OxDic Shock! Editor Deported "Foreign" Words!

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239073/Former-Oxford-English-Dictionary-editor-secretly-deleted-thousands-words-foreign-origin.html

Now read on...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/the-case-of-the-missing-oed-words-solved.html

Beat-up, n. Colloq. A media story of small significance which is given
spurious importance by an expanded, often sensational treatment
(Macquarie Dictionary) (not in O.E.D.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 29, 12:59 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239073/Former-Oxford-English...
>
> Now read on...
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/the-case-of-the...

>
> Beat-up, n. Colloq. A media story of small significance which is given
> spurious importance by an expanded, often sensational treatment
> (Macquarie Dictionary)  (not in O.E.D.)

Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s Modern
English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.

(As the publisher recognized by reissuing the 1st with an introduction
by David Crystal.)

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
news:42e98621-9a15-4c07...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s Modern
> English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.

Onions had nothing to do with Fowler's Modern English Usage. The second
edition was revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. The so-called "third edition" is
essentially a new reference work under the "Fowler" brand name, and I think
OUP were wrong to market it that way. I find Burchfield's guide very
useful, but it's not Fowler (although it does draw on some of his material).

--
Guy Barry

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Nov 29, 12:59 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239073/Former-Oxford-English...

I'd expect the Mail to be in favour of getting rid of foreign words.

>> Now read on...
>>
>> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/the-case-of-the...
>>
>> Beat-up, n. Colloq. A media story of small significance which is given
>> spurious importance by an expanded, often sensational treatment
>> (Macquarie Dictionary)  (not in O.E.D.)
>
> Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s Modern
> English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.

ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.

> (As the publisher recognized by reissuing the 1st with an introduction
> by David Crystal.)

How's that introduction?


--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 12:59 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239073/Former-Oxford-English...
>
> I'd expect the Mail to be in favour of getting rid of foreign words.
>
> >> Now read on...
>
> >>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/the-case-of-the...
>
> >> Beat-up, n. Colloq. A media story of small significance which is given
> >> spurious importance by an expanded, often sensational treatment
> >> (Macquarie Dictionary)  (not in O.E.D.)
>
> > Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s Modern
> > English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
>
> ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.

Right ... Onions was Fowler's (and Murray's) successor in various
capacities in Oxford lexicography. Gowers wrote a series "Plain Talk"
that was gathered into at least a couple of volumes.

> > (As the publisher recognized by reissuing the 1st with an introduction
> > by David Crystal.)
>
> How's that introduction?

Surprisingly uninteresting. (Looked through it in the store; it's on
cheap paper and won't last. The cover says "edited by," but it's a
photo reprint. His judicious updating of the 2nd would have been a
Good Thing.) I fear that since D.C. has tried to become the Isaac
Asimov of linguistics, the quality has been suffering. I have been
severely underwhelmed by *Begat*, which capitalized on the 400th
anniversary of the KJV by tracing the origins of various familiar
phrases (most of which antedate the 1611 version, going back to
Tyndale or even Coverdale, and for a very few, the Geneva Bible and
Douay) and is ordered simply by the order of the English Bible -- just
as Asimov would have done it, and by *A History of English in 100
Words*, an even more slapdash knockoff of the BBC series "A History of
the World in 100 Objects" (WNYC was apparently the only radio station
in the US that broadcast it; for some inexplicable reason they started
on a Tuesday, so all the groupings by week were spoiled. But they
didn't take a several-week break in the middle.).

The Shakespeare Lexicon he did with his son is not unuseful, and the
book of language quotations he did with his wife is fat but rather
thin in content -- not that many witty, memorable things have been
said about language (and they missed a few that have).

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

On Nov 30, 5:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 12:59 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> > > wrote:
> > >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239073/Former-Oxford-English...
>
> > I'd expect the Mail to be in favour of getting rid of foreign words.
>
> > >> Now read on...
>
> > >>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/the-case-of-the...
>
> > >> Beat-up, n. Colloq. A media story of small significance which is given
> > >> spurious importance by an expanded, often sensational treatment
> > >> (Macquarie Dictionary)  (not in O.E.D.)
>
> > > Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s Modern
> > > English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
>
> > ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.
>
> Right ... Onions was Fowler's (and Murray's) successor in various
> capacities in Oxford lexicography. Gowers wrote a series "Plain Talk"
> that was gathered into at least a couple of volumes.

That would be "Plain Words" (1948) and its successors. Originally a
style manual for civil servants. My dad thought very highly of it in
the 1950s.

>
> > > (As the publisher recognized by reissuing the 1st with an introduction
> > > by David Crystal.)
>
> > How's that introduction?
>
> Surprisingly uninteresting. (Looked through it in the store; it's on
> cheap paper and won't last. The cover says "edited by," but it's a
> photo reprint. His judicious updating of the 2nd would have been a
> Good Thing.) I fear that since D.C. has tried to become the Isaac
> Asimov of linguistics, the quality has been suffering.

I agree he's way over-producing. I most recently read "Pronouncing
Shakespeare", his account of the 2004(?) "Romeo and Juliet" at the
Globe, with Authentic Phonetics. It was OK, but you felt he probably
knocked it off in a couple of days. He should do less stuff and do it
better.

A small case in point: I notice that the most recent edition of his
Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th, 2008) hasn't yet picked
up the use of "rhotic" by phoneticians to refer to the class of "r-
sounds", which has been around for at least a decade. OED has one
citation from the 80s, though their definition obscures it. But
P.H.Matthews' _Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics_ (2007) has
it.

And while I'm on this: the OED's citations of "rhotic" in the sense
referring to the r-pronouncing varieties of English gives the
impression that the term was coined by J.C.Wells in the 1960s (or even
50s). Can anyone confirm or deny this?

[Dr Nick]

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

> On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 29, 12:59 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
>> > wrote:
>> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239073/Former-Oxford-English...
>> I'd expect the Mail to be in favour of getting rid of foreign words.
>>
>> >> Now read on...
>>
>> >>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/11/the-case-of-the...
>>
>> >> Beat-up, n. Colloq. A media story of small significance which is
>> >> given spurious importance by an expanded, often sensational
>> >> treatment (Macquarie Dictionary)  (not in O.E.D.)
>>
>> > Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s
>> > Modern English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
>> ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.

With that correction I am - for once - in complete agreement with you.

> Right ... Onions was Fowler's (and Murray's) successor in various
> capacities in Oxford lexicography. Gowers wrote a series "Plain Talk"
> that was gathered into at least a couple of volumes.

"Plain Words", I think you'll find.

[Guy Barry]

"Dr Nick" wrote in message news:878v9kn...@temporary-address.org.uk...

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

> > On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> > Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s
> >> > Modern English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
> >> ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.

> With that correction I am - for once - in complete agreement with you.

The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd that
PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach over Burchfield's largely
descriptivist one. As I said previously, I doubt whether there would have
been any strong objections to Burchfield's work if it hadn't been marketed
under the "Fowler" name (which I believe was a decision by OUP, not by
Burchfield himself).

> > Right ... Onions was Fowler's (and Murray's) successor in various
> > capacities in Oxford lexicography. Gowers wrote a series "Plain Talk"
> > that was gathered into at least a couple of volumes.

> "Plain Words", I think you'll find.

Indeed - "Plain Words" and "The ABC of Plain Words", which were later
combined into "The Complete Plain Words".

--
Guy Barry

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 29, 2:25 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> And while I'm on this: the OED's citations of "rhotic" in the sense
> referring to the r-pronouncing varieties of English gives the
> impression that the term was coined by J.C.Wells in the 1960s (or even
> 50s). Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Would his own testimony do? I don't remember where it was, but it was
somewhere. But I don't think he said it was that old.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-30, Guy Barry wrote:

>
>
> "Dr Nick" wrote in message news:878v9kn...@temporary-address.org.uk...
>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> > On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> >> > Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s
>> >> > Modern English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
>> >> ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.
>
>> With that correction I am - for once - in complete agreement with you.
>
> The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd that
> PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach over Burchfield's largely
> descriptivist one.

Yes, he's mislaid his linguistic dogma hat again.

> As I said previously, I doubt whether there would have
> been any strong objections to Burchfield's work if it hadn't been marketed
> under the "Fowler" name (which I believe was a decision by OUP, not by
> Burchfield himself).

Probably true.

--
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]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 29, 11:12 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Dr Nick"  wrote in messagenews:878v9kn...@temporary-address.org.uk...

> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > > On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> > Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s
> > >> > Modern English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
> > >> ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.
> > With that correction I am - for once - in complete agreement with you.
>
> The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd that
> PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach

Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?

> over Burchfield's largely
> descriptivist one.  As I said previously, I doubt whether there would have
> been any strong objections to Burchfield's work if it hadn't been marketed
> under the "Fowler" name (which I believe was a decision by OUP, not by
> Burchfield himself).

There are dozens of such books. Why would Burchfield's be any better
than any other?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 30, 5:46 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-30, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Dr Nick"  wrote in messagenews:878v9kn...@temporary-address.org.uk...
>

> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> > On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> >> > Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s
> >> >> > Modern English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
> >> >> ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.
>
> >> With that correction I am - for once - in complete agreement with you.
>
> > The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd that
> > PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach over Burchfield's largely
> > descriptivist one.
>
> Yes, he's mislaid his linguistic dogma hat again.

Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:d9697fd8-fd44-4446...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 29, 11:12 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd
> > that
> > PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach

> Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?

From cover to cover. All three editions. To this day I still avoid using
so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative clauses
with "which". Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced plenty
of strictures of his own.

> There are dozens of such books. Why would Burchfield's be any better
> than any other?

No particular reason. But I think it's a reasonable stand-alone usage
guide, and doesn't deserve the opprobrium heaped on it by some. I doubt
very much whether it would have sold as well without the "Fowler" name,
though.

--
Guy Barry

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-11-30 15:06:07 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> said:

> On Nov 30, 5:46 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-30, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Dr Nick"  wrote in messagenews:878v9kn...@temporary-address.org.
> uk...
>>
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:18 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012-11-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Burchfield's real sin was his meddling with Fowler (& Onions)'s
>>>>>>> Modern English Usage. The "third edition" is an abomination.
>>>>>> ITYM Gowers rather than Onions.
>>
>>>> With that correction I am - for once - in complete agreement with you.
>>
>>> The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd
> that
>>> PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach over Burchfield's la
> rgely
>>> descriptivist one.
>>
>> Yes, he's mislaid his linguistic dogma hat again.
>
> Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?

I think this question is probably saying what I was thinking of saying
to Guy, that it's a gross oversimplification to call Fowler a
prescriptivist. He had his idiosyncrasies, of course, and not all of
his recommendations have survived. He rarely if ever said his readers
should follow some rule simply because he said so; he nearly always
gave reasons for thinking that following a rule would lead to
improvement in clarity or euphony.

>
>>> As I said previously, I doubt whether there would have
>>> been any strong objections to Burchfield's work if it hadn't been marke
> ted
>>> under the "Fowler" name (which I believe was a decision by OUP, not by
>>> Burchfield himself).
>>
>> Probably true.

--
athel

[Guy Barry]

"Athel Cornish-Bowden" wrote in message
news:ahrveg...@mid.individual.net...

> I think this question is probably saying what I was thinking of saying to
> Guy, that it's a gross oversimplification to call Fowler a prescriptivist.
> He had his idiosyncrasies, of course, and not all of his recommendations
> have survived. He rarely if ever said his readers should follow some rule
> simply because he said so; he nearly always gave reasons for thinking that
> following a rule would lead to improvement in clarity or euphony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

Wikipedia says "In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism, is the
practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language
against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or
improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low
aesthetic value." [*]

I think that's a reasonable description of Fowler's approach. I don't think
that prescriptivism necessarily entails a "because I say so" approach; on
the contrary, prescriptivists are often the ones who offer the most eloquent
justifications of the rules they propose. Indeed Fowler is given as the
first example in the Wikipedia article:

"Prescription presupposes an authority whose judgment may be followed by
other members of a speech community. Such an authority may be a prominent
writer or educator such as Henry Fowler, whose _English Usage_ defined the
standard for British English for much of the 20th century." [**]

[*]What's that comma doing after the subject by the way? Need to fix that.
[**] I think I need to correct the book's title as well!

--
Guy Barry

--
Guy Barry

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 30, 10:07 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Athel Cornish-Bowden"  wrote in message
>
> news:ahrveg...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > I think this question is probably saying what I was thinking of saying to
> > Guy, that it's a gross oversimplification to call Fowler a prescriptivist.
> > He had his idiosyncrasies, of course, and not all of his recommendations
> > have survived. He rarely if ever said his readers should follow some rule
> > simply because he said so; he nearly always gave reasons for thinking that
> > following a rule would lead to improvement in clarity or euphony.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
>
> Wikipedia says "In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism, is the
> practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language
> against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or
> improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low
> aesthetic value."  [*]

This is not correct. Prescriptivism is _only_ the second part, what
the paragraph introduces with "It may imply." No linguist will deny
that formal English is the appropriate register for formal occasions
(spoken or written).

> I think that's a reasonable description of Fowler's approach.

Then I wonder whether you've ever read any _other_ such work. The
worst I've encountered is Wilson Follett's, but just about any by a
dilettante probably falls into that category -- such as Edwin Newman,
or Jacques Barzun, or even Roy Blount Jr. (Another non-prescriptive
one like Fowler's is that by Bergen and Cornelia Evans.) William
Safire is in a somewhat different category: he would haul out some old
prescriptivist nonsense, but then he would get letters from linguists
(and others) and admit the next week that he was wrong. (He just never
consulted the linguists _before_ publishing a column.)

> I don't think
> that prescriptivism necessarily entails a "because I say so" approach; on
> the contrary, prescriptivists are often the ones who offer the most eloquent
> justifications of the rules they propose.  Indeed Fowler is given as the
> first example in the Wikipedia article:

No. _Fowler_ offers explanations, which the reader can either accept
or not. Prescriptivists don't.

> "Prescription presupposes an authority whose judgment may be followed by
> other members of a speech community. Such an authority may be a prominent
> writer or educator such as Henry Fowler, whose _English Usage_ defined the
> standard for British English for much of the 20th century." [**]
>
> [*]What's that comma doing after the subject by the way?  Need to fix that.

No, the problem is the comma missing before "or."

> [**] I think I need to correct the book's title as well!

It's Wikipedia. It's your privlege -- nay, your duty -- to make those
two corrections.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:d9697fd8-fd44-4446...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

> > On Nov 29, 11:12 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > > The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd
> > > that PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach
> > Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?
>
> From cover to cover.  All three editions.  To this day I still avoid using
> so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative clauses
> with "which".  Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced plenty
> of strictures of his own.

Such as?

> > There are dozens of such books. Why would Burchfield's be any better
> > than any other?
>
> No particular reason.  But I think it's a reasonable stand-alone usage
> guide, and doesn't deserve the opprobrium heaped on it by some.  I doubt
> very much whether it would have sold as well without the "Fowler" name,
> though.

As it well did not deserve to do.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:abc6e1a9-2ca9-4a24...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > To this day I still avoid using
> > so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative
> > clauses
> > with "which". Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced
> > plenty
> > of strictures of his own.

> Such as?

Such as the two I've just mentioned.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:4ba2bb48-1709-453e...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 30, 10:07 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Wikipedia says "In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism, is the
> > practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language
> > against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or
> > improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low
> > aesthetic value." [*]

> This is not correct. Prescriptivism is _only_ the second part, what
> the paragraph introduces with "It may imply." No linguist will deny
> that formal English is the appropriate register for formal occasions
> (spoken or written).

Well maybe we have different definitions then. I always understood that
prescriptivism was contrasted with descriptivism, namely "the work of
objectively analyzing and describing how language is spoken (or how it was
spoken in the past) by a group of people in a speech community" (Wikipedia
again). Fowler's approach can't be described as objective; it's an entirely
subjective work, concerned with how he thinks the language is best used. He
of course supports his case with what he considers to be good and bad
examples, and gives reasons for his viewpoint, like anyone else arguing a
case.

Take the so-called "fused participle" construction, which I mentioned in my
other post (e.g. "the possibility of anything happening"). That was
condemned outright by Fowler as "grammatically indefensible", despite the
fact that there were many well-attested examples of the construction from
reputable authors. In fact even Sir Ernest Gowers, who was broadly
faithful to the spirit of Fowler's original work, felt obliged to add a
postscript quoting part of the subsequent exchange between Fowler and
Jespersen on the subject. Similar comments can be made about his article on
"that" and "which" in relative clauses, on the distinction between "shall"
and "will", on the "recessive accent", and many other pieces.

The fact that Fowler was opposed to many of the so-called "superstitions"
about preposition stranding, non-personal "whose", split infinitives and so
on doesn't mean he wasn't a prescriptivist. He was simply advocating a
different set of prescriptions from the traditional ones.

> > I think that's a reasonable description of Fowler's approach.

> Then I wonder whether you've ever read any _other_ such work. The
> worst I've encountered is Wilson Follett's, but just about any by a
> dilettante probably falls into that category -- such as Edwin Newman,
> or Jacques Barzun, or even Roy Blount Jr.

None of the ones you've mentioned. I don't know what sort of line they
take.

> > I don't think
> > that prescriptivism necessarily entails a "because I say so" approach;
> > on
> > the contrary, prescriptivists are often the ones who offer the most
> > eloquent
> > justifications of the rules they propose. Indeed Fowler is given as the
> > first example in the Wikipedia article:

> No. _Fowler_ offers explanations, which the reader can either accept
> or not. Prescriptivists don't.

Well, the reader can choose to accept or reject the advice of *any*
authority. I'd rather take the advice of someone who advances an
explanation than someone who doesn't; but I don't see how that has any
bearing on whether they're classified as a prescriptivist or not. If Fowler
wasn't a prescriptivist, then what was he?

--
Guy Barry

[António Marques]

There are many very different beasts here:

- the imposition on common speech of arbitrary, usually ignorant and often
wrong, rules (prescriptivism)
- the description of a certain formal register (usage advice, Fowler)
- the description of registers as used by those proficient in them
(descriptivism, of which I think the above can be a special case)
- the description of every usage, with no regard for competence of the
speaker (atheoretical descriptivism, if you will, which can lead us to get
medical terminology from geologists or Yorkshire rural slang from American
immigrants)
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 1, 1:44 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:abc6e1a9-2ca9-4a24...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

>
> > On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > To this day I still avoid using
> > > so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative
> > > clauses
> > > with "which".  Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced
> > > plenty
> > > of strictures of his own.
> > Such as?
>
> Such as the two I've just mentioned.

You think Fowler _invented_ the that/which distinction?? It's a simple
fact that "that" doesn't introduce nonrestrictive relatives.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:e1a3412a-c2ea-4ddc...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> You think Fowler _invented_ the that/which distinction?? It's a simple
> fact that "that" doesn't introduce nonrestrictive relatives.

Indeed it is. It's also a simple fact that "which" can introduce both
restrictive and non-restrictive relatives. That didn't stop Fowler from
trying to confine its use to the latter.

--
Guy Barry

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 06:10:36 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 1:44 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:abc6e1a9-2ca9-4a24...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > To this day I still avoid using
>> > > so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative
>> > > clauses
>> > > with "which".  Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced
>> > > plenty
>> > > of strictures of his own.
>> > Such as?
>>
>> Such as the two I've just mentioned.
>
>You think Fowler _invented_ the that/which distinction??

Well someone did.

>It's a simple
>fact that "that" doesn't introduce nonrestrictive relatives.

But it used to.

See Boswell's Life of Johnson, passim.



--
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

[António Marques]

Clarity arguing for rewriting nonrestrictive clauses out of the sentence
and restrictive clauses seldom requiring introduction, one would hardly
think this to be a contentious issue.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-12-01, Guy Barry wrote:

> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> news:4ba2bb48-1709-453e...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Nov 30, 10:07 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Wikipedia says "In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism, is the
>> > practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language
>> > against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or
>> > improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low
>> > aesthetic value." [*]
>
>> This is not correct. Prescriptivism is _only_ the second part, what
>> the paragraph introduces with "It may imply." No linguist will deny
>> that formal English is the appropriate register for formal occasions
>> (spoken or written).
>
> Well maybe we have different definitions then.

No, PTD is making stuff up in order to doublethink.



--
Master Foo said: "A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like
a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers
it and burns his hand." --- Eric Raymond

[Adam Funk]

You know perfectly well what the "that-which rule" means: the idea
that "which" can't introduce restrictive relatives.


--
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]

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-11-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:d9697fd8-fd44-4446...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Nov 29, 11:12 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > > The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd
>> > > that PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach
>> > Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?
>>
>> From cover to cover.  All three editions.  To this day I still avoid using
>> so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative clauses
>> with "which".  Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced plenty
>> of strictures of his own.
>
> Such as?

The proscription of fused participles and the that-which rule.


--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 1, 3:02 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-12-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 1:44 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:abc6e1a9-2ca9-4a24...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > To this day I still avoid using
> >> > > so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative
> >> > > clauses
> >> > > with "which".  Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced
> >> > > plenty
> >> > > of strictures of his own.
> >> > Such as?
>
> >> Such as the two I've just mentioned.
>
> > You think Fowler _invented_ the that/which distinction?? It's a simple
> > fact that "that" doesn't introduce nonrestrictive relatives.
>
> You know perfectly well what the "that-which rule" means: the idea
> that "which" can't introduce restrictive relatives.

And it generally shouldn't -- restrictives are much more common than
nonrestrictives (see how Antonio wants to simply outlaw them, and most
foreign-speakers can't tell which is which and how to punctuate them
anyway -- because "that" takes a lot less physical effort to pronounce
than "which."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 1, 3:04 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-12-01, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in message
> >news:4ba2bb48-1709-453e...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> On Nov 30, 10:07 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > Wikipedia says "In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism, is the
> >> > practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language
> >> > against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or
> >> > improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low
> >> > aesthetic value."  [*]
>
> >> This is not correct. Prescriptivism is _only_ the second part, what
> >> the paragraph introduces with "It may imply." No linguist will deny
> >> that formal English is the appropriate register for formal occasions
> >> (spoken or written).
>
> > Well maybe we have different definitions then.
>
> No, PTD is making stuff up in order to doublethink.

Oh, if something doesn't agree with your particular prejudices or
outlook, it doesn't exist?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 1, 3:01 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:d9697fd8-fd44-4446...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Nov 29, 11:12 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > > The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd
> >> > > that PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach
> >> > Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?
>
> >> From cover to cover.  All three editions.  To this day I still avoid using
> >> so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative clauses
> >> with "which".  Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced plenty
> >> of strictures of his own.
>
> > Such as?
>
> The proscription of fused participles and the that-which rule.

I didn't know what a "fused participle" is, so I went and read the two
entries, Fowler's and Gowers', and Fowler clearly was stating an
opinion, and clearly set forth his reason for disliking the
construction. (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have the
vole is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote ....")
Hopefully Jespersen provided statistical data showing that it had been
becoming more common over the past two centuries; thus Fowler was
complaining about a change-in-progress.

So does everybody.

[Andrew B]

I can't believe you typed that with a straight face.

[James Hogg]

It's a gem, isn't it?

--
James

[Peter T. Daniels]

> I can't believe you typed that with a straight face.-

Does that mean that you _realize_ that I am simply parroting back his
ever-so-frequent comment to me?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Clearly Adam thinks it is, since he uses it so often.

[Guy Barry]

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:oahkb8p0ko8120jmb...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 06:10:36 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >You think Fowler _invented_ the that/which distinction??

> Well someone did.

I don't think Fowler is responsible for the fact that non-restrictive
clauses aren't introduced by "that". I think that usage had pretty much
fallen out of fashion by his time. What he appears to be responsible for is
the belief that restrictive clauses shouldn't be introduced by "which".

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Adam Funk" wrote in message news:594qo9x...@news.ducksburg.com...

> On 2012-11-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >> To this day I still avoid using
> >> so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative
> >> clauses
> >> with "which". Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced
> >> plenty
> >> of strictures of his own.
>
> > Such as?

> The proscription of fused participles and the that-which rule.

I really wonder why PTD thought I'd mentioned them if I hadn't learned them
from Fowler. Perhaps he thinks it's just some strange quirk of mine that I
happened to mention in passing.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:8d481927-7e27-4ed1...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 1, 3:02 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> > You know perfectly well what the "that-which rule" means: the idea
> > that "which" can't introduce restrictive relatives.

> And it generally shouldn't --

Well I never thought I'd see you offering your own prescription. Didn't
think you followed Fowler quite that closely.

Searching at the British National Corpus, it didn't take me long to find
several examples of restrictive "which", e.g.:

"Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
owned."
"In an attempt to learn as much as possible from the capsize of the Herald
of Free Enterprise the Treasury Solicitor has asked questions which should
help to prevent a similar disaster ever recurring."
"If the target language lacks a grammatical category which exists in the
source language, the information expressed by that category may have to be
ignored."

Do you have any objection to those?

> restrictives are much more common than
> nonrestrictives (see how Antonio wants to simply outlaw them, and most
> foreign-speakers can't tell which is which and how to punctuate them
> anyway --

I don't see how that's relevant.

> because "that" takes a lot less physical effort to pronounce than "which."

Does it? Why?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

Hopefully? What was Jespersen hoping for in making this provision?

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:4cac9675-761b-405f...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

> I didn't know what a "fused participle" is,

I gave you an example earlier in the thread. Here are others cited by
Fowler: "we need fear nothing from China developing her resources"; "I quite
fail to see what relevance there is in Mr Lloyd George dragging in the
misdeeds of..."; "the reasons that have led to them being given appointments
in these departments".

As a matter of interest, what do modern grammarians call this construction?

> so I went and read the two
> entries, Fowler's and Gowers', and Fowler clearly was stating an
> opinion, and clearly set forth his reason for disliking the
> construction.

Indeed. That's what he does throughout the whole of Modern English Usage -
gives his opinion. That's why I would call him a prescriptivist, because he
was concerned with advancing his views of how the language *should* be used.
He illustrated his arguments with examples of usage that he believed to be
good or bad, as I would expect him to, but he was no less of a
prescriptivist for that. I would expect anyone giving an opinion on how the
language should be used to be able to back up their arguments.

> (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have the

> vote is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote ....")

The article wasn't concerned with that construction, but I can't imagine
that he would have taken exception to it.

> Hopefully Jespersen provided statistical data showing that it had been
> becoming more common over the past two centuries; thus Fowler was
> complaining about a change-in-progress.

> So does everybody.

I'm sure they do, but the author of a similar style guide being compiled
today would normally be expected to keep their own opinions out of it and
present a recommendation based purely on current usage. Fowler was able to
find plenty of examples of the construction at the time, taken from the
pages of reputable newspapers and similar sources. Yet he condemned it.
That's linguistic prescription.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

[Peter B: here is your post verbatim, in which you appear to be attributing
PTD's words ("hopefully Jespersen...") to Adam Funk. You seem to do this
remarkably often for some reason.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PTD is presumably using "hopefully" in the sense "it is to be hoped that",
to which I have no objection, although since it's a matter of fact whether
or not Jespersen provided statistical data, it strikes me as a slightly odd
use.

--
Guy Barry

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 07:14:16 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

Well yes, and mirabile dictu, I am in agreement with M. P. Daniels on this
point, namely that Fowler was not a prescriptivist.

He noted the way the usage had changed, and while deprecating the activities
of the which hunters, noted that it was a useful distinction and worth
encouraging.

[António Marques]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm sure they do, but the author of a similar style guide being compiled
> today would normally be expected to keep their own opinions out of it and
> present a recommendation based purely on current usage.

? For mere description of usage one goes to the 8 o'clock news, not a usage
guide.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 3:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:8d481927-7e27-4ed1...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> > On Dec 1, 3:02 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> > > You know perfectly well what the "that-which rule" means: the idea
> > > that "which" can't introduce restrictive relatives.
> > And it generally shouldn't --
>
> Well I never thought I'd see you offering your own prescription.  Didn't
> think you followed Fowler quite that closely.

Excuse me? You think "generally shouldn't" is some sort of
prohibition?

You make me question your own competence at your supposed native
language.

> Searching at the British National Corpus, it didn't take me long to find
> several examples of restrictive "which", e.g.:

Has anyone ever denied that they occur?

> "Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
> suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
> owned."

The succession "w - wh - w -wh" doesn't strike you as unappealing?
(Never mind what "petrol blue and red" might signify.) (Could they
have been thinking of "petrel"? Not that I know what color(s) petrels
are.)

> "In an attempt to learn as much as possible from the capsize of the Herald
> of Free Enterprise the Treasury Solicitor has asked questions which should
> help to prevent a similar disaster ever recurring."

Nothing wrong with that one. z.wh is easier to say than z.dh, and the
ch.sh sequence coalesce into a single stretch of utterance.

Though I do have to wonder where "the capsize" came from.

> "If the target language lacks a grammatical category which exists in the
> source language, the information expressed by that category may have to be
> ignored."
>
> Do you have any objection to those?

Here there is clearly a desire to avoid two different "that"s in close
succession.

Do you really think that _style_ is a matter of do's and don't's? That
there are simple rules to follow to make your prose readable and
pleasant? Then you yourself are an abhorrent prescriptivist.

And heaven help any poetry that crosses your path.

> > restrictives are much more common than
> > nonrestrictives (see how Antonio wants to simply outlaw them, and most
> > foreign-speakers can't tell which is which and how to punctuate them
> > anyway --
>
> I don't see how that's relevant.
>
> > because "that" takes a lot less physical effort to pronounce than "which."
>
> Does it?  Why?

How many phonetics classes or textbooks have you been exposed to?

[Guy Barry]

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message

news:99fmb898mc736k07g...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 07:14:16 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:

> >I don't think Fowler is responsible for the fact that non-restrictive
> >clauses aren't introduced by "that". I think that usage had pretty much
> >fallen out of fashion by his time. What he appears to be responsible for
> >is
> > the belief that restrictive clauses shouldn't be introduced by "which".

> Well yes, and mirabile dictu, I am in agreement with M. P. Daniels on this
> point, namely that Fowler was not a prescriptivist.

> He noted the way the usage had changed, and while deprecating the
> activities
> of the which hunters, noted that it was a useful distinction and worth
> encouraging.

Isn't that prescriptivism by definition? Having noted that "that" had, by
custom, become confined to introducing restrictive relatives, he pronounced
that it would be preferable for "which" to be confined to introducing
non-restrictive relatives, ignoring current usage indicating that "which"
was commonly used to introduce restrictive relatives as well.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 4:20 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [Peter B: here is your post verbatim, in which you appear to be attributing
> PTD's words ("hopefully Jespersen...") to Adam Funk.  You seem to do this
> remarkably often for some reason.]
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------

>
> On Dec 1, 11:41 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Dec 1, 3:01 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully Jespersen provided statistical data showing that it had been
> > becoming more common over the past two centuries; thus Fowler was
> > complaining about a change-in-progress.
>
> Hopefully? What was Jespersen hoping for in making this provision?
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------

>
> PTD is presumably using "hopefully" in the sense "it is to be hoped that",
> to which I have no objection, although since it's a matter of fact whether
> or not Jespersen provided statistical data, it strikes me as a slightly odd
> use.

Thank you for that. For the benefit of the Brooks entity,

English has not ceased to be a Germanic language (whether a North
Germanic language, as suggested by a current thread in sci.lang about
a report of a presentation by an eminent Norwegian historical
linguist, or a West Germanic one, as is usually held), and so sentence
adverbs always have had and always will have a place in its discourse.

Is there a similar outcry against "curiously," "usually," and many,
many other sentence adverbs that occur routinely in everyday speech as
well as formal writing?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 3:19 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:4cac9675-761b-405f...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

>
> > I didn't know what a "fused participle" is,
>
> I gave you an example earlier in the thread.

Wow, you typed a rejoinder without even reading to the end of the
_sentence_?

> Here are others cited by
> Fowler: "we need fear nothing from China developing her resources"; "I quite
> fail to see what relevance there is in Mr Lloyd George dragging in the
> misdeeds of..."; "the reasons that have led to them being given appointments
> in these departments".
>
> As a matter of interest, what do modern grammarians call this construction?

Participles.

> > so I went and read the two
> > entries, Fowler's and Gowers', and Fowler clearly was stating an
> > opinion, and clearly set forth his reason for disliking the
> > construction.
>
> Indeed.  That's what he does throughout the whole of Modern English Usage -
> gives his opinion.  That's why I would call him a prescriptivist, because he
> was concerned with advancing his views of how the language *should* be used.

Again, you cannot tell the difference between "should' (your
exaggeration) and "must"?

Fowler was concerned with clear communication. Since most of his
examples are from current newspapers, presumably he was hoping that
politicians and journalists, as opposed to belles-lettrists, would
express themselves more clearly.

That is simply _not_ prescriptivism as found in writers of the
previous and the ensuing centuries. Hopefully you can't even access
the American examples I gave you (Wilson Follett, Edwin Newman), but
there must be equally clueless Britons spewing the same filth.

> He illustrated his arguments with examples of usage that he believed to be
> good or bad, as I would expect him to, but he was no less of a
> prescriptivist for that.  I would expect anyone giving an opinion on how the
> language should be used to be able to back up their arguments.

How is "giving an opinion" the same as arbitrarily decreeing right and
wrong?

> > (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have the
> > vote is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote ....")
>
> The article wasn't concerned with that construction, but I can't imagine
> that he would have taken exception to it.

So you think that H. W. Fowler had some sort of antipathy to native
English constructions?? What rot.

> > Hopefully Jespersen provided statistical data showing that it had been
> > becoming more common over the past two centuries; thus Fowler was
> > complaining about a change-in-progress.
> > So does everybody.
>
> I'm sure they do, but the author of a similar style guide being compiled
> today would normally be expected to keep their own opinions out of it and
> present a recommendation based purely on current usage.

Did you actually read that sentence as you were writing it?

To do that, it would be necessary for people like you to actually
_listen_ to current speech and _figure out_ when "like" is used and
for what pragmatic/discourse purpose, what the grammar of the "is is"
construction actually is ["My point is is that this is ridiculous!"],
and so on and on.

> Fowler was able to
> find plenty of examples of the construction at the time, taken from the
> pages of reputable newspapers and similar sources.  Yet he condemned it.
> That's linguistic prescription.

Show me "condemn" in his article.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 2:33 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Adam Funk"  wrote in messagenews:594qo9x...@news.ducksburg.com...

That/which is well known and widely followed. No reason to impute it
to Fowler. "Fused participle" did not catch on; it was your own quirk
that you chose to accept something speculated nearly a century ago and
failed to observe that that particular recommendation had had no
effect whatsoever.

[Jerry Friedman]

Alexander Bain suggested that as early as 1872 (and maybe in the
previous decade, but I don't see it at GB).

http://books.google.com/books?id=g20CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA48

That's the beginning of the section; he really gets into it on the
next page. You'll notice that he also says "who(m)" should introduce
only non-restrictive clauses, an idea that Alfred Ayres quoted
approvingly but few if any people actually followed.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:39b808d1-9f00-4aa0...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

> Do you really think that _style_ is a matter of do's and don't's? That
> there are simple rules to follow to make your prose readable and
> pleasant? Then you yourself are an abhorrent prescriptivist.

Not at all. I gave you some examples of where it was perfectly acceptable
to use "which" to introduce a restrictive relative. Fowler would have
deprecated such usages.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:a70f7da7-7cea-42d5...@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 2, 3:19 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Here are others cited by
> > Fowler: "we need fear nothing from China developing her resources"; "I
> > quite
> > fail to see what relevance there is in Mr Lloyd George dragging in the
> > misdeeds of..."; "the reasons that have led to them being given
> > appointments
> > in these departments".
>
> > As a matter of interest, what do modern grammarians call this
> > construction?

> Participles.

I think you misunderstood the question. "Participle" is the name of a
non-finite verb form, playing a similar role to an adjective. In
particular, there's a participle in English ending in "-ing" (traditionally
called the "present participle"), identical in form to the verbal noun in
"-ing" (sometimes called the "gerund").

What do modern grammarians call the construction where a noun phrase is
combined with a form in "-ing" (possibly either of the above two types), to
create a complex noun phrase with the semantic value of a subordinate
clause?

> Fowler was concerned with clear communication. Since most of his
> examples are from current newspapers, presumably he was hoping that
> politicians and journalists, as opposed to belles-lettrists, would
> express themselves more clearly.

Indeed he was. And in many cases, he succeeded. But clearly not with his
prescription against the fused participle.

> That is simply _not_ prescriptivism as found in writers of the
> previous and the ensuing centuries. Hopefully you can't even access
> the American examples I gave you (Wilson Follett, Edwin Newman), but
> there must be equally clueless Britons spewing the same filth.

I've no idea. I don't read that type of guide.

> How is "giving an opinion" the same as arbitrarily decreeing right and
> wrong?

Fowler was accepted as an authority for much of the twentieth century.
There were many people who believed that, if Fowler was opposed to
something, then it was incorrect English. Fowler didn't say "well I don't
like the fused participle but you can use it if you like"; he made it clear
that its use was unacceptable to him.

> > > (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have the
> > > vote is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote ....")
>
> > The article wasn't concerned with that construction, but I can't imagine
> > that he would have taken exception to it.

> So you think that H. W. Fowler had some sort of antipathy to native
> English constructions?? What rot.

I have no idea how you got that meaning from what I wrote. Did you miss a
"not"?

> > I'm sure they do, but the author of a similar style guide being compiled
> > today would normally be expected to keep their own opinions out of it
> > and
> > present a recommendation based purely on current usage.

> Did you actually read that sentence as you were writing it?

Yes.

> To do that, it would be necessary for people like you

People like me? I'm not writing a style guide.

> to actually
> _listen_ to current speech and _figure out_ when "like" is used and
> for what pragmatic/discourse purpose, what the grammar of the "is is"
> construction actually is ["My point is is that this is ridiculous!"],
> and so on and on.

Yes, I would agree. Hopefully that's what the authors of similar current
guides do. It appears to be how Burchfield operated.

> > Fowler was able to
> > find plenty of examples of the construction at the time, taken from the
> > pages of reputable newspapers and similar sources. Yet he condemned it.
> > That's linguistic prescription.

> Show me "condemn" in his article.

I don't understand. I'm describing Fowler's attitude to the construction as
condemnatory. He's unlikely to have used the word "condemn" himself. If
I'd said "he praised the construction", would you expect to find the word
"praise" in the article?

Fowler said: "It need hardly be said that writers with any sense of style do
not, even if they allow themselves the fused participle, make so bad a use
of the bad thing as is shown above to be possible. But the tendency of the
construction is towards that sort of cumbrousness, and the rapidity with
which it is gaining ground is portentous".

I think that's pretty condemnatory myself.

--
Guy Barry

[Dr Nick]

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

> I didn't know what a "fused participle" is, so I went and read the two
> entries, Fowler's and Gowers', and Fowler clearly was stating an
> opinion, and clearly set forth his reason for disliking the
> construction. (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have the
> vole is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote ....")

I don't know about Fowler; but I'd give them the vote but let the voles
live free.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:45:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Dec 2, 3:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> "Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
>> suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
>> owned."
>
>The succession "w - wh - w -wh" doesn't strike you as unappealing?
>(Never mind what "petrol blue and red" might signify.) (Could they
>have been thinking of "petrel"? Not that I know what color(s) petrels
>are.)
>

"Petrol blue" is apparently a recognised colour.

A Google Images search finds instances. Here is one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koziol-Milano-Magazine-Rack-Petrol/dp/B009DH20IQ


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 10:36 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:39b808d1-9f00-4aa0...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

>
> > Do you really think that _style_ is a matter of do's and don't's? That
> > there are simple rules to follow to make your prose readable and
> > pleasant?  Then you yourself are an abhorrent prescriptivist.
>
> Not at all.  I gave you some examples of where it was perfectly acceptable
> to use "which" to introduce a restrictive relative.  Fowler would have
> deprecated such usages.

Did I say anything whatsoever about the two specific examples you
cited?

No, I did not.

I asked you whether you think style is a matter of do's and don't's,
i.e. the Wilson Follett (and even the Strunk & White) approach.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:45:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>

> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 2, 3:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
> >> suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
> >> owned."
>
> >The succession "w - wh - w -wh" doesn't strike you as unappealing?
> >(Never mind what "petrol blue and red" might signify.) (Could they
> >have been thinking of "petrel"? Not that I know what color(s) petrels
> >are.)
>
> "Petrol blue" is apparently a recognised colour.
>
> A Google Images search finds instances. Here is one:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koziol-Milano-Magazine-Rack-Petrol/dp/B009DH20IQ

I wonder what they call it for the American market. I believe "petrol"
is your word for 'gasoline'? Gasoline is not blue, so it would make no
sense to name a color "gasoline blue."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 11:28 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:a70f7da7-7cea-42d5...@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> > On Dec 2, 3:19 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Here are others cited by
> > > Fowler: "we need fear nothing from China developing her resources"; "I
> > > quite
> > > fail to see what relevance there is in Mr Lloyd George dragging in the
> > > misdeeds of..."; "the reasons that have led to them being given
> > > appointments
> > > in these departments".
>
> > > As a matter of interest, what do modern grammarians call this
> > > construction?

> > Participles.
>
> I think you misunderstood the question.  "Participle" is the name of a
> non-finite verb form, playing a similar role to an adjective.  In
> particular, there's a participle in English ending in "-ing" (traditionally
> called the "present participle"), identical in form to the verbal noun in
> "-ing" (sometimes called the "gerund").
>
> What do modern grammarians call the construction where a noun phrase is
> combined with a form in "-ing" (possibly either of the above two types), to
> create a complex noun phrase with the semantic value of a subordinate
> clause?

A noun with a participle (or participial phrase) modifier. (Why should
that utterly garden-variety use of a participle require a special
name?)

> > Fowler was concerned with clear communication. Since most of his
> > examples are from current newspapers, presumably he was hoping that
> > politicians and journalists, as opposed to belles-lettrists, would
> > express themselves more clearly.
>
> Indeed he was.  And in many cases, he succeeded.  But clearly not with his
> prescription against the fused participle.

You mean, with his suggestion that other ways of saying it are clearer
than the way that had developed organically.

> > That is simply _not_ prescriptivism as found in writers of the
> > previous and the ensuing centuries. Hopefully you can't even access
> > the American examples I gave you (Wilson Follett, Edwin Newman), but
> > there must be equally clueless Britons spewing the same filth.
>
> I've no idea.  I don't read that type of guide.

Clearly. Or you wouldn't have that odd opinion about Fowler.

> > How is "giving an opinion" the same as arbitrarily decreeing right and
> > wrong?
>
> Fowler was accepted as an authority for much of the twentieth century.
> There were many people who believed that, if Fowler was opposed to
> something, then it was incorrect English.  Fowler didn't say "well I don't
> like the fused participle but you can use it if you like"; he made it clear
> that its use was unacceptable to him.

So let him not use it in _his_ writing. (Do you really suppose that if
you combed all his work, you'd never find one? In 1961, the Merriam-
Webster New International Dictionary, 3rd edition, was published,
which perhaps for the first time made explicit the fact that modern
lexicography -- beginning with, say, Murray in Britain and Whitney in
the US -- is not prescriptive but descriptive, infuriated the Wilson
Folletts of the time (including Wilson Follett) by acknowledging that
people said, for instance, "hopefully" to modify a sentence, or
"disinterested" in the sense 'uninterested', and -- horror of horrors
-- "transpire" to mean 'happen'. The wonderful book by James Sledd,
*Dictionaries and _That_ Dictionary*, gathers and comments on the
critical reaction, and my absolute favorite is from James Michener
(already a Pulitzer Prize -winning novelist), who was immensely
chagrined to turn to "transpire" and find the 'happen' sense
illustrated with a quotation from his own work.)

> > > > (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have the
> > > > vote is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote ....")
>
> > > The article wasn't concerned with that construction, but I can't imagine
> > > that he would have taken exception to it.
> > So you think that H. W. Fowler had some sort of antipathy to native
> > English constructions?? What rot.
>
> I have no idea how you got that meaning from what I wrote.  Did you miss a
> "not"?

Yes, I did.

What distinction, then, do you make between the "for ... to"
construction and tine "-ing" construction, aside from the latter being
more compact and clearer?

> > > I'm sure they do, but the author of a similar style guide being compiled
> > > today would normally be expected to keep their own opinions out of it
> > > and
> > > present a recommendation based purely on current usage.
> > Did you actually read that sentence as you were writing it?
>
> Yes.
>
> > To do that, it would be necessary for people like you
>
> People like me?  I'm not writing a style guide.

Right. Not you, but people like you. When I say "people like you," I
mean 'people like you', not 'you'. One of the things I do when editing
is fix misleading uses of "like" like that one: if I wanted to include
you in the description, I would have said "people such as you."

> > to actually
> > _listen_ to current speech and _figure out_ when "like" is used and
> > for what pragmatic/discourse purpose, what the grammar of the "is is"
> > construction actually is ["My point is is that this is ridiculous!"],
> > and so on and on.
>
> Yes, I would agree.  Hopefully that's what the authors of similar current
> guides do.  It appears to be how Burchfield operated.

What's his account of the discourse marker "like"?

> > > Fowler was able to
> > > find plenty of examples of the construction at the time, taken from the
> > > pages of reputable newspapers and similar sources.  Yet he condemned it.
> > > That's linguistic prescription.
> > Show me "condemn" in his article.
>
> I don't understand.  I'm describing Fowler's attitude to the construction as
> condemnatory.  He's unlikely to have used the word "condemn" himself.  If
> I'd said "he praised the construction", would you expect to find the word
> "praise" in the article?

Nor can you find condemnation in the article.

> Fowler said: "It need hardly be said that writers with any sense of style do
> not, even if they allow themselves the fused participle, make so bad a use
> of the bad thing as is shown above to be possible.   But the tendency of the
> construction is towards that sort of cumbrousness, and the rapidity with
> which it is gaining ground is portentous".
>
> I think that's pretty condemnatory myself.

Only of his own power of observation in this case.

It seems to have affected you in the way you suggest, though, since
you claimed never to use that ordinary participial construction.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-12-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:45:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 2, 3:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> "Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
>>> suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
>>> owned."
>>
>>The succession "w - wh - w -wh" doesn't strike you as unappealing?
>>(Never mind what "petrol blue and red" might signify.) (Could they
>>have been thinking of "petrel"? Not that I know what color(s) petrels
>>are.)
>>
> "Petrol blue" is apparently a recognised colour.

It's the opposite of "diesel red".


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

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-12-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Dec 1, 3:01 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> On 2012-11-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>

>> > On Nov 30, 9:24 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> "Peter T. Daniels"  wrote in messagenews:d9697fd8-fd44-4446...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Nov 29, 11:12 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > The two were trying to do different things, and I find it a little odd
>> >> > > that PTD should prefer Fowler's prescriptivist approach
>> >> > Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler?
>>
>> >> From cover to cover.  All three editions.  To this day I still avoid using

>> >> so-called "fused participles" and introducing restrictive relative clauses
>> >> with "which".  Fowler may have been an iconoclast, but he introduced plenty
>> >> of strictures of his own.
>>
>> > Such as?
>>
>> The proscription of fused participles and the that-which rule.
>

> I didn't know what a "fused participle" is,

"Have you ever actually _read_ Fowler" until now?

> so I went and read the two entries, Fowler's and Gowers', and Fowler
> clearly was stating an opinion, and clearly set forth his reason for

> disliking the construction. (I wonder what he would say about "For
> women to have the vole is right and proper" in place of "Women
> having the vote ....") Hopefully Jespersen provided statistical

> data showing that it had been becoming more common over the past two
> centuries; thus Fowler was complaining about a change-in-progress.

Ah yes, this is what linguists always say about the filthy
prescriptivists.


--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]

[Adam Funk]

ISTR reading somewhere that Ratty was actually a water vole. It's the
weasels you have to watch out for (and Toad if he's behind the wheel).


--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]

[Cheryl]

It's almost but not quite a peacock blue.

--
Cheryl

[Dr Nick]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:

> On 2012-12-02, Dr Nick wrote:
>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> I didn't know what a "fused participle" is, so I went and read the
>>> two entries, Fowler's and Gowers', and Fowler clearly was stating
>>> an opinion, and clearly set forth his reason for disliking the
>>> construction. (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have
>>> the vole is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote
>>> ....")
>> I don't know about Fowler; but I'd give them the vote but let the
>> voles live free.
>
>
> ISTR reading somewhere that Ratty was actually a water vole. It's the
> weasels you have to watch out for (and Toad if he's behind the wheel).

He is. A water rat is a water vole, not a rat. Beautiful little
creatures, sadly driven to bring of extinction by a combination of
things including (though far from only) the misguided release of mink
from fur farms.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The clean ones, too.

[Peter T. Daniels]

What does it have to do with petrol?

[Cheryl]

No idea. I've never heard the term before.

Sometimes you get pretty colours when you see gas in a puddle. I can't
remember if one of them is that shade of blue, though.

--
Cheryl

[Jerry Friedman]

On Dec 2, 11:17 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

The color of the signs at petrol stations? Or of the iridescence on a
puddle with a thin film of petrol on it?

--
Jerry Friedman means "gas".

[Mike L]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 21:06:41 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-12-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:45:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 2, 3:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
>>>> suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
>>>> owned."
>>>
>>>The succession "w - wh - w -wh" doesn't strike you as unappealing?
>>>(Never mind what "petrol blue and red" might signify.) (Could they
>>>have been thinking of "petrel"? Not that I know what color(s) petrels
>>>are.)
>>>
>> "Petrol blue" is apparently a recognised colour.
>
>It's the opposite of "diesel red".

You get caught using red diesel on a British public road, you appear
before the magistrates. I'm wondering if this "petrol blue" refers to
some other petroleum distillate than gasoline: one does see colours in
some mineral oils. OED offers no explanation.

--
Mike.

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

On Dec 3, 10:39 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
> > On 2012-12-02, Dr Nick wrote:
>

> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >>> I didn't know what a "fused participle" is, so I went and read the
> >>> two entries, Fowler's and Gowers', and Fowler clearly was stating
> >>> an opinion, and clearly set forth his reason for disliking the
> >>> construction. (I wonder what he would say about "For women to have
> >>> the vole is right and proper" in place of "Women having the vote
> >>> ....")
> >> I don't know about Fowler; but I'd give them the vote but let the
> >> voles live free.
>
> > ISTR reading somewhere that Ratty was actually a water vole.  It's the
> > weasels you have to watch out for (and Toad if he's behind the wheel).
>
> He is.  A water rat is a water vole, not a rat.  Beautiful little
> creatures, sadly driven to bring of extinction by a combination of
> things including (though far from only) the misguided release of mink
> from fur farms.

"Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole", a
line from one of Boot's countryside columns [in Waugh's _Scoop_], has
become a famous comic example of overblown prose style. It inspired
the name of the environmentalist magazine Vole, which was originally
titled The Questing Vole." (Wiki)

I quite like that sentence, but it seems the style meanies don't.
Guess that puts me on the Free-Vole side.

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

I don't think this is what the argument is about. What you just
described is what we have in e.g.

The man [who was] raking the leaves looked up and smiled.

where you clearly do have a participial modifier. There is no
corresponding structure with a possessive:

*The man's raking the leaves looked up and smiled.

However, in

Botswana winning a medal surprised everyone.

it is not Botswana that surprises everyone, but the fact/event of its
winning a medal; and there is a possessive counterpart
(Botswana's...).

I would call these nominalized clauses, in which there is a choice of
making the original subject either objective (Him winning a medal...)
or possessive. It's the former type that Fowler apparently calls
"fused participles", and doesn't like. (I've never heard the term
before, but then I don't use Fowler or any other such guides.) I'm
pretty sure Chomsky mentions these in his 1970-ish paper on
nominalizations, but I don't recall him (or anyone else) having a
handy term for them.

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bbba0d14-b286-4c35...@a15g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

Why don't you just google for "petrol blue" (quotes included)?
It looks like Prussian blue but slightly darker and more bluish.

Do you really think all colour names have to make sense?

If there's indeed petrol of that colour it could be the colour of
the die like the red in diesel red.

>> It's almost but not quite a peacock blue.
>
> What does it have to do with petrol?

It has the word "petrol" in its name.

pjk

[Robert Bannister]

Surely prescription involves words like "wrong", "incorrect", "vulgar"
or "should", "must", "needs to be". "Preferable", to me, indicates just
that: a preference, an opinion, which I can accept or reject at leisure.
It was Fowler's followers who fouled it up by flagrantly claiming
"Fowler says that's wrong".

--
Robert Bannister

[Steve Hayes]

I don't know if it still is, but Total petrol used to be blue.


--
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

[R H Draney]

Mike L filted:

So it's an arbitrary assignment of a particular shade of color for a specific
purpose, where that assignment has taken on the force of a natural
association....

Kind of like "safety orange"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[tony cooper]

It does. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/petrol_blue


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Probably is -- peacock feathers and the colors in gas floating on water
are closely related optical phenomena, I believe.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 8:17 pm, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:bbba0d14-b286-4c35...@a15g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> > On Dec 2, 4:15 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> >> On 02/12/2012 5:28 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:45:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >>> On Dec 2, 3:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> "Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
> >> >>>> suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
> >> >>>> owned."
>
> >> >>> The succession "w - wh - w -wh" doesn't strike you as unappealing?
> >> >>> (Never mind what "petrol blue and red" might signify.) (Could they
> >> >>> have been thinking of "petrel"? Not that I know what color(s) petrels
> >> >>> are.)
>
> >> >> "Petrol blue" is apparently a recognised colour.
>
> >> >> A Google Images search finds instances. Here is one:
>
> >> >http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koziol-Milano-Magazine-Rack-Petrol/dp/B009DH20IQ
>
> >> > I wonder what they call it for the American market. I believe "petrol"
> >> > is your word for 'gasoline'? Gasoline is not blue, so it would make no
> >> > sense to name a color "gasoline blue."
>
> Why don't you just google for "petrol blue" (quotes included)?
> It looks like Prussian blue but slightly darker and more bluish.
>
> Do you really think all colour names have to make sense?

Non-basic color names generally do make sense. They're taken from
things that typically have that color.

> If there's indeed petrol of that colour it could be the colour of
> the die like the red in diesel red.

dye

Why would anyone dye gasoline or diesel fuel? They're not for looking
at.

> >> It's almost but not quite a peacock blue.
>
> > What does it have to do with petrol?
>
> It has the word "petrol" in its name.

Why?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 10:20 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 12:58:17 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:45:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 2, 3:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >> >> "Suits by Dormeuil, a petrol blue and red two-tone suit, or a fine mohair
> >> >> suit were clothes which every skinhead would aspire to, but which few
> >> >> owned."
>
> >> >The succession "w - wh - w -wh" doesn't strike you as unappealing?
> >> >(Never mind what "petrol blue and red" might signify.) (Could they
> >> >have been thinking of "petrel"? Not that I know what color(s) petrels
> >> >are.)
>
> >> "Petrol blue" is apparently a recognised colour.
>
> >> A Google Images search finds instances. Here is one:
>
> >http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koziol-Milano-Magazine-Rack-Petrol/dp/B009DH20IQ
>
> >I wonder what they call it for the American market. I believe "petrol"
> >is your word for 'gasoline'? Gasoline is not blue, so it would make no
> >sense to name a color "gasoline blue."
>
> It does.  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/petrol_blue

That claims that _petroleum_ can sometimes be bluish.

So at best "petrol" is a back formation, a folk etymology from
*"petroleum blue*.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Isn't "safety orange" a particularly vivid shade used on safety
equipment? Over here, traffic cones are usually orange, and high-
visibility vests often are (though the lemon-lime green occasionally
used on firetrucks is becoming more popular).

[Peter T. Daniels]

> handy term for them.-

You put it so much more clearly than Fowler! I'd say "Botswana's" is
the fussy version, and "For Botswana to" would be the most formal.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> Guess that puts me on the Free-Vole side.-

It sure looks like a calque on some famous line of poetry. (I'll guess
Gray again.)

[tony cooper]

You are Blanche DuBois, AICMFP.

Normally, I wouldn't provide as much as clue as to what is meant above
because the regulars of this group are clever enough to suss it out on
their own. Some might be insulted if I didn't leave it to them to
figure out the reference.

However, I know you won't work it out, so the reference is to
Blanche's line in "A Streetcar Named Desire": "I have always depended
on the kindness of strangers."

Instead of asking strangers to tell you why anyone would dye gasoline
or diesel fuel, look it up. It's done all over the world, and for
good reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dyes

Also, additives which contain dyes change gasoline color. Amoco's
high octane blend is bluish-green.

[Dr Nick]

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

> Why would anyone dye gasoline or diesel fuel? They're not for looking
> at.

A useful photo that:
a) demonstrates that, despite your incredulity, nevertheless people do
b) has something about English usage rather than your ignorance and -
worse - inability to look things up.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amyhammond/88888519/

[Dr Nick]

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

It reminds me somewhat (although one clause too long) of Mad Margaret's
song from Ruddigore.

[R H Draney]

Peter T. Daniels filted:

>
>On Dec 2, 9:34=A0pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Mike L filted:
>>

>> >I'm wondering if this "petrol blue" refers to
>> >some other petroleum distillate than gasoline: one does see colours in
>> >some mineral oils. OED offers no explanation.
>>

>> So it's an arbitrary assignment of a particular shade of color for a spec=

>ific
>> purpose, where that assignment has taken on the force of a natural
>> association....
>>
>> Kind of like "safety orange"....r
>
>Isn't "safety orange" a particularly vivid shade used on safety
>equipment? Over here, traffic cones are usually orange, and high-
>visibility vests often are (though the lemon-lime green occasionally
>used on firetrucks is becoming more popular).

Just so...follow along with me now:

1) What color is a school bus?
2) Yellow.
3) Any particular shade of yellow?
4) Yes.
5) What is that shade of yellow called?
6) It's called "school-bus yellow".
7) And why does that color have that name?
8) Because it's the color of a school bus.
9) Why is that shade associated with school buses?
10) Because the law specifies the precise color a school bus must be painted.

The universe is a strange place; stranger, perhaps, than any other....r

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:3cc49a4a-c67a-4a21...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

Oh, drats! Thanks, I knew that, I typed this without thinking.

> Why would anyone dye gasoline or diesel fuel? They're not for looking
> at.

Other people responded to this already.

Another example is red diesel. In some countries truckies found
with red diesel in their petrol tanks get heavily fined. The red
diesel intended for heating doesn't carry heavy road traffic duties.

>> >> It's almost but not quite a peacock blue.
>>
>> > What does it have to do with petrol?
>>
>> It has the word "petrol" in its name.
>
> Why?

Because some types of petrol are petrol blue coloured.

pjk

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:593b2de3-e56b-45c5...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

> I asked you whether you think style is a matter of do's and don't's,
> i.e. the Wilson Follett (and even the Strunk & White) approach.

Alas, not having read either Follett or Strunk and White, I am unable to
answer your specific point. But in general I would agree that style cannot
be reduced to a simple list of "dos and don'ts" in that fashion. (I think I
prefer the spelling without the apostrophe before the "s".)

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:aa220a7b-5ea7-47f0...@t5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 2, 11:28 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > I think you misunderstood the question. "Participle" is the name of a
> > non-finite verb form, playing a similar role to an adjective. In
> > particular, there's a participle in English ending in "-ing"
> > (traditionally
> > called the "present participle"), identical in form to the verbal noun
> > in
> > "-ing" (sometimes called the "gerund").
>
> > What do modern grammarians call the construction where a noun phrase is
> > combined with a form in "-ing" (possibly either of the above two types),
> > to
> > create a complex noun phrase with the semantic value of a subordinate
> > clause?

> A noun with a participle (or participial phrase) modifier. (Why should
> that utterly garden-variety use of a participle require a special
> name?)

Because I'm not referring to the garden-variety use of the participle. I
thought you'd read Fowler's article?

Fowler gave three examples:
(1) Women having the vote share political power with men.
(2) Women's having the vote reduces men's political power.
(3) Women having the vote reduces men's political power.

In (1), "having" is a true participle modifying "women", the grammatical
subject of the sentence. The verb is plural in agreement with "women". The
statement is equivalent to saying "women who have the vote share political
power with men".
In (2), "having" is a verbal noun (or gerund), referring to the abstract
notion of possession of the vote, and is itself the grammatical subject of
the sentence (hence singular marking on the verb). The possessive form
"women's" is used to restrict the subject to mean "the possession of the
vote by women".
In (3), "having" may appear at first to be a participle in the manner of
(1), but it isn't. First of all, the verb is singular, not plural, which
means that "women" can't be the grammatical subject. Secondly, the meaning
is not that women reduce men's political power, but that the possession of
the vote by women does so. In other words, the meaning is the same as in
(2); the sentence is talking about an abstract notion.

Fowler had no objection to constructions of type (1) and (2) but was
strongly in opposition to those of type (3).

> > Fowler was accepted as an authority for much of the twentieth century.
> > There were many people who believed that, if Fowler was opposed to
> > something, then it was incorrect English. Fowler didn't say "well I
> > don't
> > like the fused participle but you can use it if you like"; he made it
> > clear
> > that its use was unacceptable to him.

> So let him not use it in _his_ writing. (Do you really suppose that if
> you combed all his work, you'd never find one? )

I've never spotted one - and I'm quite sensitive to the things. (I recently
found one in a piece by a.u.e's resident prescriptivist, who has elsewhere
claimed to be opposed to the construction.) I do use them myself sometimes,
but only when I can find no better way of expressing what I want to say. I
find them ugly rather than "wrong".

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote in message
news:96430137-b517-4d66...@jl13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> However, in

> Botswana winning a medal surprised everyone.

> it is not Botswana that surprises everyone, but the fact/event of its
> winning a medal; and there is a possessive counterpart
> (Botswana's...).

> I would call these nominalized clauses, in which there is a choice of
> making the original subject either objective (Him winning a medal...)
> or possessive.

Indeed. They're semantically equivalent to subordinate clauses (e.g. "that
Botswana won a medal surprised everyone"), but they tend to be used in
contexts where it's impossible to use a subordinate clause, probably most
commonly as the object of a preposition (e.g. "there is no possibility of
Botswana/Botswana's winning a medal"). "Nominalized clause" seems a
reasonable term, although it doesn't seem to distinguish between the type
with a possessive marker on the subject and the type without.

> It's the former type that Fowler apparently calls
> "fused participles", and doesn't like. (I've never heard the term
> before, but then I don't use Fowler or any other such guides.)

I'm not sure whether Fowler invented the term, but he certainly popularized
it. These days it seems to be largely forgotten except by devotees of
Fowler. The construction is so common as to be generally unremarkable in
most contexts, although I would say that to some speakers a possessive is
still obligatory if the original subject is a personal pronoun (e.g. "his
winning a medal..." would be insisted on by people who were otherwise happy
to say "Botswana winning a medal...").

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:ai2dii...@mid.individual.net...

Here's what Fowler actually said. "The two kinds of relative clauses, to
one of which _that_ and to the other of which _which_ is appropriate, are
the defining [i.e. restrictive] and the non-defining; and if writers would
agree to regard _that_ as the defining relative pronoun, and _which_ as the
non-defining relative pronoun, there would be much gain both in lucidity and
in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle
to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."

So he was acknowledging that the distinction wasn't generally observed in
practice, while expressing a clear wish that it should be so. He didn't
need to use terms like "wrong", "incorrect" or "vulgar" to make his point.

--
Guy Barry

[Arnaud F.]

Le lundi 3 décembre 2012 09:19:32 UTC+1, R H Draney a écrit :

>
> Just so...follow along with me now:
>
>
>
> 1) What color is a school bus?
>
> 2) Yellow.
>
> 3) Any particular shade of yellow?
>
> 4) Yes.
>
> 5) What is that shade of yellow called?
>
> 6) It's called "school-bus yellow".
>
> 7) And why does that color have that name?
>
> 8) Because it's the color of a school bus.
>
> 9) Why is that shade associated with school buses?
>
> 10) Because the law specifies the precise color a school bus must be painted.
>
>
>
> The universe is a strange place; stranger, perhaps, than any other....
>

***

Nice!

A.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The earliest quote in the OED for the phrase "petrol blue" is from a US
source:

1913 Fort Wayne (Indiana) News 22 Sept. 2/1 (advt.) In black
and the velvet colors, Mahogany, Alque green, petrol blue, Lautre
browns etc.

The names of two of those colours, "Alque" and "Lautre", *might* be
French in origin. That suggests the possibility that "petrol" as a
colour might also have come from French.

petrol, n.

In sense 3 [fuel] apparently reintroduced, after French p�trole
(1892 or earlier in this sense; compare G. Richard Les Nouveaux
Moteurs � gaz et � p�trole (1892), and earlier lampe � p�trole
(1866)),...

The earliest for "Petrol" on its own as the name of a colour is from a
UK source:

1927 Daily Express 22 Feb. 6 (advt.) White, Phlox, Cardinal,
Red, Black, Brown, Navy, Bois de Rose, Lavender, Petrol, New Blue,
Grey.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-12-03, tony cooper wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 20:08:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>Why would anyone dye gasoline or diesel fuel? They're not for looking
>>at.
>
> You are Blanche DuBois, AICMFP.
>
> Normally, I wouldn't provide as much as clue as to what is meant above
> because the regulars of this group are clever enough to suss it out on
> their own. Some might be insulted if I didn't leave it to them to
> figure out the reference.
>
> However, I know you won't work it out, so the reference is to
> Blanche's line in "A Streetcar Named Desire": "I have always depended
> on the kindness of strangers."

Someone's going to have to help with "AICMFP", you know.

> Instead of asking strangers to tell you why anyone would dye gasoline
> or diesel fuel, look it up. It's done all over the world, and for
> good reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dyes

In New York? Otherwise it doesn't count, you know.


--
...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_]

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-12-02, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> English has not ceased to be a Germanic language (whether a North
> Germanic language, as suggested by a current thread in sci.lang about
> a report of a presentation by an eminent Norwegian historical
> linguist, or a West Germanic one, as is usually held), and so sentence
> adverbs always have had and always will have a place in its discourse.
>
> Is there a similar outcry against "curiously," "usually," and many,
> many other sentence adverbs that occur routinely in everyday speech as
> well as formal writing?


The anti-hopefully characters generally accept "(un)fortunately",
"curiously", etc., because they mean the same thing as "It is
(un)fortunate/curious that...", whereas "Hopefully, X will happen"
doesn't mean "It is hopeful that X will happen". That's true, but
there are other such adverbs with the same supposed semantic problem
that they never condemn (the only one I can think of off-hand is
"frankly", but I've seen other examples).


--
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]

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-12-03, R H Draney wrote:

> Kind of like "safety orange"....r

That has an extra layer to protect you from protruding springs if the
clockwork fails.


--
In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for
-£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the
myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Verity Stob)

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:34:29 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>

So he wasn't being prescriptive about it, just saying that if it was done
there would be a gain in lucidity and ease.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:03:12 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>Because I'm not referring to the garden-variety use of the participle. I
>thought you'd read Fowler's article?

Oy!

[Cheryl]

So that you can instantly tell which one you have when some idiot puts
it in an unlabeled container.


--
Cheryl

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 3, 6:28 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-12-03, tony cooper wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 20:08:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>Why would anyone dye gasoline or diesel fuel? They're not for looking
> >>at.
>
> > You are Blanche DuBois, AICMFP.
>
> > Normally, I wouldn't provide as much as clue as to what is meant above
> > because the regulars of this group are clever enough to suss it out on
> > their own.  Some might be insulted if I didn't leave it to them to
> > figure out the reference.
>
> > However, I know you won't work it out, so the reference is to
> > Blanche's line in "A Streetcar Named Desire":  "I have always depended
> > on the kindness of strangers."
>
> Someone's going to have to help with "AICMFP", you know.
>
> > Instead of asking strangers to tell you why anyone would dye gasoline
> > or diesel fuel, look it up.  It's done all over the world, and for
> > good reason:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dyes
>
> In New York?  Otherwise it doesn't count, you know.

In New Jersey, we don't look at our gasoline. It goes directly from
the tank underground, through the pump and the opaque hose, into the
car's gas tank.

(Moreover, there is no "self-service" gasoline purchasing in New
Jersey.)

[Arnaud F.]

Le lundi 3 décembre 2012 12:13:58 UTC+1, Peter Duncanson [BrE] a écrit :

>
> The earliest quote in the OED for the phrase "petrol blue" is from a US
>
> source:
>
>
>
> 1913 Fort Wayne (Indiana) News 22 Sept. 2/1 (advt.) In black
>
> and the velvet colors, Mahogany, Alque green, petrol blue, Lautre
>
> browns etc.
>
>
>
> The names of two of those colours, "Alque" and "Lautre", *might* be
>
> French in origin. That suggests the possibility that "petrol" as a
>
> colour might also have come from French.
>

***

Not sure.

A.
***
>
>
> petrol, n.
>
>
>
> In sense 3 [fuel] apparently reintroduced, after French pétrole

>
> (1892 or earlier in this sense; compare G. Richard Les Nouveaux
>

> Moteurs à gaz et à pétrole (1892), and earlier lampe à pétrole

>
> (1866)),...
>
>
>
> The earliest for "Petrol" on its own as the name of a colour is from a
>
> UK source:
>
>
>
> 1927 Daily Express 22 Feb. 6 (advt.) White, Phlox, Cardinal,
>
> Red, Black, Brown, Navy, Bois de Rose, Lavender, Petrol, New Blue,
>
> Grey.
>

***

This book claims that petrol as a color comes from the color of the containers.
bbl = blue barrel

same story as school-bus yellow apparently.

http://books.google.fr/books?id=Mo3Ooss6UGQC&pg=PR11&dq=%22bleu+p%C3%A9trole%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=VJy8UN2JD-TC0QXksIGACA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22bleu%20p%C3%A9trole%22&f=false

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

And that would be a perfect analogy ... IF gasoline were dyed blue.

[Arnaud F.]

Le lundi 3 décembre 2012 13:40:23 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>
> > Just so...follow along with me now:
>
> >
>
> > 1)  What color is a school bus?
>
> > 2)  Yellow.
>
> > 3)  Any particular shade of yellow?
>
> > 4)  Yes.
>
> > 5)  What is that shade of yellow called?
>
> > 6)  It's called "school-bus yellow".
>
> > 7)  And why does that color have that name?
>
> > 8)  Because it's the color of a school bus.
>
> > 9)  Why is that shade associated with school buses?
>
> > 10) Because the law specifies the precise color a school bus must be painted.
>
> >
>
> > The universe is a strange place; stranger, perhaps, than any other....r
>
>
>
> And that would be a perfect analogy ... IF gasoline were dyed blue.

***

As usual you are proved an idiot,

as the color's name comes the color of the barrels containing oil.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 3, 6:46 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:03:12 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk>

> wrote:
>
> >Because I'm not referring to the garden-variety use of the participle.  I
> >thought you'd read Fowler's article?
>
> Oy!

And as Guy Barry made abundantly clear in the extended paraphrase just
above, Construction #3 is PERFECTLY ORDINARY and UNWORTHY OF REMARK.
Nominal clauses can be subjects. Period.