Plural for Amish
Haluk Skywalker
I'm translating an article on Amish Community in US. Is there a plural for
word Amish? Amishes perhaps?
Thanks,
Haluk
dimestore
Haluk Skywalker
yazdı:qD%rb.19089$8x2.7...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> Amish
thanks.
Eric Walker
>I'm translating an article on Amish Community in US. Is there
>a plural for word Amish? Amishes perhaps?
There is no plural form: "the Amish" serves, or "the Amish X",
where X is a noun such as "people" or "folk".
The term derives from the name of one Jacob Ammann (also
sometimes rendered Jacob Amen), founder of that particular
Mennonite sect.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Tsu Dho Nimh
>Hi,
>
>I'm translating an article on Amish Community in US. Is there a plural for
>word Amish?
No. It's like buffalo ... One Amish, five Amish, 500 Amish
Tsu Dho Nimh
--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.
Evertjan.
> "Haluk Skywalker" <yokoo...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm translating an article on Amish Community in US. Is there a plural
>>for word Amish?
>
> No. It's like buffalo ... One Amish, five Amish, 500 Amish
Still shoot them, overthere ?
500 buffalo, five buffalo, one buffalo, and then there were none.
500 Amish, five Amish, ...
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns943086E8...@194.109.133.29...
The number of buffalo has increased enough that they are again a reliable
source for meat: You can buy frozen buffalo burgers in the supermarkets here
in Minneapolis. (And that's the term used for the meat, "buffalo," not
"bison.")
The Amish have thrived here in America more than anyplace else. I don't know
if there are even any Amish left in Europe. I rather doubt it, since they
were fleeing, among other things, conscription into the armed services there
and they are very strong pacifists. I am originally from Illinois, one of
the states with the largest population of Amish, and there are communities
of Amish here in Minnesota as well.
Among the limited number of names of nationalities or ethnicities to which
the suffixes "-man" and "-woman" have been appended is "Amishman" and
"Amishwoman." However, that is now dated, and most people speak of an "Amish
man" or "Amish woman" and "the Amish" for the plural form.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Michael Ford
"Tsu Dho Nimh" <tsudh...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:e8i1rvkvk6h60lejh...@4ax.com...
> "Haluk Skywalker" <yokoo...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm translating an article on Amish Community in US. Is there a plural
for
> >word Amish?
>
> No. It's like buffalo ... One Amish, five Amish, 500 Amish
Buffaloes is an acceptable plural of buffalo.
Amish on the other hand is a plural noun.
Christopher Green
[snip]
> The Amish have thrived here in America more than anyplace else. I don't know
> if there are even any Amish left in Europe. I rather doubt it, since they
> were fleeing, among other things, conscription into the armed services there
> and they are very strong pacifists. I am originally from Illinois, one of
> the states with the largest population of Amish, and there are communities
> of Amish here in Minnesota as well.
>
> Among the limited number of names of nationalities or ethnicities to which
> the suffixes "-man" and "-woman" have been appended is "Amishman" and
> "Amishwoman." However, that is now dated, and most people speak of an "Amish
> man" or "Amish woman" and "the Amish" for the plural form.
The Amish don't exist as a distinct group in Europe, but the reason is
that the European Amish eventually reconciled with the Mennonite
community. There are maybe 48,000 Mennonites in Europe, largely in
Germany, where they remain well organized (2003 statistics of the
Mennonite World Council).
--
Chris Green
Haluk Skywalker
yazdı:boqv69$m1s$3...@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Well, I'm confused now. What's the singular than?
Einde O'Callaghan
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Marc
>> Amish on the other hand is a plural noun.
>
> Well, I'm confused now. What's the singular than?
Amish
--
Marc Lombart 12/11/2003 11:54:10 http://www.marcmywords.com
'When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you.' - Chuck Norris
Marc
>>>Amish on the other hand is a plural noun.
>>
>>
>> Well, I'm confused now. What's the singular than?
>>
>>
> One Amish, two Amish, many Amish.
Just like, one sheep, two sheep, many sheep.
--
Marc Lombart 12/11/2003 11:54:43 http://www.marcmywords.com
Harlan Messinger
"Haluk Skywalker" <yokoo...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:boq0be$1gt7l3$1...@ID-201738.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hi,
>
> I'm translating an article on Amish Community in US. Is there a plural for
> word Amish? Amishes perhaps?
I haven't looked at every response you've received, but one detail I haven't
seen is this: one uses "Amish" as a noun general or abstract uses, as in
"The Amish live in their own communities" or "I don't know much about the
Amish. But to refer to one or more individuals, one ordinarily uses it only
as an adjective: that Amish person, those Amish people.
Lots of national designations are like this, except they involve separate
discrete and mass forms:
one Brit, two Brits, the British
one Englishman, two Englishmen, the English
one Frenchman, two Frenchmen, the French
one Japanese person, two Japanese people, the Japanese
one Spaniard, two Spaniards, the Spanish
one Swiss person, two Swiss people, the Swiss
But note you can't make generalizations:
one Swede, two Swedes, the Swedes ("the Swedish" doesn't sound right to
me,
even though "Swedish" is the adjectival form)
Steve M (remove wax for reply)
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Lots of national designations are like this, except they involve separate
>discrete and mass forms:
>
> one Brit, two Brits, the British
> one Englishman, two Englishmen, the English
> one Frenchman, two Frenchmen, the French
> one Japanese person, two Japanese people, the Japanese
> one Spaniard, two Spaniards, the Spanish
> one Swiss person, two Swiss people, the Swiss
This reminds me ... a few years ago I read that some residents of the
new Czech Republic were in a quandary because there is no one-word
name for their country, and they felt they needed one.
The Dominican Republic would appear to have a similar "problem", but
they don't seem very concerned. I have heard Dominicans talk about
"visiting the Dominican", but "going to the Czech" apparently hasn't
caught on.
Has the Czechs made any progress? Are there any informal names in
use?
--
Steve M - uns...@houston.rrwax.com
remove wax for reply
Harlan Messinger
"Steve M (remove wax for reply)" <uns...@houston.rrwax.com> wrote in message
news:vdu4rv0ae172213rj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:05:25 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Lots of national designations are like this, except they involve separate
> >discrete and mass forms:
> >
> > one Brit, two Brits, the British
> > one Englishman, two Englishmen, the English
> > one Frenchman, two Frenchmen, the French
> > one Japanese person, two Japanese people, the Japanese
> > one Spaniard, two Spaniards, the Spanish
> > one Swiss person, two Swiss people, the Swiss
>
> This reminds me ... a few years ago I read that some residents of the
> new Czech Republic were in a quandary because there is no one-word
> name for their country, and they felt they needed one.
They do? They should talk to their government, which has stood in the way of
us calling it "Czechia". Yet they favor the Germans with "Tchechei"!
>
> The Dominican Republic would appear to have a similar "problem", but
> they don't seem very concerned. I have heard Dominicans talk about
> "visiting the Dominican", but "going to the Czech" apparently hasn't
> caught on.
Easy to confuse the Dominican Republic with Dominica, though.
Einde O'Callaghan
> "Steve M (remove wax for reply)" <uns...@houston.rrwax.com> wrote in message
> news:vdu4rv0ae172213rj...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:05:25 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
>><h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Lots of national designations are like this, except they involve separate
>>>discrete and mass forms:
>>>
>>> one Brit, two Brits, the British
>>> one Englishman, two Englishmen, the English
>>> one Frenchman, two Frenchmen, the French
>>> one Japanese person, two Japanese people, the Japanese
>>> one Spaniard, two Spaniards, the Spanish
>>> one Swiss person, two Swiss people, the Swiss
>>
>>This reminds me ... a few years ago I read that some residents of the
>>new Czech Republic were in a quandary because there is no one-word
>>name for their country, and they felt they needed one.
>
>
> They do? They should talk to their government, which has stood in the way of
> us calling it "Czechia". Yet they favor the Germans with "Tchechei"!
>
specifically to prevent it being called "die Techechei", a name with
very bitter historical memories.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
P.S. I've restricted follow-up to sci.lang.translation
meirman
wax for reply)" <uns...@houston.rrwax.com> posted:
I believe so, sort of. The new name will be the Czech and Dominican
Republic. The countries plan to merge in 2008.
> Are there any informal names in
>use?
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
Einde O'Callaghan
> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:22:00 GMT "Steve M (remove
> wax for reply)" <uns...@houston.rrwax.com> posted:
>
>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:05:25 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
>><h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Lots of national designations are like this, except they involve separate
>>>discrete and mass forms:
>>>
>>> one Brit, two Brits, the British
>>> one Englishman, two Englishmen, the English
>>> one Frenchman, two Frenchmen, the French
>>> one Japanese person, two Japanese people, the Japanese
>>> one Spaniard, two Spaniards, the Spanish
>>> one Swiss person, two Swiss people, the Swiss
>>
>>This reminds me ... a few years ago I read that some residents of the
>>new Czech Republic were in a quandary because there is no one-word
>>name for their country, and they felt they needed one.
>>
>>The Dominican Republic would appear to have a similar "problem", but
>>they don't seem very concerned. I have heard Dominicans talk about
>>"visiting the Dominican", but "going to the Czech" apparently hasn't
>>caught on.
>>
>>Has the Czechs made any progress?
>
>
> I believe so, sort of. The new name will be the Czech and Dominican
> Republic. The countries plan to merge in 2008.
>
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Steve M (remove wax for reply)
<einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
>> I believe so, sort of. The new name will be the Czech and Dominican
>> Republic. The countries plan to merge in 2008.
>>
>Wouldn't Czechodominica be a better name? ;-)
I like the ring of Dominiczech.
Haluk Skywalker
yazdi:botsp6$1iq96k$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thank you for pointing this important detail out. You've been most helpful.
Best Regards,
Haluk
Haluk Skywalker
Michael Ford
"Einde O'Callaghan" <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote in message
news:boti1e$1hockr$8...@ID-93601.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>Amish on the other hand is a plural noun.
> >
> >
> > Well, I'm confused now. What's the singular than?
> >
> >
> One Amish, two Amish, many Amish.
>
I don't like the sound of that.
I would use:
One member of the Amish community.
Two members of the Amish community.
The Amish
With plural nouns, I always think of rice.
I wouldn't say one rice, two rice.
I'd say one grain of rice, etc.
Haluk Skywalker
Substituting literal "Two Amish" in the source text with "Two Members of
Amish Community" in the *translation* is not appropriate. Translators don't
have much freedom on the words chosen.
Schultz
> > One Amish, two Amish, many Amish.
> >
>
> I don't like the sound of that.
> I would use:
> One member of the Amish community.
I don't think you'd do that for long. It would get pretty
tiresome and silly-sounding.
It reminds me of Sony Corporation's answer when asked what is the
plural of Walkman. They claimed the plural is "Sony Walkman
Personal Stereos."
Uh-huh. Like hell it is.
\\P. Schultz
Schultz
>
> Substituting literal "Two Amish" in the source text with "Two Members of
> Amish Community" in the *translation* is not appropriate. Translators don't
> have much freedom on the words chosen.
Yes they do. In fact, they have total freedom.
If the original text sounds normal and the translation sounds
silly, then it's a bad translation.
\\P. Schultz
Eric Walker
[...]
>They do? They should talk to their government, which has stood
>in the way of us calling it "Czechia". . . .
. . . our calling it . . . .
Genitive with gerund.
meirman
O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:22:00 GMT "Steve M (remove
>> wax for reply)" <uns...@houston.rrwax.com> posted:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>This reminds me ... a few years ago I read that some residents of the
>>>new Czech Republic were in a quandary because there is no one-word
>>>name for their country, and they felt they needed one.
>>>
>>>The Dominican Republic would appear to have a similar "problem", but
>>>they don't seem very concerned. I have heard Dominicans talk about
>>>"visiting the Dominican", but "going to the Czech" apparently hasn't
>>>caught on.
>>>
>>>Has the Czechs made any progress?
>>
>>
>> I believe so, sort of. The new name will be the Czech and Dominican
>> Republic. The countries plan to merge in 2008.
>>
>Wouldn't Czechodominica be a better name? ;-)
Yes, I think so. I'll take it up with the ambassadors at our next
meeting.
After Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and ??, and I think one other, this
will be the first paired country to span two continents. It's a big
move.
>Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:33:42 -0500, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>They do? They should talk to their government, which has stood
>>in the way of us calling it "Czechia". . . .
>
>
> . . . our calling it . . . .
>
> Genitive with gerund.
>
>
in non-formal English.
I realise that this is probably a red rag to a bull to some people in
aeu, butg I'm safely ensconced in slt. Follow-ups to slt only.
Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:11:35 +0100 Einde
> O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> posted:
>
>
>>meirman wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:22:00 GMT "Steve M (remove
>>>wax for reply)" <uns...@houston.rrwax.com> posted:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This reminds me ... a few years ago I read that some residents of the
>>>>new Czech Republic were in a quandary because there is no one-word
>>>>name for their country, and they felt they needed one.
>>>>
>>>>The Dominican Republic would appear to have a similar "problem", but
>>>>they don't seem very concerned. I have heard Dominicans talk about
>>>>"visiting the Dominican", but "going to the Czech" apparently hasn't
>>>>caught on.
>>>>
>>>>Has the Czechs made any progress?
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe so, sort of. The new name will be the Czech and Dominican
>>>Republic. The countries plan to merge in 2008.
>>>
>>
>>Wouldn't Czechodominica be a better name? ;-)
>
>
> Yes, I think so. I'll take it up with the ambassadors at our next
> meeting.
>
> After Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and ??, and I think one other, this
> will be the first paired country to span two continents. It's a big
> move.
>
(made up of Egypt - in Africa - and Syria - in Asia)? It didn't last too
long, but I don't think thatt had much to do with it (or maybe even
"its") being on two continents. ;-)
Regards, Einde
Robert Lieblich
I put AEU back in, Einde. That's where Eric and I both are, and
this issue is our meat and potatoes.
As to the substance, this is a Pondian difference. Americans are
much more likely than other English speakers to use the genitive in
this construction. H.W. Fowler was vehement in opposition to the
form
"us calling it," which he labeled a "fused participle" and sought to
extirpate from the language. Jerpersen called him a crank (on this
issue, anyway), and in the lightly revised (by Ernest Gowers) second
edition of 1965, Gowers comments that Fowler probably went too far.
He quoted several fused participles that each sounded better than
any plausible alternative.
I'm American. I'd say and write "our calling it." "Us calling it"
sounds weird to me -- but then, so do lots of other British usages.
--
Bob Lieblich
NBD
Eric Walker
[...]
>As to the substance, this is a Pondian difference. Americans
>are much more likely than other English speakers to use the
>genitive in this construction. H.W. Fowler was vehement in
>opposition to the form "us calling it," which he labeled a
>"fused participle" and sought to extirpate from the language.
>Jerpersen called him a crank (on this issue, anyway), and in
>the lightly revised (by Ernest Gowers) second edition of 1965,
>Gowers comments that Fowler probably went too far. He quoted
>several fused participles that each sounded better than any
>plausible alternative. . . .
It is not hard to conjure instances in which the required form
is awkward, sometimes to the point of practical impossibility:
"The eggs were shipped without one being broken"; "He wouldn't
hear of that happening"; or this classic (like the others,
taken from Bernstein's 3½-page dissertation on the subject, a
*very* long article for Bernstein), "The cry of outrage over
girls as young as thirteen years old plunging to their deaths
from windows of the burning building has never been stilled."
But that does not excuse the omission. A gerund is
functionally a noun. We would not write of "us pleasure at us
finally acquiring a real sports car." If we cannot stomach
that first "us", why is the second supposed to be digestible?
We are not at an impasse. When grammatical necessity clashes
with felicity or plain practicality, we--as always in such
matters[1]--simply recast and avoid the dreaded problem.
The eggs were shipped without any breakage whatever.
He wouldn't hear of any such happening.
Girls as young as thirteen years old plunged to their deaths
from windows of the burning building; the consequent cry
of outrage has never been stilled.
Meanwhile, we continue to use the genitive whenever it _is_
practicable, which is most of the time.
[1] As with "a number . . . are".
Einde O'Callaghan
just isn't native to my particular diiolect or variety of english. It
often sounds incredibly pompous and formal to me.
REgards, Einde O'Callaghan
Eric Walker
[...]
>I'm sorry. english just doesn't work like that. The genitive
>structure just isn't native to my particular diiolect or
>variety of english. It often sounds incredibly pompous and
>formal to me.
Your holding the opinion that it sounds unusual has little
significance to most people's speaking and writing. (Or should
that be "to most people speaking and writing"?) At any rate,
it does not affect how English does work, so you needn't feel
sorry after all.
Einde O'Callaghan
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:26:33 +0100, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I'm sorry. english just doesn't work like that. The genitive
>>structure just isn't native to my particular diiolect or
>>variety of english. It often sounds incredibly pompous and
>>formal to me.
>
>
> Your holding the opinion that it sounds unusual has little
> significance to most people's speaking and writing. (Or should
> that be "to most people speaking and writing"?)
No, that's fine - they are functioning as nouns.
> At any rate,
> it does not affect how English does work, so you needn't feel
> sorry after all.
I was simply apoligising for teh fact that I have to contradict your
rather dogmatic opinion by pointing out that my experience as a native
speaker of the language contradicts your assertion.
I was being polite - but this seems to escape some of the participants
in aeu - which is why I gave up participating in the constant flamewars
there - they're basically boring.
