Pullum onThe Elements
CDB
Style_, and I do mean critical.
"The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which
it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp
platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not
improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has
significantly degraded it."
And much more...
James Silverton
> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in
> which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice
> ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its
> enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp
> of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
> And much more...
I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
R H Draney
>
> CDB wrote on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:13:52 -0400:
>
>> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in
>> which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice
>> ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its
>> enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp
>> of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
>
>> And much more...
>
>I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
Keep an eye out for his next article: "Rudolf Flesch Is A Big Poopyhead"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Mark Brader
> Geoffrey Pullum has published a critical appraisal of _Elements of
> Style_, and I do mean critical.
> http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i32/32b01501.htm
Wow. Thanks for posting that. I knew there were things that Strunk
and White got wrong, but I didn't realize it was *that* bad.
--
Mark Brader "Without nuclear weapons we will be nothing
Toronto more than a rich, powerful Canada...."
m...@vex.net -- A Walk in the Woods, by Lee Blessing
Skitt
> CDB wrote:
>> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in
>> which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice
>> ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its
>> enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp
>> of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
>
>> And much more...
>
> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
He is Wikipediable.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mark Brader
> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
Fixed.
But Pullum's certainly been mentioned here before -- more than 100
times according to Deja Goo. The item that comes immediately to mind
is "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax"; I see that he's also mentioned
in the FAQ file as the coauthor of a book about the IPA. (International
Phonetic Alphabet, that is, not India Pale Ale.)
--
Mark Brader | "...there are lots of things that I don't remember,
Toronto | but if you ask for an example, I can't remember any."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Wares
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Cece
I've consulted Strunk & White, and put it back on the library shelf to
see if any of the other books available in that section aswered my
question. Chicago is never any help either. Of course, my questions
are always about typographical style, not grammar. Merriam-Webster's
Standard American Style Manual is the best book I've ever seen for
that; it's out of print and was succeeded by Merriam-Webster's Manual
for Writers and Editors, which I have never seen and could not find in
a bookstore.
When I was in high school, our papers were to be written using
Turabian, then a small booklet mandating a style I have never seen
used anywhere else. I hated it.
As for grammar -- why don't we teach grammar in grade school now?
Actually, why hasn't grammar been taught in grade school the last few
decades? The teachers don't know it well enough to use it, let alone
teach it.
Robert Lieblich
>
> C.D. Bellemare:
> > Geoffrey Pullum has published a critical appraisal of _Elements of
> > Style_, and I do mean critical.
> ...
> > http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i32/32b01501.htm
>
> Wow. Thanks for posting that. I knew there were things that Strunk
> and White got wrong, but I didn't realize it was *that* bad.
In the course of my four-decades-plus as a lawyer, I've been told on
several occasions that S&W could help me improve my writing. Without
any exception I can recall, every single person who made this
recommendation fell somewhere on the writing-ability scale from poor
to execrable.
Sad so say, the book isn't quite bad enough to serve as an instructive
poor example.
As for Geoff Pullum, he is, among other things, co-author of *The
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language*, a regular participant in
Language Log, and the author of several notorious LL posts
decostructing Dan Brown (author of *The Da Vinci Code* and several
very similar tales).
And I'm just
--
Bob Lieblich
Furiously not omitting needless words
Martin Ambuhl
> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
Be wary of making such confessions, especially among people who care
about English. If you never paid attention to English linguistics since
1970, or to scholarly papers since 1974, I suppose that it is reasonable
not to have heard of Geoff Pullum. You might check the list of
publications at <http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/pubs.html>. Scholarly
papers and edited volumes populate most of that list through 1986. But
no modern student of phonetics or phonology should be without Pullum &
Ladusaw _Phonetic Symbol Guide_ (University of Chicago Press, 1986; 2nd
ed. 1996). Among his papers, you will find his 1989 essay, "The great
Eskimo vocabulary hoax", and the 1991 book-length expansion often
referred to in this very newsgroup. No one who cares about English
grammar should confess ignorance of Huddleston & Pullum, _The Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language_ (Cambridge, 2002).
Rather than serving to denigrate Geoff Pullum, your claim never to have
heard of him suggests that as a student of language you have been comatose.
Mark Brader
> Sad so say, the book isn't quite bad enough to serve as an instructive
> poor example.
It did serve as a good prototype for an excellent little book by
Kernighan and Plauger, "The Elements of Programming Style".
--
Mark Brader "TeX has found at least one bug in every Pascal
Toronto compiler it's been run on, I think, and at least
m...@vex.net two in every C compiler." -- Knuth
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich writes:
> > Sad so say, the book isn't quite bad enough to serve as an instructive
> > poor example.
>
> It did serve as a good prototype for an excellent little book by
> Kernighan and Plauger, "The Elements of Programming Style".
Now that I think of it, I remember S&W being offered by some book club
or other as one of a set of three "little books" of which another was
*The Elements of Grammar*. Apparently, even the publisher realized
that S&W's grammar advice was -- to be very charitable -- greatly in
need of supplementation.
There's nothing wrong with a succinct handbook on the basics of a
given subject. The problem with S&W, which qualifies as such a book,
is that the authors couldn't differentiate style from grammar and --
as Prof. Pullum more than adequately demonstrates -- were out of their
depth the minute they discussed a grammatical topic. Would that the
book were merely useless.
--
Bob Lieblich
Is my bias showing?
Egbert White
Then there's 'Phonetic Symbol Guide' by Geoffrey K. Pullum and William
A. Ladusaw, a superb guide to the symbols of IPA and related symbols.
--
"How dreary, to be...Somebody! How public, like a frog, to
tell one's name, the live-long June, to an admiring bog!"
<Emily Dickinson>
Glenn Knickerbocker
> When I was in high school, our papers were to be written using
> Turabian, then a small booklet mandating a style I have never seen
> used anywhere else. I hated it.
But WHICH Turabian? That's what I always hated most about her style
guides: There were several different ones with completely different
requirements for citations, for no apparent reason.
Martin Ambuhl
The one I used in high-school was _A Manual for Writers of Term papers,
Theses, and Dissertations" (University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1955).
I later used the 3rd (1967) and 4th (1973) editions. It did not
reflect my preferences, but (just as with S&W) some teachers insisted on it.
My preference was a much smaller pamphlet, William Riley Parker's _The
MLA Style Sheet, Revised Edition_ (Modern Language Association of
America, 1951. Purchasers of the current MLA publications might be
surprised that this one hand only 26 pages of text, 4 pages of index
(compare that ratio to most texts), and cost a whooping fifty cents.
Skitt
> My preference was a much smaller pamphlet, William Riley Parker's _The
> MLA Style Sheet, Revised Edition_ (Modern Language Association of
> America, 1951. Purchasers of the current MLA publications might be
> surprised that this one hand only 26 pages of text, 4 pages of index
> (compare that ratio to most texts), and cost a whooping fifty cents.
I craned writing this, but did you mean "whopping"?
--
Skitt (AmE)
Christian Weisgerber
> But Pullum's certainly been mentioned here before -- more than 100
> times according to Deja Goo. The item that comes immediately to mind
> is "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax"; I see that he's also mentioned
> in the FAQ file as the coauthor of a book about the IPA.
He is co-author of _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
James Silverton
>> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
> Be wary of making such confessions, especially among people
> who care about English. If you never paid attention to English
> linguistics since 1970, or to scholarly papers since 1974, I
> suppose that it is reasonable not to have heard of Geoff
> Pullum.
I don't regard this ng as a professional forum where I have to worry
about academic infighting tho' I'm glad to be informed that Pullum has
some standing. All I know about English grammar and linguistics comes
from Fowler, Strunk and White, The Chicago Manual of Style, Dear's
Oxford English and Partridge's many books and dictionaries of course.
Percival P. Cassidy
<snip>
> As for grammar -- why don't we teach grammar in grade school now?
> Actually, why hasn't grammar been taught in grade school the last few
> decades? The teachers don't know it well enough to use it, let alone
> teach it.
I'm in a Spanish class -- non-credit -- where very little grammar is
being taught and some of what is being taught is just plain wrong. The
teacher, a native AmE speaker, admits to not having known much about
grammar until she studied Spanish in college, and few of the native AmE
speakers in the class seem to have any idea about grammar either.
The one other student who understands grammar and its importance is
originally from Slovakia and studied German and English alongside her
mother-tongue from an early age.
I was just going through some of the materials I retrieved from my late
parents' home in UK. Among them I found a newspaper cutting from a
decade or three ago lamenting the abysmal understanding of grammar by
students after years of "education."
Perce
Evan Kirshenbaum
Not to mention his "Topic...Comment" columns, collected in _The Great
Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax_.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Egbert White
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Martin wrote on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:43:28 -0400:
>
>>> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
>
>> Be wary of making such confessions, especially among people
>> who care about English. If you never paid attention to English
>> linguistics since 1970, or to scholarly papers since 1974, I
>> suppose that it is reasonable not to have heard of Geoff
>> Pullum.
>
>I don't regard this ng as a professional forum where I have to worry
>about academic infighting tho' I'm glad to be informed that Pullum has
>some standing. All I know about English grammar and linguistics comes
>from Fowler, Strunk and White, The Chicago Manual of Style, Dear's
>Oxford English and Partridge's many books and dictionaries of course.
That's not a bad list, but "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English
Usage" is conspicuous by its absence. It has extensive discussions of
various topics, with numerous references to English usage sources and
copious examples.
Another one that should be on a list of excellent English usage
references is "A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage," by Bergen
and Cornelia Evans, despite the fact that contemporary means 1957.
Don Phillipson
news:grq8j0$j4p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Pullum writes:
"Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements
settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught
to college students and presented to the general public."
I do not believe this because:
1. Grammar was not before 1980 "taught to college students,"
at least routinely or normally. College staff expected high school
graduates to arrive having already learned all the grammar an
adult writer needed, and this expectation was generally
justified 1880-1980. There was then an obvious change, when
"literacy tests" and remedial English classes were added to the
college calendar, but the latter were special remedies for
special people, not for the typical run of BA candidates.
2. There is an obvious demand at colleges for textbooks that
are fun to read and Strunk and White's Elements of Style is
fun to read (or was when I gave it to my students in 1990.)
But I doubt that college-level teachers of English were usually quite
so stupid as to mistake a style book for a grammar. (Grammars
were still being published in the late 20th century. Prof. Pullum
is the author of at least one.)
Fortunately both these objections are open to empirical verification
-- as is Prof. Pullum's "Elements settled in as the primary vehicle
through which grammar was taught to college students . . . "
Always a humble person, White confessed 40 years ago he was
out of his depth as a textbook author. When asked to edit the booklet
for publication he estimated it would take a month and it took in
fact a year (he wrote in 1977) but he had a polemical mission
besides, to put the case for prescriptive rather than descriptive styles
in English. (He reminds us the polemic began with the third edition of
Webster's New International.)
White's personal solution affirmed his object was good writing,
which White called "rhetoric." This was style but was not necessarily
grammar. Rhetoric took correct grammar for granted, as Strunk appears
to have done in 1919. He thought college students needed
unnambiguous instruction in good writing, and could be given
it, not least because students in 1919 already knew grammar, or at least
recognized incorrect from correct usage when they saw it.
The familiar rubric "Omit needless words" is the litmus test.
Pullum ridicules this as useless, and perhaps it is a useless idea
in the grammarian's approach to the language. As an experienced
editor White ranks it so highly as to include Strunk's exposition
verbatim -- "a short, valuable essay on the nature and beauty of
brevity -- sixty-three words that could change the world." Prof. Pullum
may turn out right that Strunk's "enormous influence has not improved
American students' grasp of English grammar" but I doubt any evidence
can be found that Strunk thereby "has significantly degraded it."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
James Silverton
>> Martin wrote on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:43:28 -0400:
>>
>>>> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
>>
>>> Be wary of making such confessions, especially among people
>>> who care about English. If you never paid attention to
>>> English linguistics since 1970, or to scholarly papers since
>>> 1974, I suppose that it is reasonable not to have heard of
>>> Geoff Pullum.
>>
>> I don't regard this ng as a professional forum where I have
>> to worry about academic infighting tho' I'm glad to be
>> informed that Pullum has some standing. All I know about
>> English grammar and linguistics comes from Fowler, Strunk and
>> White, The Chicago Manual of Style, Dear's Oxford English and
>> Partridge's many books and dictionaries of course.
> That's not a bad list, but "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of
> English Usage" is conspicuous by its absence. It has
> extensive discussions of various topics, with numerous
> references to English usage sources and copious examples.
I'l be honest and admit that I have never looked at the M-W Dictionary.
I must see if I can find it in Barnes and Noble or Borders.
Garrett Wollman
Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>Pullum writes:
>"Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements
>settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught
>to college students and presented to the general public."
>
>I do not believe this because:
>1. Grammar was not before 1980 "taught to college students,"
>at least routinely or normally. College staff expected high school
>graduates to arrive having already learned all the grammar an
>adult writer needed, and this expectation was generally
>justified 1880-1980.
And today it's not taught to anyone, so when a style guide like /The
Elements of Style/ contains misleading claims about English grammar,
they may be the only exposure many students get to the subject in any
formal context.
>The familiar rubric "Omit needless words" is the litmus test.
>Pullum ridicules this as useless, and perhaps it is a useless idea
>in the grammarian's approach to the language. As an experienced
>editor White ranks it so highly as to include Strunk's exposition
>verbatim -- "a short, valuable essay on the nature and beauty of
>brevity -- sixty-three words that could change the world."
That does not make it any less useless. Which words are "needless"?
Experienced writers will already know, but they are not the intended
audience of /Elements/.
>Prof. Pullum may turn out right that Strunk's "enormous influence has
>not improved American students' grasp of English grammar" but I doubt
>any evidence can be found that Strunk thereby "has significantly
>degraded it."
Actually, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that today's
students don't know what the passive voice is, just to give one
example -- a confusion which is at least shared by /Elements/.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Egbert White
You can buy it 'used like new' from a five-star source for $6.63 --
plus $3.99 shipping -- through Amazon,
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/dflzp9>.
You can also read 28 opinions of the book at Amazon:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/c3tr4q>.
There's a paperback at Amazon, but it's called '...Concise ... .' I
would steer clear of that. I can't imaging wanting to concisify
anything in the full edition.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Another one that should be on a list of excellent English usage
> references is "A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage," by Bergen
> and Cornelia Evans, despite the fact that contemporary means 1957.
I have it, and I agree that it remains useful a half-century after its
publication. I'd like to see it updated, but I'm not sure it's
possible to find anyone who could retain the flavor of the original.
