Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Quasi-adverbial "unlike"
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Guy Barry
Jul 7, 2012, 4:34:30 AM7/7/12
to
I wrote in another thread:
"Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
selection process for BBC Trustees."
How do you stand with this use of "unlike"? I'd never use "like" in
the opposite sense, always "as": "As with the old Board of Governors,
there's a closed appointments system". I suppose in this instance I
could have written "in contrast with..."
I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here. It seems to
be used in this fashion fairly frequently, but is it standard?
--
Guy Barry
"Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
selection process for BBC Trustees."
How do you stand with this use of "unlike"? I'd never use "like" in
the opposite sense, always "as": "As with the old Board of Governors,
there's a closed appointments system". I suppose in this instance I
could have written "in contrast with..."
I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here. It seems to
be used in this fashion fairly frequently, but is it standard?
--
Guy Barry
Eric Walker
Jul 7, 2012, 5:24:26 AM7/7/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:34:30 -0700, Guy Barry wrote:
> I wrote in another thread:
>
> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
It is vile.
> I wrote in another thread:
>
> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
Presumably, folk who use it are under the impression, perhaps not even on
a conscious level, that it is elliptical for "Unlike the case with the
old Board of Governors &c &c." But it isn't.
Things can be like, or unlike, other things: that is the blindingly
simple guideline.
One could, for example, unexceptionably write:
"Unlike the old Board of Governors, though, BBC Trustees are selected
by an open process."
There, one thing (the old Board) is likened to some other thing (the
Trustees). Or one might write:
"Unlike the way the old Board of Governors was chosen, the process for
selecting BBC Trustees is open."
There, a "way" is likened to a "process".
> It seems to be used in this fashion fairly frequently, but is it
> standard?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Snidely
Jul 7, 2012, 1:24:35 PM7/7/12
to
On Saturday, Eric Walker queried:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:34:30 -0700, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> I wrote in another thread:
>>
>> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
>> selection process for BBC Trustees."
>>
>> How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
>
> It is vile.
>
> Presumably, folk who use it are under the impression, perhaps not even on
> a conscious level, that it is elliptical for "Unlike the case with the
> old Board of Governors &c &c." But it isn't.
>
> Things can be like, or unlike, other things: that is the blindingly
> simple guideline.
>
> One could, for example, unexceptionably write:
>
> "Unlike the old Board of Governors, though, BBC Trustees are selected
> by an open process."
>
> There, one thing (the old Board) is likened to some other thing (the
> Trustees). Or one might write:
>
> "Unlike the way the old Board of Governors was chosen, the process for
> selecting BBC Trustees is open."
>
> There, a "way" is likened to a "process".
I'm inclined to choose this rewrite, also.
>
>> It seems to be used in this fashion fairly frequently, but is it
>> standard?
>
> No.
I can't confirm either way, but it did seem a little rough to me.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:34:30 -0700, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> I wrote in another thread:
>>
>> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
>> selection process for BBC Trustees."
>>
>> How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
>
> It is vile.
>
> Presumably, folk who use it are under the impression, perhaps not even on
> a conscious level, that it is elliptical for "Unlike the case with the
> old Board of Governors &c &c." But it isn't.
>
> Things can be like, or unlike, other things: that is the blindingly
> simple guideline.
>
> One could, for example, unexceptionably write:
>
> "Unlike the old Board of Governors, though, BBC Trustees are selected
> by an open process."
>
> There, one thing (the old Board) is likened to some other thing (the
> Trustees). Or one might write:
>
> "Unlike the way the old Board of Governors was chosen, the process for
> selecting BBC Trustees is open."
>
> There, a "way" is likened to a "process".
>
>> It seems to be used in this fashion fairly frequently, but is it
>> standard?
>
> No.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Mark Brader
Jul 8, 2012, 12:51:01 AM7/8/12
to
Guy Barry:
> I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here.
It's modifying an adverbial phrase, so it must be an adverb.
--
Mark Brader "Also, be sure to include your signature TWICE in
Toronto each article. That way you're sure people will
m...@vex.net read it." -- "Emily Postnews" (Brad Templeton)
> I wrote in another thread:
>
> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
I'd avoid it in formal writing, I guess.
>
> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
> I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here.
--
Mark Brader "Also, be sure to include your signature TWICE in
Toronto each article. That way you're sure people will
m...@vex.net read it." -- "Emily Postnews" (Brad Templeton)
Guy Barry
Jul 8, 2012, 3:28:01 AM7/8/12
to
On Jul 8, 5:51 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
> > I wrote in another thread:
>
> > "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> > How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
>
> I'd avoid it in formal writing, I guess.
That seems to be the general view. The problem is that there's no
> Guy Barry:
>
> > I wrote in another thread:
>
> > "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> > How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
>
> I'd avoid it in formal writing, I guess.
word that stands neatly in relation to "as" as "unlike" stands to
"like". I could have put the subordinate clause second and written
"there's an open selection process for BBC Trustees, not as with the
old Board of Governors"; but moving "not as with..." to the beginning
produces an unacceptable sentence. The only alternative, as I
suggested earlier, is to rephrase and use "in contrast with..." or
something similar.
This use of "unlike" seems to stand in the category "strictly
ungrammatical, but sometimes just too useful" as far as I'm concerned.
> > I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here.
>
> It's modifying an adverbial phrase, so it must be an adverb.
the adverbial phrase as a complement, rather as a preposition takes a
noun phrase as a complement. What part of speech is "instead of" in
the following?
"I'm leaving today instead of tomorrow."
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Jul 8, 2012, 5:21:26 AM7/8/12
to
Guy Barry:
--
Mark Brader | "But how do you figure out whether the programmer
Toronto | knew what he was doing when you find his code
m...@vex.net | after he's gone?" -- Roger Critchlow
>>> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
>>> selection process for BBC Trustees."
...
>>> selection process for BBC Trustees."
>>> I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here.
Mark Brader:
>> It's modifying an adverbial phrase, so it must be an adverb.
Guy Barry:
> Is it actually modifying the adverbial phrase?
Yes! Much like the way "not" could.
--
Mark Brader | "But how do you figure out whether the programmer
Toronto | knew what he was doing when you find his code
m...@vex.net | after he's gone?" -- Roger Critchlow
Guy Barry
Jul 8, 2012, 6:33:34 AM7/8/12
to
On Jul 8, 10:21 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
> >>> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> >>> selection process for BBC Trustees."
> ...
> >>> I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> It's modifying an adverbial phrase, so it must be an adverb.
>
> Guy Barry:
>
> > Is it actually modifying the adverbial phrase?
>
> Yes! Much like the way "not" could.
You may well be right with "unlike", but what about "instead of"?
> Guy Barry:
>
> >>> "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> >>> selection process for BBC Trustees."
> ...
> >>> I'm not even sure what part of speech "unlike" is here.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> It's modifying an adverbial phrase, so it must be an adverb.
>
> Guy Barry:
>
> > Is it actually modifying the adverbial phrase?
>
> Yes! Much like the way "not" could.
Here are some examples from the BNC of "instead of" followed by a
preposition:
The right to wear them over the left breast pocket instead of on the
sleeve was granted to those who had taken part in three trips behind
the lines.
She was a qualified teacher, but chose to work as an accounting
secretary with a firm of solicitors instead of in a class-room.
I wished I had stayed there instead of at the sweetshop.
...it was just that now he would see the shop windows shining at night
instead of by day...
This involves the court ordering a third party who owes your debtor
money to pay that money into court instead of to your debtor.
Forth Ferries will provide weekend sailings between North Queensferry
and Granton, Edinburgh, instead of from Burntisland when services
resume on 10 April after the winter break.
You can't normally follow a preposition with another preposition, so
"instead of" can't be a preposition in any of these; but does that
make it an adverb, modifying the prepositional phrase? I'm really not
sure at all. It almost functions as a sort of "second-order
preposition", if that makes any sense.
--
Guy Barry
Jerry Friedman
Jul 8, 2012, 8:49:42 AM7/8/12
to
On Jul 7, 3:24 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:34:30 -0700, Guy Barry wrote:
> > I wrote in another thread:
>
> > "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> > How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
>
> It is vile.
I dislike it too.
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:34:30 -0700, Guy Barry wrote:
> > I wrote in another thread:
>
> > "Unlike with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."
>
> > How do you stand with this use of "unlike"?
>
> It is vile.
...
> One could, for example, unexceptionably write:
>
> "Unlike the old Board of Governors, though, BBC Trustees are selected
> by an open process."
>
> There, one thing (the old Board) is likened to some other thing (the
> Trustees). Or one might write:
>
> "Unlike the way the old Board of Governors was chosen, the process for
> selecting BBC Trustees is open."
>
> There, a "way" is likened to a "process".
"Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
selection process for BBC Trustees."?
> > It seems to be used in this fashion fairly frequently, but is it
> > standard?
>
> No.
--
Jerry Friedman
Guy Barry
Jul 8, 2012, 9:17:58 AM7/8/12
to
On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."?
But that commits the same (supposed) solecism as my original example -
> How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."?
treating "unlike" as a quasi-adverb instead of a preposition. If
"unlike" can't take a "with"-PP as its complement, it can't take a
"for"-PP either. You'd have to say "unlike the process for the old
Board of Governors..." or "unlike the old Board of Governors, the BBC
Trustees have an open selection process".
For what it's worth, the BNC has only six matches for "unlike with"
and three for "unlike for", but "unlike in" fares somewhat better with
53. Most of these don't have a parallel use of "in":
And unlike in the past, fewer agencies are now earning investment
income from surplus funds.
Stewart and Olazabal came back at him over the back nine but, unlike
in the Lancome Trophy when Eduardo Romero chipped in to deny him his
second tour victory this year, this time the West German was not to be
disappointed.
Mr Thompson said that what marked out the drift to recession was that
the service sector would be as badly hit as manufacturing at least,
and possibly worse affected, unlike in the recession of 1981.
--
Guy Barry
None of these have a parallel "in",
CDB
Jul 8, 2012, 10:15:32 AM7/8/12
to
correct, as a negative of "as", even if not beautiful. "As [there
was] not with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
selection process for BBC Trustees." "And[,] as [few did] not in the
past, fewer agencies are now earning investment income from surplus
funds." That one suffers the difficulty of contrasting comparatives
that was discussed recently. I suppose it coiuld be rephrased as "...
as was not true in the past ...".
Guy Barry
Jul 8, 2012, 10:36:52 AM7/8/12
to
On Jul 8, 3:15 pm, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I share the general uneasiness. I suppose "as not" would be closer to
> correct, as a negative of "as", even if not beautiful. "As [there
> was] not with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."
I don't think "as not" works at all. You can use "not as", but the
> I share the general uneasiness. I suppose "as not" would be closer to
> correct, as a negative of "as", even if not beautiful. "As [there
> was] not with the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."
adverbial has to come second:
"There's an open selection process for BBC Trustees, not as with the
old Board of Governors."
> "And[,] as [few did] not in the
> past, fewer agencies are now earning investment income from surplus
> funds." That one suffers the difficulty of contrasting comparatives
> that was discussed recently. I suppose it coiuld be rephrased as "...
> as was not true in the past ...".
wrong construction. What you need is "in comparison with the past" or
just "fewer agencies than in the past are now..."
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Jul 8, 2012, 1:37:41 PM7/8/12
to
Guy Barry:
> You can't normally follow a preposition with another preposition...
Prepositional phrases don't typically serve as nouns, but they can,
and that's what's going on here.
"Under the bed is the next place to look for it."
"Oh. I looked under the sofa instead of under the bed."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "C takes the point of view that the programmer
m...@vex.net | is always right" -- Michael DeCorte
> You may well be right with "unlike", but what about "instead of"?
> Here are some examples from the BNC of "instead of" followed by a
...
> Here are some examples from the BNC of "instead of" followed by a
> You can't normally follow a preposition with another preposition...
Prepositional phrases don't typically serve as nouns, but they can,
and that's what's going on here.
"Under the bed is the next place to look for it."
"Oh. I looked under the sofa instead of under the bed."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "C takes the point of view that the programmer
m...@vex.net | is always right" -- Michael DeCorte
Guy Barry
Jul 8, 2012, 2:20:46 PM7/8/12
to
On Jul 8, 6:37 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
>
>
> > You may well be right with "unlike", but what about "instead of"?
> > Here are some examples from the BNC of "instead of" followed by a
> ...
> > You can't normally follow a preposition with another preposition...
>
> Prepositional phrases don't typically serve as nouns, but they can,
> and that's what's going on here.
>
> "Under the bed is the next place to look for it."
I can't agree that "under the bed" serves as a noun here - cf. "here
> Guy Barry:
>
>
>
> > You may well be right with "unlike", but what about "instead of"?
> > Here are some examples from the BNC of "instead of" followed by a
> ...
> > You can't normally follow a preposition with another preposition...
>
> Prepositional phrases don't typically serve as nouns, but they can,
> and that's what's going on here.
>
> "Under the bed is the next place to look for it."
is the next place to look for it". These are examples of subject-verb
inversion; the subject of "is" is "the next place to look for it", and
"under the bed" has its usual adverbial force. You can't say "under
the bed is dark" or "under the bed scares me".
> "Oh. I looked under the sofa instead of under the bed."
not. You can't say "I looked under the sofa after under the bed", "I
looked under the sofa until under the bed", "I looked under the sofa
without under the bed", "I looked under the sofa besides under the
bed" - in fact I can't think of any other preposition you can put
before it. As far as I can see "instead of" is anomalous in this
respect.
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Jul 8, 2012, 2:37:55 PM7/8/12
to
Mark Brader:
> These are examples of subject-verb inversion...
Now consider:
"The next place to look for it is under the bed."
This has two possible meanings.
(1) It's giving a partial description of the place to look; it's
somewhere under the bed. This reading invites the response
"*Where* under the bed is this place, then? And why didn't you
just tell me that in the first place?" And in this reading,
"under the bed" serves as an adjective modifying "place".
(2) It's fully describing the place to look, using "under the bed"
as the name of it. In this reading it's a noun phrase.
My first sentence is like meaning 2. Saying that "under the bed"
is an adverb or adjective is attempting to reinterpret it like
meaning 1.
>> "Oh. I looked under the sofa instead of under the bed."
> You're saying that "under the bed" is serving as a noun here?
Of course. It's the object of the preposition "instead of".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | An actual human would feel guilt in this situation.
m...@vex.net | -- Scott Adams: Dilbert
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> > "Under the bed is the next place to look for it."
Guy Barry:
> I can't agree that "under the bed" serves as a noun here - cf. "here
> is the next place to look for it".
In which "here" is a noun, duh.
> is the next place to look for it".
> These are examples of subject-verb inversion...
Now consider:
"The next place to look for it is under the bed."
This has two possible meanings.
(1) It's giving a partial description of the place to look; it's
somewhere under the bed. This reading invites the response
"*Where* under the bed is this place, then? And why didn't you
just tell me that in the first place?" And in this reading,
"under the bed" serves as an adjective modifying "place".
(2) It's fully describing the place to look, using "under the bed"
as the name of it. In this reading it's a noun phrase.
My first sentence is like meaning 2. Saying that "under the bed"
is an adverb or adjective is attempting to reinterpret it like
meaning 1.
>> "Oh. I looked under the sofa instead of under the bed."
> You're saying that "under the bed" is serving as a noun here?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | An actual human would feel guilt in this situation.
m...@vex.net | -- Scott Adams: Dilbert
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Guy Barry
Jul 9, 2012, 4:47:11 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 8, 7:37 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Mark Brader:
>
> > > "Under the bed is the next place to look for it."
>
> Guy Barry:
>
> > I can't agree that "under the bed" serves as a noun here - cf. "here
> > is the next place to look for it".
>
> In which "here" is a noun, duh.
Is "here" a noun? I suppose it can be in some contexts, e.g. "full up
> Mark Brader:
>
> > > "Under the bed is the next place to look for it."
>
> Guy Barry:
>
> > I can't agree that "under the bed" serves as a noun here - cf. "here
> > is the next place to look for it".
>
> In which "here" is a noun, duh.
to here".
> Now consider:
>
> "The next place to look for it is under the bed."
>
> This has two possible meanings.
>
> (1) It's giving a partial description of the place to look; it's
> somewhere under the bed. This reading invites the response
> "*Where* under the bed is this place, then? And why didn't you
> just tell me that in the first place?" And in this reading,
> "under the bed" serves as an adjective modifying "place".
>
> (2) It's fully describing the place to look, using "under the bed"
> as the name of it. In this reading it's a noun phrase.
"under the bed" is a noun phrase in the second one. If it were, we'd
be able to say "I found under the bed" or "I searched in under the
bed". I'd say that it has adjectival force in (1), adverbial force in
(2). The use in (2) strikes me as analogous to the use in "I looked
under the bed".
> My first sentence is like meaning 2. Saying that "under the bed"
> is an adverb or adjective is attempting to reinterpret it like
> meaning 1.
force, and there's a difference in meaning. E.g.
"I saw the box under the bed" (adjectival, modifying "box") - i.e. the
box that was situated under the bed.
"I left the box under the bed" (adverbial, modifying "left") - i.e.
left in a position under the bed.
I think that's the distinction here although I'll have to consider it
further.
> >> "Oh. I looked under the sofa instead of under the bed."
> > You're saying that "under the bed" is serving as a noun here?
>
> Of course. It's the object of the preposition "instead of".
serve at the object of any other preposition as far as I know ("after
under the bed", "without under the bed" etc.), whereas, as I said in a
previous post, other prepositional phrases can serve as the object of
"instead of" ("instead of at night", "instead of by train", "instead
of in the summer" etc.). It strikes me that the anomaly lies with
"instead of" rather than with anything else.
--
Guy Barry
Eric Walker
Jul 10, 2012, 6:30:19 AM7/10/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 05:49:42 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
[...]
> How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."?
I don't reckon that "for the old Board of Governors" is a noun phrase, so
it can't be like or unlike something else.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> selection process for BBC Trustees."?
it can't be like or unlike something else.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
Jul 10, 2012, 8:11:12 AM7/10/12
to
On Jul 8, 8:15 am, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 9:17 am, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> > > "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > > selection process for BBC Trustees."?
>
> > But that commits the same (supposed) solecism as my original example -
> > treating "unlike" as a quasi-adverb instead of a preposition. If
> > "unlike" can't take a "with"-PP as its complement, it can't take a
> > "for"-PP either. You'd have to say "unlike the process for the old
> > Board of Governors..." or "unlike the old Board of Governors, the BBC
> > Trustees have an open selection process".
>
> > For what it's worth, the BNC has only six matches for "unlike with"
> > and three for "unlike for", but "unlike in" fares somewhat better with
> > 53. Most of these don't have a parallel use of "in":
...
> On Jul 8, 9:17 am, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> > > "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > > selection process for BBC Trustees."?
>
> > But that commits the same (supposed) solecism as my original example -
> > treating "unlike" as a quasi-adverb instead of a preposition. If
> > "unlike" can't take a "with"-PP as its complement, it can't take a
> > "for"-PP either. You'd have to say "unlike the process for the old
> > Board of Governors..." or "unlike the old Board of Governors, the BBC
> > Trustees have an open selection process".
>
> > For what it's worth, the BNC has only six matches for "unlike with"
> > and three for "unlike for", but "unlike in" fares somewhat better with
> > 53. Most of these don't have a parallel use of "in":
> None of these have a parallel "in",
>
> I share the general uneasiness. I suppose "as not" would be closer to
> correct, as a negative of "as", even if not beautiful.
What English needs is "unas".
--
Jerry Friedman
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jul 10, 2012, 8:44:25 AM7/10/12
to
Now all I need to do is the find a use for the remaining "suming",
"sertive", "ked", "hamed", "tonished" etc.
"pirated", "sailable" and "signed" are readily usable.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
Jul 10, 2012, 8:59:03 AM7/10/12
to
I agree. It's the same part of speech as "as" as in "as in". AHD4
and Dictionary.com Unabridged don't list this sense of "as" (or I
can't tell which of their senses is supposed to cover it). M-W seems
to call it an adverb. The OED calls it a conjunction.
My feeling is that English has a few grammar words that don't fit well
in any of the traditional parts of speech, at least in certain senses.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Jul 10, 2012, 9:08:31 AM7/10/12
to
On Jul 8, 7:17 am, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> > "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."?
>
> But that commits the same (supposed) solecism as my original example -
> treating "unlike" as a quasi-adverb instead of a preposition.
I thought it might look better without the (other) solecism of using
> On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> > "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."?
>
> But that commits the same (supposed) solecism as my original example -
> treating "unlike" as a quasi-adverb instead of a preposition.
"with" and "for" in what should be the same sense.
> If
> "unlike" can't take a "with"-PP as its complement, it can't take a
> "for"-PP either. You'd have to say "unlike the process for the old
> Board of Governors..." or "unlike the old Board of Governors, the BBC
> Trustees have an open selection process".
>
> For what it's worth, the BNC has only six matches for "unlike with"
> and three for "unlike for", but "unlike in" fares somewhat better with
> 53. Most of these don't have a parallel use of "in":
Likewise for what it's worth, COCA has 657 matches with "unlike
[preposition]", including 436 with "in" and 98 with "with". (For
comparison, it has 83,965 with "as [preposition]".)
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Jul 10, 2012, 9:22:44 AM7/10/12
to
On Jul 10, 4:30 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 05:49:42 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> > "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."?
>
> I don't reckon that "for the old Board of Governors" is a noun phrase,
I don't either.
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 05:49:42 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > How about making the preposition parallel?
>
> > "Unlike for the old Board of Governors, though, there's an open
> > selection process for BBC Trustees."?
>
> I don't reckon that "for the old Board of Governors" is a noun phrase,
> so it can't be like or unlike something else.
standard English, or whether it can be the opposite of "as", as in
"...unlike in the early journals with their sexual graphicness,
[Edmund] Wilson seems unable to perform the act to which he had
devoted so much time in the past--not to mention so many words..."
Gore Vidal, "Edmund Wilson: Nineteenth-Century Man"
http://books.google.com/books?id=mTOxcYkalWYC&pg=PT23
Garner, as you know, finds a possible rationale for "unlike in" as
elliptical and places it in his "Stage 4", "the form becomes virtually
universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic
stalwarts (die-hard snoots)," so he recommends not using it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FwmQpyibKkAC&pg=PT3400
I don't think he discusses "unlike" before other prepositions.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Jul 10, 2012, 9:28:38 AM7/10/12
to
On Jul 10, 6:44 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
Then there are all the Unas, Umas, Inas, Ednas...
--
Jerry Friedman
wrote:
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
Jul 10, 2012, 11:08:05 AM7/10/12
to
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:11:12 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:15 am, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [not as . as not]
"Asn't"? Pity "nas" would be too hard to distinguish in speech.
Google did something orrible to your double inverted commas. Let's see if the repair job will last.
> On Jul 8, 8:15 am, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [not as . as not]
> ...
>
> What English needs is "unas"
>
> --
>
> What English needs is "unas"
>
"Asn't"? Pity "nas" would be too hard to distinguish in speech.
Google did something orrible to your double inverted commas. Let's see if the repair job will last.
musika
Jul 10, 2012, 2:36:48 PM7/10/12
to
Jerry Friedman wrote:
> What English needs is "unas".
Well, they had them in Stargate.
> What English needs is "unas".
--
Ray
UK
Eric Walker
Jul 11, 2012, 4:50:34 AM7/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:22:44 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
[...]
[...]
> The question is whether "unlike" has only the same syntax as "like" in
> standard English, or whether it can be the opposite of "as", as in
>
> "...unlike in the early journals with their sexual graphicness, [Edmund]
> Wilson seems unable to perform the act to which he had devoted so much
> time in the past--not to mention so many words..."
>
> Gore Vidal, "Edmund Wilson: Nineteenth-Century Man"
Shocking to me, as Vidal is one of the finest stylists I can think of
> standard English, or whether it can be the opposite of "as", as in
>
> "...unlike in the early journals with their sexual graphicness, [Edmund]
> Wilson seems unable to perform the act to which he had devoted so much
> time in the past--not to mention so many words..."
>
> Gore Vidal, "Edmund Wilson: Nineteenth-Century Man"
offhand. Worse, it seems to make Edmund Wilson unlike some early
journals, which--though I suppose he is--seems a strange observation.
(What Edmund Wilson *is* like I reserve comment on.)
> Garner, as you know, finds a possible rationale for "unlike in" as
> elliptical and places it in his "Stage 4", "the form becomes virtually
> universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts
> (die-hard snoots)," so he recommends not using it.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=FwmQpyibKkAC&pg=PT3400
>
> I don't think he discusses "unlike" before other prepositions.
implied elision of "the case of" or "that" or something of the sort, but
the result is rather clunky at best.
> I don't think he discusses "unlike" before other prepositions.
the charity required to try to imagine some plausible implied elision
exceeds the bounds of ordinary human ability, and edges on requiring
sainthood.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Guy Barry
Jul 11, 2012, 5:27:07 AM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 9:50 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:22:44 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > Garner, as you know, finds a possible rationale for "unlike in" as
> > elliptical and places it in his "Stage 4", "the form becomes virtually
> > universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts
> > (die-hard snoots)," so he recommends not using it.
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=FwmQpyibKkAC&pg=PT3400
Garner's analysis seems flawed to me: he supposes an elliptical "what
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:22:44 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > Garner, as you know, finds a possible rationale for "unlike in" as
> > elliptical and places it in his "Stage 4", "the form becomes virtually
> > universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts
> > (die-hard snoots)," so he recommends not using it.
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=FwmQpyibKkAC&pg=PT3400
happened" after "unlike", so that the first of his examples would be
elliptical for "unlike what happened in the primary, Cropp won't be
running with the support of John Ray's well-financed mayoral
campaign". But now "unlike what happened in the primary" is modifying
"Cropp", which produces nonsense. "What happened in the primary"
isn't being contrasted with "Cropp", but with "[the fact that] Cropp
won't be running with the support of John Ray's well-financed mayoral
campaign". The same problem occurs with the other two examples.
> In the particular form "unlike in", one can, with charity, presume an
> implied elision of "the case of" or "that" or something of the sort, but
> the result is rather clunky at best.
in"; if "unlike" is a preposition, then it can't be followed by
anything except a noun phrase. Or did you mean something else?
Either "unlike" is a preposition and nothing else, in which case
there's no analysis that will generate any of the examples cited; or
it has acquired a new status as the negative counterpart to "as", in
which case all the examples are straightforwardly analysable. You can
take one position or the other but I don't think it's possible to
defend the usage while maintaining its status as a preposition.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Jul 11, 2012, 5:54:25 AM7/11/12
to
On Jul 10, 1:59 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree. It's the same part of speech as "as" as in "as in".
I'm imagining that sentence without the quote marks!
> I agree. It's the same part of speech as "as" as in "as in".
> AHD4 and Dictionary.com Unabridged don't list this sense of "as" (or I
> can't tell which of their senses is supposed to cover it). M-W seems
> to call it an adverb. The OED calls it a conjunction.
conjunction; e.g. "as in the 1960s" is seen as elliptical for "as it
was in the 1960s". However "unlike" can't be used as a conjunction
("unlike it was in the 1960s"), so I'm uncertain how to classify the
disputed usage. As I mentioned elsewhere, perhaps the closest
parallel is with "instead of", which can also take a prepositional
phrase as its argument ("he came on foot instead of by car"). Meta-
preposition?
--
Guy Barry
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jul 11, 2012, 7:11:21 AM7/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:50:34 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:22:44 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> The question is whether "unlike" has only the same syntax as "like" in
>> standard English, or whether it can be the opposite of "as", as in
>>
>> "...unlike in the early journals with their sexual graphicness, [Edmund]
>> Wilson seems unable to perform the act to which he had devoted so much
>> time in the past--not to mention so many words..."
>>
>> Gore Vidal, "Edmund Wilson: Nineteenth-Century Man"
>
I was garden-pathed by the phrase "Vidal is one of the finest stylists"
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:22:44 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> The question is whether "unlike" has only the same syntax as "like" in
>> standard English, or whether it can be the opposite of "as", as in
>>
>> "...unlike in the early journals with their sexual graphicness, [Edmund]
>> Wilson seems unable to perform the act to which he had devoted so much
>> time in the past--not to mention so many words..."
>>
>> Gore Vidal, "Edmund Wilson: Nineteenth-Century Man"
>
in your cooment below and left perplexed because I hadn't read the
quoted material above. I thought you were writing about Vidal Sassoon,
the hairdresser.[1]
>Shocking to me, as Vidal is one of the finest stylists I can think of
>offhand. Worse, it seems to make Edmund Wilson unlike some early
>journals, which--though I suppose he is--seems a strange observation.
>(What Edmund Wilson *is* like I reserve comment on.)
>
Jerry Friedman
Jul 11, 2012, 11:58:04 AM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 2:50 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:22:44 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The question is whether "unlike" has only the same syntax as "like" in
> > standard English, or whether it can be the opposite of "as", as in
>
> > "...unlike in the early journals with their sexual graphicness, [Edmund]
(Guess I didn't need that, since Wilson's first name is given below.)
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:22:44 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The question is whether "unlike" has only the same syntax as "like" in
> > standard English, or whether it can be the opposite of "as", as in
>
> > "...unlike in the early journals with their sexual graphicness, [Edmund]
> > Wilson seems unable to perform the act to which he had devoted so much
> > time in the past--not to mention so many words..."
>
> > Gore Vidal, "Edmund Wilson: Nineteenth-Century Man"
>
> Shocking to me, as Vidal is one of the finest stylists I can think of
> offhand. Worse, it seems to make Edmund Wilson unlike some early
> journals, which--though I suppose he is--seems a strange observation.
It's more "unlike the situation in the early journals". One could
still object. Maybe the elision most acceptable to "snoots" would be
"unlike the Wilson depicted in the early journals". Or maybe "unlike"
here is the opposite of "as".
> (What Edmund Wilson *is* like I reserve comment on.)
>
> > Garner, as you know, finds a possible rationale for "unlike in" as
> > elliptical and places it in his "Stage 4", "the form becomes virtually
> > universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts
> > (die-hard snoots)," so he recommends not using it.
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=FwmQpyibKkAC&pg=PT3400
>
> In the particular form "unlike in", one can, with charity, presume an
> implied elision of "the case of" or "that" or something of the sort, but
> the result is rather clunky at best.
>
> > I don't think he discusses "unlike" before other prepositions.
>
> I would suppose that is because in other cases it is far worse yet, and
> the charity required to try to imagine some plausible implied elision
> exceeds the bounds of ordinary human ability, and edges on requiring
> sainthood.
Maybe it's just because "unlike in" is the most common by a
> implied elision of "the case of" or "that" or something of the sort, but
> the result is rather clunky at best.
>
> > I don't think he discusses "unlike" before other prepositions.
>
> I would suppose that is because in other cases it is far worse yet, and
> the charity required to try to imagine some plausible implied elision
> exceeds the bounds of ordinary human ability, and edges on requiring
> sainthood.
considerable margin.
Incidentally, there's even less hesitancy about "unlike in" in /
Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage/ (2011):
http://books.google.com/books?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA915
--
Jerry Friedman
Guy Barry
Jul 11, 2012, 4:11:09 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 4:58 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Incidentally, there's even less hesitancy about "unlike in" in /
> Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage/ (2011):
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA915
This is quite remarkable, as Garner is *advocating* the use of "unlike
> Incidentally, there's even less hesitancy about "unlike in" in /
> Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage/ (2011):
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA915
in" as a substitute for the preposition "unlike", not the other way
round! I can't see anything wrong with "unlike" in the first of his
examples: "The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of
Klessig; unlike Klessig, Imani did not proceed to trial without
counsel." The presumed implication here is that Klessig did proceed
to trial without counsel, so I can't see anything wrong with the
sentence (unless I'm misreading it). Why add "in" after "unlike"?
The second one also seems OK: "It is also necessary to revisit the
rule from Beebe in those circumstances - unlike the present case -
where lifesaving medical care is denied, because Sinclair remains good
law." Here "the present case" is presumably being contrasted with
"those circumstances", so again there appears to be no reason to add
"in".
The third one is more problematic: "Again, and unlike the instant
case, Meatland and Brown were not engaged in a common task or seeking
to accomplish a common purpose." This appears to contrast "Meatland
and Brown" with "the instant case" (as Garner points out), so some
rewording is necessary. I'd probably change "unlike" to "in contrast
with", or else rewrite the sentence using "as": "Again, Meatland and
Brown were not, as in the instant case, engaged in a common task or
seeking to accomplish a common purpose."
--
Guy Barry
Jerry Friedman
Jul 11, 2012, 5:11:17 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 3:54 am, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 1:59 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
["as in"]
> On Jul 10, 1:59 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > AHD4 and Dictionary.com Unabridged don't list this sense of "as" (or I
> > can't tell which of their senses is supposed to cover it). M-W seems
> > to call it an adverb. The OED calls it a conjunction.
>
> I think "as" in this sense is normally analysed as a subordinating
> conjunction; e.g. "as in the 1960s" is seen as elliptical for "as it
> was in the 1960s". However "unlike" can't be used as a conjunction
> ("unlike it was in the 1960s"), so I'm uncertain how to classify the
> disputed usage.
in standard English.
> As I mentioned elsewhere, perhaps the closest
> parallel is with "instead of", which can also take a prepositional
> phrase as its argument ("he came on foot instead of by car"). Meta-
> preposition?
The daffodil leaves are emerging from under the snow.
I've looked everywhere, from behind the refrigerator to inside the
oven.
Such houses sell for between $100,000 and $150,000.
All of these can be understood as involving elision. ("He came on
foot instead of coming by car.") On the other hand, they can be
understood by saying that sometimes prepositions can take
prepositional phrases as complements, and in that case maybe by saying
that in such situations the prepositional phrases are NPs. It seems
like a matter of taste to me.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Jul 11, 2012, 5:21:49 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 2:11 pm, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 4:58 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, there's even less hesitancy about "unlike in" in /
> > Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage/ (2011):
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA915
>
> This is quite remarkable, as Garner is *advocating* the use of "unlike
> in" as a substitute for the preposition "unlike", not the other way
> round! I can't see anything wrong with "unlike" in the first of his
> examples: "The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of
> Klessig; unlike Klessig, Imani did not proceed to trial without
> counsel." The presumed implication here is that Klessig did proceed
> to trial without counsel, so I can't see anything wrong with the
> sentence (unless I'm misreading it).
You're not. "Shortly thereafter, Klessig appeared in court without
> On Jul 11, 4:58 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, there's even less hesitancy about "unlike in" in /
> > Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage/ (2011):
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=O1m1bI5vCooC&pg=PA915
>
> This is quite remarkable, as Garner is *advocating* the use of "unlike
> in" as a substitute for the preposition "unlike", not the other way
> round! I can't see anything wrong with "unlike" in the first of his
> examples: "The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of
> Klessig; unlike Klessig, Imani did not proceed to trial without
> counsel." The presumed implication here is that Klessig did proceed
> to trial without counsel, so I can't see anything wrong with the
> sentence (unless I'm misreading it).
counsel."
State v. Chad A. Klessig
http://www.wicourts.gov/html/sc/95/95-1938.htm
> Why add "in" after "unlike"?
>
> The second one also seems OK: "It is also necessary to revisit the
> rule from Beebe in those circumstances - unlike the present case -
> where lifesaving medical care is denied, because Sinclair remains good
> law." Here "the present case" is presumably being contrasted with
> "those circumstances", so again there appears to be no reason to add
> "in".
circumstances/ in the present case, so the contrast isn't quite right.
> The third one is more problematic: "Again, and unlike the instant
> case, Meatland and Brown were not engaged in a common task or seeking
> to accomplish a common purpose." This appears to contrast "Meatland
> and Brown" with "the instant case" (as Garner points out), so some
> rewording is necessary. I'd probably change "unlike" to "in contrast
> with", or else rewrite the sentence using "as": "Again, Meatland and
> Brown were not, as in the instant case, engaged in a common task or
> seeking to accomplish a common purpose."
Meatland and Braun were not..."
This appears to refer to
http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19880606_0046983.NY.htm/qx
--
Jerry Friedman
mrucb...@att.net
Jul 11, 2012, 9:49:12 PM7/11/12
to
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman
Maybe as an American who was bombarded with Winston cigarette
commercials as a child, I just don't get it. The examples where
people are substituting 'as' in for 'like' just sound imprecise and
much more awkward to my ear. I am aware it is considered substandard
by many authorities but this is one I would bet on being well on its
way toward change. Just like I think it should.
Guy Barry
Jul 12, 2012, 12:21:08 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 11, 10:21 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:11 pm, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > The second one also seems OK: "It is also necessary to revisit the
> > rule from Beebe in those circumstances - unlike the present case -
> > where lifesaving medical care is denied, because Sinclair remains good
> > law." Here "the present case" is presumably being contrasted with
> > "those circumstances", so again there appears to be no reason to add
> > "in".
>
> You could say that the circumstances in /Beebe/ are unlike the /
> circumstances/ in the present case, so the contrast isn't quite right.
On reflection, I think you're right, but the intended meaning can be
> On Jul 11, 2:11 pm, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > The second one also seems OK: "It is also necessary to revisit the
> > rule from Beebe in those circumstances - unlike the present case -
> > where lifesaving medical care is denied, because Sinclair remains good
> > law." Here "the present case" is presumably being contrasted with
> > "those circumstances", so again there appears to be no reason to add
> > "in".
>
> You could say that the circumstances in /Beebe/ are unlike the /
> circumstances/ in the present case, so the contrast isn't quite right.
conveyed by writing "...in circumstances - unlike those in the present
case - where..."
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Jul 12, 2012, 2:44:42 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 11, 10:11 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 3:54 am, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I think "as" in this sense is normally analysed as a subordinating
> > conjunction; e.g. "as in the 1960s" is seen as elliptical for "as it
> > was in the 1960s". However "unlike" can't be used as a conjunction
> > ("unlike it was in the 1960s"), so I'm uncertain how to classify the
> > disputed usage.
>
> Maybe this is the one situation where it can be used as a conjunction
> in standard English.
There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of
> On Jul 11, 3:54 am, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I think "as" in this sense is normally analysed as a subordinating
> > conjunction; e.g. "as in the 1960s" is seen as elliptical for "as it
> > was in the 1960s". However "unlike" can't be used as a conjunction
> > ("unlike it was in the 1960s"), so I'm uncertain how to classify the
> > disputed usage.
>
> Maybe this is the one situation where it can be used as a conjunction
> in standard English.
"like" as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in
informal speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that
"unlike" is ever used in this way.
> > As I mentioned elsewhere, perhaps the closest
> > parallel is with "instead of", which can also take a prepositional
> > phrase as its argument ("he came on foot instead of by car"). Meta-
> > preposition?
>
> That was an excellent example, and there are others:
>
> The daffodil leaves are emerging from under the snow.
>
> I've looked everywhere, from behind the refrigerator to inside the
> oven.
"under the snow" and "inside the oven" can in fact function as NPs in
contexts like these. I wasn't entirely convinced by his example, but
I may have to reconsider. The meaning is roughly "...emerging from [a
place] under the snow", so I suppose "under the snow" has the force of
a NP here.
> Such houses sell for between $100,000 and $150,000.
$100,000 and $150,000", so again the prepositional phrase seems to
have the force of an NP.
> All of these can be understood as involving elision. ("He came on
> foot instead of coming by car.")
of", because as far as I can see it can be followed by *any*
prepositional phrase, not just one that can be analysed as an NP. I
gave some BNC examples earlier in the thread:
... to wear them over the left breast pocket instead of on the
sleeve ...
... to work as an accounting secretary with a firm of solicitors
instead of in a class-room.
I wished I had stayed there instead of at the sweetshop.
... it was just that now he would see the shop windows shining at
night instead of by day ...
... to pay that money into court instead of to your debtor.
... weekend sailings between North Queensferry and Granton, Edinburgh,
instead of from Burntisland ...
(You don't get any examples of "instead of of", but that's for fairly
obvious reasons.)
You can treat them all as examples of ellipsis, I suppose: "...instead
of wearing them on the sleeve" and so on. But I'm inclined to think
that something else is going on here; it's almost as though "instead
of" has taken on some of the properties of a subordinating
conjunction. (Substitute "rather than" for "instead of" in all the
above examples and they still work.) It almost defies traditional
grammatical classification.
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Jul 12, 2012, 3:53:11 AM7/12/12
to
Guy Barry:
entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "People say I'm a skeptic --
m...@vex.net but I find that hard to believe."
> There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of
> "like" as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in
> informal speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that
> "unlike" is ever used in this way.
"You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
> "like" as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in
> informal speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that
> "unlike" is ever used in this way.
entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "People say I'm a skeptic --
m...@vex.net but I find that hard to believe."
Guy Barry
Jul 12, 2012, 4:18:11 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 8:53 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
> > There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of
> > "like" as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in
> > informal speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that
> > "unlike" is ever used in this way.
>
> "You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
Doesn't work for me. There's only one match for "unlike it was" at
> Guy Barry:
>
> > There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of
> > "like" as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in
> > informal speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that
> > "unlike" is ever used in this way.
>
> "You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
the BNC, and that's the adjectival/prepositional use of "unlike",
which makes me think that a "what" must be missing:
"...while Coalbrookdale, despite gallant work on it, is quite unlike
it was in its heyday".
A Google search for the string produces some bizarre results. Here's
the first hit: "When a plan turns out unlike it was anticipated!"
http://qatarburgh.com/blog/when-a-plan-turns-out-unlike-it-was-anticipated
I don't think this can be regarded as regular usage, even
colloquially.
--
Guy Barry
Eric Walker
Jul 12, 2012, 5:23:38 AM7/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:11:09 -0700, Guy Barry wrote:
[...]
> This is quite remarkable, as Garner is *advocating* the use of "unlike
> in" as a substitute for the preposition "unlike", not the other way
> round! I can't see anything wrong with "unlike" in the first of his
> examples: "The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of
> Klessig; unlike Klessig, Imani did not proceed to trial without
> counsel." The presumed implication here is that Klessig did proceed to
> trial without counsel, so I can't see anything wrong with the sentence
> (unless I'm misreading it). Why add "in" after "unlike"?
Lawyers typically refer to cases by the name of the defendant, so
"Klessig' would be the name of the case (short for _State v. Chad A.
Klessig_).
What he is (as best I can tell without the full text) trying to make the
original say is something like:
"The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of [that of the]
Klessig [case]; unlike [what happened in the] Klessig [case], Imani
original text, is whether the suggested revision italicizes "Klessig".
Later, in "Shortly thereafter, Klessig appeared in court without
counsel," Klessig actually is being used as the man's name.
Or so it seems from what I'm reading here.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> This is quite remarkable, as Garner is *advocating* the use of "unlike
> in" as a substitute for the preposition "unlike", not the other way
> round! I can't see anything wrong with "unlike" in the first of his
> examples: "The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of
> Klessig; unlike Klessig, Imani did not proceed to trial without
> counsel." The presumed implication here is that Klessig did proceed to
> trial without counsel, so I can't see anything wrong with the sentence
> (unless I'm misreading it). Why add "in" after "unlike"?
"Klessig' would be the name of the case (short for _State v. Chad A.
Klessig_).
What he is (as best I can tell without the full text) trying to make the
original say is something like:
"The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of [that of the]
Klessig [case]; unlike [what happened in the] Klessig [case], Imani
did not proceed to trial without counsel."
More or less. A surer tell-tale, unavailble without access to the
original text, is whether the suggested revision italicizes "Klessig".
Later, in "Shortly thereafter, Klessig appeared in court without
counsel," Klessig actually is being used as the man's name.
Or so it seems from what I'm reading here.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Eric Walker
Jul 12, 2012, 5:36:55 AM7/12/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:59:03 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
[...]
> I agree. It's the same part of speech as "as" as in "as in". AHD4 and
> Dictionary.com Unabridged don't list this sense of "as" (or I can't tell
> which of their senses is supposed to cover it). M-W seems to call it an
> adverb. The OED calls it a conjunction.
My AHD4 is in the other room, but AHD5 seems to cover it adequately:
conj
1. To the same degree or quantity that. Often used as a correlative
after 'so' or 'as': "You are as sweet as sugar."
2. In the same manner or way that: "Think as I think."
3. At the same time that; while : "slipped on the ice as I ran home.
4. For the reason that; because: "went to bed early, as I was exhausted."
5. With the result that: "He was so foolish as to lie."
6. Though: "Great as the author was, he proved a bad model."
7. In accordance with which or with the way in which: The hotel is quite
comfortable as such establishments go.
8. _Informal_ That: "I don't know as I can answer your questions."
I daresay one of those would apply (probably #2): "C as in Cat."
> My feeling is that English has a few grammar words that don't fit well
> in any of the traditional parts of speech, at least in certain senses.
Probably so, but I don't see evidence that this is one.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> I agree. It's the same part of speech as "as" as in "as in". AHD4 and
> Dictionary.com Unabridged don't list this sense of "as" (or I can't tell
> which of their senses is supposed to cover it). M-W seems to call it an
> adverb. The OED calls it a conjunction.
conj
1. To the same degree or quantity that. Often used as a correlative
after 'so' or 'as': "You are as sweet as sugar."
2. In the same manner or way that: "Think as I think."
3. At the same time that; while : "slipped on the ice as I ran home.
4. For the reason that; because: "went to bed early, as I was exhausted."
5. With the result that: "He was so foolish as to lie."
6. Though: "Great as the author was, he proved a bad model."
7. In accordance with which or with the way in which: The hotel is quite
comfortable as such establishments go.
8. _Informal_ That: "I don't know as I can answer your questions."
I daresay one of those would apply (probably #2): "C as in Cat."
> My feeling is that English has a few grammar words that don't fit well
> in any of the traditional parts of speech, at least in certain senses.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Eric Walker
Jul 12, 2012, 5:43:51 AM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:53:11 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
>> There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of "like"
>> as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in informal
>> speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that "unlike" is
>> ever used in this way.
>
> "You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
But, jesting aside, that's just the point: the idiomatic form would
> Guy Barry:
>
>> There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of "like"
>> as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in informal
>> speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that "unlike" is
>> ever used in this way.
>
> "You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
invariably be "It's entirely unlike the way it was in the 1960s."
I am most unclear on why there is so much trouble, and grammatical
imitations of Laocoon, when the simple guideline is "things are like or
unlike other things". Any use not fitting that pattern is maladroit.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Guy Barry
Jul 12, 2012, 5:57:21 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 10:23 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> Lawyers typically refer to cases by the name of the defendant, so
> "Klessig' would be the name of the case (short for _State v. Chad A.
> Klessig_).
>
> What he is (as best I can tell without the full text) trying to make the
> original say is something like:
>
> "The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of [that of the]
> Klessig [case]; unlike [what happened in the] Klessig [case], Imani
> did not proceed to trial without counsel."
>
> More or less. A surer tell-tale, unavailble without access to the
> original text, is whether the suggested revision italicizes "Klessig".
Ah, I see. I only have access to the facsimile of Garner's text on
> Lawyers typically refer to cases by the name of the defendant, so
> "Klessig' would be the name of the case (short for _State v. Chad A.
> Klessig_).
>
> What he is (as best I can tell without the full text) trying to make the
> original say is something like:
>
> "The case before us, however, is the converse scenario of [that of the]
> Klessig [case]; unlike [what happened in the] Klessig [case], Imani
> did not proceed to trial without counsel."
>
> More or less. A surer tell-tale, unavailble without access to the
> original text, is whether the suggested revision italicizes "Klessig".
Google Books, and it's not at all clear on first reading. The problem
is that Garner italicizes the section of text to which he is drawing
attention, as well as his suggested correction; but, to confuse things
further, the typographical convention applies that text originally
italicized, when part of a section of text itself being italicized,
appears in roman. Very confusing!
As far as I can work out, the original author wrote "unlike
_Klessig_" (where underscores represent italics), and Garner amended
it to "unlike in _Klessig_". "Unlike _Klessig_" is clearly wrong,
since the case isn't being contrasted with "Imani" (the individual).
Rather than adopt the unwieldy "unlike in" construction, the simplest
correction is surely to write "unlike Klessig" (no italics) so that
the reference is to the individual rather than the case.
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Jul 12, 2012, 11:15:09 AM7/12/12
to
Guy Barry:
>>> There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of "like"
>>> as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in informal
>>> speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that "unlike" is
>>> ever used in this way.
Mark Brader:
>>> There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of "like"
>>> as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in informal
>>> speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that "unlike" is
>>> ever used in this way.
>> "You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
>> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
Eric Walker:
>> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
> But, jesting aside, that's just the point: the idiomatic form would
> invariably be "It's entirely unlike the way it was in the 1960s."
You were doing fine until you got to "invariably". In most contexts
> invariably be "It's entirely unlike the way it was in the 1960s."
that's true, but I've demonstrated one where it isn't. English is
more flexible than you give it credit for.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "You can write a small letter to Grandma
m...@vex.net | in the filename." -- Forbes Burkowski
Guy Barry
Jul 12, 2012, 11:27:41 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 4:15 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
> >>> There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of "like"
> >>> as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in informal
> >>> speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that "unlike" is
> >>> ever used in this way.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> "You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
> >> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
>
> Eric Walker:
>
> > But, jesting aside, that's just the point: the idiomatic form would
> > invariably be "It's entirely unlike the way it was in the 1960s."
>
> You were doing fine until you got to "invariably". In most contexts
> that's true, but I've demonstrated one where it isn't. English is
> more flexible than you give it credit for.
But you invented the example, and I for one don't accept it. Can you
> Guy Barry:
>
> >>> There's a subtlety here which had eluded me, though. The use of "like"
> >>> as a conjunction, though generally frowned upon, is common in informal
> >>> speech ("like it was in the 1960s"), but I'm not aware that "unlike" is
> >>> ever used in this way.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> "You're completely wrong. It's not like it was in the 1960s; it's
> >> entirely *unlike* it was in the 1960s."
>
> Eric Walker:
>
> > But, jesting aside, that's just the point: the idiomatic form would
> > invariably be "It's entirely unlike the way it was in the 1960s."
>
> You were doing fine until you got to "invariably". In most contexts
> that's true, but I've demonstrated one where it isn't. English is
> more flexible than you give it credit for.
give me a convincing "real-world" illustration of the construction?
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Jul 12, 2012, 3:48:11 PM7/12/12
to
Mark Brader:
> But you invented the example...
Sure, but it's exactly the sort of thing I might say. That makes it
"real-world". If you don't believe me, that's your problem.
--
Mark Brader | Switzerland is also called water tower...
Toronto | And people are like here weather environment.
m...@vex.net | --seen in spam
>> You were doing fine until you got to "invariably". In most contexts
>> that's true, but I've demonstrated one where it isn't. English is
>> more flexible than you give it credit for.
Guy Barry:
>> that's true, but I've demonstrated one where it isn't. English is
>> more flexible than you give it credit for.
> But you invented the example...
Sure, but it's exactly the sort of thing I might say. That makes it
"real-world". If you don't believe me, that's your problem.
--
Mark Brader | Switzerland is also called water tower...
Toronto | And people are like here weather environment.
m...@vex.net | --seen in spam
Jerry Friedman
Jul 12, 2012, 10:24:00 PM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 3:43 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
...
> I am most unclear on why there is so much trouble, and grammatical
> imitations of Laocoon,
One of the few who perceive the truth?
> when the simple guideline is "things are like or
> unlike other things". Any use not fitting that pattern is maladroit.
Because there's more to language than guidelines. Guy and I happen to
be interested in understanding what people actually say and write as
well as in guidelines.
The only really contorted explanation I've seen is Garner's, where you
have to figure out what was elided. Speaking of whom, it's clear that
people of good will and similar philosophies may not agree completely
on the guidelines for "unlike in".
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> I am most unclear on why there is so much trouble, and grammatical
> imitations of Laocoon,
> when the simple guideline is "things are like or
> unlike other things". Any use not fitting that pattern is maladroit.
be interested in understanding what people actually say and write as
well as in guidelines.
The only really contorted explanation I've seen is Garner's, where you
have to figure out what was elided. Speaking of whom, it's clear that
people of good will and similar philosophies may not agree completely
on the guidelines for "unlike in".
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
Jul 12, 2012, 11:22:55 PM7/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:57:21 -0700, Guy Barry wrote:
[...]
[...]
> As far as I can work out, the original author wrote "unlike _Klessig_"
> (where underscores represent italics), and Garner amended it to "unlike
> in _Klessig_". "Unlike _Klessig_" is clearly wrong, since the case
> isn't being contrasted with "Imani" (the individual). Rather than adopt
> the unwieldy "unlike in" construction, the simplest correction is surely
> to write "unlike Klessig" (no italics) so that the reference is to the
> individual rather than the case.
But that would be clear and logical, which is very unlawyerly.
> (where underscores represent italics), and Garner amended it to "unlike
> in _Klessig_". "Unlike _Klessig_" is clearly wrong, since the case
> isn't being contrasted with "Imani" (the individual). Rather than adopt
> the unwieldy "unlike in" construction, the simplest correction is surely
> to write "unlike Klessig" (no italics) so that the reference is to the
> individual rather than the case.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Guy Barry
Jul 13, 2012, 2:17:25 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 13, 3:24 am, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:43 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > I am most unclear on why there is so much trouble, and grammatical
> > imitations of Laocoon,
>
> One of the few who perceive the truth?
>
> > when the simple guideline is "things are like or
> > unlike other things". Any use not fitting that pattern is maladroit.
>
> Because there's more to language than guidelines. Guy and I happen to
> be interested in understanding what people actually say and write as
> well as in guidelines.
I'd also add that sometimes there's no straightforward way of
> On Jul 12, 3:43 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > I am most unclear on why there is so much trouble, and grammatical
> > imitations of Laocoon,
>
> One of the few who perceive the truth?
>
> > when the simple guideline is "things are like or
> > unlike other things". Any use not fitting that pattern is maladroit.
>
> Because there's more to language than guidelines. Guy and I happen to
> be interested in understanding what people actually say and write as
> well as in guidelines.
rewording the disputed sense of "unlike". I started this thread
because I noticed that I'd used the construction myself in another
post, realized that it was non-standard, and wondered if there was any
simple way of avoiding it. As far as I can see, the answer is no.
You can avoid the parallel use of "like" by using "as"; but each of
the examples discussed in this thread has had to be rewritten
individually. The disputed usage seems to have arisen because of the
lack of a convenient way of expressing the concept otherwise. Giving
guidelines on how "unlike" is conventionally used doesn't address that
problem.
--
Guy Barry
0 new messages