Again, follow-up to aeu, as i seem to be the only one in slt
participating in thie thread now and I'm getting out now.
Einde O'Callaghan
Carmen L. Abruzzi
rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net, "Eric Walker"
<ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:26:33 +0100, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I'm sorry. english just doesn't work like that. The genitive
>> structure just isn't native to my particular diiolect or
>> variety of english. It often sounds incredibly pompous and
>> formal to me.
>
> Your holding the opinion that it sounds unusual has little
> significance to most people's speaking and writing. (Or should
> that be "to most people speaking and writing"?) At any rate,
> it does not affect how English does work, so you needn't feel
> sorry after all.
>
Eric, do you truly believe that a response such as yours above helps to
preserve civilization against current encroachments of barbarism?
John Woodgate
wrote (in <rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net>)
about 'Word for Czech Republic, was Re: Plural for Amish', on Thu, 13
Nov 2003:
>We are not at an impasse. When grammatical necessity clashes with
>felicity or plain practicality, we--as always in such matters[1]--simply
>recast and avoid the dreaded problem.
But 'grammatical necessity' is a purely artificial construct. Consider
instead that those meticulously-created grammatical rules simply don't
fit in all cases with how people actually use the words, and conclude
that the rules, not the people or the words, need attention.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Alan Crozier
news:U7$gIIAeQJt$Ew...@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
> I read in sci.lang.translation that Eric Walker <ewa...@owlcroft.com>
> wrote (in <rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.individual.net>)
> about 'Word for Czech Republic, was Re: Plural for Amish', on Thu, 13
> Nov 2003:
> >We are not at an impasse. When grammatical necessity clashes with
> >felicity or plain practicality, we--as always in such matters[1]--simply
> >recast and avoid the dreaded problem.
>
> But 'grammatical necessity' is a purely artificial construct. Consider
> instead that those meticulously-created grammatical rules simply don't
> fit in all cases with how people actually use the words, and conclude
> that the rules, not the people or the words, need attention.
Well said, John
Alan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
Harlan Messinger
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:58:19 -0500, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>As to the substance, this is a Pondian difference. Americans
>>are much more likely than other English speakers to use the
>>genitive in this construction. H.W. Fowler was vehement in
>>opposition to the form "us calling it," which he labeled a
>>"fused participle" and sought to extirpate from the language.
>>Jerpersen called him a crank (on this issue, anyway), and in
>>the lightly revised (by Ernest Gowers) second edition of 1965,
>>Gowers comments that Fowler probably went too far. He quoted
>>several fused participles that each sounded better than any
>>plausible alternative. . . .
>
>It is not hard to conjure instances in which the required form
>is awkward, sometimes to the point of practical impossibility:
>"The eggs were shipped without one being broken"; "He wouldn't
>hear of that happening"; or this classic (like the others,
>taken from Bernstein's 3½-page dissertation on the subject, a
>*very* long article for Bernstein), "The cry of outrage over
>girls as young as thirteen years old plunging to their deaths
>from windows of the burning building has never been stilled."
Some would find the fact that these sentences work this way
demonstrates that this *is* a valid construction that happens to be
different from the model you're using to parse my sentence.
>
>But that does not excuse the omission. A gerund is
>functionally a noun.
So then it's not a gerund in my usage. A different analysis is
required. A different term. Just as we can have both metaphors *and*
similes, subtle though the difference between them may be.
>We would not write of "us pleasure at us
>finally acquiring a real sports car." If we cannot stomach
>that first "us", why is the second supposed to be digestible?
>
>We are not at an impasse. When grammatical necessity clashes
>with felicity or plain practicality, we--as always in such
>matters[1]--simply recast and avoid the dreaded problem.
Another alternative is to recognize that English is under no
obligation to remain wedged into the Latin-based model that some have
thrust upon it.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Eric Walker
No. But neither do I believe, in this particular case, that
any other would either.
Flat assertions of "english [stet] just doesn't work like
that", and that one person's particular diiolect [stet] is a
yardstick for the tongue, and that what is widely--arguably
universally--accepted as sound English sounds to that one
person "incredibly pompous and formal" falls beyond my perhaps
limited ability to supply the soft answer that turneth away
wrath.
Mary Cassidy
Eric Walker wrote:
>
>
> Flat assertions of "english [stet] just doesn't work like
> that", and that one person's particular diiolect [stet] is a
> yardstick for the tongue, and that what is widely--arguably
> universally--accepted as sound English sounds to that one
> person "incredibly pompous and formal" falls beyond my perhaps
> limited ability to supply the soft answer that turneth away
> wrath.
By "stet", do you mean "sic"?
--
Mary
Eric Walker
>"Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
[...]
>>It is not hard to conjure instances in which the required
>>form is awkward, sometimes to the point of practical
>>impossibility: "The eggs were shipped without one being
>>broken"; "He wouldn't hear of that happening"; or this
>>lassic (like the others, taken from Bernstein's 3½-page
>>dissertation on the subject, a *very* long article for
>>Bernstein), "The cry of outrage over girls as young as
>>thirteen years old plunging to their deaths from windows of
>>the burning building has never been stilled."
>
>Some would find the fact that these sentences work this way
>demonstrates that this *is* a valid construction that happens
>to be different from the model you're using to parse my
>sentence.
And many would not. The sentences "work" in the same sense as
the sentence "I don't got none" works, or--to take a less
extreme case--"A number of men were approaching". They "work"
in that we can extract their meaning despite their being
irregular, which means simply out of conformance with what _is_
*regular*, "governed by rules".
>>But that does not excuse the omission. A gerund is
>>functionally a noun.
>
>So then it's not a gerund in my usage. A different analysis is
>required. A different term. Just as we can have both
>metaphors *and* similes, subtle though the difference between
>them may be.
Perhaps, then, you will supply us that analysis? Will explain
why and how the "being" in "His being away made her sad"
differs from the "being" in "The eggs were shipped without one
being broken"? Why is one a gerund and the other not? And if
that second is not--despite the overwhelming evidence that it
is--what then is it? And why has no one else to date seen it
as something distinct from a gerund?
[...]
>>We are not at an impasse. When grammatical necessity clashes
>>with felicity or plain practicality, we--as always in such
>>matters[1]--simply recast and avoid the dreaded problem.
>
>Another alternative is to recognize that English is under no
>obligation to remain wedged into the Latin-based model that
>some have thrust upon it.
That nonsense--on an intellectual par with "When are you going
to stop beating your wife?--is an almost-automatic disqualifier
from serious discourse on the subject. Unless you would care
to, as I invited above, explain to us a newer, better system
that justifies a thing's "being" as one kind of thing when it
makes a felicitous sentence and a grammatically other _kind_ of
thing when it makes an infelicitous sentence?
Grammar is a set of conventions, codes, that we use to make the
expression, the encoding, of our thought as reliable as we can
manage, which we do by scrupulously observing those codes at
both the sending and the receiving end. It contains no
promise, explicit or implicit, that a particular regular coding
must produce a gainly, felicitous sentence; that part is up to
the sender, and if she doesn't like the result yielded by
application of the rules to the particular casting she
selected, she selects a different casting--she doesn't instead
just unilaterally decide that the rules are all wrong.
Eric Walker
[...]
>But 'grammatical necessity' is a purely artificial construct.
>Consider instead that those meticulously-created grammatical
>rules simply don't fit in all cases with how people actually
>use the words, and conclude that the rules, not the people or
>the words, need attention.
Nonsense. As I have just said elsewhere on this thread,
grammar is a set of codes that we use to encode our meaning,
our expression of thought. Accuracy in communication is only
possible when the extant rules are scrupulously applied at both
the sending and the receiving end. The fact that an
irregularly coded message can sometimes, even often, be
deciphered despite the irregularity is immaterial.
Moreover, those codes are not and were, the wet dreams of the
intellectually lazy notwithstanding, dreamt up by nutcases in
ivory towers: they were, and to this hour are being, derived by
the authorities who publish them from scrupulous examination of
the actual way language is used in the real world. The points
of disagreement that arise, and they often arise heatedly, come
only from a disagreement over what population's use ought to be
surveyed for the purpose: those who have made it plain that
they have taken care to contemplate the matter and take care to
put the results of their ponderings into their work, or all the
lads down at the Dew Drop Inn.
Grammatical necessity is not an arbitrary phrase. It is
"necessity" if we want to maintain (much less augment) our
ability to place thoughts in the minds of others with precision
(much less elegance). The vocabulary of English changes
literally from hour to hour, as new things and ideas come into
the world and need new names, or old names turned to a new use.
Grammar, however, the way in which we assemble words to reach
meaning, needs to be a stable structure or we have Babel; it
can, does, and indeed must, evolve, but there is a world of
difference between evolution and revolution. We do not claim
that the known rules of grammar must be ignored and thrown out
in large or whole every time this one or that one comes up
unhappy about what they require in a particular instance.
The job of grammar to make the expression of our thought as
precise as possible; it is *not* the job of grammar to make our
expressions of our thought felicitous--that is _our_ job. And
grammar neither helps nor hinders that job, save to the lazy.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:59:07 -0500, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> >"Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> >> A gerund is functionally a noun.
> >
> >So then it's not a gerund in my usage. A different analysis is
> >required. A different term. Just as we can have both
> >metaphors *and* similes, subtle though the difference between
> >them may be.
>
> Perhaps, then, you will supply us that analysis? Will explain
> why and how the "being" in "His being away made her sad"
> differs from the "being" in "The eggs were shipped without one
> being broken"? Why is one a gerund and the other not? And if
> that second is not--despite the overwhelming evidence that it
> is--what then is it? And why has no one else to date seen it
> as something distinct from a gerund?
How about this? -- Both are gerunds. Gerunds have many qualities
of verbs. A verb form can take a subject. The subject of "being"
in the sentence about eggs is "one." Pronoun subjects of gerunds
happen to be in the objective case (at least when it differs from
the subjective), but we need a rule, and that's a rule.
I didn't make this up. With the loss of Xrefer and some other free
services, it's harder to find good stuff on the Web about this sort
of thing. But I have found it in usage books. And if I didn't have
to leave for dinner in a couple of minutes I could probably find it
again.
What I think you're saying about this construction, Eric (as
paraphrased by me), is: "People say it, people understand it, most
people find little or nothing wrong with it, but there has to be
some better way to get the message across." And yet there's
something to be said for leaving it alone and moving on, at least
when it serves the purposes and isn't glaring, which is, as I
recall, just about what Fowler (who hated the fused participle) said
about the split infinitive.
Well, we all know our respectable positions.[1] On to the next
topic.
[1] I'm sure Eric will spot the allusion.
--
Bob Lieblich
Ball four
Eric Walker
Could might. It's hard to write well with a red haze before
one's eyes. (Not an excuse, an explanation.)
Mary Cassidy
Eric Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:23:06 +0100, Mary Cassidy wrote:
>
> >By "stet", do you mean "sic"?
>
> Could might. It's hard to write well with a red haze before
> one's eyes. (Not an excuse, an explanation.)
:-))
--
Mary
Eric Walker
[...]
>What I think you're saying about this construction, Eric (as
>paraphrased by me), is: "People say it, people understand it,
>most people find little or nothing wrong with it, but there
>has to be some better way to get the message across." And yet
>there's something to be said for leaving it alone and moving
>on, at least when it serves the purposes and isn't glaring,
>which is, as I recall, just about what Fowler (who hated the
>fused participle) said about the split infinitive.
Often, concerns about points of grammar can seem overpicky or
pedantic. The deeper concern with getting it right by a rule
that in itself is generally satisfactory is that the
alternative--in essence, tossing the rule out when it gives an
unwanted result that would take a moment's thought to amend--is
not so much a deep sin in itself as it is, as I have so often
said, corrosive.
Water, plain old clear drinkable water, is the closest thing
known to a universal solvent: given time, it can and will erode
almost anything. So with overcasual approaches to grammar: it
is not that this or that solecism will topple empires, it is
that letting it go with a pat on its head and a pinch of its
cheek has not only a corrosive effect on the general rule being
flouted, but--and more critical--a corrosive effect on the very
idea of regulation itself, of mutually intelligible coding of
our expressions of our thought. A trivial effect in any one
case? Drip, drip, drip . . . .
God knows that knowledge of sound English is scarce enough
these days--and much of that ignorance derives from contempt,
from "Who cares about that stuff?" When those who supposedly
have both knowledge of and concern for the tongue adopt the
attitude that solecisms are to be let go with a nod and a wink
so long as we can, in a particular case, extract the meaning,
one cannot help but be reminded[1] of the Biblical query "If
the gold shall rust, what shall the iron do?"
It's a blinkin' noun: if you want to associate it
"possessively" with a noun or pronoun, that noun or pronoun
needs to be in the genitive. The end. If the casting comes
out ugly, or practically impossible, so what? You just use a
_different casting_--you don't say, Well, running red lights is
A Bad Thing, but running *this* red light is OK. This might be
a new apothegm: Sound grammar doesn't guarantee sound language,
but unsound grammar guarantees unsound language.
[1] I believe comedians refer to such things as "callbacks".
Einde O'Callaghan
bad-tempered and vicious environment of aeu/aue - picking up on typos,
snide comments and general one-upmanship.
"Idiolect" was perhaps not the right word, but dialect is also
incorrect. I was referring to the variety of English which I learned in
my childhood - standard Irish English.
I should also have relativised the remark about pompousness to "often
sounds incredibly pompous and formal".
However, what I was objecting to was the balnket condemnation of the
object forms instead of possessives as some sort of inferior English,
when it is simply informal usage. Michael Swan comments: "In an informal
style is is more common to use object forms (like me, John) instead of
possessives (my, John's) with -ing forms, especially when these come
after a verb or preposition."
This fits exactly the usage I was defending "to us calling it Czechia",
which I stated was non-formal usage. robert Lieblich thought it was a
Ponidan thing, but IIRC Harlan Messinger, the "perpetrator" of teh
initail sentence is badsed in America.
Eric Walker, in what I take is his typical pompous manner, pontificated
majestically that: "A gerund is functionally a noun. We would not write
of 'us pleasure at us finally acquiring a real sports car." If we
cannot stomach that first 'us', why is the second supposed to be
digestible?"
And then continued pompously: "We are not at an impasse. When
grammatical necessity clashes with felicity or plain practicality,
we--as always in such matters[1]--simply recast and avoid the dreaded
problem."
It was this attitude that prompted me to reply angrily as I did.
To make it clear. I was objecting to the attempt to equate the first
"us" with the second one in his example, even though it is patently
obvious that the functuion of the first grammatically incorrect one is
radically different from the second one, where it is grammatically
acceptable in informal usage.
I still maintain that English just doesn't work the way that Eric Walker
would like it to. He is quite entitled to use his style, but he isn't
entitled to tell others that perfectly acceptable grammatical structures
are impermissible simploy because it is frowned upon by some style gurus.
Einde O'Callaghan
Eric Walker
[...]
>Eric Walker wrote:
[...]
>Eric Walker, in what I take is his typical pompous manner,
>pontificated majestically that: "A gerund is functionally a
>noun. We would not write of 'us pleasure at us finally
>acquiring a real sports car." If we cannot stomach that first
>'us', why is the second supposed to be digestible?"
Perhaps you would find a little trip to the dictionary helpful;
you could look up "pompous", "pontificate", and "gerund".
>And then continued pompously: "We are not at an impasse. When
>grammatical necessity clashes with felicity or plain
>practicality, we--as always in such matters[1]--simply recast
>and avoid the dreaded problem."
>
>It was this attitude that prompted me to reply angrily as I
>did.
Which attitude was that? That we should observe the usages of
grammar, or that we should endeavor to make our prose
felicitous? Or was it possibly that there can on occasion be a
clash between the two principles?
And, if you are curious, my reply to your "angry" reply was
derived from the belief that "has a position that disagrees
with mine" is not synonomous with "is an asshole". Mind, for
myself, I can find other reasons to consider some persons
assholes, such as their--not "them"--not agreeing with that
lack of equality.
>To make it clear. I was objecting to the attempt to equate the
>first "us" with the second one in his example, even though it
>is patently obvious that the functuion of the first
>grammatically incorrect one is radically different from the
>second one, where it is grammatically acceptable in informal
>usage.
Ah. You just do not grasp what the usages of grammar are, and
take them to be whatsoever you desire that they be. Now all
_is_ clear.
>I still maintain that English just doesn't work the way that
>Eric Walker would like it to.
I fear, but do recognize, that the way Eric Walker would like
it to be has very little to do with the way that it is; you
have failed to correspondingly recognize that the way Einde
O'Callaghan would like it to be is equally immaterial. The way
sound users of the tongue over the past century or thereabouts
have used that tongue has, however, a very great deal to do
with the matter, and it is what those respected sound users
"maintain"--by their actual usages--not what you or I maintain
that determines what "sound English" consists in.
My advice is simple: Get over it.
Raymond S. Wise
news:bp4i7b$1k4j7u$1...@ID-93601.news.uni-berlin.de...
Standard Irish English is just as much a dialect as any other standard
dialect:
From
http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/msg10790.html
[quote, from Joseph F. Foster, Associate Professor of Anthropology,
University of Cincinnati, Ohio]
All languages have dialects and there is no way of speaking a language that
is not a dialect. A dialect is simply a consistent way of speaking a given
language shared by two or more people. (A given way of speaking a language
peculiar to only one person is called an _idiolect._) The term _language_
is used by the ignorant or the antilinguists to mean a "standard dialect"
and _dialect_ is used by them to mean a "nonstandard" dialect. These
people often believe that there is some special characteristic of a standard
dialect that makes it fit to be the standard and some special characteristic
either present or lacking in nonstandard dialects that make them unfit to be
the standard. They are mistaken and can furnish no comparative evidence
that this belief is true.
[end quote]
That's the first time I've seen the term "antilinguists."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Harlan Messinger
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:59:07 -0500, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>>
>>So then it's not a gerund in my usage. A different analysis is
>>required. A different term. Just as we can have both
>>metaphors *and* similes, subtle though the difference between
>>them may be.
>
>Perhaps, then, you will supply us that analysis?
Actually, I came up with a Latin-based one: ablative absolute.
And it's not only a valid form, it's necessary:
With John being in Spain and Debby being home sick,
I was left to deal with the problem myself.
This works as well as:
With John in Spain and Debby home sick,
I was left to deal with the problem myself.
In fact, in this example, your version wouldn't make sense. You could
have:
John's being in Spain caused me no end of trouble.
or
With John's being in Spain causing me no end of trouble, ...
But
*With John's being in Spain, I was left to deal ...
doesn't work at all.
Anyway, I didn't realize until a couple of exchanges ago that we were
even IN a.e.u, and I'm really not interested in the perfunctory
nitpicking and setting of traps that bored me terribly when I spent
some time in its Bizarro-world counterpart a.u.e. years ago. In fact,
unlike Einde, I'm taking s.l.t out of the follow-ups, so that you and
your groupmates can debate this to death if you'd like, but I'm not
interested.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:51:56 +0100, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>
[ ... ]
> >To make it clear. I was objecting to the attempt to equate the
> >first "us" with the second one in his example, even though it
> >is patently obvious that the functuion of the first
> >grammatically incorrect one is radically different from the
> >second one, where it is grammatically acceptable in informal
> >usage.
>
> Ah. You just do not grasp what the usages of grammar are, and
> take them to be whatsoever you desire that they be. Now all
> _is_ clear.
>
> >I still maintain that English just doesn't work the way that
> >Eric Walker would like it to.
>
> I fear, but do recognize, that the way Eric Walker would like
> it to be has very little to do with the way that it is; you
> have failed to correspondingly recognize that the way Einde
> O'Callaghan would like it to be is equally immaterial.
It appears that I have to say it yet again: The fused participle,
e.g., "It comes down to each person choosing which form to use," is
so common in informal writing, and sufficiently seen in formal
writing, that personal preference is the principal criterion by
which one chooses whether to use it or the genitive plus gerund. To
respond to a point that Einde made along the way and I snipped, the
Pondian difference lies in the extent to which there is a preference
for one form or the other -- the form using the objective rather
than the genitive is more common in the UK, and the form with the
genitive is more common in the US, but both forms can be found in
both places. How someone would like it to be is immaterial --
actual usage sanctions both forms.
And I say this as someone who uses the genitive in such contexts
whenever possible.
> The way
> sound users of the tongue over the past century or thereabouts
> have used that tongue has, however, a very great deal to do
> with the matter, and it is what those respected sound users
> "maintain"--by their actual usages--not what you or I maintain
> that determines what "sound English" consists in.
MWDEU, in an article titled "Possessive with Gerund," goes into the
question at length, drawing, as always, on actual examples of usage,
including some fused participles from some well-respected modern
authors, and reaches this conclusion: "The construction, both with
and without the possessive, has been used in writing for about 300
years. Both forms have been used by standard authors. Both forms
have been called incorrect, but neither is." The article continues
with a list of contexts in which one form or the other tends to
predominate. I'd say that MWDEU's conclusion is confirmed both by
its examples and by what I hear and read.
So what is "sound English?" It appears that Eric still feels
qualified to make that judgment not only for himself but for
others. I know I have my own idea of what sound English is, and I
attempt to speak and write it. And I will happily suggest to others
that one usage is preferable to another; I will even "Oy!" the
occasional obvious goof. What is needed, though, Eric, is the
humility to acknowledge that what is "sound" for you, or for me, is
not necessarily "sound" for everyone. The great "no-one" debate
suffices to establish that.
> My advice is simple: Get over it.
Ditto, but not for Einde.
--
Bob Lieblich
Blessed are the peacemakers, but they'd better be prepared to duck
Dr Robin Bignall
>
>Eric Walker, in what I take is his typical pompous manner, pontificated
>majestically that: "A gerund is functionally a noun. We would not write
>of 'us pleasure at us finally acquiring a real sports car." If we
>cannot stomach that first 'us', why is the second supposed to be
>digestible?"
>
>And then continued pompously: "We are not at an impasse. When
>grammatical necessity clashes with felicity or plain practicality,
>we--as always in such matters[1]--simply recast and avoid the dreaded
>problem."
>
>It was this attitude that prompted me to reply angrily as I did.
>
>To make it clear. I was objecting to the attempt to equate the first
>"us" with the second one in his example, even though it is patently
>obvious that the functuion of the first grammatically incorrect one is
>radically different from the second one, where it is grammatically
>acceptable in informal usage.
>
It very much depends on one's particular flavour of informal English. In my
home town when I was very young 'us' was often substituted for 'our', and
was perfectly comprehensible. It was my parents and schooling that taught
me eventually that such forms as "Us'll take us books with us" was not
grammatical. I often hear 'us' rather than 'our' here in Herts, too, used
in speech by people who would not write it like that.
I agree with your last para, incidentally, if considering written material,
but I hear (mis)use of 'us' so often it doesn't register in speech.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Dr Robin Bignall
Me, too, but that's an excellent quotation, and it's going into my 'to
keep' file.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 03:29:33 -0600, "Raymond S. Wise"
> <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
[large snippage -- please note, Doc R.]
> >That's the first time I've seen the term "antilinguists."
>
> Me, too, but that's an excellent quotation, and it's going into my 'to
> keep' file.
Pronounced with the emphasis on the second syllable -- right, guys?
--
Bob Lieblich
*My Word* fan
Odysseus
> >
> I don't know - wasn't there once a state called the United Arab Republic
> (made up of Egypt - in Africa - and Syria - in Asia)? It didn't last too
> long, but I don't think thatt had much to do with it (or maybe even
> "its") being on two continents. ;-)
>
Yes; the union lasted from 1958 to 1961 and IIRC briefly included
Yemen as well. Egypt continued to call itself the UAR for another
decade or so.
--
Odysseus
Steve M (remove wax for reply)
The "Federation of Arab Republics" included Egypt, Syria and Libya:
http://tmg110.tripod.com/egypt2.htm
--
Steve M - uns...@houston.rrwax.com
remove wax for reply
Eric Walker
[...]
>[quote, from Joseph F. Foster, Associate Professor of
>Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Ohio]
>
>All languages have dialects and there is no way of speaking a
>language that is not a dialect. A dialect is simply a
>consistent way of speaking a given language shared by two or
>more people. (A given way of speaking a language peculiar to
>only one person is called an _idiolect._) The term
>_language_ is used by the ignorant or the antilinguists to
>mean a "standard dialect" and _dialect_ is used by them to
>mean a "nonstandard" dialect. These people often believe that
>there is some special characteristic of a standard dialect
>that makes it fit to be the standard and some special
>characteristic either present or lacking in nonstandard
>dialects that make them unfit to be the standard. They are
>mistaken and can furnish no comparative evidence that this
>belief is true.
>
>[end quote]
That illustrates neatly the gross misunderstanding that drives
the repeated and otherwise incomprehensible pronouncements by
the, what, "prolinguists"?
It is unclear what is "ignorant" or "antilinguistic" about
referring to some particular dialect as a "standard". More to
the point, though, is the bizarre claim that most or all folk
who do so believe that there is any "special characteristic",
other, perhaps, than frequency, that makes the standard "fit"
to be the standard. Obviously there is no comparative evidence
for a belief that in fact few or none entertain (outside the
sullen fantasies of "prolinguists").
A language is a set of rules intended to enable accurate and
concise communication, as the rules of the road are a set of
rules to enable rapid and safe vehicular travel. There is no
obvious reason why driving on the left or the right side of the
road is a "more fit" scheme, but we absolutely, positively need
to agree on one or the other form; likewise, there is no
obvious reason why this or that dialect is a "more fit" scheme
for communication, but we require a standard or we do not, in
fact, _have_ a set of rules, and communication suffers to the
extent that we expand "accepted" variations from a standard.
It would be as if each octagonal red sign at an intersection
had a somewhat different significance, intersection by
intersection, one known only to those living with a block or so
of that sign--sometimes "stop and yield to traffic on the
right", sometimes just "yield", sometimes "yield only to
traffic coming from the left", and so on. In such a case,
there would assuredly be a hell of a lot of crashes.
To say that some accepted rule of grammar controls "only" the
standard form is to turn and begin running at speed down the
road back to Babel.
Eric Walker
>"Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:59:07 -0500, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>>So then it's not a gerund in my usage. A different analysis
>>>is required. A different term. Just as we can have both
>>>metaphors *and* similes, subtle though the difference
>>>between them may be.
>>
>>Perhaps, then, you will supply us that analysis?
>
>Actually, I came up with a Latin-based one: ablative absolute.
Aren't these the folk who despise the notion--though it is
false--that modern English is artificially strait-jacketed into
some inapplicable Latinate grammar? Anyway:
>And it's not only a valid form, it's necessary:
>
> With John being in Spain and Debby being home sick,
> I was left to deal with the problem myself.
>
>This works as well as:
>
> With John in Spain and Debby home sick,
> I was left to deal with the problem myself.
OK, let's try parsing the first sentence. The chief clause,
that which follows the comma, needs no analysis here. The
material before the comma is an adjectival prepositional phrase
that acts to modify the subject noun, "I"; or, more accurate,
it is two conjoined such phrases, the parallel "with" implied
before "Debby" being elliptical--that is, it is effectively:
With John being in Spain and [with] Debby being home sick,
I was left to deal with the problem myself.
(Which is analogous to "Tired and sleepy, I went to bed.")
In each phrase, the person--John or Debby--is the noun that is
the object of the preposition "with"; the following phrases,
"being in Spain" and "being home sick", are thus adjectival and
modify their respective nouns, the persons' names. Going on,
the adjectival "being in Spain" comprises a chief adjective,
"being", and an adverbial prepositional phrase "in Spain" (with
"Spain" as the object of "in") that modifies that adjective;
that adjective, "being", is thus seen as a participle. It is
not a noun gerund: that is why no genitive is needed or wanted
in the related noun. (And the same applies to the "Debby"
phrase.)
(That the gerund "being" and the participle "being"[1] have the
same form may be confusing, but that's why we learn grammar, to
tell the difference and to use each in the manner required.)
In the second sample sentence, which is much like the first,
"John" and "Debby" are again the objects of their prepositions,
with "in Spain" and "home sick" now adjectival phrases
modifying their respective nouns.[2]
>In fact, in this example, your version wouldn't make sense.
>You could have:
>
> John's being in Spain caused me no end of trouble.
Parsing: "John's being in Spain" is the subject of the
sentence, and is thus a noun phrase. The core noun is the
gerund "being", with "John's" being the noun "John" in the
genitive case, which is thus in fact an adjective (as is the
prepositional phrase "in Spain").
>
>or
>
> With John's being in Spain causing me no end of
>trouble, ...
Parsing: the ellipsis presumably represents a clause that
begins with "I", something like "I had to get other help"; if
so, then "John's being in Spain" is clearly a noun phrase, and
equally clearly, as in the earlier example, the core noun is
the gerund "being", with "John's" again an adjectival genitive
and "in Spain" an adjectival prepositional phrase.
>
>But
>
> *With John's being in Spain, I was left to deal ...
>
>doesn't work at all.
As it should not, being in error. Parsing: actually, we
already did that above--the first parsing applies to this
sentence as well as to the longer one with "Debby" needlessly
involved. The "being" here is a participle, and so the noun
needs to remain a noun, not become an adjectival genitive.
[1] Which demonstrates how easily the quandary of "The gerund
'being' and the participle 'being' having the same form . . ."
can be sidestepped.
[2] The only even mildly interesting thing I see in this
exercise is the simple adjectival phrase "home sick", whose
parsing I am not so sure of. My reckoning is that since the
phrase is parallel to "in Spain", we can presume an elided
preposition "at" before "home sick", so the analysis is simply
"home" as a noun--the object of the implied preposition--and
"sick" an adjective, just as the dictionaries list it. If we
don't assume an elided preposition, it looks like "sick" would
be an adjective, so "home" would have to be an adverb, which
sounds a little silly. We can say "with Debby sick", but I
don't think we can idiomatically say "with Debby home" unless
we infer the fuller form "at home".
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> A language is a set of rules intended to enable accurate and
> concise communication, as the rules of the road are a set of
> rules to enable rapid and safe vehicular travel.
I don't recall challenging this analogy before, but it's a slow
Saturday, so what the hell ...
A language is an internalized set of ways of expressing things --
not so much "rules" as devices. To indicate a member of the canine
species, for example, we have the device "dog." We assemble these
devices into more complex devices -- phrases, clauses, sentences,
paragraphs, books, encyclopedias. The devices we choose are the
ones that work. And if one day we discover that a given device
does'ot work any more, or can be improved on, we replace it. That's
a gross oversimplification, of course, but no more so than the
"rules of the road" analogy.
The difference between my analogy and Eric's is that Eric's implies
a fixed standard, changeable only by some kind of consensus or
official action. There is, for example, near my beach place a
construction zone past which a highway runs. At a merge point
there is a stop sign that, if observed, makes it much harder to
accomplish the merge than simply slowing down and watching the
oncoming traffic. Many motorists ignore it, and I've seen people
ticketed for violating it. It is not merely non-functional but
anti-functional. If I had a true choice of behavior on approaching
that sign, I wouldn't stop. But the constraint is extraneous, and I
take such a liberty at my own risk.
> There is no
> obvious reason why driving on the left or the right side of the
> road is a "more fit" scheme, but we absolutely, positively need
> to agree on one or the other form;
There is often no obvious reason why a given route from Point A to
Point B is better than some other route, so some take one route and
some take the other (and perhaps others take yet others), and
neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong.
There is no need to agree on one or the other.
> likewise, there is no
> obvious reason why this or that dialect is a "more fit" scheme
> for communication, but we require a standard or we do not, in
> fact, _have_ a set of rules, and communication suffers to the
> extent that we expand "accepted" variations from a standard.
We do have a standard. Indeed, we have "Standard English," though
even that varies from country to country. But the standard, unlike
the rules of the road, is changed by the users to fit circumstances,
even if the circumstances are nothing more than the development of a
new pronunciation, or a new spelling, or a new or extended usage.
>
> It would be as if each octagonal red sign at an intersection
> had a somewhat different significance, intersection by
> intersection, one known only to those living with a block or so
> of that sign--sometimes "stop and yield to traffic on the
> right", sometimes just "yield", sometimes "yield only to
> traffic coming from the left", and so on. In such a case,
> there would assuredly be a hell of a lot of crashes.
Sure -- on the road. But we know that even within the constraints
of Standard English there are often two or more different ways of
conveying the same message. The analogy to traffic rules is false.
The analogy to alternative routes of travel is a lot closer to what
actually goes on.
False analogies lead to false results.
--
Bob Lieblich
What does this have to do with the Czech Republic?
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> A language is a set of rules intended to enable accurate and
> concise communication, as the rules of the road are a set of
> rules to enable rapid and safe vehicular travel.
I don't recall challenging this analogy before, but it's a slow
Saturday, so what the hell ...
A language is an internalized set of ways of expressing things --
not so much "rules" as devices. To indicate a member of the canine
species, for example, we have the device "dog." We assemble these
devices into more complex devices -- phrases, clauses, sentences,
paragraphs, books, encyclopedias. The devices we choose are the
ones that work. And if one day we discover that a given device
does'ot work any more, or can be improved on, we replace it. That's
a gross oversimplification, of course, but no more so than the
"rules of the road" analogy.
The difference between my analogy and Eric's is that Eric's implies
a fixed standard, changeable only by some kind of consensus or
official action. There is, for example, near my beach place a
construction zone past which a highway runs. At a merge point
there is a stop sign that, if observed, makes it much harder to
accomplish the merge than simply slowing down and watching the
oncoming traffic. Many motorists ignore it, and I've seen people
ticketed for violating it. It is not merely non-functional but
anti-functional. If I had a true choice of behavior on approaching
that sign, I wouldn't stop. But the constraint is extraneous, and I
take such a liberty at my own risk.
> There is no
> obvious reason why driving on the left or the right side of the
> road is a "more fit" scheme, but we absolutely, positively need
> to agree on one or the other form;
There is often no obvious reason why a given route from Point A to
Point B is better than some other route, so some take one route and
some take the other (and perhaps others take yet others), and
neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong.
There is no need to agree on one or the other.
> likewise, there is no
> obvious reason why this or that dialect is a "more fit" scheme
> for communication, but we require a standard or we do not, in
> fact, _have_ a set of rules, and communication suffers to the
> extent that we expand "accepted" variations from a standard.
We do have a standard. Indeed, we have "Standard English," though
even that varies from country to country. But the standard, unlike
the rules of the road, is changed by the users to fit circumstances,
even if the circumstances are nothing more than the development of a
new pronunciation, or a new spelling, or a new or extended usage.
