Speaking of "between"
Cece
each fence post"?
Jerry Friedman
> Has anyone else encountered constructions like "A rosebush between
> each fence post"?
I probably have without noticing, though I see the objection. I
believe books on usage often cover this one.
--
Jerry Friedman
Skitt
> Cece wrote:
>> Has anyone else encountered constructions like "A rosebush between
>> each fence post"?
>
> I probably have without noticing, though I see the objection. I
> believe books on usage often cover this one.
Yeah, at first I didn't see anything wrong, but now I notice the problem.
Hmm ...
--
Skitt (AmE)
Joe Fineman
> Has anyone else encountered constructions like "A rosebush between
> each fence post"?
It's very common. It's against all logic, but so convenient that it
would be prudent even for prescriptivists to recognize it as an
idiom.
I think it was Robert A. Hall, Jr., the descriptivist curmudgeon, who
cited, as an instance of overzeal, the case of a reporter who wrote
that a baseball player with a cold was "blowing his nose between every
ball". The newspaper's copyeditor changed that to "blowing his nose
between the balls".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Reasonable people may disagree about what is reasonable. :||
Richard Chambers
> Has anyone else encountered constructions like "A rosebush between
> each fence post"?
I see no reason to fault it. It simply contains a hidden, and completely
self-evident, concept that the intelligent reader or listener is expected to
fill in for himself:-
"A rosebush between each fence post [and the next]".
This type of construction is common wherever the hidden concept is deemed
self-evident.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
R H Draney
I make it "about 13,700" hits on Google for "commas between each entry", and
almost thirty times that for "spaces between each word"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Eric Walker
Common but nonetheless stupid. What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes
between the fence posts"? Or, if that is not felt to be sufficiently
obvious, "between each pair of fence posts"?
The proposition that "It's against all logic, but so convenient that it
would be prudent even for prescriptivists to recognize it as an
idiom," is also against all logic. But, I suppose, it is typical of
descriptivists to say that all common errors are by their commonness not
errors, even in comically flagrant opposition to the most elementary
logic.
--
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Common but nonetheless stupid. What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes
> between the fence posts"? Or, if that is not felt to be sufficiently
> obvious, "between each pair of fence posts"?
In every second space?
--
Bertel, Denmark
Mark Brader
> Common but nonetheless stupid.
The etymological fallacy strikes again.
> What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes between the fence posts"?
It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
each post.
> Or, if that is not felt to be sufficiently obvious, "between each
> pair of fence posts"?
If there are 20 posts, this calls for 190 bushes. One bush between
each post is only 19 or 20 bushes, depending on whether the fence has
two ends or none.
"Between each pair of adjacent posts" is defensible, but too verbose.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "1. Buy 64 more bushes."
m...@vex.net --after Michael Wares
Eric Walker
> Eric Walker:
>
>> Common but nonetheless stupid.
>
> The etymological fallacy strikes again.
>
>> What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes between the fence posts"?
>
> It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between each
> post.
>
>> Or, if that is not felt to be sufficiently obvious, "between each pair
>> of fence posts"?
>
> If there are 20 posts, this calls for 190 bushes. One bush between each
> post is only 19 or 20 bushes, depending on whether the fence has two
> ends or none.
>
> "Between each pair of adjacent posts" is defensible, but too verbose.
So "the hidden concept . . . deemed self-evident" is a defective doctrine?
Is there anyone alive (or include all the dead as revenants, too) who, on
hearing "between each pair of fence posts", would calculate out
combinatorially how many post doublets could be considered
"pairs" (unless this were an obviously trick question on a mathematics or
logic quiz)?
--
Cordially,
Skitt
> Eric Walker:
>> Common but nonetheless stupid.
>
> The etymological fallacy strikes again.
>
>> What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes between the fence posts"?
>
> It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
> each post.
How can there be a bush between a post?
>> Or, if that is not felt to be sufficiently obvious, "between each
>> pair of fence posts"?
>
> If there are 20 posts, this calls for 190 bushes. One bush between
> each post is only 19 or 20 bushes, depending on whether the fence has
> two ends or none.
I still don't see how a bush can be between a post. I know what is meant,
but that is not what is written.
> "Between each pair of adjacent posts" is defensible, but too verbose.
Really? How about, "there's a rose bush at each section of the fence"?
--
Skitt (AmE)
R H Draney
>
>Mark Brader wrote:
>> Eric Walker:
>
>>> Common but nonetheless stupid.
>>
>> The etymological fallacy strikes again.
>>
>>> What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes between the fence posts"?
>>
>> It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
>> each post.
>
>How can there be a bush between a post?
Wait, it gets worse...haven't you heard anyone's singing described as "between
the cracks?"...that's where the piano keys are, between the cracks, but the
phrase is usually meant to describe someone singing in the spaces between the
proper notes....
It's the same kind of sloppy thinking that leads to "head over heels" as
descriptive of something out of the usual order, but my head is higher than my
heels most of the time that I'm not in bed...(cf also "I miss not seeing you",
which we covered some time ago)....
Someone should probably put together a collection of these phrases that
literally say the opposite of what they're meant to....r
Garrett Wollman
>Mark Brader wrote:
>> It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
>> each post.
>How can there be a bush between a post?
[...]
>I still don't see how a bush can be between a post. I know what is meant,
>but that is not what is written.
It is not necessary to write out what is meant; many things go
understood without being literally repeated every time someone picks
up pen (or keyboard) to write a sentence. Sensible people will
understand the meaning with barely a moment's thought.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>> It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
>>> each post.
>> How can there be a bush between a post?
> [...]
>
>> I still don't see how a bush can be between a post. I know what is
>> meant, but that is not what is written.
>
> It is not necessary to write out what is meant; many things go
> understood without being literally repeated every time someone picks
> up pen (or keyboard) to write a sentence. Sensible people will
> understand the meaning with barely a moment's thought.
I am an engineer, and I filled in for a lawyer in the Army. I like a bit
more definition in what I read and write, not that I get my way or can
always achieve it myself.
A bush simply can't be between a post, each or otherwise.
--
Skitt (AmE)
between a rock
Jerry Friedman
> Richard Chambers filted:
>
>
>
> >Cece wrote
>
> >> Has anyone else encountered constructions like "A rosebush between
> >> each fence post"?
>
> >I see no reason to fault it. It simply contains a hidden, and completely
> >self-evident, concept that the intelligent reader or listener is expected to
> >fill in for himself:-
>
> >"A rosebush between each fence post [and the next]".
>
> >This type of construction is common wherever the hidden concept is deemed
> >self-evident.
>
> I make it "about 13,700" hits on Google for "commas between each entry", and
> almost thirty times that for "spaces between each word"....r
Did you try to eliminate "spaces between each word and the next"?
--
Jerry Friedman
annily
> Cece <ceceliaa...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Has anyone else encountered constructions like "A rosebush between
>> each fence post"?
>
> It's very common. It's against all logic, but so convenient that it
> would be prudent even for prescriptivists to recognize it as an
> idiom.
>
> I think it was Robert A. Hall, Jr., the descriptivist curmudgeon, who
> cited, as an instance of overzeal, the case of a reporter who wrote
> that a baseball player with a cold was "blowing his nose between every
> ball". The newspaper's copyeditor changed that to "blowing his nose
> between the balls".
LOL. The mind boggles.
Eric Walker
[...]
> It is not necessary to write out what is meant; many things go
> understood without being literally repeated every time someone picks up
> pen (or keyboard) to write a sentence. Sensible people will understand
> the meaning with barely a moment's thought.
But it is necessary to not write out what is not meant. Sensible people
may understand the intended meaning of a garbled nonsense, but that
doesn't mean that they will not nonetheless see it as a garbled nonsense.
--
Cordially,
Richard Chambers
>
> Is there anyone alive (or include all the dead as revenants, too) who, on
> hearing "between each pair of fence posts", would calculate out
> combinatorially how many post doublets could be considered
> "pairs" (unless this were an obviously trick question on a mathematics or
> logic quiz)?
Is there anyone alive who would not immediately understand that "A rosebush
between each fencepost" actually means "A rosebush between each fencepost
and the next"? Why bother with the obvious?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Is there anyone alive who would not immediately understand that "A
> rosebush between each fencepost" actually means "A rosebush between each
> fencepost and the next"? Why bother with the obvious?
Sigh. Because some versions are sane and some are insane, and presumably
one doesn't like to write or say things that are manifestly insane, even
if most people can make out what is intended by them.
I suppose most people understand what Mrs. Malaprop is saying, too.
Richard Chambers
> Richard Chambers wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Is there anyone alive who would not immediately understand that "A
>> rosebush between each fencepost" actually means "A rosebush between each
>> fencepost and the next"? Why bother with the obvious?
>
> Sigh. Because some versions are sane and some are insane, and presumably
> one doesn't like to write or say things that are manifestly insane, even
> if most people can make out what is intended by them.
>
> I suppose most people understand what Mrs. Malaprop is saying, too.
Where do we stop? In the sentence "A rosebush between each fencepost and the
next", one might be prompted to ask (even though it is obvious), "the next
what?". So we try "A rosebush between each fencepost and the next
fencepost". But, how do we specify exactly what constitutes a "next
fencepost", even though this is again self-evident? Looking at the
fenceposts at the front of my property, I see that my neighbour across the
road also has fenceposts. Do we want rosebushes neatly planted down the
middle of Primley Park Avenue?
My method accepts that there will always be an ineradicable level of
insanity in the world, and uses just enough words to specify what I want and
to ensure that I get it in 999 cases out of 1000. Your method merely
magnifies the insanity of the world to unmanageable proportions, and gives
us sentences that are longer than they need be.
There must always be a trade-off between conciseness and explicitness. Where
cuts must be made, let it be the self-evident that is pruned.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
annily
> R H Draney wrote:
>> Skitt filted:
>>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> Eric Walker:
>>>>> Common but nonetheless stupid.
>>>> The etymological fallacy strikes again.
>>>>
>>>>> What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes between the fence posts"?
>>>> It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
>>>> each post.
>>> How can there be a bush between a post?
>> Wait, it gets worse...haven't you heard anyone's singing described as "between
>> the cracks?"...that's where the piano keys are, between the cracks, but the
>> phrase is usually meant to describe someone singing in the spaces between the
>> proper notes....
>>
>> It's the same kind of sloppy thinking that leads to "head over heels" as
>> descriptive of something out of the usual order, but my head is higher than my
>> heels most of the time that I'm not in bed...(cf also "I miss not seeing you",
>> which we covered some time ago)....
>>
>
> caused by being in a state of excitement. There's nothing sloppy about
> it.
Yes, but shouldn't that be "heels over head"?
LFS
>
> It's the same kind of sloppy thinking that leads to "head over heels" as
> descriptive of something out of the usual order, but my head is higher than my
> heels most of the time that I'm not in bed...(cf also "I miss not seeing you",
> which we covered some time ago)....
>
I always thought that "head over heels" had to do falling over or with
turning somersaults or cartwheels.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Richard Chambers
>
> I am an engineer, and I filled in for a lawyer in the Army. I like a bit
> more definition in what I read and write, not that I get my way or can
> always achieve it myself.
>
> A bush simply can't be between a post, each or otherwise.
I too am an engineer, and I too like full definition. My latest whinge (I am
a whingeing/whinging pom at heart) is a hotel website that specifies its
price for a double room as �80/night. Is that per person, or per room? It
does not specify.
But I also like conciseness. I do not want to read the extra words needed to
specify something that is already self-evident. There is a trade-off between
conciseness and explicitness: getting this right is an art. If you waste
your effort on a trivial issue such as the one being discussed, you will not
have enough energy left to properly consider the case where the trade-off is
really important. The result will be a badly-written engineering report.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Richard Chambers
Head over heels in love. Your body and mind are completely out of the usual
order.
"This report is written head over heels". It is written in an illogical
order.
As a result of the crash, the motorcyclist went head over heels 50 metres
down the street.
The little girl did a a cartwheel and a head over heels to show off for her
grandfather.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
James Hogg
The OED says that "head over heels" is a corruption of "heels over
head", which is recorded much earlier, in the 14th century, and is also
used by fellow poets like Wordsworth ("are gone Heels over head") and
Tennyson ("Tumble Nature heel o'er head").
--
James
Guy Barry
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
news:ha7ei8$ov2$1...@aioe.org...
> The OED says that "head over heels" is a corruption of "heels over
> head", which is recorded much earlier, in the 14th century, and is also
> used by fellow poets like Wordsworth ("are gone Heels over head") and
> Tennyson ("Tumble Nature heel o'er head").
Try using "arse over tip". No such difficulty there.
--
Guy Barry
James Hogg
Also heard as "arse over tit". But what you gain in logic you lose in
alliteration. Tennyson's poem would then read:
"Tumble Nature arse o'er tip, and, yelling with the yelling street,
Set the feet above the brain, and swear the brain is in the feet."
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
It might be due to differences in familiarity, but for me "head over
heels" seems to trip off the tongue more smoothly than does "heels over
head".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
> Mark Brader wrote:
> > Eric Walker:
> >> Common but nonetheless stupid.
>
> > The etymological fallacy strikes again.
>
> >> What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes between the fence posts"?
>
> > It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
> > each post.
>
> How can there be a bush between a post?
>
> >> Or, if that is not felt to be sufficiently obvious, "between each
> >> pair of fence posts"?
>
> > If there are 20 posts, this calls for 190 bushes. One bush between
> > each post is only 19 or 20 bushes, depending on whether the fence has
> > two ends or none.
>
> I still don't see how a bush can be between a post. I know what is meant,
> but that is not what is written.
A word can have more than meaning. The existence of "2 over x"
doesn't prevent "the song is over."
In this case, though, at least two dictionaries approve of "between
each" and "between every" in usage notes without feeling the need to
write a separate definition.
"The construction BETWEEN EACH (or EVERY) is sometimes objected to on
the grounds that BETWEEN calls for a plural or compound object.
However, the construction is old and fully standard when the sense
indicates that more than one thing is meant: /Spread softened butter
between each layer of pastry. There were marigolds peeking between
every row of vegetables./"
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between
"It ["between"] can be used ... even when only one item is mentioned
(but repetition is implied) <pausing /between/ every sentence to rap
the floor — George Eliot>.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between
I found no comment on this issue in the AHD or the NSOED.
--
Jerry Friedman
Guy Barry
"Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6824cee1-8175-42ff...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
[quoting Merriam-Webster]
> "It ["between"] can be used ... even when only one item is mentioned
> (but repetition is implied) <pausing /between/ every sentence to rap
> the floor � George Eliot>.
Eliot could have avoided that one by using "after".
My attitude to "between each" or "between every" is that I find it illogical
and annoying, and try to avoid it wherever I can, but sometimes there's
simply no other straightforward way of expressing what's intended.
--
Guy Barry
aquachimp
Curiously, when translating "upside-down" into Dutch, it comes out (in
English) as 'underest-above'
Skitt
> Based on the Random House Dictionary, � Random House, Inc. 2009.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/between
>
> "It ["between"] can be used ... even when only one item is mentioned
> (but repetition is implied) <pausing /between/ every sentence to rap
> the floor � George Eliot>.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between
Yes, but it would've been better to write:
pausing /between/ sentences to rap the floor
Famous writers don't necessarily write perfectly all the time.
--
Skitt (AmE)
aquachimp
<richard.chambers7_NoSp...@ntlworld.net> wrote:
> Eric Walker wrote
>
> > Richard Chambers wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> Is there anyone alive who would not immediately understand that "A
> >> rosebush between each fencepost" actually means "A rosebush between each
> >> fencepost and the next"? Why bother with the obvious?
I've seen a variation on this. Something along the lines of; "... and
he had seven different varieties of roses planted between each of the/
his fence posts even though they weren't even two yards apart.
Note, "posts" is given as plural.
>
> > Sigh. Because some versions are sane and some are insane, and presumably
> > one doesn't like to write or say things that are manifestly insane, even
> > if most people can make out what is intended by them.
>
> > I suppose most people understand what Mrs. Malaprop is saying, too.
>
> Where do we stop? In the sentence "A rosebush between each fencepost and the
> next", one might be prompted to ask (even though it is obvious), "the next
> what?". So we try "A rosebush between each fencepost and the next
> fencepost". But, how do we specify exactly what constitutes a "next
> fencepost", even though this is again self-evident? Looking at the
> fenceposts at the front of my property, I see that my neighbour across the
> road also has fenceposts. Do we want rosebushes neatly planted down the
> middle of Primley Park Avenue?
If by dropping the "..and the next" helps you escape that confusion,
then I suggest it wouldn't because given that "..and the next" is
implied, then your neighbours first post in that scenario is
presumably the (other) "next"aside from its "next" on your side. And
so "between each post" doesn't absolutely rule out the space between
your neighbour's post and yours.
Mike Lyle
slightest reflection what "between each post" means, but there must one
day come a context in which the elliptical (if that's what it actually
is) structure is misleading or genuinely ambiguous. So let's play safe:
it causes no inconvenience in this case, and may pay off in another.
--
Mike.
Joe Fineman
> I see no reason to fault it. It simply contains a hidden, and
> completely self-evident, concept that the intelligent reader or
> listener is expected to fill in for himself:-
>
> "A rosebush between each fence post
[except the last]
> [and the next]".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: If ears could shut like eyes, or vomit like mouths, there :||
||: would be no rock and roll. :||
Eric Walker
[...]
> In this case, though, at least two dictionaries approve of "between
> each" and "between every" in usage notes without feeling the need to
> write a separate definition.
Ask me how I knew, without reading further, that one would be a Merriam
product.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Famous writers don't necessarily write perfectly all the time.
Just so, which is why most usage manuals take care to select their
demonstrations of error from sources normally thought impeccable stylists.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Where do we stop? . . .
At the point where we have made clear what we mean without the need for
the reader or listener to correct a manifest absurdity to understand us.
There is a world of difference between implying the reasonably obvious
and saying something silly even if the silliness is comprehensible.
"a rosebush between each fencepost"
"rosebushes between the fenceposts"
Each requires modest processing by the reader or listener, probably of no
significantly differing scope, but only one requires that processing to
repair a manifest impossibility.
Eric Walker
[...]
> But I also like conciseness. I do not want to read the extra words
> needed to specify something that is already self-evident. There is a
> trade-off between conciseness and explicitness: getting this right is an
> art. If you waste your effort on a trivial issue such as the one being
> discussed, you will not have enough energy left to properly consider the
> case where the trade-off is really important. The result will be a
> badly-written engineering report.
Speaking as both a former engineer and a former technical writer, I agree
that there is a trade-off between conciseness and explicitness, and that
getting this right is an art. I do not, however, see how that is
relevant here.
"If you waste your effort on a trivial issue such as the one being
discussed . . . ." What waste? You simply follow the rule, which I
would think basic, of thinking about what you write as you write it. It
does not require an extended chin-in-hand session of pondering to see
what needs to be said, provided you see at all the absurdity as it tries
to sneak out of your fingers and onto the keyboard.
Robert Bannister
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> Eric Walker:
>
>>> Common but nonetheless stupid.
>>
>> The etymological fallacy strikes again.
>>
>>> What is so cryptic about "Rosebushes between the fence posts"?
>>
>> It's less specific; it doesn't say that there are bushes between
>> each post.
>
> How can there be a bush between a post?
>
>>> Or, if that is not felt to be sufficiently obvious, "between each
>>> pair of fence posts"?
>>
>> If there are 20 posts, this calls for 190 bushes. One bush between
>> each post is only 19 or 20 bushes, depending on whether the fence has
>> two ends or none.
>
> I still don't see how a bush can be between a post. I know what is
> meant, but that is not what is written.
>
>
> Really? How about, "there's a rose bush at each section of the fence"?
I don't think so. I don't get any clear meaning from that at all.
Perhaps "section" has a more specific meaning for you.
--
Rob Bannister
Jerry Friedman
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:35:46 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > In this case, though, at least two dictionaries approve of "between
> > each" and "between every" in usage notes without feeling the need to
> > write a separate definition.
>
> Ask me how I knew, without reading further, that one would be a Merriam
> product.
If I'd been discussing this with you only, I wouldn't even have
mentioned that one.
Nor would I mention Bryan Garner's suggestion (which you undoubtedly
know) of "between every two" whatevers. It's understandable, but it
doesn't sound natural to me. No doubt I'd get used to it if I
encountered it often.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
[...]
> Perhaps "section" has a more specific meaning for you.
Try "panel".
Eric Walker
[...]
> Nor would I mention Bryan Garner's suggestion (which you undoubtedly
> know) of "between every two" whatevers. It's understandable, but it
> doesn't sound natural to me. No doubt I'd get used to it if I
> encountered it often.
It is, I think, folly to try to make a general form useful in all cases.
There is normally some satisfactory simple rearrangement particular to a
given case, and seeing it normally takes almost no effort once the mere
need for it is perceived.
Richard Chambers
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:43:13 +0100, Richard Chambers wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Where do we stop? . . .
>
> At the point where we have made clear what we mean without the need for
> the reader or listener to correct a manifest absurdity to understand us.
>
> There is a world of difference between implying the reasonably obvious
> and saying something silly even if the silliness is comprehensible.
>
> "a rosebush between each fencepost"
>
> "rosebushes between the fenceposts"
-------------------------
Imprecise. How many rosebushes?
-------------------------
>
> Each requires modest processing by the reader or listener, probably of no
> significantly differing scope, but only one requires that processing to
> repair a manifest impossibility.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Richard Chambers
> Eric Walker wrote
>
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:43:13 +0100, Richard Chambers wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Where do we stop? . . .
>>
>> At the point where we have made clear what we mean without the need for
>> the reader or listener to correct a manifest absurdity to understand us.
>>
>> There is a world of difference between implying the reasonably obvious
>> and saying something silly even if the silliness is comprehensible.
>>
>> "a rosebush between each fencepost"
>>
>> "rosebushes between the fenceposts"
> -------------------------
> Imprecise. How many rosebushes?
> -------------------------
Or, as I should have asked, since I am writing to somebody who requires that
even the self-evident be explicitly stated:-
"How many rosebushes between each fencepost and the next, within the line of
fenceposts?"
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Skitt
> Richard Chambers wrote
>> Eric Walker wrote
>>> At the point where we have made clear what we mean without the need
>>> for the reader or listener to correct a manifest absurdity to
>>> understand us. There is a world of difference between implying the
>>> reasonably
>>> obvious and saying something silly even if the silliness is
>>> comprehensible. "a rosebush between each fencepost"
>>>
>>> "rosebushes between the fenceposts"
>>
>> -------------------------
>> Imprecise. How many rosebushes?
>> -------------------------
>
> Or, as I should have asked, since I am writing to somebody who
> requires that even the self-evident be explicitly stated:-
>
> "How many rosebushes between each fencepost and the next, within the
> line of fenceposts?"
The rosebushes can't be within the line of fenceposts because of the fence.
If there's no fence, why the fenceposts?
Jes' askin'.
--
Skitt (AmE)
aquachimp
Wire.
R H Draney
>
>Richard Chambers wrote:
>>
>> "How many rosebushes between each fencepost and the next, within the
>> line of fenceposts?"
>
>The rosebushes can't be within the line of fenceposts because of the fence.
>If there's no fence, why the fenceposts?
>
>Jes' askin'.
You never heard of barbed wire?...r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Wood Avens
A rosebush in each gap.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
the Omrud
... would smell as sweet?
--
David
Skitt
> Skitt filted:
>> Richard Chambers wrote:
>>> "How many rosebushes between each fencepost and the next, within the
>>> line of fenceposts?"
>>
>> The rosebushes can't be within the line of fenceposts because of the
>> fence. If there's no fence, why the fenceposts?
>>
>> Jes' askin'.
>
> You never heard of barbed wire?...r
What? Running right through the rosebushes? Weird. Possible, though.
--
Skitt (AmE)
aquachimp
When one says "rosebush" another might ask: Floribunda or hybrid-T?
Whilst another might ask; climber, or rambler?
And yet another might wonder; dog rose or shrub/scrub rose or some
dainty little thing in a teeny weeny pot?
Wood Avens
wrote:
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> You never heard of barbed wire?...r
>
>What? Running right through the rosebushes? Weird. Possible, though.
Running through rosebushes and running through barbed wire tend to
have similar effects.
Richard Chambers
Exactly what I had in mind.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Mark Brader
> Is there anyone alive who would not immediately understand that
> "A rosebush between each fencepost" actually means "A rosebush
Not only that, but the longer version is no better if you think
about what it supposedly says. It has what we call in computing, not
coincidentally, a "fencepost error". It implies that for "each post"
there is one corresponding bush and one corresponding "next post".
But in fact this is only true if the fence forms a closed circuit.
For a fence with ends, say with 20 posts, 18 of them have a "next
post" in two directions while two others only have one, and the number
of bushes is 19.
As long as usage and practicality have to trump logic anyway, you
might as well go with the short version.
Speaking like this about the directionality of "next" reminds me of
an exchange in the third Indiana Jones movie, after Indy's father
confesses that the beautiful Nazi agent had seduced him...
"Well... I'm as human as the next man."
"Dad, I was the next man!"
--
Mark Brader "Computers get paid to extract relevant
Toronto information from files; people should not
m...@vex.net have to do such mundane tasks." -- Ian Darwin
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mike Lyle
> Wood Avens wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:19:11 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
>>> I go for "between the posts". Of course we all know without the
>>> slightest reflection what "between each post" means, but there must
>>> one day come a context in which the elliptical (if that's what it
>>> actually is) structure is misleading or genuinely ambiguous. So
>>> let's play safe: it causes no inconvenience in this case, and may
>>> pay off in another.
>>
>> A rosebush in each gap.
>
> ... would smell as sweet?
That which we call a Gap would smell as good as the Next. (Talking of
which, I've been doing a trial of underpants, and Marks & Spencer's
elastic goes weak before Matalan's, but Matalan's fabric loses shape
_and_ wears out before M&S's.)
--
Mike.
Richard Chambers
A word can have more than meaning. The existence of "2 over x"
doesn't prevent "the song is over."
In this case, though, at least two dictionaries approve of "between
each" and "between every" in usage notes without feeling the need to
write a separate definition.
------------------------------------------------
Between you and me: A tale of hard times during the credit crunch.
Between us, my wife and I have enough savings to live (albeit under reduced
circumstances) for a limited period, should we both become unemployed
simultaneously. I would estimate that period to be between 12 and 18 months.
After that, we would be betwixt and between, gradually slipping from our
comfortable lifestyle into abject poverty. For us, continued employment
therefore makes the difference between prosperity and penury. For our common
good, it is important for us to maintain good relations between us, so that
if one of us becomes unemployed, the other will willingly provide financial
support. This, for us, is the financial equivalent of the choice between
life and death.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
R H Draney
>
>That which we call a Gap would smell as good as the Next. (Talking of
>which, I've been doing a trial of underpants, and Marks & Spencer's
>elastic goes weak before Matalan's, but Matalan's fabric loses shape
>_and_ wears out before M&S's.)
Thanks for the briefing....r
Robert Bannister
Or the line taken from the part of the fence post that protrudes.
_________________________________________________________
|_| bush |_| bush |_| bush |_| bush |_| bush |_|
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> aquachimp wrote:
>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>> Richard Chambers wrote:
>>>> Richard Chambers wrote
>>>>> Eric Walker wrote
>>>>>> At the point where we have made clear what we mean without the
>>>>>> need for the reader or listener to correct a manifest absurdity
>>>>>> to understand us. There is a world of difference between
>>>>>> implying the reasonably
>>>>>> obvious and saying something silly even if the silliness is
>>>>>> comprehensible. "a rosebush between each fencepost"
>>>>>> "rosebushes between the fenceposts"
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>> Imprecise. How many rosebushes?
>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Or, as I should have asked, since I am writing to somebody who
>>>> requires that even the self-evident be explicitly stated:-
>>>> "How many rosebushes between each fencepost and the next, within
>>>> the line of fenceposts?"
>>> The rosebushes can't be within the line of fenceposts because of
>>> the fence. If there's no fence, why the fenceposts?
>>>
>>> Jes' askin'.
>>
>> Wire.
>
> Or the line taken from the part of the fence post that protrudes.
> _________________________________________________________
> |_| bush |_| bush |_| bush |_| bush |_| bush |_|
Our rose bushes are a bit bigger around than that. They are at least two
feet in diameter.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Eric Walker
[...]
>> -------------------------
>> Imprecise. How many rosebushes?
>> -------------------------
>
> Or, as I should have asked, since I am writing to somebody who requires
> that even the self-evident be explicitly stated:-
>
> "How many rosebushes between each fencepost and the next, within the
> line of fenceposts?"
Dear me, if this must be pursued, then why not "a rosebush at each fence
panel"? That is why God made so many words, that we might have our
choice of those that say what we mean.
Eric Walker
Not uncommon: the bushes are planted quite small and grow around the
wire. It's not uncommonly seen in vineyards. (I believe that the idea
is to attract pollinating insects to the vines, but won't swear to that.)
Eric Walker
Not uncommon: the bushes are planted quite small and grow around the
wire. It's not uncommonly seen in vineyards. (I believe that the idea
is to attract pollinating insects to the vines, but won't swear to that.)
--
tony cooper
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:29:33 +0100, Richard Chambers wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> -------------------------
>>> Imprecise. How many rosebushes?
>>> -------------------------
>>
>> Or, as I should have asked, since I am writing to somebody who requires
>> that even the self-evident be explicitly stated:-
>>
>> "How many rosebushes between each fencepost and the next, within the
>> line of fenceposts?"
>
>Dear me, if this must be pursued, then why not "a rosebush at each fence
>panel"? That is why God made so many words, that we might have our
>choice of those that say what we mean.
What is obvious to me is that if you have a fence, and you hire a
person to plant rose bushes along the fence, you are well-advised to
hire a dullard, and not an educated person, to plant the bushes. The
dullard will purchase the right number of bushes and have them planted
and be home for his tea while you are still standing on your doorstep
arguing the precision of the instructions with the educated person.
If the person has been educated as an engineer or technical writer,
night will fall before the plants go in.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
R H Draney
>
>What is obvious to me is that if you have a fence, and you hire a
>person to plant rose bushes along the fence, you are well-advised to
>hire a dullard, and not an educated person, to plant the bushes. The
>dullard will purchase the right number of bushes and have them planted
>and be home for his tea while you are still standing on your doorstep
>arguing the precision of the instructions with the educated person.
ObUnaccompaniedPunchLine: "Green side up!"...r
Richard Chambers
>
> That which we call a Gap would smell as good as the Next. (Talking of
> which, I've been doing a trial of underpants, and Marks & Spencer's
> elastic goes weak before Matalan's, but Matalan's fabric loses shape _and_
> wears out before M&S's.)
I don't know how one could possibly choose between such products.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Eric Walker
[...]
> What is obvious to me is that if you have a fence, and you hire a person
> to plant rose bushes along the fence, you are well-advised to hire a
> dullard, and not an educated person, to plant the bushes. The dullard
> will purchase the right number of bushes and have them planted and be
> home for his tea while you are still standing on your doorstep arguing
> the precision of the instructions with the educated person.
Oh? What is so difficult and time-consuming in the resolution of "Plant
one rose bush at every fence panel"? Be assured that in rural areas, as
where I live, even the dullest dullard knows what a fence panel is.
All this foofaraw is just excuses offered to justify the unthinking use
of nonsenses.
Richard Chambers
> What is obvious to me is that if you have a fence, and you hire a
> person to plant rose bushes along the fence, you are well-advised to
> hire a dullard, and not an educated person, to plant the bushes. The
> dullard will purchase the right number of bushes and have them planted
> and be home for his tea while you are still standing on your doorstep
> arguing the precision of the instructions with the educated person.
>
> If the person has been educated as an engineer or technical writer,
> night will fall before the plants go in.
Depends on the engineer. I would just take no notice whatsoever of Mr
Walker's trivial objections, order "a rosebush between each post, offset by
1 metre to allow for growth", and would expect the contractor to have the
job done by lunchtime. For an engineer, good English is English that works,
English that is understood by the recipient, and English that gets the
result one is seeking. Indeed, for an engineer anything that works is good,
and anything that does not is bad. Especially if it works well at minimum
cost of construction and operation.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Mark Brader
> All this foofaraw is just excuses offered to justify the unthinking use
> of nonsenses.
Yes. For example, the claim that "between each" should not be used.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "...one man's feature is another man's bug."
m...@vex.net --Chris Torek
Robert Lieblich
>
> Eric Walker:
> > All this foofaraw is just excuses offered to justify the unthinking use
> > of nonsenses.
>
> Yes. For example, the claim that "between each" should not be used.
You have 20 fenceposts evenly spaced. You hand your gardener 19
rosebushes and say "Plant these between the fenceposts. He could
plant all 19 between a single pair, but somehow I suspect that you'll
wind up with a perfect fencepost/rusebush/fencepost/etc. arrangement.
Context, people.
--
Bob Lieblich
Always context
HVS
> You have 20 fenceposts evenly spaced. You hand your gardener 19
> rosebushes and say "Plant these between the fenceposts. He
> could plant all 19 between a single pair, but somehow I suspect
> that you'll wind up with a perfect
> fencepost/rusebush/fencepost/
A cunning plan: putting rusebushes between the fenceposts.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Amethyst Deceiver
la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk says...
>
> R H Draney wrote:
>
> >
> > It's the same kind of sloppy thinking that leads to "head over heels" as
> > descriptive of something out of the usual order, but my head is higher than my
> > heels most of the time that I'm not in bed...(cf also "I miss not seeing you",
> > which we covered some time ago)....
> >
>
> I always thought that "head over heels" had to do falling over or with
> turning somersaults or cartwheels.
But my head is over my heels whenever I stand up. Or sit down, for that
matter. Falling over and turning somersaults and cartwheels puts my
heels above my head.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
R H Draney
>
>You have 20 fenceposts evenly spaced. You hand your gardener 19
>rosebushes and say "Plant these between the fenceposts. He could
>plant all 19 between a single pair, but somehow I suspect that you'll
>wind up with a perfect fencepost/rusebush/fencepost/etc. arrangement.
Laborers must be a lot more sensible where you live than the ones around
here....r
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle filted:
>>
>> That which we call a Gap would smell as good as the Next. (Talking of
>> which, I've been doing a trial of underpants, and Marks & Spencer's
>> elastic goes weak before Matalan's, but Matalan's fabric loses shape
>> _and_ wears out before M&S's.)
>
> Thanks for the briefing....r
I tried to keep it short.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
> tony cooper filted:
>>
>> What is obvious to me is that if you have a fence, and you hire a
>> person to plant rose bushes along the fence, you are well-advised to
>> hire a dullard, and not an educated person, to plant the bushes. The
>> dullard will purchase the right number of bushes and have them
>> planted and be home for his tea while you are still standing on your
>> doorstep arguing the precision of the instructions with the educated
>> person.
>
> ObUnaccompaniedPunchLine: "Green side up!"...r
ObOtherUnaccompaniedPunchLine: "That's what I'll do when I'm rich: send
me lawn away to be cut!"
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
> On 05 Oct 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote
>
>> You have 20 fenceposts evenly spaced. You hand your gardener 19
>> rosebushes and say "Plant these between the fenceposts. He
>> could plant all 19 between a single pair, but somehow I suspect
>> that you'll wind up with a perfect
>> fencepost/rusebush/fencepost/
>
> A cunning plan: putting rusebushes between the fenceposts.
Yes, indeed. A Chinese Olympic gardener could even manage it with one
bush and some mirrors.
--
Mike.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Whatever you do, don't get a Feng Shui gardener to do the job. The fence
posts and rosebushes will be anywhere except where you wanted them.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
HVS
He would, though, have to use lusebushes. (Or is that just Japanese
gloundsmen?)
(Yeah, I know. PC filter's off at the moment, though...)
HVS
> R H Draney wrote:
I thought it was a bit pants, really.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>On 05 Oct 2009, Mike Lyle wrote
>
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>> Mike Lyle filted:
>>>>
>>>> That which we call a Gap would smell as good as the Next.
>>>> (Talking of which, I've been doing a trial of underpants, and
>>>> Marks & Spencer's elastic goes weak before Matalan's, but
>>>> Matalan's fabric loses shape _and_ wears out before M&S's.)
>>>
>>> Thanks for the briefing....r
>>
>> I tried to keep it short.
>
>I thought it was a bit pants, really.
Straining at the slips, I'd say.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
HVS
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:43:48 +0100, HVS
> <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05 Oct 2009, Mike Lyle wrote
>>
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> Mike Lyle filted:
>>>>>
>>>>> That which we call a Gap would smell as good as the Next.
>>>>> (Talking of which, I've been doing a trial of underpants,
>>>>> and Marks & Spencer's elastic goes weak before Matalan's,
>>>>> but Matalan's fabric loses shape _and_ wears out before
>>>>> M&S's.)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the briefing....r
>>>
>>> I tried to keep it short.
>>
>> I thought it was a bit pants, really.
>
> Straining at the slips, I'd say.
Ooh: have the crickets arrived in the garden? I'll bet they're in
the box hedge by now.
LFS
And presumably to cover the essentials...
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Eric Walker
[...]
> Depends on the engineer. I would just take no notice whatsoever of Mr
> Walker's trivial objections, order "a rosebush between each post, offset
> by 1 metre to allow for growth", and would expect the contractor to have
> the job done by lunchtime. For an engineer, good English is English that
> works, English that is understood by the recipient, and English that
> gets the result one is seeking. Indeed, for an engineer anything that
> works is good, and anything that does not is bad. Especially if it works
> well at minimum cost of construction and operation.
All of which continues to confound bare comprehensibility with sound
use. As I said before, most or all of Mrs. Malaprop's utterances are
comprehensible, but does anyone want to defend them as perfectly sound
speech? The meaning of "I don't got none" is not at all cryptic--anyone
will understand it--so does that fact validate it?
To paraphrase Ms. Stein, bullshit is bullshit is bullshit.
--
Robert Bannister
Yes, but the description gives the general position with regard to the
fence and clearly portrays the regularity of spacing (assuming the fence
posts are placed regularly).
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
So long as it's not "between each product".
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
I was objecting to the
"line taken from the part of the fence post that protrudes"
statement, unless I misunderstand it.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Peter Moylan
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:03:54 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Perhaps "section" has a more specific meaning for you.
>
> Try "panel".
Which leads to something like "A rosebush where each panel would
have been, if we hadn't had to omit the panels to leave space for
the rosebushes."
Concise, it ain't.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Richard Chambers
> Eric Walker wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:03:54 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Perhaps "section" has a more specific meaning for you.
>>
>> Try "panel".
>
> Which leads to something like "A rosebush where each panel would
> have been, if we hadn't had to omit the panels to leave space for
> the rosebushes."
>
> Concise, it ain't.
I don't like to find myself on the same side as Mr Walker in this
discussion, but in this case I must be. The concise version of what you have
written is:-
A rosebush adjacent to each panel.
I did a short course on Philosophy, as an evening class a couple of years
ago. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I enjoy living
dangerously, so I shall continue regardless with my little knowledge:-
The Charity Principle. In philosophy, there is an unwritten rule that if
you wish to attack the ideas of a fellow philosopher at a point where that
philosopher has inadvertently left an ambiguity, then you must make the most
charitable assumption you possibly can, concerning the nature of that
ambiguity. As a typical example of the Charity Principle, analyse the
following argument for its logic alone (i.e. just bear with it if you
disagree with any of the premises it contains):-
1. All Yorkshiremen are mean with their money.
2. Therefore, Richard Chambers is mean with his money.
Concentrating only on the logic, and not on the premises, this sequence of
argument contains a non-sequitur and is therefore illogical. However, we
should apply the Charitable Principle. Doing our best to be charitable, we
postulate the existence of a missing (or "hidden") premise, which the writer
thought so obvious that he forgot to mention it. The hidden premise is item
1b in the following sequence:-
1a. All Yorkshiremen are mean with their money.
1b Richard Chambers is a Yorkshireman
2. Therefore, Richard Chambers is mean with his money.
This now is an argument whose logic is unimpeachable. [Although, as I said
at the beginning, it still may not be correct, because of possible
objections to both premises 1a and 1b].
My objection to the stance Mr Walker is taking is that he fails to operate
the Charitable Principle. He jumps straight into a reductio ad absurdum
stance, on an issue where the meaning is clear. If he could only be
persuaded to apply the Charitable Principle, he would see that:-
"A rosebush between each fencepost" = "A rosebush between each fencepost
[and the next]"
Fie on you for counter-attacking by similarly using reductio ad absurdum
without first trying to apply the Charitable Principle. Fie on those who
have calculated the need for 380 rosebushes. Fie on those who have pointed
out that the fenceposts would have to go round in a circle for even "A
rosebush between each fencepost [and the next]" to be correct. And fie upon
myself for some of the sillier things i have written in this thread. Five
gold stars to whoever wrote in to say that "a little butter between each
layer of the pastry" was commonplace in recipe books. Do we want to re-write
all our cookery books? Easier to update just one definition in our
dictionaries, as Merriam Webster already has.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Guy Barry
"tween", defined as "between each member of the set under consideration and
the next one, if such a member exists". Then we can say "a rosebush tween
each fencepost" and all is well.
If enough people start using the new word I'm sure the usage will be
accepted over time.
--
Guy Barry
Richard Chambers
> The only sensible resolution to this dispute is to invent a new
> preposition,
> "tween", defined as "between each member of the set under consideration
> and
> the next one, if such a member exists". Then we can say "a rosebush tween
> each fencepost" and all is well.
You already have me composing a little poem.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
aquachimp
I believe you have correctly identified the true category of
employment as described in Robert Lieblich's senario.
However, I may have some bad news for you.
I am reminded that there can be another situation where the apparent
obviousness of "a rosebush between each post" is doomed to failure on
the 'bleedin obvious' front.
Apart from the chances of it happening because the recipient of the
message is a tad dim, so too can it occur if the recipient of the
message generally feels that the person making the sentence is a
dullard, * amongst other negative possibilities.
What happens there is that the first thing to get torn out of the
equation is the notion that there is any 'bleedin obvious' category to
rely on.
In other words, is rather than making normal assumptions about what
the sentence means, its recipient will over analyse. Alas, that
approach has the immediate effect of cancelling out the 'bleedin
obvious' category. And with the bleeding obvious category being
cancelled out, its contents also get brushed aside. And with that
category and it's inherent logic being brushed aside, then all that
remains is to decide on the alternatives. In the absence of the
obvious, further analyses may well lead to the conclusions based on
the following:
Each post is A post, (as in; 1 post) so what is being asked for is for
a rose bush to be planted "between" a post. And "between" suggest at
the centre. Presumably the recipient will not think the person
suggesting it is so thick as to want each post to be split in half to
accommodate the plant.
And so we get, a rose bush to be planted in line with the centre of
each post.
All that's left really is to ask if will that be towards the front, or
on which side of the post.
Of course this is all entirely dependant on us agreeing that there is
an inherent obviousness in the meaning of "a rosebush between each
post"
And that we agree that the application of a hidden element in a
message denotes intelligence in the same way that though our eyes see,
it is our brains that convert that information and then fills in the
missing parts of the picture so that it gets turned into something
useful to us.
* If the person giving the instruction is not necessarily regarded by
the recipient as thick, but is a nit-picking, fault-finding,
cantankerous prick, then if the recipient is the underling, it's easy
for the underling to end up constantly over analysing in a bid to stay
out of trouble. And thus end up not only missing the intended inherent
obviousness, but will go on to ask what would surely sound like the
dumbest, dullard -confirming questions imaginable.
R H Draney
>
>Each post is A post, (as in; 1 post) so what is being asked for is for
>a rose bush to be planted "between" a post. And "between" suggest at
>the centre. Presumably the recipient will not think the person
>suggesting it is so thick as to want each post to be split in half to
>accommodate the plant.
And now I'm forced to bring up the analogous situation most prone to cause
sniggering:
"The students were seated all along one side of the long table, one boy between
each girl."
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote
>> Eric Walker wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:03:54 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Perhaps "section" has a more specific meaning for you.
>>> Try "panel".
>> Which leads to something like "A rosebush where each panel would
>> have been, if we hadn't had to omit the panels to leave space for
>> the rosebushes."
>>
>> Concise, it ain't.
>
> I don't like to find myself on the same side as Mr Walker in this
> discussion, but in this case I must be. The concise version of what you have
> written is:-
> A rosebush adjacent to each panel.
I've finally realised that there's a genuine misunderstanding happening
here, based on two different interpretations of the original
description. Some of us have been assuming that the rose bushes are
going to be trained to the wires that are presumably running between
the posts. Others have been assuming that it's a solid fence, with
panels, so that the bushes have to be offset from the fence.
That latter interpretation didn't initially occur to me. I have no
problem at all with the original wording "A rosebush between each
post", because in my mind that's a simple and supportable
way of saying "between each post and the next, except for the final
post where there isn't a next one". The word "between" does, however,
suggest to me that the bushes must be in line with the posts. The
possibility of a lateral displacement quite simply didn't occur
to me; in my mind, you can't use the word "between" to describe that
case.
Skitt
> Richard Chambers wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote
>>> Eric Walker wrote:
It depends on what sort of fences one is used to. I never thought of the
wire kind. Those are not used in cities around here, and I'm a city boy.
Even chain-link fences didn't come to mind, although there are a few of
those around.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/
Robert Bannister
I see what you mean. I did not express myself very well.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
It's a question of viewpoint: if you are standing looking square-on at
the fence, the more or less 2-dimensional picture will be of
post-bush-post-... Only if you are standing more sideways on, will you
see the offset. The fact that you know they must be standing away from
the fence is immaterial: you are describing how it looks.
--
Rob Bannister
Nick
One day soon I'm going to take all the people-people I work with who
think I can be obsessive about detail and unnecessary pedantic, show
them this thread, and watch them get down on their knees and give thanks
for what they've escaped.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu