" is being pared.
Both sides have good points. Thank you for the additional perspective:
Side #1: Considering "who" vs "whom" alone, pruning God's language to
"who" vs "who" simplifies things.
Side #2: Associating "who" & "whom" with most other personal pronouns,
"who" and "who" are one of the exceptions to the otherwise consistent
rule.
> > Our penalty is that the incorrect usage becomes accepted usage.
> Why is that a "penalty"?
My main objection to incorrect usage becoming accepted usage is the
damage we do to perfectly good simple rules. We end up with the rule;
and then the complex exceptions to the rule. In my very humble
opinion, that makes our language harder to exercise properly. I don't
want God's language to become a challenge. It should be logical.
Intuitive. Even instinctive. Put it this way. Do you know why
Venetians consider spelling bees laughably inane time wasters?
> What do you lose?
Grep for the number of instances where the response was "look it up in
a dictionary" to realize the illimitable waste of time, money, and
effort that is wastefully expended in an attempt to figure out what
doesn't make sense. Doesn't it strike you as absurd for people to
consider it normal to refer to a dictionary so often? For common
speach & USENET writing, none of us should *ever* be forced to resort
to the aid of a publication in our native language. The language
should make sense to us. Half the time (as in loan vs lend) even one
hallowed treatise provides the opposite answer to another. We lose.
I desperately hope to preserve what little of God's language *still*
makes sense (to me & for God, if for no one else).
> >Similarly with "lend" vs "loan". It should be obvious that lend is a
> >verb and loan is a noun, as in: "I lent her money & she paid back my
> >loan."
>
> Why? The dictionary on my desk has "loan" as a verb, and rightly so,
> because that is how people use it.
I hate to say this, but check a few more dictionaries. Why is it that
they can't agree on this one? Simply put, when I hear someone misuse
"loan" as a verb, it has the same effect as ramming a 12-volt vibrater
into my ear.
> What? You mean too stupid or lazy to check in a dictionary?
Take me up on my suggestion. Check out "loan" vs "lend" in a few
dictionaries. They won't agree. The final answer merely depends on
which dictionary you consult last. Is that the way you suggest we run
our language?
> I think it can be insidious or not, but not "ever so" insidiously.
> Insidiously rather implies an "ever so".
Interesting. Good point.
> > actually accepted by the proles & patricians alike
> You are mixing your metaphor. It was the plebeians and the patricians.
Very interesting. I wasn't actually trying to correlate the two in
time. Still, your metaphor is situationally improved over mine.
Thanks. I owe you one.
> >as the accepted approach.
> That was one too many "accepted"s.
I didn't notice at the time of posting; however, I do agree with you.
> >Whether or not it makes any sense at all.
> Not a new sentence. No need for "or not".
Again, I do very much agree with you. Thank you.
> [snip racist bilge]
I didn't see any bigotry? What I wrote was entirely accurate. Are your
telephone messages in some other language? Perhaps I misspelled
"Spanish". If the telephone messages were in Dutch or German, would my
words of truth be any less veritable?
> Certainly laziness and stupidity are two things you're well acquainted
> with and you deserve to be thanked for sharing your expertise.
Non mi stressare!!
Bonnie S.
Stuart Chapman
"Bonnie Stantini" <bonnies...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:407bf7ba.040...@posting.google.com...
> Inexplicably, these same co-workers often confuse the slash (/) with
> the backslash (\). Why? I don't know. The carat (^) doesn't cause them
> any stress; but the pound sign (#) goes by a different name every time
> someone mentions it. I guess some professions have their markup
> language all figured out while others don't. Mine is half-way there.
>
> Luckily, the effect of the bang is not affected by the moniker we give
> it.
>
> Thank you for the education. I just love the learning we all gain from
> each other on God's usenet!
>
> Bonnie S.
>
> My new favorite (since Carmin was so mean to me :)
> What effect is affected?
I have heard (actually read) the # sign called an 'octothorp'.
Stupot
Daniel James
news:<nsanders.DIE.SPAM-8...@news.verizon.net>,
Nathan Sanders wrote:
> (1) Next time, I'll order less pizza.
> (2) Next time, I'll order fewer pizzas.
>
> Arguably, they *are* interchangeable, with <less> requiring the
> bare noun and <fewer> triggering a plural marker.
That's not really an example of interchangeability. "pizza", in the
sense used in (1), is an uncountable - it refers to a bulk
quantity, the "amount of stuff" needed to feed a certain person or
group of persons. In (2) "pizzas", being plural, clearly refers to
something countable.
ISTMT two small pizzas might simultaneously be "more pizzas" and
"less pizza" than one large one (or not, depending on where you get
your pizzas).
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "triggering a plural marker"
but you seem to have that the wrong way around ... in (2) pizzas
(plural) are being discussed and that makes "fewer" rather than
"less" the correct form of comparative to use (though one could use
"lesser" or "smaller", with different meaning).
Cheers,
Daniel.
Jim Smith
Nathan Sanders <nsanders...@wso.williams.edu> writes
>Nathan Sanders
>Linguistics Program
We're being lectured by pieces of software now.
--
Jim Smith
Because of their persistent net abuse, I ignore mail from
these domains (among others) .yahoo.com .hotmail.com .kr .cn .tw
For an explanation see <http://www.jimsmith.demon.co.uk/spam>
LEE Sau Dan
Paul> I don't know about the US usage of "assurance". In some
Paul> English speaking countries "assurance" is a different kind
Paul> of deal from "insurance". "Assurance" has an additional
Paul> feature to an "insurance" deal. If you take up an
Paul> "assurance" you get a lump sum at the end of the agreed term
Paul> even if you are still alive and uninjured :-)
All the "life insurance policies" that I'm taking are like that. FYI,
they're issued by an American-based company and are dominated in USD.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Peter T. Daniels
> >> This should be fiercely frowned upon on account of its
> >> breaking one of Fowler's golden rules, which remain, to my mind, the
> >> best guide to word choice.
> >
> >Far be it from you, however, to quote this "golden rule."
>
> Not to a guy who can't spot a plural when one's put in front of him.
"One of Fowler's golden rules." Quote this "golden rule."