whoever ... has/have ?
DJ
Is "have" in the following sentence correct/acceptable?
There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos _have_ them uploaded on
the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent.
--------
Before I asked this question, I searched AUE newsgroup on Google Groups
and didn't quite find anything relating to my question. I couldn't find
it in my book, "Practical English", either but a note, "For other use of
..., see a good dictionary", and so I did:
www.dictionary.com
however
AHD4
-pron.
1. Whatever person or _persons_: Whoever comes will be welcomed.
So it seems "whoever" isn't necessary singular, but I also found this:
http://tinyurl.com/2qn893
(An ESL website)
One replies (to the same sentence):
Whoever is singular, and to be grammatially correct,
the sentence should read has. And it should read 'has
uploaded them'.
So, I think I'd better ask this question here.
------------
Part of the context:(It's from a Chinese news website. The person who
wrote it had his education in the US.)
---------------------------------------
I admit that most of the photos being circulated on the Internet were
taken by me. But these photos are very private and have not been shown
to people and are never intended to be shown to anyone. These photos
were stolen from me illegally and distributed without my consent.
_There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos have them uploaded on
the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent._ This matter has
deteriorated to the extent that society as a whole has been affected by
this. In this regard, I am deeply saddened. I would like now to
apologize to all the people for all the suffering that has been caused
and the problems that have arisen from this. I would like to apologize
to all the ladies and to all their families for any harm or hurt that
they have been feeling. I am sorry. I would like to also apologize to my
mother and my father for the pain and suffering I have caused them
during the past few weeks. Most importantly, I would like to say sorry
to all the people of Hong Kong. I give my apology sincerely to you all,
unreservedly and with my heart.
--
DJ
CyberCypher
> Hi,
>
> Is "have" in the following sentence correct/acceptable?
>
> There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos have them uploaded on
> the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent.
No. It should be "had". Better still would have been "There is no that
doubt whoever obtained these photos {had them uploaded / uploaded
them}...."
> --------
>
> Before I asked this question, I searched AUE newsgroup on Google
> Groups and didn't quite find anything relating to my question. I
> couldn't find it in my book, "Practical English", either but a note,
> "For other use of ..., see a good dictionary", and so I did:
>
> www.dictionary.com
> however
> AHD4
> -pron.
> 1. Whatever person or persons: Whoever comes will be welcomed.
>
> So it seems "whoever" isn't necessary singular,
True, but it's a mass non-count pronoun, so it almost always should be
replaced by a singular pronoun and take a singular verb.
> but I also found this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2qn893
> (An ESL website)
>
> One replies (to the same sentence):
>
> Whoever is singular, and to be grammatially correct,
> the sentence should read has. And it should read 'has
> uploaded them'.
This changes the meaning of the original sentence, which implies that
the person who "obtained these photos" had someone else do the
uploading, and it actually misuses tense: the simple present is correct
here.
> So, I think I'd better ask this question here.
>
> ------------
> Part of the context:(It's from a Chinese news website. The person who
> wrote it had his education in the US.)
> ---------------------------------------
>
> I admit that most of the photos being circulated on the Internet were
> taken by me. But these photos are very private and have not been
> shown to people and are never intended to be shown to anyone. These
> photos were stolen from me illegally and distributed without my
> consent.
>
> _There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos have them uploaded
> on the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent._ This matter
> has deteriorated to the extent that society as a whole has been
> affected by this. In this regard, I am deeply saddened. I would like
> now to apologize to all the people for all the suffering that has
> been caused and the problems that have arisen from this. I would like
> to apologize to all the ladies and to all their families for any harm
> or hurt that they have been feeling. I am sorry. I would like to also
> apologize to my mother and my father for the pain and suffering I
> have caused them during the past few weeks. Most importantly, I would
> like to say sorry to all the people of Hong Kong. I give my apology
> sincerely to you all, unreservedly and with my heart.
--
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
Cynical by nature, by habit, and by choice.
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared; ergo, they are not in the public domain." Anymouse.
DJ
> DJ wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is "have" in the following sentence correct/acceptable?
>>
>> There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos have them uploaded on
>> the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent.
>
> No. It should be "had". Better still would have been "There is no that
> doubt whoever obtained these photos {had them uploaded / uploaded
> them}...."
You're right! Why hadn't I thought of that?
>
>> --------
>>
>> Before I asked this question, I searched AUE newsgroup on Google
>> Groups and didn't quite find anything relating to my question. I
>> couldn't find it in my book, "Practical English", either but a note,
>> "For other use of ..., see a good dictionary", and so I did:
>>
>> www.dictionary.com
>> however
>> AHD4
>> -pron.
>> 1. Whatever person or persons: Whoever comes will be welcomed.
>>
>> So it seems "whoever" isn't necessary singular,
>
> True, but it's a mass non-count pronoun, so it almost always should be
> replaced by a singular pronoun and take a singular verb.
Thanks for this explanation.
>
>> but I also found this:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2qn893
>> (An ESL website)
>>
>> One replies (to the same sentence):
>>
>> Whoever is singular, and to be grammatially correct,
>> the sentence should read has. And it should read 'has
>> uploaded them'.
>
> This changes the meaning of the original sentence, which implies that
> the person who "obtained these photos" had someone else do the
> uploading, and it actually misuses tense: ...
> ... the simple present is correct here.
Meaning this?
"There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos _uploads them_ on
the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent."
Yup, I can see it now.
Thanks!
--
DJ
John O'Flaherty
>Hi,
>
>Is "have" in the following sentence correct/acceptable?
>
>There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos _have_ them uploaded on
>the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent.
It's hard to read for a couple of reasons. There should be a "that"
before "whoever"; it's not strictly necessary, but in a sentence
that's going to be confusing anyhow, it would be better to include it.
Second, "have them uploaded" should be changed to "have uploaded them"
or "have posted them", because it sounds backwards. I know what it
means, but on first reading it sounds like a wrong word order version
of "have uploaded them". Straightening that out, back to the original
question:
"There is no doubt that whoever obtained these photos [have] [has]
uploaded them to the internet deliberately and maliciously."
To me, "have" sounds wrong, and "has" sounds right. Although AHD has
this definition and example,
whoever:
1. Whatever person or persons: Whoever comes will be welcomed.
just try to say "whoever come will be welcomed". The simpler example
sharpens the dissonance. I'd take it as grammatically if not
semantically singular, pending a counterexample. Whoever want to, try
to come up with one.
--
John
DJ
...
Thanks!
--
DJ
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
> > DJ wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is "have" in the following sentence correct/acceptable?
> > >
> > > There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos have them
> > > uploaded on the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent.
> >
> > No. It should be "had". Better still would have been "There is no
> > that doubt whoever obtained these photos {had them uploaded /
> > uploaded them}...."
"There is no doubt that..." Sorry about that lexemic dyslexia.
"Simple past". Oh, my God! My brain and fingers aren't working well
together today. I've screwed up too often in this post. I need some
caffeine. I'm sorry for the errors.
> Meaning this?
> "There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos _uploads them_ on
> the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent."
No. I screwed up and looked only at the aux "has" as the main verb. I
should have said "simple past": "There is no doubt that whoever
obtained these photos _uploaded them_ onto the Internet with malicious
and deliberate intent." This is the sentence I would have written. I
wouldn't have used the present perfect, "has uploaded" because it
implies further uploads, but the discussion is about pix that have
already been uploaded, an action that has been completed. It certainly
could be done again, of course, so the present prefect "has uploaded"
isn't grammatically or semantically wrong (I'll retract the "misuses
tense" remark) but more like stylistically inappropriate, IMHO and
dialect, for this particular context.
DJ
> DJ wrote:
>
>> CyberCypher wrote:
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Is "have" in the following sentence correct/acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos have them
>>>> uploaded on the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent.
>>> No. It should be "had". Better still would have been "There is no
>>> that doubt whoever obtained these photos {had them uploaded /
>>> uploaded them}...."
>
> "There is no doubt that..." Sorry about that lexemic dyslexia.
You know what, I actually found some cases of "there is no that doubt"
after I did a Google Books search. (But I kind of let it slip behind
my mind :p) It's all good, it's all good.
> No. I screwed up and looked only at the aux "has" as the main verb. I
> should have said "simple past": "There is no doubt that whoever
> obtained these photos _uploaded them_ onto the Internet with malicious
> and deliberate intent." This is the sentence I would have written. I
> wouldn't have used the present perfect, "has uploaded" because it
> implies further uploads, but the discussion is about pix that have
> already been uploaded, an action that has been completed. It certainly
> could be done again, of course, so the present prefect "has uploaded"
> isn't grammatically or semantically wrong (I'll retract the "misuses
> tense" remark) but more like stylistically inappropriate, IMHO and
> dialect, for this particular context.
>
Thank you! I was about to say "No, I don't see it..." after I
posted "I can see it now" (that darn "has/have"), but ...
Anyway, it did leave me pondering and I'm glad I was heading for
the right direction. ("has uploaded" -> it can happen again, even though
in BrE it can mean simple past events, but I do feel it's kind of messy(
"obtained <-> "has uploaded"). And I figured you might already hear
about this "news", so I "kind of" assumed that you'd emphasize on "(one)
past event" rather than "repeated and on-going actions".)
--
DJ
Robert Bannister
> DJ wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Is "have" in the following sentence correct/acceptable?
>>
>>There is no doubt whoever obtained these photos have them uploaded on
>>the Internet with malicious and deliberate intent.
>
>
> No. It should be "had". Better still would have been "There is no that
> doubt whoever obtained these photos {had them uploaded / uploaded
> them}...."
Glad you pointed out that last bit: it was the word order I found oddest.
--
Rob Bannister
DJ
Another question about "whoever".
In the example below, is the use of "whoever (are)" proper? Or should
it be replaced by / is it better if it's replaced by "whichever people
(are)"?
[quote]
7. 'In the Book of History it is said, "Heaven having produced the
inferior people, ..., and therefore distinguished them throughout the
four quarters of the land. _Whoever_ are offenders, and _whoever_ are
innocent, here am I to deal with them. .....
[end quote]
----
I have this question because I saw this post:
The pronoun 'whoever' is exclusively singular.
If you wish to indicate reference to a number of people,
then you should say instead 'whichever people ', or, to
include the possibility of either singularity or plurality,
'whichever person or persons...'.
> AHD4
> whoever
> -pron.
> 1. Whatever person or _persons_: Whoever comes will be welcomed.
>
--
DJ
Mike Lyle
I don't think "whoever" is any more exclusively singular than
"who" --or, indeed, "whichever" or "whatever". I'd leave it unchanged in
this case, though it could feel uncomfortable in some sentences.
(Perhaps the plural use has a slightly old-fashioned feel? I'm not
sure.)
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CyberCypher
> Hi,
>
> Another question about "whoever".
>
> In the example below, is the use of "whoever (are)" proper? Or should
> it be replaced by / is it better if it's replaced by "whichever
> people (are)"?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/387wu7 [Problem loading page]
http://nothingistic.org/library/mencius/mencius03.html
>
> [quote]
> 7. 'In the Book of History it is said, "Heaven having produced the
> inferior people, ..., and therefore distinguished them throughout the
> four quarters of the land. Whoever are offenders, and whoever are
> innocent, here am I to deal with them. ..... [end quote]
I have no problem with the grammar here. It seems perfectly proper and
grammatical to me. "Who" and "whoever" can be used as plurals, as in
the question "Who are those men at the door?" and the statement
"Whoever they are, they're unwelcome". The statement, however, is
different in construction from the question because the grammatical
subject of each sentence is different. Still, "whoever" is notionally
plural in the second sentence.
> ----
> I have this question because I saw this post:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2sylfk [Problem loading page]
http://www.englishclub.com/esl-forums/viewtopic.php?f=199&p=345190
>
> The pronoun 'whoever' is exclusively singular.
This is the page on which is found that damnable sentence "There is no
doubt whoever obtained these photos have them uploaded on the Internet
with malicious and deliberate intent."
> If you wish to indicate reference to a number of people,
> then you should say instead 'whichever people ', or, to
> include the possibility of either singularity or plurality,
> 'whichever person or persons...'.
>
> > AHD4
> > whoever
> > -pron.
> > 1. Whatever person or persons: Whoever comes will be welcomed.
Let's look at this in light of the singular "they/them/their" and say,
as we must if we are to be consistent and not hypocritical about number
concord in English and American, that "The pronoun 'whoever' is
exclusively singular" is blatant nonsense. Most of the time it takes a
singular verb, but it doesn't have to. If that sentence were true, then
it could not possibly be the case that the pronouns "they/them/their"
are both singular and plural; they would have to be exclusively plural.
We know that the pronoun "you" is both singular and plural. Once again
I say, English and American are languages without grammar rules above
the rule-governed bedrock of what native anglophones will not say
because they know it's wrong and what they will say because they know
it's right. Usages such as these, however, are part of the shifting
sands that cover the linguistic Arizona of American and Brighton Beach,
East Sussex, of English.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
Cynical by nature, by habit, and by choice.
Native speaker of American; posting from Taiwan.
DJ
>
> I don't think "whoever" is any more exclusively singular than
> "who" --or, indeed, "whichever" or "whatever". I'd leave it unchanged in
> this case, though it could feel uncomfortable in some sentences.
> (Perhaps the plural use has a slightly old-fashioned feel? I'm not
> sure.)
>
Thanks!
===============================
CyberCypher wrote:
> DJ wrote:
>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/387wu7 [Problem loading page]
> http://nothingistic.org/library/mencius/mencius03.html
Thanks! I always check the link before I post it, but for some
reason it didn't work....
> I have no problem with the grammar here. It seems perfectly proper and
I feel better now. I got worried after I browsed through several
pages on Google Books(search string: "whoever are") and saw most
of the samples were more than 100 years ago... I wasn't even sure
if the sample I provided was valid.
>
>> ----
>> I have this question because I saw this post:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2sylfk [Problem loading page]
> http://www.englishclub.com/esl-forums/viewtopic.php?f=199&p=345190
Thanks again for posting it.
>> The pronoun 'whoever' is exclusively singular.
>
> This is the page on which is found that damnable sentence "There is no
Hehehe, well, not the one I first posted, but it's the same
thing anyway. The original poster cross-posted his question
in two ESL websites, and someone else posted another question
based on the same sentence to the website above.
The original poster saw it and forwarded it to one English
forum in Taiwan, and that's how I "spotted" it.
....
>
> Let's look at this in light of the singular "they/them/their" and say,
> as we must if we are to be consistent and not hypocritical about number
> concord in English and American, that "The pronoun 'whoever' is
> exclusively singular" is blatant nonsense. Most of the time it takes a
"blatant nonsense" is what I want to hear. Thanks!
I understand in some(or most) cases whoever is singular, but saying
it's "exclusive singular" is just too much.
--
DJ
Don Phillipson
news:8PCdnQKU9awiN1Pa...@rcn.net...
> The pronoun 'whoever' is exclusively singular.
> If you wish to indicate reference to a number of people,
> then you should say instead 'whichever people ', or, to
> include the possibility of either singularity or plurality,
> 'whichever person or persons...'.
DJ seems mistaken. We still say things like
"all drunk drivers should be prosecuted, whoever they
may be." We do not say "drunk drivers should be prosecuted,
whichever person or persons they may be."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Wood Avens
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>DJ seems mistaken. We still say things like
>"all drunk drivers should be prosecuted, whoever they
>may be." We do not say "drunk drivers should be prosecuted,
>whichever person or persons they may be."
And there's another thing, dammit -- *drunken* drivers, innit.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I don't have access to my OED at the moment, but whoever certainly can
> be applied to multiple people.
I've heard of "Siamese" twins, but /multiple/ people! My God! ... But I
suppose "whoever" can be applied as regularly to them as to many people.
Alec McKenzie
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:51 -0500, "Don Phillipson"
> <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >DJ seems mistaken. We still say things like
> >"all drunk drivers should be prosecuted, whoever they
> >may be." We do not say "drunk drivers should be prosecuted,
> >whichever person or persons they may be."
>
> And there's another thing, dammit -- *drunken* drivers, innit.
Why would you say that, since 'drunk' and 'drunken' are both
adjectives?
My dictionary gives the first meaning of the adjective 'drunk' as
"intoxicated", while for 'drunken', "(sometimes) drunk" is the last
of four definitions.
--
Alec McKenzie
alecusenet@<surname>.me.uk
DJ
I, DJ, did not make that statement. I *quoted* that statement
in question and *asked* if it was correct.
Anyway, I'm glad you agree 'whoever' is not exclusively singular.
--
DJ
Robert Bannister
Whatever dictionaries may claim, in my dialect, "drunk" can only occur
in sentences like "He is drunk"; I can't have it in front of a noun.
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
> Alec McKenzie wrote:
> > Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:51 -0500, "Don Phillipson"
> >><e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > DJ seems mistaken. We still say things like
> > > > "all drunk drivers should be prosecuted, whoever they
> > > > may be." We do not say "drunk drivers should be prosecuted,
> > > > whichever person or persons they may be."
> > >
> >
> > Why would you say that, since 'drunk' and 'drunken' are both
> > adjectives?
> >
> > My dictionary gives the first meaning of the adjective 'drunk' as
> > "intoxicated", while for 'drunken', "(sometimes) drunk" is the last
> > of four definitions.
>
> Whatever dictionaries may claim, in my dialect, "drunk" can only
> occur in sentences like "He is drunk"; I can't have it in front of a
> noun.
How about in the expression "drunken bum"? In New Jersey American, we
used to call so-and-so a drunken bum because he was drunk most of the
time, but a "drunk bum" was an unknown bum who was drunk at the moment
he was being observed -- we didn't know about his sobriety at other
times.
I conclude from this that "drunken" implies "habitually drunk" and
"drunk" implies "drunk" in this instance.
Donna Richoux
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:51 -0500, "Don Phillipson"
> <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >DJ seems mistaken. We still say things like
> >"all drunk drivers should be prosecuted, whoever they
> >may be." We do not say "drunk drivers should be prosecuted,
> >whichever person or persons they may be."
>
> And there's another thing, dammit -- *drunken* drivers, innit.
What catches my ear on British TV is "drink driving" which sounds very
strange. Yet it gets over a million Google hits (much more than "drunk
driving" and slightly less than "drunken driving").
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Skitt
> Wood Avens wrote:
>> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>>> DJ seems mistaken. We still say things like
>>> "all drunk drivers should be prosecuted, whoever they
>>> may be." We do not say "drunk drivers should be prosecuted,
>>> whichever person or persons they may be."
>>
>> And there's another thing, dammit -- *drunken* drivers, innit.
>
> What catches my ear on British TV is "drink driving" which sounds very
> strange. Yet it gets over a million Google hits (much more than "drunk
> driving" and slightly less than "drunken driving").
Yeah, it's enough to drive one to drink.
--
Skitt
Wer kann das bezahlen, wer hat das bestellt ...
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <d86us31npkcu41lss...@4ax.com>,
> Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>
>> And there's another thing, dammit -- *drunken* drivers, innit.
>
> Nope. "drunk driver" has entered the lexicon pretty firmly. To the
> extent that I would say 'drunken driver' sounds quaint.
>
> Well, at least over on the left side of the pond, can't speak for
> the UK.
>
> OT: Friend of mine sent me this today, "local weather chick just
> said 'and daylight savings starts saturday, that extra hour of sun
> should help melt the snow'".
>
> They rewound the TiVo several times to see if maybe, possibly, she
> was joking.
>
> But no, she was just stupid.
I don't know. I could see an extra hour between sunrise and leaving
for work being useful to soften up what's fallen overnight, quite
possibly more so than an extra hour of sun the prior evening.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are two types of people -
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not.
| Leigh Blue Caldwell
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Tasha Miller
> Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:51 -0500, "Don Phillipson"
>> <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> DJ seems mistaken. We still say things like
>>> "all drunk drivers should be prosecuted, whoever they
>>> may be." We do not say "drunk drivers should be prosecuted,
>>> whichever person or persons they may be."
>>
>
> What catches my ear on British TV is "drink driving" which sounds very
> strange. Yet it gets over a million Google hits (much more than "drunk
> driving" and slightly less than "drunken driving").
I think of this as the same kind of "drink" that is found in the expression
"drink taken" and I'm more used, and so more comfortable, with "drink
driving" than the "drunk driving" that I never hear at all. In this context
drunk is a physical state and drink is a term which describes anything that
contains imbibable* alcohol.
Also, one can be drink driving without actually being obviously drunk or
drunk at all and someone who is drink driving here (Australia) may not be
drunk driving elsewhere (with exactly the same blood alcohol level) because
of the different legal limits set around the world. In my state, for
example, it's illegal to drive with a blood alcohol limit over .05 if on a
full license or above nil in the probationary first three years after
passing one's driving test.
* spell-check just told me I made that word up but it seems like a real one!
Skitt
> Lewis writes:
>> OT: Friend of mine sent me this today, "local weather chick just
>> said 'and daylight savings starts saturday, that extra hour of sun
>> should help melt the snow'".
>>
>> They rewound the TiVo several times to see if maybe, possibly, she
>> was joking.
>>
>> But no, she was just stupid.
>
> I don't know. I could see an extra hour between sunrise and leaving
> for work being useful to soften up what's fallen overnight, quite
> possibly more so than an extra hour of sun the prior evening.
Yeah, but there will be one less hour of sun before the commute.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Skitt
> Donna Richoux wrote:
>> What catches my ear on British TV is "drink driving" which sounds
>> very strange. Yet it gets over a million Google hits (much more than
>> "drunk driving" and slightly less than "drunken driving").
>
> I think of this as the same kind of "drink" that is found in the
> expression "drink taken" and I'm more used, and so more comfortable,
> with "drink driving" than the "drunk driving" that I never hear at
> all. In this context drunk is a physical state and drink is a term
> which describes anything that contains imbibable* alcohol.
>
> Also, one can be drink driving without actually being obviously drunk
> or drunk at all and someone who is drink driving here (Australia) may
> not be drunk driving elsewhere (with exactly the same blood alcohol
> level) because of the different legal limits set around the world. In
> my state, for example, it's illegal to drive with a blood alcohol
> limit over .05 if on a full license or above nil in the probationary
> first three years after passing one's driving test.
>
> * spell-check just told me I made that word up but it seems like a
> real one!
Which word?
--
Skitt (AmE)
Skitt
Sorry, I see it now.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Evan Kirshenbaum
I found this interesting:
drunken driving: 1,700,000
drink driving: 1,310,000
drunk driving: 618,000
but
drunk driver[s]: 4,390,000
drunken driver[s]: 382,000
drink driver[s]: 179,000
Is the offense officially "drink driving" in the UK? That might
accound for part of it, as officially here it's usually either "DUI"
(driving under the influence) or "DWI" (driving while intoxicated/
impaired):
DUI: 933,000
DWI: 748,000
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oh, yeah. Right. Duh.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Oh, forget it: I can't write about
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this anymore until I find a much
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |more sarcastic typeface.
| Bill Bickel
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Bob Cunningham
Richoux) said:
> Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> > And there's another thing, dammit -- *drunken* drivers, innit.
>
> What catches my ear on British TV is "drink driving" which sounds very
> strange. Yet it gets over a million Google hits (much more than "drunk
> driving" and slightly less than "drunken driving").
Among the few dozen speakers of American English that I
normally hear, I would be quite surprised to hear "drunken
driving". It sounds to me like schoolteacherspeak. I would
say only "drunk driving", and that's all I would expect to
hear from normal people.
"Drink driving" brings to mind a chap driving down the
highway taking sips from a cocktail in his hand. (And a
cell-phone in his other hand?)
"Drunken driving" seems to be saying the driving is drunk,
whatever that means, not the driver.
"Drunk driving" says a drunk is driving (a souse is
steering).
By the way, about "schoolteacherspeak", I find in the _New
Shorter Oxford_ "schoolmistressy", so "schoolteacherspeak"
isn't all that far out.
Don Aitken
There are two offences. The first is "driving (or attempting to drive
or being in charge of) a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or
other public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs".
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2276545
Usually abbreviated to "driving while unfit".
The other is "driving (or attempting to drive or being in charge of) a
mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place after
consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath,
blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit".
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2276546
Usually abbreviated to "excess alcohol".
The only term which covers both is "drink driving". Although this term
does not appear in the legislation, everything published by the
government, or by any organisation concerned with road safety, or
reported in the mainstream media, will use it. There is an absolute
rigid taboo on the expression "drunk driving", the rationale for which
is that it suggests that there is some link between these offences and
being what would normally be called drunk, which is both completely
untrue and seriously misleading. Even in informal writing and
conversation among ordinary people, this convention is usually
followed.
I think, though I am open to correction on this, that the convention
originated with the publicity campaign which accompanied the
introduction of breath testing in the late 1960s, and that before that
date "drunk driving" was more freely used.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Oleg Lego
>There are two offences. The first is "driving (or attempting to drive
>or being in charge of) a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or
>other public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs".
Driving through drink or drugs? Presumably they have been spilled on
the roadway, innit?
--
WCdnE
John O'Flaherty
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
>In article <638ultF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Tasha Miller" <tasham...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> imbibable*
>
>> * spell-check just told me I made that word up but it seems like a real one!
>
>Heck, there's an imbibable.com out there!
There's a lot of religious stuff.
--
John
Mike Lyle
But we have, admittedly informally, "a drunk", not "*a drunken".
Adjectivally, Hugh MacDiarmid has "The Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle":
I'm inclined to believe that works because we'd more often use "drunken
man". I'm not sure I can quite buy the habitual-occasional distinction.
Robert Bannister
I'm pretty certain that the actual offence is called "drink driving" in
Australia too - enough to drive you to drink.
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
No question about this. I would even go so far as to say that it's the
standard rather than the informal expression where I come from, even if
the driver habitually drives while under the influence.
> Adjectivally, Hugh MacDiarmid has "The Drunk Man Looks at the
> Thistle": I'm inclined to believe that works because we'd more often
> use "drunken man".
I don't think that'd be the case in American. The offense is "drunk and
disorderly", although I have see "drunken chicken" on menus in Chinese
restaurants -- scratched hell out of the paper menus.
> I'm not sure I can quite buy the habitual-occasional distinction.
I was careful enough to say that I was talking about one specific
standard expression, "drunken bum", versus another, "drunk bum", in
"New Jersey American".
But I note with pleasure that the Guardian has this headline from 3
April 2005: "US relied on 'drunken liar' to justify war". The first
paragraph of the story begins with this: "An alcoholic cousin of an
aide to Ahmed Chalabi has emerged as the key source in the US rationale
for going to war in Iraq."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/03/iraq.usa1
A website called SignOnSanDiego.com has this headline from last week:
"Police investigating drunken-driving issue". A mid-report paragraph
says this: "The [73-year-old] mayor [of La Mesa, California,] was found
lying on the sidewalk near the passenger door of his Ford Explorer. [A
34-year-old city employee named Trisha] Turner was keeled over in the
driver's seat, her feet pointing out the open door."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080301-9999-1m1lamesa.html
The Telegraph wrote, on 7 March, 2008, " Tory peer attacks 'grubby
promiscuous' nurses". The peer, Lord Mancroft, went on to say this:
"The nurses who looked after me were mostly grubby - we are talking
about dirty fingernails and hair - and were slipshod and lazy. Worst of
all, they were drunken and promiscuous. How do I know that? You see, if
you are a patient and lying in a bed and being nursed from either side,
they talk across you as if you're not there. So I know exactly what
they got up to the night before, how much they drank and what they were
planning to do the next night. I can tell you it's pretty horrifying."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nnurses1
29.xml
Finally, The Register reported this on 20th February 2008: "Drunken
Korean attempts to cook landlady's Chihuahua". I think most American
newspapers would say "Drunk Korean attempts to cook landlady's
Chihuahua". The other two UK usages seem to support my contention that
"drunken" implies habitual drinking and alcoholism.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/20/dog_flambe/
Three of those sites are UK.
Martin Crossley
In my BrE, a drunken bum has (only) an entirely different meaning!
A drunkard or wino would probably be the nearest to the New Jersey sense.
Martin.
.
CyberCypher
[...]
> A drunkard or wino would probably be the nearest to the New Jersey
> sense.
So what does a "drunken bum" mean in your BrE?
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:12:06 +0000 (UTC):
> Martin Crossley wrote:
> [...]
> > In my BrE, a drunken bum has (only) an entirely different meaning!
> > A drunkard or wino would probably be the nearest to the New Jersey
> > sense.
>
> So what does a "drunken bum" mean in your BrE?
Just the same as in your NJE in my BrE.
"Throw a penny on the drum, save another drunken bum
Sing Hallelujah!"
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote, in <xn0fnefl...@news.seed.net.tw>
> > Martin Crossley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > In my BrE, a drunken bum has (only) an entirely different meaning!
> > > A drunkard or wino would probably be the nearest to the New Jersey
> > > sense.
> >
> > So what does a "drunken bum" mean in your BrE?
>
> Just the same as in your NJE in my BrE.
>
> "Throw a penny on the drum, save another drunken bum
> Sing Hallelujah!"
Salvation Army song?
"Bum" in this expression doesn't necessarily mean a wino or other sort
of homeless alcoholic living on the sidewalks of New York City. A
"drunken bum" can be anyone who's no longer good at what he does
because he's an alcoholic. It can also be a gainfully employed husband
and father who pisses his salary away on booze while his wife and
children eat dog food.
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:04:49 +0000 (UTC):
> Nick Spalding wrote:
> > CyberCypher wrote, in <xn0fnefl...@news.seed.net.tw>
> > > Martin Crossley wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > In my BrE, a drunken bum has (only) an entirely different meaning!
> > > > A drunkard or wino would probably be the nearest to the New Jersey
> > > > sense.
> > >
> > > So what does a "drunken bum" mean in your BrE?
> >
> > Just the same as in your NJE in my BrE.
> >
> > "Throw a penny on the drum, save another drunken bum
> > Sing Hallelujah!"
>
> Salvation Army song?
May well be. I don't know its provenance and don't remember any more of
it.
> "Bum" in this expression doesn't necessarily mean a wino or other sort
> of homeless alcoholic living on the sidewalks of New York City. A
> "drunken bum" can be anyone who's no longer good at what he does
> because he's an alcoholic. It can also be a gainfully employed husband
> and father who pisses his salary away on booze while his wife and
> children eat dog food.
In my well-spent youth it was sung at gatherings where there had been
drink taken.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Pat Durkin
"Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:82m4t3t1grf4r23hs...@4ax.com...
> CyberCypher wrote, in <xn0fnfse...@news.seed.net.tw>
> on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:04:49 +0000 (UTC):
>
>> Nick Spalding wrote:
>> > CyberCypher wrote, in <xn0fnefl...@news.seed.net.tw>
>> > > Martin Crossley wrote:
>> > > [...]
>> > > > In my BrE, a drunken bum has (only) an entirely different
>> > > > meaning!
>> > > > A drunkard or wino would probably be the nearest to the New
>> > > > Jersey
>> > > > sense.
>> > >
>> > > So what does a "drunken bum" mean in your BrE?
>> >
>> > Just the same as in your NJE in my BrE.
>> >
>> > "Throw a penny on the drum, save another drunken bum
>> > Sing Hallelujah!"
>>
>> Salvation Army song?
>
> May well be. I don't know its provenance and don't remember any more
> of
> it.
http://www.ezfolk.com/lyrics/efgh/h/hallelujah-im-a-bum/hallelujah-im-a-bum.html
This endless song (for hikers and bus-riders, etc) doesn't have the
lines that you gave us, nor even the rhythm suggested. But the
implication is, of course, that the bum enjoys his life of ease (or
not).
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:50:22 GMT:
That one I remember from a long ago Saturday Book.
> >> "Bum" in this expression doesn't necessarily mean a wino or other
> >> sort
> >> of homeless alcoholic living on the sidewalks of New York City. A
> >> "drunken bum" can be anyone who's no longer good at what he does
> >> because he's an alcoholic. It can also be a gainfully employed
> >> husband
> >> and father who pisses his salary away on booze while his wife and
> >> children eat dog food.
> >
> > In my well-spent youth it was sung at gatherings where there had been
> > drink taken.
A little googling finds that mine is an anglicised version of:
<http://www.backyardgardener.com/loowitboard/messages/218.html>
which is indeed billed as a Salvation Army song as Franke suggested.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE