Re: Logical quotation.
Adam Funk
> > I ask the last question because I was taught 60 years ago how to
> > punctuate sentences, and find myself at odds with the CMOS. I don't
> > write for publication, however, nor do most writing teachers teach for
> > hope-to-be-published writers.
>
> Does "find yourself at odds" mean that you don't like its style?
>
> The 10th edition (1937), which was current 60 years ago, says (sec.
> 133): "The period is placed inside the quotation marks for appearance'
> sake."
I recently discovered the article "Punctuation and Human Freedom" by
the distinguished linguist Geoffrey Pullum (originally published in
_Natural Language & Linguistic Theory_ (vol. 2, no. 4., 1984) and
reprinted in his compilation _The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and
Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language_).
In addition to the excerpts below, it includes the witty observation
that "many advanced cultures show no signs of the superstitious awe
with which we regard copy-editors".
[begin quote]
I want you first to consider the string 'the string' and the string
'the string.', noting that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string
in the first set of quotes, and eleven to type the string in the
second pair. Imagine you wanted to quote me on the latter point. You
might want to say (1).
(1) Pullum notes that it takes eleven keystrokes to type the string
'the string.'
No problem there; (1) is true. But now suppose you want to say this:
(2) Pullum notes that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string
'the string'.
You won't be able to publish it. Your copy-editor will change it
before the first proof stage to (3), which is false:
(3) Pullum notes that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string
'the string.'
Why? Because the copy-editor will insist that when a quotation mark
ends a sentence, the quotation mark must follow the punctuation mark.
...
No copy-editor should have the right to switch the order of two
punctuation marks when it can change truth-conditions, as (1)-(3) show
that it can. And the cases when such transposition could reasonably be
interpreted as changing truth-conditions are commoner than you would
think. Consider the following:
(4) Shakespeare's King Richard III contains the line "Now is the
winter of our discontent."
This is false (though I believe many people have the impression that
it is true). However, (5) is true:
(5) Shakespeare's King Richard III contains the line "Now is the
winter of our discontent".
This is the first of two lines in the play which together make up the
sentence "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by
this sun of York." In this sentence, "Now is the winter of our
discontent" is not even a constituent, of course. But the
period-before-quotes convention would make it look as if it were.
This issue arises, though less strikingly, in a large percentage of
the cases in which words are directly quoted from print. We do not
have to put up with this. I say we should change this rule, and we
should start now the campaign of direct action it will take. To begin
with, we should each work on the copy-editors we are currently having
dealings with. I will be sending back today the typescript of an
article in which the copy-editor has transposed some of my quotation
marks. I am going to object, and insist on keeping the logically
correct sequence; I will stand my ground at proofreading time, and I
will not submit.
Those of you who wish to make similar protests to copy-editors will
find it useful to know that section 5.10 of the thirteenth edition of
the _Chicago Manual of Style_, the copy-editor's grimoire, actually
sanctions the logically correct placement in the case of single quotes
around 'special terms'. Even more significantly, Mr William George of
Reidel's editorial department has pointed out to me that the 1983
edition of _Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers_ (Oxford
University Press), pp. 45-48, explicitly endorses the principle of
punctuating "according to the sense". What a fine example of British
level-headedness, and what an important ally to my cause. These
precedents can be used in our struggle as the thin end of the wedge. I
have also noticed that many copy-editors will already concede the
point for semi-colons; that is, a typescript containing (6a) is not
corrected to (6b).
(6) a. Bolinger never said "Accent is predictable"; he said "Accent
is predictable - if you're a mind-reader."
b. Bolinger never said "Accent is predictable;" he said "Accent
is predictable - if you're a mind-reader."
This is clearly a glimmering of good sense, and a weakening of the
blind stupidity of the standard policy. I believe we can win the
battle to change the policy once and for all, even for commas and
periods.
[end quote]
R H Draney
>[begin quote]
>
> I want you first to consider the string 'the string' and the string
>'the string.', noting that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string
>in the first set of quotes, and eleven to type the string in the
>second pair. Imagine you wanted to quote me on the latter point. You
>might want to say (1).
>
> (1) Pullum notes that it takes eleven keystrokes to type the string
> 'the string.'
>
>No problem there; (1) is true. But now suppose you want to say this:
>
> (2) Pullum notes that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string
> 'the string'.
>
>You won't be able to publish it. Your copy-editor will change it
>before the first proof stage to (3), which is false:
>
> (3) Pullum notes that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string
> 'the string.'
>
>Why? Because the copy-editor will insist that when a quotation mark
>ends a sentence, the quotation mark must follow the punctuation mark.
This sentence contains thirty-six letters.
"This sentence" contains twelve letters.
....r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
Patok
>
> This sentence contains thirty-six letters.
>
that. The only other option is:
"This sentence contains thirty-eight letters.".
If we count characters (excluding spaces), it is impossible to write:
"This sentence contains X characters."
If we explicitly include spaces, we can write only:
"This sentence contains sixty-two characters, including spaces.".
If we implicitly include spaces, decreeing that they are part of the
character set, we can write:
"This sentence contains forty characters."
and
"This sentence contains forty-five characters.".
The question is, are there languages where you can't write some or all
of these? They must be the simplest and most straightforward sentences,
of course; by fiddling around with the verbs and nouns, anything can be
produced. Compare the highly unsatisfactory "This sentence uses thirty
symbols." that I saw in "Discovering Mathematics: The Art of
Investigation" by A. Gardiner, 1987.
Peter T. Daniels
Geoffrey Pullum is a damn fool about copyediting. Back when he wrote
that, he may have been ignorant of conventions for punctuation; but
these days he doesn't have that excuse, yet in a collection of his and
Liberman's essays from Language Log, he shows that he has not
understood a thing written by Strunk and White -- apparently really
believing, rather than pretending, that *The Elements of Style* is
some sort of prescriptivist straitjacket -- while he devotes nearly as
many pages (though not nearly so many separate essays) to the horrors
of Dan Brown's writing. He utterly fails to notice that if Dan Brown
had followed the recommendations of Strunk and White, just about every
solecism Geoff complains about would have been avoided.
I can't help thinking it's relevant that he started out a Brit;
copyediting is now, and perhaps has been for quite a few decades, a
lost art in Britain. The last _four_ books I've had to review
published by Cambridge University Press are rife with typos, missing
or garbled references, and bibliographies out of alphabetical order.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
>
>
> I can't help thinking it's relevant that he started out a Brit;
> copyediting is now, and perhaps has been for quite a few decades, a
> lost art in Britain. The last _four_ books I've had to review
> published by Cambridge University Press are rife with typos, missing
> or garbled references, and bibliographies out of alphabetical order.
There is some truth in this, alas, at least so far as Cambridge
University Press is concerned. By far the worst typesetting that I've
seen in my life was done by them. They weren't the publishers, but the
publishers sub-contracted the typsetting to them, and the first proofs
were unbelievably awful, with line breaks occurring pretty much
anywhere, even between t and h (and I'm not referring to words like
"hothouse"). It's the only time I've ever insisted on having second
proofs. The second proofs were not nearly as bad as the first, but
still worse than one would have expected in the days when typesetting
was taken seriously. As it happened Cambridge had published a competing
book a year or two earlier, and I had to make effort not to attribute
to ill will faults that could be better explained by stupidity and
incompetence.
Nonetheless, that was the low point. Other typesetting done in the UK
has in general been much better, but you are probably right in saying
that standards are better maintained in the US. A couple of years ago I
had an article published in the US that started with a quotation from a
17th century author who used very peculiar punctuation, capitalization,
emphasis, insetting and line breaks (though not, curiously, spelling,
which was not noticeably different from modern spelling). I asked for
these peculiarities to be reproduced as they were in the original, and
all that was done perfectly, as was the rest of the article.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
A couple weeks ago at the meeting I was attending, the Brill
representative approached me about doing copyediting on a major
project that's a year or so down the line. Anxious for work, I noted
that most of the works they publish in "English" could benefit from
copyediting, as most of the authors are not native speakers, and
sometimes it would be preferable if they just wrote in their native
language and didn't leave it to the reader to back-translate in order
to figure out what they were saying. He said that that wasn't the
publisher's responsibility; that the author was expected to provide a
publishable manuscript.
Brill's prices are notoriously the highest in the world.
John Benjamins, on the other hand, _does_ pay attention to such
matters, and their prices are not out of line with those of other
academic publishers.
msh...@math.wustl.edu
middle of a rant against quotation marks being placed illogically
beyond periods:
> (1) Pullum notes that it takes eleven keystrokes to type the string
> 'the string.'
>
> No problem there; (1) is true. But now suppose you want to say this:
>
> (2) Pullum notes that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string
> 'the string'.
>
> You won't be able to publish it. Your copy-editor will change it
For those of us -- like myself -- who prefer "logical" quotation
marks, shouldn't we write the following?
(4) It takes eleven keystrokes to type the string 'the string.'.
Michael Hamm
http://www.math.wustl.edu/~msh210/
Glenn Knickerbocker
> For those of us -- like myself -- who prefer "logical" quotation
> marks, shouldn't we write the following?
> (4) It takes eleven keystrokes to type the string 'the string.'.
Only if that string is the one you're talking about.
ŹR
HVS
Strictly speaking, yes -- and speaking personally, I wish it was the
convention.
Alas, even in "logical quotation" circles a quoted full stop doubles
up for the end of the sentence: being quoted bolsters its strength,
and it becomes a "strong" mark like a question mark or exclamation
point.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Paul J Kriha
What do you mean? What string, other than 'the string.',
could you be talking about?
pjk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Mar 26, 7:50 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2008-03-26 04:12:36 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> s
> aid:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I can't help thinking it's relevant that he started out a Brit;
>>> copyediting is now, and perhaps has been for quite a few decades, a
>>> lost art in Britain. The last _four_ books I've had to review
>>> published by Cambridge University Press are rife with typos, missing
>>> or garbled references, and bibliographies out of alphabetical order.
>>
>> There is some truth in this, alas, at least so far as Cambridge
>> University Press is concerned. ...
> A couple weeks ago at the meeting I was attending, the Brill
> representative approached me about doing copyediting on a major
> project that's a year or so down the line. Anxious for work, I noted
> that most of the works they publish in "English" could benefit from
> copyediting, as most of the authors are not native speakers, and
> sometimes it would be preferable if they just wrote in their native
> language and didn't leave it to the reader to back-translate in order
> to figure out what they were saying. He said that that wasn't the
> publisher's responsibility; that the author was expected to provide a
> publishable manuscript.
>
Well yes, an author should be expected to that, but in the real world
we know that it's unrealistic. In any case, no matter how careful
authors are (and some, of course, are very sloppy), they've not been
trained as copy-editors and will miss things that a copy-editor is
paid to catch.
--
athel
Adam Funk
One of the seminar participants in _Mathematical Writing_ (Knuth et
al.) admitted that when pressed on the issue of consistency and
logical punctuation, he would rather write something like the
following than accept transposing stops into quotation marks.
A Pascal program must end with "end.".
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]
Adam Funk
> Geoffrey Pullum is a damn fool about copyediting. Back when he wrote
> that, he may have been ignorant of conventions for punctuation;
Well, there's a surprise --- an ad hominem attack for any potential
authority who has the nerve to disagree with you. If you had
*actually read* what I quoted, you would have seen that he is
completely aware of this particular convention and advocates changing
it.
Are you now claiming the CMOS is some sort of "natural law" which mere
mortals have no right to contest?
I suspect that earlier versions of the CMOS specified that semicolons
and some other stops should be transposed inside the quotations marks,
but that is no longer the case. Yet no-one has the right to advocate
further evolution?
> I can't help thinking it's relevant that he started out a Brit;
No bigotry there, of course!
It probably is however relevant that he's done a lot of work in formal
linguistics; the argument about changing truth conditions is clearer
to the mathematically inclined.
> copyediting is now, and perhaps has been for quite a few decades, a
> lost art in Britain. The last _four_ books I've had to review
> published by Cambridge University Press are rife with typos, missing
> or garbled references, and bibliographies out of alphabetical order.
The state of books by one British publisher has no relevance to
Pullum's right to argue this point. It's just more prejudice on your
part.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Nathan Sanders
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
That's how I'd do it, with no hesitation. Then again, I was one of
Geoff Pullum's students, so this is to be expected.
This whole issue is one of the reasons I appreciate the existence of
the angle-bracket notation for orthography, because few people try to
apply the same illogical punctuation juggling to angle brackets as
they do to quote marks:
Harry Truman had no middle name, only a middle initial,
which has been spelled as both <S> and <S.>.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Peter T. Daniels
Pullum published a book called *The Linguistics of Punctuation*. I
requested a review copy and by the time I'd read halfway through it,
and filled the margins with markings, I realized he was never going to
get around to saying anything about punctuation (i.e., the non-letter
parts of written English) at all. The journal editor said I didn't
have to return the book.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <2sksb5-veg....@news.ducksburg.com>,
Surely you've noticed by now that on this topic, Adam Funk is a
monomaniacal troll. He will return to the topic again months from now,
quite possibly by appending a message to a long-dormant thread.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:2896135a-0bcc-45ba...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
> On Mar 27, 12:51 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>> In article <2sksb5-veg....@news.ducksburg.com>,
>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> One of the seminar participants in _Mathematical Writing_ (Knuth et
>>> al.) admitted that when pressed on the issue of consistency and
>>> logical punctuation, he would rather write something like the
>>> following than accept transposing stops into quotation marks.
>>> A Pascal program must end with "end.".
>> That's how I'd do it, with no hesitation. Then again, I
>> was one of Geoff Pullum's students, so this is to be
>> expected.
I'd use single quotes, but otherwise I agree completely.
Since I write largely for myself, I also routinely do this:
His actual question was 'What do you think of
logical punctuation?'.
[...]
> Surely you've noticed by now that on this topic, Adam Funk is a
> monomaniacal troll. [...]
No, I hadn't. But then, I agree with him.
Brian
Adam Funk
> Geoffrey Pullum is a damn fool about copyediting. Back when he wrote
> that, he may have been ignorant of conventions for punctuation; but
> these days he doesn't have that excuse, yet in a collection of his
> and Liberman's essays from Language Log, he shows that he has not
> understood a thing written by Strunk and White -- apparently really
> believing, rather than pretending, that *The Elements of Style* is
> some sort of prescriptivist straitjacket --
Telling the difference between a "style manual" and a prescriptive
book is like identifying obscenity, isn't it?
I guess the rule is that if you agree with it, it's a style manual; if
not, it's prescriptive.
> while he devotes nearly as many pages (though not nearly so many
> separate essays) to the horrors of Dan Brown's writing. He utterly
> fails to notice that if Dan Brown had followed the recommendations
> of Strunk and White, just about every solecism Geoff complains about
> would have been avoided.
That wouldn't have helped with the content, although S&W's "Omit
needless words!" might have shortened the book. (But _The DaVinci
Code_ already has the particular merit of being a very fast read.)
--
I spend almost as time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as
I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires
frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of
doing routine work. (Stoll 1995)
Adam Funk
>> The state of books by one British publisher has no relevance to
>> Pullum's right to argue this point. It's just more prejudice on your
>> part.
>
> Pullum published a book called *The Linguistics of Punctuation*. I
> requested a review copy and by the time I'd read halfway through it,
> and filled the margins with markings, I realized he was never going to
> get around to saying anything about punctuation (i.e., the non-letter
> parts of written English) at all. The journal editor said I didn't
> have to return the book.
That's more relevant, but it's still basically ad hominem. You've
only ever given two arguments in favour of transposing commas and
periods (apart from all the attacks on the _people_ who support
logical quotation):
(1) The CMOS says to do it your way, so it must be right.
(2) You think it looks funny the other way.
The CMOS is now in its 16th edition; I think it's fair to say that its
contents have changed over the years --- what right do you have to
proclaim that others have no right to argue for this change too?
(And as you know, the _Oxford Style Manual_ says to place all stops
logically.)
As for (2), a lot of people think the effect of transposing the
punctuation is a lot funnier than the appearance of logical
punctuation.
--
Is one language more powerful than another? Compare, for example,
English with Yiddish. Sure, it's hard to describe a carburetor in
Yiddish, but try describing a schlemiel in English. (Stoll 1995)
Adam Funk
> Surely you've noticed by now that on this topic, Adam Funk is a
> monomaniacal troll.
Along with everyone else who has the temerity to disagree with you.
> He will return to the topic again months from now,
> quite possibly by appending a message to a long-dormant thread.
I brought the subject back up only because I happened to come across
Pullum's argument by chance; when I checked the book out, I had never
previously heard of that article.
Adam Funk
>> Surely you've noticed by now that on this topic, Adam Funk is a
>> monomaniacal troll. [...]
>
> No, I hadn't. But then, I agree with him.
That's Peter's code for "someone who doesn't show sufficient deference
to me".
--
Hi this is Leila. I'm not here right now. So please leave your name,
number and a brief message and a time you called at the beep. And
please try to be frank. (Cox 1984)
Brian M. Scott
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:tldtb5-...@news.ducksburg.com> in
sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
> On 2008-03-27, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> Surely you've noticed by now that on this topic, Adam
>>> Funk is a monomaniacal troll. [...]
>> No, I hadn't. But then, I agree with him.
> That's Peter's code for "someone who doesn't show
> sufficient deference to me".
It's true that it shouldn't be taken literally, but an
accurate gloss would be rather more complicated than you
suggest.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> The state of books by one British publisher has no relevance to
> >> Pullum's right to argue this point. It's just more prejudice on your
> >> part.
>
> > Pullum published a book called *The Linguistics of Punctuation*. I
> > requested a review copy and by the time I'd read halfway through it,
> > and filled the margins with markings, I realized he was never going to
> > get around to saying anything about punctuation (i.e., the non-letter
> > parts of written English) at all. The journal editor said I didn't
> > have to return the book.
>
> That's more relevant, but it's still basically ad hominem. You've
> only ever given two arguments in favour of transposing commas and
> periods (apart from all the attacks on the _people_ who support
> logical quotation):
Why are you obsessed with this?
("Transposing" from what?)
> (1) The CMOS says to do it your way, so it must be right.
> (2) You think it looks funny the other way.
>
> The CMOS is now in its 16th edition;
Really? They've never gone less than five years between editions
before.
> I think it's fair to say that its
> contents have changed over the years --- what right do you have to
> proclaim that others have no right to argue for this change too?
>
> (And as you know, the _Oxford Style Manual_ says to place all stops
> logically.)
You apparently think the OSM is more logical than the CMOS.
> As for (2), a lot of people think the effect of transposing the
> punctuation is a lot funnier than the appearance of logical
> punctuation.
"Transposing" from what?
Why are you obsessed with this?
Are you actually Daniel McGrath?
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-03-27, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> Surely you've noticed by now that on this topic, Adam Funk is a
> >> monomaniacal troll. [...]
>
> > No, I hadn't. But then, I agree with him.
>
> That's Peter's code for "someone who doesn't show sufficient deference
> to me".
Why are you obsessed with this?
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Surely you've noticed by now that on this topic, Adam Funk is a
> > monomaniacal troll.
>
> Along with everyone else who has the temerity to disagree with you.
>
> > He will return to the topic again months from now,
> > quite possibly by appending a message to a long-dormant thread.
>
> I brought the subject back up only because I happened to come across
> Pullum's argument by chance; when I checked the book out, I had never
> previously heard of that article.
Why are you obsessed with this?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mar 27, 9:34 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-03-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > that, he may have been ignorant of conventions for punctuation;
>
> > Well, there's a surprise --- an ad hominem attack for any potential
> > authority who has the nerve to disagree with you. If you had
> > *actually read* what I quoted, you would have seen that he is
> > completely aware of this particular convention and advocates changing
> > it.
>
> > Are you now claiming the CMOS is some sort of "natural law" which mere
> > mortals have no right to contest?
>
> > I suspect that earlier versions of the CMOS specified that semicolons
> > and some other stops should be transposed inside the quotations marks,
> > but that is no longer the case. Yet no-one has the right to advocate
> > further evolution?
>
> > > I can't help thinking it's relevant that he started out a Brit;
>
> > No bigotry there, of course!
>
> > It probably is however relevant that he's done a lot of work in formal
> > linguistics; the argument about changing truth conditions is clearer
> > to the mathematically inclined.
>
> > > copyediting is now, and perhaps has been for quite a few decades, a
> > > lost art in Britain. The last _four_ books I've had to review
> > > published by Cambridge University Press are rife with typos, missing
> > > or garbled references, and bibliographies out of alphabetical order.
>
> > The state of books by one British publisher has no relevance to
> > part.
>
> Pullumpublished a book called *The Linguistics of Punctuation*. I
> requested a review copy and by the time I'd read halfway through it,
> and filled the margins with markings, I realized he was never going to
> get around to saying anything about punctuation (i.e., the non-letter
> parts of written English) at all. The journal editor said I didn't
I am reminded by a lurker (yes, there really is such a thing!) that
that book is by Geoffrey Nunberg, not Geoff Pullum.
Adam Funk
I appreciate the correction.
I'm a bit surprised you hadn't also said something to the effect that
punctuation has nothing to do with linguistics anyway!
--
I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me
and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press
away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ]
Adam Funk
>> (1) The CMOS says to do it your way, so it must be right.
>> (2) You think it looks funny the other way.
>>
>> The CMOS is now in its 16th edition;
>
> Really? They've never gone less than five years between editions
> before.
Oops, typo for 15th! Anyway...
>> I think it's fair to say that its
>> contents have changed over the years --- what right do you have to
>> proclaim that others have no right to argue for this change too?
...they have made changes to the content, haven't they? Is the
current edition The Last Word, which mortals have no right to contest?
>> (And as you know, the _Oxford Style Manual_ says to place all stops
>> logically.)
>
> You apparently think the OSM is more logical than the CMOS.
On this particular point, yes. I haven't read both of them in their
entirety, of course.
>> As for (2), a lot of people think the effect of transposing the
>> punctuation is a lot funnier than the appearance of logical
>> punctuation.
>
> "Transposing" from what?
1. Did Fred look up the word "foo"?
2. Fred looked up the word "foo"!
3A. Fred looked up the word "foo".
3B. Fred looked up the word "foo."
4. Fred looked up the word "foo" --- didn't he?
5A. Fred looked up the word "foo"; didn't he?
5B. Fred looked up the word "foo;" didn't he?
6A. Fred looked up the word "foo", didn't he?
6B. Fred looked up the word "foo," didn't he?
It's obvious that 3B, 5B, and 6B are the odd ones out: the stops have
been transposed from the structurally logical position to the left of
the closing quotation mark.
The CMOS currently advocates 3B and 6B, but I believe older editions
advocated 5B too. If later editions switch to 3A and 6A, will you
suddenly change your mind and decide the new rules are right, or start
writing green-ink letters to the editors about the decline of
civilization?
> Why are you obsessed with this?
Why do you think everyone has to defer to you?
> Are you actually Daniel McGrath?
No.
--
Usenet is a cesspool, a dung heap. [Patrick A. Townson]
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> (1) The CMOS says to do it your way, so it must be right.
> >> (2) You think it looks funny the other way.
>
> >> The CMOS is now in its 16th edition;
>
> > Really? They've never gone less than five years between editions
> > before.
>
> Oops, typo for 15th! Anyway...
>
> >> I think it's fair to say that its
> >> contents have changed over the years --- what right do you have to
> >> proclaim that others have no right to argue for this change too?
>
> ...they have made changes to the content, haven't they? Is the
> current edition The Last Word, which mortals have no right to contest?
It is the latest word. They have seen no reason to change it in 97
years (from the 1st ed. in 1906 -- it was not a book published for
general circulation until ca. 1940 -- to the 15th in 2003).
> >> (And as you know, the _Oxford Style Manual_ says to place all stops
> >> logically.)
>
> > You apparently think the OSM is more logical than the CMOS.
>
> On this particular point, yes. I haven't read both of them in their
> entirety, of course.
All such matters are arbitrary.
> >> As for (2), a lot of people think the effect of transposing the
> >> punctuation is a lot funnier than the appearance of logical
> >> punctuation.
>
> > "Transposing" from what?
>
> 1. Did Fred look up the word "foo"?
> 2. Fred looked up the word "foo"!
> 3A. Fred looked up the word "foo".
> 3B. Fred looked up the word "foo."
> 4. Fred looked up the word "foo" --- didn't he?
> 5A. Fred looked up the word "foo"; didn't he?
> 5B. Fred looked up the word "foo;" didn't he?
> 6A. Fred looked up the word "foo", didn't he?
> 6B. Fred looked up the word "foo," didn't he?
>
> It's obvious that 3B, 5B, and 6B are the odd ones out: the stops have
> been transposed from the structurally logical position to the left of
> the closing quotation mark.
>
> The CMOS currently advocates 3B and 6B, but I believe older editions
> advocated 5B too.
Then you're some sort of heretic. (Quite aside from the fact that 5A
and 5B are nonexistent.)
> If later editions switch to 3A and 6A, will you
> suddenly change your mind and decide the new rules are right, or start
> writing green-ink letters to the editors about the decline of
> civilization?
>
> > Why are you obsessed with this?
>
> Why do you think everyone has to defer to you?
Why are you obsessed with this?
You have not said anything different from the three previous times you
have belabored this topic.
> > Are you actually Daniel McGrath?
>
> No.
Then stop acting like an autist.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:2e1bdb64-7533-4bb8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
> On Mar 29, 5:30 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-03-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> (1) The CMOS says to do it your way, so it must be right.
>>>> (2) You think it looks funny the other way.
[...]
>>>> (And as you know, the _Oxford Style Manual_ says to place all stops
>>>> logically.)
>>> You apparently think the OSM is more logical than the CMOS.
>> On this particular point, yes. I haven't read both of them in their
>> entirety, of course.
> All such matters are arbitrary.
The OSM is at any rate more consistent on this point, if
Adam is reporting accurately, and it offers a set of rules
with a simpler logical structure.
>>>> As for (2), a lot of people think the effect of transposing the
>>>> punctuation is a lot funnier than the appearance of logical
>>>> punctuation.
>>> "Transposing" from what?
>> 1. Did Fred look up the word "foo"?
>> 2. Fred looked up the word "foo"!
>> 3A. Fred looked up the word "foo".
>> 3B. Fred looked up the word "foo."
>> 4. Fred looked up the word "foo" --- didn't he?
>> 5A. Fred looked up the word "foo"; didn't he?
>> 5B. Fred looked up the word "foo;" didn't he?
>> 6A. Fred looked up the word "foo", didn't he?
>> 6B. Fred looked up the word "foo," didn't he?
>> It's obvious that 3B, 5B, and 6B are the odd ones out:
>> the stops have been transposed from the structurally
>> logical position to the left of the closing quotation
>> mark.
>> The CMOS currently advocates 3B and 6B, but I believe
>> older editions advocated 5B too.
> Then you're some sort of heretic.
???
This makes no sense whatsoever as a response to the
statement that it immediately follows.
> (Quite aside from the fact that 5A and 5B are
> nonexistent.)
Whether they are or not, the structures that they're being
used to demonstrate are not.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:11:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Belief in something that is not so is heresy.
> This makes no sense whatsoever as a response to the
> statement that it immediately follows.
>
> > (Quite aside from the fact that 5A and 5B are
> > nonexistent.)
>
> Whether they are or not, the structures that they're being
> used to demonstrate are not.
Under no circumstance would a tag question be attached to its sentence
with a semicolon.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:a4907914-c44d-4e52...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
>> [...]
>>>>> "Transposing" from what?
>> ???
I've no idea whether it's so, but that certainly isn't a
reasonable definition of heresy.
[...]
>>> (Quite aside from the fact that 5A and 5B are
>>> nonexistent.)
>> Whether they are or not, the structures that they're being
>> used to demonstrate are not.
> Under no circumstance would a tag question be attached to
> its sentence with a semicolon.
So? The nature of the material following the semicolon is
irrelevant to the point being made.
Brian
Adam Funk
[Peter]
>> > All such matters are arbitrary.
Oh, I see: punctuation has no relation to structure!
> Under no circumstance would a tag question be attached to its sentence
> with a semicolon.
Except when it suits your purposes!
--
Classical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture,
indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us
doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and
Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995)
Adam Funk
>> ...they have made changes to the content, haven't they? Is the
>> current edition The Last Word, which mortals have no right to contest?
>
> It is the latest word. They have seen no reason to change it in 97
> years (from the 1st ed. in 1906 -- it was not a book published for
> general circulation until ca. 1940 -- to the 15th in 2003).
If they changed this, would you embrace the new standard just as
zealously?
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-03-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> ...they have made changes to the content, haven't they? Is the
> >> current edition The Last Word, which mortals have no right to contest?
>
> > It is the latest word. They have seen no reason to change it in 97
> > years (from the 1st ed. in 1906 -- it was not a book published for
> > general circulation until ca. 1940 -- to the 15th in 2003).
>
> If they changed this, would you embrace the new standard just as
> zealously?
If I were doing a job for the University of Chicago Press.
However, since Mrs. Turabian (I never met her) died, they've become
more and more lax. See the notice near the beginning that a ms.
prepared according to any thoroughly consistent style will be accepted
by the University of Chicago Press.
Adam Funk
>> The CMOS currently advocates 3B and 6B, but I believe older editions
>> advocated 5B too.
>
> Then you're some sort of heretic. (Quite aside from the fact that 5A
> and 5B are nonexistent.)
I think the word you're looking for is "mistaken".
> Then stop acting like an autist.
For a guy who brags about his writing and editing experience, you
certainly like to play Humpty Dumpty.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-03-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> The CMOS currently advocates 3B and 6B, but I believe older editions
> >> advocated 5B too.
>
> > Then you're some sort of heretic. (Quite aside from the fact that 5A
> > and 5B are nonexistent.)
>
> I think the word you're looking for is "mistaken".
You referred to your "belief." A "mistaken belief" is a heresy.
> > Then stop acting like an autist.
>
> For a guy who brags about his writing and editing experience, you
> certainly like to play Humpty Dumpty.
I observe our autist, Daniel, obsessively returning over and over
again to the same topic. I observe you doing the same. I therefore
observe you acting like an autist.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:d473dd0c-4b0a-4d32...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
[...]
> A "mistaken belief" is a heresy. [...]
No, it isn't. A heresy is a belief contrary to some
religious dogma, and by extension a controversial or
unorthodox opinion. 'Mistaken belief' and 'heresy' are
independent concepts.
Brian
Trond Engen
Wouldn't that depend on the point of view? Both concepts are defined by
a failure to meet some criteria -- 'dogma' and 'objective truth'. For an
independent observer the criteria are different and your distinction is
valid. For a dogmatic the criteria are identical and the distinction is
meaningless.
--
Trond Engen
- dogmanic
Harlan Messinger
Not for the dogmatic who doesn't consider himself dogmatic.
Brian M. Scott
<tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:u7CdnT8a_qF...@telenor.com> in
sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
> Brian M. Scott skreiv:
>> [...]
If he's intellectually honest, Dogmatix has to recognize
that the concepts 'mistaken belief' and 'heresy' are
*logically* distinct, even though for him they happen to
coincide. (But he'd probably rather just chew a bone of
contention.)
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:46:05 +0200, Trond Engen
> <news:u7CdnT8a_qF...@telenor.com> in
> sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brian M. Scott skreiv:
> >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:33:03 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <news:d473dd0c-4b0a-4d32...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> >> in sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
> >> [...]
> >>> A "mistaken belief" is a heresy. [...]
> >> No, it isn't. A heresy is a belief contrary to some
> >> religious dogma, and by extension a controversial or
> >> unorthodox opinion. 'Mistaken belief' and 'heresy' are
> >> independent concepts.
> > Wouldn't that depend on the point of view? Both concepts
> > are defined by a failure to meet some criteria --
> > 'dogma' and 'objective truth'. For an independent
> > observer the criteria are different and your distinction
> > is valid. For a dogmatic the criteria are identical and
> > the distinction is meaningless.
>
> If he's intellectually honest, Dogmatix has to recognize
> that the concepts 'mistaken belief' and 'heresy' are
> *logically* distinct, even though for him they happen to
> coincide. (But he'd probably rather just chew a bone of
> contention.)
And since they coincide, there's no reason not to label the same
ideation with both labels.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:d8a286c4-f952-4d2b...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
>>> Brian M. Scott skreiv:
>>>> [...]
There is as soon as he recognizes that the concepts are
logically distinct. He may of course be sufficiently
blinded by his dogma to be unable to recognize this, but in
that case he isn't (and can't be) intellectually honest.
Brian
Brian
Joachim Pense
So, the logical difference from a dogmaticist's point of view would be: A
mistaken belief is an erroneous view of the truth, and heresy is expressing
this erroneous view?
Joachim
Paul J Kriha
news:65ng66F...@mid.individual.net...
Others might see that as a case of mistaken belief.
Is such dogmatic a heretic? :-)
pjk
Brian M. Scott
<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in
<news:ft6eeu$2uu$01$1...@news.t-online.com> in
sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>>> Brian M. Scott skreiv:
>>>>>> [...]
No.
Brian
Joachim Pense
I expected that answer.
Then, I think there is no logical difference from a dogmaticists point of
view, because in his view, truth = the dogma = object of belief, and heresy
= deviation from truth = deviation of dogma = mistaken belief.
Your logical difference can only be established for someone who accepts that
there are more than one concurring dogmatic systems / beliefs, and they can
be treated from a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view must
necessary be untrue/heretic, because it cannot accept one dogma as truth
and the others as wrong.
Joachim
Brian M. Scott
<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in
<news:ft7e84$le9$02$1...@news.t-online.com> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> Brian M. Scott skreiv:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>> No.
> I expected that answer.
So what?
> Your logical difference can only be established for
> someone who accepts that there are more than one
> concurring dogmatic systems / beliefs,
Which is a matter of simple observation.
> and they can be treated from a neutral point of view.
Which does not entail believing that it is correct to do so.
It merely requires a modicum of intellectual honesty.
[...]
Brian
Joachim Pense
How can you be intellectually honest and adopt a viewpoint that you believe
is not correct?
Joachim
Adam Funk
> One of the seminar participants in _Mathematical Writing_ (Knuth et
> al.) admitted that when pressed on the issue of consistency and
> logical punctuation, he would rather write something like the
> following than accept transposing stops into quotation marks.
>
> A Pascal program must end with "end.".
BTW, here's the reference for that:
Donald,E Knuth, Tracy Larrabee, Paul M. Roberts (1989): Mathematical
writing. Mathematical Association of America notes, no. 14, 1989.
ISBN 088385063X.
I don't recall which participant made that statement, however. (There
were additional participants quoted in the book besides the three
listed.)
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Chris R
"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:qo8kc5-...@news.ducksburg.com...
> On 2008-03-27, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> One of the seminar participants in _Mathematical Writing_ (Knuth et
>> al.) admitted that when pressed on the issue of consistency and
>> logical punctuation, he would rather write something like the
>> following than accept transposing stops into quotation marks.
>>
>> A Pascal program must end with "end.".
>
> BTW, here's the reference for that:
>
> Donald,E Knuth, Tracy Larrabee, Paul M. Roberts (1989): Mathematical
> writing. Mathematical Association of America notes, no. 14, 1989.
> ISBN 088385063X.
>
> I don't recall which participant made that statement, however. (There
> were additional participants quoted in the book besides the three
> listed.)
>
I have had this problem in writing the notice of a meeting to make
amendments to a company's constitution. You want everything within the
quotation marks to be inserted in the constitution, but the resolution also
has its own punctuation. You end up with a resolution reading:
"THAT the articles be altered:
1 by adding at article 14(a), "Each director shall have one vote;"; and
2 by adding at article 14(b), "The chairman shall not have a casting
vote."."
BTW, what does the group think of the construction, very commonly seen in
resolutions in the UK, "That the articles be and they are hereby
amended..."?
Chris R
Peter T. Daniels
Well, given the weird restrictions on weddings we've just been reading
about, nothing is surprising. I don't suppose a move to adopt Robert's
Rules of Order would be popular?
Bill McCray
wrote:
> I have had this problem in writing the notice of a meeting to make
> amendments to a company's constitution. You want everything within the
> quotation marks to be inserted in the constitution, but the resolution also
> has its own punctuation. You end up with a resolution reading:
>
> "THAT the articles be altered:
>
> 1 by adding at article 14(a), "Each director shall have one vote;"; and
> 2 by adding at article 14(b), "The chairman shall not have a casting
> vote."."
I would omit the semicolon and period outside the inner quotation
marks and use single quotation marks instead of double around the
entire quotation since you have double quotation marks withing the
text and don't want to change them to singles.
> BTW, what does the group think of the construction, very commonly seen in
> resolutions in the UK, "That the articles be and they are hereby
> amended..."?
It sounds a bit strange to my ears (or looks, eyes), but appears to be
grammatical. I have no objection to it.
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address
HVS
> BTW, what does the group think of the construction, very
> commonly seen in resolutions in the UK, "That the articles be
> and they are hereby amended..."?
It looks normal enough to me, although I don't see the purpose of the
"they" in there. (Why not "That the articles be and are hereby
amended..."?)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Bob Cunningham
("Follow-To" changed to alt.usage.english only.)
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:36:01 -0400, Bill McCray
<McCra...@SpringMind.com> said:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 15:27:48 +0100, "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > I have had this problem in writing the notice of a meeting to make
> > amendments to a company's constitution. You want everything within the
> > quotation marks to be inserted in the constitution, but the resolution also
> > has its own punctuation. You end up with a resolution reading:
> >
> > "THAT the articles be altered:
> >
> > 1 by adding at article 14(a), "Each director shall have one vote;"; and
> > 2 by adding at article 14(b), "The chairman shall not have a casting
> > vote."."
>
> I would omit the semicolon and period outside the inner quotation
> marks and use single quotation marks instead of double around the
> entire quotation since you have double quotation marks withing the
> text and don't want to change them to singles.
A quoted segment can be placed on a separate line with
indentation, and quotation marks are not used with that
style. Your resolution could thus read
THAT the articles be altered:
1 by adding at article 14(a)
Each director shall have one vote;
and
2 by adding at article 14(b)
The chairman shall not have a casting
vote.
> > BTW, what does the group think of the construction, very commonly seen in
> > resolutions in the UK, "That the articles be and they are hereby
> > amended..."?
>
> It sounds a bit strange to my ears (or looks, eyes), but appears to be
> grammatical. I have no objection to it.
It may be grammatical, but it's poor style. It lacks
parallelism. I would say something more like
That the articles be amended and are hereby amended
You could say
That the articles be and hereby are amended
but the meaning is not as quickly clear as it is with the
previous suggestion.
It wouldn't do to say
That the articles be and are hereby amended
because there's ambiguity in the intent of "hereby". The
"hereby" could apply to "be and are" or only to "are".
Trond Engen
> Brian M. Scott:
>> Joachim Pense:
>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>> Joachim Pense:
>>>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>>>>>> Trond Engen:
>>>>>>>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>>>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>> Then, I think there is no logical difference from a
>>> dogmaticists point of view, because in his view, truth =
>>> the dogma = object of belief, and heresy = deviation from
>>> truth = deviation of dogma = mistaken belief.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>>> Your logical difference can only be established for
>>> someone who accepts that there are more than one
>>> concurring dogmatic systems / beliefs,
>>
>> Which is a matter of simple observation.
>>
>>> and they can be treated from a neutral point of view.
>>
>> Which does not entail believing that it is correct to do so.
>> It merely requires a modicum of intellectual honesty.
>
> How can you be intellectually honest and adopt a viewpoint that you
> believe is not correct?
I think we'd better define what we mean by the concepts 'dogmatic' and
'heretic'. I, and seemingly Joachim, used the definitions:
*dogmatic* thinker or member of school of thought that holds a specific
theoretical framework as the absolute truth (=_dogma_).
*heretic* thinker or member of school of thought that holds a view
deviant from _dogma_.
I want to modify these to:
*dogmatic* thinker or member of school of thought that sees a specific
theoretical framework as the absolute truth (=_dogma_) and claims this
view to be a general premise for adherence to some system or community.
*heretic* thinker or member of school of thought that, while claiming
adherence to a system or community, holds a view that's deviant from its
_dogma_.
Thus, to claim herecy, Dogmatix needs
- a theoretical framework regarded as the absolute truth.
- a claim that this dogma is a general premise for adherence to a system.
To be claimed a heretic Heretix must be considered as having
- adherence to a system or community.
- a view that's deviant from dogma.
You say that, intellectually, Dogmatix should accept the possibilty of
other dogmatic systems. That might be, but he could never accept a
concurring view within the community for which his own dogma is claimed
to be valid, or else it wouldn't be a dogma. I can't see any
intellectual dishonesty here, just a thoroughly dogmatic mindset.
Things get complicated when the authority that put forward the present
dogma is not universally accepted, or when there are competing bodies
which all claim universal authority. In these cases dogmatics of all
shades claim eachother to be heretics.
--
Trond Engen
- dogmatical logician
Trond Engen
> Joachim Pense skreiv:
>
>> Brian M. Scott:
[...]
> You say that, intellectually, Dogmatix should accept the possibilty
> of other dogmatic systems. [...]
Whoops. And sorry. I attached this answer to Joachim's post rather than
Brian's.
--
Trond Engen
- doggystyle dalmatian
Trond Engen
> Trond Engen:
>> Brian M. Scott:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>
>>>> A "mistaken belief" is a heresy. [...]
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. A heresy is a belief contrary to some
>>> religious dogma, and by extension a controversial or
>>> unorthodox opinion. 'Mistaken belief' and 'heresy' are
>>> independent concepts.
>>
>> Wouldn't that depend on the point of view? Both concepts are defined
>> by a failure to meet some criteria -- 'dogma' and 'objective truth'.
>> For an independent observer the criteria are different and your
>> distinction is valid. For a dogmatic the criteria are identical and
>> the distinction is meaningless.
>
> Not for the dogmatic who doesn't consider himself dogmatic.
But to claim someone to be a heretic, the dogmatic who doesn't consider
himself a dogmatic would have to adopt a dogma.
--
Trond Engen
- ex cathedra
Peter T. Daniels
Note that the word "heresy" (or "heretic") was introduced into the
discussion in response to an asserted "belief*.
Brian M. Scott
<tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:FK2dnZ1YB4F...@telenor.com> in sci.lang:
>>>>> No.
>>> So what?
I said nothing about adopting such a point of view; all that
is required is recognizing that it can exist.
> I think we'd better define what we mean by the concepts
> 'dogmatic' and 'heretic'. I, and seemingly Joachim, used
> the definitions:
> *dogmatic* thinker or member of school of thought that
> holds a specific theoretical framework as the absolute
> truth (=_dogma_).
> *heretic* thinker or member of school of thought that
> holds a view deviant from _dogma_.
Those are essentially the definitions that I was using.
> I want to modify these to:
> *dogmatic* thinker or member of school of thought that
> sees a specific theoretical framework as the absolute
> truth (=_dogma_) and claims this view to be a general
> premise for adherence to some system or community.
> *heretic* thinker or member of school of thought that,
> while claiming adherence to a system or community, holds
> a view that's deviant from its _dogma_.
That's a rather different kettle of fish, quite possibly
reducing to an argument about the definition of 'member of
this community'.
[...]
Brian
Adam Funk
> Why are you obsessed with this?
I just got your big joke! (You've posted at least as much on this
topic as I have.) Ha ha!
--
Agent Rogersz: "It happens sometimes. People just explode.
Natural causes." (Cox 1984)
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-03-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Why are you obsessed with this?
>
> I just got your big joke! (You've posted at least as much on this
> topic as I have.) Ha ha!
Only in response to others. Mostly you.
And you're the only one who keeps bringing it up after a week, or a
month, has passed.
Trond Engen
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:05:49 +0200, Trond Engen
> <tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
> <news:FK2dnZ1YB4F...@telenor.com> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
>> I think we'd better define what we mean by the concepts
>> 'dogmatic' and 'heretic'. I, and seemingly Joachim, used
>> the definitions:
>>
>> *dogmatic* thinker or member of school of thought that
>> holds a specific theoretical framework as the absolute
>> truth (=_dogma_).
>>
>> *heretic* thinker or member of school of thought that
>> holds a view deviant from _dogma_.
>
> Those are essentially the definitions that I was using.
Huh? In that case, for the dogmatic, the theoretical existence of other
dogmatic systems is excluded by the equality between dogma and objective
truth. I was looking for for common ground, when ...
>> I want to modify these to:
>>
>> *dogmatic* thinker or member of school of thought that
>> sees a specific theoretical framework as the absolute
>> truth (=_dogma_) and claims this view to be a general
>> premise for adherence to some system or community.
>>
>> *heretic* thinker or member of school of thought that,
>> while claiming adherence to a system or community, holds
>> a view that's deviant from its _dogma_.
>
> That's a rather different kettle of fish, quite possibly
> reducing to an argument about the definition of 'member of
> this community'.
I know. It's a definition that allows for the dogmatic to recognize the
existence of other dogmatic systems without giving up the dogmaticity of
his own system. On the way I discovered that it's corollary that the
heretic would have to be regarded as a deviant from the dogma of the
dogmatic and not as an independent thinker with a system of his own.
With the revised definitions it would, as you say, be dishonest of the
dogmatic to deny the possibility of existence of other dogmatic systems,
but he could not accept any of them within the community that is
(supposed by the dogmatic to be) defined by adherence to a specific
system. But the relativity of the definitions also opens for the
existence of different degrees of dogmaticism, where the degree is
defined by the claim of universality of adherence to the said dogma.
I think this is a reasonable interpretation of dogmaticism so I'll stick
to my revised definition for now.
--
Trond Engen
- on the relativity of it all
tony cooper
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-03-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > Why are you obsessed with this?
>>
>> I just got your big joke! (You've posted at least as much on this
>> topic as I have.) Ha ha!
>
>Only in response to others. Mostly you.
>
This is pure Danielian Logic. He doesn't post a lot on any subject
unless he responds to others. He doesn't post in aue unless it's in
reply to a cross-post.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Brian M. Scott
<tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:TpednaDZbZw...@telenor.com> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott skreiv:
>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:05:49 +0200, Trond Engen
>> <tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
>> <news:FK2dnZ1YB4F...@telenor.com> in sci.lang:
>> [...]
>>> I think we'd better define what we mean by the concepts
>>> 'dogmatic' and 'heretic'. I, and seemingly Joachim, used
>>> the definitions:
>>> *dogmatic* thinker or member of school of thought that
>>> holds a specific theoretical framework as the absolute
>>> truth (=_dogma_).
>>> *heretic* thinker or member of school of thought that
>>> holds a view deviant from _dogma_.
>> Those are essentially the definitions that I was using.
> Huh? In that case, for the dogmatic, the theoretical
> existence of other dogmatic systems is excluded by the
> equality between dogma and objective truth.
Between *his* dogma and objective truth. Then he encounters
a follower of an incompatible (and in his eyes false) dogma
... .
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:57:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2008-03-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> > Why are you obsessed with this?
>
> >> I just got your big joke! (You've posted at least as much on this
> >> topic as I have.) Ha ha!
>
> >Only in response to others. Mostly you.
>
> This is pure Danielian Logic. He doesn't post a lot on any subject
> unless he responds to others. He doesn't post in aue unless it's in
> reply to a cross-post.
Wow, coop writes the whole truth for once.
Paul J Kriha
> On 2008-03-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Why are you obsessed with this?
>
> I just got your big joke! (You've posted at least as much on this
> topic as I have.) Ha ha!
>
> Natural causes." (Cox 1984)
Strange, I am sure I heard Homer say that, word for word.
He must have been quoting. :-)
pjk
Paul J Kriha
So the range of dogmaticism would be somewhere from, say, liberal
dogmatic to extreme dogmatic? :-)
pjk
Brian M. Scott
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
<news:47f9...@clear.net.nz> in sci.lang:
[...]
> So the range of dogmaticism would be somewhere from, say, liberal
> dogmatic to extreme dogmatic? :-)
Pitbullmatic?
Brian
Adam Funk
> However, since Mrs. Turabian (I never met her) died, they've become
> more and more lax. See the notice near the beginning that a ms.
> prepared according to any thoroughly consistent style will be accepted
> by the University of Chicago Press.
I seem to recall that the OUP applied the same principle to your book.
That was mighty "lax" of them, wasn't it?
--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-04-02, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > However, since Mrs. Turabian (I never met her) died, they've become
> > more and more lax. See the notice near the beginning that a ms.
> > prepared according to any thoroughly consistent style will be accepted
> > by the University of Chicago Press.
>
> I seem to recall that the OUP applied the same principle to your book.
> That was mighty "lax" of them, wasn't it?
There was never any indication from OUP New York that there was any
sort of house style. WWS is done in strict Chicago. (And so was Bill's
Encyclopedia, the "unexpected" success of which made them welcome
WWS.) Obviously if they had wanted some other style, we'd have
followed it.
Adam Funk
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:33:03 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
><news:d473dd0c-4b0a-4d32...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
>
> [...]
>
>> A "mistaken belief" is a heresy. [...]
>
> No, it isn't. A heresy is a belief contrary to some
> religious dogma, and by extension a controversial or
> unorthodox opinion. 'Mistaken belief' and 'heresy' are
> independent concepts.
Some people expect their opinions to be treated as dogma.
--
Whereas a calculator like the Eniac is equipped with 18,000
vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may
have only 1,000 tubes and perhaps only weigh one and a half
tons. (Popular Mechanics, 1949; in in Stoll 1995)
Adam Funk
It's *possible* that someone is holding him hostage and making him reply
against his will, but it seems a bit farfetched.
--
This sig no verb.
Peter T. Daniels
Would it be the same one that forces you to keep coming back to this
thread after it's been dormant for days, and to its topic after it's
been dead for weeks?
Adam Funk
>> I seem to recall that the OUP applied the same principle to your book.
>> That was mighty "lax" of them, wasn't it?
>
> There was never any indication from OUP New York that there was any
> sort of house style. WWS is done in strict Chicago. (And so was Bill's
> Encyclopedia, the "unexpected" success of which made them welcome
> WWS.) Obviously if they had wanted some other style, we'd have
> followed it.
Outrageous. Obviously reference works should be printed in Standard
English .
--
NO CARRIER
Adam Funk
>> (And as you know, the _Oxford Style Manual_ says to place all stops
>> logically.)
>
> You apparently think the OSM is more logical than the CMOS.
(As I said already, on that point it clearly is more logical, but...)
Just to be fair, I should point out that I disagree with the OSM's
prescription to use "." in clock times; the American and the French
and German conventions are clearer:
"10:15" or "10h15" means 10 + 15/60, but
"10.15" means 10 + 15/100
whereas the British convention, which the OSM follows, conflates them
both as "10.15".
--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Although I agree with you and the Oxford Style Manual about punctuating
quotations, I find in most respects that it is a disappointing work (a
vastly inflated and flabby successor the Hart's Rules, which was a
little gem), and I refer to the Chicago book much more often. Over
clock times, however, I wonder if there really exists a generally
accepted convention in Britain. If I see "10:15" it doesn't immediately
strike me as American (and indeed I've set the clock on my computer to
display the time like that).
--
athel
António Marques
> Although I agree with you and the Oxford Style Manual about punctuating
> quotations, I find in most respects that it is a disappointing work (a
> vastly inflated and flabby successor the Hart's Rules, which was a
> little gem), and I refer to the Chicago book much more often.
I didn't imagine the CMOS was followed in Britain. What's the Hart's Rules?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Paul J Kriha
news:66p8ljF...@mid.individual.net...
Why does "10:15" strike you as American?
Do any other countries in Europe use "10.15" instead of "10:15"?
At the moment, I can't think of any.
pjk
Trond Engen
> Why does "10:15" strike you as American?
> Do any other countries in Europe use "10.15" instead of "10:15"?
Norway. But as Adam I prefer the 10:15 format because the colon makes it
immediately clear that it's a notion of time. In handwriting I use the
old style with minutes in underscored superscript. Neither is unususl.
--
Trond Engen
- couldn't do without his colon
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> said:
> "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> [ ... ]
> accepted convention in Britain. If I see "10:15" it doesn't immediately
>> strike me as American (and indeed I've set the clock on my computer to
>> display the time like that).
>
> Why does "10:15" strike you as American?
I didn't say it does; I said it doesn't, as you correctly quote.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
"Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the Oxford University
Press" was a volume that went through 39 editions (starting in 1864)
before being reborn as CMOS -- vastly larger but not a big improvement.
Someone told me the other day that Hart's Rules has been made available
again, so probably I wasn't the only one to prefer it.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On 2008-04-18 00:38:49 +0200, António Marques <m....@sapo.pt> said:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> Although I agree with you and the Oxford Style Manual about punctuating
>>> quotations, I find in most respects that it is a disappointing work (a
>>> vastly inflated and flabby successor the Hart's Rules, which was a
>>> little gem), and I refer to the Chicago book much more often.
>>
>> I didn't imagine the CMOS was followed in Britain. What's the Hart's Rules?
>
> "Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the Oxford University
> Press" was a volume that went through 39 editions (starting in 1864)
> before being reborn as CMOS
I meant, of course, OSM !!! That's what comes of using abbreviations.
Paul J Kriha
> Paul J Kriha skreiv:
>
> > Why does "10:15" strike you as American?
> > Do any other countries in Europe use "10.15" instead of "10:15"?
>
> Norway. But as Adam I prefer the 10:15 format because the colon makes it
> immediately clear that it's a notion of time. In handwriting I use the
> old style with minutes in underscored superscript. Neither is unususl.
> - couldn't do without his colon
Oh, yes. I forgot, Norway was already mentioned earlier.
A case of vive la difference?
Endeavouring to add spice to lives of visiting tourists?
Something like blue motorway and green state road
signposts in Switzerland? :-)
pjk
- without a colon it ends in a coma
Joachim Pense
> Paul J Kriha skreiv:
>
>> Why does "10:15" strike you as American?
>> Do any other countries in Europe use "10.15" instead of "10:15"?
>
> Norway. But as Adam I prefer the 10:15 format because the colon makes it
> immediately clear that it's a notion of time.
The important part being that the part behind the colon is not hundredths.
Joachim
HVS
For a similar reason, the notation for cricket overs has always
bothered me -- it looks like decimal counting, not enumerating balls
1 to 6. (4th over: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.0 -- it just looks
wrong.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Adam Funk
> Although I agree with you and the Oxford Style Manual about punctuating
> quotations, I find in most respects that it is a disappointing work (a
> vastly inflated and flabby successor the Hart's Rules, which was a
> little gem), and I refer to the Chicago book much more often. Over
> clock times, however, I wonder if there really exists a generally
> accepted convention in Britain. If I see "10:15" it doesn't immediately
> strike me as American (and indeed I've set the clock on my computer to
> display the time like that).
I think "10.15" is the *traditional* form in print in the UK, but as
far as I'm aware, computers and digital clocks always say "10:15", and
it shows up in print these days too.
It wouldn't surprise me if there have been letters to the Telegraph
complaining about "Americanisation", but this shift seems to me to be
an improvement.
--
Do you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita?
http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html
Adam Funk
> Paul J Kriha skreiv:
>
>> Why does "10:15" strike you as American?
>> Do any other countries in Europe use "10.15" instead of "10:15"?
>
> Norway. But as Adam I prefer the 10:15 format because the colon makes it
> immediately clear that it's a notion of time. In handwriting I use the
> old style with minutes in underscored superscript. Neither is unususl.
I think that underscored superscript style is used sometimes in France
or Germany as well (not sure which; possibly both).
I've also seen just plain "9-20" (for example) painted on shop windows
in Finland to indicate the opening hours. That confused me at first.
--
Usenet is a cesspool, a dung heap. [Patrick A. Townson]
Paul J Kriha
Sorry, I misspoke, what I really meant to say was something like:
Why would "10:15" strike you as particularly American?
pjk
Paul J Kriha
The first time I heard something like: "We assemble in this area
at fourteen hundred sharp. Now, synchronize your watches......"
I thought, it was some kind of a feeble joke. Unfortunately, it wasn't.
Grrrrrr! :-)
pjk
Brian M. Scott
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
<news:4808a571$1...@clear.net.nz> in
sci.lang,alt.english.usage:
[...]
> - without a colon it ends in a coma
Surely that's not the usual outcome of a colonectomy ...
Brian
Paul J Kriha
news:1ii739k6y4109.4my80cuksvno$.dlg@40tude.net...
Okay, make it a fullstop or comma then. :-)
pjk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> said:
> "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:66rmb2F...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2008-04-18 07:39:20 +0200, "Paul J Kriha"
>> <paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> said:
>>
>>> "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> accepted convention in Britain. If I see "10:15" it doesn't immediately
>>>> strike me as American (and indeed I've set the clock on my computer to
>>>> display the time like that).
>>>
>>> Why does "10:15" strike you as American?
>>
>> I didn't say it does; I said it doesn't, as you correctly quote.
>
> Sorry, I misspoke, what I really meant to say was something like:
> Why would "10:15" strike you as particularly American?
It wouldn't, and it's still not clear to me why you thought it would.
However, you may have missed an earlier post from someone who
contrasted what _he_ described as the American 10:15 and French 10h15
with the British 10.15
--
athel
António Marques
Thank you.
--
António Marques
* This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase *
Peter T. Daniels
Eighteen days this time. And he still adds crossposts to the dogfood
religion.
António Marques
> Peter T. Daniels writes:
>
>>>> Would it be the same one that forces you to keep coming back to this
>>>> thread after it's been dormant for days, and to its topic after it's
>>>> been dead for weeks?
>>> It's a pretty amazing coincidence!
>> Eighteen days this time. And he still adds crossposts to the dogfood
>> religion.
>
Why did you say 'classic'?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> Would it be the same one that forces you to keep coming back to this
>>>>> thread after it's been dormant for days, and to its topic after it's
>>>>> been dead for weeks?
>>>> It's a pretty amazing coincidence!
>>> Eighteen days this time. And he still adds crossposts to the dogfood
>>> religion.
>> Classic erroneous presupposition, Daniels.
> Why did you say 'classic'?
What does your question have to do with college basketball, m.ap?