info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Dog accidentally shoots man"
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Christopher Ingham
Dec 2, 2011, 2:32:53 PM12/2/11
to
CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
Christopher Ingham
a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
Christopher Ingham
Christopher Ingham
Dec 2, 2011, 2:40:55 PM12/2/11
to
On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
Christopher Ingham
wrote:
> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
Christopher Ingham
Iain Archer
Dec 2, 2011, 3:10:37 PM12/2/11
to
Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
headline "Dog shoots man?"
--
Iain Archer To email, please use Reply-To address
demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
headline "Dog shoots man?"
--
Iain Archer To email, please use Reply-To address
Christopher Ingham
Dec 2, 2011, 3:32:46 PM12/2/11
to
yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
otherwise.
By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
Christopher Ingham
>
John Dunlop
Dec 2, 2011, 3:32:20 PM12/2/11
to
Iain Archer:
> [Christopher Ingham:]
>
>> [Christopher Ingham:]
--
John
> [Christopher Ingham:]
>
>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>>
>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>>> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>
>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> headline "Dog shoots man?"
That's a story I'd want to read.
>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>>> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>
>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> headline "Dog shoots man?"
--
John
R H Draney
Dec 2, 2011, 3:40:27 PM12/2/11
to
John Dunlop filted:
From Hollywood Squares:
Q: "True or false--a man in Arkansas was recently shot by his chicken."
Charley Weaver: "True...he claims he was just cleaning the chicken when it went
off."
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Q: "True or false--a man in Arkansas was recently shot by his chicken."
Charley Weaver: "True...he claims he was just cleaning the chicken when it went
off."
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
James Silverton
Dec 2, 2011, 3:43:13 PM12/2/11
to
than a minute or two.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 2, 2011, 4:58:27 PM12/2/11
to
On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
case?
The word you want is "redundant."
wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > >wrote:
> > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
> otherwise.
>
> By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
> On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > >wrote:
> > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
> otherwise.
>
> By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
case?
The word you want is "redundant."
Evan Kirshenbaum
Dec 2, 2011, 5:53:06 PM12/2/11
to
isn't inherent in the "soy". (Unless it's being done for emphasis, of
course.)
> The word you want is "redundant."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |There are just two rules of
SF Bay Area (1982-) |governance in a free society: Mind
Chicago (1964-1982) |your own business. Keep your hands
|to yourself.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Christopher Ingham
Dec 2, 2011, 11:29:52 PM12/2/11
to
tautologies.
“Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
“man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
Christopher Ingham
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 2, 2011, 11:49:10 PM12/2/11
to
On Dec 2, 5:53 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The yo is not used unless it's being done for emphasis (or some other
stylistic reason). It's not "redundant."
> > The word you want is "redundant."
>
> How would that distinguish?
What from what?
wrote:
stylistic reason). It's not "redundant."
> > The word you want is "redundant."
>
> How would that distinguish?
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 2, 2011, 11:52:33 PM12/2/11
to
On Dec 2, 11:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
Tautology is a logic thing, not a grammar thing.
If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
they're not redundant.
> “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
such training has been done.
Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
they're not redundant.
> “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
such training has been done.
Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
johnk
Dec 3, 2011, 11:18:29 AM12/3/11
to
On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
JohnK
He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
JohnK
Christopher Ingham
Dec 3, 2011, 11:30:24 AM12/3/11
to
a grammatically dependent item (modifier or complement) is “pleonastic
or redundant” when it adds no semantic information already present in
the head.
Christopher Ingham
Christopher Ingham
Dec 3, 2011, 11:18:01 AM12/3/11
to
consider pleonasms and tautologies to be related forms of semantic
redundancy.
>
> > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
> act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>
> Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
> Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
> such training has been done.
>
> Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>
These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
> > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
> act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>
> Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
> Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
> such training has been done.
>
> Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>
of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
by a canine triggerman.
Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
“Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
injured me”), where four words are plural.
Christopher Ingham
johnk
Dec 3, 2011, 11:28:39 AM12/3/11
to
added bonus
exactly right
closed fist
future potential
inner core
money-back refund
subject matter
honest truth
join together
general public
harbinger of things to come
new initiative
audible gasp
advance warning
execution-style killing
future plans
gather together
Jewish synagogue
lag behind
manual dexterity
occasional irregularity
outer rim
plan ahead
basic fundamentals
first time ever
personal friend
JohnK
the Omrud
Dec 3, 2011, 11:54:27 AM12/3/11
to
On 03/12/2011 16:18, johnk wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, Christopher Ingham<christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
>> man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>> that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>> word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>> “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, Christopher Ingham<christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
>> man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>> that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>> word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>> “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
> He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
> remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
> etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
"pre-order" seems to have suddenly become ubiquitous.
> He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
> remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
> etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
--
David
LFS
Dec 3, 2011, 12:13:54 PM12/3/11
to
[aue only]
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 3, 2011, 12:20:19 PM12/3/11
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:54:27 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes. At the moment it seems to be used in a way that maintains a useful
distinction between ordinary ordering and pre-ordering.
If a book is due to be published in, say, February 2012 an order placed
now, prior to publication, is a pre-order. An order placed after
publication is just an order.
If a retailer states that goods will usually be delivered within n days
of being ordered we understand that to exclude pre-orders.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
wrote:
distinction between ordinary ordering and pre-ordering.
If a book is due to be published in, say, February 2012 an order placed
now, prior to publication, is a pre-order. An order placed after
publication is just an order.
If a retailer states that goods will usually be delivered within n days
of being ordered we understand that to exclude pre-orders.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Christopher Ingham
Dec 3, 2011, 12:27:22 PM12/3/11
to
depending on the circumstances to which the expressions apply.
exactly right / just about right
general public / the music-loving public
new initiative / previous initiative
advance warning / last-second warning
execution style killing / amateur killing
manual dexterity / verbal dexterity
occasional irregularity / chronic irregularity
outer rim / inner rim (of a multi-rimmed structure)
personal friend / casual acquaintance
Christopher Ingham
Paul Madarasz
Dec 3, 2011, 12:43:55 PM12/3/11
to
On 2 Dec 2011 12:40:27 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote,
perhaps among other things:
>John Dunlop filted:
>>
>>Iain Archer:
>>
>>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>>>
>>>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>>>>
>>>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>>>>> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental� redundant in this case?
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey
perhaps among other things:
>John Dunlop filted:
>>
>>Iain Archer:
>>
>>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>>>
>>>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>>>>
>>>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>>>>
>>>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>>>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>>>
>>> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>>> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>>> headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>
>>That's a story I'd want to read.
>
>From Hollywood Squares:
>
> Q: "True or false--a man in Arkansas was recently shot by his chicken."
>Charley Weaver: "True...he claims he was just cleaning the chicken when it went
>off."
>
>....r
They should have give the line to Paul Lynde.
>>>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>>>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>>>
>>> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>>> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>>> headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>
>>That's a story I'd want to read.
>
>From Hollywood Squares:
>
> Q: "True or false--a man in Arkansas was recently shot by his chicken."
>Charley Weaver: "True...he claims he was just cleaning the chicken when it went
>off."
>
>....r
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey
Paul Madarasz
Dec 3, 2011, 12:46:05 PM12/3/11
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:54:27 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote, perhaps among other things:
Dr Nick
Dec 3, 2011, 12:56:37 PM12/3/11
to
Not really, there are times when in-order or post-order are the right
way to go. And sometimes you want to go depth-first anyway.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
way to go. And sometimes you want to go depth-first anyway.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Horace LaBadie
Dec 3, 2011, 1:02:07 PM12/3/11
to
In article <ftnkd7dtqdp8ivucb...@4ax.com>,
No, that is the sort of thing that Charley's Mamma would put in one of
her letters from back home in Mt. Idy.
her letters from back home in Mt. Idy.
the Omrud
Dec 3, 2011, 1:02:29 PM12/3/11
to
On 03/12/2011 17:20, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:54:27 +0000, the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2011 16:18, johnk wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, Christopher Ingham<christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
>>>> man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>>>> that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>>>> word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>>>> “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>>>
>>> George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
>>> He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
>>> remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
>>> etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
>>
>> "pre-order" seems to have suddenly become ubiquitous.
>
> Yes. At the moment it seems to be used in a way that maintains a useful
> distinction between ordinary ordering and pre-ordering.
I see that, but I don't understand why it's necessary. If a book hasn't
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:54:27 +0000, the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2011 16:18, johnk wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, Christopher Ingham<christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
>>>> man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>>>> that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>>>> word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>>>> “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>>>
>>> George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
>>> He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
>>> remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
>>> etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
>>
>> "pre-order" seems to have suddenly become ubiquitous.
>
> Yes. At the moment it seems to be used in a way that maintains a useful
> distinction between ordinary ordering and pre-ordering.
been published yet, I can order it. I know it can't be delivered until
it is available.
--
David
R H Draney
Dec 3, 2011, 1:28:47 PM12/3/11
to
Paul Madarasz filted:
>
>On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:54:27 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>wrote, perhaps among other things:
>>
>On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:54:27 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>wrote, perhaps among other things:
>>
>>"pre-order" seems to have suddenly become ubiquitous.
>
>Not so suddenly, "pre-recorded" has taken over the airwaves.
Right across the aisle from "recorded live"....r
>
>Not so suddenly, "pre-recorded" has taken over the airwaves.
Paul Madarasz
Dec 3, 2011, 2:21:15 PM12/3/11
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 13:02:07 -0500, Horace LaBadie
<hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>In article <ftnkd7dtqdp8ivucb...@4ax.com>,
> Paul Madarasz <paul.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Dec 2011 12:40:27 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote,
>> perhaps among other things:
>>
>> >John Dunlop filted:
>> >>
>> >>Iain Archer:
>> >>
>> >>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>> >>>
>> >>>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>> >>>>> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental� redundant in this case?
chicken, it went off!"
<hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>In article <ftnkd7dtqdp8ivucb...@4ax.com>,
> Paul Madarasz <paul.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Dec 2011 12:40:27 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote,
>> perhaps among other things:
>>
>> >John Dunlop filted:
>> >>
>> >>Iain Archer:
>> >>
>> >>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>> >>>
>> >>>> [Christopher Ingham:]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>> >>>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>> >>>
>> >>> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>> >>> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>> >>> headline "Dog shoots man?"
>> >>
>> >>That's a story I'd want to read.
>> >
>> >From Hollywood Squares:
>> >
>> > Q: "True or false--a man in Arkansas was recently shot by his chicken."
>> >Charley Weaver: "True...he claims he was just cleaning the chicken when it
>> >went
>> >off."
>> >
>> >....r
>>
>> They should have give the line to Paul Lynde.
>
>No, that is the sort of thing that Charley's Mamma would put in one of
>her letters from back home in Mt. Idy.
I was thinking along the lines of "The last time I cleaned *my*
>> >>>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>> >>>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>> >>>
>> >>> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>> >>> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>> >>> headline "Dog shoots man?"
>> >>
>> >>That's a story I'd want to read.
>> >
>> >From Hollywood Squares:
>> >
>> > Q: "True or false--a man in Arkansas was recently shot by his chicken."
>> >Charley Weaver: "True...he claims he was just cleaning the chicken when it
>> >went
>> >off."
>> >
>> >....r
>>
>> They should have give the line to Paul Lynde.
>
>No, that is the sort of thing that Charley's Mamma would put in one of
>her letters from back home in Mt. Idy.
chicken, it went off!"
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 3, 2011, 4:00:18 PM12/3/11
to
On Dec 3, 11:18 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
But you offered it as an example of "grammatical redundancy," whatever
that might be.
> > > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> > > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> > If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
> > act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>
> > Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
> > Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
> > such training has been done.
>
> > Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>
> These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
> of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
> But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
> of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
> shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
> circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
> by a canine triggerman.
Thus proving that "accidental" is not automatically redundant, since
when you see only the headline, you don't know the details of the
story.
> Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
> “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> injured me”), where four words are plural.
Did I not mention that above? Did you fail to assent to the
suggestion? Do speakers of languages think that concord is "redundant"?
that might be.
> > > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> > > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> > If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
> > act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>
> > Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
> > Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
> > such training has been done.
>
> > Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>
> These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
> of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
> But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
> of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
> shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
> circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
> by a canine triggerman.
when you see only the headline, you don't know the details of the
story.
> Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
> “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> injured me”), where four words are plural.
suggestion? Do speakers of languages think that concord is "redundant"?
Mike Lyle
Dec 3, 2011, 5:24:18 PM12/3/11
to
--
Mike.
anal...@hotmail.com
Dec 3, 2011, 5:22:31 PM12/3/11
to
On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> Christopher Ingham- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
how about "dumbing down"?
>
> - Show quoted text -
how about "dumbing down"?
Duggy
Dec 3, 2011, 5:29:13 PM12/3/11
to
On Dec 3, 6:43 am, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
wrote:
a gun.
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> On 12/2/2011 2:32 PM, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
> > CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> I hope so but my daughter's Lab is too dumb to bear ill will for more
> than a minute or two.
That's why there's a three minute waiting period before a dog can buy
>
> > CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> I hope so but my daughter's Lab is too dumb to bear ill will for more
> than a minute or two.
a gun.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Dec 3, 2011, 5:32:07 PM12/3/11
to
On Dec 4, 2:18 am, johnk <jhobartk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
> He just calls them redundancies.
Sure, but you wouldn't want to get too technical in something like
> George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
> He just calls them redundancies.
that.
===
= DUG.
===
Robert Bannister
Dec 3, 2011, 7:04:31 PM12/3/11
to
normally when you order, you expect them to have it in stock. If they
haven't, then although "order" is still possible, we tend to use other
expressions like "Can you get it in for me?".
However, in the case where the article has not even been published - in
other words, it doesn't even exist yet - there is surely a place for
another term.
--
Robert Bannister
Skitt
Dec 3, 2011, 7:13:35 PM12/3/11
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Whilst it is true that an order contains some futuristic element,
> normally when you order, you expect them to have it in stock. If they
> haven't, then although "order" is still possible, we tend to use other
> expressions like "Can you get it in for me?".
That phrase is ... oh, never mind.
> Whilst it is true that an order contains some futuristic element,
> normally when you order, you expect them to have it in stock. If they
> haven't, then although "order" is still possible, we tend to use other
> expressions like "Can you get it in for me?".
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Jerry Friedman
Dec 3, 2011, 7:38:06 PM12/3/11
to
On Dec 2, 2:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > >wrote:
Having the same suffix two timeses, my precious?
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> > yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
> > otherwise.
>
> > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
> and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
> case?
...
> > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> > yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
> > otherwise.
>
> > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
> and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
> case?
Having the same suffix two timeses, my precious?
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
Dec 3, 2011, 8:47:11 PM12/3/11
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
> On Dec 2, 5:53 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> On Dec 2, 5:53 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>> >> By the way, is there a specific term for words that are
>> >> contextually but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>
>> > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
>> > subject and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender,
>> > number, and case?
>>
>> Could be, in cases like "Yo soy", where the "yo" adds nothing that
>> isn't inherent in the "soy". (Unless it's being done for emphasis,
>> of course.)
>
> The yo is not used unless it's being done for emphasis (or some other
> stylistic reason).
Or by those who don't realize that using it carries emphasis. You see
>> >> contextually but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>
>> > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
>> > subject and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender,
>> > number, and case?
>>
>> Could be, in cases like "Yo soy", where the "yo" adds nothing that
>> isn't inherent in the "soy". (Unless it's being done for emphasis,
>> of course.)
>
> The yo is not used unless it's being done for emphasis (or some other
> stylistic reason).
it a lot from non-native speakers. It's wrong of course. The reason
it's wrong is that it would be (grammatically?) redundant. (The whole
point of railing against redundancy of any kind is that it's
considered a mistake.)
> It's not "redundant."
Okay, what does it add grammatically? It may be pragmatically
informative, but grammatically, it appears to be redundant.
>> > The word you want is "redundant."
>>
>> How would that distinguish?
>
> What from what?
grammatically redundant. Since that's what he asked for and you said
that the word he wanted was "redundant", I presume that you understood
the distinction he wanted to make.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |This gubblick contains many
SF Bay Area (1982-) |nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but
Chicago (1964-1982) |the overall pluggandisp can be
|glorked from context.
evan.kir...@gmail.com |
| David Moser
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Snidely
Dec 3, 2011, 11:01:26 PM12/3/11
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> scribbled something like ...
/dps
> On 4/12/11 2:02 AM, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 03/12/2011 17:20, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>> Yes. At the moment it seems to be used in a way that maintains a
>>> useful distinction between ordinary ordering and pre-ordering.
>>
>> I see that, but I don't understand why it's necessary. If a book
>> hasn't been published yet, I can order it. I know it can't be
>> delivered until it is available.
>>
>
[...]
>> On 03/12/2011 17:20, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>> Yes. At the moment it seems to be used in a way that maintains a
>>> useful distinction between ordinary ordering and pre-ordering.
>>
>> I see that, but I don't understand why it's necessary. If a book
>> hasn't been published yet, I can order it. I know it can't be
>> delivered until it is available.
>>
>
> However, in the case where the article has not even been published -
> in other words, it doesn't even exist yet - there is surely a place
> for another term.
>
Perhaps by condensing something from "pre-print order"?
> in other words, it doesn't even exist yet - there is surely a place
> for another term.
>
/dps
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 3, 2011, 11:11:45 PM12/3/11
to
On Dec 3, 8:47 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
speech? Non-natives are hardly relevant to determining what's normal.
> > It's not "redundant."
>
> Okay, what does it add grammatically? It may be pragmatically
> informative, but grammatically, it appears to be redundant.
>
> >> > The word you want is "redundant."
>
> >> How would that distinguish?
>
> > What from what?
>
> Words that are contextually redundant from words that are
> grammatically redundant. Since that's what he asked for and you said
> that the word he wanted was "redundant", I presume that you understood
> the distinction he wanted to make.
Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
"grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
redundancy to be distinguished from.
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > On Dec 2, 5:53 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> >> > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> >> >> By the way, is there a specific term for words that are
> >> >> contextually but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> >> > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
> >> > subject and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender,
> >> > number, and case?
>
> >> Could be, in cases like "Yo soy", where the "yo" adds nothing that
> >> isn't inherent in the "soy". (Unless it's being done for emphasis,
> >> of course.)
>
> > The yo is not used unless it's being done for emphasis (or some other
> > stylistic reason).
>
> Or by those who don't realize that using it carries emphasis. You see
> it a lot from non-native speakers. It's wrong of course. The reason
> it's wrong is that it would be (grammatically?) redundant. (The whole
> point of railing against redundancy of any kind is that it's
> considered a mistake.)
"Wrong" in the usual way meaning that it doesn't occur in normal
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > On Dec 2, 5:53 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> >> > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> >> >> By the way, is there a specific term for words that are
> >> >> contextually but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> >> > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
> >> > subject and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender,
> >> > number, and case?
>
> >> Could be, in cases like "Yo soy", where the "yo" adds nothing that
> >> isn't inherent in the "soy". (Unless it's being done for emphasis,
> >> of course.)
>
> > The yo is not used unless it's being done for emphasis (or some other
> > stylistic reason).
>
> Or by those who don't realize that using it carries emphasis. You see
> it a lot from non-native speakers. It's wrong of course. The reason
> it's wrong is that it would be (grammatically?) redundant. (The whole
> point of railing against redundancy of any kind is that it's
> considered a mistake.)
speech? Non-natives are hardly relevant to determining what's normal.
> > It's not "redundant."
>
> Okay, what does it add grammatically? It may be pragmatically
> informative, but grammatically, it appears to be redundant.
>
> >> > The word you want is "redundant."
>
> >> How would that distinguish?
>
> > What from what?
>
> Words that are contextually redundant from words that are
> grammatically redundant. Since that's what he asked for and you said
> that the word he wanted was "redundant", I presume that you understood
> the distinction he wanted to make.
"grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
redundancy to be distinguished from.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 3, 2011, 11:13:45 PM12/3/11
to
nonstandard. But obviously it's grammatical for him, since he is
consistent in his usage.
Jared
Dec 3, 2011, 11:42:43 PM12/3/11
to
--
Jared
Jerry Friedman
Dec 4, 2011, 12:32:17 AM12/4/11
to
> > > It's not "redundant."
>
> > Okay, what does it add grammatically? It may be pragmatically
> > informative, but grammatically, it appears to be redundant.
>
> > >> > The word you want is "redundant."
>
> > >> How would that distinguish?
>
> > > What from what?
>
> > Words that are contextually redundant from words that are
> > grammatically redundant. Since that's what he asked for and you said
> > that the word he wanted was "redundant", I presume that you understood
> > the distinction he wanted to make.
>
> Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
> "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
> redundancy to be distinguished from.
knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
"grammatically redundant".
--
Jerry Friedman
Nathan Sanders
Dec 4, 2011, 12:50:20 AM12/4/11
to
In article
<ee3483b3-9825-4494...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
> There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> "grammatically redundant".
In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
A: Where's the White House at?
B: Down the street about two blocks.
A: Where's the White House?
B: Washington, DC.
A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
<ee3483b3-9825-4494...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
> There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> "grammatically redundant".
A: Where's the White House at?
B: Down the street about two blocks.
A: Where's the White House?
B: Washington, DC.
A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
Jerry Friedman
Dec 4, 2011, 1:21:16 AM12/4/11
to
On Dec 3, 10:50 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
> > > "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
> > > redundancy to be distinguished from.
>
> > There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
> > knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
> > since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
>
> It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
> just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
You're agreeing with me, right? Since this isn't crossposted to
rasfw.
> > There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> > one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> > is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> > it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> > for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> > "grammatically redundant".
>
> In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>
> A: Where's the White House at?
> B: Down the street about two blocks.
>
> A: Where's the White House?
> B: Washington, DC.
>
> A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
> A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>
> A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
Interesting. I've spent very little time in your native region
(you're from Georgia, right?) and didn't know that one.
The only distinction I'm familiar with (from a New Yorker, among other
people) is
Where are you? [street, landmark, latilong]
Where are you at? [What are your present thoughts or feelings on
this? How far are you on this project?]
(Cf. the famous New Orleanian greeting "Where y'at?")
Around here, I believe many people use "at" with "where" at all times
in all senses.
Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
--
Jerry Friedman
> In article
> <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
...
> > On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
> > > "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
> > > redundancy to be distinguished from.
>
> > There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
> > knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
> > since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
>
> It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
> just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
rasfw.
> > There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> > one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> > is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> > it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> > for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> > "grammatically redundant".
>
> In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>
> A: Where's the White House at?
> B: Down the street about two blocks.
>
> A: Where's the White House?
> B: Washington, DC.
>
> A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
> A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>
> A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
(you're from Georgia, right?) and didn't know that one.
The only distinction I'm familiar with (from a New Yorker, among other
people) is
Where are you? [street, landmark, latilong]
Where are you at? [What are your present thoughts or feelings on
this? How far are you on this project?]
(Cf. the famous New Orleanian greeting "Where y'at?")
Around here, I believe many people use "at" with "where" at all times
in all senses.
Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
--
Jerry Friedman
Nathan Sanders
Dec 4, 2011, 1:42:01 AM12/4/11
to
In article
<91ca904b-8223-47e5...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
capable of "intent" or awareness of the cause-and-effect of pulling on
a gun trigger.
But, even if dogs in the real world are scientifically known to be
utterly incapable of having any such intent or awareness, linguistic
systems aren't confined to talking only about the real world. Aside
from science-fiction, we also have hypotheticals, dreams, and various
other scenarios that out language is capable of describing.
Furthermore, I'm not convinced that it would even be redundant in the
"real world" contexts anyway: superficial redundancy is often used for
emphasis, in which case, it ceases to be redundant (cf. "pitch black",
"on top of", "they all", etc.).
In this case, "accidentally" might be used to emphasize the overall
unlikeliness of the entire scenario (i.e., meaning something like "in
a freak accident"), or perhaps to highlight the lack of involvement of
anyone else (e.g., in contrast with a scenario in which someone else
had put the gun in the paws of a sleeping dog at the foot of the
victim's bed).
> > > There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> > > one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> > > is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> > > it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> > > for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> > > "grammatically redundant".
> >
> > In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
> >
> > A: Where's the White House at?
> > B: Down the street about two blocks.
> >
> > A: Where's the White House?
> > B: Washington, DC.
> >
> > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> >
> > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
> >
> > A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
> >
> > A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
> Interesting. I've spent very little time in your native region
> (you're from Georgia, right?) and didn't know that one.
Yeah, north Georgia. I think it's used generally throughout the
South, but I'm sure there's variation.
<91ca904b-8223-47e5...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:50 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> > > > Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
> > > > "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
> > > > redundancy to be distinguished from.
> >
> > > There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
> > > knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
> > > since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
> >
> > It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
> > just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> > are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
>
> You're agreeing with me, right? Since this isn't crossposted to
> rasfw.
I don't know enough about animal minds to know whether dogs are
> On Dec 3, 10:50 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> > > > Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
> > > > "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
> > > > redundancy to be distinguished from.
> >
> > > There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
> > > knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
> > > since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
> >
> > It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
> > just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> > are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
>
> You're agreeing with me, right? Since this isn't crossposted to
> rasfw.
capable of "intent" or awareness of the cause-and-effect of pulling on
a gun trigger.
But, even if dogs in the real world are scientifically known to be
utterly incapable of having any such intent or awareness, linguistic
systems aren't confined to talking only about the real world. Aside
from science-fiction, we also have hypotheticals, dreams, and various
other scenarios that out language is capable of describing.
Furthermore, I'm not convinced that it would even be redundant in the
"real world" contexts anyway: superficial redundancy is often used for
emphasis, in which case, it ceases to be redundant (cf. "pitch black",
"on top of", "they all", etc.).
In this case, "accidentally" might be used to emphasize the overall
unlikeliness of the entire scenario (i.e., meaning something like "in
a freak accident"), or perhaps to highlight the lack of involvement of
anyone else (e.g., in contrast with a scenario in which someone else
had put the gun in the paws of a sleeping dog at the foot of the
victim's bed).
> > > There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> > > one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> > > is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> > > it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> > > for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> > > "grammatically redundant".
> >
> > In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
> >
> > A: Where's the White House at?
> > B: Down the street about two blocks.
> >
> > A: Where's the White House?
> > B: Washington, DC.
> >
> > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> >
> > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
> >
> > A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
> >
> > A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
> Interesting. I've spent very little time in your native region
> (you're from Georgia, right?) and didn't know that one.
South, but I'm sure there's variation.
Eric Walker
Dec 4, 2011, 2:15:09 AM12/4/11
to
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:32:53 -0800, Christopher Ingham wrote:
> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about a
> hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
As a sidebar, for those who may not know it, a once-famous definition of
> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about a
> hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
what constitutes "news" is:
Dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is news.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
R H Draney
Dec 4, 2011, 2:30:33 AM12/4/11
to
Jerry Friedman filted:
ask someone "From whence do you come from?"...r
>
>Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
That's nothing...once at a Renaissance Festival I heard one of the cast members
>Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
ask someone "From whence do you come from?"...r
pauljk
Dec 4, 2011, 3:29:30 AM12/4/11
to
"Christopher Ingham" <christop...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3686232f-e435-452a...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 11:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 11:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham
>> > > > wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>>
>> > > > > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>
>> > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham
>> > > > wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>>
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>> > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>
>> > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>> > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>
>> > > > > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>> > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>>
>> > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>> > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>> > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>
>> > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
>> > > > yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
>> > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>>
>> > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>> > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>> > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>
>> > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
>> > > > otherwise.
>>
>> > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
>> > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>
>> > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
>> > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
>> > > case?
>>
>> > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
>> > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>
>> > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
>> > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
>> > > case?
>>
>> > > The word you want is "redundant."
>>
>>
>> > I mean by grammatical redundancy such things as pleonasms and
>> > tautologies.
>>
>> > tautologies.
>>
>> Tautology is a logic thing, not a grammar thing.
>>
>> If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
>> they're not redundant.
>>
> Aronaff and Rees-Miller 2002, Bussmann 1996, and McArthur 1992
> consider pleonasms and tautologies to be related forms of semantic
> redundancy.
>>
>>
>> If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
>> they're not redundant.
>>
> Aronaff and Rees-Miller 2002, Bussmann 1996, and McArthur 1992
> consider pleonasms and tautologies to be related forms of semantic
> redundancy.
>>
>> > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
>> > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>> > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>> > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>> > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>>
>> > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>> > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>> > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>> > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>>
>> If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
>> act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>>
>> Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
>> Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
>> such training has been done.
>>
>> Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>>
> These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
> of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
> But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
> of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
> shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
> circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
> by a canine triggerman.
>
>> act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>>
>> Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
>> Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
>> such training has been done.
>>
>> Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>>
> These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
> of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
> But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
> of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
> shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
> circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
> by a canine triggerman.
>
> Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
> “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> injured me”), where four words are plural.
In Slavic languages the verb in past tense is marked for number,
> “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> injured me”), where four words are plural.
so there would be five words in plural. :-)
pjk
Brian M. Scott
Dec 4, 2011, 3:31:38 AM12/4/11
to
On 3 Dec 2011 23:30:33 -0800, R H Draney
<dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in
<news:jbf7i...@drn.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>>Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
> That's nothing...once at a Renaissance Festival I heard
> one of the cast members ask someone "From whence do you
> come from?"...r
Where's a Fromfromfromious Bandersnatch when you need one?
Brian
<dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in
<news:jbf7i...@drn.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>>Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
> That's nothing...once at a Renaissance Festival I heard
> one of the cast members ask someone "From whence do you
> come from?"...r
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 8:01:22 AM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 12:50 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> In article
> <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
"different." They're the same tagmeme.
> A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
> A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>
> A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 8:04:17 AM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 2:30 am, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
>
>
> >Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
>
> That's nothing...once at a Renaissance Festival I heard one of the cast members
> ask someone "From whence do you come from?"...r
An age-old trope indicating hypercorrection -- see (though from only
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
>
>
> >Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
>
> That's nothing...once at a Renaissance Festival I heard one of the cast members
> ask someone "From whence do you come from?"...r
about six decades ago) "Adelaide's Lament" from *Guys and Dolls*.
(Yours, though, was sheer incompetence.)
Jerry Friedman
Dec 4, 2011, 10:16:23 AM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 12:30 am, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
> >Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
>
> That's nothing...once at a Renaissance Festival I heard one of the cast members
> ask someone "From whence do you come from?"...r
Ah, three is to three as three is to nothing.
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
> >Speaking of redundancy, I've heard "Where's your location at?"
>
> That's nothing...once at a Renaissance Festival I heard one of the cast members
> ask someone "From whence do you come from?"...r
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Dec 4, 2011, 10:33:28 AM12/4/11
to
> <91ca904b-8223-47e5-9b57-9a0864c3f...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> But, even if dogs in the real world are scientifically known to be
> utterly incapable of having any such intent or awareness, linguistic
> systems aren't confined to talking only about the real world. Aside
> from science-fiction, we also have hypotheticals, dreams, and various
> other scenarios that out language is capable of describing.
Although I de-headlined the grammar, I was thinking we were still in a
news-like context.
> Furthermore, I'm not convinced that it would even be redundant in the
> "real world" contexts anyway: superficial redundancy is often used for
> emphasis, in which case, it ceases to be redundant (cf. "pitch black",
> "on top of", "they all", etc.).
>
> In this case, "accidentally" might be used to emphasize the overall
> unlikeliness of the entire scenario (i.e., meaning something like "in
> a freak accident"), or perhaps to highlight the lack of involvement of
> anyone else (e.g., in contrast with a scenario in which someone else
> had put the gun in the paws of a sleeping dog at the foot of the
> victim's bed).
...
Or just because "A shoots B" normally indicates purpose, so "A dog
shot a man" triggers (sorry) a conflict between two implications
(which might not be the technically correct word).
I'm not suggesting that "redundant" always means wrong--not by any
means. We're told redundancy is an essential feature of
communication. In this case, "accidentally" helps me process the
headline, though as John Dunlop suggested, omitting "accidentally"
might get more people to read the article, which is the headline's
purpose.
I've wondered whether any linguist has studied the efficacy of various
verbal redundancies. For instance, I can see that in a noisy
situation, "Where do you work at?" might be easier to understand than
"Where do you work?" (among speakers who don't have a distinction).
On the other hand, I doubt that "weather conditions" and "winter
months" would ever help anybody understand. (Obaue: The latter two
are pet peeves of mine.)
--
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 10:50 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > > > Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
> > > > > "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
> > > > > redundancy to be distinguished from.
>
> > > > There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
> > > > knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
> > > > since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
>
> > > It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
> > > just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> > > are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
>
> > You're agreeing with me, right? Since this isn't crossposted to
> > rasfw.
>
> I don't know enough about animal minds to know whether dogs are
> capable of "intent" or awareness of the cause-and-effect of pulling on
> a gun trigger.
I'm not going to argue about that.
> > On Dec 3, 10:50 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > > > Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
> > > > > "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
> > > > > redundancy to be distinguished from.
>
> > > > There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
> > > > knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
> > > > since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
>
> > > It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
> > > just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> > > are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
>
> > You're agreeing with me, right? Since this isn't crossposted to
> > rasfw.
>
> I don't know enough about animal minds to know whether dogs are
> capable of "intent" or awareness of the cause-and-effect of pulling on
> a gun trigger.
> But, even if dogs in the real world are scientifically known to be
> utterly incapable of having any such intent or awareness, linguistic
> systems aren't confined to talking only about the real world. Aside
> from science-fiction, we also have hypotheticals, dreams, and various
> other scenarios that out language is capable of describing.
news-like context.
> Furthermore, I'm not convinced that it would even be redundant in the
> "real world" contexts anyway: superficial redundancy is often used for
> emphasis, in which case, it ceases to be redundant (cf. "pitch black",
> "on top of", "they all", etc.).
>
> In this case, "accidentally" might be used to emphasize the overall
> unlikeliness of the entire scenario (i.e., meaning something like "in
> a freak accident"), or perhaps to highlight the lack of involvement of
> anyone else (e.g., in contrast with a scenario in which someone else
> had put the gun in the paws of a sleeping dog at the foot of the
> victim's bed).
Or just because "A shoots B" normally indicates purpose, so "A dog
shot a man" triggers (sorry) a conflict between two implications
(which might not be the technically correct word).
I'm not suggesting that "redundant" always means wrong--not by any
means. We're told redundancy is an essential feature of
communication. In this case, "accidentally" helps me process the
headline, though as John Dunlop suggested, omitting "accidentally"
might get more people to read the article, which is the headline's
purpose.
I've wondered whether any linguist has studied the efficacy of various
verbal redundancies. For instance, I can see that in a noisy
situation, "Where do you work at?" might be easier to understand than
"Where do you work?" (among speakers who don't have a distinction).
On the other hand, I doubt that "weather conditions" and "winter
months" would ever help anybody understand. (Obaue: The latter two
are pet peeves of mine.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Nathan Sanders
Dec 4, 2011, 12:00:44 PM12/4/11
to
In article
<81fc3f13-5987-47d0...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
They're as different as "specific" and "general".
> > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> >
> > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
> Please gloss the first one.
'Where, specifically, are the kids?'
> > A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
> >
> > A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
> Same as the first example. I couldn't use the first one.
You might could, if you were from the South.
<81fc3f13-5987-47d0...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> >
> > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
> Please gloss the first one.
> > A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
> >
> > A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
> Same as the first example. I couldn't use the first one.
Christopher Ingham
Dec 4, 2011, 12:54:06 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 3, 4:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:18 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > > > otherwise.
> that might be.
>
I meant “redundant according to the rules of grammar,” grammar clearly
(or evidently not so clearly), in the context of my question,
including aspects of semantics.
> when you see only the headline, you don't know the details of the
> story.
>
You have to admit that circuses comprise an exceedingly small subset
of the environments in which guns and dogs might be found together.
And the matter is moot in regard to your fictional examples. I still
maintain that an animal’s shooting of a person is normally accidental
and therefore doesn’t need to be described as such, but we’re in a
gray area between grammar and style, and obviously there are varying
viewpoints.
> suggestion? Do speakers of languages think that concord is "redundant"?
>
Redundancy is variously correct and incorrect grammatically, depending
on the circumstances.
Christopher Ingham
> On Dec 3, 11:18 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 11:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 11:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > > > > > > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > > > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > > > > > > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> > > > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > > > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > > > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> > > > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> > > > > > yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
> > > > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > > > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > > > > > > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> > > > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > > > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > > > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> > > > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> > > > > > otherwise.
>
> > > > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> > > > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> > > > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
> > > > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
> > > > > case?
>
> > > > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> > > > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> > > > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
> > > > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
> > > > > case?
>
> > > > > The word you want is "redundant."
>
>
> > > > I mean by grammatical redundancy such things as pleonasms and
> > > > tautologies.
>
> > > Tautology is a logic thing, not a grammar thing.
>
> > > If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
> > > they're not redundant.
>
> > Aronaff and Rees-Miller 2002, Bussmann 1996, and McArthur 1992
> > consider pleonasms and tautologies to be related forms of semantic
> > redundancy.
>
> But you offered it as an example of "grammatical redundancy," whatever
> > > > tautologies.
>
> > > Tautology is a logic thing, not a grammar thing.
>
> > > If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
> > > they're not redundant.
>
> > Aronaff and Rees-Miller 2002, Bussmann 1996, and McArthur 1992
> > consider pleonasms and tautologies to be related forms of semantic
> > redundancy.
>
> that might be.
>
I meant “redundant according to the rules of grammar,” grammar clearly
(or evidently not so clearly), in the context of my question,
including aspects of semantics.
>
> > > > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> > > > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > > > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > > > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > > > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> > > If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
> > > act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>
> > > Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
> > > Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
> > > such training has been done.
>
> > > Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>
> > These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
> > of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
> > But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
> > of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
> > shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
> > circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
> > by a canine triggerman.
>
> Thus proving that "accidental" is not automatically redundant, since
> > > > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> > > > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > > > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > > > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > > > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> > > If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
> > > act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>
> > > Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
> > > Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
> > > such training has been done.
>
> > > Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>
> > These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
> > of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
> > But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
> > of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
> > shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
> > circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
> > by a canine triggerman.
>
> when you see only the headline, you don't know the details of the
> story.
