Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
borne out at
9 views
Skip to first unread message
M Winther
Nov 15, 2012, 8:23:04 AM11/15/12
to
I accidentaly used "at" instead of "by" when I wrote "This standpoint is
borne out at the episode in Maria's house (Mark 3) when he rejected his
mother and brothers who wanted to speak with him."
But when I google "is borne out at" I find that it is very common. It
seems correct, then. No?
Mats Winther
borne out at the episode in Maria's house (Mark 3) when he rejected his
mother and brothers who wanted to speak with him."
But when I google "is borne out at" I find that it is very common. It
seems correct, then. No?
Mats Winther
Guy Barry
Nov 15, 2012, 8:58:37 AM11/15/12
to
"M Winther" wrote in message
news:50a4ecc0$0$4137$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
examples where "at" forms part of a following prepositional phrase, e.g.:
"This is borne out at a company level too..."
"...this is borne out at both his residencies at DC-10 and Tribehouse."
"This notable adage is borne out at the annual Bohemian Grove camp meetings
in the redwood forest in California."
"Borne out" is simply the passive of the verb "bear out", meaning "to
substantiate", and the agent takes "by" like every other passive verb. Your
example could be written as "the episode in Maria's house bears out this
standpoint". Hence "by" is correct.
--
Guy Barry
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 15, 2012, 9:06:02 AM11/15/12
to
> --
athel
M Winther
Nov 15, 2012, 12:48:50 PM11/15/12
to
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:ey6ps.373904$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
I beg to differ. If find this use:
"the prediction is borne out at least in part"
If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out,
too. This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by". It
can be combined with "at", just as well. No?
Mats Winther
news:ey6ps.373904$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
"the prediction is borne out at least in part"
If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out,
too. This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by". It
can be combined with "at", just as well. No?
Mats Winther
Guy Barry
Nov 15, 2012, 1:01:15 PM11/15/12
to
"M Winther" wrote in message
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:ey6ps.373904$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
> > I've looked at the first page of Google hits and they all appear to be
> > examples where "at" forms part of a following prepositional phrase,
> > e.g.:
>
> > "This is borne out at a company level too..."
> > "...this is borne out at both his residencies at DC-10 and Tribehouse."
> > "This notable adage is borne out at the annual Bohemian Grove camp
> > meetings in the redwood forest in California."
>
> > "Borne out" is simply the passive of the verb "bear out", meaning "to
> > substantiate", and the agent takes "by" like every other passive verb.
> > Your example could be written as "the episode in Maria's house bears out
> > this standpoint". Hence "by" is correct.
> > examples where "at" forms part of a following prepositional phrase,
> > e.g.:
>
> > "This is borne out at a company level too..."
> > "...this is borne out at both his residencies at DC-10 and Tribehouse."
> > "This notable adage is borne out at the annual Bohemian Grove camp
> > meetings in the redwood forest in California."
>
> > "Borne out" is simply the passive of the verb "bear out", meaning "to
> > substantiate", and the agent takes "by" like every other passive verb.
> > Your example could be written as "the episode in Maria's house bears out
> > this standpoint". Hence "by" is correct.
> I beg to differ. If find this use:
> "the prediction is borne out at least in part"
> If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out, too.
> This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by".
No, it doesn't. No passive requires an agent. I can say "the prediction is
> "the prediction is borne out at least in part"
> If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out, too.
> This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by".
substantiated", or "the prediction is substantiated by the evidence".
Similarly I can say "the prediction is borne out", or "the prediction is
borne out by the evidence".
> It can be combined with "at", just as well. No?
particular association with the verb. That's true in the three examples I
gave above as well - the "at" belongs with the following prepositional
phrase.
Another Google search yields "This is borne out in many passages of
Scripture", where "in" belongs with "many passages of Scripture". I imagine
you can find "borne out" followed by any preposition you like if you look
for it. But the preposition marking the agent of a passive in English is
"by". Aren't you aware of this?
--
Guy Barry
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 15, 2012, 1:24:20 PM11/15/12
to
On 2012-11-15 18:01:15 +0000, Guy Barry said:
> "M Winther" wrote in message
> news:50a52b09$0$4128$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
>
>> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:ey6ps.373904$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
>
>>> I've looked at the first page of Google hits and they all appear to be
>>> examples where "at" forms part of a following prepositional phrase,
>>> e.g.:
>>
>>> "This is borne out at a company level too..."
>>> "...this is borne out at both his residencies at DC-10 and Tribehouse."
>>> "This notable adage is borne out at the annual Bohemian Grove camp
>>> meetings in the redwood forest in California."
>>
>>> "Borne out" is simply the passive of the verb "bear out", meaning "to
>>> substantiate", and the agent takes "by" like every other passive verb.
>>> Your example could be written as "the episode in Maria's house bears
>>> out this standpoint". Hence "by" is correct.
>
>> I beg to differ. If find this use:
>
>> "the prediction is borne out at least in part"
>
>> If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out,
>> too. This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by".
>
> No, it doesn't. No passive requires an agent. I can say "the
> prediction is substantiated", or "the prediction is substantiated by
> the evidence". Similarly I can say "the prediction is borne out", or
> "the prediction is borne out by the evidence".
It's a waste of time answering M. Winther with more than a bare "yes"
> "M Winther" wrote in message
> news:50a52b09$0$4128$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
>
>> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:ey6ps.373904$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
>
>>> I've looked at the first page of Google hits and they all appear to be
>>> examples where "at" forms part of a following prepositional phrase,
>>> e.g.:
>>
>>> "This is borne out at a company level too..."
>>> "...this is borne out at both his residencies at DC-10 and Tribehouse."
>>> "This notable adage is borne out at the annual Bohemian Grove camp
>>> meetings in the redwood forest in California."
>>
>>> "Borne out" is simply the passive of the verb "bear out", meaning "to
>>> substantiate", and the agent takes "by" like every other passive verb.
>>> Your example could be written as "the episode in Maria's house bears
>>> out this standpoint". Hence "by" is correct.
>
>> I beg to differ. If find this use:
>
>> "the prediction is borne out at least in part"
>
>> If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out,
>> too. This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by".
>
> No, it doesn't. No passive requires an agent. I can say "the
> prediction is substantiated", or "the prediction is substantiated by
> the evidence". Similarly I can say "the prediction is borne out", or
> "the prediction is borne out by the evidence".
or "no", because he can be counted on to argue that he knows more about
English usage than any native speaker.
--
athel
Dr Nick
Nov 15, 2012, 4:58:33 PM11/15/12
to
"The prediction is borne out (at least in part) by ..."
Even if the sentence ended there, that "at" is part of "at least ...", not
"... out at".
> If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out,
> too. This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by". It
> can be combined with "at", just as well. No?
M Winther
Nov 16, 2012, 1:35:01 AM11/16/12
to
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:J5aps.51359$GX.3...@fx01.am4...
that I could have simplified the sentence and written "This standpoint
is borne out in Maria's house (Mark 3) when he rejected his mother and
brothers who wanted to speak with him." It is actually very good to cut
away the "by" part altogether.
Mats Winther
M Winther
Nov 16, 2012, 2:08:06 AM11/16/12
to
"Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> skrev i meddelandet
news:agkqaj...@mid.individual.net...
No, I keep suggesting improvements to the English language, to the great
boon of native speakers. A language is not a static thing, you know.
Scandinavians have had a pronounced impact on the English language,
which has adopted thousands of words from the Norse. For instance,
earlier the English said hi/hie for they/them, which derives from the
Norse word þeir (their). In the modern era you have adopted words like
smorgasbord and ombudsman. These days you are introducing 'fika', which
is both a substantive and a verb. It means (having a) coffee break.
The Brits adopted the names for all the weekdays, too, except Lördag,
which means Saturday. Lördag (from Lögardag) means "washing day", which
is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene. But the Brits
didn't like to wash once a week, so they renamed the day to a Roman
deity. The British ladies were quite fond of the Vikings not the least
because they took care of their personal hygiene. In fact, the breeding
stock of the Icelanders is believed to be nearly 50% Nordic and 50 %
Celtic. The Norwegians and the Danes, too, have more Celtic blood than
the Swedes, who are genetically very similar to the northern Germans.
Mats Winther
news:agkqaj...@mid.individual.net...
boon of native speakers. A language is not a static thing, you know.
Scandinavians have had a pronounced impact on the English language,
which has adopted thousands of words from the Norse. For instance,
earlier the English said hi/hie for they/them, which derives from the
Norse word þeir (their). In the modern era you have adopted words like
smorgasbord and ombudsman. These days you are introducing 'fika', which
is both a substantive and a verb. It means (having a) coffee break.
The Brits adopted the names for all the weekdays, too, except Lördag,
which means Saturday. Lördag (from Lögardag) means "washing day", which
is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene. But the Brits
didn't like to wash once a week, so they renamed the day to a Roman
deity. The British ladies were quite fond of the Vikings not the least
because they took care of their personal hygiene. In fact, the breeding
stock of the Icelanders is believed to be nearly 50% Nordic and 50 %
Celtic. The Norwegians and the Danes, too, have more Celtic blood than
the Swedes, who are genetically very similar to the northern Germans.
Mats Winther
Guy Barry
Nov 16, 2012, 2:19:15 AM11/16/12
to
"M Winther" wrote in message
> No, I keep suggesting improvements to the English language, to the great
> boon of native speakers.
--
Guy Barry
M Winther
Nov 16, 2012, 2:19:39 AM11/16/12
to
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> skrev i meddelandet
news:50a5e67f$0$4124$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
> Norse word �eir (their). In the modern era you have adopted words like
> which means Saturday. L�rdag (from L�gardag) means "washing day",
male settler-era population in Iceland was of Norse ancestry, whereas
the female population was 60 percent Celtic.
Mats
news:50a5e67f$0$4124$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
> smorgasbord and ombudsman. These days you are introducing 'fika',
> which
> is both a substantive and a verb. It means (having a) coffee break.
> The Brits adopted the names for all the weekdays, too, except L�rdag,
> which
> is both a substantive and a verb. It means (having a) coffee break.
> which means Saturday. L�rdag (from L�gardag) means "washing day",
> which
> is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene. But the Brits
> didn't like to wash once a week, so they renamed the day to a Roman
> deity. The British ladies were quite fond of the Vikings not the least
> because they took care of their personal hygiene. In fact, the
> breeding
> stock of the Icelanders is believed to be nearly 50% Nordic and 50 %
> Celtic. The Norwegians and the Danes, too, have more Celtic blood
> than
> the Swedes, who are genetically very similar to the northern Germans.
>
> Mats Winther
>
>
>
As a besides, recent DNA analysis suggests that around 66 percent of the
> is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene. But the Brits
> didn't like to wash once a week, so they renamed the day to a Roman
> deity. The British ladies were quite fond of the Vikings not the least
> because they took care of their personal hygiene. In fact, the
> breeding
> stock of the Icelanders is believed to be nearly 50% Nordic and 50 %
> Celtic. The Norwegians and the Danes, too, have more Celtic blood
> than
> the Swedes, who are genetically very similar to the northern Germans.
>
> Mats Winther
>
>
>
male settler-era population in Iceland was of Norse ancestry, whereas
the female population was 60 percent Celtic.
Mats
Steve Hayes
Nov 16, 2012, 6:57:31 AM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:19:39 +0100, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>As a besides, recent DNA analysis suggests that around 66 percent of the
>male settler-era population in Iceland was of Norse ancestry, whereas
>the female population was 60 percent Celtic.
A mongrel race. Exterminate! Exterminate!
>As a besides, recent DNA analysis suggests that around 66 percent of the
>male settler-era population in Iceland was of Norse ancestry, whereas
>the female population was 60 percent Celtic.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 16, 2012, 9:46:29 AM11/16/12
to
"As can be seen in Table 2, the prediction is borne out at least in
part. The difference between AI and AA in the converging cues block is
only significant at the 5% level in the NNV WO. In the competing cues
block, on the other hand, the differences are all significant as the
table shows. This means that in adult processing of Swedish, the
interaction of converging cues only help determine the subject more
effectively in unreliable word orders." (Marianne Gulberg "Who's Doing
What to Whom -- Testing the Competition Model on Swedish" Lund
University, Dept. of Linguistics Working Papers 42 (1994), 35-48)
I'm not sure what an article by a Swede tells us about the way English
is written by native speakers, but no matter. I'd have put a comma
before "at", if only to avoid sending readers off on the wrong track,
but it's just about acceptable without.
> "The prediction is borne out (at least in part) by ..."
>
> Even if the sentence ended there, that "at" is part of "at least ...", not
> "... out at".
Winther tells us something about his powers of reading comprehension.
>
>> If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out,
>> too. This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by". It
>> can be combined with "at", just as well. No?
>
> No.
--
>> If a prediction can be borne out, then a standpoint can be borne out,
>> too. This means that it stands for itself, and doesn't need a "by". It
>> can be combined with "at", just as well. No?
>
> No.
athel
Mike L
Nov 16, 2012, 4:20:09 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:57:31 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:19:39 +0100, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>>As a besides, recent DNA analysis suggests that around 66 percent of the
>>male settler-era population in Iceland was of Norse ancestry, whereas
>>the female population was 60 percent Celtic.
>
>A mongrel race. Exterminate! Exterminate!
We lost our chance of an early colony there. The first inhabitants of
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:19:39 +0100, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>>As a besides, recent DNA analysis suggests that around 66 percent of the
>>male settler-era population in Iceland was of Norse ancestry, whereas
>>the female population was 60 percent Celtic.
>
>A mongrel race. Exterminate! Exterminate!
Iceland were Irish, but left no descendants - that's always likely
when a population consists exclusively of monks.
--
Mike.
James Hogg
Nov 19, 2012, 7:24:12 AM11/19/12
to
Not even the Anglo-Saxons did that. The Scandinavians borrowed most of
the names of the days from West Germanic.
> But the Brits
> didn't like to wash once a week, so they renamed the day to a Roman
> deity. The British ladies were quite fond of the Vikings not the least
> because they took care of their personal hygiene. In fact, the breeding
> stock of the Icelanders is believed to be nearly 50% Nordic and 50 %
> Celtic. The Norwegians and the Danes, too, have more Celtic blood than
> the Swedes, who are genetically very similar to the northern Germans.
James
R H Draney
Nov 19, 2012, 4:48:46 PM11/19/12
to
M Winther filted:
"water-day"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>The Brits adopted the names for all the weekdays, too, except Lördag,
>which means Saturday. Lördag (from Lögardag) means "washing day", which
>is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene. But the Brits
>didn't like to wash once a week, so they renamed the day to a Roman
>deity.
Interesting that Japanese for Wednesday is "sui-yoobi", literally
>The Brits adopted the names for all the weekdays, too, except Lördag,
>which means Saturday. Lördag (from Lögardag) means "washing day", which
>is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene. But the Brits
>didn't like to wash once a week, so they renamed the day to a Roman
>deity.
"water-day"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
M Winther
Nov 20, 2012, 2:20:47 AM11/20/12
to
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:k8d8db$jsu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Norse word �eir (their). In the modern era you have adopted words
British isles since they are always referred to as "Norse gods". One
place where this misconception is spread is at Yahoo answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090222032424AAJijOa
I suppose the Germanic names for the weekdays were already established
before the Danelaw.
Mats
news:k8d8db$jsu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> like
>> smorgasbord and ombudsman. These days you are introducing 'fika',
>> which
>> is both a substantive and a verb. It means (having a) coffee break.
>> smorgasbord and ombudsman. These days you are introducing 'fika',
>> which
>> is both a substantive and a verb. It means (having a) coffee break.
>> The Brits adopted the names for all the weekdays, too, except L�rdag,
>> which means Saturday. L�rdag (from L�gardag) means "washing day",
>> which
>> is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene.
>
> The Brits did not adopt the names of the weeks from the Scandinavians.
> Not even the Anglo-Saxons did that. The Scandinavians borrowed most of
> the names of the days from West Germanic.
>
I took for granted that the weekdays came with the Scandinavians to the
>> is the day when you take care of your personal hygiene.
>
> The Brits did not adopt the names of the weeks from the Scandinavians.
> Not even the Anglo-Saxons did that. The Scandinavians borrowed most of
> the names of the days from West Germanic.
>
British isles since they are always referred to as "Norse gods". One
place where this misconception is spread is at Yahoo answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090222032424AAJijOa
I suppose the Germanic names for the weekdays were already established
before the Danelaw.
Mats
Steve Hayes
Nov 20, 2012, 3:32:50 AM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:20:47 +0100, "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>I took for granted that the weekdays came with the Scandinavians to the
>British isles since they are always referred to as "Norse gods". One
>place where this misconception is spread is at Yahoo answers:
>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090222032424AAJijOa
>I suppose the Germanic names for the weekdays were already established
>before the Danelaw.
Of course. That's why it's Wednesday and not Oddsday.
>I took for granted that the weekdays came with the Scandinavians to the
>British isles since they are always referred to as "Norse gods". One
>place where this misconception is spread is at Yahoo answers:
>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090222032424AAJijOa
>I suppose the Germanic names for the weekdays were already established
>before the Danelaw.
0 new messages