If I may be allowed to add another nitpick to my large and eve-growing
collection, the authors identified themselves as "Bergen Evans and
Cornelia Evans". They were siblings.
--
Bob Lieblich
But please, no Strunk & White
Robert Lieblich
>
> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
[ ... ]
> >Prof. Pullum may turn out right that Strunk's "enormous influence has
> >not improved American students' grasp of English grammar" but I doubt
> >any evidence can be found that Strunk thereby "has significantly
> >degraded it."
>
> Actually, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that today's
> students don't know what the passive voice is, just to give one
> example -- a confusion which is at least shared by /Elements/.
It't not just the students. Language Log has run several items
recently quoting people of middle age and more and showing that they
also have no grasp of what the passive voice is. Indeed, LL has turned
up examples showing that some people don't even know what "voice"
means in "passive voice," treating it as meaning something like "tone
of voice" rather then as a grammatical term.
I hope this trend isn't reversible, but it's obviously been building
for some time.
--
Bob Lieblich
Standing by passively
John Kane
wrote:
Many years ago I took a Russian intro course (in Canada ). The text
book was an American one that wanted to use constant repitition and no
grammar to teach the language. Canadian universities have much
shorter academic years than US universities and the class was getting
very frustrated.
Finally we convinced the prof (a Bylorussian who had served with the
8th Army) that we wanted to actually see the grammar explained. Most
of us had had 4-5 years of French and Latin in high shool. In about
15 minutes of the prof lecturing on grammar we started to actually
understand much of what was happening. As so that's the difference in
the use of the Perfective vs the Imperfective, etc.
The prog said that his students in the USA (U of Chicago?) would not
have understood a word. Unfortunately Canadian students seem to be up
there with the U of Chicago now.
John Kane Kingston ON Canad
Egbert White
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Egbert White wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Another one that should be on a list of excellent English usage
>> references is "A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage," by Bergen
>> and Cornelia Evans, despite the fact that contemporary means 1957.
>
>I have it, and I agree that it remains useful a half-century after its
>publication. I'd like to see it updated, but I'm not sure it's
>possible to find anyone who could retain the flavor of the original.
Meanwhile, a somewhat more modern book that discusses things at some
length, prescribing but giving the reasons for prescribing, is "The
Handbook of Good English," by Edward D. Johnson. It's one of the best
if not the best, in my opinion.
My copy is from 1991, and that seems to be the latest offered by
Amazon. A cautionary note is that a lot of the Amazon listings of
used copies don't say whether the edition is 1983 or 1991, but a few
of them say 1991.
My only serious objection to the paperback book has to do with the
production of it. It just isn't put together as a book should be. The
pages don't turn right and they don't lie right, although it seems a
little better -- but not better enough -- since the spine broke in a
couple of places and a few pages escaped into looseness ('TGAM
IFAL!'). I'm thinking of buying the hard cover.
>If I may be allowed to add another nitpick to my large and eve-growing
>collection, the authors identified themselves as "Bergen Evans and
>Cornelia Evans". They were siblings.
I knew both of those points, but it's easier to write it the way I
did. Does writing "Bergen and Cornelia Evans" imply that they were
not siblings but a married couple? ... Maybe so.
By the way, do you also have an adam-growing collection? :)
--
Egbert White, | "I love Americans, but not when they try
WAme | to talk French. What a blessing it is that
| that they never try to talk English."
| -- Saki's Mrs. Mebberley
Egbert White
I hope you meant to write 'I hope this trend is reversible,' or am I
not understanding what you do mean?
--
Egbert White | Wagner's music is not as bad as it sounds.
WAmE | <Mark Twain>
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Egbert White wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Another one that should be on a list of excellent English usage
>> references is "A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage," by
>> Bergen and Cornelia Evans, despite the fact that contemporary means
>> 1957.
[snip]
> If I may be allowed to add another nitpick to my large and
> eve-growing collection, the authors identified themselves as "Bergen
> Evans and Cornelia Evans". They were siblings.
So were Wilbur and Orville Wright. I don't see anything in either
styling that would make that reading more or less likely.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Lieblich
> >> Another one that should be on a list of excellent English usage
> >> references is "A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage," by
> >> Bergen and Cornelia Evans, despite the fact that contemporary means
> >> 1957.
>
> [snip]
>
> > If I may be allowed to add another nitpick to my large and
> > eve-growing collection, the authors identified themselves as "Bergen
> > Evans and Cornelia Evans". They were siblings.
>
> So were Wilbur and Orville Wright. I don't see anything in either
> styling that would make that reading more or less likely.
You're inferring from what I said that I inferred from what they said
that they wanted to make sure they weren't viewed as a married
couple. Well, you're right. Fifty years ago, the implication that
they were married might suggest that Cornelia was just along for the
ride. (Anyone actually examining the book would quickly discover that
they were siblings, so the way they identified themselves as authors
probably didn't matter as much as they seem to have thought it would.)
Let's also recall that a century ago no one would think a person named
Wilbur and a person named Orville were married. Nowadays, with many
women bearing traditional masculine names and many married couples
comprising two people of the same sex, "Bergen and Cornelia" could be
any of the three possible combinations (a masculine "Cornelia" might
seem quite rare, but consider June Jones as but one supporting
example), as could "Orville and Wilbur."
Oh, well, it's still just a nitpick. And, for the pseudonymous Mr.
White -- my adams are thriving, thank you.
--
Bob Lieblich
Continuing his descent into trivia
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> In article <grt03c$ap...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
>
> Don Phillipson <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> >Pullum writes:
> >"Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements
> >settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught
> >to college students and presented to the general public."
>
> >I do not believe this because:
> >1. Grammar was not before 1980 "taught to college students,"
> >at least routinely or normally. College staff expected high school
> >graduates to arrive having already learned all the grammar an
> >adult writer needed, and this expectation was generally
> >justified 1880-1980.
>
> And today it's not taught to anyone, so when a style guide like /The
> Elements of Style/ contains misleading claims about English grammar,
> they may be the only exposure many students get to the subject in any
> formal context.
>
> >The familiar rubric "Omit needless words" is the litmus test.
> >Pullum ridicules this as useless, and perhaps it is a useless idea
> >in the grammarian's approach to the language. As an experienced
> >editor White ranks it so highly as to include Strunk's exposition
> >verbatim -- "a short, valuable essay on the nature and beauty of
> >brevity -- sixty-three words that could change the world."
>
> That does not make it any less useless. Which words are "needless"?
> Experienced writers will already know, but they are not the intended
> audience of /Elements/.
You don't need experience to figure out that the needless ones are the
ones you can omit without changing anything, even if they sounded
natural when you wrote them. This bit of S&W helped show me the need
to look for such words.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> >I hope this trend isn't reversible, but it's obviously been building
> >for some time.
>
> I hope you meant to write 'I hope this trend is reversible,' or am I
> not understanding what you do mean?
I miss not posting what I really mean.
You've caught me. I ameant "hope ... isn't irreversible," but the
litotes died aborning. Memorial services will be held Tuesday at a
location to be not undetermined.
--
Bob Lieblich
Triple talking?
John Varela
wrote:
> Geoffrey Pullum has published a critical appraisal of _Elements of
> Style_, and I do mean critical.
>
> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which
> it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp
> platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not
> improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has
> significantly degraded it."
>
> And much more...
>
> http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i32/32b01501.htm
Strunk and White 4th edition is on The Washington Post's paperback
best-seller list today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ and search for "bestsellers".
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Mark Brader
> Finally we convinced the prof (a Bylorussian who had served with the
> 8th Army) that we wanted to actually see the grammar explained. Most
Indeed, I had 5 years of French and Latin in high school (grades 9-13).
French was mandatory for grades 9-11 or 9-12, as I recall. On the
other hand, as to *English* grammar, we did it at an introductory level
in grades 7-8, with the clear intention that there would be more in
high school, but then when I got there, there wasn't. The high-school
Latin course also changed under me in a similar way: in grades 10-11
we used volume 1 of a two-volume textbook, but we never had volume 2,
which would have included more advanced grammatical topics, as the
curriculum changed when I got to grade 12.
That was in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
--
Mark Brader "The world little knows or cares the storm through
Toronto which you have had to pass. It asks only if you
m...@vex.net brought the ship safely to port." -- Joseph Conrad
My text in this article is in the public domain.
James Hogg
I have an anecdote about Russian for beginners. I was teaching
English one-to-one in this language school, and from the room
next door I could hear this total beginner having his first ever
lesson in Russian from a very loud woman who seemed to have
strange ideas about what he would need in order to do business in
Russia. She was making him repeat "imenitel'ny, roditel'ny,
datel'ny, vinitel'ny, etc."
She was teaching him the names of the cases in Russian.
--
James
R H Draney
>
>I have an anecdote about Russian for beginners. I was teaching
>English one-to-one in this language school, and from the room
>next door I could hear this total beginner having his first ever
>lesson in Russian from a very loud woman who seemed to have
>strange ideas about what he would need in order to do business in
>Russia. She was making him repeat "imenitel'ny, roditel'ny,
>datel'ny, vinitel'ny, etc."
>
>She was teaching him the names of the cases in Russian.
I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times than any other
is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
John Holmes
> CDB wrote on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:13:52 -0400:
>
>> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in
>> which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice
>> ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its
>> enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp
>> of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
>
>> And much more...
>
I've seen Pullum mentioned in a lot of places, but never heard of Strunk
and White outside of a.u.e.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
James Silverton
> James Silverton wrote:
>> CDB wrote on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:13:52 -0400:
>>
>>> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which
>>> it is held by American college graduates. Its
>>> advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense.
>>> Its enormous influence has not improved American students'
>>> grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
>>
>>> And much more...
>>
>> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
> I've seen Pullum mentioned in a lot of places, but never heard
> of Strunk and White outside of a.u.e.
You must be writing from the right side of the pond. It's hard to
believe that any American writing formal English has not heard of Strunk
and White. It has previously been mentioned that the book is a perennial
best-seller.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Rodney D. Huddleston
and Geoffrey K. Pullum is also rather expensive, listing at $200, and is
not on my bookshelves unlike Fowler, Strunk and White and the Chicago
Manual of Style.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> John wrote on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:54:04 +1000:
>
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>> CDB wrote on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:13:52 -0400:
>>>
>>>> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which
>>>> it is held by American college graduates. Its
>>>> advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense.
>>>> Its enormous influence has not improved American students'
>>>> grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
>>>
>>>> And much more...
>>>
>>> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
>
>> I've seen Pullum mentioned in a lot of places, but never heard
>> of Strunk and White outside of a.u.e.
>
>You must be writing from the right side of the pond.
Judging by his sig, John Holmes is writing from the left side of the
Pacific pond.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Christian Weisgerber
> The familiar rubric "Omit needless words" is the litmus test.
> Pullum ridicules this as useless, and perhaps it is a useless idea
> in the grammarian's approach to the language.
I agree with Pullum here. It's one of those rules that make a nice
rationale for those who don't need them and that are useless for
those who do need them. Another example are the rules usually given
to EFL learners about when to use the simple and the continuous
aspect (or the vaguely similar problem of imparfait vs. passé composé
in French): great if you already know what's correct, useless for
production if you don't.
James Silverton
>> John wrote on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:54:04 +1000:
>>
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> CDB wrote on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:13:52 -0400:
>>>>
>>>>> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous
>>>>> esteem in which it is held by American college graduates.
>>>>> Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent
>>>>> nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American
>>>>> students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly
>>>>> degraded it."
>>>>
>>>>> And much more...
>>>>
>>>> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
>>
>>> I've seen Pullum mentioned in a lot of places, but never
>>> heard of Strunk and White outside of a.u.e.
>>
>> You must be writing from the right side of the pond.
> Judging by his sig, John Holmes is writing from the left side
> of the Pacific pond.
Ah yes, I had not deciphered the cryptic sig address so there is hope
that robots may miss it too. I wonder which grammar books are preferred
in Australia?
John Varela
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> You must be writing from the right side of the pond.
Interesting that you should use that phrase, since you too live in
the DC area and probably read The Washington Post.
For those not nearby, some background: A Post reporter recently
referred to California as "the left coast". A letter to the editor
complained about the political implications of "left" coast. This
led to an exchange of letters whether left/right was just a map
reference or some sort of political bias.
I've always taken "left/right coast" as a map reference. No one who
knows anything about Massachusetts and New York politics could think
that "right coast" referred to political leaning.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I've ever heard the left/right usage
anywhere but aue, so the original letter writer might never have met
"left coast" before.
John Varela
Part of my job was to review and approve subordinates' technical
papers. More than once I took a red pen and struck out needless
words from the first few pages, reducing the length of some
paragraphs by as much as a third. Literally, by as much as a third,
without changing meaning. Then I would return the draft to the
author and his supervisor with instructions to go through the rest
of the document doing the same thing.
"Omit needless words" is good advice.
James Silverton
>> You must be writing from the right side of the pond.
> Interesting that you should use that phrase, since you too
> live in the DC area and probably read The Washington Post.
> For those not nearby, some background: A Post reporter recently
> referred to California as "the left coast". A letter to the
> editor complained about the political implications of "left"
> coast. This led to an exchange of letters whether left/right
> was just a map reference or some sort of political bias.
> I've always taken "left/right coast" as a map reference. No
> one who knows anything about Massachusetts and New York
> politics could think that "right coast" referred to political
> leaning.
> On the other hand, I'm not sure I've ever heard the left/right
> usage anywhere but aue, so the original letter writer might
> never have met "left coast" before.
I'd not use "left" and "right" coasts; east and west are what come to
mind. Sometimes, when I am not feeling serious I may use "left side of
the pond" to refer to my side of the Atlantic, mainly to indicate that I
am including Canada. I know it's a very dated joke referring to the
"Herring Pond".
James Hogg
wrote:
It's a very human trait to write and say more than we really need
to. I have isolated one of your lines above which has some words
that could have been omitted if space had been at a premium. But
repetition can be effective if you want to hammer home a message.
--
James
Wood Avens
Really excellent programme about Rain, on BBC4. Highly recommended.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:41:01 UTC, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian
>
> Weisgerber) wrote:
>
> > > The familiar rubric "Omit needless words" is the litmus test.
> > > Pullum ridicules this as useless, and perhaps it is a useless idea
> > > in the grammarian's approach to the language.
>
> > I agree with Pullum here. It's one of those rules that make a nice
> > rationale for those who don't need them and that are useless for
> > those who do need them. Another example are the rules usually given
> > to EFL learners about when to use the simple and the continuous
> > aspect (or the vaguely similar problem of imparfait vs. passé composé
> > in French): great if you already know what's correct, useless for
> > production if you don't.
>
> Part of my job was to review and approve subordinates' technical
> papers. More than once I took a red pen and struck out needless
> words from the first few pages, reducing the length of some
> paragraphs by as much as a third. Literally, by as much as a third,
> without changing meaning. Then I would return the draft to the
> author and his supervisor with instructions to go through the rest
> of the document doing the same thing.
>
> "Omit needless words" is good advice.
And you used a method similar to S&W's, giving not only the advice,
but also examples. The examples help those who need the advice figure
out how to take it. Still, I agree that saying more on the subject
could have been more helpful.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff
>Talking of elements, I 'ad that Philip Eden on the TV just now.
>Really excellent programme about Rain, on BBC4. Highly recommended.
>
insemination of clouds (though not in so many words, of course:
"seeding" was his euphemism).
--
Paul
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> It's hard to
> believe that any American writing formal English has not heard of Strunk
> and White. It has previously been mentioned that the book is a perennial
> best-seller.
Which is just what Pullum was lamenting. If anyone still wants to
read his article without paying, you'll have to the language log post
titled "The Land of the Free in the grip of The Elements of Style"
<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1318> and click on "50 Years
of Stupid Grammar Advice" in the opening paragraph. There's a bit of
hyperbole for rhetorical effect, but Pullum does concede to S&W what
needs conceding, and IMO he's exactly right in the grammatical points
he makes. There are some follow-up posts in LL about the teapot-sized
tempest stirred up by the article.
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Rodney D. Huddleston
> and Geoffrey K. Pullum is also rather expensive, listing at $200, and is
> not on my bookshelves unlike Fowler, Strunk and White and the Chicago
> Manual of Style.
As Pullum says in one of his follow-up LL posts, and contrary to the
accusations of a bunch of fark-ers who seem to enjoy flaunting their
ignorance, he's not flogging his own book, and none of his books is
suitable for freshman English students. The Cambridge Grammar, which
I don't own but have seen, is a massive two-volume compendium covering
just about every point of grammar knowable by (I was going to say
"known to," but let's not kid ourselves) English-speaking man (and
woman).
Pullum recommends a book by Williams entitled "Style: Toward Clarity
and Grace," which happens to be published by the U. of Chicago. It's
available cheap in hardcover and paperback on Amazon. I join others
who have recommended the M-W Dictionary of English Usage. I have
copies both at home and at the office. I've also made peace with
Burchfield but recommend that curmudgeons avoid it.
--
Bob Lieblich
Used to usage
Robert Bannister
Outside AUE, I've never heard of anyone using a style guide apart from,
perhaps, a publisher's book of rules.
--
Rob Bannister
James Silverton
Essentially, that is true but, if you write papers for scientific
journals, you get into arguments with editors many of whom favor the
Chicago Manual.
Skitt
> Robert wrote:
>> Outside AUE, I've never heard of anyone using a style guide
>> apart from, perhaps, a publisher's book of rules.
>
> Essentially, that is true but, if you write papers for scientific
> journals, you get into arguments with editors many of whom favor the
> Chicago Manual.
I think that you have a couple of commas that need a bit of pushing around.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mark Brader
> It't not just the students. Language Log has run several items
> recently quoting people of middle age and more and showing that they
> also have no grasp of what the passive voice is. Indeed, LL has turned
> up examples showing that some people don't even know what "voice"
Hmm. That puts a whole new spin on the signature quote below.
> I hope this trend isn't reversible, but it's obviously been building
> for some time.
I don't think you said quite what you mean't there.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Effective immediately, all memos are to be written
m...@vex.net | in clear, active-voice English." -- US gov't memo
Mark Brader
>> Talking of elements, I 'ad that Philip Eden on the TV just now.
Paul Wolff:
> I though he got a bit near the knuckle talking about the artificial
> insemination of clouds (though not in so many words, of course:
> "seeding" was his euphemism).
Paul, please explain. Is this meant to be a joke by you, are you
alluding to a joke by Philip, or are you not familiar with the term
"seeding" in connection with clouds? What did he actually say?
--
Mark Brader | "I noted with some interest that Fahrenheit was
Toronto | also used in the weather forecast, but there the
m...@vex.net | gas marks were missing." -- Ivan A. Derzhanski
Paul Wolff
>Katy Jennison:
>>> Talking of elements, I 'ad that Philip Eden on the TV just now.
>
>Paul Wolff:
>> I though he got a bit near the knuckle talking about the artificial
>> insemination of clouds (though not in so many words, of course:
>> "seeding" was his euphemism).
>
>Paul, please explain. Is this meant to be a joke by you, are you
>alluding to a joke by Philip, or are you not familiar with the term
>"seeding" in connection with clouds? What did he actually say?
Sorry, I must take more care, and apologise to Philip especially. It
was my silly joke. Philip spoke about seeding clouds with small
particles in order to provide nuclei on which ice crystals might grow (I
think the context was ice rather than water) to induce precipitation (or
"rain", as we non-specialists might say). When I heard "seeding" (a
word with which I am perfectly familiar in this context) the phrase
"artificial insemination" popped out of my unconscious mind, and
transferred itself to the screen as a wordplay when I read Katy's piece
about the programme half an hour later.
--
Paul
LFS
I don't think you need to apologise, I smiled. And it was an excellent
programme.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Paul Wolff
Thank you, but my post obviously was capable of being misunderstood and
Philip has a professional reputation to care about.
>And it was an excellent programme.
Indeed.
--
Paul
James Silverton
I would not be in the least surprised.
Adam Funk
> James Silverton:
>> I've heard of Strunk and White but not Mr. Pullum.
That's "Professor Pullum".
> Fixed.
>
> But Pullum's certainly been mentioned here before -- more than 100
> times according to Deja Goo. The item that comes immediately to mind
> is "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax";
A very interesting and funny book, BTW.
BTW, I've defended _The Elements of Style_ in the past, but I recant.
Some of the advice is good, but it has far too high a proportion of
wacko stuff (e.g., don't use sentential "hopefully"; don't use
"however" at the beginning of a sentence; don't use "which" for
restrictive clauses).
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Christian Weisgerber
> The Cambridge Grammar, which I don't own but have seen, is a
> massive two-volume compendium covering just about every point of
> grammar knowable by [...] English-speaking man (and woman).
One-volume, actually.
John Varela
wrote:
I was referring to locutions such as "close proximity" and "recur
again". (The latter would often be "reoccur again".)
HVS
Surely there are a number of different cases of "needless words",
though: not just repetition, or plain redundancies like "recur
again", but also usually-unnecessary things like "which was".
I find my first drafts often include something like "The building,
which was erected in 1766-67, housed the King's library". The "which
was" in there can be struck out without altering anything else, and
the omissionn improves the sentence.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
HVS
> Meanwhile, a somewhat more modern book that discusses things at
> some length, prescribing but giving the reasons for prescribing,
> is "The Handbook of Good English," by Edward D. Johnson. It's
> one of the best if not the best, in my opinion.
>
> My copy is from 1991, and that seems to be the latest offered by
> Amazon. A cautionary note is that a lot of the Amazon listings
> of used copies don't say whether the edition is 1983 or 1991,
> but a few of them say 1991.
Sounds like a good reason to use abebooks as one's first stop for
used books, rather than Amazon. I'd be surprised to see many
listings in abebooks which didn't state the date and edition right up
front.
Mark Brader
>>> "Omit needless words" is good advice.
John Varela:
>> It's a very human trait to write and say more than we really need
>> to. ... But repetition can be effective if you want to hammer home
>> a message.
John Varela:
> I was referring to locutions such as "close proximity"
Which is meaningful if it is implies something closer than mere "proximity",
like being within arm's length instead of just in the same room.
> and "recur again". (The latter would often be "reoccur again".)
Which is correct in either form if it refers to the *third* occurrence.
Of course, if what the original writers meant was just "proximity" and
"re(oc)cur", then you were right to edit them.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
"Omit needless code! Omit needless code! Omit needless code!"
-- Chip Salzenberg (after Strunk & White)
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Robin Bignall
wrote:
On a related topic, we recently decided to buy all of John Harvey's
"Resnick" books because we like them so much, so I priced up
second-hand editions offered by people hosted on Amazon. I took a
while to find all eleven offered by one reseller, and the cost came to
60 UKP, of which half was postage. I did the same on play.com, and
the total was 40 UKP, of which nothing was postage.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On a related topic, we recently decided to buy all of John Harvey's
> "Resnick" books because we like them so much, so I priced up
> second-hand editions offered by people hosted on Amazon. I took a
> while to find all eleven offered by one reseller, and the cost came
> to 60 UKP, of which half was postage. I did the same on play.com,
> and the total was 40 UKP, of which nothing was postage.
Does that mean 40 UKP out of pocket or 40 UKP plus 30 UKP postage?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |He who will not reason, is a bigot;
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |he who cannot is a fool; and he who
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |dares not is a slave.
| Sir William Drummond
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
![Reinhold [Rey] Aman's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWaT0LUDfKA5mIbowVbHAIA3z5Ut7Y8IMosdHd3OIhPWDnj=s40-c)
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
> I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times
> than any other is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
>
And I'm pretty sure that you've *never* heard that sentence, because
it's gibberish.
--
~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney falt:
>
>> I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times
>> than any other is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
>>
>And I'm pretty sure that you've *never* heard that sentence, because
>it's gibberish.
Looks like the verb was supposed to be "fangen"...is that any better?...r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Paul Wolff
>Reinhold [Rey] Aman" <am...@sonic.net> filted:
>>
>>R H Draney falt:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times
>>> than any other is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
>>>
>>And I'm pretty sure that you've *never* heard that sentence, because
>>it's gibberish.
>
>Looks like the verb was supposed to be "fangen"...is that any better?...r
>
--
Paul
Chuck Riggs
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Skitt wrote on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:51:57 -0700:
>
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>> Robert wrote:
>
>>>> Outside AUE, I've never heard of anyone using a style guide
>>>> apart from, perhaps, a publisher's book of rules.
>>>
>>> Essentially, that is true but, if you write papers for
>>> scientific journals, you get into arguments with editors many
>>> of whom favor the Chicago Manual.
>
>>I think that you have a couple of commas that need a bit of pushing
>>around.
>
>I would not be in the least surprised.
A comma is badly needed after "editors", but where is the unnecessary
one?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
who speaks AmE,lives near Dublin, Ireland
and usually spells in BrE
HVS
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:14:20 -0400, "James Silverton"
><not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Skitt wrote on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:51:57 -0700:
>>
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> Robert wrote:
>>
>>>>> Outside AUE, I've never heard of anyone using a style guide
>>>>> apart from, perhaps, a publisher's book of rules.
>>>>
>>>> Essentially, that is true but, if you write papers for
>>>> scientific journals, you get into arguments with editors many
>>>> of whom favor the Chicago Manual.
>>
>>> I think that you have a couple of commas that need a bit of
>>> pushing around.
>>
>> I would not be in the least surprised.
>
> A comma is badly needed after "editors", but where is the
> unnecessary one?
Many writers would drop the commas after "essentially" and
"journals", and move the second comma to after "you". (And also, as
you say, put something after "editors".)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
When I would submit the first draft of a letter or a technical report
for review by peers and supervisors in the federal government, it
would usually be returned to me with whole sections redlined for
rewrite or deletion. Any pride of authorship I had when I started work
for the U.S. Navy, I lost in fairly short order.
Chuck Riggs
Yet again, I wish we could receive BBC4 in Ireland.
Skitt
> "James Silverton" wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> Robert wrote:
>>>>> Outside AUE, I've never heard of anyone using a style guide
>>>>> apart from, perhaps, a publisher's book of rules.
>>>>
>>>> Essentially, that is true but, if you write papers for
>>>> scientific journals, you get into arguments with editors many
>>>> of whom favor the Chicago Manual.
>>
>>> I think that you have a couple of commas that need a bit of pushing
>>> around.
>>
>> I would not be in the least surprised.
>
> A comma is badly needed after "editors", but where is the unnecessary
> one?
The first comma is not required. The second one should be before the "but".
The third one is optional, and there should be one after "editors".
Anyway, that's my take on the matter. I'm sure that others will have
different views.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
>
> Reinhold [Rey] Aman filted:
>> R H Draney falt:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times
>>> than any other is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
>>
>> And I'm pretty sure that you've *never* heard that sentence,
>> because it's gibberish.
>
> Looks like the verb was supposed to be "fangen"...is that any
> better?...r
Yes, now that sentence is correct ("Begin with the title/heading"), but
I still doubt very much that you've heard that *occasional*
German-classroom sentence spoken more times than any other German sentence.
John Varela
Leslie Danks
I would have expected "Fangen Sie mit der Überschrift an!", at least in a
classroom...
--
Les (BrE)
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney falt:
>>
>> Reinhold [Rey] Aman filted:
>>> R H Draney falt:
>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times
>>>> than any other is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
>>>
>>> And I'm pretty sure that you've *never* heard that sentence,
>>> because it's gibberish.
>>
>> Looks like the verb was supposed to be "fangen"...is that any
>> better?...r
>
>Yes, now that sentence is correct ("Begin with the title/heading"), but
>I still doubt very much that you've heard that *occasional*
>German-classroom sentence spoken more times than any other German sentence.
Occasional?...try up to a dozen times a day, five days a week, for 36 weeks....r
Robin Bignall
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> On a related topic, we recently decided to buy all of John Harvey's
>> "Resnick" books because we like them so much, so I priced up
>> second-hand editions offered by people hosted on Amazon. I took a
>> while to find all eleven offered by one reseller, and the cost came
>> to 60 UKP, of which half was postage. I did the same on play.com,
>> and the total was 40 UKP, of which nothing was postage.
>
>Does that mean 40 UKP out of pocket or 40 UKP plus 30 UKP postage?
Forty UKP out of pocket. Play.com delivers small items such as books
and DVDs free of postage in Britain.
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
> I would have expected "Fangen Sie mit der Überschrift an!",
> at least in a classroom...
Sure. That's the best version: the separable prefix at the end plus an
obligatory exclamation point.
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
>
> Reinhold [Rey] Aman filted:
>> R H Draney falt:
>>> Reinhold [Rey] Aman filted:
>>>> R H Draney falt:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times
>>>>> than any other is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
>>>>
>>>> And I'm pretty sure that you've *never* heard that sentence,
>>>> because it's gibberish.
>>>
>>> Looks like the verb was supposed to be "fangen"...is that any
>>> better?...r
>>
>> Yes, now that sentence is correct ("Begin with the title/heading"),
>> but I still doubt very much that you've heard that *occasional*
>> German-classroom sentence spoken more times than any other German
>> sentence.
>
> Occasional?
>
the doubt that your weird German teacher (?) actually and *occasionally*
used that weird command.
Neither outside the classroom nor during the decades of teaching German
on all levels have I *ever* used, or told a class, "Fangen Sie an mit
der Überschrift!" (or "Fangen Sie mit der Überschrift an!"); nor have I
ever heard any native speaker of German or colleague (German profs)
utter this *stupid* and *senseless* phrase/command.
Several AUEers teach or have taught English to foreigners. Has any of
you *ever* told your classes -- presumably when assigning an essay (to
be written in class yet!) -- "Begin with the title/heading."? Such a
silly and weird request/order/command boggles the mind.
> ...try up to a dozen times a day, five days a week,
> for 36 weeks....r
Please provide the details of who told you up to a dozen times a day,
five days a week, "Fangen Sie an mit der Überschrift." I simply can't
imagine the circumstances of this weird claim.
Using the wrong verb ("anfragen" [to inquire] instead of "anfangen" [to
begin, to start]) -- even after allegedly having heard that weird
command "up to a dozen times a day, five days a week, for 36 weeks"
(that's up to 2,160 times!) -- can be excused for someone who
compulsively whips out quickie one-liners, but to have a non-autistic
teacher (?) tell his/her class (?) up to a dozen times a day "Fangen Sie
an mit der Überschrift" is beyond belief.
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney falt:
>>
>you *ever* told your classes -- presumably when assigning an essay (to
>be written in class yet!) -- "Begin with the title/heading."? Such a
>silly and weird request/order/command boggles the mind.
>
>> ...try up to a dozen times a day, five days a week,
>> for 36 weeks....r
>
>Please provide the details of who told you up to a dozen times a day,
>five days a week, "Fangen Sie an mit der Überschrift." I simply can't
>imagine the circumstances of this weird claim.
The teacher's name was Susan Sontag (and no, it wasn't *that* Susan Sontag)...at
first, we weren't permitted to see a single word of *written* German; she
started us off with these short dialogues: the first was "Wohin geht Peter? An
den See.", and the second "Wo ist Monika? Im Boot."...these were repeated ad
nauseam until she was satisfied with the pronunciation of each and every one of
her forty or so students....
The recitations got a bit longer after that, and when we were finally allowed to
look at the textbook, she'd make her way around the room having each student
recite the dialogue for that lesson, starting with her instruction to *each and
every student* to "start with the title"....
The dialogue itself changed from time to time, as did the title...her admonition
on where to begin, however, never varied in any way...since it's the one thing
we never saw written down, and the one thing *we* were never called upon to
pronounce, it might be understandable that we never quite knew what the first
word was (we were formally introduced to "fragen" at some point, but never to
"fangen" in any context other than the start signal)....r
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Wouldn't those changes yield:
"Essentially that is true but, if you write papers for
scientific journals you, get into arguments with editors many
of whom favor the Chicago Manual". That doesn't look right.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
As with Harvey's suggestions, I have to see the resulting paragraph
before I can understand what the changes were, let alone the reasons
for them. I have a lot of trouble with commas, so I am curious about
both your input and his.
Mark Brader
>>>>> Essentially, that is true but, if you write papers for
>>>>> scientific journals, you get into arguments with editors many
>>>>> of whom favor the Chicago Manual.
"Skitt":
>>>> I think that you have a couple of commas that need a bit of
>>>> pushing around.
Chuck Riggs:
>> A comma is badly needed after "editors", but...
Harvey Van Sickle:
> (And also, as you say, put something after "editors".)
That one depends on the meaning. Perhaps it's intended as a restrictive
modifier: there's one kind of editor many of whom favor the Chicago
Manual, and another kind of editor none of whom do. And only the first
kind gets into arguments with you, which perhaps says something about
that particular manual.
If it was meant as nonrestrictive, *then* that comma is necessary.
--
Mark Brader "'A matter of opinion'[?] I have to say you are
Toronto right. There['s] your opinion, which is wrong,
m...@vex.net and mine, which is right." -- Gene Ward Smith
James Silverton
> James Silverton:
>>>>>> Essentially, that is true but, if you write papers for
>>>>>> scientific journals, you get into arguments with editors
>>>>>> many of whom favor the Chicago Manual.
> "Skitt":
>>>>> I think that you have a couple of commas that need a bit
>>>>> of pushing around.
> Chuck Riggs:
>>> A comma is badly needed after "editors", but...
> Harvey Van Sickle:
>> (And also, as you say, put something after "editors".)
> That one depends on the meaning. Perhaps it's intended as a
> restrictive modifier: there's one kind of editor many of whom
> favor the Chicago Manual, and another kind of editor none of
> whom do. And only the first kind gets into arguments with
> you, which perhaps says something about that particular
> manual.
I asked for those analyses, didn't I? I should have known better and
written a simpler sentence. My only real point is that it was useful to
have an authoritative reference when arguing with an editor and it was
best if you knew the editor used the same reference as yourself.
Ultimately, I consider that it is not worthwhile arguing at length with
the editor of a journal unless you feel that proposed changes destroy
the meaning of what you have written.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
HVS
My mistake; I meant to move the /original/ second comma, and place
it after "true", not "you".
Sorry 'bout that; my version:
"Essentially that is true, but if you write papers for scientific
hournals you get into arguments with editors -- many of whom favour
the Chicago Manual."
James Hogg
<use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
It's easy to forgive your errors when you write "my mistake" and
not "my bad".
>Sorry 'bout that; my version:
>
>"Essentially that is true, but if you write papers for scientific
>hournals you get into arguments with editors -- many of whom favour
>the Chicago Manual."
I can even forgive the "hournals".
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
We all make mistakes, even Jarvey Van Sickle.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
HVS
Now that you mention it, I do prefer a jar to a straight glass...
Skitt
OK, here goes:
Essentially that is true, but if you write papers for
scientific journals, you get into arguments with editors,
many of whom favor the Chicago Manual.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
>
> Reinhold [Rey] Aman filted:
>> R H Draney falt:
>>
>> Several AUEers teach or have taught English to foreigners. Has any
>> of you *ever* told your classes -- presumably when assigning an
>> essay (to be written in class yet!) -- "Begin with the title/
>> heading."? Such a silly and weird request/order/command boggles
>> the mind.
>>
>>> ...try up to a dozen times a day, five days a week,
>>> for 36 weeks....r
>>
>> Please provide the details of who told you up to a dozen times a
>> day, five days a week, "Fangen Sie an mit der Überschrift." I
>> simply can't imagine the circumstances of this weird claim.
>
>
> The teacher's name was Susan Sontag (and no, it wasn't *that* Susan Sontag)...at
> first, we weren't permitted to see a single word of *written* German; she
> started us off with these short dialogues: the first was "Wohin geht Peter? An
> den See.", and the second "Wo ist Monika? Im Boot."...these were repeated ad
> nauseam until she was satisfied with the pronunciation of each and every one of
> her forty or so students....
>
incompetent American foreign-language teacher blindly sticking to the
Parrot Method.
>
> The recitations got a bit longer after that, and when we were finally allowed to
> look at the textbook, she'd make her way around the room having each student
> recite the dialogue for that lesson, starting with her instruction to *each and
> every student* to "start with the title"....
>
(anonymously, of course) to her department's "chairperson."
Pedagogically incompetent morons like her kill the students' desire and
joy of learning another language.
>
> The dialogue itself changed from time to time, as did the title...her admonition
> on where to begin, however, never varied in any way...since it's the one thing
> we never saw written down, and the one thing *we* were never called upon to
> pronounce, it might be understandable that we never quite knew what the first
> word was (we were formally introduced to "fragen" at some point, but never to
> "fangen" in any context other than the start signal)....r
>
catch, to capture) and "anfangen" (to start, to begin) are two different verbs.
Thanks for your detailed explanation. Still, you have to blame yourself
for this weird episode and my sharp-tongued reaction. As far too often
(in about 75% of your posts), you throw a one-liner at the AUE masses
without giving any explanation of what I've called your "cryptic" and
"esoteric" quips. It's like throwing one piece of a multi-piece
picture-puzzle on the table and expecting your readers to know or to
research what the hell you're talking about or what you're referring to.
I've often wondered how many AUEers just click on your posts and then
move on without bothering to think about it when they see yet another of
your "witty" cryptic remarks about Japanese (music), Taiwanese videos,
old movies, music, clichés, trivia, American TV shows and personalities,
or U.S. pop-culture. How can you expect that a Brit, Swede, Frenchie,
and Australian -- and even many Merkins -- know such esoteric and
basically useless information or waste half an hour Googling to find out
what you mean?
Have you ever wondered why almost nobody responds to your quickies?
Guess why. They might as well be written in Ayacucho Quechua.
It's not necessary to *explain* your witty, cryptic, or esoteric quips,
but for Chrissake add *something* explanatory to your infamous
one-liners to help the reader understand your puzzling comments. I
guess by doing what you've been doing for years, you're getting a kick
out of showing off your vast knowledge of esoterica and pop-culture
trivia while beaming smugly, "Look, guys, how clever and witty I am!"
For me, your m.o. doesn't work any longer. If I don't get it right away
(and I'm not exactly ignorant or have led a sheltered life), I get
annoyed and just say, "Fuck it!" and move on.
This is not an admonition but a suggestion to improve your posts and
increase your readership and their reactions. How others feel about
your puzzling quickie posts, I don't know.
Coming back to what started all this: When I, a native speaker of
German and lifelong teacher read your
>>> I'm pretty sure the German sentence I've heard spoken more times
>>> than any other is "Fragen Sie an mit der Überschrift"....r
my reaction was, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS SHIT MEAN? A sentence
explaining the details or reasons would have greatly helped every reader
understand your claim.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Where you used that final comma, Harvey used a dash. Otherwise your
versions are the same. Six to one, half a dozen to the other?
CDB
[laughing like a Draney]
> As far too
> often (in about 75% of your posts), you throw a one-liner at the
> AUE masses
> without giving any explanation of what I've called your "cryptic"
> and "esoteric" quips. It's like throwing one piece of a multi-piece
> picture-puzzle on the table and expecting your readers to know or to
> research what the hell you're talking about or what you're
> referring to.
For my part, I take such postings as a compliment to our intelligence,
and sometimes a personal challenge: extract of SDC. Showing, once
again, that people read this group for many different reasons.
Adam Funk
> Geoffrey Pullum has published a critical appraisal of _Elements of
> Style_, and I do mean critical.
>
> "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which
> it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp
> platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not
> improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has
> significantly degraded it."
>
> And much more...
>
> http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i32/32b01501.htm
On NPR (from yesterday), available on the WWW:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103171738
Simplification: Pullum says S&W's style advice is not bad --- it's the
grammar advice that he condemns.
--
Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix.
I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous]
John Varela
> James Hogg:
> >>> "Omit needless words" is good advice.
>
> John Varela:
> >> It's a very human trait to write and say more than we really need
> >> to. ... But repetition can be effective if you want to hammer home
> >> a message.
>
> John Varela:
> > I was referring to locutions such as "close proximity"
>
> Which is meaningful if it is implies something closer than mere "proximity",
> like being within arm's length instead of just in the same room.
You mean, close proximity as distinct from distant proximity? Gimme
a break!
In any case, the redundant word was "proximity", not "close".
"The aircraft was in close proximity to the radar." Better: "The
aircraft was close to the radar." Best: "The aircraft was near the
radar." Six words doing the work of nine, a 33% reduction.
As you-know-who advise, use Anglo-Saxon words.
> > and "recur again". (The latter would often be "reoccur again".)
>
> Which is correct in either form if it refers to the *third* occurrence.
Which it never does.
> Of course, if what the original writers meant was just "proximity" and
> "re(oc)cur", then you were right to edit them.
It is my belief that reoccur is not a word.
Mark Brader
>>> I was referring to locutions such as "close proximity"
Mark Brader:
>> Which is meaningful if it is implies something closer than mere "proximity",
>> like being within arm's length instead of just in the same room.
John Varela:
> You mean, close proximity as distinct from distant proximity?
As distinct from "proximity" without "close".
> Gimme a break!
<*CRACK*>
Well, you asked for it!
> In any case, the redundant word was "proximity", not "close".
Nice try.
> "The aircraft was in close proximity to the radar." Better: "The
> aircraft was close to the radar."
No, it was very close.
Having said that, I agree that "in proximity to" is generally an
unnecessarily verbose expression. You were talking about "close
proximity", not "in close proximity to".
In addition, if the actual distance matters, it would be much better
to *state* it.
> As you-know-who advise, use Anglo-Saxon words.
Fuck off, then.
[Sorry, couldn't resist. Just funnin'.]
>>> and "recur again". (The latter would often be "reoccur again".)
>> Which is correct in either form if it refers to the *third* occurrence.
> Which it never does.
Then it's wrong, not simply too verbose.
>> Of course, if what the original writers meant was just "proximity"
>> and "re(oc)cur", then you were right to edit them.
>
> It is my belief that reoccur is not a word.
Merriam-Webster disagrees. And it's more specific than "recur", which
has other meanings than "reoccur".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Yet Another Wonderful Novelty -- YAWN!"
m...@vex.net -- Liam Quin
Evan Kirshenbaum
> John Varela:
>> It is my belief that reoccur is not a word.
>
> Merriam-Webster disagrees. And it's more specific than "recur",
> which has other meanings than "reoccur".
The OED concurs, citing it to 1867. Google Books does as well, and
finds it back further:
[Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating]
We have not separate departments, for sensual and for mere
intellectual Memory; but all materials are laid up together, and
re-occur together as laid in (sensual and intellectual,) all
intermixed and bound together as they were originally felt.
John Fearn, _An Essay on Consciousness_, 1812
... that every thing, which had occurred during the existence of
the preceding World, reoccurred during the existence of this
reproduced World.
George Stanley Faber, _The Origin of Pagan
Idolatry_, 1816
... but every one who now contemplates the earth's surface, traces
upon it marks of the direst and most unsparing revolutions, which,
from the present order of things, it appears impossible should
re-occur, except by the united and continuous agency of the most
active powers of destruction.
[Frances] Jamieson, _Popular Voyages and
Travels_, 1820
This assumption does not agree even with his own doctrine of the
seven forms of nature, which reoccurs, according to his express
declaraion in the history of creation, inasmuch as with the
appearance of the firmament the real entrance of the light of God
into natural life obtains; in the same way as even with divine
life, wisdom only becomes visible in the fourth form of nature
Joseph Ennemoser, _The History of Magic_, 1854
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them.
| Albert Einstein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572