>
You have to admit that circuses comprise an exceedingly small subset
of the environments in which guns and dogs might be found together.
And the matter is moot in regard to your fictional examples. I still
maintain that an animal’s shooting of a person is normally accidental
and therefore doesn’t need to be described as such, but we’re in a
gray area between grammar and style, and obviously there are varying
viewpoints.
>
> > Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
> > “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> > injured me”), where four words are plural.
>
> Did I not mention that above? Did you fail to assent to the
> > Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
> > “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> > injured me”), where four words are plural.
>
> suggestion? Do speakers of languages think that concord is "redundant"?
>
Redundancy is variously correct and incorrect grammatically, depending
on the circumstances.
Christopher Ingham
Brian M. Scott
Dec 4, 2011, 1:02:14 PM12/4/11
to
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:00:44 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-A55054...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> In article
> <81fc3f13-5987-47d0...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 12:50 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>> In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>>> A: Where's the White House at?
>>> B: Down the street about two blocks.
>>> A: Where's the White House?
>>> B: Washington, DC.
>> If those two are in complementary distribution, then
>> they're not "different." They're the same tagmeme.
> They're as different as "specific" and "general".
That's the underlying distinction in all of the examples,
no?
>>> A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>>> A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>> Please gloss the first one.
> 'Where, specifically, are the kids?'
>>> A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>>> A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>> Same as the first example. I couldn't use the first one.
> You might could, if you were from the South.
In a jocular mood I can use 'might could', but never 'where
... at'. The difference is that for me 'where ... at' is a
flat-out solecism, while 'might could' is merely a bit
quaint. Or to put it a bit differently, one sounds like a
mistake by a speaker of a variety similar to mine, while the
other sounds like (and of course is) a grammatical
construction in a rather different variety.
Brian
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-A55054...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> In article
> <81fc3f13-5987-47d0...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 12:50 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>>> A: Where's the White House at?
>>> B: Down the street about two blocks.
>>> A: Where's the White House?
>>> B: Washington, DC.
>> If those two are in complementary distribution, then
>> they're not "different." They're the same tagmeme.
> They're as different as "specific" and "general".
no?
>>> A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>>> A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>> Please gloss the first one.
> 'Where, specifically, are the kids?'
>>> A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>>> A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>> Same as the first example. I couldn't use the first one.
> You might could, if you were from the South.
... at'. The difference is that for me 'where ... at' is a
flat-out solecism, while 'might could' is merely a bit
quaint. Or to put it a bit differently, one sounds like a
mistake by a speaker of a variety similar to mine, while the
other sounds like (and of course is) a grammatical
construction in a rather different variety.
Brian
Christopher Ingham
Dec 4, 2011, 12:54:46 PM12/4/11
to
may be the culpable parties in the particular case that has been under
discussion. To paraphrase Seth Meyers’s comment on last night's SNL
Weekend Update: “Boy, the man’s wife is going to be so pissed when she
finds out that the dog botched the job.”
>
> There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> "grammatically redundant".
>
Yes. The usage of “accidental” in this instance is not ungrammatical
> There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> "grammatically redundant".
>
per se, but by a logic that is contingenct on grammatical rules.
Christopher Ingham
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Christopher Ingham
Dec 4, 2011, 12:54:25 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 3, 5:22 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:28 am, johnk <jhobartk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 10:18 am, johnk <jhobartk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > otherwise.
>
> > > I found the book. Here are some of Carlin's redundancies:
> > > added bonus
> > > exactly right
> > > closed fist
> > > future potential
> > > inner core
> > > money-back refund
> > > subject matter
> > > honest truth
> > > join together
> > > general public
> > > harbinger of things to come
> > > new initiative
> > > audible gasp
> > > advance warning
> > > execution-style killing
> > > future plans
> > > gather together
> > > Jewish synagogue
> > > lag behind
> > > manual dexterity
> > > occasional irregularity
> > > outer rim
> > > plan ahead
> > > basic fundamentals
> > > first time ever
> > > personal friend
>
> > Some of the adjectives in the examples actually can add information,
> > depending on the circumstances to which the expressions apply.
>
> > exactly right / just about right
> > general public / the music-loving public
> > new initiative / previous initiative
> > advance warning / last-second warning
> > execution style killing / amateur killing
> > manual dexterity / verbal dexterity
> > occasional irregularity / chronic irregularity
> > outer rim / inner rim (of a multi-rimmed structure)
> > personal friend / casual acquaintance
>
> > Christopher Ingham- Hide quoted text -
>
I don’t know how you see this as redundant. The two words separately
don’t have any obvious association. There is no single verb that has
equivalent meaning to the gerundial phrasal verb ... the verb stem of
which is actually is a noun....
Christopher Ingham
wrote:
> On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 11:28 am, johnk <jhobartk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 10:18 am, johnk <jhobartk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > > On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > > > > > > > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > > > > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > > > > > > > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> > > > > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > > > > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > > > > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> > > > > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> > > > > > > yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>
> > > > > > > > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > > > > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>
> > > > > > > > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
> > > > > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>
> > > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
> > > > > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
> > > > > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>
> > > > > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> > > > > > > otherwise.
>
> > > > > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> > > > > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> > > > > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
> > > > > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
> > > > > > case?
>
> > > > > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are contextually
> > > > > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>
> > > > > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both subject
> > > > > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
> > > > > > case?
>
> > > > > > The word you want is "redundant."
>
>
> > > > > I mean by grammatical redundancy such things as pleonasms and
> > > > > tautologies.
>
> > > > > tautologies.
>
> > > > > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
> > > > > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > > > > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > > > > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > > > > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
> > > > > Christopher Ingham
> > > > > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
> > > > > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
> > > > > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
> > > > > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>
>
> > > > George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
> > > > He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
> > > > remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
> > > > etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
>
> > > > JohnK
> > > > George Carlin's book, "Brain Droppings", has lists of these phrases.
> > > > He just calls them redundancies. I don't have the book here but I
> > > > remember some examples like 'free gift', ATM machine, PIN number,
> > > > etc. He said there seems to be one word too many in these phrases.
>
>
> > > I found the book. Here are some of Carlin's redundancies:
> > > added bonus
> > > exactly right
> > > closed fist
> > > future potential
> > > inner core
> > > money-back refund
> > > subject matter
> > > honest truth
> > > join together
> > > general public
> > > harbinger of things to come
> > > new initiative
> > > audible gasp
> > > advance warning
> > > execution-style killing
> > > future plans
> > > gather together
> > > Jewish synagogue
> > > lag behind
> > > manual dexterity
> > > occasional irregularity
> > > outer rim
> > > plan ahead
> > > basic fundamentals
> > > first time ever
> > > personal friend
>
> > Some of the adjectives in the examples actually can add information,
> > depending on the circumstances to which the expressions apply.
>
> > exactly right / just about right
> > general public / the music-loving public
> > new initiative / previous initiative
> > advance warning / last-second warning
> > execution style killing / amateur killing
> > manual dexterity / verbal dexterity
> > occasional irregularity / chronic irregularity
> > outer rim / inner rim (of a multi-rimmed structure)
> > personal friend / casual acquaintance
>
> > Christopher Ingham- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> how about "dumbing down"?
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
I don’t know how you see this as redundant. The two words separately
don’t have any obvious association. There is no single verb that has
equivalent meaning to the gerundial phrasal verb ... the verb stem of
which is actually is a noun....
Christopher Ingham
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 1:32:50 PM12/4/11
to
> <81fc3f13-5987-47d0-a50b-bdad1de7a...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
In any context, the askee should be able to understand the specificity
of the requested information.
(b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
"not around"?
> > > A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>
> > > A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
> > Same as the first example. I couldn't use the first one.
>
> You might could, if you were from the South.
I can do the double modal thing because of my close friend Kathy from
West Virginia. Her Connecticut husband Woody (I've mentioned him
before) tries to do it but it never sounds natural. (They now live in
a rural area just west of Richmond.)
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 12:50 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> > > > one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> > > > is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> > > > it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> > > > for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> > > > "grammatically redundant".
>
> > > In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>
> > > A: Where's the White House at?
> > > B: Down the street about two blocks.
>
> > > A: Where's the White House?
> > > B: Washington, DC.
>
> > If those two are in complementary distribution, then they're not
> > "different." They're the same tagmeme.
>
> They're as different as "specific" and "general".
>
> > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
> > Please gloss the first one.
>
> 'Where, specifically, are the kids?'
(a) What's the difference between "where" and "where, specifically"?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 12:50 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
> > > > one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
> > > > is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
> > > > it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
> > > > for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
> > > > "grammatically redundant".
>
> > > In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>
> > > A: Where's the White House at?
> > > B: Down the street about two blocks.
>
> > > A: Where's the White House?
> > > B: Washington, DC.
>
> > If those two are in complementary distribution, then they're not
> > "different." They're the same tagmeme.
>
> They're as different as "specific" and "general".
>
> > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
> > Please gloss the first one.
>
> 'Where, specifically, are the kids?'
In any context, the askee should be able to understand the specificity
of the requested information.
(b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
"not around"?
> > > A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>
> > > A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
> > Same as the first example. I couldn't use the first one.
>
> You might could, if you were from the South.
West Virginia. Her Connecticut husband Woody (I've mentioned him
before) tries to do it but it never sounds natural. (They now live in
a rural area just west of Richmond.)
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 1:37:51 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 12:54 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
Can you provide a reference that discusses "redundancy according to
the rules of grammar"? How would that be anything other than concord?
It's not grammar _at all_. "Doesn't need to be" shows that it is
purely a matter of style.
> > > Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
> > > “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> > > injured me”), where four words are plural.
>
> > Did I not mention that above? Did you fail to assent to the
> > suggestion? Do speakers of languages think that concord is "redundant"?
>
> Redundancy is variously correct and incorrect grammatically, depending
> on the circumstances.
In what way, then, is "redundancy" a useful concept wrt grammar/
grammaticality? As I noted, it's called "concord." The little bit of
concord left in English is in fact occasionally needed to clarify a
discourse.
the rules of grammar"? How would that be anything other than concord?
purely a matter of style.
> > > Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
> > > “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
> > > injured me”), where four words are plural.
>
> > Did I not mention that above? Did you fail to assent to the
> > suggestion? Do speakers of languages think that concord is "redundant"?
>
> Redundancy is variously correct and incorrect grammatically, depending
> on the circumstances.
grammaticality? As I noted, it's called "concord." The little bit of
concord left in English is in fact occasionally needed to clarify a
discourse.
Christopher Ingham
Dec 4, 2011, 2:08:43 PM12/4/11
to
combinations that conform to certain semantic conditions, such as to
not be pleonastic. “Female aunt” is not ungrammatical in the strict
sense, but it definitely looks like substandard English to me.
Christopher Ingham
anal...@hotmail.com
Dec 4, 2011, 2:20:40 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 12:54 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
Doesn't "dumbing" mean the same thing?
Somehow "smarten up" seems perfectly natural - but the analogical
"dumb down" sounds dumb. Another redundant pet peeve, "off of" has
been given a pass because it is considered an idiom.
Somehow "smarten up" seems perfectly natural - but the analogical
"dumb down" sounds dumb. Another redundant pet peeve, "off of" has
been given a pass because it is considered an idiom.
Nathan Sanders
Dec 4, 2011, 2:28:37 PM12/4/11
to
In article
<8ce034f6-e389-4461...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
The difference is between 'where, generally' (not just 'where') and
'where, specifically'.
The difference, of course, is in degree of specificity. If you
respond to "where" with turn-by-turn driving directions, you sound
like an uptight Yankee.
> In any context, the askee should be able to understand the specificity
> of the requested information.
Consider a road-tripping couple A and B who are driving along in
silence through flat featureless territory, and then pass a sign for
McDonald's:
A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
B1: Oh, yeah, I'm hungry too.
A2: I wonder where that McDonald's is.
B2: Yeah, odd. I didn't think there was anything
around these parts.
Note that B's responses cannot be reversed in this dialect:
A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
B2: #Yeah, odd. I didn't think there was anything
around these parts.
A2: I wonder where that McDonald's is.
B1: #Oh, yeah, I'm hungry too.
Contrast this with what happens in those (as you would say,
"deficient") dialects with no where-at/where contrast. A can *only*
say A2, which would have to cover both cases, so it's ambiguous.
Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
> (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> "not around"?
Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
<8ce034f6-e389-4461...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
'where, specifically'.
The difference, of course, is in degree of specificity. If you
respond to "where" with turn-by-turn driving directions, you sound
like an uptight Yankee.
> In any context, the askee should be able to understand the specificity
> of the requested information.
silence through flat featureless territory, and then pass a sign for
McDonald's:
A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
B1: Oh, yeah, I'm hungry too.
A2: I wonder where that McDonald's is.
B2: Yeah, odd. I didn't think there was anything
around these parts.
Note that B's responses cannot be reversed in this dialect:
A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
B2: #Yeah, odd. I didn't think there was anything
around these parts.
A2: I wonder where that McDonald's is.
B1: #Oh, yeah, I'm hungry too.
Contrast this with what happens in those (as you would say,
"deficient") dialects with no where-at/where contrast. A can *only*
say A2, which would have to cover both cases, so it's ambiguous.
Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
> (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> "not around"?
Christopher Ingham
Dec 4, 2011, 2:34:30 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 2:20 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
It’s not in normal usage as far as I know, but there would be little
difficulty in understanding it in approximately the same sense that
“dumbing down is” has.
so down seems very apt.
Christopher Ingham
difficulty in understanding it in approximately the same sense that
“dumbing down is” has.
>
> Somehow "smarten up" seems perfectly natural - but the analogical
> "dumb down" sounds dumb. Another redundant pet peeve, "off of" has
> been given a pass because it is considered an idiom.
>
Particles are most frequently locational or directional prepositions,
> Somehow "smarten up" seems perfectly natural - but the analogical
> "dumb down" sounds dumb. Another redundant pet peeve, "off of" has
> been given a pass because it is considered an idiom.
>
so down seems very apt.
Christopher Ingham
James Silverton
Dec 4, 2011, 2:38:20 PM12/4/11
to
On 12/4/2011 2:08 PM, Christopher Ingham wrote:
> Relative to what I’ve been talking about, there are also word
> combinations that conform to certain semantic conditions, such as to
> not be pleonastic. “Female aunt” is not ungrammatical in the strict
> sense, but it definitely looks like substandard English to me.
>
> Christopher Ingham
Sorry to butt in at this late stage but to me "Dog Shoots Man" seems
> Relative to what I’ve been talking about, there are also word
> combinations that conform to certain semantic conditions, such as to
> not be pleonastic. “Female aunt” is not ungrammatical in the strict
> sense, but it definitely looks like substandard English to me.
>
> Christopher Ingham
unlikely enough to get my attention. "Dog Accidentally Shoots Man", even
if imprecise, does indicate to me that the dog accidentally caused the
gun to fire.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net
Christopher Ingham
Dec 4, 2011, 2:52:01 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 2:38 pm, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
wrote:
I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
Christopher Ingham
>
> --
>
> James Silverton, Potomac
>
> I'm *not* not.jim.silver...@verizon.net
wrote:
> On 12/4/2011 2:08 PM, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
> > Relative to what I ve been talking about, there are also word
> > combinations that conform to certain semantic conditions, such as to
> > not be pleonastic. Female aunt is not ungrammatical in the strict
> > sense, but it definitely looks like substandard English to me.
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> Sorry to butt in at this late stage but to me "Dog Shoots Man" seems
> unlikely enough to get my attention. "Dog Accidentally Shoots Man", even
> if imprecise, does indicate to me that the dog accidentally caused the
> gun to fire.
>
"Dog accidentally shoots man" actually is quite precise (overly so, as
>
> > Relative to what I ve been talking about, there are also word
> > combinations that conform to certain semantic conditions, such as to
> > not be pleonastic. Female aunt is not ungrammatical in the strict
> > sense, but it definitely looks like substandard English to me.
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> Sorry to butt in at this late stage but to me "Dog Shoots Man" seems
> unlikely enough to get my attention. "Dog Accidentally Shoots Man", even
> if imprecise, does indicate to me that the dog accidentally caused the
> gun to fire.
>
I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
Christopher Ingham
>
> --
>
> James Silverton, Potomac
>
> I'm *not* not.jim.silver...@verizon.net
Snidely
Dec 4, 2011, 3:15:19 PM12/4/11
to
Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> scribbled something like
...
> On Dec 4, 2:38 pm, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Sorry to butt in at this late stage but to me "Dog Shoots Man" seems
>> unlikely enough to get my attention. "Dog Accidentally Shoots Man", even
>> if imprecise, does indicate to me that the dog accidentally caused the
>> gun to fire.
>>
> "Dog accidentally shoots man" actually is quite precise (overly so, as
> I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
> make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
And then there's "dog shoots man accidentally".
/dps "shades of Grey"
...
> On Dec 4, 2:38 pm, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Sorry to butt in at this late stage but to me "Dog Shoots Man" seems
>> unlikely enough to get my attention. "Dog Accidentally Shoots Man", even
>> if imprecise, does indicate to me that the dog accidentally caused the
>> gun to fire.
>>
> "Dog accidentally shoots man" actually is quite precise (overly so, as
> I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
> make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
/dps "shades of Grey"
James Silverton
Dec 4, 2011, 3:16:20 PM12/4/11
to
shoot a man. Without a lot of training, I doubt that even a Border
Collie could be trained to aim and shoot.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net
Brian M. Scott
Dec 4, 2011, 3:49:35 PM12/4/11
to
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:28:37 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-AD1708...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> In article
> <8ce034f6-e389-4461...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
>> (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
>> "not around"?
> Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
And hang 'em on the shed? (Bloody earworm!)
Brian
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-AD1708...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> In article
> <8ce034f6-e389-4461...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
>> "not around"?
> Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
Brian
erilar
Dec 4, 2011, 4:46:20 PM12/4/11
to
In article
<baec3454-1dc9-44ba...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
<baec3454-1dc9-44ba...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> wrote:
> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> a hunter and his dog. Is ³accidental² redundant in this case?
Well, we don't know how the dog was treated. . .
> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> a hunter and his dog. Is ³accidental² redundant in this case?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 4:58:31 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 3:16 pm, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> On 12/4/2011 2:52 PM, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 2:38 pm, James Silverton<not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2011 2:08 PM, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
> >>> Relative to what I ve been talking about, there are also word
> >>> combinations that conform to certain semantic conditions, such as to
> >>> not be pleonastic. Female aunt is not ungrammatical in the strict
> >>> sense, but it definitely looks like substandard English to me.
>
> >>> Christopher Ingham
>
> >> Sorry to butt in at this late stage but to me "Dog Shoots Man" seems
> >> unlikely enough to get my attention. "Dog Accidentally Shoots Man", even
> >> if imprecise, does indicate to me that the dog accidentally caused the
> >> gun to fire.
>
> > "Dog accidentally shoots man" actually is quite precise (overly so, as
> > I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
> > make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> Actually, the unlikely thing is a dog being implied as able to decide to
> shoot a man. Without a lot of training, I doubt that even a Border
> Collie could be trained to aim and shoot.
no one said anything about aiming ...
> On 12/4/2011 2:52 PM, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 2:38 pm, James Silverton<not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2011 2:08 PM, Christopher Ingham wrote:
>
> >>> Relative to what I ve been talking about, there are also word
> >>> combinations that conform to certain semantic conditions, such as to
> >>> not be pleonastic. Female aunt is not ungrammatical in the strict
> >>> sense, but it definitely looks like substandard English to me.
>
> >>> Christopher Ingham
>
> >> Sorry to butt in at this late stage but to me "Dog Shoots Man" seems
> >> unlikely enough to get my attention. "Dog Accidentally Shoots Man", even
> >> if imprecise, does indicate to me that the dog accidentally caused the
> >> gun to fire.
>
> > "Dog accidentally shoots man" actually is quite precise (overly so, as
> > I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
> > make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> Actually, the unlikely thing is a dog being implied as able to decide to
> shoot a man. Without a lot of training, I doubt that even a Border
> Collie could be trained to aim and shoot.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 5:04:49 PM12/4/11
to
> <8ce034f6-e389-4461-97f3-9a704040e...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Oh, come on. That's like someone from a language with grammatical
gender claiming that "the teacher" is "ambiguous" because it doesn't
reveal the person's gender.
Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
> Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity": _vagueness_)
troubling.
> > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > "not around"?
>
> Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
from the neighborhood?
gender claiming that "the teacher" is "ambiguous" because it doesn't
reveal the person's gender.
Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
> Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
troubling.
> > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > "not around"?
>
> Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
from the neighborhood?
Horace LaBadie
Dec 4, 2011, 5:08:57 PM12/4/11
to
In article <drache-C1E3C4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <baec3454-1dc9-44ba...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > a hunter and his dog. Is ³accidental² redundant in this case?
>
> Well, we don't know how the dog was treated. . .
The story could be about Michael Vick.
> In article
> <baec3454-1dc9-44ba...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > a hunter and his dog. Is ³accidental² redundant in this case?
>
> Well, we don't know how the dog was treated. . .
Nathan Sanders
Dec 4, 2011, 5:10:16 PM12/4/11
to
In article
<9d292dba-bc79-4201...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
> Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
> complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
> distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
> because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
>
> > Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> > or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> > incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> > like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> > clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
>
> Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity": _vagueness_)
> troubling.
Where did I ever say it was "troubling"?
It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a preposition;
the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
> > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > > "not around"?
> >
> > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
>
> And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> from the neighborhood?
Why do you assume they "wandered"?
<9d292dba-bc79-4201...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
> Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
> complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
> distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
> because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
>
> > Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> > or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> > incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> > like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> > clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
>
> Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity": _vagueness_)
> troubling.
It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a preposition;
the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
> > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > > "not around"?
> >
> > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
>
> And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> from the neighborhood?
Robert Bannister
Dec 4, 2011, 8:39:18 PM12/4/11
to
On 4/12/11 1:50 PM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> In article
> <ee3483b3-9825-4494...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Friedman<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
only meaning I can put on it is "What is the White House on about?" or
"Where is the White House up to in its programme?" This is a real
pondial separation point.
>
--
Robert Bannister
> In article
> <ee3483b3-9825-4494...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Friedman<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 8:47 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum<evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>>> On Dec 2, 5:53 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum<evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>> On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 8:47 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum<evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>>> On Dec 2, 5:53 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum<evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham<christophering...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>> By the way, is there a specific term for words that are
>>>>>>>> contextually but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>>
>>>>>>> What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
>>>>>>> subject and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender,
>>>>>>> number, and case?
>>>
>>>>>>>> contextually but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>>
>>>>>>> What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
>>>>>>> subject and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender,
>>>>>>> number, and case?
>>>
>>>>>> Could be, in cases like "Yo soy", where the "yo" adds nothing that
>>>>>> isn't inherent in the "soy". (Unless it's being done for emphasis,
>>>>>> of course.)
>>>
>>>>> The yo is not used unless it's being done for emphasis (or some other
>>>>> stylistic reason).
>>>
>>>> Or by those who don't realize that using it carries emphasis. You see
>>>> it a lot from non-native speakers. It's wrong of course. The reason
>>>> it's wrong is that it would be (grammatically?) redundant. (The whole
>>>> point of railing against redundancy of any kind is that it's
>>>> considered a mistake.)
>>>
>>> "Wrong" in the usual way meaning that it doesn't occur in normal
>>> speech? Non-natives are hardly relevant to determining what's normal.
>>
>> Non-natives are often who you have to explain mistakes to.
>>
>>>>> It's not "redundant."
>>>
>>>> Okay, what does it add grammatically? It may be pragmatically
>>>> informative, but grammatically, it appears to be redundant.
>>>
>>>>>> isn't inherent in the "soy". (Unless it's being done for emphasis,
>>>>>> of course.)
>>>
>>>>> The yo is not used unless it's being done for emphasis (or some other
>>>>> stylistic reason).
>>>
>>>> Or by those who don't realize that using it carries emphasis. You see
>>>> it a lot from non-native speakers. It's wrong of course. The reason
>>>> it's wrong is that it would be (grammatically?) redundant. (The whole
>>>> point of railing against redundancy of any kind is that it's
>>>> considered a mistake.)
>>>
>>> "Wrong" in the usual way meaning that it doesn't occur in normal
>>> speech? Non-natives are hardly relevant to determining what's normal.
>>
>> Non-natives are often who you have to explain mistakes to.
>>
>>>>> It's not "redundant."
>>>
>>>> Okay, what does it add grammatically? It may be pragmatically
>>>> informative, but grammatically, it appears to be redundant.
>>>
>>>>>>> The word you want is "redundant."
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> How would that distinguish?
>>>
>>>>> What from what?
>>>
>>>> Words that are contextually redundant from words that are
>>>> grammatically redundant. Since that's what he asked for and you said
>>>> that the word he wanted was "redundant", I presume that you understood
>>>> the distinction he wanted to make.
>>>
>>> Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
>>> "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
>>> redundancy to be distinguished from.
>>
>> There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
>> knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
>> since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
>
>>>
>>>>> What from what?
>>>
>>>> Words that are contextually redundant from words that are
>>>> grammatically redundant. Since that's what he asked for and you said
>>>> that the word he wanted was "redundant", I presume that you understood
>>>> the distinction he wanted to make.
>>>
>>> Neither of you has yet come up with something that would be
>>> "grammatically redundant." There's no such thing for (actual)
>>> redundancy to be distinguished from.
>>
>> There are locutions that can be recognized as redundant only by one's
>> knowledge of context. "A dog accidentally shot a man" is one such,
>> since "A woman accidentally shot a man" has no redundancy.