>
> It would be as if each octagonal red sign at an intersection
> had a somewhat different significance, intersection by
> intersection, one known only to those living with a block or so
> of that sign--sometimes "stop and yield to traffic on the
> right", sometimes just "yield", sometimes "yield only to
> traffic coming from the left", and so on. In such a case,
> there would assuredly be a hell of a lot of crashes.
Sure -- on the road. But we know that even within the constraints
Eric Walker
>Eric Walker wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> A language is a set of rules intended to enable accurate and
>> concise communication, as the rules of the road are a set of
>> rules to enable rapid and safe vehicular travel.
[...]
>A language is an internalized set of ways of expressing
>things -- not so much "rules" as devices. To indicate a
>member of the canine species, for example, we have the device
>"dog."
Is it not a "rule" that the word "dog" in our speech or writing
denote a member of the canines? If I use the word "dog" to
denominate a giraffe, and there is no clear context to show the
misapplication (a child's essay about a trip to the zoo could
go from start to finish, at some length, without our ever
necessarily discovering that the cute dog seen was a giraffe,
or indeed anything but a dog), have I not breached a "rule"?
We could say I have "misused a device", but that would be
quibbling. Our "rule" is that "dog" shall signify a canine.
>We assemble these devices into more complex devices --
>phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, books, encyclopedias.
>The devices we choose are the ones that work.
But they work because, and _only_ because, we have agreed on
their totally arbitrary significances. If I write "The dog,
bit the man", one _might_ puzzle out, as a conjecture, that my
meaning is that a man bit a dog: but the puzzling is tedious
and the conclusion only a conjecture, because I did not follow
the _rules_ that give significance to the way we pattern our
words to convey meaning. I could, if devising totally from
scratch, conceive a grammar for the words of English that would
allow such a construction, and give it the intended sense. So?
Without such rules, communication is virtually impossible; with
exact rules, communication is as good as we can manage within
the realm those rules govern; in between--that is, with a
"relaxed and casual" attitude toward rules, with, to be blunt,
a belief that they are only "devices"--we have less effective
communication. That does not mean that the information content
of every single statement is lowered--many statements with
variations from the rules will remain unaffected as to
information content--but it does mean that an increased number
of statements will have needlessly acquired ambiguity. Our
overall ability to communicate accurately has diminished.
>And if one day we discover that a given device does'ot work
>any more, or can be improved on, we replace it. That's
>a gross oversimplification, of course, but no more so than the
>"rules of the road" analogy.
In reality, no one "discovers" that a given rule "doesn't work
anymore". The English-speaking population may gradually come
to feel that this or that rule can be supplemented or altered
to good effect (more often, of course, the net effect is not
good, but the loss is not discernable to the careless while the
gain, usually less of a need to remember things, is obvious).
When that happens, the more careful and thoughtful users of the
tongue will, little by little--which is the way all changes in
crucial matters, such as how we express our thought, should
occur--adopt the newer form and the rule will be different. In
the period of change, it's a matter of taste: one can stick
with the old till the new is sufficiently established, or one
can soldier bravely on at the bleeding edge, assuming the risk
of using a form that may never become standard. (And recall
that new forms do not instantly render the old unusable--
despite the proliferation of the needless "until", I can yet
use sound old "till" satisfactorily till the day, if it ever
comes, when "till" becomes _obs._ or _arch._)
>The difference between my analogy and Eric's is that Eric's
>implies a fixed standard, changeable only by some kind of
>consensus or official action.
As you said farther on, False analogies lead to false results.
An analogy is a pedagogical device to clarify a thought, not a
solid rule by which we may make firm deductions. I believe
that "rules of English" and "rules of the road" is a useful
analogy for demonstrating that to avoid chaos we need arbitrary
agreement on arbitrary matters, the need for agreement being
far more important than the arbitrariness.
Even so, the analogy is not so defective as it might seem
regarding change: there is quite a difference between the two
qualities that got lumped together up there, "consensus" and
"official action". When there is a consensus that such-and-
such an intersection needs to be changed from uncontrolled to a
two-way stop, the change will be made. That it is made by an
"official" body assembled for the purpose by a municipal
government, whereas, for example, changes in word definitions
are made by "unofficial" usage panels assembled for the purpose
by dictionary makers is scarcely a crucial distinguishing
factor.
[...]
>> There is no obvious reason why driving on the left or the
>> right side of the road is a "more fit" scheme, but we
>> absolutely, positively need to agree on one or the other
>> form;
>
>There is often no obvious reason why a given route from Point
>A to Point B is better than some other route, so some take one
>route and some take the other (and perhaps others take yet
>others), and neither is necessarily right and neither is
>necessarily wrong. There is no need to agree on one or the
>other.
As you say, False analogies lead to false results. The choice
of route is analogous to the general manner in which one may
choose to write (or speak) on a given topic; but while writing,
as with the soul driving from A to B by no matter what route,
it is essential that the applicable rules be followed.
Regardless of route, you had bloody well not drive (in the
U.S., anyway) in the leftmost lane of a two-way street, nor go
the wrong way up a one-way street, nor run red lights.
>> likewise, there is no obvious reason why this or that
>> dialect is a "more fit" scheme for communication, but we
>> require a standard or we do not, in fact, _have_ a set of
>> rules, and communication suffers to the extent that we
>> expand "accepted" variations from a standard.
>
>We do have a standard. Indeed, we have "Standard English,"
>though even that varies from country to country. But the
>standard, unlike the rules of the road, is changed by the
>users to fit circumstances, even if the circumstances are
>nothing more than the development of a new pronunciation, or a
>new spelling, or a new or extended usage.
Yes, and . . . ?
>> It would be as if each octagonal red sign at an intersection
>> had a somewhat different significance, intersection by
>> intersection, one known only to those living with a block or
>> so of that sign--sometimes "stop and yield to traffic on the
>> right", sometimes just "yield", sometimes "yield only to
>> traffic coming from the left", and so on. In such a case,
>> there would assuredly be a hell of a lot of crashes.
>
>Sure -- on the road. But we know that even within the
>constraints of Standard English there are often two or more
>different ways of conveying the same message. The analogy to
>traffic rules is false.
Nerts. When I drive down Division to First, if First is a
two-way street I can turn either way on it, or I can continue
on down Division; does that signify that traffic rules are a
meaningless concept?
>The analogy to alternative routes of travel is a lot closer to
>what actually goes on.
It is about the same, _if_ we take care over what we analogize
to what.
>False analogies lead to false results.
Oh, indeed.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:52:45 -0500, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> >Eric Walker wrote:
> >
> >[ ... ]
> >
> >> A language is a set of rules intended to enable accurate and
> >> concise communication, as the rules of the road are a set of
> >> rules to enable rapid and safe vehicular travel.
>
> [...]
>
> >A language is an internalized set of ways of expressing
> >things -- not so much "rules" as devices. To indicate a
> >member of the canine species, for example, we have the device
> >"dog."
>
> Is it not a "rule" that the word "dog" in our speech or writing
> denote a member of the canines?
Yes, there is a rule that one meaning of "dog" is a member of the
canine family.
> If I use the word "dog" to
> denominate a giraffe, and there is no clear context to show the
> misapplication (a child's essay about a trip to the zoo could
> go from start to finish, at some length, without our ever
> necessarily discovering that the cute dog seen was a giraffe,
> or indeed anything but a dog), have I not breached a "rule"?
No doubt. But someone had to be the first to use "dog" to mean "an
ugly girl," and it no doubt took some time and perhaps generated
some confusion before the new usage took hold. But take hold it
did. No one issued a ruling. No one announced that henceforth
"dog" could also mean "an ugly girl," the way someone would have to
arrange for signs and perhaps announcements in the media if a major
thoroughfare was to be converted from two-way to one-way. These
rules do not behave the same.
And then there's "nice." We all know (or can easily find out) how
much that has drifted. Use it the way it used to be used and you
will almost certainly confuse or mislead your interlocutor. Show me
the sign where the changes in "nice" were announced.
> We could say I have "misused a device", but that would be
> quibbling. Our "rule" is that "dog" shall signify a canine.
That isn't the rule at all. The rule is that "dog" *can* signify a
canine. It can also signify an ugly girl, a foot, an instrument for
gripping, and perhaps other things. Next year it may develop some
new, fad use. It's not easy keeping up.
> >We assemble these devices into more complex devices --
> >phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, books, encyclopedias.
> >The devices we choose are the ones that work.
>
> But they work because, and _only_ because, we have agreed on
> their totally arbitrary significances.
I missed the plebiscite. I know most of the meanings of "dog," and
I don't use it arbitrarily to mean "giraffe." The argument concerns
the mechanisms by which these meanings come into being and change.
Traffic rules do not develop and change the way language does.
[ ... ]
> Even so, the analogy is not so defective as it might seem
> regarding change: there is quite a difference between the two
> qualities that got lumped together up there, "consensus" and
> "official action". When there is a consensus that such-and-
> such an intersection needs to be changed from uncontrolled to a
> two-way stop, the change will be made.
Come back to the East Coast, Eric, and observe our polity. Ask me
the story of Washington Street in Alexandria, Virginia, just for
openers.
> That it is made by an
> "official" body assembled for the purpose by a municipal
> government, whereas, for example, changes in word definitions
> are made by "unofficial" usage panels assembled for the purpose
> by dictionary makers is scarcely a crucial distinguishing
> factor.
I don't buy this, but I'm not going to belabor the obvious.
[ ... ]
--
Bob Lieblich
Fatigued
Eric Walker
>Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:52:45 -0500, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>
>> >Eric Walker wrote:
>> >
>> >[ ... ]
>> >
>> >> A language is a set of rules intended to enable accurate
>> >> and concise communication, as the rules of the road are a
>> >> set of rules to enable rapid and safe vehicular travel.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >A language is an internalized set of ways of expressing
>> >things -- not so much "rules" as devices. To indicate a
>> >member of the canine species, for example, we have the
>> >device "dog."
>>
>> Is it not a "rule" that the word "dog" in our speech or
>> writing denote a member of the canines?
>
>Yes, there is a rule that one meaning of "dog" is a member of
>the canine family.
If we are getting picky, then "in the context of 'an animal'".
>> If I use the word "dog" to denominate a giraffe, and there
>> is no clear context to show the misapplication (a child's
>> essay about a trip to the zoo could go from start to finish,
>> at some length, without our ever necessarily discovering
>> that the cute dog seen was a giraffe, or indeed anything but
>> a dog), have I not breached a "rule"?
>
>No doubt. But someone had to be the first to use "dog" to mean
>"an ugly girl," and it no doubt took some time and perhaps
>generated some confusion before the new usage took hold. But
>take hold it did. No one issued a ruling. No one announced
>that henceforth "dog" could also mean "an ugly girl," the way
>someone would have to arrange for signs and perhaps
>announcements in the media if a major thoroughfare was to be
>converted from two-way to one-way. These rules do not behave
>the same.
First, all those alternatives are metaphorical extensions of
"dog". But this gets silly. To repeat a recurring theme in
the last round of posting on this, analogy can be taken too
far: it is not a rigid guide to conclusions, it is a
pedagogical device.
If you don't like "rules of the road" owing to the irrelevant
distinction of how the rules are promulgated, as opposed to how
they apply to real actions in the real world, consider instead
the rules of card games. The poker player who tries to claim a
pot with a royal flush only to be told that the house rules say
that a hand consisting of a 3, a 5, a 7, an 8, and a 10--suits
irrelevant--beats all others is like to be mightily pissed.
Poker, or any game whatever, can be played satisfactorily only
when all the players know and agree completely on all the rules
(even though--since for reasons beyond my small comprehension,
how those rules are cast seems to be crucial--the rules can be
changed at any time by agreement of the players).
But we can abandon analogy altogether if it is going to be the
ground for irrelevant quibbling. The reality, which I think so
blindingly obvious that I am awestruck that it can be debated,
is that the greater the degree to which writer and reader (or
speaker and listener) agree on the conventional rules of
diction and grammar, the more effective the communication.
When A says X, if B takes it--owing to a difference between A's
and B's conceptions of the rules of language--to mean Y, we
have a problem; if A and B are in complete agreement on the
rules, no such different interpretation arises. Is this deep?
I think not.
mUs1Ka
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3FB6E78D...@Verizon.net...
>
> That isn't the rule at all. The rule is that "dog" *can* signify a
> canine. It can also signify an ugly girl, a foot, an instrument for
> gripping, and perhaps other things. Next year it may develop some
> new, fad use. It's not easy keeping up.
>
dog?
m.
Robert Lieblich
Doggone it, you caught me.
--
Bob Lieblich
Arf
Dr Robin Bignall
It's a dog's life, discussing English.
Robert Lieblich
Who asked you, Dogbreath?[1]
[1] Apologies to Mick Belker.
--
Bob Lieblich
No Dogsbody
John Woodgate
<bp7jtp$1lfv27$1...@ID-193735.news.uni-berlin.de>) about 'Word for Czech
Republic, was Re: Plural for Amish', on Sun, 16 Nov 2003:
Time to take any further wrangling to e-mail, I think, or at least
eliminate s.l.t., in which it is OT. I see no point in discussing
grammar and usage in this thread, because we are dealing with a closed
mind.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Einde O'Callaghan
Your choice of vocabulary and your rejection of perfectly acceptable
informal grammatical structures, make it clear that you are an an
incuerable elitist prescriptivist who selects a group of writers who you
describe as "sound users" as a model of how English should be. All I was
attempting to do was point out that acceptable informal doesn't
coincide with the prescription of your "sound users", whoever they may
be. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my subjective wishes.
Einde O'Callaghan
Eric Walker
[...]
>You really don't understand what an asshole you sound like, do
>you?
Ah, more charming and witty discourse. Know a man by his
enemies.
>Your choice of vocabulary and your rejection of perfectly
>acceptable informal grammatical structures,
. . . check the definition of "begging the question" . . .
>make it clear that you are an an incuerable elitist
>prescriptivist who selects a group of writers who you describe
>as "sound users" as a model of how English should be.
Low on reading comprehension, too: "I fear, but do recognize,
that the way Eric Walker would like it to be has very little to
do with the way that it is"; the generally respected usage
manuals are the ones who do the selecting, and it is their
business--which they know well or they wouldn't _be_ generally
respected--to recognize the sorts of writers whose works may be
taken as indicative of how knowledgeable and careful writers
use the tongue.
If using the elite of writers as exemplars of sound English is
"elitist", then I reckon that word applies: one must deduce
from your objections that you would prefer to use whatever is
the opposite of elite--the "unelite"?--as exemplars. And I
will certainly agree that "incurable" and "prescriptivist"
apply too. There: see how much we agree after all? All you
erred on is who does the selecting.
>All I was attempting to do was point out that acceptable
>informal doesn't coincide with the prescription of your "sound
>users", whoever they may be. It has nothing whatsoever to do
>with my subjective wishes.
Well, it seems that you subjectively wish "acceptable informal"
to rank as sound English. Whether it does or not very much
depends on what one takes the term to mean: just what is
"informal" language, and how and why should it differ from
"formal" language?
Certainly, the linguistic equivalent of loosening one's tie--or
of going tieless--exists, but one would think the difference
consists in things like freely using contractions ("isn't" vs.
"is not"), or an expanded vocabulary ("asshole" appears in few
published papers), including slang terms, or perhaps greater
use of ellipsis.
A Google on the term "Informal English" finds many hits but
little information. The term is used with great frequency and
defined with virtually none. A Boston University page, for
example, contains the heading "What is 'Informal English'?" but
provides no answer save that such language includes slang
terms. Most "definitions" say, in more or less the same sorts
of terms, that it is language used in informal situations,
which has a certain element of circularity to it.
_The American Heritage Book of English Usage_, however, which
might be considered a reasonable place to look for a
definition, says in salient part,
Informal language incorporates many of the familiar
features of spoken English, especially the tendency
to use contractions and to abbreviate sentences by
omitting certain elements. . . . Informal English
tends to assume that the audience shares basic assumptions
and background knowledge with the writer or speaker, who
therefore alludes to or even omits reference to this
information, rather than carefully explaining it as formal
discourse requires.
Well, that seems to match up to what I suggested above, prior
to looking for other definitions.
"Informal", then, is *not* a blanket that can be thrown over
bad grammar, though it is often so used by those for whom
regular use of sound grammar exceeds their skill or concern.
One could write in a formal tone "Those representations are
entirely fallacious", or in an informal tone "They're a crock
of shit"; but one cannot write "Them's a crock of shit" and
pass it off as "acceptable" English because "informal" English.
That _is_ a crock of shit.
Dr Robin Bignall
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 08:33:46 -0500, Robert Lieblich
>> <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >mUs1Ka wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:3FB6E78D...@Verizon.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > That isn't the rule at all. The rule is that "dog" *can* signify a
>> >> > canine. It can also signify an ugly girl, a foot, an instrument for
>> >> > gripping, and perhaps other things. Next year it may develop some
>> >> > new, fad use. It's not easy keeping up.
>> >> >
>> >> Are you dogging Eric in your dogged fashion because he is putting on the
>> >> dog?
>> >
>> >Doggone it, you caught me.
>>
>> It's a dog's life, discussing English.
>
>Who asked you, Dogbreath?[1]
>
Nobody, and that's a dogmatic statement.
>[1] Apologies to Mick Belker.
Who he?