``Few would disagree that...''
Ron Hardin
Few would disagree that Mrs. Clinton came a long way
appearancewise during her eight years as first lady,
particularly for a woman who was more interested in policy
than pouring tea.
I claim ``Few would disagree that X'' makes no sense, though I've
never been able to convince any author of it.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The Washington Times writes
>
> Few would disagree that Mrs. Clinton came a long way
> appearancewise during her eight years as first lady,
> particularly for a woman who was more interested in policy
> than pouring tea.
>
>I claim ``Few would disagree that X'' makes no sense, though I've
>never been able to convince any author of it.
It's simply an ellipsis of "Few would disagree with the claim (or assertion, or
whatever) that...". What's unclear about it? Since "agree that" is well
established (it's given as an example of "agree" in MWCD10), why not
"disagree that"?
Coby
Peter T. Daniels
>
> The Washington Times writes
>
> Few would disagree that Mrs. Clinton came a long way
> appearancewise during her eight years as first lady,
> particularly for a woman who was more interested in policy
> than pouring tea.
>
> I claim ``Few would disagree that X'' makes no sense, though I've
> never been able to convince any author of it.
What are the grounds for your objection?
In this case, it simply says that Hillary looks nicer now than she did
then, and it would be hard to find someone who doesn't think so.
(And have you seen the pix from back when she was on the Watergate
Committee staff??)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Ron Hardin
> It's simply an ellipsis of "Few would disagree with the claim (or assertion, or
> whatever) that...". What's unclear about it? Since "agree that" is well
> established (it's given as an example of "agree" in MWCD10), why not
> "disagree that"?
I agree that it has to do with ``agree that,'' but think it is not ellipsis.
It's probably a sloppy negation,
I don't agree that X => I disagree that X
Ron Hardin
> What are the grounds for your objection?
You can't disagree that something, you can only disagree.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > What are the grounds for your objection?
>
> You can't disagree that something, you can only disagree.
Why not? As Coby pointed out, you can "agree that" -- _why_ should
"disagree" be different? It's that great engine of language change,
analogy, at work.
Ron Hardin
> > You can't disagree that something, you can only disagree.
>
> Why not? As Coby pointed out, you can "agree that" -- _why_ should
> "disagree" be different? It's that great engine of language change,
> analogy, at work.
What do you disagree?
Paul Bennett
> I claim ``Few would disagree that X'' makes no sense, though I've
> never been able to convince any author of it.
What's wrong with it? It's a "fuzzy" double-negative.
How do you rate ``Few would agree that X''?
How about ``Many would disagree that X''?
Or even ``Many would agree that X''?
---
Pb
My opinions are my own and should not be taken as
representing any other group or entity.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Harlan Messinger
"Ron Hardin" <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A7AF4...@mindspring.com...
> Coby (Jacob) Lubliner wrote:
> > It's simply an ellipsis of "Few would disagree with the claim (or
assertion, or
> > whatever) that...". What's unclear about it? Since "agree that" is
well
> > established (it's given as an example of "agree" in MWCD10), why not
> > "disagree that"?
>
> I agree that it has to do with ``agree that,'' but think it is not
ellipsis.
>
> It's probably a sloppy negation,
>
> I don't agree that X => I disagree that X
What's sloppy about it? The way the word is used indicates that "disagree"
means "not to agree". It hasn't occurred to me that it means anything else.
Ron Hardin
> What's wrong with it? It's a "fuzzy" double-negative.
>
> How do you rate ``Few would agree that X''?
> How about ``Many would disagree that X''?
> Or even ``Many would agree that X''?
It's a sloppy negative, but what's wrong with it is the
``disagree that'' on the analogy of ``say'' or ``agree.''
``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
*``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
Ron Hardin
> > I don't agree that X => I disagree that X
>
> What's sloppy about it? The way the word is used indicates that "disagree"
> means "not to agree". It hasn't occurred to me that it means anything else.
``Disagree'' is intransitive and the negation of ``agree'' intransitive.
There is a transitive ``agree'' of which it is not the negation.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>
> Few would disagree that Mrs. Clinton came a long way
> appearancewise during her eight years as first lady,
> particularly for a woman who was more interested in policy
> than pouring tea.
>
>I claim ``Few would disagree that X'' makes no sense, though I've
>never been able to convince any author of it.
Maybe because your claim is bollocks?
I couldn't even figure out the basis for it until you had done a little
more explaining in response to other posters' replies. Now I know that
it's truly groundless.
Have you ever met a fluent English speaker who didn't understand what was
meant by this expression? If so, apparently they're in a small minority,
so clearly it can't be said that the expression "makes no sense". If your
sole objection is that your collegiate dictionary says that "disagree" is
an intransitive verb, guess what? That means your dictionary needs revis-
ed.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
Ron Hardin
> Have you ever met a fluent English speaker who didn't understand what was
> meant by this expression? If so, apparently they're in a small minority,
> so clearly it can't be said that the expression "makes no sense". If your
> sole objection is that your collegiate dictionary says that "disagree" is
> an intransitive verb, guess what? That means your dictionary needs revis-
> ed.
There's lots of expressions that make no sense. Calling attention to them
serves to cut down on their numbers.
Mark Rosenfelder
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Paul Bennett wrote:
>It's a sloppy negative, but what's wrong with it is the
>``disagree that'' on the analogy of ``say'' or ``agree.''
>
> ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
> *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
Sounds like a Ring Lardner sentence:
"Shut up," he explained.
Paul Bennett
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> > Have you ever met a fluent English speaker who didn't understand
what was
> > meant by this expression? If so, apparently they're in a small
minority,
> > so clearly it can't be said that the expression "makes no sense".
If your
> > sole objection is that your collegiate dictionary says
that "disagree" is
> > an intransitive verb, guess what? That means your dictionary needs
revis-
> > ed.
>
> There's lots of expressions that make no sense. Calling attention to
them
> serves to cut down on their numbers.
HUH?!?!??!?! Not even "BZZZT!" is sufficient for this one!
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Oh, yeah? ;-)
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > You can't disagree that something, you can only disagree.
>>
>> Why not? As Coby pointed out, you can "agree that" -- _why_ should
>> "disagree" be different? It's that great engine of language change,
>> analogy, at work.
> What do you disagree?
Well, what do you agree?
Coby
Paul Bennett
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Paul Bennett wrote:
> > What's wrong with it? It's a "fuzzy" double-negative.
> >
> > How do you rate ``Few would agree that X''?
> > How about ``Many would disagree that X''?
> > Or even ``Many would agree that X''?
>
> It's a sloppy negative, but what's wrong with it is the
> ``disagree that'' on the analogy of ``say'' or ``agree.''
>
> ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
> *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
Well, for a start, I'd mark it with {?} rather than {*}, as it's not
ungrammatical. It may /sound/ odd to you, but it's purely subjective,
which means (by a strict definition) it's not acceptable to all
informants. By a looser definiton, any fluent English speaker can
determine what it means easily, so even the {?} is incorrect.
Ron Hardin
> > ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
> > *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
>
> Well, for a start, I'd mark it with {?} rather than {*}, as it's not
> ungrammatical. It may /sound/ odd to you, but it's purely subjective,
> which means (by a strict definition) it's not acceptable to all
> informants. By a looser definiton, any fluent English speaker can
> determine what it means easily, so even the {?} is incorrect.
I can't tell whether he agrees with the quote or disagrees with it.
Ron Hardin
> > What do you disagree?
>
> Well, what do you agree?
That it sounds odd.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> Have you ever met a fluent English speaker who didn't understand what was
>> meant by this expression? If so, apparently they're in a small minority,
>> so clearly it can't be said that the expression "makes no sense". If your
>> sole objection is that your collegiate dictionary says that "disagree" is
>> an intransitive verb, guess what? That means your dictionary needs revis-
>> ed.
>
>There's lots of expressions that make no sense.
Like "there's lots"?
>Calling attention to them serves to cut down on their numbers.
Can you substantiate that claim? My own personal bugaboo is "more/very
unique". I don't think my purple-faced protestations have diminished its
wide spread one span. To many people, "unique" merely means "distinctive"
(just as "brilliant" merely means "good") and I have no choice but to ac-
cept that. I don't have to adopt that usage, but I do have to be aware
that others might misunderstand my usage of "unique" to mean "one-of-a-
kind".
I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
ing. (Kudos to the former Greek major who disabused me of "the hoi pol-
loi", for instance.) But I'm not inclined to do that in this instance be-
cause I feel your claim has no substance. English changes. Verbs that
were once exclusively intransitive can now be used transitively. Do as
the rest of us and deal with it. (And, if you can't, take your objections
to alt.usage.english, where they may actually be on-topic.)
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Coby (Jacob) Lubliner wrote:
>> > What do you disagree?
>>
>> Well, what do you agree?
>
>That it sounds odd.
Since I couldn't think of any transitive uses for "agree", I looked some
up in the OED. Now *those* sound odd. I look at an example like:
The Russians have agreed a wide list of categories.
and think to myself, "No native speaker of English would say that." But
apparently they do (or did. This citation dates from 1959).
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Paul Bennett wrote:
>> > ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
>> > *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
>>
>> Well, for a start, I'd mark it with {?} rather than {*}, as it's not
>> ungrammatical. It may /sound/ odd to you, but it's purely subjective,
>> which means (by a strict definition) it's not acceptable to all
>> informants. By a looser definiton, any fluent English speaker can
>> determine what it means easily, so even the {?} is incorrect.
>
>I can't tell whether he agrees with the quote or disagrees with it.
Presumably, context would help clear that up.
mith...@indiana.edu
Ron Hardin wrote:
> Coby (Jacob) Lubliner wrote:
> > > What do you disagree?
> >
> > Well, what do you agree?
>
> That it sounds odd.
I disagree that it sounds odd. (And think about your own response; if
"what do you agree?" sounds fine enough for you to answer that way, then
what grounds do you have for disagreement with "disagree"?) MAT
mith...@indiana.edu
"D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff" wrote:
> Since I couldn't think of any transitive uses for "agree", I looked some
> up in the OED. Now *those* sound odd. I look at an example like:
>
> The Russians have agreed a wide list of categories.
>
> and think to myself, "No native speaker of English would say that."
Agreed. MAT
Ron Hardin
> I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
> ing. (Kudos to the former Greek major who disabused me of "the hoi pol-
> loi", for instance.) But I'm not inclined to do that in this instance be-
> cause I feel your claim has no substance. English changes. Verbs that
> were once exclusively intransitive can now be used transitively. Do as
> the rest of us and deal with it. (And, if you can't, take your objections
> to alt.usage.english, where they may actually be on-topic.)
The linguistic question is why it sounds odd.
I claim it's because ``agree'' transitive is on the model of ``say''
which accounts not only for there being no transitive ``disagree,'' but also
for its being nonsensical in ``I disagree that X.''
The oddness is ignored by those feeling that negation can occur unimpeded
``I don't agree that X'' => ``I disagree that X.''
``I don't say that X'' does not negate similarly, but then ``say'' has
no intransitive version to have a negation, and the model is broken.
Ron Hardin
> I disagree that it sounds odd. (And think about your own response; if
> "what do you agree?" sounds fine enough for you to answer that way, then
> what grounds do you have for disagreement with "disagree"?) MAT
``What do you agree'' sounds okay with the answer, an indirect quotation,
in effect.
``What do you disagree'' does not. I was thinking it would sound odd
enough to skeptics to make them question what sort of thing could
follow it as object.
mith...@indiana.edu
Ron Hardin wrote:
> mith...@indiana.edu wrote:
> > I disagree that it sounds odd. (And think about your own response; if
> > "what do you agree?" sounds fine enough for you to answer that way, then
> > what grounds do you have for disagreement with "disagree"?) MAT
>
> ``What do you agree'' sounds okay with the answer, an indirect quotation,
> in effect.
Not to me it doesn't. It sounds downright lousy to me. "I disagree that...,"
however, sounds perfectly fine to me.
Mikael Thompson
Ron Hardin
> > ``What do you agree'' sounds okay with the answer, an indirect quotation,
> > in effect.
>
> Not to me it doesn't. It sounds downright lousy to me. "I disagree that...,"
> however, sounds perfectly fine to me.
You'd agree, though, that ``disagree'' (transitive) and ``say'' are not of the same kind?
How about ``agree'' (transitive) and ``say''?
I suspect ``agree that'' comes from ``say that'' comes from direct statement.
That seems to me to capture the source of the oddness in ``disagee that.''
Ron Hardin
> ``I don't say that X'' does not negate similarly, but then ``say'' has
> no intransitive version to have a negation, and the model is broken.
The problem of negating ``say'' comes up in Catch-22. Fortunately the web
makes it easy to find. The colonel is insisting on a negation.
====
"Just what the hell did you mean, you bastard, when you said we couldn't punish you?"
said the corporal who could take shorthand reading from his steno pad.
"All right," said the colonel. "Just what the hell did you mean?"
"I didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir."
"When," asked the colonel.
"When what, sir?"
"Now you're asking me questions again."
"I'm sorry, sir. I'm afraid I don't understand your question."
"When didn't you say we couldn't punish you? Don't you understand my question?"
"No, sir, I don't understand."
"You've just told us that. Now suppose you answer my question."
"But how can I answer it?"
"That's another question you're asking me."
"I'm sorry, sir. But I don't know how to answer it. I never said you couldn't punish me."
"Now you're telling us what you did say. I'm asking you to tell us when you didn't say it."
Clevinger took a deep breath. "I always didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir."
"That's much better, Mr. Clevinger, even though it's a bare-faced lie.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
>> ing. (Kudos to the former Greek major who disabused me of "the hoi pol-
>> loi", for instance.) But I'm not inclined to do that in this instance be-
>> cause I feel your claim has no substance. English changes. Verbs that
>> were once exclusively intransitive can now be used transitively. Do as
>> the rest of us and deal with it. (And, if you can't, take your objections
>> to alt.usage.english, where they may actually be on-topic.)
>
>The linguistic question is why it sounds odd.
But, so far, you're the only person who's claimed that it sounds odd.
Everyone else seems to accept it without so much as a blink.
>I claim it's because ``agree'' transitive is on the model of ``say''
>which accounts not only for there being no transitive ``disagree,'' but also
>for its being nonsensical in ``I disagree that X.''
>
>The oddness is ignored by those feeling that negation can occur unimpeded
>``I don't agree that X'' => ``I disagree that X.''
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't agree that these two "nega-
tions" are equivalent. There is, at very least, a difference of emphasis.
>``I don't say that X'' does not negate similarly, but then ``say'' has
>no intransitive version to have a negation, and the model is broken.
>--
>Ron Hardin
>rhha...@mindspring.com
>
>On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Speaking of nonsensical phrases, I've always thought this was a prime
example of one: On the Internet, it's quite possible that the *only*
thing one can know about a poster is that he is a jerk.
Ron Hardin
> >On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
>
> Speaking of nonsensical phrases, I've always thought this was a prime
> example of one: On the Internet, it's quite possible that the *only*
> thing one can know about a poster is that he is a jerk.
It's a test phrase.
Ron Hardin
> >The linguistic question is why it sounds odd.
>
> But, so far, you're the only person who's claimed that it sounds odd.
> Everyone else seems to accept it without so much as a blink.
Sounding odd, though, indicates some linguistic force or barrier that
needs accounting for. I am trying to account for it.
Paul Bennett
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I can't tell whether he agrees with the quote or disagrees with it.
Two things:
A) I'm saying that any statement which can be readily understood is not
incorrectly formed. To simplify: I disagree with you.
B) Surely in your reply, you've just proven that "disagree" is exactly
as transitive as "agree". To simply: You disgree with yourself.
---
Pb
Paul Bennett
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I can't tell whether he agrees with the quote or disagrees with it.
Two things:
A) I'm saying that any statement which can be readily understood is not
incorrectly formed. To simplify: I disagree with you.
B) Surely in your reply, you've just proven that "disagree" is exactly
as transitive as "agree". To simply: You disgree with yourself.
---
Pb
Ron Hardin
> > I can't tell whether he agrees with the quote or disagrees with it.
>
> Two things:
>
> A) I'm saying that any statement which can be readily understood is not
> incorrectly formed. To simplify: I disagree with you.
>
> B) Surely in your reply, you've just proven that "disagree" is exactly
> as transitive as "agree". To simply: You disgree with yourself.
A) The sentence
*``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
is not readily understood. It could be either the in-question
He disagreed that each one is better than the next.
(going to the suggested indirect statement form ``agree that'')
or that he disagreed by saying ``each one is better than the next,''
a statement that he would then agree with.
B) I don't see how ``[dis]agree with..'' is transitive. ``[dis]agree that..''
would be transitive, taking a ``that...'' as object.
Mark Rosenfelder
Why does he need "grounds"? It's a syntactic intuition, though
(unfortunately for the sake of analysis) one not shared by everybody.
And why should "agree" and "disagree" have the same behavior?
They're two different verbs. Or do you think that because you can
say "I trust that things are OK", you can also say "I distrust that
things are OK"?
To me the "disagree that..." examples do sound a bit odd (although the
original "Few would disagree..." example sounded OK). "What do you
disagree?" sounds very odd-- I'd say "What do you disagree with?"
or "...about?" And for that matter "What do you agree?" sounds odd,
needing the same correction.
Ron Hardin
> >There's lots of expressions that make no sense.
>
> Like "there's lots"?
The subject is ``there.''
Jim Heckman
>Date: 2/2/01 9:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A7AF3...@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Ron Hardin wrote:
>>
>> The Washington Times writes
>>
>> Few would disagree that Mrs. Clinton came a long way
>> appearancewise during her eight years as first lady,
>> particularly for a woman who was more interested in policy
>> than pouring tea.
>>
>> I claim ``Few would disagree that X'' makes no sense, though I've
>> never been able to convince any author of it.
>
>What are the grounds for your objection?
>
>In this case, it simply says that Hillary looks nicer now than she did
>then, and it would be hard to find someone who doesn't think so.
>
>(And have you seen the pix from back when she was on the Watergate
>Committee staff??)
In the early years of the Clinton administration, there was an active
Web site, something like <www.hillaryshair.org>, where a visitor could
use the tools available on the site to modify a standard photo of Hillary,
giving her a new 'do and posting it to the site. The owner(s) of the site
picked the 'best' ones and put them on their welcome page. Needless
to say there were some pretty hysterical ones.
--
Jim Heckman
Jim Heckman
>Date: 2/2/01 11:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A7B05...@mindspring.com>
>
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>
>> meant by this expression? If so, apparently they're in a small minority,
>> so clearly it can't be said that the expression "makes no sense". If your
>> sole objection is that your collegiate dictionary says that "disagree" is
>> an intransitive verb, guess what? That means your dictionary needs revis-
>> ed.
>
"There ARE lots of expressions that make no sense."
>Calling attention to them serves to cut down on their numbers.
I'd be truly surprised if you changed your usage of verb number in
existential sentences just because I've called your attention to it.
--
Jim Heckman
Chris Nelson
wrote in message news:zbFe6.443$x3.5675@uchinews...
I understand the objection to "more unique" and "very
unique"; indeed, I was brought up to believe that it's a bad
construction. But in my mind, when I hear someone say "very
unique", I interpret it as "further removed from the norm"
as compared to something else that's unique.
--
Chris Nelson
Over 400 failed doomsday prophecies!
http://www.chrisnelson.net
Greg Lee
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > You can't disagree that something, you can only disagree.
>>
>> Why not? As Coby pointed out, you can "agree that" -- _why_ should
>> "disagree" be different? It's that great engine of language change,
>> analogy, at work.
> What do you disagree?
That last question is not acceptable because "disagree" is not transitive.
In this context you should have asked "What do you disagree with?"
In the original example, "that Mrs. Clinton ..." may appear to be the
direct object of "disagree", but actually it is the object of an
unexpressed preposition "with". The omission of a preposition before
a "that"-clause is quite regular -- I sure you can think of other
examples.
--
Greg Lee <l...@hawaii.edu>
Brian M. Scott
Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
[...]
>Since I couldn't think of any transitive uses for "agree", I looked some
>up in the OED. Now *those* sound odd. I look at an example like:
>
> The Russians have agreed a wide list of categories.
>
>and think to myself, "No native speaker of English would say that." But
>apparently they do (or did. This citation dates from 1959).
It's a Rightpondian usage.
Brian M. Scott
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <3A7AFF...@mindspring.com>,
> Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Paul Bennett wrote:
> >It's a sloppy negative, but what's wrong with it is the
> >``disagree that'' on the analogy of ``say'' or ``agree.''
> >
> > ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
> > *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
"Each one isn't better than the next," she opined.
"Each one IS SO better than the next," he disagreed.
> Sounds like a Ring Lardner sentence:
>
> "Shut up," he explained.
(In context, you know, that makes perfect sense.)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
> Can you substantiate that claim? My own personal bugaboo is "more/very
> unique". I don't think my purple-faced protestations have diminished its
> wide spread one span. To many people, "unique" merely means "distinctive"
> (just as "brilliant" merely means "good") and I have no choice but to ac-
> cept that. I don't have to adopt that usage, but I do have to be aware
> that others might misunderstand my usage of "unique" to mean "one-of-a-
> kind".
You object to "very unique," but you object to objection to "one of the
only"? It's exactly the same inconcinnity!
Brian M. Scott
Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>In article <3A7B05...@mindspring.com>,
>Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>>> Have you ever met a fluent English speaker who didn't understand what was
>>> meant by this expression? If so, apparently they're in a small minority,
>>> so clearly it can't be said that the expression "makes no sense". If your
>>> sole objection is that your collegiate dictionary says that "disagree" is
>>> an intransitive verb, guess what? That means your dictionary needs revis-
>>> ed.
>>There's lots of expressions that make no sense.
>Like "there's lots"?
>>Calling attention to them serves to cut down on their numbers.
>Can you substantiate that claim? My own personal bugaboo is "more/very
>unique". I don't think my purple-faced protestations have diminished its
>wide spread one span. To many people, "unique" merely means "distinctive"
>(just as "brilliant" merely means "good") and I have no choice but to ac-
>cept that. I don't have to adopt that usage, but I do have to be aware
>that others might misunderstand my usage of "unique" to mean "one-of-a-
>kind".
>I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
>ing.
<grumble> 'persuaded to' <grumble>
I know: it's a lost cause. But you did mention personal bugaboos ...
> (Kudos to the former Greek major who disabused me of "the hoi pol-
>loi", for instance.)
In my case it was taking a semester of Classical Greek that did it.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
>> ing. (Kudos to the former Greek major who disabused me of "the hoi pol-
>> loi", for instance.)
prevent "hoi polloi" from being an English word entitled to its own definite
article. What if a former Arabic major told you (Da) not to say "the alcohol"?
>>But I'm not inclined to do that in this instance be-
>> cause I feel your claim has no substance. English changes. Verbs that
>> were once exclusively intransitive can now be used transitively. Do as
>> the rest of us and deal with it. (And, if you can't, take your objections
>> to alt.usage.english, where they may actually be on-topic.)
>
>The linguistic question is why it sounds odd.
>
>I claim it's because ``agree'' transitive is on the model of ``say''
If I said it to you, Ron, would you agree it to me?
Coby
Harlan Messinger
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> > I don't agree that X => I disagree that X
>>
>> What's sloppy about it? The way the word is used indicates that "disagree"
>> means "not to agree". It hasn't occurred to me that it means anything else.
>
>``Disagree'' is intransitive and the negation of ``agree'' intransitive.
>
>There is a transitive ``agree'' of which it is not the negation.
I think you're begging the question. You're citing a transitive use,
noting how common it is, and claiming it's a problem because (so you
declare) the word isn't transitive. Why do you not think that its use
as a transitive word makes it transitive?
--
Harlan Messinger
There are no Zs in my actual e-mail address.
Brian M. Scott
<c...@chrisnelsonREMOVETHIS.net> wrote:
[...]
>I understand the objection to "more unique" and "very
>unique"; indeed, I was brought up to believe that it's a bad
>construction. But in my mind, when I hear someone say "very
>unique", I interpret it as "further removed from the norm"
>as compared to something else that's unique.
But what's generally meant is merely 'very unusual' (as distinct from
'unusual').
Brian M. Scott
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Ron Hardin
> That last question is not acceptable because "disagree" is not transitive.
> In this context you should have asked "What do you disagree with?"
> In the original example, "that Mrs. Clinton ..." may appear to be the
> direct object of "disagree", but actually it is the object of an
> unexpressed preposition "with". The omission of a preposition before
> a "that"-clause is quite regular -- I sure you can think of other
> examples.
The ellipsis does not make a construction sound odd, however; and this one
does sound odd. The best I can do is somehow bring out the oddness.
A counterexample needs to produce ``okay'' odd-sounding constructions.
My theory of the oddness is that ``agree that'' is parasitic on ``say that''
and ``disagree that'' is a negation of ``agree that'' that has no parallel
in the ``say'' model. The oddness is that you can't see how somebody who
disagrees with something would assert it. You can see it if he agrees with it.
Ron Hardin
>
> Mark Rosenfelder wrote:
> > > ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
> > > *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
>
> "Each one isn't better than the next," she opined.
> "Each one IS SO better than the next," he disagreed.
But you wouldn't report ``He disagreed that each one is so better than
the next'' for the last. Just the opposite.
There's no trouble with ``agreed.''
Ron Hardin
> I think you're begging the question. You're citing a transitive use,
> noting how common it is, and claiming it's a problem because (so you
> declare) the word isn't transitive. Why do you not think that its use
> as a transitive word makes it transitive?
Because it sounds odd. The question is why.
Ron Hardin
> >There's lots of expressions that make no sense.
>
> "There ARE lots of expressions that make no sense."
>
> >Calling attention to them serves to cut down on their numbers.
>
> I'd be truly surprised if you changed your usage of verb number in
> existential sentences just because I've called your attention to it.
You didn't call my attention to a mistake, is why. What do you think
the subject of the sentence is?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Mark Rosenfelder wrote:
> > > > ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
> > > > *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
> >
> > "Each one isn't better than the next," she opined.
> > "Each one IS SO better than the next," he disagreed.
>
> But you wouldn't report ``He disagreed that each one is so better than
> the next'' for the last. Just the opposite.
So what??
> There's no trouble with ``agreed.''
"He agreed that each one IS SO better than the next"???? You can put
that sort of colloquial intensive into indirect discourse??????
Any problem with your version has nothing to do with the lexical item in
question.
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
I've been warning you about this for ages, and now others are chiming
in.
Ron Hardin
> > > "Each one isn't better than the next," she opined.
> > > "Each one IS SO better than the next," he disagreed.
> >
> > But you wouldn't report ``He disagreed that each one is so better than
> > the next'' for the last. Just the opposite.
>
> So what??
It's at the root of the oddness at the root of the question, namely
disagreeing and saying don't happen to the same object.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Ron Hardin
> > On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
>
> I've been warning you about this for ages, and now others are chiming
> in.
Warning me about what?
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
Peter T. Daniels
Denying that everyone can tell you're a jerk.
Ron Hardin
> > > > On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
> > >
> > > I've been warning you about this for ages, and now others are chiming
> > > in.
> >
> > Warning me about what?
> Denying that everyone can tell you're a jerk.
I don't see how they can pick it up.
Greg Lee
I disagree that there is any oddness to explain away. However, there is
something about the "dis-" that is special and difficult to account for.
Like "not believe", "not agree" is ambiguous in having an external and
an internal sense to the negation. If you don't believe something, either
you fail to believe that it is so, or you believe that it is not so.
Similarly, if you don't agree that something is so, either you fail to hold
the opinion that it is so (external negation), or you hold the opinion
that it is not so (internal negation). "Disagree" has only the sense of
an internal negation.
The grammatical difficulty is that, unlike the case of "believe", one
can't explain the sense of the internal negation by simply supposing that
the "not" is transported up from the "that"-clause complement. "Disagree
that ..." doesn't mean "agree that not ...". And, as you point
out, in this respect it is similar to "say", since "not say that ..." does
not have the interpretation as an internal negation: "say that not ...".
--
Greg Lee <l...@hawaii.edu>
Greg Lee
> [...]
This is the very best explanation available.
--
Greg Lee <l...@hawaii.edu>
Ron Hardin
> I disagree that there is any oddness to explain away. However, there is
> something about the "dis-" that is special and difficult to account for.
> Like "not believe", "not agree" is ambiguous in having an external and
> an internal sense to the negation. If you don't believe something, either
> you fail to believe that it is so, or you believe that it is not so.
> Similarly, if you don't agree that something is so, either you fail to hold
> the opinion that it is so (external negation), or you hold the opinion
> that it is not so (internal negation). "Disagree" has only the sense of
> an internal negation.
>
> The grammatical difficulty is that, unlike the case of "believe", one
> can't explain the sense of the internal negation by simply supposing that
> the "not" is transported up from the "that"-clause complement. "Disagree
> that ..." doesn't mean "agree that not ...". And, as you point
> out, in this respect it is similar to "say", since "not say that ..." does
> not have the interpretation as an internal negation: "say that not ...".
Here's an amusing test: ``Few would disagree that there is any oddness to explain away.''
Incidentally ``believe'' is a bad example because believing never happens in the present;
it's part of a mental model that some philosopher is deluding himself with when it does.
``I believed that the chair would support me'' means ``I gave it no thought.'' It serves as
an account or explanation of something, not a report of an active mental state.
Indeed in the present it normally expresses doubt.
Peter T. Daniels
> Incidentally ``believe'' is a bad example because believing never happens in the present;
> it's part of a mental model that some philosopher is deluding himself with when it does.
>
> ``I believed that the chair would support me'' means ``I gave it no thought.'' It serves as
> an account or explanation of something, not a report of an active mental state.
>
> Indeed in the present it normally expresses doubt.
Those are theological positions, not statements about the meaning of
"believe."
Ron Hardin
> Those are theological positions, not statements about the meaning of
> "believe."
Are you using theological to mean subjective or fuzzy? Its not being
subjective or fuzzy is the point of the assertion.
Wittgenstein, _Philosophical Investigations_
575. When I sat down on this chair, of course I believed it would
bear me. I had no thought of its possibly collapsing.
being the quote I was remembering, about believing.
Jim Heckman
>Date: 2/3/01 4:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A7BF4...@mindspring.com>
>
>Jim Heckman wrote:
>
>> >There's lots of expressions that make no sense.
>>
>> "There ARE lots of expressions that make no sense."
>>
>> >Calling attention to them serves to cut down on their numbers.
>>
>> I'd be truly surprised if you changed your usage of verb number in
>> existential sentences just because I've called your attention to it.
>
>You didn't call my attention to a mistake, is why. What do you think
>the subject of the sentence is?
We've been over this before, relatively recently, in sci.lang.
After much back and forth, mostly with Harlan Messinger, Greg
Lee actually managed to convince meน that the syntactic subject of
such sentences is indeed "there". However, in the (upper register)
usage of myself and at least several other regular posters, this
subject agrees in (morphologically unmarked) number with the
construction's complement, thus triggering number agreement in
the verb.
1) One of these days I intend to revive a thread about Mr. Lee's
theories of stressed consonants and syllable boundaries, said
theories of which I remain *unconvinced*, although I let the
thread die at the time due to lack of energy on my part. :-(
--
Jim Heckman
Ron Hardin
> such sentences is indeed "there". However, in the (upper register)
> usage of myself and at least several other regular posters, this
> subject agrees in (morphologically unmarked) number with the
> construction's complement, thus triggering number agreement in
> the verb.
In fact there is variation; informal English more liberally uses
the singular verb even when the number is obviously plural. It's not
an error, it's just the way it is. Quirk et al give ``There's
hundreds of people on the waiting list.''
Formal English is more impressed with Latin rules.
Jim Heckman
>Date: 2/3/01 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A7CC1...@mindspring.com>
>
>Jim Heckman wrote:
>
>> such sentences is indeed "there". However, in the (upper register)
>> usage of myself and at least several other regular posters, this
>> subject agrees in (morphologically unmarked) number with the
>> construction's complement, thus triggering number agreement in
>> the verb.
>
>In fact there is variation; informal English more liberally uses
>the singular verb even when the number is obviously plural. It's not
>an error, it's just the way it is.
Exactly my point. Haven't you yet noticed that this is precisely what
a solid majority of those responding to the supposed 'error' in your
cited use of "disagree" are telling you? *You* think it's an error to
say "Few would disagree that ...", but most people here don't think
so -- exactly like *I* think for "There's lots ..." The difference is that
I'm not as prescriptivist as to other people's usage as you seem to be.
>Quirk et al give ``There's hundreds of people on the waiting list.''
--
Jim Heckman
Ron Hardin
> Exactly my point. Haven't you yet noticed that this is precisely what
> a solid majority of those responding to the supposed 'error' in your
> cited use of "disagree" are telling you? *You* think it's an error to
> say "Few would disagree that ...", but most people here don't think
> so -- exactly like *I* think for "There's lots ..." The difference is that
> I'm not as prescriptivist as to other people's usage as you seem to be.
``Few would disagree that...'' has the virtue of being an interesting
odd-sounding construction. ``There's lots'' is just an overreliance
on Latin.
Harlan Messinger
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> I think you're begging the question. You're citing a transitive use,
>> noting how common it is, and claiming it's a problem because (so you
>> declare) the word isn't transitive. Why do you not think that its use
>> as a transitive word makes it transitive?
>
>Because it sounds odd. The question is why.
OK. But I don't know if anyone can explain why something sounds odd to
someone else, especially if it doesn't sound odd to the person
attempting an explanation!
Jim Heckman
>Date: 2/4/01 2:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A7D2A...@mindspring.com>
>
>Jim Heckman wrote:
>
>> Exactly my point. Haven't you yet noticed that this is precisely what
>> a solid majority of those responding to the supposed 'error' in your
>> cited use of "disagree" are telling you? *You* think it's an error to
>> say "Few would disagree that ...", but most people here don't think
>> so -- exactly like *I* think for "There's lots ..." The difference is that
>> I'm not as prescriptivist as to other people's usage as you seem to be.
>
>``Few would disagree that...'' has the virtue of being an interesting
>odd-sounding construction. ``There's lots'' is just an overreliance
>on Latin.
In your opinion. In mine, "There's lots" is an "interesting
odd-sounding construction", while "Few would disagree that ..." is
entirely unremarkable. Again, this is what a solid majority of those
posting to this thread have been trying to tell you. <shrug> IMHO,
the *real* questions of interest here are, "Why does a minority of
speakers find 'Few would disagree that ...' to be questionable, and
why are you, Ron Hardin, in that minority?"
--
Jim Heckman
Ron Hardin
> In your opinion. In mine, "There's lots" is an "interesting
> odd-sounding construction", while "Few would disagree that ..." is
> entirely unremarkable. Again, this is what a solid majority of those
> posting to this thread have been trying to tell you. <shrug> IMHO,
> the *real* questions of interest here are, "Why does a minority of
> speakers find 'Few would disagree that ...' to be questionable, and
> why are you, Ron Hardin, in that minority?"
Self selection of responders?
Paul Bennett
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> A) The sentence
> *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
>
> is not readily understood. It could be either the in-question
>
> He disagreed that each one is better than the next.
>
> (going to the suggested indirect statement form ``agree that'')
> or that he disagreed by saying ``each one is better than the next,''
> a statement that he would then agree with.
No. It's reported speech. The meaning is unambiguously the latter:
He disgreed with (another statement) by saying "Each one is better than
the next".
That's the beauty of the direct / indirect speech distinction made in
English and other languages.
> B) I don't see how ``[dis]agree with..'' is transitive. ``[dis]
agree that..''
> would be transitive, taking a ``that...'' as object.
Now, maybe I have a fundamentally flawed understanding of my own native
language (not unheard of), but surely any VP that has a verb of valency
2 (or more) is transisive.
There are, I'm sure, borderline cases, with an indirect object but no
direct object, but none come immediately to mind in English.
---
Pb
My opinions are my own and should not be taken as
representing any other group or entity.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Ron Hardin
> > *``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
> >
> > is not readily understood. It could be either the in-question
> >
> > He disagreed that each one is better than the next.
> >
> > (going to the suggested indirect statement form ``agree that'')
> > or that he disagreed by saying ``each one is better than the next,''
> > a statement that he would then agree with.
>
> No. It's reported speech. The meaning is unambiguously the latter:
>
> He disgreed with (another statement) by saying "Each one is better than
> the next".
Well fine, then
``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
would be reported as
He disagreed that each one is better than the next.
which is bringing out what I find odd about the latter.
Compare, ``Each one is better than the next,'' he agreed.
He agreed that each one is better than the next.
``Agree'' is taking its pattern from ``say,'' and ``disagree'' is taking
its pattern from ``agree'' plus a floating negation which makes no sense
in the pattern it wants to follow.
The negation confusion with the ``agree'' pattern is evident in
Few would disagree that there's anything odd about it.
where the non-assertive context is muddled by an extra negation, yet
it sounds fine while making no sense.
Paul Bennett
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Paul Bennett wrote:
> > The meaning is unambiguously the latter:
> >
> > He disgreed with (another statement) by saying "Each one is better
than
> > the next".
>
> Well fine, then
> ``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
>
> would be reported as
> He disagreed that each one is better than the next.
>
> which is bringing out what I find odd about the latter.
>
Hmm... I'm starting to see why you think it's wrong, but I still
disagree.
Your new "misinterpretation" looks like the sort of error a naively-
programmed machine-translater might make, rather than a "real" speaker.
The best indirection I can come up with is:
He disagreed that each was worse than the next.
This is more faithful to the commonly understood meaning of the direct
quote, and probably as unambiguous.
I'll keep thinking about this one...
The bottom line is that, in terms of correctness, the native intuitions
of the population at large win out over anything written in a formal
grammar, or indeed any interpretation of that grammar by any given
individual.
Ron Hardin
> The best indirection I can come up with is:
>
> He disagreed that each was worse than the next.
I have complicated it a little by using a joke kernal, that each one is
better than the next, like filling a much-needed gap. They already
mean the opposite of what one assumes.
John M Sorvari
Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> > >The linguistic question is why it sounds odd.
> >
> > But, so far, you're the only person who's claimed that it sounds odd.
> > Everyone else seems to accept it without so much as a blink.
>
> Sounding odd, though, indicates some linguistic force or barrier that
> needs accounting for. I am trying to account for it.
> --
Perhaps your perception of oddness lies in "disagree" having (at least
in common usage) two distinct meanings:
fail to be in accord with
dispute
thus acting slightly differently with respect to the internal/external
negation dichotomy mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
--
John M Sorvari
on my own time
nospam 2 johan
Marc Ruehlaender
: "Each one isn't better than the next," she opined.
this one, to me as a native speaker of German, always
drives me mad :) it seems to say that "each one is either
worse than or as good as but not better than the next",
whereas it really means "not every one is better than the
next, some are, some aren't".
another example, more in line with the example starting
the thread is "I don't know that X", which seems to
present X as a fact while at the same time denying the
knowledge of it being a fact... of course it just means
"I don't know whether or not X" or "I don't know if X".
all this just shows that one cannot apply logic to find
the meaning of a sentence from its parts. language is more
sophisticated than that
--
Marc Ruehlaender
rue...@iastate.edu
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner <co...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <3A7B23...@mindspring.com>,>>> I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
>>> ing. (Kudos to the former Greek major who disabused me of "the hoi pol-
>>> loi", for instance.)
>Why? Just because "hoi" means "the" (m. pl.) in Classical Greek doesn't
>prevent "hoi polloi" from being an English word entitled to its own definite
>article. What if a former Arabic major told you (Da) not to say "the alcohol"?
The cases aren't comparable. I would argue that <hoi polloi> is markedly
more foreign than <alcohol>. Only a minority who use "alcohol" would know
it was derived from Arabic--and not all of those would know <al> was, in
origin, an article. <hoi polloi>, however, I've only encountred among the
university-educated, who have a much better chance of being acquainted
with Greek.
A better comparison would be a more recent Arabic borrowing, like <ulama>.
I think we could all agree that *"the al-ulama" is a barbarism.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>>
>
>The subject is ``there.''
And in "Where are you?", the subject is "where"?
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>
>>Can you substantiate that claim? My own personal bugaboo is "more/very
>>unique".
[...]
>>I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
>>ing.
>
>
>I know: it's a lost cause. But you did mention personal bugaboos ...
New one on me. What's the rationale? (The OED--which I know we both leap
to in a blink--even includes in the definition "to satisfy or persuade by
argument or evidence".)
[snip]
Ron Hardin
> >> Like "there's lots"?
> >
> >The subject is ``there.''
>
> And in "Where are you?", the subject is "where"?
No, the question mark says to look after the verb.
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
>> wide spread one span. To many people, "unique" merely means "distinctive"
>> (just as "brilliant" merely means "good") and I have no choice but to ac-
>> cept that. I don't have to adopt that usage, but I do have to be aware
>> that others might misunderstand my usage of "unique" to mean "one-of-a-
>> kind".
>
>You object to "very unique," but you object to objection to "one of the
>only"? It's exactly the same inconcinnity!
Nope, 'taint. Didn't we go through examples like this:
Only four people were there. She was one of the four people. She was
one of the only ones there.
I can't come up with a parallel examples for "unique".
Those four are unique. It's one of the four. It's one of the unique
ones.
This isn't the same thing as saying "It's the *most unique* one." They
are all equally unique, just as the others are all equally only.
Kevin Wald
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <95g2u5$3f8$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Coby (Jacob) Lubliner <co...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> Just because "hoi" means "the" (m. pl.) in Classical Greek doesn't
>>prevent "hoi polloi" from being an English word entitled to its own
>>definite article. What if a former Arabic major told you (Da) not
>>to say "the alcohol"?
>
>The cases aren't comparable. I would argue that <hoi polloi> is markedly
>more foreign than <alcohol>. Only a minority who use "alcohol" would know
>it was derived from Arabic--and not all of those would know <al> was, in
>origin, an article. <hoi polloi>, however, I've only encountred among the
>university-educated, who have a much better chance of being acquainted
>with Greek.
The issue is easily resolved. From the Act I finale of _Iolanthe_:
PEERS. Our lordly style
You shall not quench
With base _canaille_!
FAIRIES. (That word is French.)
PEERS. Distinction ebbs
Before a herd
Of vulgar _plebs_!
FAIRIES. (A Latin word.)
PEERS. 'Twould fill with joy,
And madness stark
The _hoi polloi_!
FAIRIES. (A Greek remark.)
PEERS. One Latin word, one Greek remark,
And one that's French.
If there is ever a dispute about any issue in English usage, the
winner is whoever agrees with William Schwenk Gilbert; thus, "the
_hoi polloi_" stands.
Kevin Wald wa...@math.uconn.edu | Probably we shall, anon, sing a Dierge-
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~wald | ticon -- Eloia! Eloia! Opoponax! Eloia!
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> >> Like "there's lots"?
>> >
>> >The subject is ``there.''
>>
>> And in "Where are you?", the subject is "where"?
>
>No, the question mark says to look after the verb.
So that means that in:
(1) There's lots?
"lots" is the subject, but not in:
(2) There's lots.
Ron Hardin
>
> In article <3A7EFD...@mindspring.com>,
> Ron Hardin <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >> >> Like "there's lots"?
> >> >
> >> >The subject is ``there.''
> >>
> >> And in "Where are you?", the subject is "where"?
> >
> >No, the question mark says to look after the verb.
>
> So that means that in:
>
> (1) There's lots?
>
> "lots" is the subject, but not in:
>
> (2) There's lots.
Consider the regular form, ``Is there lots?'' Notice that
``there'' follows the verb.
Brian M. Scott
Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>In article <3a7b8019...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:58:07 GMT, de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward
>>Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>>>Can you substantiate that claim? My own personal bugaboo is "more/very
>>>unique".
>[...]
>>>I have occasionally been convinced to change my way of speaking and writ-
>>>ing.
>><grumble> 'persuaded to' <grumble>
>>I know: it's a lost cause. But you did mention personal bugaboos ...
>New one on me. What's the rationale? (The OED--which I know we both leap
>to in a blink--even includes in the definition "to satisfy or persuade by
>argument or evidence".)
Idiom. Miss Thistlebottom insists that it's 'convince of' and
'persuade to'. I can try to persuade you to give up 'convince to', or
I can try to convince you of the desirability of doing so.
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>Consider the regular form, ``Is there lots?'' Notice that
>``there'' follows the verb.
And for those who consider 'Are there lots?' to be the regular form?
Brian M. Scott
Ron Hardin
> >Consider the regular form, ``Is there lots?'' Notice that
> >``there'' follows the verb.
>
> And for those who consider 'Are there lots?' to be the regular form?
``Do you want some ice cream?''
``Is there lots?''
Peter T. Daniels
I recently saw a claim (maybe on the back page of The Atlantic?) that
one persuades one to action and convinces one of an opinion. (Maybe it's
in Fowler, or in a Usage Note in AHD.)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <3A7B8D...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >
> >> Can you substantiate that claim? My own personal bugaboo is "more/very
> >> unique". I don't think my purple-faced protestations have diminished its
> >> wide spread one span. To many people, "unique" merely means "distinctive"
> >> (just as "brilliant" merely means "good") and I have no choice but to ac-
> >> cept that. I don't have to adopt that usage, but I do have to be aware
> >> that others might misunderstand my usage of "unique" to mean "one-of-a-
> >> kind".
> >
> >You object to "very unique," but you object to objection to "one of the
> >only"? It's exactly the same inconcinnity!
>
> Nope, 'taint. Didn't we go through examples like this:
No, we didn't.
> Only four people were there. She was one of the four people. She was
> one of the only ones there.
No. One of the four, one of the few, one of the many, but not one of the
only -- since that tells you absolutely nothing about the size of the
pool from which her uniquity is drawn.
> I can't come up with a parallel examples for "unique".
>
> Those four are unique. It's one of the four. It's one of the unique
> ones.
>
> This isn't the same thing as saying "It's the *most unique* one." They
> are all equally unique, just as the others are all equally only.
No. Only isn't a property of a group. (Why, I bet it even started out as
a denumerical "adverb," one-ly!)
Zeborah
> My theory of the oddness is that ``agree that'' is parasitic on ``say that''
> and ``disagree that'' is a negation of ``agree that'' that has no parallel
> in the ``say'' model.
Why can't "disagree that" be parasitic on "don't say that"? It doesn't
feel at all odd to me; or it didn't until I read this thread, and now
only in the sense that if you read the dictionary for long enough, "wh"
starts to look exceedingly wrong.
>The oddness is that you can't see how somebody who
> disagrees with something would assert it. You can see it if he agrees
> with it.
<blink> If you mean what I think you mean, then I still don't see
what's wrong with "Few would disagree with the claim that Mrs
Clinton..." The few don't have to make the claim, they just have to
disagree with someone else's claim.
If you don't mean what I think I mean, then those two sentences have
completely confused me.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.crosswinds.net/~zeborahnz
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
>Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>
>>In article <3A7F49...@worldnet.att.net>,>[...]
>
>>>No. Only isn't a property of a group. (Why, I bet it even started out as
>>>a denumerical "adverb," one-ly!)
>
>>comprehensive book on writing systems for the Oxford University Press?
>
>One team, not a group of teams. I think that you're equivocating a
>bit with this example.
Of course it's possible to construct perfectly good sentences that contain
the sequence "one of the only", for example, "he was one of the only people
of his time who could read and write, namely clerics". "Only" implies
uniqueness, and if that uniqueness is specified, well and good. The usage that
bugs me (and, I presume, also Peter) is where "one of the only" doesn't carry
any meaning distinct from "one of the few" or perhaps "one of the very few".
Coby
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote:
> > > My theory of the oddness is that ``agree that'' is parasitic on ``say
> > > that'' and ``disagree that'' is a negation of ``agree that'' that has
> > > no parallel in the ``say'' model.
> >
> > Why can't "disagree that" be parasitic on "don't say that"? It doesn't
> > feel at all odd to me; or it didn't until I read this thread, and now
> > only in the sense that if you read the dictionary for long enough, "wh"
> > starts to look exceedingly wrong.
>
> Because ``don't say that'' doesn't go through.
>
> The trouble I'm pretty sure comes from
> ``Each one is better than the next,'' he disagreed.
>
> being reported as
> He disagreed that each one is better than the next.
>
> The negation is too muddled to go through in the pattern that it
> nevertheless draws on.
Oh darn; I wrote an entire page here refuting you, then realised you
were right. But that's okay, I've found another argument. Let's try
this again.
It's true that "disagree" isn't analogous to "don't say"; "don't agree"
would be analagous to "don't say" and "disagree that P" would be
analogous to "*dissay that P" meaning "say that not-P". Except that
*dissay isn't a word.
"Disbelieve" is a word, but I don't know how many dialects it's a word
in. So I'll leave off the "dis-" prefix for a moment, and try to
convince you that "doubt that P" means "expect that not-P". Thus:
1a. I expect that John will go into town.
1b. I don't expect that John will go into town.
1c. I doubt that John will go into town.
2a. I agree that John will go into town.
2b. I don't agree that John will go into town.
2c. I disagree that John will go into town.
1b and 2b are slightly ambiguous; they mean something like "I don't
necessarily expect/agree that John will go into town, and indeed the
fact that I'm bothering to say this suggests that I expect/agree that
John *won't* go into town, but that's not necessarily true either."
1c and 2c are clearer; they both mean something like "I think that John
won't go into town." So if we ignore the 'say that' parallel and
classify 'agree/disagree' with 'thinking'-type verbs like
believe/disbelieve, expect/doubt, there is a reasonable parallel which
explains why I reckon "disagree that" works.
Ron Hardin
> It's true that "disagree" isn't analogous to "don't say"; "don't agree"
> would be analagous to "don't say" and "disagree that P" would be
> analogous to "*dissay that P" meaning "say that not-P". Except that
> *dissay isn't a word.
>
> "Disbelieve" is a word, but I don't know how many dialects it's a word
> in. So I'll leave off the "dis-" prefix for a moment, and try to
> convince you that "doubt that P" means "expect that not-P". Thus:
>
> 1a. I expect that John will go into town.
> 1b. I don't expect that John will go into town.
> 1c. I doubt that John will go into town.
>
> 2a. I agree that John will go into town.
> 2b. I don't agree that John will go into town.
> 2c. I disagree that John will go into town.
>
> 1b and 2b are slightly ambiguous; they mean something like "I don't
> necessarily expect/agree that John will go into town, and indeed the
> fact that I'm bothering to say this suggests that I expect/agree that
> John *won't* go into town, but that's not necessarily true either."
>
> 1c and 2c are clearer; they both mean something like "I think that John
> won't go into town." So if we ignore the 'say that' parallel and
> classify 'agree/disagree' with 'thinking'-type verbs like
> believe/disbelieve, expect/doubt, there is a reasonable parallel which
> explains why I reckon "disagree that" works.
My feeling though is that ``agree'' and ``disagree'' are originally intransitive,
and that ``agree'' acquired an object from indirect statement, unlike ``doubt''
and ``expect'' which have more general NP's as object, eg. ``I doubt/expect him.''
The unease with ``I disgree that unicorns are monogamous'' is that it alludes to
a direct statement form: ``Unicorns are monogamous,'' I disagreed. That comes
from not having a more general NP object *``I disgreed him'' but a history
requiring an indirect statement.
No doubt history can be stamped out, but there are galvanic stirrings nevertheless.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>It's true that "disagree" isn't analogous to "don't say"; "don't agree"
>would be analagous to "don't say" and "disagree that P" would be
>analogous to "*dissay that P" meaning "say that not-P". Except that
>*dissay isn't a word.
>
>"Disbelieve" is a word, but I don't know how many dialects it's a word
>in. So I'll leave off the "dis-" prefix for a moment, and try to
>convince you that "doubt that P" means "expect that not-P". Thus:
>
>1a. I expect that John will go into town.
>1b. I don't expect that John will go into town.
>1c. I doubt that John will go into town.
>
>2a. I agree that John will go into town.
>2b. I don't agree that John will go into town.
>2c. I disagree that John will go into town.
>
>1b and 2b are slightly ambiguous; they mean something like "I don't
>necessarily expect/agree that John will go into town, and indeed the
>fact that I'm bothering to say this suggests that I expect/agree that
>John *won't* go into town, but that's not necessarily true either."
For some people this is exactly equivalent to 'doubt whether', which
is then not synonymous with 'doubt that'.
>1c and 2c are clearer; they both mean something like "I think that John
>won't go into town." So if we ignore the 'say that' parallel and
>classify 'agree/disagree' with 'thinking'-type verbs like
>believe/disbelieve, expect/doubt, there is a reasonable parallel which
>explains why I reckon "disagree that" works.
Brian M. Scott
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <3a80b3e9...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:08:03 GMT, de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward
> >Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3A7F49...@worldnet.att.net>,
> >>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>>No. Only isn't a property of a group. (Why, I bet it even started out as
> >>>a denumerical "adverb," one-ly!)
> >
> >>It isn't? You aren't part of the only team of editors that has produced a
> >>comprehensive book on writing systems for the Oxford University Press?
> >
> >One team, not a group of teams. I think that you're equivocating a
> >bit with this example.
>
> Of course it's possible to construct perfectly good sentences that contain
> the sequence "one of the only", for example, "he was one of the only people
> of his time who could read and write, namely clerics". "Only" implies
That's slightly less worse, but still far from good.
> uniqueness, and if that uniqueness is specified, well and good. The usage that
> bugs me (and, I presume, also Peter) is where "one of the only" doesn't carry
> any meaning distinct from "one of the few" or perhaps "one of the very few".
Brian M. Scott
Lubliner) wrote:
[...]
>Of course it's possible to construct perfectly good sentences that contain
>the sequence "one of the only", for example, "he was one of the only people
>of his time who could read and write, namely clerics".
It's understandable, but I'd hardly call it a 'perfectly good'
sentence! If forced for some reason to keep the basic structure, I'd
have to insert 'group of' before 'people'.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Peter T. Daniels
Then it could be "He was a member of the only group of people of his
time who could read and write, namely clerics."
I hope by the time one got to that stage of rewriting, one would give up
and start the sentence over.
António
> To me the "disagree that..." examples do sound a bit odd (although the
> original "Few would disagree..." example sounded OK).
Different disagrees? The first a verb (sounds semantcally wrong), the second
a negation of the verb agree (allomorph for _not agree_).