>
> It would be redundant in a context in which women make no mistakes,
> just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
>
> just as the original sentence is redundant in a context in which dogs
> are incapable of intentionally firing a gun.
>
>> There are other locutions that can be recognized as redundant based on
>> one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
>> is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
>> it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
>> for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
>> "grammatically redundant".
>
> In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>
> A: Where's the White House at?
> B: Down the street about two blocks.
I'm not sure I would always understand this question at all, but the
>> one's knowledge of the language and nothing more. "Where is it at?"
>> is one such, as least as used by a lot of people around here, who use
>> it exactly as more standard speakers use "Where is it?" Not to speak
>> for Evan or Christopher, but I think this kind is what they mean by
>> "grammatically redundant".
>
> In my native dialect, "where...at" is different from "where":
>
> A: Where's the White House at?
> B: Down the street about two blocks.
only meaning I can put on it is "What is the White House on about?" or
"Where is the White House up to in its programme?" This is a real
pondial separation point.
>
> A: Where's the White House?
> B: Washington, DC.
>
>
> A: Where's the White House?
> B: Washington, DC.
>
>
> A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
>
>
> A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
>
>
> A: [at the theatre] Where are our seats at?
>
> A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
> Nathan
>
> A: [at home after purchasing tickets] Where are our seats?
>
>
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 4, 2011, 10:29:04 PM12/4/11
to
On 5/12/11 3:28 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> Consider a road-tripping couple A and B who are driving along in
> silence through flat featureless territory, and then pass a sign for
> McDonald's:
>
> A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
After something of a double-take, I think my answer would be, "Serving
> Consider a road-tripping couple A and B who are driving along in
> silence through flat featureless territory, and then pass a sign for
> McDonald's:
>
> A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
lukewarm coffee because of that silly court case a couple of years back."
The "that" is also not part of "standard" English, but I am familiar
with that from a number of other dialects, unless I am misunderstanding
what it means, but I don't think it is referring to a specific McD outlet.
> B1: Oh, yeah, I'm hungry too.
>
> A2: I wonder where that McDonald's is.
> B2: Yeah, odd. I didn't think there was anything
> around these parts.
>
> Note that B's responses cannot be reversed in this dialect:
>
> A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
> B2: #Yeah, odd. I didn't think there was anything
> around these parts.
>
> A2: I wonder where that McDonald's is.
> B1: #Oh, yeah, I'm hungry too.
Robert Bannister
Nathan Sanders
Dec 4, 2011, 10:34:50 PM12/4/11
to
In article <9k2lm9...@mid.individual.net>,
It's not even pondial, since it's not widespread in the US, either.
Robert Bannister
Dec 4, 2011, 10:36:03 PM12/4/11
to
On 5/12/11 2:37 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> In what way, then, is "redundancy" a useful concept wrt grammar/
> grammaticality? As I noted, it's called "concord." The little bit of
> concord left in English is in fact occasionally needed to clarify a
> discourse.
But surely concordance varies a great deal. Some languages require every
> In what way, then, is "redundancy" a useful concept wrt grammar/
> grammaticality? As I noted, it's called "concord." The little bit of
> concord left in English is in fact occasionally needed to clarify a
> discourse.
word in a noun phrase plus occasionally a related past participle all to
agree in number and gender. Others, like German, slightly modify this
idea by having "strong" and "weak" concordance. English demands (for
example) a plural noun and a plural verb. Some languages don't even care
about the verb.
Now, couldn't one say that, in those languages requiring concord for
every word in a noun phrase, the repetition of the number or case or
whatever is a redundancy of sorts?
--
Robert Bannister
Brian M. Scott
Dec 4, 2011, 10:37:20 PM12/4/11
to
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:29:04 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:9k2s43...@mid.individual.net> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> On 5/12/11 3:28 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> Consider a road-tripping couple A and B who are driving
>> along in silence through flat featureless territory, and
>> then pass a sign for McDonald's:
>> A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
> After something of a double-take, I think my answer would
> be, "Serving lukewarm coffee because of that silly court
> case a couple of years back."
> The "that" is also not part of "standard" English,
It certainly is.
> but I am familiar with that from a number of other
> dialects, unless I am misunderstanding what it means, but
> I don't think it is referring to a specific McD outlet.
Of course it is: it's referring to the one advertised on the
sign.
[...]
Brian
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:9k2s43...@mid.individual.net> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> On 5/12/11 3:28 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> Consider a road-tripping couple A and B who are driving
>> along in silence through flat featureless territory, and
>> then pass a sign for McDonald's:
>> A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
> After something of a double-take, I think my answer would
> be, "Serving lukewarm coffee because of that silly court
> case a couple of years back."
> The "that" is also not part of "standard" English,
> but I am familiar with that from a number of other
> dialects, unless I am misunderstanding what it means, but
> I don't think it is referring to a specific McD outlet.
sign.
[...]
Brian
Robert Bannister
Dec 4, 2011, 10:38:22 PM12/4/11
to
On 4/12/11 4:29 PM, pauljk wrote:
>
> "Christopher Ingham" <christop...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3686232f-e435-452a...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 2, 11:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 11:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> > > > otherwise.
> so there would be five words in plural.
But in French, if "I" were female then the past participle would agree
with me - "m'ont blessée".
--
Robert Bannister
>
> "Christopher Ingham" <christop...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3686232f-e435-452a...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 2, 11:52 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 11:29 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham
>>> <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Dec 2, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > On Dec 2, 3:32 pm, Christopher Ingham
>>> <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> > > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:>
>>> Christopher Ingham > > > wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>>>
>>> > > > > >On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham
>>>
>>> > > > On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer <m...@privacy.net> wrote:>
>>> Christopher Ingham > > > wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>>>
>>> <christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> > > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming
>>> segment about
>>> > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>>
>>> > > > > >> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming
>>> segment about
>>> > > > > >> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>>
>>> > > > > >Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>>> > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been
>>> intentional.
>>>
>>> > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your
>>> question
>>> > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have
>>> reacted to the
>>> > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>>
>>> > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but
>>> hadn’t
>>> > > > yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
>>> > > > > >affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been
>>> intentional.
>>>
>>> > > > > Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your
>>> question
>>> > > > > demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have
>>> reacted to the
>>> > > > > headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>>
>>> > > > I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but
>>> hadn’t
>>> > > > otherwise.
>>>
>>> > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are
>>> contextually
>>> > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>>
>>> > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
>>> subject
>>> > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
>>> > > case?
>>>
>>> > > > By the way, is there a specific term for words that are
>>> contextually
>>> > > > but not grammatically redundant, as in this case?
>>>
>>> > > What would "grammatical redundancy" be? Marking number on both
>>> subject
>>> > > and verb? Making adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and
>>> > > case?
>>>
>>> > > The word you want is "redundant."
>>>
>>>
>>> > I mean by grammatical redundancy such things as pleonasms and
>>> > tautologies.
>>>
>>> > tautologies.
>>>
>>> Tautology is a logic thing, not a grammar thing.
>>>
>>> If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
>>> they're not redundant.
>>>
>> Aronaff and Rees-Miller 2002, Bussmann 1996, and McArthur 1992
>> consider pleonasms and tautologies to be related forms of semantic
>> redundancy.
>>>
>>>
>>> If pleonasms could be omitted, they wouldn't be pleonastic -- hence
>>> they're not redundant.
>>>
>> Aronaff and Rees-Miller 2002, Bussmann 1996, and McArthur 1992
>> consider pleonasms and tautologies to be related forms of semantic
>> redundancy.
>>>
>>> > “Accidentally” is contextually redundant in “dog accidentally shoots
>>> > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>>> > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>>> > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>>> > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>>>
>>> > man” because logically a dog can only shoot someone (or a cat, for
>>> > that matter) accidentally. In the situation in which it is used the
>>> > word provides more information than is necessary, whereas in, say,
>>> > “man accidentally shoots dog” it doesn’t.
>>>
>>> If a circus dog, say, has been trained to shoot a gun as part of an
>>> act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>>>
>>> Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
>>> Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
>>> such training has been done.
>>>
>>> Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>>>
>> These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
>> of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
>> But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
>> of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
>> shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
>> circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
>> by a canine triggerman.
>>
>>> act, it doesn't do it accidentally.
>>>
>>> Surely Agatha Christie or G. K. Chesterton -- or need I mention Edgar
>>> Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle -- have written stories in which some
>>> such training has been done.
>>>
>>> Even one of the sillier episodes of *Monk* involved a trained dog.
>>>
>> These are exceptional circumstances (and fictional, too, in the works
>> of the authors you cite), which I didn’t think necessary to allude to.
>> But normally [:-)] it is not necessary to qualify an animal’s shooting
>> of a person as accidental. I might also suggest that “dog accidentally
>> shoots man” would be an inapt way to describe the death or injury of a
>> circus trainer who by carelessness or through suicidal design was shot
>> by a canine triggerman.
>>
>> Many languages require high degrees of syntactic redundancy, e.g.,
>> “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
>> injured me”), where four words are plural.
>
> In Slavic languages the verb in past tense is marked for number,
>> “Mes petits chiens stupides m'ont blessé” (“my stupid little dogs
>> injured me”), where four words are plural.
>
> so there would be five words in plural.
But in French, if "I" were female then the past participle would agree
with me - "m'ont blessée".
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 4, 2011, 10:40:51 PM12/4/11
to
English, but "dumbing" surely has no widely accepted meaning on its own.
*"Since they changed the examination system, the courses have been dumbed".
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 4, 2011, 10:41:46 PM12/4/11
to
On 4/12/11 8:13 AM, Skitt wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Whilst it is true that an order contains some futuristic element,
>> normally when you order, you expect them to have it in stock. If they
>> haven't, then although "order" is still possible, we tend to use other
>> expressions like "Can you get it in for me?".
>
> That phrase is ... oh, never mind.
>
As the bishop said to the actress.
--
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Whilst it is true that an order contains some futuristic element,
>> normally when you order, you expect them to have it in stock. If they
>> haven't, then although "order" is still possible, we tend to use other
>> expressions like "Can you get it in for me?".
>
> That phrase is ... oh, never mind.
>
As the bishop said to the actress.
--
Robert Bannister
Nathan Sanders
Dec 4, 2011, 11:35:41 PM12/4/11
to
In article <9k2s43...@mid.individual.net>,
the sign, which is typical for roadside advertisement in the US
("McDonald's next exit", "...five miles ahead", "...Exit 316", etc.).
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/11 3:28 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
>
> > Consider a road-tripping couple A and B who are driving along in
> > silence through flat featureless territory, and then pass a sign for
> > McDonald's:
> >
> > A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
>
> After something of a double-take, I think my answer would be, "Serving
> lukewarm coffee because of that silly court case a couple of years back."
>
> The "that" is also not part of "standard" English, but I am familiar
> with that from a number of other dialects, unless I am misunderstanding
> what it means, but I don't think it is referring to a specific McD outlet.
As Brian said, it refers to the specific outlet being advertised on
> On 5/12/11 3:28 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
>
> > Consider a road-tripping couple A and B who are driving along in
> > silence through flat featureless territory, and then pass a sign for
> > McDonald's:
> >
> > A1: I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
>
> After something of a double-take, I think my answer would be, "Serving
> lukewarm coffee because of that silly court case a couple of years back."
>
> The "that" is also not part of "standard" English, but I am familiar
> with that from a number of other dialects, unless I am misunderstanding
> what it means, but I don't think it is referring to a specific McD outlet.
the sign, which is typical for roadside advertisement in the US
("McDonald's next exit", "...five miles ahead", "...Exit 316", etc.).
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 11:38:54 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 10:37 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:29:04 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:29:04 +0800, Robert Bannister
alerting you to the imminence, or perhaps not-so-imminence, of an
establishment being advertised.
Limited-access highways often have signs simply listing, rather than
"advertising" in detail, the amenities available at the next exit. (I
assume they pay to be listed, but the sign contains nothing more than
their familiar logo, or if a local establishment, their name).
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 11:40:31 PM12/4/11
to
interpretation.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 11:35:42 PM12/4/11
to
> <9d292dba-bc79-4201-b7e9-c5bdf4cb6...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
> > Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
> > complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
> > distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
> > because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
>
> > > Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> > > or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> > > incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> > > like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> > > clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
>
> > Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity": _vagueness_)
> > troubling.
>
> Where did I ever say it was "troubling"?
>
> It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
> expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a preposition;
> the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
But you offered it as an example of "ambiguity," which it isn't.
> > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > > > "not around"?
>
> > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
>
> > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > from the neighborhood?
>
> Why do you assume they "wandered"?
Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If she
knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
> > Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
> > complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
> > distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
> > because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
>
> > > Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> > > or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> > > incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> > > like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> > > clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
>
> > Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity": _vagueness_)
> > troubling.
>
> Where did I ever say it was "troubling"?
>
> It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
> expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a preposition;
> the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
> > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > > > "not around"?
>
> > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
>
> > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > from the neighborhood?
>
> Why do you assume they "wandered"?
knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 11:42:32 PM12/4/11
to
Note that Zamenhof even included grammatical gender in Esperanto, even
though he knew perfectly well that English has gotten along fine
without it for many centuries. That's how important it feels to those
who are born with it.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 4, 2011, 11:44:58 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 10:40 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Has "off of" been "given a pass" in Indian English? Not in Standard
American.
> On 5/12/11 3:20 AM, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Doesn't "dumbing" mean the same thing?
>
> > Somehow "smarten up" seems perfectly natural - but the analogical
> > "dumb down" sounds dumb. Another redundant pet peeve, "off of" has
> > been given a pass because it is considered an idiom.
>
> I agree about "off of" which has always been regarded as substandard in
> English, but "dumbing" surely has no widely accepted meaning on its own.
>
> *"Since they changed the examination system, the courses have been dumbed".
You could say "dumbened," but you wouldn't find it in a dictionary.
> > Doesn't "dumbing" mean the same thing?
>
> > Somehow "smarten up" seems perfectly natural - but the analogical
> > "dumb down" sounds dumb. Another redundant pet peeve, "off of" has
> > been given a pass because it is considered an idiom.
>
> I agree about "off of" which has always been regarded as substandard in
> English, but "dumbing" surely has no widely accepted meaning on its own.
>
> *"Since they changed the examination system, the courses have been dumbed".
Has "off of" been "given a pass" in Indian English? Not in Standard
American.
Nathan Sanders
Dec 5, 2011, 12:04:03 AM12/5/11
to
In article
<8bd0f6c4-2513-4386...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
pair for 'teacher'?
And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
every language?
What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
> > > Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
> > > complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
> > > distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
> > > because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
> >
> > > > Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> > > > or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> > > > incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> > > > like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> > > > clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
> >
> > > Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity": _vagueness_)
> > > troubling.
> >
> > Where did I ever say it was "troubling"?
> >
> > It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
> > expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a preposition;
> > the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
>
> But you offered it as an example of "ambiguity," which it isn't.
Of course it is. The relevant sentences are:
(1) I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
(2) I wonder where that McDonald's is.
In the where-at/where dialect, (1) is only true when the speaker wants
to know the specific path needed to get to the McDonald's, and (2) is
only true when the speaker wants to the general location of the
McDonald's. There are many scenarios in which (1) would be false
while (2) is true, thus, the two sentences have different truth values.
Thus, any sentence that has both (1) and (2) as possible
interpretations is ambiguous, because it can be either true or false
in exactly the same state of the world, depending on which meaning the
speaker intended.
> > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > > > > "not around"?
> >
> > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
> >
> > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > > from the neighborhood?
> >
> > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
>
> Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If she
> knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
Why do you assume the parent is "concerned"?
When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
<8bd0f6c4-2513-4386...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> On Dec 4, 5:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
>
> Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
I'm not a native speaker of German, so I don't know if that's true for
>
> > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
>
> Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
"Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
pair for 'teacher'?
And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
every language?
What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
> > > Do you go back far enough here to remember Lee Sau Dan's frequent
> > > complaints that English is ambiguous because it doesn't by necessity
> > > distinguish between elder brother and younger brother, and redundant
> > > because it requires every sentence to be marked for tense?
> >
> > > > Because of the ambiguity, B could respond appropriately with either B1
> > > > or B2, but without further information, B runs the risk of responding
> > > > incorrectly, so B would likely respond with something non-comittal
> > > > like "Hrm, yeah, me too", or just directly ask outright for
> > > > clarification: "Why? Are you hungry, or just curious?".
> >
> > > Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity": _vagueness_)
> > > troubling.
> >
> > Where did I ever say it was "troubling"?
> >
> > It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
> > expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a preposition;
> > the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
>
> But you offered it as an example of "ambiguity," which it isn't.
(1) I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
(2) I wonder where that McDonald's is.
In the where-at/where dialect, (1) is only true when the speaker wants
to know the specific path needed to get to the McDonald's, and (2) is
only true when the speaker wants to the general location of the
McDonald's. There are many scenarios in which (1) would be false
while (2) is true, thus, the two sentences have different truth values.
Thus, any sentence that has both (1) and (2) as possible
interpretations is ambiguous, because it can be either true or false
in exactly the same state of the world, depending on which meaning the
speaker intended.
> > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed to
> > > > > "not around"?
> >
> > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
> >
> > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > > from the neighborhood?
> >
> > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
>
> Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If she
> knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
Jerry Friedman
Dec 5, 2011, 1:09:40 AM12/5/11
to
On Dec 4, 8:34 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <9k2lm9Fil...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > Jerry Friedman<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Depends on what "it" is. I took Rob to mean combining "where" and
"at", which I think is pretty widespread in the U. S. But if he meant
a distinction between "where" and "where at", I believe you.
--
Jerry Friedman
> In article <9k2lm9Fil...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/12/11 1:50 PM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ee3483b3-9825-4494-b7ab-18680c7e7...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> > On 4/12/11 1:50 PM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> > > In article
> > > Jerry Friedman<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"at", which I think is pretty widespread in the U. S. But if he meant
a distinction between "where" and "where at", I believe you.
--
Jerry Friedman
Nathan Sanders
Dec 5, 2011, 1:11:31 AM12/5/11
to
James Hogg
Dec 5, 2011, 2:19:27 AM12/5/11
to
have been influenced by the American usage.
--
James
pauljk
Dec 5, 2011, 3:36:33 AM12/5/11
to
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9k2sh5...@mid.individual.net...
In the example discussed earlier, the concordance looked superficially
like redundancy, however, in many differently structured sentences
it would allows more efficient expression.
For example, take a trivial case of a language that marks
verbs for number and gender as well as tense. Normally, you'd
leave pronouns out of the sentence completely.
In English, you can't say "slept" instead of "she slept' because "slept"
is not marked for feminine, third person, singular.
Of course, if you want to, you may still use pronouns for emphasis,
and sure, you have to maintain the concordance. But, it fulfils a different
purpose. Expressing similar emphasis in English would make the sentence
longer again.
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 5, 2011, 7:35:20 AM12/5/11
to
On Dec 5, 3:36 am, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> "Robert Bannister" <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> In the example discussed earlier, the concordance looked superficially
> like redundancy, however, in many differently structured sentences
> it would allows more efficient expression.
>
> For example, take a trivial case of a language that marks
> verbs for number and gender as well as tense. Normally, you'd
> leave pronouns out of the sentence completely.
>
> In English, you can't say "slept" instead of "she slept' because "slept"
> is not marked for feminine, third person, singular.
>
> Of course, if you want to, you may still use pronouns for emphasis,
> and sure, you have to maintain the concordance. But, it fulfils a different
> purpose. Expressing similar emphasis in English would make the sentence
> longer again.
Nor can you say "Sleeps" to answer "What does the baby do all day?"
where gender is irrelevant and it is marked for 3s.
> "Robert Bannister" <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:9k2sh5...@mid.individual.net...
> > On 5/12/11 2:37 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> In what way, then, is "redundancy" a useful concept wrt grammar/
> >> grammaticality? As I noted, it's called "concord." The little bit of
> >> concord left in English is in fact occasionally needed to clarify a
> >> discourse.
>
> > But surely concordance varies a great deal. Some languages require every word in a
> > noun phrase plus occasionally a related past participle all to agree in number and
> > gender. Others, like German, slightly modify this idea by having "strong" and "weak"
> > concordance. English demands (for example) a plural noun and a plural verb. Some
> > languages don't even care about the verb.
>
> > Now, couldn't one say that, in those languages requiring concord for every word in a
> > noun phrase, the repetition of the number or case or whatever is a redundancy of
> > sorts?
>
> No, concordance doesn't automatically mean (unnecessary) redundancy.
concord
> > On 5/12/11 2:37 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> In what way, then, is "redundancy" a useful concept wrt grammar/
> >> grammaticality? As I noted, it's called "concord." The little bit of
> >> concord left in English is in fact occasionally needed to clarify a
> >> discourse.
>
> > But surely concordance varies a great deal. Some languages require every word in a
> > noun phrase plus occasionally a related past participle all to agree in number and
> > gender. Others, like German, slightly modify this idea by having "strong" and "weak"
> > concordance. English demands (for example) a plural noun and a plural verb. Some
> > languages don't even care about the verb.
>
> > Now, couldn't one say that, in those languages requiring concord for every word in a
> > noun phrase, the repetition of the number or case or whatever is a redundancy of
> > sorts?
>
> No, concordance doesn't automatically mean (unnecessary) redundancy.
> In the example discussed earlier, the concordance looked superficially
> like redundancy, however, in many differently structured sentences
> it would allows more efficient expression.
>
> For example, take a trivial case of a language that marks
> verbs for number and gender as well as tense. Normally, you'd
> leave pronouns out of the sentence completely.
>
> In English, you can't say "slept" instead of "she slept' because "slept"
> is not marked for feminine, third person, singular.
>
> Of course, if you want to, you may still use pronouns for emphasis,
> and sure, you have to maintain the concordance. But, it fulfils a different
> purpose. Expressing similar emphasis in English would make the sentence
> longer again.
where gender is irrelevant and it is marked for 3s.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 5, 2011, 7:31:56 AM12/5/11
to
> <8bd0f6c4-2513-4386-8901-7eff2c382...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
it is not "ambiguous," but _vague_?
Because she asked. Because she's a parent. In your experience, do
people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
> When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
The examples you deleted are
> > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
where you provide the opposite interpretation. Why did your father
suddenly realize you were missing?
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 5:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
>
> > Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> > could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> > option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> > would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
>
> I'm not a native speaker of German, so I don't know if that's true for
> "Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
>
> And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
> pair for 'teacher'?
>
> And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
> every language?
>
> What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
What does _any_ of that smoke-blowing have to do with the point that
> > On Dec 4, 5:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
>
> > Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> > could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> > option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> > would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
>
> I'm not a native speaker of German, so I don't know if that's true for
> "Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
>
> And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
> pair for 'teacher'?
>
> And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
> every language?
>
> What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
it is not "ambiguous," but _vague_?
people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
> When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
> > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not around.)
suddenly realize you were missing?
António Marques
Dec 5, 2011, 8:57:25 AM12/5/11
to
Christopher Ingham wrote (02-12-2011 20:32):
> On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham<christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>>>> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>
>>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>>
>> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>> headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>
> I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> yet heard the details of the story to learn whether it was somehow
> On Dec 2, 3:10 pm, Iain Archer<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Christopher Ingham wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2011
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2:32 pm, Christopher Ingham<christophering...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
>>>> a hunter and his dog. Is “accidental” redundant in this case?
>>
>>> Having just seen the newsclip, I can answer this myself in the
>>> affirmative. The shooting does not apppear to have been intentional.
>>
>> Doesn't the fact that you have thus set about answering your question
>> demonstrate that it's not redundant? How would you have reacted to the
>> headline "Dog shoots man?"
>>
> I initially assumed the action could only be accidental, but hadn’t
> otherwise.
That answers your question.
('Redundant' hardly means the same as 'making the default explicit'.)
António Marques
Dec 5, 2011, 9:32:31 AM12/5/11
to
Christopher Ingham wrote (04-12-2011 19:52):
> "Dog accidentally shoots man" actually is quite precise (overly so, as
> I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
> make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
Remember that 'Dog _accidentally_ shoots man' *made* you wonder.
> "Dog accidentally shoots man" actually is quite precise (overly so, as
> I've been arguing). But are you saying that "dog shoots man" would
> make you wonder whether the action was anything other than accidental?
Remember that 'Dog _accidentally_ shoots man' *made* you wonder.
Nathan Sanders
Dec 5, 2011, 9:53:47 AM12/5/11
to
In article
<0bd4e817-ecdb-4d18...@z1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Decades of observation and introspection of my native regional dialect.
> > > > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > "not around"?
> >
> > > > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
> >
> > > > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > > > > from the neighborhood?
> >
> > > > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
> >
> > > Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If she
> > > knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
> >
> > Why do you assume the parent is "concerned"?
>
> Because she asked. Because she's a parent. In your experience, do
> people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
False dichotomy. "No reason whatsoever" is not the opposite of
"concerned".
> > When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> > all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> > daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> > a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> > or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> > after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
>
> The examples you deleted are
>
> > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not
> > > > > > > > around.)
>
> where you provide the opposite interpretation. Why did your father
> suddenly realize you were missing?
Perhaps he randomly realized he hadn't heard nor seen me for a while,
maybe after waking up from a nap or after getting back from a short
errand.
<0bd4e817-ecdb-4d18...@z1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> On Dec 5, 12:04 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8bd0f6c4-2513-4386-8901-7eff2c382...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 5:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > > > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
> >
> > > Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> > > could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> > > option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> > > would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
> >
> > I'm not a native speaker of German, so I don't know if that's true for
> > "Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
> >
> > And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
> > pair for 'teacher'?
> >
> > And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
> > every language?
> >
> > What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
>
> What does _any_ of that smoke-blowing have to do with the point that
> it is not "ambiguous," but _vague_?
I don't know: why *did* you bring up German?
> > In article
> > <8bd0f6c4-2513-4386-8901-7eff2c382...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 5:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > > > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
> >
> > > Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> > > could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> > > option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> > > would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
> >
> > I'm not a native speaker of German, so I don't know if that's true for
> > "Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
> >
> > And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
> > pair for 'teacher'?
> >
> > And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
> > every language?
> >
> > What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
>
> What does _any_ of that smoke-blowing have to do with the point that
> it is not "ambiguous," but _vague_?
> > > > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > "not around"?
> >
> > > > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
> >
> > > > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > > > > from the neighborhood?
> >
> > > > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
> >
> > > Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If she
> > > knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
> >
> > Why do you assume the parent is "concerned"?
>
> Because she asked. Because she's a parent. In your experience, do
> people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
"concerned".
> > When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> > all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> > daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> > a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> > or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> > after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
>
> The examples you deleted are
>
> > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not
> > > > > > > > around.)
>
> where you provide the opposite interpretation. Why did your father
> suddenly realize you were missing?
maybe after waking up from a nap or after getting back from a short
errand.
Peter T. Daniels
Dec 5, 2011, 10:27:54 AM12/5/11
to
> <0bd4e817-ecdb-4d18-9165-327cd7e0d...@z1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
example -- because the "problem" can only be seen from the perspective
of a different language. Would you have grasped it any better if I had
used an elder-brother / younger-brother example? (Why have you
completely ignored the point made in the paragraph beginning "Do you
go back"?)
Ah. So when you do it, it's all right.
> > > > > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > "not around"?
>
> > > > > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
>
> > > > > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > > > > > from the neighborhood?
>
> > > > > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
>
> > > > Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If she
> > > > knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
>
> > > Why do you assume the parent is "concerned"?
>
> > Because she asked. Because she's a parent. In your experience, do
> > people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
>
> False dichotomy. "No reason whatsoever" is not the opposite of
> "concerned".
Ok, then what was the reason?
> > > When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> > > all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> > > daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> > > a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> > > or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> > > after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
>
> > The examples you deleted are
>
> > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not
> > > > > > > > > around.)
>
> > where you provide the opposite interpretation. Why did your father
> > suddenly realize you were missing?
>
> Perhaps he randomly realized he hadn't heard nor seen me for a while,
> maybe after waking up from a nap or after getting back from a short
> errand.
You need to learn to express yourself clearly the _first_ time you try
to say something, not only the _second_.
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 12:04 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <8bd0f6c4-2513-4386-8901-7eff2c382...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 4, 5:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > > > > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
>
> > > > Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> > > > could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> > > > option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> > > > would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
>
> > > I'm not a native speaker of German, so I don't know if that's true for
> > > "Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
>
> > > And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
> > > pair for 'teacher'?
>
> > > And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
> > > every language?
>
> > > What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
>
> > What does _any_ of that smoke-blowing have to do with the point that
> > it is not "ambiguous," but _vague_?
>
> I don't know: why *did* you bring up German?
Because the point could not be conveniently be made with an English
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 12:04 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <8bd0f6c4-2513-4386-8901-7eff2c382...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 4, 5:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > It is ambiguous. You can't use "the teacher" as a response to "Who
> > > > > failed you, Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones?".
>
> > > > Absurd response. If only one of them is a teacher, you certainly
> > > > could. But assuming both of them are teachers, even if you had the
> > > > option of saying "der Lehrer" or "die Lehrerin," you wouldn't. You
> > > > would either repeat the name or say "he did" or "she did."
>
> > > I'm not a native speaker of German, so I don't know if that's true for
> > > "Lehrer(in)" or not. Do you?
>
> > > And do you think it's true for every language that has a gendered word
> > > pair for 'teacher'?
>
> > > And do you think it's true for every analogous gendered word pair in
> > > every language?
>
> > > What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
>
> > What does _any_ of that smoke-blowing have to do with the point that
> > it is not "ambiguous," but _vague_?
>
> I don't know: why *did* you bring up German?
example -- because the "problem" can only be seen from the perspective
of a different language. Would you have grasped it any better if I had
used an elder-brother / younger-brother example? (Why have you
completely ignored the point made in the paragraph beginning "Do you
go back"?)
> > > > > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as opposed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > "not around"?
>
> > > > > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
>
> > > > > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering far
> > > > > > from the neighborhood?
>
> > > > > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
>
> > > > Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If she
> > > > knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
>
> > > Why do you assume the parent is "concerned"?
>
> > Because she asked. Because she's a parent. In your experience, do
> > people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
>
> False dichotomy. "No reason whatsoever" is not the opposite of
> "concerned".
> > > When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> > > all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> > > daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> > > a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> > > or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> > > after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
>
> > The examples you deleted are
>
> > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
>
> > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not
> > > > > > > > > around.)
>
> > where you provide the opposite interpretation. Why did your father
> > suddenly realize you were missing?
>
> Perhaps he randomly realized he hadn't heard nor seen me for a while,
> maybe after waking up from a nap or after getting back from a short
> errand.
to say something, not only the _second_.
erilar
Dec 5, 2011, 10:34:18 AM12/5/11
to
In article <hwlabadiejr-EB6C...@nntp.aioe.org>,
Horace LaBadie <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
> In article <drache-C1E3C4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <baec3454-1dc9-44ba...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> The story could be about Michael Vick.
Exactly 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Horace LaBadie <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
> In article <drache-C1E3C4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <baec3454-1dc9-44ba...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Christopher Ingham <christop...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > > a hunter and his dog. Is ³accidental² redundant in this case?
> >
> > Well, we don't know how the dog was treated. . .
> >
> > > CNN just now has presented this teaser for a forthcoming segment about
> > > a hunter and his dog. Is ³accidental² redundant in this case?
> >
>
> The story could be about Michael Vick.
Exactly 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Nathan Sanders
Dec 5, 2011, 10:44:59 AM12/5/11
to
In article
<4d4e24a1-1b38-4b6d...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
So your choice of German and 'teacher' were indeed meant to be
arbitrary, which means you *are* implicitly claiming that, in every
language with gendered word pairs like German "Lehrer(in)", speakers
cannot use one of the words in a response in an analogous scenario as
the one I presented.
So again I ask, what evidence are you basing that claim on?
> > > > > > > Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity":
> > > > > > > _vagueness_)
> > > > > > > troubling.
> >
> > > > > > Where did I ever say it was "troubling"?
> >
> > > > > > It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
> > > > > > expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a
> > > > > > preposition;
> > > > > > the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
> >
> > > > > But you offered it as an example of "ambiguity," which it isn't.
> >
> > > > Of course it is. The relevant sentences are:
> >
> > > > (1) I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
> > > > (2) I wonder where that McDonald's is.
> >
> > > > In the where-at/where dialect, (1) is only true when the speaker wants
> > > > to know the specific path needed to get to the McDonald's, and (2) is
> > > > only true when the speaker wants to the general location of the
> > > > McDonald's. There are many scenarios in which (1) would be false
> > > > while (2) is true, thus, the two sentences have different truth values.
> >
> > > > Thus, any sentence that has both (1) and (2) as possible
> > > > interpretations is ambiguous, because it can be either true or false
> > > > in exactly the same state of the world, depending on which meaning the
> > > > speaker intended.
> >
> > > What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
> >
> > Decades of observation and introspection of my native regional dialect.
>
> Ah. So when you do it, it's all right.
I didn't realize you had decades of observation and introspection of
your native German!
(You have yet to demonstrate that you are capable of observation.)
> > > > > > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as
> > > > > > > > > opposed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > "not around"?
> >
> > > > > > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering
> > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > from the neighborhood?
> >
> > > > > > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
> >
> > > > > Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If
> > > > > she
> > > > > knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
> >
> > > > Why do you assume the parent is "concerned"?
> >
> > > Because she asked. Because she's a parent. In your experience, do
> > > people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
> >
> > False dichotomy. "No reason whatsoever" is not the opposite of
> > "concerned".
>
> Ok, then what was the reason?
Is your imagination really that stunted that you can't possibly
envision any reason at all why a person might suddenly realize that
some specific other person isn't around, yet not be "concerned" about
their absence?
> > > > When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> > > > all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> > > > daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> > > > a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> > > > or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> > > > after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
> >
> > > The examples you deleted are
> >
> > > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not
> > > > > > > > > > around.)
> >
> > > where you provide the opposite interpretation. Why did your father
> > > suddenly realize you were missing?
> >
> > Perhaps he randomly realized he hadn't heard nor seen me for a while,
> > maybe after waking up from a nap or after getting back from a short
> > errand.
>
> You need to learn to express yourself clearly the _first_ time you try
> to say something, not only the _second_.
Or perhaps, you need to learn how to ordinary humans function and use
language, so that you can better envision the kinds of scenarios that
they may find themselves in and may talk about.
Or perhaps, you need to lay off your pathetic vendetta against me, and
quit trying to pick nits that aren't even there.
<4d4e24a1-1b38-4b6d...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
arbitrary, which means you *are* implicitly claiming that, in every
language with gendered word pairs like German "Lehrer(in)", speakers
cannot use one of the words in a response in an analogous scenario as
the one I presented.
So again I ask, what evidence are you basing that claim on?
> > > > > > > Most of us don't find that vagueness (not "ambiguity":
> > > > > > > _vagueness_)
> > > > > > > troubling.
> >
> > > > > > Where did I ever say it was "troubling"?
> >
> > > > > > It's a difference between dialects, no more, no less. One dialect
> > > > > > expresses the contrast with the presence or absence of a
> > > > > > preposition;
> > > > > > the other expresses it (when it needs to) some other way.
> >
> > > > > But you offered it as an example of "ambiguity," which it isn't.
> >
> > > > Of course it is. The relevant sentences are:
> >
> > > > (1) I wonder where that McDonald's is at.
> > > > (2) I wonder where that McDonald's is.
> >
> > > > In the where-at/where dialect, (1) is only true when the speaker wants
> > > > to know the specific path needed to get to the McDonald's, and (2) is
> > > > only true when the speaker wants to the general location of the
> > > > McDonald's. There are many scenarios in which (1) would be false
> > > > while (2) is true, thus, the two sentences have different truth values.
> >
> > > > Thus, any sentence that has both (1) and (2) as possible
> > > > interpretations is ambiguous, because it can be either true or false
> > > > in exactly the same state of the world, depending on which meaning the
> > > > speaker intended.
> >
> > > What studies are you basing these beliefs on?
> >
> > Decades of observation and introspection of my native regional dialect.
>
> Ah. So when you do it, it's all right.
your native German!
(You have yet to demonstrate that you are capable of observation.)
> > > > > > > > > (b) How does "big trouble!" relate to "specifically" as
> > > > > > > > > opposed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > "not around"?
> >
> > > > > > > > Because the speaker is fixin' to tan their hides, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > And why would the kids not be equally in trouble for wandering
> > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > from the neighborhood?
> >
> > > > > > Why do you assume they "wandered"?
> >
> > > > > Why else would the parent be concerned about their whereabouts? If
> > > > > she
> > > > > knew where they were going, she wouldn't have to ask!
> >
> > > > Why do you assume the parent is "concerned"?
> >
> > > Because she asked. Because she's a parent. In your experience, do
> > > people spontaneously utter things for no reason whatsoever?
> >
> > False dichotomy. "No reason whatsoever" is not the opposite of
> > "concerned".
>
> Ok, then what was the reason?
envision any reason at all why a person might suddenly realize that
some specific other person isn't around, yet not be "concerned" about
their absence?
> > > > When I was in high school, I'm sure my dad asked my mom where I was
> > > > all the time (she worked at my high school, so was more aware of my
> > > > daily schedule than he was), and the answer would have been "he's got
> > > > a debate tournament tonight" or "he's got a tennis tournament tonight"
> > > > or "he's over at Jennifer's house tonight", and never once before or
> > > > after asking her was he "concerned" that I had "wandered" anywhere.
> >
> > > The examples you deleted are
> >
> > > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids at? (They're in big trouble!)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > A: Where are the kids? (I just realized they're not
> > > > > > > > > > around.)
> >
> > > where you provide the opposite interpretation. Why did your father
> > > suddenly realize you were missing?
> >
> > Perhaps he randomly realized he hadn't heard nor seen me for a while,
> > maybe after waking up from a nap or after getting back from a short
> > errand.
>
> You need to learn to express yourself clearly the _first_ time you try
> to say something, not only the _second_.
language, so that you can better envision the kinds of scenarios that
they may find themselves in and may talk about.
Or perhaps, you need to lay off your pathetic vendetta against me, and
quit trying to pick nits that aren't even there.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages