Using "Namely" to start a sentence?

[Steve Jones]

I know that "namely" is typically used after a comma, semi-colon, or colon to add information to the preceding sentence. However, I was wondering if there was any reason to not use namely after a period if the following sentence added so much information to the preceding one that the result was difficult to read.

Thanks for your opinions

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

My first reaction is no. However, please give an example of the sort of
thing you want. Maybe circumstances exist in which it is possible.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-10-12 08:34, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Steve Jones <sj96...@gmail.com> writes:
>> use namely after a period
>

> It might be more common in non-fiction, and most common in
> scientific reference books.
>
> Fiction:
>
> |City of Destruction. Namely, how he had forsaken his Wife - Bunyan
> |murmur or grucchyng. Namely abedde hadden they meschaunce. - Chaucer
> |what we in mind had. Namely, that bit of shop-crasting in - Burgess
> |nt. Viceversounding. Namely, Abdul Abulbul Amir or Ivan Sl - Joyce
>
> Non-fiction:
>
> |, youhavea prob lem. Namely, you're not being memorable en ~ Guide
> |t of -1-still holds. Namely, recall that there is another - Hofstadt.
> |in the same symbols. Namely, we are so prejudiced by the s - Hofstadt.
> |t and effective way. Namely, with this record. The artists ~ Web
>
> Scientific references:
>
> |ntinence procedures. Namely, it does not require a separat ~ *rology
> |d version of an SYT. Namely, if T is an SYT, then define a ~ combinat.
> |sted correspondence. Namely, the column-strict plane parti ~ combinat.
> |each appearing once. Namely, we get 7 4 3 7 6 4 6 2 1 5 3 ~ combinat.
> | is indeed the case. Namely, the complexes conn n of disc ~ combinat.
> |istinctness problem. Namely, k-equal problem: for k ¸ 2, d ~ combinat.
> |mensions 0, 1 and 2. Namely, let fi be the number of i-dim ~ combinat.
> |ggests a definition. Namely, an 1-category C should be con ~ topos
> |levant overcategory. Namely, if C is a topological categor ~ topos
> | another category D. Namely, for each object D 2 D, the in ~ topos
> |lent to one another. Namely, any p-Cartesian edge f : x0 ! ~ topos
> |cal homotopy theory. Namely, any retract of an object C 2 ~ topos
> |Proposition 4.2.3.4. Namely, we well-order the finite line ~ topos
> |Proposition 6.3.6.4. Namely, one can characterize the clas ~ topos
> | in the evident way. Namely, an enriched functor F : D ! D ~ topos

Stefan, would it hurt you to provide a few complete sentences? Your
postings are exasperating, to say the least.

--
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
–Mark Twain

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Unfortunately Rey is no longer with us, but he thought St*f*n was a
weirdo. St*f*n seems to be determined to live up to that description.

I looked up the Hofstadter fragment "t of -1-still holds. Namely,
recall that there is another" and yes, it does exist (in Gödel, Escher,
Bach). The only conclusion that I can draw is that Hofstadter doesn't
know what "namely" means.

As for Chaucer, I'm shocked to the core that St*f*n would offer an
example so obviously dealing with carnal pleasures -- more obvious if
one puts it in context:

Atte ende I hadde the bettre in ech degree,
By sleighte, or force, or by som maner thyng,
As by continueel murmur or grucchyng.
Namely abedde hadden they meschaunce:
Ther wolde I chide and do hem no plesaunce;
I wolde no lenger in the bed abyde,
If that I felte his arm over my syde,
Til he had maad his raunson unto me;
Thanne wolde I suffre hym do his nycetee.

Maybe St*f*n thought they were just in bed to get a good night's sleep
and not for any other purpose.

[J. J. Lodder]

Nothing wrong with it, if you don't mind
your writings being taken for Dunglish,
(or worse)

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

On 13/10/22 05:34, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> I looked up the Hofstadter fragment "t of -1-still holds. Namely,
> recall that there is another" and yes, it does exist (in Gödel,
> Escher, Bach). The only conclusion that I can draw is that
> Hofstadter doesn't know what "namely" means.

He's not alone in that. Many uses of "namely" seem to be by people who
haven't checked the meaning.

It could be worse. Now and then I've encountered "mainly" where the
writer clearly meant "namely".

