pre-Fowler shall/will

[Peter T. Daniels]

Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.

[They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an
extended disquisition on seasickness:]

"So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my
own account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George
says he should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would
advise Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should
both be ill."

[Simon G]

I think the passage shows that contrary to the grammarians, 'would' and 'should' were complete synonyms in the 'conditional tense' and could be used in any person, and that if 'should' was used earlier in the sentence, a writer might use 'would' later simply to avoid repetition.


I'm smiling just reading that excerpt-- lovely book.



cheers


Simon

[Peter T. Daniels]

Here's a passage from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.

[They are debating what to do with their free week. After an

extended disquisition on seasickness:]

"So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my
own account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George
says he should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would
advise Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should
both be ill."

On May 16, 11:02 am, Simon G <sherringb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think the passage shows that contrary to the grammarians, 'would' and 'should' were complete synonyms in the 'conditional tense' and could be used in any person, and that if 'should' was used earlier in the sentence, a writer might use 'would' later simply to avoid repetition.

I'd like to see other examples like that ,,, Jerome was such a
consummate stylist that I doubt he'd resort to what Fowler so aptly
disparaged as "elegant variation."

> I'm smiling just reading that excerpt-- lovely book.
>
> cheers
>
> Simon

I first read it 40 years ago -- and just picked it up again for the
first time.

[Dr Nick]

All I'll dare to do is note that the second "would" is not the same as
the other, while the two "shoulds" are the same and related to the first
"would".

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> I'd like to see other examples like that ,,, Jerome was such a
> consummate stylist that I doubt he'd resort to what Fowler so aptly
> disparaged as "elegant variation."

ISTR that the shall/will rule is older than _The King's English_
(which is probably the best-known codification of it, though). But
was it ever natural?


--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 16, 2:25 pm, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

Please explicate.

[Marius Hancu]

These "should/would"s are used even today, IMO, for an hypothetical
situation.
The "should"s are req'd by expectation, irrespective of person. I
expect them even in educated AmE.

Marius Hancu

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On May 16, 2:25 pm, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

Fowler says in Modern English Usage (II ed) under "Americanisms"

"the obliteration of the distinction between SHALL and WILL that the
few who understood it used to consider the hallmark of mastery of the
niceties of English idiom.....such things as these .... are
cumulatively symptoms of surrender by the older competitor to the
younger and more vigorous."

I also remember him saying somewhere (King's English?) that "I would
like" is not English.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 16, 8:56 pm, Marius Hancu <marius.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 7:07 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.
>
> > [They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an
> > extended disquisition on seasickness:]
>
> > "So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my
> > own account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George
> > says he should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would
> > advise Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should
> > both be ill."
>
> These "should/would"s are used even today, IMO,

What is the basis of your "opinion"?

> for an hypothetical
> situation.
> The "should"s are req'd by expectation, irrespective of person. I
> expect them even in educated AmE.

"The train should be here any minute." That's "expectation." But
"should" normally associates with _obligation_.

AmE would use "would" in all four occurrences in that sentence.

[Eric Walker]

Wilson Follett, in _Modern American Usage_, devotes an entire and
somewhat lengthy chapter to Shall|Will. In his introductory remarks to
the chapter, he notes:

Now, it is simply not true that "the idiomatic use . . . is so
complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly
acquire it." It is not true--that is, if we take the statement as
applying to the hard core of useful distinctions. . . .

If, on the other hand, we take the Fowlers' pronouncements on the
finer distinctions and the rarer subtleties, we quickly discover that
these do not come by nature to the southern English themselves. . . .
No one who is well read in English literature or who reviews
attentively the great mass of examples collected by Jespersen can
continue to believe that there is a canonical usage which by a large
consensus writers regularly apply throughout the domain bounded by
'shall' and 'will' and 'should' and 'would'.

What we have and have always had is (1) a relatively small number of
orthodox principles indispensible to those who care about accurate
expression, and (2) a wide surrounding territory in which every man
goes his own way and is prone to consider every other man lost.

His discussion is eminently worth reading, for both knowledge and
entertainment. It leads, in one part, to this table:

Future Volitional

I (we) shall I (we) will
You will (thou wilt) You shall (thou shalt)
He (they) will He (they) shall

Following which he remarks:

Given a firm hold on the foregoing paradigm, the remaining tenses and
moods present no stumbling block, because they involve either no
change of auxiliary or only a change of 'shall' to 'should' and of
'will' to 'would'.



--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Jerry Friedman]

Of the 38 hits on "sure we should" in COCA, all were about
obligation. On the other hand, most or all of the hits on "sure we
would" were about expectation. I think constructions like "he felt
sure we should both be ill" are extremely rare in American English.

--
Jerry Friedman

[DavidW]

I don't have it handy, but I thought that in MEU Fowler says something to the
effect that those who grow up in certain places instinctively get it right. I'm
just wondering why "pre-Fowler" makes a difference, unless it's just because he
gave the pre-existing rules a wider audience.

[Marius Hancu]

I was sure to find something similar in Wharton, and soon enough I
found:
---
Works of Edith Wharton
Edith Wharton - 2010 - Preview

The chauffeur turns the crank, but there is no responding quiver.
Something has gone wrong; we can't move, and it is not much comfort to
remember that, if we could, we should not know where to go. At least
we should be cooler in motion than sitting under the blinding sky.

http://tinyurl.com/bexq48x
---
both "should"s reflect expectation, IMO.

Now, this might be gone from AmE to a large extent, but it seems,
based on this quotation, that this is how high-class, educated
Americans wrote/spoke at the beginning of the 20th century.

Marius Hancu

[Peter T. Daniels]

Because it is frequently stated "there," i.e. aue, that the
distinction was invented by Fowler.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 17, 12:27 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 04:07:16 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.
>
> > [They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an extended
> > disquisition on seasickness:]
>
> > "So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my own
> > account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George says he
> > should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would advise
> > Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should both be
> > ill."
>
> Wilson Follett, in _Modern American Usage_, devotes an entire and
> somewhat lengthy chapter to Shall|Will.  In his introductory remarks to
> the chapter, he notes:

a lot of nonsense.

> His discussion is eminently worth reading, for both knowledge and
> entertainment.  It leads, in one part, to this table:

As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
ignorant idiot.

> Cordially,

Bullshit.

[CDB]

On 17/05/2013 8:02 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

My goodness, that's brisk. What I would be very grateful to see
explained, if possible by someone who naturally distinguishes "shall"
and "will" (I know there are some in AUE), is the "shall" in "George
says he should be all right". As a North American, I would understand
the "should" to imply expectation, but I was wondering if the phrase
could be a sort of half--reported-speech version of "I shall be all
right", with the first-person "shall" carried over into the indirect
version. I'm pretty sure I've seen that before.

I considered the possibility because of the unaccountable change of
tenses from "George says" to "as he felt sure". I almost wonder if
"says" was an error for "said", made ignorable by the
temporally-ambiguous form of the intervening "would rather like it".
Would it be an acceptable understanding of "George said he should be all
right"? Should it be?

[CDB]

Awright, froup, fess up. Who said that? We know it wasn't Fowler.

[Jerry Friedman]

Nobody needs to confess. PTD will provide the evidence for his claim,
as usual.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 17, 9:21 am, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 8:02 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.
> >>> [They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an extended
> >>> disquisition on seasickness:]
> >>> "So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my own
> >>> account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George says he
> >>> should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would advise
> >>> Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should both be
> >>> ill."
> >> Wilson Follett, in _Modern American Usage_, devotes an entire and
> >> somewhat lengthy chapter to Shall|Will.  In his introductory remarks to
> >> the chapter, he notes:
> > a lot of nonsense.
> >> His discussion is eminently worth reading, for both knowledge and
> >> entertainment.  It leads, in one part, to this table:
> > As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
> > ignorant idiot.
> >> Cordially,
> > Bullshit.
>
> My goodness, that's brisk.

I have been exposed to Mr. Walker's attitudes several times over
recent years, and he is anything but cordial.

> What I would be very grateful to see
> explained, if possible by someone who naturally distinguishes "shall"
> and "will" (I know there are some in AUE), is the "shall" in "George
> says he should be all right".  As a North American, I would understand
> the "should" to imply expectation, but I was wondering if the phrase
> could be a sort of half--reported-speech version of "I shall be all
> right", with the first-person "shall" carried over into the indirect
> version.  I'm pretty sure I've seen that before.

It was Dr Nick who claimed the usage to be explicable, but so far he
has not explicated it.

> I considered the possibility because of the unaccountable change of
> tenses from "George says" to "as he felt sure".  I almost wonder if
> "says" was an error for "said", made ignorable by the
> temporally-ambiguous form of the intervening "would rather like it".
> Would it be an acceptable understanding of "George said he should be all
> right"?  Should it be?

There is one gnawing problem: I'm using the "Barnes & Noble Library of
Essential Reading" edition, which is not a reprint of an old printing
(although it does include the original illustrations), but has been
reset (unfortunately using the same 21st-century typeface they use for
every book in this series, and most of them just don't "look right" in
their new dress), and it is not impossible that it has been silently
edited: I was delighted to find that their verse translation of the
Aeneid (in the "Classics" series) is by Christopher Pearse Cranch, a
minor American poet something by whom I had recently come across and
liked, but on reading the editor's introduction I learned that she has
"modernized" it here and there.

The works by Studs Terkel used often to be cited (before extensive
oral corpora became available) in studies of syntax and discourse
because they supposedly represented verbatim transcriptions of
conversation, but one morning I happened to hear an interview on his
radio program that I had just read in one of the books, and discovered
that he had "touched up" the interviewee's words. I ran into him at
some public assembly event in "Bughouse Square" (as the "speakers'
corner" park in Chicago by the Newberry Library used to be called) and
asked him about this -- first of all, he was tickled that linguists
were using his materials in their investigations, but also he
confirmed that he had to edit the transcriptions of his recordings in
order to make them more natural-sounding.

Thus I hope someone with an older copy of *Three Men in a Boat* can
confirm that the above is what Jerome actually wrote.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I could, in fact, if I had the time, search the words "Fowler" and
"shall/will" in the google groups "search this group" function under
aue, but I don't.

Since you're always so eager to spend hours rummaging through
databases in order to "disprove" assertions, why don't _you_ do it?

[Jerry Friedman]

That's a lot to conclude from one quotation. However, I agree that it
might have been true 100 years ago. I thought you were talking about
the present.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 17, 9:21 am, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/05/2013 8:02 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

>> >> Cordially,
>> > Bullshit.
>>
>> My goodness, that's brisk.
>
> I have been exposed to Mr. Walker's attitudes several times over
> recent years, and he is anything but cordial.

You may not agree with his opinions, but at least he's polite.


--
I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors.
-- plorkwort

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-17, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> On May 17, 7:24 am, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/05/2013 8:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:

>> >> I don't have it handy, but I thought that in MEU Fowler says
>> >> something to the effect that those who grow up in certain places
>> >> instinctively get it right. I'm just wondering why "pre-Fowler"
>> >> makes a difference, unless it's just because he gave the
>> >> pre-existing rules a wider audience.
>> > Because it is frequently stated "there," i.e. aue, that the
>> > distinction was invented by Fowler.

No, rather that it was disseminatd mainly by the Fowlers. It's common
knowledge that they didn't invent it. (The pre-Fowler details are a
bit hazy, though.)

>> Awright, froup, fess up.  Who said that?  We know it wasn't Fowler.
>
> Nobody needs to confess. PTD will provide the evidence for his claim,
> as usual.

FSVO "provide" approximating "stamp feet & call names".


--
The internet is quite simply a glorious place. Where else can you find
bootlegged music and films, questionable women, deep seated xenophobia
and amusing cats all together in the same place? [Tom Belshaw]

[Dr Nick]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:

The second "would" is not a general "at that point in the future it
might occur" (which both the "should"s are, and the first "would" seems
very similar).

The second "would" is more present tense: "he would advise" them /at
this time/ not to do that in the future.

[Robert Bannister]

One could use "ought to" in this sentence equally well. Slightly
differently, but with a similar outcome is "is/was supposed to".

>
> AmE would use "would" in all four occurrences in that sentence.
>

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

No doubt change was facilitated by the use of the shortened form "'ll"
for both "shall" and "will" - something that was still frowned on in
written form when I was at school.

We have discussed this before on AUE. I can't speak for others, but I
know forms like "I shall" and "we shall" have /almost/ disappeared from
my speech, but they are retained in questions: "Shall we go to the
beach?" - I would find it impossible to say "Will we".

--
Robert Bannister

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:02:28 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 17, 12:27 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

[...]

>> Wilson Follett, in _Modern American Usage_, devotes an entire and
>> somewhat lengthy chapter to Shall|Will.  In his introductory remarks to
>> the chapter, he notes:
>
> a lot of nonsense.
>
>> His discussion is eminently worth reading, for both knowledge and
>> entertainment.  It leads, in one part, to this table:
>
> As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
> ignorant idiot.

There are not a few, many of whom might be considered entitled to an
opinion, who disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follett%27s_Modern_American_Usage#Reception

If there is an ignorant-idiot contest going on, I know who I would cast
my vote for.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Peter T. Daniels]

Nothing out of the ordinary about the "would"s.

But why is "should" there at all?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Even if asking for a prediction?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 17, 8:17 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:02:28 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 17, 12:27 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Wilson Follett, in _Modern American Usage_, devotes an entire and
> >> somewhat lengthy chapter to Shall|Will.  In his introductory remarks to
> >> the chapter, he notes:
>
> > a lot of nonsense.
>
> >> His discussion is eminently worth reading, for both knowledge and
> >> entertainment.  It leads, in one part, to this table:
>
> > As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
> > ignorant idiot.
>
> There are not a few, many of whom might be considered entitled to an
> opinion, who disagree with you:
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follett%27s_Modern_American_Usage#Reception

Fremont-Smith's evaluation is the only quoted one worth paying
attention to. All the others -- belonging among the most hidebound
conservative pundits (as they were not yet called) on the American
scene -- had no competence to pronounce on the matter.

See the volume edited by Sledd, *Dictionaries and _That_ Dictionary*,
about the publication of and reaction to the MW Third International
(1961). Follett's book was a rearguard reactionary response to that
work and to modern American letters in general; it's no surprise to
find Trilling, and especially Barzun, in the crowd of cooks who
helped, no doubt, spoil the pudding. (Phyllis McGinley is a bit
surprising in that bunch, though.)

He _probably_ didn't like Chandler, Cain, Mailer, Heller, Roth.
Bellow, maybe even Hemingway and Fitzgerald.

[Dr Nick]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:

Oh no I didn't!

Quite the contrary in fact. Apart from noting that one "would" appeared
different to the two "shoulds" and the other "would" I was very careful
indeed not to attempt to do anything else at all.

Really. Honestly. I said (in its entirety):

> All I'll dare to do is note that the second "would" is not the same as
> the other, while the two "shoulds" are the same and related to the
> first "would".

That is most definitely /not/ attempting to explain anything at all.

Really. I know you like an argument, but come on!

[CDB]

On 17/05/2013 7:17 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:

[the uses of "should"]

> One could use "ought to" in this sentence equally well. Slightly
> differently, but with a similar outcome is "is/was supposed to".

Random thought: I wonder if the ambiguity of the traditional forms,
between expectation and obligation, is related to the growing use of
"need to" for obligation. (No documentation; but I have noticed the
increase, over the last twenty or thirty years, because the usage annoys
me.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 18, 4:33 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > On May 17, 9:21 am, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> >>> Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.
> >> >>> [They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an extended
> >> >>> disquisition on seasickness:]
> >> >>> "So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my own
> >> >>> account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George says he
> >> >>> should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would advise
> >> >>> Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should both be
> >> >>> ill."

> >> What I would be very grateful to see
> >> explained, if possible by someone who naturally distinguishes "shall"
> >> and "will" (I know there are some in AUE), is the "shall" in "George
> >> says he should be all right".  As a North American, I would understand
> >> the "should" to imply expectation, but I was wondering if the phrase
> >> could be a sort of half--reported-speech version of "I shall be all
> >> right", with the first-person "shall" carried over into the indirect
> >> version.  I'm pretty sure I've seen that before.
>
> > It was Dr Nick who claimed the usage to be explicable, but so far he
> > has not explicated it.
>
> Oh no I didn't!
>
> Quite the contrary in fact.  Apart from noting that one "would" appeared
> different to the two "shoulds" and the other "would" I was very careful
> indeed not to attempt to do anything else at all.
>
> Really.  Honestly.  I said (in its entirety):
>
> > All I'll dare to do is note that the second "would" is not the same as
> > the other, while the two "shoulds" are the same and related to the
> > first "would".
>
> That is most definitely /not/ attempting to explain anything at all.
>
> Really.  I know you like an argument, but come on!

You must have a _reason_ for the three assertions (not the same as,
the same, related)!

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 17, 8:17 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:02:28 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> > As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
>> > ignorant idiot.

Yabbut you like _Elements of Style_, which contains rather a lot of
nutty prescriptions too.

>> There are not a few, many of whom might be considered entitled to an
>> opinion, who disagree with you:
>>
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follett%27s_Modern_American_Usage#Reception
>
> Fremont-Smith's evaluation is the only quoted one worth paying
> attention to. All the others -- belonging among the most hidebound
> conservative pundits (as they were not yet called) on the American
> scene -- had no competence to pronounce on the matter.

Are political views particularly relevant?


--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and education.
[H G Wells]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 18, 4:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 17, 8:17 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:02:28 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
> >> > ignorant idiot.
>
> Yabbut you like _Elements of Style_, which contains rather a lot of
> nutty prescriptions too.

It's a 64-page pamphlet with general suggestions for college freshmen.

What in it is "nutty"?

> >> There are not a few, many of whom might be considered entitled to an
> >> opinion, who disagree with you:
>
> >>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follett%27s_Modern_American_Usage#Reception
>
> > Fremont-Smith's evaluation is the only quoted one worth paying
> > attention to. All the others -- belonging among the most hidebound
> > conservative pundits (as they were not yet called) on the American
> > scene -- had no competence to pronounce on the matter.
>
> Are political views particularly relevant?

Where did I say anything about politics?

[Robert Bannister]

That is why we still have two different verbs. They have different
meanings, but confusingly the meanings sometimes seem to vary according
to whether they are used in the 1st Person or 2nd & 3rd, and not in any
logical manner that I can perceive.

So, to answer your question, "Will we...?" would be asking for a
prediction - not something I do very often, although I keep getting
spammed by fortune teller. (You would think her own expertise would
foretell that I'm not going to fall for it).

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter T. Daniels]

There's only one slight problem with Fowler's dicta.

> >> No doubt change was facilitated by the use of the shortened form "'ll"
> >> for both "shall" and "will" - something that was still frowned on in
> >> written form when I was at school.
>
> >> We have discussed this before on AUE. I can't speak for others, but I
> >> know forms like "I shall" and "we shall" have /almost/ disappeared from
> >> my speech, but they are retained in questions: "Shall we go to the
> >> beach?" - I would find it impossible to say "Will we".
>
> > Even if asking for a prediction?
>
> That is why we still have two different verbs. They have different
> meanings, but confusingly the meanings sometimes seem to vary according
> to whether they are used in the 1st Person or 2nd & 3rd, and not in any
> logical manner that I can perceive.
>
> So, to answer your question, "Will we...?" would be asking for a
> prediction - not something I do very often, although I keep getting
> spammed by fortune teller. (You would think her own expertise would
> foretell that I'm not going to fall for it).

But if you're planning with your wife about your son's activities for
the week, can't you say, "Shall he go to the beach on Monday and
Tuesday?"? That's barely possible, but "should" would be much better.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> There's only one slight problem with Fowler's dicta. NO ONE TALKS THAT WAY, _certainly_ not in the Modern American usage he claims to be prescribing..

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 18, 4:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 17, 8:17 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:02:28 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> > As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
>> >> > ignorant idiot.
>>
>> Yabbut you like _Elements of Style_, which contains rather a lot of
>> nutty prescriptions too.
>
> It's a 64-page pamphlet with general suggestions for college freshmen.
>
> What in it is "nutty"?

The advice not to use the passive voice includes examples which are
not in fact passive. The instruction to prefer nouns & verbs over
adjectives & adverbs includes a sentence with the passive voice &
several adjectives. Avoid split infinitives except to emphasize the
adverb. Always treat "none" as singular. The ridiculous that/which
pseudo-rule. Don't start sentences with "however" or "hopefully".

>> >> There are not a few, many of whom might be considered entitled to an
>> >> opinion, who disagree with you:
>>
>> >>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follett%27s_Modern_American_Usage#Reception
>>
>> > Fremont-Smith's evaluation is the only quoted one worth paying
>> > attention to. All the others -- belonging among the most hidebound
>> > conservative pundits (as they were not yet called) on the American
>> > scene -- had no competence to pronounce on the matter.
>>
>> Are political views particularly relevant?
>
> Where did I say anything about politics?

"hidebound conservative pundits"


--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 19, 3:49 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 18, 4:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On May 17, 8:17 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:02:28 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> >> > As I have mentioned every time you adduce Wilson Follett, he is an
> >> >> > ignorant idiot.
>
> >> Yabbut you like _Elements of Style_, which contains rather a lot of
> >> nutty prescriptions too.
>
> > It's a 64-page pamphlet with general suggestions for college freshmen.
>
> > What in it is "nutty"?
>
> The advice not to use the passive voice includes examples which are
> not in fact passive.

So you would recommend handing out Curne's English Grammar (that was
the brand-new, definitive work at the time, the equivalent of Quirk et
al. and then the Cambridge books in recent generations, and at least
as dense) rather than fudging a few technical terms in aid of clarity?

> The instruction to prefer nouns & verbs over
> adjectives & adverbs includes a sentence with the passive voice &
> several adjectives.  Avoid split infinitives except to emphasize the
> adverb.  Always treat "none" as singular.  The ridiculous that/which
> pseudo-rule.  Don't start sentences with "however" or "hopefully".

Do you not understand the word "prefer"? Do you not understand that
"allowing" split infinitives at all was revolutionary?

Have you never taught high school (or freshman) English composition?
Would their work not be better if they did, in fact, observe those
principles? Does one not walk before one can run? Did not Picasso and
Pollock create pretty fine representational paintings before they
experimented with new approaches?

(And there's nothing "ridiculous" about the that/which rule. One of
them can be used in nonrestrictives, one of them can't, so if you are
careful to use each differently, you can't confuse your reader.
Occasionally restrictive "which" might aid "euphony," and I usually
don't change it, but it never feels entirely right.)

> >> >> There are not a few, many of whom might be considered entitled to an
> >> >> opinion, who disagree with you:
>
> >> >>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follett%27s_Modern_American_Usage#Reception
>
> >> > Fremont-Smith's evaluation is the only quoted one worth paying
> >> > attention to. All the others -- belonging among the most hidebound
> >> > conservative pundits (as they were not yet called) on the American
> >> > scene -- had no competence to pronounce on the matter.
>
> >> Are political views particularly relevant?
>
> > Where did I say anything about politics?
>
> "hidebound conservative pundits"

Eh? Preferring Emerson to Whitman (perhaps the example is a bit
extreme) is a _political_ position?

I'm sure the lady and gentlemen in question made known their opinions
on the Rosenbergs, McCarthyism, etc., and it's unlikely they advocated
the execution of the former and the pro-secution of the latter (but I
don't know, since their politics are immensely irrelevant to the
reactionaryism of their attitude toward written English.)

See the second of my responses to R. Bannister even though google
makes it look as though nothing was added.

[DKleinecke]

On May 19, 1:27 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> (And there's nothing "ridiculous" about the that/which rule. One of
> them can be used in nonrestrictives, one of them can't, so if you are
> careful to use each differently, you can't confuse your reader.
> Occasionally restrictive "which" might aid "euphony," and I usually
> don't change it, but it never feels entirely right.)

In the contemporary texts I have been parsing "which" is rarely used.
The tradeoff is between nothing and "that". Since I have not been
checking for restrictive versus non-restrictive I have no data on that
matter.
I am, of course, familiar with prescription about "that" versus
"which" but I have never been aware of any consideration of the matter
in my own speech. I will have to alert myself as to what I doing and I
must start trying to differentiate between restrictive and non-
restrictive relative clauses. If I can - the distinction is quite
foreign to me.

[Robert Bannister]

I wouldn't say that. I barely use "shall" in the 2nd or 3rd Person at
all - "You shall do so-and-so" is more or less an order nearly as strong
as "You must", but it sounds very 19th century to me as does
"He/she/they shall...".

I don't think I can say "Shall he/she/they...?" at all. I have met a
couple of people who said "Shall you...?", which sounded pleasantly
quaint to my ears, but added nothing to meaning - I think that might be
a dialect from the Welsh-English border.

--
Robert Bannister

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:19:05 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]

> I wouldn't say that. I barely use "shall" in the 2nd or 3rd Person at
> all - "You shall do so-and-so" is more or less an order nearly as strong
> as "You must", but it sounds very 19th century to me as does
> "He/she/they shall...".

Dunno. Does not "You will do so-and-so," unless said by a fortune
teller, also sound rather like a cool demand?


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:49:55 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

[...]

>> It's a 64-page pamphlet with general suggestions for college freshmen.
>>
>> What in it is "nutty"?
>
> The advice not to use the passive voice includes examples which are not
> in fact passive.

Some examples would help here. My copy (Macmillan 1959) contains seven
examples; of those, four are specimens of "tame" castings--not
necessarily passive but including some that are--followed by more direct
statements using transitive verbs. Perhaps in haste you missed that.

> The instruction to prefer nouns & verbs over adjectives & adverbs
> includes a sentence with the passive voice & several adjectives.

Strunk never condemned the passive out of hand:

This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely
discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes
necessary.

I assume you refer to Chapter V, section 4 (all of that chapter is by
White, not Strunk). Nonetheless, as before, we read:

This is to to disparage adjectives and adverbs; they are indispensible
parts of speech.

> Avoid split infinitives except to emphasize the adverb.

What Strunk actually says is:

There is precedent from the fourteenth century downward for
interposing an adverb between _to_ and the infinitive it governs, but
the construction is for the most part avoided by the careful writer.

That is two assertions of fact, and I at least believe both to be correct.

Later, White in his added chapter remarks:

Some infinitives seem to improve on being split, just as a stick of
round stovewood does.

> Always treat "none" as singular.

Ah, finally a legitimate criticism. The rule should be "Treat 'none' as
singular unless the contxt makes it quite impossible to do so."


> The ridiculous that/which pseudo-rule.

There are, and have been for centuries, writers of recognized excellence
who do not find it ridiculous, or even faintly amusing, but rather a very
useful tool. And no one ever said it is a "rule", but rather that it is
a useful guideline:

But it would be a convenience to all if these two pronouns were used
with precision.

Last time I looked, the definition of "convenience" did not include any
senses correlating with "rule".

> Don't start sentences with "however" or "hopefully".

Extremely good advice to this hour. If you need "why" explained, you
need an answer longer than a usenet post.

In general, there is no harm in criticizing what a man has written, but a
great deal of harm in criticizing what you only imagine is what he has
written.


--
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:17:14 -0700, DKleinecke wrote:

[...]

> I am, of course, familiar with prescription about "that" versus

> "which". . . .

To reiterate: it is not a "prescription", it is heartfelt advice, and
pretty much every usage writer who remarks on it explains that carefully
while giving the reasons for the advice.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Do none of these usage guides counsel against excessive use of
rhetorical questions?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Nonrestrictives are fairly rare in speech.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 19, 11:06 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:49:55 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> > On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> It's a 64-page pamphlet with general suggestions for college freshmen.
>
> >> What in it is "nutty"?
>
> > The advice not to use the passive voice includes examples which are not
> > in fact passive.
>
> Some examples would help here.  My copy (Macmillan 1959) contains seven
> examples; of those, four are specimens of "tame" castings--not
> necessarily passive but including some that are--followed by more direct
> statements using transitive verbs.  Perhaps in haste you missed that.
>
> > The instruction to prefer nouns & verbs over adjectives & adverbs
> > includes a sentence with the passive voice & several adjectives.
>
> Strunk never condemned the passive out of hand:
>
>   This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely
>   discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes
>   necessary.
>
> I assume you refer to Chapter V, section 4 (all of that chapter is by
> White, not Strunk).  Nonetheless, as before, we read:

Or perhaps to the famous passage in White's original introduction (the
essay that was in the New Yorker and prompted the reissue with
amendments), in which he describes being a lowly freshman in Strunk's
class when he leaned foward over the dais and exclaimed, "Use the
active voice! Use the active voice! Use the active voice!" (By the
time I got to Cornell in '68, however, Strunk was no longer even in
the nostalgic memory of the university community; the comparable
figure in our day was Morris Bishop, who was probably an equally
remarkable professor.)

There is, however, no reason not to begin a sentence with
"hopefully" (or any of the other sentence adverbs that are never
adjoined to that criticism), and there are now and then good reasons
to begin a sentence with "However."

Note that everything you have described is very, very different from
what is found in Follett and his unidentified meddlers (the individual
paragraphs are not signed).

And I note that you apparently reserve "Cordially" only for those
postings in which you are not cordial, since you did not use it here.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That you didn't write "you'll" suggests that you are stressing the
"will," and in that case it certainly is an instruction ("cool
demand"?).

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:af3d03ae-9153-482e...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

> On May 19, 3:49�pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:

>> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> On May 18, 4:00�pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>> wrote:

[...]

>>>> Yabbut you like _Elements of Style_, which contains
>>>> rather a lot of nutty prescriptions too.

>>> It's a 64-page pamphlet with general suggestions for
>>> college freshmen.

>>> What in it is "nutty"?

>> The advice not to use the passive voice includes examples
>> which are not in fact passive.

> So you would recommend handing out Curne's English Grammar
> (that was the brand-new, definitive work at the time, the
> equivalent of Quirk et al. and then the Cambridge books
> in recent generations, and at least as dense) rather than
> fudging a few technical terms in aid of clarity?

Misusing straightforward technical terms leads to confusion,
not clarity, and your dichotomy is of course nonsensical in
any case.

>> �The instruction to prefer nouns & verbs over adjectives

>> & adverbs includes a sentence with the passive voice &
>> several adjectives. �Avoid split infinitives except to
>> emphasize the adverb. �Always treat "none" as singular.
>> �The ridiculous that/which pseudo-rule. �Don't start
>> sentences with "however" or "hopefully".

> Do you not understand the word "prefer"? Do you not
> understand that "allowing" split infinitives at all was
> revolutionary?

> Have you never taught high school (or freshman) English
> composition?

Have you? I've taught the mathematical equivalent, and I've
done quite a bit of English tutoring at this level.

> Would their work not be better if they did, in fact,
> observe those principles?

Not always, no.

[...]

> (And there's nothing "ridiculous" about the that/which
> rule. One of them can be used in nonrestrictives, one of
> them can't, so if you are careful to use each
> differently, you can't confuse your reader.

If you use commas properly, you can safely use 'which' in a
restrictive relative clause; it's routine in British
English.

[...]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 20, 1:23 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in

> <news:af3d03ae-9153-482e...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> > On May 19, 3:49 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On May 18, 4:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> Yabbut you like _Elements of Style_, which contains
> >>>> rather a lot of nutty prescriptions too.
> >>> It's a 64-page pamphlet with general suggestions for
> >>> college freshmen.
> >>> What in it is "nutty"?
> >> The advice not to use the passive voice includes examples
> >> which are not in fact passive.
> > So you would recommend handing out Curne's English Grammar
> > (that was the brand-new, definitive work at the time, the
> > equivalent of Quirk et al. and then the Cambridge books
> > in recent generations, and at least as dense) rather than
> > fudging a few technical terms in aid of clarity?
>
> Misusing straightforward technical terms leads to confusion,
> not clarity, and your dichotomy is of course nonsensical in
> any case.

No, clearly you've never taught high school/freshman English. They are
not "straightforward."

> >> The instruction to prefer nouns & verbs over adjectives
> >> & adverbs includes a sentence with the passive voice &
> >> several adjectives. Avoid split infinitives except to
> >> emphasize the adverb. Always treat "none" as singular.
> >> The ridiculous that/which pseudo-rule. Don't start
> >> sentences with "however" or "hopefully".
> > Do you not understand the word "prefer"? Do you not
> > understand that "allowing" split infinitives at all was
> > revolutionary?
> > Have you never taught high school (or freshman) English
> > composition?
>
> Have you?  I've taught the mathematical equivalent, and I've
> done quite a bit of English tutoring at this level.

There is no "mathematical equivalent."

> > Would their work not be better if they did, in fact,
> > observe those principles?
>
> Not always, no.

Usually, yes.

> [...]
>
> > (And there's nothing "ridiculous" about the that/which
> > rule. One of them can be used in nonrestrictives, one of
> > them can't, so if you are careful to use each
> > differently, you can't confuse your reader.
>
> If you use commas properly, you can safely use 'which' in a
> restrictive relative clause; it's routine in British
> English.

"British English" is notorious for not teaching punctuation to
schoolchildren.

"British English" has no problem placing a comma between subject and
predicate.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:23:57 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> If you use commas properly, you can safely use 'which' in a
> restrictive relative clause; it's routine in British
> English.

That is more or less so. But, as Follett observed on the "safely" aspect:

A fundamental, often crucial difference of meaning is thus left to turn
on the mere absence or presence of the least of the punctuation marks,
the comma, which is so easily lost on its way to the printed page. In
short, a great responsibility is delegated to a small sign; to one,
moreover, that is relied on to perform this most important task by not
being there.

And of course there are Fowler's words:

If writers would agree to regard 'that' as the defining relative
pronoun, and 'which' as the non-defining, there would be much gain both
in lucidity and in ease.

(Note that Fowler did not propound this idea: it was in fairly common
use, and had been discussed in print by others, well before he wrote of
it.)

And, as with so many rules and guidelines loudly and at length declaimed
against, it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to see what
might be the problem with universal observance of it, save perhaps the
old "No one's gonna tell ME how to write!"


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[DKleinecke]

It seems to me that the writers I am parsing, who are writing blogs,
are writing quite informal prose and hence come closer to speech than
better prepared prose. I think you are right about non-restrictives
and I think these writers are using parenthetical constructions where
formal prose might have a non-restrictive. A clause or phrase set off
between hyphens is the commonest way - actual parentheses are rare -
but, unless somebody has better name I will call them parenthetical.
Is your observation about non-restrictives a well-known fact that has
never happened to reach my ear?

I examine one text for all of the "which" in it. There were two -
both in the relative-leading phrase "in which". I doubt that anyone
says "in that" (in this context - it has another meaning) and there is
no reason to believe it will replace soon in any relative preposition
phrase - restrictive or otherwise.

[DKleinecke]

On May 19, 8:53 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> There is, however, no reason not to begin a sentence with
> "hopefully" (or any of the other sentence adverbs that are never
> adjoined to that criticism), and there are now and then good reasons
> to begin a sentence with "However."

I have noticed that more than half the time "however" does not begin a
sentence but rather appears sentence-second - as you have done.
Writers differ in how much they use sentence-second position for what
I would call discourse material - "however", "moreover" and so on. I
would classified the almost automatic form of quotation - "...." John
said "...." as a form of second position where the I see the almost
comical situation where a sentential anti-verb-phrase is embedded
discourse-second in the object (using anti-verb-phrase for SV where VO
would be the verb phrase).

[DKleinecke]

You sound a little naive about power relationships and what actually
goes on in a class room.

[Robert Bannister]

It certainly is a command since I could hardly predict that you will
want to do whatever it is. It is simply that I find "shall" has
disappeared from my vocabulary except in "Shall I?" and "Shall we?".
Others, particularly your compatriots, claim it has disappeared from
their language altogether.

--
Robert Bannister

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

I think I agree with you in the residual functions of "shall" in my
dialect. In ordinary speech it is restricted to questions with first-
person subjects, indicating an offer or proposal. I believe at least
some Americans would use "should" in such contexts, and hence would
have no everyday use of "shall" at all.

However, I think it is also true that in all English-speaking
countries "shall" remains the modal of necessity in formal legal
language: "Congress shall make no law..."

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On May 16, 1:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.
>
> [They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an
> extended disquisition on seasickness:]
>
> "So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my
> own account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George
> says he should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would
> advise Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should
> both be ill."

Although I didn't read the novel, and English isn't my
mother language, I dare comment on the case of would
and should. The first 'should' might involve intention:
I do all I can to get well, early sleep, no booze, no smoking,
and should be fine again tomorrow. The second 'should'
might involve anticipation: Based on my observations,
and the 'theory' I formed in my mind, they should not get well
as quickly. Good authors have a feeling for the depths of
language grammarians can't always easily fathom. Mark
Twain said he writes a very good grammar but goes by his
feeling, not by the book. Grammar books can't produce
a Twain or a Dylan (who got bad grades from his English
teacher, the lady went by the book and failed recognizing
a poetic genius in the making).

[Odysseus]

In article <kne5b1$h2l$1...@dont-email.me>,

Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:23:57 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> > If you use commas properly, you can safely use 'which' in a
> > restrictive relative clause; it's routine in British
> > English.
>
> That is more or less so. But, as Follett observed on the "safely" aspect:
>
> A fundamental, often crucial difference of meaning is thus left to turn
> on the mere absence or presence of the least of the punctuation marks,

> the comma, which is so easily lost on its way to the printed page. [...]

Accidental omissions and fly-specks aside, in interrupted quotations, if
the punctuation style changes or masks the original comma placement --
see other thread -- there may not remain any other indication. Lists and
parentheticals set off by commas can also obfuscate matters.

That said, the occasions are few and far between where a restrictive
"which" gives me more than the slightest pause.

--
Odysseus

[pauljk]

"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message
news:6f155d97-294e-49ff...@q9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

> On May 16, 1:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.
>>
>> [They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an
>> extended disquisition on seasickness:]
>>
>> "So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my
>> own account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George
>> says he should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would
>> advise Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should
>> both be ill."
>
> Although I didn't read the novel, and English isn't my
> mother language, I dare comment on the case of would
> and should. The first 'should' might involve intention:
> I do all I can to get well, early sleep, no booze, no smoking,
> and should be fine again tomorrow. The second 'should'
> might involve anticipation:

Might involve anticipation? Well, does it or does it not?

If you had 'would' instead of the second 'should', how would that
change your view as regards to anticipation?

pjk

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yes, that was written 225 years ago ...

The word does still occur in legislation, and apparently gives rise to
confusion that leads to civil suits.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 21, 3:02 am, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
> In article <kne5b1$h2...@dont-email.me>,

>  Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:23:57 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> > > If you use commas properly, you can safely use 'which' in a
> > > restrictive relative clause; it's routine in British
> > > English.
>
> > That is more or less so.  But, as Follett observed on the "safely" aspect:
>
> >   A fundamental, often crucial difference of meaning is thus left to turn
> >   on the mere absence or presence of the least of the punctuation marks,
> >   the comma, which is so easily lost on its way to the printed page. [...]
>
> Accidental omissions and fly-specks aside, in interrupted quotations, if
> the punctuation style changes or masks the original comma placement --
> see other thread -- there may not remain any other indication. Lists and
> parentheticals set off by commas can also obfuscate matters.

That's why they are sometimes bumped up to semicolons. If the items in
a list themselves contain commas, for whatever reason, then the items
are separated with semicolons. In extreme cases, the list might even
be broken into separate sentences.

> That said, the occasions are few and far between where a restrictive
> "which" gives me more than the slightest pause.

And of course there is no alternative in "that which" or prepositional
phrases.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> There is, however, no reason not to begin a sentence with
> "hopefully" (or any of the other sentence adverbs that are never
> adjoined to that criticism), and there are now and then good reasons
> to begin a sentence with "However."

Well, we agree on that.

> Note that everything you have described is very, very different from
> what is found in Follett and his unidentified meddlers (the individual
> paragraphs are not signed).

The Follett & al. work is really in the same line, just bigger.


--
I look back with the greatest pleasure to the kindness and hospitality
I met with in Yorkshire, where I spent some of the happiest years of
my life. --- Sabine Baring-Gould

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 19, 3:49 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 18, 4:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> >> > Fremont-Smith's evaluation is the only quoted one worth paying
>> >> > attention to. All the others -- belonging among the most hidebound
>> >> > conservative pundits (as they were not yet called) on the American
>> >> > scene -- had no competence to pronounce on the matter.
>>
>> >> Are political views particularly relevant?
>>
>> > Where did I say anything about politics?
>>
>> "hidebound conservative pundits"
>
> Eh? Preferring Emerson to Whitman (perhaps the example is a bit
> extreme) is a _political_ position?

Well, now that you've clarified what you meant.... But come on, that
turn of phrase is almost exclusively associated with politics.



--
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
[Ambrose Bierce]

[Adam Funk]

Well, "omit needless words" might shut him up.


--
The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]

[Les Cargill]

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-05-20, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
>> On May 20, 8:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Have you never taught high school (or freshman) English composition?
>>> Would their work not be better if they did, in fact, observe those
>>> principles? Does one not walk before one can run? Did not Picasso and
>>> Pollock create pretty fine representational paintings before they
>>> experimented with new approaches?
>>
>> Do none of these usage guides counsel against excessive use of
>> rhetorical questions?
>
> Well, "omit needless words" might shut him up.
>
>

.s/omit/vomit/g

--
Les Cargill

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 21, 3:02 am, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:

>> Accidental omissions and fly-specks aside, in interrupted quotations, if
>> the punctuation style changes or masks the original comma placement --
>> see other thread -- there may not remain any other indication. Lists and
>> parentheticals set off by commas can also obfuscate matters.
>
> That's why they are sometimes bumped up to semicolons. If the items in
> a list themselves contain commas, for whatever reason, then the items
> are separated with semicolons. In extreme cases, the list might even
> be broken into separate sentences.

I like semicolons more than Kurt Vonnegut.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Well, it was the only example I knew from memory. I don't read a lot
of legislation.

> The word does still occur in legislation, and apparently gives rise to
> confusion that leads to civil suits.

Not surprising, if it is virtually extinct in ordinary language. But
it's so common in all kinds of literature that the educated part of
the populace would have to be acquainted with it. Even hymns: "Shall
we gather at the river?" "I/We shall not be moved" etc.etc.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 21, 4:28 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 3:02 am, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
> >> Accidental omissions and fly-specks aside, in interrupted quotations, if
> >> the punctuation style changes or masks the original comma placement --
> >> see other thread -- there may not remain any other indication. Lists and
> >> parentheticals set off by commas can also obfuscate matters.
>
> > That's why they are sometimes bumped up to semicolons. If the items in
> > a list themselves contain commas, for whatever reason, then the items
> > are separated with semicolons. In extreme cases, the list might even
> > be broken into separate sentences.
>
> I like semicolons more than Kurt Vonnegut.

I'd say they occupy positions on entirely different scales of
likability.

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:49 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:

[...]

> I like semicolons more than Kurt Vonnegut.

Trolling?


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:45:58 -0700, DKleinecke wrote:

[...]

> I have noticed that more than half the time "however" does not begin a
> sentence but rather appears sentence-second - as you have done. Writers
> differ in how much they use sentence-second position for what I would
> call discourse material - "however", "moreover" and so on. I would
> classified the almost automatic form of quotation - "...." John said
> "...." as a form of second position where the I see the almost comical
> situation where a sentential anti-verb-phrase is embedded
> discourse-second in the object (using anti-verb-phrase for SV where VO
> would be the verb phrase).

The chief problem with opening a sentence with "however" is that the word
implies a contrast with the words that have come just before. One might
argue that the same applies to "but", which can certainly open a
sentence; but "however" seems more intimately linked to its context, so
that while it can bridge phrases in a sentence, it cannot bear the weight
of bridging entire sentences.

"I dislike such meetings. However, I shall dutifully attend."

That really wants to be:

"I dislike such meetings. I shall, however, dutifully attend."

It's not a rule of grammar; one might even argue that it is not a "rule"
of usage; but it is good form, and castings like the first above just
grate on many ears. (It makes one feel as if one has encountered a
sentence fragment.)


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:51:04 -0700, DKleinecke wrote:

[...]

> You sound a little naive about power relationships and what actually
> goes on in a class room.

I cannot help what goes on in classrooms, which--at least in the U.S.--is
usually a mild nightmare, no matter the subject. I am addressing myself
to careful users of English, and what is or is not "prescribed" to them
by reference works.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Robert Bannister]

On 22/05/13 4:28 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-05-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On May 21, 3:02 am, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Accidental omissions and fly-specks aside, in interrupted quotations, if
>>> the punctuation style changes or masks the original comma placement --
>>> see other thread -- there may not remain any other indication. Lists and
>>> parentheticals set off by commas can also obfuscate matters.
>>
>> That's why they are sometimes bumped up to semicolons. If the items in
>> a list themselves contain commas, for whatever reason, then the items
>> are separated with semicolons. In extreme cases, the list might even
>> be broken into separate sentences.
>
>
> I like semicolons more than Kurt Vonnegut.

I only ever liked parts of one book by Vonnegut. Half my colon is more
gutsy than that.
--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Agreed. It is a shame that such a basic word has more or less gone out
of fashion, but there it is. At least you and I haven't abandoned it
completely. Legal language, on the other hand, retains a lot of
vocabulary and phraseology that was dated a century ago.

--
Robert Bannister

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <knh2h7$til$3...@dont-email.me>,

Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:45:58 -0700, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I have noticed that more than half the time "however" does not begin a
> > sentence but rather appears sentence-second - as you have done. Writers
> > differ in how much they use sentence-second position for what I would
> > call discourse material - "however", "moreover" and so on. I would
> > classified the almost automatic form of quotation - "...." John said
> > "...." as a form of second position where the I see the almost comical
> > situation where a sentential anti-verb-phrase is embedded
> > discourse-second in the object (using anti-verb-phrase for SV where VO
> > would be the verb phrase).
>
> The chief problem with opening a sentence with "however" is that the word
> implies a contrast with the words that have come just before.

I agree, which is why the sentence-initial version sounds perfectly
fine to me:

> "I dislike such meetings. However, I shall dutifully attend."

The sentence after "however" is contrasted with the sentence before it.

But your preferred version suggests a contrast between "I shall" (the
words immediately before "however") and "dutifully attend", which is
nonsensical, precisely because both parts are sentence fragments:

> "I dislike such meetings. I shall, however, dutifully attend."

> but "however" seems more intimately linked to its context, so
> that while it can bridge phrases in a sentence, it cannot bear the weight
> of bridging entire sentences.

I don't get this feeling at all. In fact, it is the most
straightforward use of "however" (and its syntactic kin "furthermore",
"therefore", "in fact", etc.). Jamming it into the middle of a
sentence interrupts the flow of the sentence (and requires an extra
comma to boot), and tacking it on to the end delays the information
contained in "however". Either of these are fine if there is a
specific reason to create such a marked structure, but their
specificity is exactly what makes them non-neutral, non-default.

Sentence-initial "however" is perfectly ordinary, not just in native
speech, but in the writing of celebrated authors of English, including
Oscar Wilde, Lewis Carroll, Willa Cather, Joseph Conrad, Stephen
Crane, Henry James, Arthur Machen, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Bram Stoker,
Mark Twain:

<http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/06/07/the-however-myth/>

A commenter even digs up sentence-initial "however" from E.B. White!

This is yet another phantom stylistic rule that has no basis in the
actual style used by real authors of English, let alone the natural
speech of native speakers.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 21, 8:54 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <knh2h7$ti...@dont-email.me>,

Maybe they just don't want you to begin a _discourse_ with
"However." (However much you want to.)

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<32d7d849-d30d-4f0d...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

That would at least be reasonable; it's certainly a much better match
for both native speech and published writing.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:51:04 -0700 (PDT), DKleinecke
<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:3805749c-87b5-407c...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

> On May 19, 8:08�pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:17:14 -0700, DKleinecke wrote:

>> [...]

>>> I am, of course, familiar with prescription about "that"
>>> versus "which". . . .

>> To reiterate: it is not a "prescription", it is heartfelt
>> advice, and pretty much every usage writer who remarks
>> on it explains that carefully while giving the reasons
>> for the advice.

> You sound a little naive about power relationships and
> what actually goes on in a class room.

His contention that it's not a prescription is asinine,
since (as you imply) it's often taught as one, but it should
be noted that Eric was talking about usage writers, not
about what goes on in a classroom. (And that, of course,
depends greatly on the teacher, the level of the class, and
even the specific group of students.)

[Dr Nick]

I'm always a bit thrown by quoted things starting "Whereas" as I think
of that as comparative by default.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-22, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On May 21, 8:54 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> > A commenter even digs up sentence-initial "however" from E.B. White!
>> >
>> > This is yet another phantom stylistic rule that has no basis in the
>> > actual style used by real authors of English, let alone the natural
>> > speech of native speakers.

Sweet!

>> Maybe they just don't want you to begin a _discourse_ with
>> "However." (However much you want to.)
>
> That would at least be reasonable; it's certainly a much better match
> for both native speech and published writing.

Fine, but that's not what _Elements of Style_ says (unless I'm
mistaken; I don't own a copy).


--
I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors.
-- plorkwort

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-22, Eric Walker wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:49 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I like semicolons more than Kurt Vonnegut.
>
> Trolling?

Joking, & alluding to Vonnegut's quip, "Do not use semicolons. They
are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All
they do is show you've been to college.”


--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.

[CDB]

On 22/05/2013 3:17 AM, Dr Nick wrote:

> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>> Maybe they just don't want you to begin a _discourse_ with
>>> "However." (However much you want to.)

>> That would at least be reasonable; it's certainly a much better match
>> for both native speech and published writing.

> I'm always a bit thrown by quoted things starting "Whereas" as I think
> of that as comparative by default.

That must make some preambles uncomfortable reading.

<http://pinoy-business.com/contracts/contract-series-the-preamble-or-whereas-clause>

[Dr Nick]

I don't think we do it over here. I've certainly never seen it in that
context. Hence my confusion when I do encounter it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 8:11 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

> CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 22/05/2013 3:17 AM, Dr Nick wrote:

> >> Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> >>>   "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Maybe they just don't want you to begin a _discourse_ with
> >>>> "However." (However much you want to.)
>
> >>> That would at least be reasonable; it's certainly a much better match
> >>> for both native speech and published writing.
>
> >> I'm always a bit thrown by quoted things starting "Whereas" as I think
> >> of that as comparative by default.
>
> > That must make some preambles uncomfortable reading.
>

> > <http://pinoy-business.com/contracts/contract-series-the-preamble-or-w...>

>
> I don't think we do it over here.  I've certainly never seen it in that
> context.  Hence my confusion when I do encounter it.

So what's the formula for setting out the reasons for a piece of
legislation, or for declaring some sort of honorary this-or-that?

[Dr Nick]

Acts of Parliament just seems to start "An Act to ..". For example, the
Consumer Credit Act of 1974 (picked as it came up in a "most popular"
list when I looked) just starts:

An Act to establish for the protection of consumers a new system,
administered by the Director General of Fair Trading, of licensing and
other control of traders concerned with the provision of credit, or the
supply of goods on hire or hire-purchase, and their transactions, in
place of the present enactments regulating moneylenders, pawnbrokers and
hire-purchase traders and their transactions; and for related matters.

Which is a particularly hideous sentence.

But Statutory Instruments do appear to tend to start "whereas". For
example the "The A4 Trunk Road and A46 Trunk Road (London Road Junction,
Bath) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2013" starts:

WHEREAS the Secretary of State for Transport, being the traffic
authority for the A4 Trunk Road (“the A4”), the A46 Trunk Road (“the
A46”) and connecting roads, is satisfied that traffic on lengths of
those roads and two of those connecting roads at the London Road
Junction in Bath and North East Somerset should be prohibited because
works are proposed to be executed thereon:

I don't think I've ever looked at a Statutory Instrument before.

I'm not sure about honorary this-or-thats. Give me a clearer example of
what a "this" or "that" is and I'll do your Googling for you.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 5:43 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-22, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>

> >  "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On May 21, 8:54 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> > A commenter even digs up sentence-initial "however" from E.B. White!
>
> >> > This is yet another phantom stylistic rule that has no basis in the
> >> > actual style used by real authors of English, let alone the natural
> >> > speech of native speakers.
>
> Sweet!
>
> >> Maybe they just don't want you to begin a _discourse_ with
> >> "However." (However much you want to.)
>
> > That would at least be reasonable; it's certainly a much better match
> > for both native speech and published writing.
>
> Fine, but that's not what _Elements of Style_ says (unless I'm
> mistaken; I don't own a copy).

Splork!

Strunk 1920: 36:

*However.* In the meaning _nevertheless_, not to come first in its
sentence or clause.

(The roads were almost impassable. However, we at last succeeded in
reaching camp.

(The roads were almost impassible. At last, however, we succeeded in
reaching camp.)

When _however_ comes first, it means _in whatever way_ or _to whatever
extent_.

(However you advise him, he will probably do as he thinks best.

(However discouraging the prospect, he never lost heart.)

I don't have the 1935 edition by Strunk & Tenney.

Strunk & White 1959: 39f.:

*_However._* Avoid starting a sentence with _however_ when the meaning
is _nevertheless_. The word usually serves better when not in first
position.

[the rest of the entry is the same]

2nd ed., 1972: 43: same, except the glosses are roman in quotes
instead of italic.

3rd ed., 1979: 48f.: same.

So reserve your scorn for Strunk and do not derogate White.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 3:03 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:51:04 -0700 (PDT), DKleinecke

> <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote in

Interesting how you change your tune when you're talking to David
rather than me.

[CDB]

In Canada, we still often have that kind of preamble in private Members'
bills, in many cases taking up most of the text. The example below is
of such a bill, one that I drafted during an administrative drive to
have the wretched Clerks use their free time more profitably. I proudly
draw your attention to the nearly-invisible seam between the second and
third paras (aka "la Conquête").

Preamble

WHEREAS the Canadian horse was introduced into Canada in 1665, when the
King of France sent horses from his own stables to the people of his
North American colony;

WHEREAS the Canadian horse increased in numbers during the ensuing
century to become an invaluable ally to the settlers in their efforts to
survive and prosper in their new home;

WHEREAS all Canadians who have known the Canadian horse have made clear
their high esteem for the qualities of great strength and endurance,
resilience, intelligence and good temper that distinguish the breed;

WHEREAS the Canadian horse was at one time in danger of being lost
through interbreeding or as a casualty of war, but has survived these
perils;

WHEREAS, since 1885 and all during the present century, widespread and
increasingly successful efforts have been made to re-establish and
preserve the Canadian horse;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to recognize the unique
place of the Canadian horse in the history of Canada;


Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House
of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


SHORT TITLE

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the /National Horse of Canada Act/.


THE NATIONAL HORSE

National horse

2. The horse known as the Canadian horse is hereby recognized and
declared to be the national horse of Canada.


<http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2002-c-11/latest/sc-2002-c-11.html>

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 9:14 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > On May 22, 8:11 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> >> CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On 22/05/2013 3:17 AM, Dr Nick wrote:

> >> >> I'm always a bit thrown by quoted things starting "Whereas" as I think
> >> >> of that as comparative by default.
>
> >> > That must make some preambles uncomfortable reading.
>
> >> > <http://pinoy-business.com/contracts/contract-series-the-preamble-or-w...>
>
> >> I don't think we do it over here.  I've certainly never seen it in that
> >> context.  Hence my confusion when I do encounter it.
>
> > So what's the formula for setting out the reasons for a piece of
> > legislation, or for declaring some sort of honorary this-or-that?
>
> Acts of Parliament just seems to start "An Act to ..".  For example, the
> Consumer Credit Act of 1974 (picked as it came up in a "most popular"
> list when I looked) just starts:

[...]

> I don't think I've ever looked at a Statutory Instrument before.
>
> I'm not sure about honorary this-or-thats.  Give me a clearer example of
> what a "this" or "that" is and I'll do your Googling for you.

WHEREAS, John P. Doe has been an upstanding member of our community
for 50 years, and

WHEREAS, John P. Doe has served this organization in a variety of
elective and appointive positions for many seasons, and
.
.
.
WE, the Society for Accomplishing Good Things, do hereby proclaim
February 30 John P. Doe Day in our organization.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-22, Dr Nick wrote:

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:

>> So what's the formula for setting out the reasons for a piece of
>> legislation, or for declaring some sort of honorary this-or-that?
>
> Acts of Parliament just seems to start "An Act to ..". For example, the
> Consumer Credit Act of 1974 (picked as it came up in a "most popular"
> list when I looked) just starts:
>
> An Act to establish for the protection of consumers a new system,
> administered by the Director General of Fair Trading, of licensing and
> other control of traders concerned with the provision of credit, or the
> supply of goods on hire or hire-purchase, and their transactions, in
> place of the present enactments regulating moneylenders, pawnbrokers and
> hire-purchase traders and their transactions; and for related matters.
>
> Which is a particularly hideous sentence.

It's not even a sentence as such, but a big noun phrase!


--
There's no money in poetry, but there's no poetry in
money either. --- Robert Graves

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-22, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On May 22, 5:43 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-22, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> >  "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >> Maybe they just don't want you to begin a _discourse_ with
>> >> "However." (However much you want to.)
>>
>> > That would at least be reasonable; it's certainly a much better match
>> > for both native speech and published writing.
>>
>> Fine, but that's not what _Elements of Style_ says (unless I'm
>> mistaken; I don't own a copy).
>
> Splork!
>
> Strunk 1920: 36:
>
> *However.* In the meaning _nevertheless_, not to come first in its
> sentence or clause.

Bunk.

> When _however_ comes first, it means _in whatever way_ or _to whatever
> extent_.
>
> (However you advise him, he will probably do as he thinks best.
>
> (However discouraging the prospect, he never lost heart.)

True.

> Strunk & White 1959: 39f.:
>
> *_However._* Avoid starting a sentence with _however_ when the meaning
> is _nevertheless_. The word usually serves better when not in first
> position.
>
> [the rest of the entry is the same]
>
> 2nd ed., 1972: 43: same, except the glosses are roman in quotes
> instead of italic.
>
> 3rd ed., 1979: 48f.: same.
>
> So reserve your scorn for Strunk and do not derogate White.

So give him 1 point for diluting the bogus proscription, but take away
half a point for not removing it.


--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]

[Robert Bannister]

On 22/05/13 8:12 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:45:58 -0700, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I have noticed that more than half the time "however" does not begin a
>> sentence but rather appears sentence-second - as you have done. Writers
>> differ in how much they use sentence-second position for what I would
>> call discourse material - "however", "moreover" and so on. I would
>> classified the almost automatic form of quotation - "...." John said
>> "...." as a form of second position where the I see the almost comical
>> situation where a sentential anti-verb-phrase is embedded
>> discourse-second in the object (using anti-verb-phrase for SV where VO
>> would be the verb phrase).
>
> The chief problem with opening a sentence with "however" is that the word
> implies a contrast with the words that have come just before. One might
> argue that the same applies to "but", which can certainly open a
> sentence; but "however" seems more intimately linked to its context, so
> that while it can bridge phrases in a sentence, it cannot bear the weight
> of bridging entire sentences.
>
> "I dislike such meetings. However, I shall dutifully attend."
>
> That really wants to be:
>
> "I dislike such meetings. I shall, however, dutifully attend."

It seems to me that if one sentence cannot refer to a previous one, then
the connecting phrase should be "Despite all the above". Simply omitting
"however" is to my mind creating a hiatus.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Whereas most things posted by Dr Nick seem eminently sensible to me, I
am at a loss to understand how comparison creeps into the conversation.

--
Robert Bannister

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:20:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:5be13daa-abf5-49bb...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

I don't.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 22, 11:05 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:20:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in

Go see what you wrote on May 20 at 1:23 am.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:31:28 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:4e6075f9-2801-4f43...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

What are you smoking? Nothing there conflicts with anything
that I wrote to David.

[Dr Nick]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:

I can't think of a reasonable equivalent for that to look for it.

[Dr Nick]

Oh thank you sir!

I'm trying to find an example that works when I write it down, but
failing. But it's something along the lines of "All pigs from France
are green, whereas those from Germany are orange".

[Franz Gnaedinger]

On May 21, 11:57 am, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > On May 16, 1:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Here's a sentence from *Three Men in a Boat* (1888). Discuss.
>
> >> [They are discussing what to do with their free week. After an
> >> extended disquisition on seasickness:]
>
> >> "So I set my face against the sea trip. Not, as I explained, upon my
> >> own account.. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George
> >> says he should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would
> >> advise Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should
> >> both be ill."
>
> Might involve anticipation? Well, does it or does it not?
>
> If you had 'would' instead of the second 'should', how would that
> change your view as regards to anticipation?

I didn't read the novel, so I don't know the conext of the quote.
Apart from this caveat, I'd say yes, there _is_ anticipation,
vocalized in the "as he felt sure," a feeling based on intuition
that relies on observation and experience; 'would' instead
of 'should' would sound wrong for me, there should stand
a should.

[Odysseus]

In article <87k3mrp...@temporary-address.org.uk>,

They're fairly common in Letters Patent granting arms and such: a quick
search turned up e.g.

<http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3875016/Wootton-Bassett-receiv
es-Royal-title.html> (watch for link-wrap; the fifth large image down)

"Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God [&c.] To all to whom these
Presents shall come, Greeting. Whereas We for diverse good causes and
considerations Us thereunto moving are graciously pleased to confer upon
[...] Now therefore know ye that [...]"

--
Odysseus