altogether

[arthu...@gmail.com]

1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; he is
not relating anything altogether.

Source:

https://tinyurl.com/yyyxf6yd

https://books.google.com/books?id=yXDpAvMsd4QC&pg=PA71&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwB3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false

=================

2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to
annihilate anything altogether.

Source:

https://tinyurl.com/yyok6sbb

https://books.google.com/books?id=hv07AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwBXoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false

I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at all'.
Would you agree with that?

I checked a few dictionaries and didn't find that meaning for 'altogether',
although I think I have seen it used with that meaning. I checked google books
for examples of 'anything altogether' and came up with those two sentences
amongst others where 'altogether' seems to mean 'at all'.

Gratefully,
Navi

[Spains Harden]

The two "altogether"s are wrong. Your "at all"s are good replacements,
or you could leave them out...erm...altogether.

[Peter Moylan]

On 05/10/19 18:57, arthu...@gmail.com wrote:

> 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any
> action; he is not relating anything altogether.

[...]

> 2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking.
> able to annihilate anything altogether.

> I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at
> all'. Would you agree with that?

I would prefer to replace "altogether" with "completely". That's closer
to being a synonym. With that replacement, sentence 2 still makes sense.

It doesn't work as well in example 1, but personally I would rate
example 1 as clumsy English. If I'd been the editor, I would have asked
the author to find a better word than "altogether".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Jerry Friedman]

Compromise: I think the first one is a mistake for "at all" and the
second one means "completely".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:57:03 AM UTC-4, arthu...@gmail.com wrote:

> 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; he is
> not relating anything altogether.
>
> Source:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yyyxf6yd
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=yXDpAvMsd4QC&pg=PA71&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwB3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
>
> =================
>
> 2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to
> annihilate anything altogether.
>
> Source:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yyok6sbb
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=hv07AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwBXoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
>
> I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at all'.
> Would you agree with that?

Yes.

> I checked a few dictionaries and didn't find that meaning for 'altogether',
> although I think I have seen it used with that meaning. I checked google books
> for examples of 'anything altogether' and came up with those two sentences
> amongst others where 'altogether' seems to mean 'at all'.

Did you look for "all together" in that sense? (Doesn't work either.)

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, 05 Oct 2019 01:57:00 -0700, arthurvarr wrote:

> 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action;
> he is not relating anything altogether.

[...]

> 2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able
> to annihilate anything altogether.

[...]

> I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at
> all'. Would you agree with that?

[...]

In (1), yes--or with "whatever" (or "whatsoever").

In (2), "at all" seems to me to alter the sense slightly. The sentence
can most easily be remedied by moving the "altogether" to right after the
"to":

2a) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able
to altogether annihilate anything.

The meaning is that God could not or would not _utterly_ annihilate
anything, not that he could not or would not annihilate anything whatever.




--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[David Kleinecke]

I am reminded of Dunsany's story where the gods punished a
sinner by making it so that he never existed at all.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le samedi 5 octobre 2019 10:57:03 UTC+2, arthu...@gmail.com a écrit :
> 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; he is
> not relating anything altogether.
>
> Source:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yyyxf6yd
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=yXDpAvMsd4QC&pg=PA71&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwB3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
>
> =================
>
> 2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to
> annihilate anything altogether.
>
> Source:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yyok6sbb
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=hv07AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwBXoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
>
> I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at all'.
> Would you agree with that?

IMO, "altogether" means "on the whole" or "all things considered" in both
sentences, and these would have been phrased more clearly as:

1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; altogether, he is not relating anything.

Where "altogether" corroborates the statement that precedes it.

2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.

Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> Le samedi 5 octobre 2019 10:57:03 UTC+2, arthu...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; he is
> > not relating anything altogether.
> >
> > Source:
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/yyyxf6yd
> >
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=yXDpAvMsd4QC&pg=PA71&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwB3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
> >
> > =================
> >
> > 2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to
> > annihilate anything altogether.
> >
> > Source:
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/yyok6sbb
> >
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=hv07AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwBXoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
> >
> > I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at all'.
> > Would you agree with that?
>
> IMO, "altogether" means "on the whole" or "all things considered" in both
> sentences, and these would have been phrased more clearly as:
>
> 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; altogether, he is not relating anything.
>
> Where "altogether" corroborates the statement that precedes it.

No, plus it doesn't work well preposed. You could use "all in all" there.

> 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
>
> Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.

No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 19:51:21 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> > Le samedi 5 octobre 2019 10:57:03 UTC+2, arthu...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > > 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; he is
> > > not relating anything altogether.
> > >
> > > Source:
> > >
> > > https://tinyurl.com/yyyxf6yd
> > >
> > > https://books.google.com/books?id=yXDpAvMsd4QC&pg=PA71&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwB3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
> > >
> > > =================
> > >
> > > 2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to
> > > annihilate anything altogether.
> > >
> > > Source:
> > >
> > > https://tinyurl.com/yyok6sbb
> > >
> > > https://books.google.com/books?id=hv07AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwBXoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
> > >
> > > I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at all'.
> > > Would you agree with that?
> >
> > IMO, "altogether" means "on the whole" or "all things considered" in both
> > sentences, and these would have been phrased more clearly as:
> >
> > 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action; altogether, he is not relating anything.
> >
> > Where "altogether" corroborates the statement that precedes it.
>
> No,

That's a matter of personal appreciation: to me, you can't disconnect
the fact that the painter is not relating anything from their not
telling any stories and not depicting any action.

> plus it doesn't work well preposed.

Maybe, but it's often used as such.

> You could use "all in all" there.

Yes, I thought of that too, and also e.g. "by and large".

>
> > 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
> >
> > Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.
>
> No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
> doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.

? My first version with "altogether" didn't include "the big picture is
that". If you remove "the big picture is that" in my 2nd version, how is "altogether" rendered? Besides, "the big picture is that" seems to be
commonly used by native speakers.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Which has nothing to do with whether "altogether" does what you say it does.

You are worse than Yurui Liu!

> > plus it doesn't work well preposed.
>
> Maybe, but it's often used as such.

Evidence?

> > You could use "all in all" there.
>
> Yes, I thought of that too, and also e.g. "by and large".

But not "altogether."

> > > 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
> > > Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.
> > No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
> > doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.
>
> ? My first version with "altogether" didn't include "the big picture is
> that". If you remove "the big picture is that" in my 2nd version, how is "altogether" rendered? Besides, "the big picture is that" seems to be
> commonly used by native speakers.

(Evidence?)

There is no need to "render" "altogether" because it has no function to
perform in the sentence.

I can't think what French word you're trying to render with "altogether."

[bebe...@aol.com]

Of course it does in this case: the enunciator does a roundup of what a
painter does (or more exactly doesn't do), and then concludes, in view of
his/her _combined_ ("altogether") findings, that the painter is not relating
anything.

>
> You are worse than Yurui Liu!
>
> > > plus it doesn't work well preposed.
> >
> > Maybe, but it's often used as such.
>
> Evidence?

Evidence abounds in the wild, and M-W gives the following as an example
for a preposed use:

"on the whole
Altogether their efforts were successful."

>
> > > You could use "all in all" there.
> >
> > Yes, I thought of that too, and also e.g. "by and large".
>
> But not "altogether."

Why not, as it can mean "on the whole"? (See M-W's definition above.)

>
> > > > 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
> > > > Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.
> > > No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
> > > doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.
> >
> > ? My first version with "altogether" didn't include "the big picture is
> > that". If you remove "the big picture is that" in my 2nd version, how is "altogether" rendered? Besides, "the big picture is that" seems to be
> > commonly used by native speakers.
>
> (Evidence?)

Again, evidence abounds. Besides, French doesn't have an equivalent of
the phrase.

>
> There is no need to "render" "altogether" because it has no function to
> perform in the sentence.

But the author of the original sentence, not I, used it in the first place.

>
> I can't think what French word you're trying to render with "altogether."

"Tout bien considéré", for instance, would be a suitable fit.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Now it looks like you're making the elementary-school mistake of confusing
"altogether" and "all together."

> > You are worse than Yurui Liu!
> >
> > > > plus it doesn't work well preposed.
> > >
> > > Maybe, but it's often used as such.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Evidence abounds in the wild, and M-W gives the following as an example
> for a preposed use:
>
> "on the whole
> Altogether their efforts were successful."

Source?

Of course not. They don't give references.

> > > > You could use "all in all" there.
> > >
> > > Yes, I thought of that too, and also e.g. "by and large".
> >
> > But not "altogether."
>
> Why not, as it can mean "on the whole"? (See M-W's definition above.)

Evidence?

Something being recorded in a M-W dictionary is NOT evidence of current usage.
It is evidence that over the entire course of written English, a sense was
used at least ten times.

> > > > > 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
> > > > > Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.
> > > > No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
> > > > doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.
> > >
> > > ? My first version with "altogether" didn't include "the big picture is
> > > that". If you remove "the big picture is that" in my 2nd version, how is "altogether" rendered? Besides, "the big picture is that" seems to be
> > > commonly used by native speakers.
> >
> > (Evidence?)
>
> Again, evidence abounds. Besides, French doesn't have an equivalent of
> the phrase.

"Evidence abounds" would get you an F, or possibly a D, on a high school
essay.

> > There is no need to "render" "altogether" because it has no function to
> > perform in the sentence.
>
> But the author of the original sentence, not I, used it in the first place.

And was rightly called out for it by the originator of the thread.

> > I can't think what French word you're trying to render with "altogether."
>
> "Tout bien considéré", for instance, would be a suitable fit.

"all in all," "taking everything into consideration"

Google Translate offers "all things considered," which is a cliché.

"altogether" simply DOES NOT MEAN THAT.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Not at all: again, it's the "on the whole" meaning (with the preposed
use) as also confirmed by
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/altogether:

---
1.2sentence adverb Taking everything into consideration; on the whole.
‘altogether it was a great evening’
More example sentences
‘He does the game completion stats for us as well, and altogether it
can be quite time-consuming so he does a good job.’
‘Altogether it wasn’t the most successful show for us.’
‘Altogether it's one of my absolute favorite movies of all time.’
---

>
> > > You are worse than Yurui Liu!
> > >
> > > > > plus it doesn't work well preposed.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, but it's often used as such.
> > >
> > > Evidence?
> >
> > Evidence abounds in the wild, and M-W gives the following as an example
> > for a preposed use:
> >
> > "on the whole
> > Altogether their efforts were successful."
>
> Source?
>
> Of course not. They don't give references.

Do expert lexicographers really need to give references for such a
trivial sentence? Do you really think the sentence is impossible?

>
> > > > > You could use "all in all" there.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I thought of that too, and also e.g. "by and large".
> > >
> > > But not "altogether."
> >
> > Why not, as it can mean "on the whole"? (See M-W's definition above.)
>
> Evidence?
>
> Something being recorded in a M-W dictionary is NOT evidence of current usage.
> It is evidence that over the entire course of written English, a sense was
> used at least ten times.
>
> > > > > > 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
> > > > > > Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.
> > > > > No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
> > > > > doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.
> > > >
> > > > ? My first version with "altogether" didn't include "the big picture is
> > > > that". If you remove "the big picture is that" in my 2nd version, how is "altogether" rendered? Besides, "the big picture is that" seems to be
> > > > commonly used by native speakers.
> > >
> > > (Evidence?)
> >
> > Again, evidence abounds. Besides, French doesn't have an equivalent of
> > the phrase.
>
> "Evidence abounds" would get you an F, or possibly a D, on a high school
> essay.

Tell that to reporters of all major US and UK newspapers, who use
the phrase profusely. (In case you ask for examples, do the googling
yourself.)

>
> > > There is no need to "render" "altogether" because it has no function to
> > > perform in the sentence.
> >
> > But the author of the original sentence, not I, used it in the first place.
>
> And was rightly called out for it by the originator of the thread.
>
> > > I can't think what French word you're trying to render with "altogether."
> >
> > "Tout bien considéré", for instance, would be a suitable fit.
>
> "all in all,

> "taking everything into consideration"

The very definition /lexico.com/ gives for "altogether"
above!!! - QED.

>
> Google Translate offers "all things considered," which is a cliché.
>
> "altogether" simply DOES NOT MEAN THAT.

Wrong, as shown by world-renowned dictionaries, which all list that sense
without mentioning it's not current usage.

[Peter T. Daniels]

This is altogether ridiculous. Those are misspellings of "all together,"
which, unlike *"alright," have apparently been sanctioned by those who
sanction spellings.

> > > > You are worse than Yurui Liu!
> > > > > > plus it doesn't work well preposed.
> > > > > Maybe, but it's often used as such.
> > > > Evidence?
> > > Evidence abounds in the wild, and M-W gives the following as an example
> > > for a preposed use:
> > > "on the whole
> > > Altogether their efforts were successful."
> > Source?
> > Of course not. They don't give references.
>
> Do expert lexicographers really need to give references for such a
> trivial sentence? Do you really think the sentence is impossible?

Yes. Have you never looked at the OED, or the French Academy's equivalent?

> > > > > > You could use "all in all" there.
> > > > > Yes, I thought of that too, and also e.g. "by and large".
> > > > But not "altogether."
> > > Why not, as it can mean "on the whole"? (See M-W's definition above.)
> > Evidence?
> > Something being recorded in a M-W dictionary is NOT evidence of current usage.
> > It is evidence that over the entire course of written English, a sense was
> > used at least ten times.
> > > > > > > 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
> > > > > > > Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.
> > > > > > No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
> > > > > > doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.
> > > > >
> > > > > ? My first version with "altogether" didn't include "the big picture is
> > > > > that". If you remove "the big picture is that" in my 2nd version, how is "altogether" rendered? Besides, "the big picture is that" seems to be
> > > > > commonly used by native speakers.
> > > > (Evidence?)
> > > Again, evidence abounds. Besides, French doesn't have an equivalent of
> > > the phrase.
> > "Evidence abounds" would get you an F, or possibly a D, on a high school
> > essay.
>
> Tell that to reporters of all major US and UK newspapers, who use
> the phrase profusely. (In case you ask for examples, do the googling
> yourself.)

It's your claim. Support it.

You may even be misinterpreting what they wrote.

> > > > There is no need to "render" "altogether" because it has no function to
> > > > perform in the sentence.
> > > But the author of the original sentence, not I, used it in the first place.
> > And was rightly called out for it by the originator of the thread.
> > > > I can't think what French word you're trying to render with "altogether."
> > > "Tout bien considéré", for instance, would be a suitable fit.
> > "all in all,
> > "taking everything into consideration"
>
> The very definition /lexico.com/ gives for "altogether"
> above!!! - QED.

I don't know what "lexico.com"'s bona fides are. Where did it study
lexicography? How extensive are its citation files?

> > Google Translate offers "all things considered," which is a cliché.
> > "altogether" simply DOES NOT MEAN THAT.
>
> Wrong, as shown by world-renowned dictionaries, which all list that sense
> without mentioning it's not current usage.

Right. "World-renowned" lexico.com, whatever that is.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Wrong, "all together" would be nonsensical in the above examples. I'm
surprised a native speaker, and a linguist at that, can make such an
egregious error.

> which, unlike *"alright," have apparently been sanctioned by those who
> sanction spellings.
>
> > > > > You are worse than Yurui Liu!
> > > > > > > plus it doesn't work well preposed.
> > > > > > Maybe, but it's often used as such.
> > > > > Evidence?
> > > > Evidence abounds in the wild, and M-W gives the following as an example
> > > > for a preposed use:
> > > > "on the whole
> > > > Altogether their efforts were successful."
> > > Source?
> > > Of course not. They don't give references.
> >
> > Do expert lexicographers really need to give references for such a
> > trivial sentence? Do you really think the sentence is impossible?
>
> Yes. Have you never looked at the OED,

Unfortunately, I don't have access to it.

> or the French Academy's equivalent?

And for good reason: apparently, there's none.

>
> > > > > > > You could use "all in all" there.
> > > > > > Yes, I thought of that too, and also e.g. "by and large".
> > > > > But not "altogether."
> > > > Why not, as it can mean "on the whole"? (See M-W's definition above.)
> > > Evidence?
> > > Something being recorded in a M-W dictionary is NOT evidence of current usage.
> > > It is evidence that over the entire course of written English, a sense was
> > > used at least ten times.
> > > > > > > > 2) First, because God is altogether neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able to annihilate anything.
> > > > > > > > Meaning "the big picture" is that God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking, able to annihilate anything.
> > > > > > > No, there it sounds like foreigner-speak for your second version -- which
> > > > > > > doesn't need the "'the big picture' is that" to introduce it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ? My first version with "altogether" didn't include "the big picture is
> > > > > > that". If you remove "the big picture is that" in my 2nd version, how is "altogether" rendered? Besides, "the big picture is that" seems to be
> > > > > > commonly used by native speakers.
> > > > > (Evidence?)
> > > > Again, evidence abounds. Besides, French doesn't have an equivalent of
> > > > the phrase.
> > > "Evidence abounds" would get you an F, or possibly a D, on a high school
> > > essay.
> >
> > Tell that to reporters of all major US and UK newspapers, who use
> > the phrase profusely. (In case you ask for examples, do the googling
> > yourself.)
>
> It's your claim. Support it.

"Evidence abounds that the Watergate scandals have damaged the Nixon
Presidency."

NYT

"Evidence abounds of fundamental changes in Germany's economic life"

WSJ

"From Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan, evidence abounds that the American
military project has failed.

Los Angeles Times

"From educational programs to rebuilt gyms, evidence abounds of James'
love for hometown."

USA Today

"On top of this, anecdotal evidence abounds of verbal and physical abuse
in detention centres."

The Guardian

"As usual, evidence abounds of the Queen’s admirable thrift and lack of
interest in her surroundings, as evinced by the hideous green-on-green
colour scheme."

Daily Mail

"Evidence abounds of the chilling effect of redefining marriage on
individuals, businesses, religious educational, or medical institutions."

Daily Telegraph

"Evidence abounds of Jones's ability to wipe the smirk off the face of
anybody who underestimates him."

The Times

Etc.

>
> You may even be misinterpreting what they wrote.

How so?

>
> > > > > There is no need to "render" "altogether" because it has no function to
> > > > > perform in the sentence.
> > > > But the author of the original sentence, not I, used it in the first place.
> > > And was rightly called out for it by the originator of the thread.
> > > > > I can't think what French word you're trying to render with "altogether."
> > > > "Tout bien considéré", for instance, would be a suitable fit.
> > > "all in all,
> > > "taking everything into consideration"
> >
> > The very definition /lexico.com/ gives for "altogether"
> > above!!! - QED.
>
> I don't know what "lexico.com"'s bona fides are. Where did it study
> lexicography? How extensive are its citation files?
>
> > > Google Translate offers "all things considered," which is a cliché.
> > > "altogether" simply DOES NOT MEAN THAT.
> >
> > Wrong, as shown by world-renowned dictionaries, which all list that sense
> > without mentioning it's not current usage.
>
> Right. "World-renowned" lexico.com, whatever that is.

Do you also not trust the AHD?:

"3. On the whole; with everything considered: Altogether, I'm sorry it
happened."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Altogether

or Collins Dictionary?:

"4. adverb
You can use altogether to introduce a summary of what you have been
saying.

Altogether, it was a delightful town garden, peaceful and secluded.
Synonyms: on the whole, generally, mostly, in general"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/altogether

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:03:14 GMT, bebe...@aol.com wrote:

> Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 23:17:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:49:45 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com
>> wrote:
>> > Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 21:39:31 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit
>  :
>> > > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:59:51 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com
>> > > wrote
>:
>> > > > Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 20:24:33 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écr
> it :
>> > > > > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:12:48 PM UTC-4,
>> > > > > bebe...@aol.com w
> rote:
>> > > > > > Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 19:51:21 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a

>> > > > > > Ã
> ©crit :

>> > > > > > > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4,
>> > > > > > > bebe...@aol.c
> om wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Le samedi 5 octobre 2019 10:57:03 UTC+2,
>> > > > > > > > arthu...@gmail.com
> a écrit :
>> > > > > > > > > 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not
>> > > > > > > > > depicti
> ng any action; he is
>> > > > > > > > > not relating anything altogether.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Source:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > https://tinyurl.com/yyyxf6yd
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=yXDpAvMsd4QC&pg=PA7
> 1&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0K
> HWcMCmYQ6AEwB3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > ================

Didn't I ask you to snip?
No? well here's a reminder.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

[CDB]

On 10/7/2019 2:59 PM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>> bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>>>> bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> arthu...@gmail.com a écrit :

>>>>>> 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not
>>>>>> depicting any action; he is not relating anything
>>>>>> altogether.

>>>>>> Source:

>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yyyxf6yd

>>>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=yXDpAvMsd4QC&pg=PA71&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwB3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=false

=================

>>>>>> 2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly
>>>>>> speaking. able to annihilate anything altogether.

>>>>>> Source:

>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yyok6sbb

>>>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=hv07AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22anything+altogether%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyJXn3YTlAhVOOq0KHWcMCmYQ6AEwBXoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=%22anything%20altogether%22&f=fal

Arthur:

According to the GB page you linked (1) to, the OS was written in
Lithuanian by "Arvydas Šliogeris" and translated into English by
"Robertas Beinartas". It seems possible that neither of them is a
native speaker of English. It would be risky to take that text as a
model in discussing the finer points of English usage.

Gooboo resisted my attempts to learn about the editor of the second book.

I think I have seen the word used that way in Irish English, to mean
something like "entirely" ("I've been walking all day and I'm desthroyed
altogether"), but it's only a fragmentary memory; I can't say it wasn't
stage Irish. I agree that the OP use of "altogether" isn't idiomatic
standard English.

>> I can't think what French word you're trying to render with
>> "altogether."

> "Tout bien considéré", for instance, would be a suitable fit.

[I requote:

1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any action;
he is not relating anything altogether.

2) First, because God is neither willing, nor, properly speaking. able

to annihilate anything altogether.]

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that both OP examples, now taking
refuge in the rafters, place "altogether" at the end of the sentence. I
would say (subject to correction) that a French equivalent, in a
statement of negative polarity, might be "du tout" -- as Arthur said in
the context of the English version when he suggested "at all".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:03:18 AM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> Le lundi 7 octobre 2019 23:17:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:49:45 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:

> > > Do expert lexicographers really need to give references for such a
> > > trivial sentence? Do you really think the sentence is impossible?
> > Yes. Have you never looked at the OED,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have access to it.
>
> > or the French Academy's equivalent?
>
> And for good reason: apparently, there's none.

They've only been working on it for centuries.

I'm done with this.

[Peter Moylan]

On 05/10/19 18:57, arthu...@gmail.com wrote:

> 1) The painter is not telling any stories, is not depicting any
> action; he is not relating anything altogether.

[...]

> I think in the above sentences 'altogether' can be replaced with 'at
> all'. Would you agree with that?

I think I've said this before, but just to emphasise:

In sentence 1, "at all" would be correct, and "altogether" is altogether
the wrong word. The writer (or translator) made a mistake and picked an
inappropriate word.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 09:57:11 -0700, David Kleinecke wrote:

[...]

> I am reminded of Dunsany's story where the gods punished a sinner by
> making it so that he never existed at all.

And I am pleased to find someone sufficiently familiar with Dunsany to
remember that. He seems rather a lost author these days.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[RH Draney]

Perhaps the gods are punishing him....r

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/10/19 03:57, David Kleinecke wrote:
>
> I am reminded of Dunsany's story where the gods punished a sinner by
> making it so that he never existed at all.

I am still trying to decide whether that is really a punishment.

Someone who is imprisoned, or put in the stocks, or given ten lashes, or
even just fined, suffers from the punishment.

Someone who never existed doesn't suffer at all.

[Peter T. Daniels]

With good reason.

In the early 1970s Lin Carter seems to have been given free rein to
reprint hoary fiction that the publisher thought might appeal to the
newly discovered Tolkien fan base. The only one of that whole bunch
that was even readable -- but then, very much so -- was James Branch
Cabell (rhymes with rabble in a bit of doggerel he wrote). Unfortunately
the load of dross in the series was so heavy that it soon disappeared
and Cabell's whole Biography of the Life of Manuel was not reprinted.
I had to seek out the originals in usedbook stores (there was a trade
edition and then a complete, numbered set) and never did amass a whole
set. By now, trying on-line sources would probably yield prohibitive
prices.

[Katy Jennison]

Well, each to their taste, but it was Lin Carter who republished the
lovely 'Lud-in-the-Mist' by Hope Mirrlees, wasn't it? And other gems I
enjoyed at the time, including Lord Dunsany's.

--
Katy Jennison

[Lewis]

In message <qnn8e2$b1$3...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/10/19 03:57, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>> I am reminded of Dunsany's story where the gods punished a sinner by
>> making it so that he never existed at all.

> I am still trying to decide whether that is really a punishment.

> Someone who is imprisoned, or put in the stocks, or given ten lashes, or
> even just fined, suffers from the punishment.

> Someone who never existed doesn't suffer at all.

The sure knowledge that everything they did was wiped away and nothing
they ever did had any impact or effect? Sounds pretty bad to me.

--
You know a thorn can main / But a lover does the same / A gem will
reflect light / And a Fool will marvel at the sight / A fool such as me,
/Who sees not the gold, but the beauty of the shine

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:33:05 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 08/10/19 03:57, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>> I am reminded of Dunsany's story where the gods punished a sinner by
>> making it so that he never existed at all.
>
>I am still trying to decide whether that is really a punishment.
>
>Someone who is imprisoned, or put in the stocks, or given ten lashes, or
>even just fined, suffers from the punishment.
>
>Someone who never existed doesn't suffer at all.

Someone who has never existed has not done anything punishable.

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

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:45:10 AM UTC-6, Lewis wrote:
> In message <qnn8e2$b1$3...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> > On 08/10/19 03:57, David Kleinecke wrote:
> >>
> >> I am reminded of Dunsany's story where the gods punished a sinner by
> >> making it so that he never existed at all.
>
> > I am still trying to decide whether that is really a punishment.
>
> > Someone who is imprisoned, or put in the stocks, or given ten lashes, or
> > even just fined, suffers from the punishment.
>
> > Someone who never existed doesn't suffer at all.
>
> The sure knowledge that everything they did was wiped away and nothing
> they ever did had any impact or effect? Sounds pretty bad to me.

But they don't have that knowledge, because they don't exist.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

That, I haven't heard of. I wonder whether some titles were country-
limited (even possibly limited by copyright restrictions).

It was from that series that I discovered that William Morris's attempt(s)
at the Medieval Romance genre were utter failures when seen only as prose
and without the typography and decoration.

[Peter T. Daniels]

And they didn't "ever did" anything, so there was no "impact or effect."

The non-birth of an artist (any kind of artist) is more tragic than the
non-birth of a scientist, because probably anything involving the inves-
tigation of Nature will probably get done anyway (notice how, so often,
more than one person independently makes some significant advance), but
no two artists will come up with the same art creations.

[David Kleinecke]

I think the last time I looked Abe Books was offering
complete Storisend editions for around $800. My usual sources
fail me and I am unsure how "Storisend" is spelled and how
many volumes there are (13?). I decided to stay content with
my Dover "Jurgen".

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:07:51 +0100, Katy Jennison wrote:

> On 10/10/2019 14:32, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Eric Walker wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 09:57:11 -0700, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>>>> I am reminded of Dunsany's story where the gods punished a sinner by
>>>> making it so that he never existed at all.
>>>
>>> And I am pleased to find someone sufficiently familiar with Dunsany to
>>> remember that. He seems rather a lost author these days.
>>
>> With good reason.
>>
>> In the early 1970s Lin Carter seems to have been given free rein to
>> reprint hoary fiction that the publisher thought might appeal to the
>> newly discovered Tolkien fan base. The only one of that whole bunch
>> that was even readable -- but then, very much so -- was James Branch
>> Cabell (rhymes with rabble in a bit of doggerel he wrote).
>> Unfortunately the load of dross in the series was so heavy that it soon
>> disappeared and Cabell's whole Biography of the Life of Manuel was not
>> reprinted.
>> I had to seek out the originals in usedbook stores (there was a trade
>> edition and then a complete, numbered set) and never did amass a whole
>> set. By now, trying on-line sources would probably yield prohibitive
>> prices.

A complete Storisende edition, signed and numbered, pages mostly still
uncut, cost me only $600 just a very few years ago. I consider it money
very well spent.

> Well, each to their taste, but it was Lin Carter who republished the
> lovely 'Lud-in-the-Mist' by Hope Mirrlees, wasn't it? And other gems I
> enjoyed at the time, including Lord Dunsany's.

Yes, it was: a terrible author but a good editor.

He did include a few clunkers--mostly modern stuff, not a little his own
work--but all in all the series was magnificent. Just to name the more
outstanding authors (besides Dunsany and Cabell and Mirrlees): Eric
Eddison; Mervyn Peake; David Lindsay; Peter S. Beagle; William Morris;
George MacDonald; William Hope Hodgson; William Beckford; George
Meredith; G. K. Chesterton; F. Marion Crawford; Ernest Bramah; Arthur
Machen; and Ludovico Ariosto.

There is a case for some merit in a few of the other authors included,
such as Fletcher Pratt, L. Sprague de Camp, Hannes Bok, possibly even
Clark Ashton Smith.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[bil...@shaw.ca]

What would be a good name for this genre? It needs something more
than SF and/or fantasy.

bill

[Katy Jennison]

The series, or collection, was Ballantine Adult Fantasy; but 'adult' is
likely to be misconstrued today. If someone referred to it as the Lin
Carter series, I'd assume that this was what they meant (and not his own
books).

--
Katy Jennison

[Peter T. Daniels]

Storisende ... a usedbook store in Chicago had a set for $150 for the
longest time -- finally, I decided to buy it just before I left, in
1997, and when I went back for it, it had just been sold.

Several volumes of it came from the Chicago Public Library discards-
and-donations shop, where _every_ book went for $1. Unfortunately they
marked the price "$1" in Sharpie on the flyleaf of every book. One or
two others came from now long-gone usedbook stores in Manhattan, where
usually the only Cabell volume available was the trade edition of
*Jurgen* (which achieved inexplicable notoriety for inexplicably being
briefly banned for obscenity).

(The NYPL also had/has such a shop, but there they have a better sense
of what books are actually worth.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Quite a mixture of genres there. I referred only to the ones that were
aimed at the Tolkien audience.

MacDonald was read to us in fourth grade or so, so I didn't need a
trade paperback to be introduced to one of the Inklings' favorite
forerunners.

Chesterton's Father Brown stories were not his only unreadable products.
I tried several others in various genres, including "theology."

[Peter T. Daniels]

That isn't a single genre.

Recall that they were the authorized US publishers of Tolkien's paperback
(as opposed to the pirated Ace edition -- whose main claim to fame seems
to have been a great deal of Edgar Rice Burroughs reprints -- but
Ballantine also had the Mars series).

[Lewis]

In message <qnp19e$rlk$2...@dont-email.me> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:07:51 +0100, Katy Jennison wrote:
>> it was Lin Carter who republished the lovely 'Lud-in-the-Mist' by
>> Hope Mirrlees, wasn't it?

> Yes, it was: a terrible author but a good editor.

> He did include...

Funny, it never occurred to me Lin Carter was a man.

--
'It's a lovely morning, lads,' he said. 'I feel like a million dollars.
Don't you?' There was a murmur of reluctant agreement. 'Good,' said
Cohen. 'Let's go and get some.' --Interesting Times

[RH Draney]

On 10/11/2019 6:08 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <qnp19e$rlk$2...@dont-email.me> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:07:51 +0100, Katy Jennison wrote:
>>> it was Lin Carter who republished the lovely 'Lud-in-the-Mist' by
>>> Hope Mirrlees, wasn't it?
>
>> Yes, it was: a terrible author but a good editor.
>
>> He did include...
>
> Funny, it never occurred to me Lin Carter was a man.

How about the composer of "Hamilton"?...r

[Lewis]

Well, I know who he is and have seen him, and pretty much learned his
name when I learned who he was (it was when he performed a song about
a little known personality (but a personal hero of mine) from American
History for President Obama for a musical he was working on).

Lin Carter was just a name in a "Edited by Lin Carter" line on a book. I
also didn't know he was an author.

--
'You don't think you've had enough, do you?' he said. I KNOW WHEN I'VE
HAD ENOUGH. 'Everyone says that, though. I KNOW WHEN EVERYONE'S HAD
ENOUGH. --Moving Pictures

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:13:23 -0700, billvan wrote:

[...]

> What would be a good name for this genre? It needs something more than
> SF and/or fantasy.

The upscale phrase is "speculative fiction". Many serious writers of
such work take umbrage at the very idea of "genres", which they feel--
rightly, I believe--is a way for the soi disant literati to put them in
what Robert Silverberg famously referred to as "the ghetto".

As M. John Harrison has noted (but I can't find the exact words quickly),
all works of fiction share the quality that they describe imaginary
things.



--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, that's a point that escaped the prosecutor in the obscenity trial
in the UK over Lady Chatterley's Lover. He complained that the events
portrayed in the book didn't happen. Bernard Levin later set him
straight by making the point that you've just made.


--
athel