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

[henh...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 4:51:37 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/10/22 05:34, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> > I looked up the Hofstadter fragment "t of -1-still holds. Namely,
> > recall that there is another" and yes, it does exist (in Gödel,
> > Escher, Bach). The only conclusion that I can draw is that
> > Hofstadter doesn't know what "namely" means.


> He's not alone in that. Many uses of "namely" seem to be by people who
> haven't checked the meaning.
>

i'm sure it has been common since the 1980's.

Creative use of sentence fragments. Could make for lively writing style. Good device.

______________________________________________________

i'm a bit surprised that it's so common in Scientific papers.

Are the Chinese, (and other Asians), ... Africans ... using it too ?

[Hibou]

Le 12/10/2022 à 14:39, Steve Jones a écrit :
>
> I know that "namely" is typically used after a comma, semi-colon, or colon to add information to the preceding sentence. However, I was wondering if there was any reason to not use namely after a period if the following sentence added so much information to the preceding one that the result was difficult to read.

I wouldn't do it myself. Putting it after a dash is a possibility, to
break the sentence up and make it more digestible. But it sounds as if
the second sentence already contains too much information.

Isn't this part of the art of writing, taking something complicated that
make take a book to explain it, and breaking it down into easily read
chapters, paragraphs, and sentences?

[Hibou]

Le 13/10/2022 à 07:13, henh...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
> i'm sure it has been common since the 1980's.
>
> Creative use of sentence fragments. Could make for lively writing style. Good device.

Iff¹ you want to parody a certain type of army officer.

¹If and only if.

[Pamela]

Why the asterisks? Just wondering.

[Richard Heathfield]

Stefan uses them to expurgate his articles far more often than
some people consider necessary.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[J. J. Lodder]

Keep wondering untill you have found out.
Running gags should not be explained,

Jan

[Pamela]

Aha! Thank you.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-13 07:33:15 +0000, Pamela said:

> On 19:34 12 Oct 2022, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>
>>

>> [ … ]

>>
>>
>> Maybe St*f*n thought they were just in bed to get a good night's
>> sleep and not for any other purpose.
>
> Why the asterisks? Just wondering.

Because St*f*n uses them to disguise naughty words so that we can't
guess that when he write f*** he means fuck.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:30:10 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-10-13 07:33:15 +0000, Pamela said:
>
> > On 19:34 12 Oct 2022, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> >
> >>
> >> [ … ]
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe St*f*n thought they were just in bed to get a good night's
> >> sleep and not for any other purpose.
> >
> > Why the asterisks? Just wondering.
>
> Because St*f*n uses them to disguise naughty words so that we can't
> guess that when he write f*** he means fuck.
>

D^ni^ls does it to Tony Cooper, also. *t's v*ry p**r*l* b*h*v***r.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[occam]

On 12/10/2022 19:15, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-10-12 08:34, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Steve Jones <sj96...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> use namely after a period
>>

<snip>

> Stefan, would it hurt you to provide a few complete sentences? Your
> postings are exasperating, to say the least.
>

I am a great fan of Stefan's laser-sharp pointers to his source
material; namely, 'From the web'.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 5:09:54 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:30:10 +0200
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > On 2022-10-13 07:33:15 +0000, Pamela said:
> > > On 19:34 12 Oct 2022, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> > >> Maybe St*f*n thought they were just in bed to get a good night's
> > >> sleep and not for any other purpose.
> > > Why the asterisks? Just wondering.
> > Because St*f*n uses them to disguise naughty words so that we can't
> > guess that when he write f*** he means fuck.

That one is simply imitated from his idol, the dead sociopath
(who was named earlier in this thread).

> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

I wonder whether this one will ever come up with something new
to put there.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Well, he does always specify which web he consulted.

[Bebercito]

Le jeudi 13 octobre 2022 à 16:36:02 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 5:09:54 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:30:10 +0200
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > > On 2022-10-13 07:33:15 +0000, Pamela said:
> > > > On 19:34 12 Oct 2022, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>
> > > >> Maybe St*f*n thought they were just in bed to get a good night's
> > > >> sleep and not for any other purpose.
> > > > Why the asterisks? Just wondering.
> > > Because St*f*n uses them to disguise naughty words so that we can't
> > > guess that when he write f*** he means fuck.
> That one is simply imitated from his idol, the dead sociopath
> (who was named earlier in this thread).

No, the logic is different: "St*f*n" is parodic here, whereas Rey's "T*ny C**p*r"
(which you've often plagiarized) was disparaging.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-13 14:35:59 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 5:09:54 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:30:10 +0200
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-13 07:33:15 +0000, Pamela said:
>>>> On 19:34 12 Oct 2022, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>
>>>>> Maybe St*f*n thought they were just in bed to get a good night's
>>>>> sleep and not for any other purpose.
>>>> Why the asterisks? Just wondering.
>>> Because St*f*n uses them to disguise naughty words so that we can't
>>> guess that when he write f*** he means fuck.
>
> That one is simply imitated from his idol, the dead sociopath
> (who was named earlier in this thread).

I seem to recall that Rey wasn't all that keen on you either. I shall
refrain from reminding everyone what he called you, apart from "well
frog", one of the politer ones.

[Steve Jones]

Thanks very much for your opinions. However, they raise another question.

Given that "namely" is considered equivalent to "to wit" and "that is to say," why is it acceptable to start a sentence with those phrases?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-10-17 14:21:13 +0000, Steve Jones said:

> Thanks very much for your opinions. However, they raise another question.
>
> Given that "namely" is considered equivalent to "to wit"

It isn't. So let's stop there.

> and "that is to say," why is it acceptable to start a sentence with
> those phrases?

[Ken Blake]

It's not acceptable, as far as I'm concerned.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-10-17 08:21, Steve Jones wrote:
> Thanks very much for your opinions. However, they raise another question.
>
> Given that "namely" is considered equivalent to "to wit" and "that is to say," why is it acceptable to start a sentence with those phrases?

Those phrases have exactly the same meaning as 'namely', and are just as
unacceptable as a sentence starter.

--
Some people say, contractions in the English language are difficult.
Indeed, they're.

[Mark Brader]

Steve Jones:

>> Given that "namely" is considered equivalent to "to wit" and "that is
>> to say," why is it acceptable to start a sentence with those phrases?

"Larry":

> Those phrases have exactly the same meaning as 'namely', and are just as
> unacceptable as a sentence starter.

That is to say, just as acceptable.
--
Mark Brader | "...the average homeowner should expect...
Toronto | meteor damage every hundred million years."
m...@vex.net | --Robert Nemiroff & Jerry Bonnell

[Peter Moylan]

On 18/10/22 20:47, Mark Brader wrote:
> Steve Jones:

>>> Given that "namely" is considered equivalent to "to wit" and "that is
>>> to say," why is it acceptable to start a sentence with those phrases?
>
> "Larry":
>> Those phrases have exactly the same meaning as 'namely', and are just as
>> unacceptable as a sentence starter.
>
> That is to say, just as acceptable.

The bird had one goal. To wit, to woo.

[occam]

On 18/10/2022 11:47, Mark Brader wrote:
> Steve Jones:
>>> Given that "namely" is considered equivalent to "to wit" and "that is
>>> to say," why is it acceptable to start a sentence with those phrases?
>
> "Larry":
>> Those phrases have exactly the same meaning as 'namely', and are just as
>> unacceptable as a sentence starter.
>
> That is to say, just as acceptable.

Your sentence does not carry the same information as poster lar3ryca's.
He has stated that he does NOT agree with the second part of the
original sentence, at the same time conceding the equivalence of the
alternate terms.

Yours does not.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-10-18 04:03, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 18/10/22 20:47, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Steve Jones:
>
>>>> Given that "namely" is considered equivalent to "to wit" and "that is
>>>> to say," why is it acceptable to start a sentence with those phrases?
>>
>> "Larry":
>>> Those phrases have exactly the same meaning as 'namely', and are just as
>>> unacceptable as a sentence starter.
>>
>> That is to say, just as acceptable.
>
> The bird had one goal. To wit, to woo.

So what was the final score?

--
Doctor: "You have onomatopoeia"
"What is that?"
"It's exactly what it sounds like"

[Snidely]

occam submitted this gripping article, maybe on Tuesday:

Well, he agrees by omission of a disagreement, no? Mark only needs to
point out what he /does/ disagree with in Larry's assertion.


/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean