Relative clauses: A, B, C. vs Clauses in dash: A - B - C. (Often written with long - or double -- .)

[hongy...@gmail.com]

Hi here,

Janis and I discussed the following question here [1]:

--- begin quote ---

On 06.08.2023 15:52, Hongyi Zhao wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 9:46:13 PM UTC+8, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>> If you want to embed Awk in Emacs I cannot help you - myself using it
>> in a Unix system context from a shell command line -, but I'm sure
>
> Is the following usage of standard English grammar, as you have written above?
>
> -,

Better ask in a newsgroup were languages, grammar, and semantics are
discussed. Myself not a native speaker I've used principles from my
own language and some basic knowledge. What I can say (or speculate
about, if you like) is...
Relative clauses: A, B, C.
Clauses in dash: A - B - C. (Often written with long - or double -- .)
A composition of a relative clause with a dashed clause: A - B -, C.
where the first part of the relative clause contains a dashed clause.
Instead you can also use a parenthetical clause: A (B). or A (B) C.
or as a composition with a relative clause: A (B), C.
What you use depends on the intention, on what you want to express.
(Some native speaker may provide corrections or better explanations.)

I hope the clause composition didn't confuse you so much that the
expressed content was incomprehensible to you.
Syntactically you can parse A - B -, C. as {A{B}}{C} to see what
belongs semantically together.

Janis

PS: Reading Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-philosophicus might
help (or maybe not).

--- end quote ---

Any comments/corrections/hints/supplements will be helpful.

[1] https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.awk/c/fD0S7Ikopf8/m/-4SRZJcBAQAJ

Regards,
Zhao

[Jerry Friedman]

In Janis's sentence, the comma should be deleted. The dash-comma is
pretty much obsolete in English. Also, using "myself" or another reflexive
pronoun as the agent of a participle is odd. I'd have written

If you want to embed Awk in Emacs I cannot help you - I use it
in a Unix system context from a shell command line - but I'm sure
that....

(Actually I think I'd have deleted "context".)

This doesn't look to me like a place for "using". Maybe you could get
away with

If you want to embed Awk in Emacs I cannot help you - using it as I do
in a Unix system context from a shell command line - but I'm sure
that....

There are lots of other good ways to say it.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 9:06:34 PM UTC-4, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:

> Janis
>
> PS: Reading Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-philosophicus might
> help (or maybe not).

Not really ... the standard edition has C. K. Ogden's English translation
facing the German original (and an Introduction by Bertrand Russell),
because you need all the help you can get.

[hongy...@gmail.com]

What's the difference between your above two versions?

> There are lots of other good ways to say it.
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Zhao

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Very little. "Using it as I do" seems a little old-fashioned to me, and in this
situation it seems wordy.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

That's an interesting example where commas make a difference.

"Using it, as I do, from a shell command line" means "using it from a
shell command line", with "as I do" as an incidental comment. It
suggests using it in the same way as other people who also use it from a
shell command line.

(I've deleted "in a Unix system context", because that seems to be a
redundant qualifier that doesn't contribute much to the meaning.)

With the commas, "Using it as I do from a shell command line" means
"using it in my way", which presumably different from the way most
people use it from a shell command line.

But I really wanted to comment on the "seems a little old-fashioned",
because of the relevance to the H G Wells thread. I use both of those
constructs (with and without the commas, with different meanings), so
perhaps I'm more old-fashioned than I thought.

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

[lar3ryca]

As I do.
We appear to be equally old-fashioned.

While typing the above, I remembered something I wanted to mention.
We have a health-food store in Regina called 'Old Fashion Foods', which
has always grated on me, as I felt it should be 'Old Fashioned Foods'.

--
The large print giveth, and
the small print taketh away.

[Mark Brader]

"Larry":

> We appear to be equally old-fashioned.
>
> While typing the above, I remembered something I wanted to mention.
> We have a health-food store in Regina called 'Old Fashion Foods', which
> has always grated on me, as I felt it should be 'Old Fashioned Foods'.

No, no! It should be "Old-Fashioned Foods".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Strange commas are enshrined in
m...@vex.net | the US Constitution." --James Hogg

[TonyCooper]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2023 15:53:43 +0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>"Larry":
>> We appear to be equally old-fashioned.
>>
>> While typing the above, I remembered something I wanted to mention.
>> We have a health-food store in Regina called 'Old Fashion Foods', which
>> has always grated on me, as I felt it should be 'Old Fashioned Foods'.
>
>No, no! It should be "Old-Fashioned Foods".

What I don't understand is which type of food would be considered to
be "Old Fashion/Old Fashioned/Old-Fashioned".

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

[lar3ryca]

No idea, but then it's just a name.

I went to a general store.
They wouldn’t let me buy anything specifically.
~ Stephen Wright

--
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

[Peter Moylan]

On 09/08/23 01:53, Mark Brader wrote:
> "Larry":
>> We appear to be equally old-fashioned.
>>
>> While typing the above, I remembered something I wanted to mention.
>> We have a health-food store in Regina called 'Old Fashion Foods', which
>> has always grated on me, as I felt it should be 'Old Fashioned Foods'.
>
> No, no! It should be "Old-Fashioned Foods".

That depends on how old the food is.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 09-Aug-23 1:07, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 09/08/23 01:53, Mark Brader wrote:
>> "Larry":
>>> We appear to be equally old-fashioned.
>>>
>>> While typing the above, I remembered something I wanted to mention.
>>> We have a health-food store in Regina called 'Old Fashion Foods', which
>>> has always grated on me, as I felt it should be 'Old Fashioned Foods'.
>>
>> No, no!  It should be "Old-Fashioned Foods".
>
> That depends on how old the food is.

I suppose one of those intricately carved radishes is a fashioned food.
I don't know if it is old.

--
Sam Plusnet