Fylfot, Gammadion, Swastika, and ?
Chris Malcolm
In article Kai writes:
> The swastika is a mythic sign found in many cultures, mostly it
>represents the sun. Since Hitler was fascinated (one could say
>obsessed) by mythologies, the experts are pretty sure that he saw it
>somewhere and simply made it the symbol of the NSDAP.
But the direction of rotation matters a lot if you are obsessed by
mythologies, since rotation in the sense of the sun re-inforces the
natural order of things, whereas if you want to impose your own will on
things you must first undo the natural order by unrotating the
astrological influences, i.e., widdershins. In other words, a
widdershins cross is peculiarly appropriate to the man who wanted to
take personal command of world history and install the thousand year
Reich. (In the Northern hemisphere of course.)
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Matti J Tappinen
Chris Malcolm <c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
: But the direction of rotation matters a lot if you are obsessed by
: mythologies, since rotation in the sense of the sun re-inforces the
: natural order of things, whereas if you want to impose your own will on
: things you must first undo the natural order by unrotating the
: astrological influences, i.e., widdershins. In other words, a
: widdershins cross is peculiarly appropriate to the man who wanted to
: take personal command of world history and install the thousand year
: Reich. (In the Northern hemisphere of course.)
Widdershins = anticlockwise, I believe, but what is the word's
etymology? And is there a matching word for clockwise?
Another thing, I've seen a lot of talk about the Nazi swastika being
anticlockwise and the "good" swstika clockwise, but _all_ swastikas
I've seen, also those that are supposed to be or represent Nazi
symbols, have been clockwise. Who's mistaken?
MattiT
--
Matti.T...@Helsinki.fi
Disclaimer: The best amongst us are (most of the time) nothing but fools.
And I'm just a mediocre example, so you'd better not count on my opinions!
Daan Sandee
In article <581ef0$s...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI> Matti J Tappinen <mtap...@cc.Helsinki.FI> writes:
>
>Widdershins = anticlockwise, I believe, but what is the word's
>etymology? And is there a matching word for clockwise?
Well, as you're posting from far away, we won't tell you to go look it up.
But it can be found in a reasonable dictionary.
"widdershins" from MLG (Middle Low German) wedersins, from wider = against,
and sin = sense, direction. If you know German you will recognize it.
The opposite is "daesil", which is Gaelic, and vaguely related to "dexter".
>Another thing, I've seen a lot of talk about the Nazi swastika being
>anticlockwise and the "good" swstika clockwise, but _all_ swastikas
>I've seen, also those that are supposed to be or represent Nazi
>symbols, have been clockwise. Who's mistaken?
That depends on how you interpret it. A Nazi swastika has legs with an
angle to the right when going out from the center. You can interpret
that as clockwise or anti-clockwise.
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee (at) cmns . think . com
Keith C. Ivey
Matti J Tappinen <mtap...@cc.Helsinki.FI> wrote:
>Widdershins = anticlockwise, I believe, but what is the word's
>etymology? And is there a matching word for clockwise?
_The Oxford English Dictionary_ (OED) derives "withershins" or
"widdershins" from Old Low German "weddersin(ne)s" (meaning
something like "in the opposite direction") and defines it as
"In a direction contrary to the apparent course of the sun
(considered as unlucky or causing disaster)". Other
dictionaries define "widdershins" as counterclockwise, without
making reference to the sun. The two definitions would disagree
in the Southern Hemisphere, but I don't know how often the term
is used there or what people mean by it if they do use it.
An opposing term is "deasil" (clockwise or in the direction of
the apparent course of the sun), which comes from Gaelic
"deiseil (deiseal, deasal)", whose first part is cognate with
Latin "dexter" (right hand). The OED marks "deasil" (or
"deiseal") as an unnaturalized foreign word and gives the
pronunciation as /'djE S@l/ ("DYEH-shuhl") or /'dE s@l/
("DEH-suhl"), but that section of the OED dates from 1894.
_Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_, nearly a century
later, doesn't classify "deasil" as foreign and gives the
pronunciation as /'di z@l/ ("DEE-zuhl", the same as "diesel").
_The American Heritage Dictionary_ (3rd ed.) doesn't list
"deasil".
My impression is that most speakers of US English don't know
what "widdershins" means and that "deasil" is even less well
known.
>Another thing, I've seen a lot of talk about the Nazi swastika being
>anticlockwise and the "good" swstika clockwise, but _all_ swastikas
>I've seen, also those that are supposed to be or represent Nazi
>symbols, have been clockwise. Who's mistaken?
Well, I said that the Nazi swastika was clockwise in my earlier
contribution to this thread, but that was nearly a month ago.
My reasoning (and yours, it seems) is that the arms point in a
clockwise direction. Those who are calling it counterclockwise
seem to be viewing the bent parts of the arms as flags that are
being blown back by an imagined counterclockwise spinning of the
symbol--at least that's the best explanation I've been able to
come up with.
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/>
Dan Prener
Matti J Tappinen <mtap...@cc.Helsinki.FI> writes:
[ ... ]
> Widdershins = anticlockwise, I believe, but what is the word's
> etymology? And is there a matching word for clockwise?
[ ... ]
Try "deasil" for clockwise.
--
Dan Prener (pre...@watson.ibm.com)
Steve Caskey
In Article <581ef0$s...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI> Matti J Tappinen
<mtap...@cc.Helsinki.FI> writes:
>Another thing, I've seen a lot of talk about the Nazi swastika being
>anticlockwise and the "good" swstika clockwise, but _all_ swastikas
>I've seen, also those that are supposed to be or represent Nazi
>symbols, have been clockwise. Who's mistaken?
I had cause recently to check on this very matter. There's this idiot (he
led what appeared to be a one-man protest against the film _The First Wives
Club_ when it opened here) living in Wellington who wants to display a
swastika prominently on or about his house. He claims that since it's an
ancient symbol with many proud lineages, he should be allowed to. His
neighbours disagree, and since in design and orientation it appears to be a
Nazi swastika, I think they're right.
While I don't have ready access to the reference I located, I can
summarise.
The swastika appears in a number of times and locations, including North
American and Middle Eastern cultures. The "arms" of the swastika can go in
either direction, and be decorated or patterned in a number of ways.
While only a few examples were given, the American ones ran in one
direction, while the Asian ones ran the other way. I can't remember which
matched up with the Nazi swastika, but I think it was the North American
direction. This is, of course, a thing of no significance at all.
My debut post to this newsgroup, and it's off charter. Oh well.
Steve Caskey
--
Just another mindless public servant at the Ministry of Education
"If the Andrews Sisters, the Three Stooges and Vivienne Westwood were
trapped on a desert island for a weekend with a case of kiwifruit liqueur,
the resulting love child would be When The Cat's Been Spayed."
Robert M. Wilson
>Matti J Tappinen <mtap...@cc.Helsinki.FI> writes:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Widdershins = anticlockwise, I believe, but what is the word's
>> etymology? And is there a matching word for clockwise?
"widdershins" also "withershins" comes from Middle German
meaning "opposed direction".
I believe it is used in both Scotland and Ireland; also
to mean "slightly crazy."
(Someone more knowledgeable could correct me on part
or all of the above.)
There is a fine Australian poem which describes an old
bullock (ox) driver who had "widdershins in his brain."
It was its use there that led me to look it up originally.
Ash Nallawalla
>While only a few examples were given, the American ones ran in one
>direction, while the Asian ones ran the other way. I can't remember which
>matched up with the Nazi swastika, but I think it was the North American
>direction. This is, of course, a thing of no significance at all.
In India the ones I saw painted on the thresholds of homes were like
this:
__
|_|_
__| |
i.e. horizontal, not diagonal. Trouble is, I have also seen them
mirror-reversed in India. Never did hear an explanation from anyone
(mainly because I didn't ask).
Robert M. Wilson
In article <582idb$5...@news3.digex.net>,
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) wrote:
>
>Well, I said that the Nazi swastika was clockwise in my earlier
>contribution to this thread, but that was nearly a month ago.
>My reasoning (and yours, it seems) is that the arms point in a
>clockwise direction. Those who are calling it counterclockwise
>seem to be viewing the bent parts of the arms as flags that are
>being blown back by an imagined counterclockwise spinning of the
>symbol--at least that's the best explanation I've been able to
>come up with.
>
In the early days of the Nazi Party (1920s), swastikas pointing
in either direction were used. Why the type with the broken arms
pointing clockwise became standard, I don't know.
Truly Donovan
Robert M. Wilson wrote:
>
> In the early days of the Nazi Party (1920s), swastikas pointing
> in either direction were used. Why the type with the broken arms
> pointing clockwise became standard, I don't know.
Well, try and imagine for an instant their *not* having a standard.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Joseph C Fineman
r...@mail.duncan.island.net (Robert M. Wilson) writes:
>In the early days of the Nazi Party (1920s), swastikas pointing
>in either direction were used. Why the type with the broken arms
>pointing clockwise became standard, I don't know.
This brings up a point I had not thought of before. Cheap U.S. flags
(such as the one I own) are printed on thin material so that the
colors are visible from both sides. More expensive flags are sewn
together of red & white stripes & a blue union, with the stars
embroidered thru. Either of those techniques, applied to the Nazi
flag, would make the sense of the swastika depend on which side you
viewed it from. It strikes me that the great majority of national
flags have designs that, like ours, are made up of mirror-symmetric
symbols even if, like ours, they are asymmetric as a whole. There
are, however, flags that have writing on them. It would seem that
they, like the Nazi flag, would have to be opaque if they were to be
flown from a flagpole & thus visible from both sides.
Perhaps the Nazis did not bother. Leafing thru a picture book on that
era (_The Hitler File_ by F. V. Grunfeld), I see clockwise hooks on
all the swastikas on posters & armbands. On flags & banners, however,
I see two cw & two ccw in the same photograph of a parade in 1929.
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: The higher the monkey climbs, the more he shows his rear. :||
John R. Swaney
Truly Donovan wrote:
>
> Robert M. Wilson wrote:
> >
> > In the early days of the Nazi Party (1920s), swastikas pointing
> > in either direction were used. Why the type with the broken arms
> > pointing clockwise became standard, I don't know.
>
>
> --
> Truly Donovan
Miss Melton, my high school English teacher in the late 50s, would have
marked me down for saying "try and imagine," rather than "try TO
imagine." Has this ruled changed or been relaxed in the intervening
decades?
John Swaney
Los Angeles
Truly Donovan
John R. Swaney wrote:
>
> Truly Donovan wrote:
> >
> > Robert M. Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > In the early days of the Nazi Party (1920s), swastikas pointing
> > > in either direction were used. Why the type with the broken arms
> > > pointing clockwise became standard, I don't know.
> >
> > Well, try and imagine for an instant their *not* having a standard.
>
> marked me down for saying "try and imagine," rather than "try TO
> imagine." Has this ruled changed or been relaxed in the intervening
> decades?
Miss Melton can go fry an egg. According to the RHUD2(1993), "try and"
has been standard since the 17th century.
Mark Israel
> Well, try and imagine for an instant their *not* having a standard.
In article <32AB0F...@internetmci.com>, j.sw...@internetmci.com (John Swaney) writes:
> Miss Melton, my high school English teacher in the late 50s, would have
> marked me down for saying "try and imagine," rather than "try TO
> imagine." Has this ruled changed or been relaxed in the intervening
> decades?
No, John, the rules has not changed or been relaxed, except insofar
as educational standards as a whole have declined.
In article <32AB43...@lunemere.com>, tr...@lunemere.com (Truly Donovan) writes:
> Miss Melton can go fry an egg. According to the RHUD2(1993), "try and"
> has been standard since the 17th century.
There was nothing wrong with Truly's use of "try and" -- the
sentence was clearly informal/sarcastic. But I had rather that Miss
Melton continue to teach, and that Random House fry the egg.
Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
*no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Simon R. Hughes
Mark Israel wrote:
>
> Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
> style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
> *no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
> This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
>
> --
> mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
The moving of grammar from prescriptivism to decriptivism is
necessitated by grammarians' wishes to be accepted as a mainstream
science.
A field which calls itself a science HAS to be descriptive. This point
is illustrated if we imagine physics telling us, "It doesn't matter what
you say, the world SHOULD be flat."
Science's goals include the description of reality as it is. This means
that grammarians can no longer refer back to how things used to be, how
ideal Latin grammar is, or anything of the kind. Grammar, to be
descriptive, has to tell us what people DO in fact say and use these
data as the standard for grammaticality. For this reason, we can see
that grammarians are moving towards the acceptance of a grammar school
teacher's nightmares - the acceptance of double negatives, contractions
in formal as well as informal speech/ writing, etc.
Language changes anyway, should we stand in this change's way or welcome
it?
--
_._._._._._._.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~._._._._._._._
_|_|_|_|_|_|_| Simon R. Hughes |_|_|_|_|_|_|_
_|_|_|_|_|_|_| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |_|_|_|_|_|_|_
_|_|_|_|_|_|_| shu...@sn.no |_|_|_|_|_|_|_
_|_|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_
_|_|_|_|_|_|_| Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni! |_|_|_|_|_|_|_
_|_|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Mark Israel
In article <32ACB0...@sn.no>, shu...@sn.no (Simon R. Hughes) writes:
>> Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
>> style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
>> *no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
>> This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
First of all, please note my scare quotes around "descriptivist".
A description that does not attempt to describe readers' reactions
is an incomplete description.
> The moving of grammar from prescriptivism to decriptivism is
> necessitated by grammarians' wishes to be accepted as a mainstream
> science.
Um, can you name a single descriptive grammarian who was a
prescriptive grammarian earlier in his career? Prescriptive
grammarians and descriptive grammarians are two separate groups of
people, with no common tradition.
> A field which calls itself a science HAS to be descriptive.
I wouldn't dream of disputing that.
But do you notice how, with all our *scientific* advances, we
can't compose as well as Beethoven, can't paint as well as
Michelangelo, and can't write as well as Shakespeare?
Some disciplines are intrinsically arts, not sciences.
> Language changes anyway, should we stand in this change's way or
> welcome it?
Sometimes we should do one, and sometimes the other.
"... the appeal to the catch phrase 'change means life' needs
reconsideration. Change means death too, and in our own bodies we
take steps to arrest or reverse certain changes by medicine,
inoculation, surgery, and other strong measures." -- Wilson Follett
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
"Linguistics is not a science (at least, as most linguists practise it)" -- Richard Goerwitz
Dennis Baron
Mark The result is
Mark is right that description of language should include response as well
as stimulus. That makes the question even more complex, of course (as it
should be), since response varies as much as linguistic production does.
In many cases, possibly most, speakers and writers anticipate responses
from their audience. However, language producers don't always anticipate
accurately, and audiences do not always respond appropriately, and this is
where things really get interesting for linguists who are not looking for
simple formulas but complex analyses. If you think the many-body problem
in physics is tough (that's when you place n bodies somewhere in space and
plot their consequent motion), is it any tougher than figuring out how
language producers and audiences are going to interact in any given
situation, or even figuring out retrospectively how they did interact?
That's why I think grammar teachers are better off teaching not rules of
etiquette (which tend to reinforce the notion that the world is indeed
flat) but tools of linguistic analysis--everything from phonemes to social
and historical linguistic phenomena.
--
Dennis Baron
deb...@uiuc.edu
Mark Israel
> That's why I think grammar teachers are better off teaching not rules of
> etiquette (which tend to reinforce the notion that the world is indeed
> flat) but tools of linguistic analysis--everything from phonemes to social
> and historical linguistic phenomena.
Well, I don't want to be dogmatic about the matter. Generally
speaking, I'm a round-earther, but -- maybe the earth *is* a bit flat.
Next time my piano-tuner comes round, I'll ask him to take a look.
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Alwyn Thomas
Mark Israel wrote:
> In article <32ACB0...@sn.no>, shu...@sn.no (Simon R. Hughes) writes:
> > In article <misraelE...@netcom.com>, mis...@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) writes:
> >> Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
> >> style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
> >> *no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
> >> This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
>
> First of all, please note my scare quotes around "descriptivist".
> A description that does not attempt to describe readers' reactions
> is an incomplete description.
The fact is, you're talking of *style*, not grammaticality. Nobody is
disputing whether "try and" is grammatical English; what you are saying
is that it isn't appropriate in a formal context - and that's a matter
of taste and opinion.
When you are teaching somebody to write a good style (e.g. a teacher or
a newspaper editor), then of course you have to be prescriptive. But
this has nothing to do with either grammar or linguistics.
> > The moving of grammar from prescriptivism to decriptivism is
> > necessitated by grammarians' wishes to be accepted as a mainstream
> > science.
>
> Um, can you name a single descriptive grammarian who was a
> prescriptive grammarian earlier in his career?
To be fair, what the writer was implying was that *grammar* had moved
from "prescriptive" to "descriptive", not individual grammarians.
And there's no doubt in my mind that grammar became more rigorous after
the structuralists and generativists applied themselves to it.
<snip>
> > Language changes anyway, should we stand in this change's way or
> > welcome it?
>
> Sometimes we should do one, and sometimes the other.
The ideal scientist accepts phenomena impartially without making
value-judgments.
<snip>
> "Linguistics is not a science (at least, as most linguists practise it)" -- Richard Goerwitz
I would say linguistics is a *Geisteswissenshaft* rather than a
*Naturwissenschaft*.
If Goerwitz is saying that most linguists are insufficiently rigorous
and take too much for granted, then I agree with him.
Alwyn
Mark Israel
In article <58kqb1$f...@camel1.mindspring.com>, dag...@pipeline.com (Wendy Mueller) writes:
> I see a subtle difference between "try and" and "try to." When one
> uses "try and" the implication is that whatever follows is so simple
> that the mere effort of trying guarantees success. "Try to" implies
> that you may or may not accomplish whatever follows.
So "I'll try and attend the party tonight" guarantees that you'll
attend? I don't think so!
*I* see a subtle difference in some sentences (not in "I'll try
and attend the party tonight", but, say, in "I'm sure it's around
somewhere; do try and find it.") My hero H. W. Fowler saw subtle
differences. But my friends in bit.listserv.words-l think we're
fools.
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Truly Donovan
Wendy Mueller wrote:
>
> I see a subtle difference between "try and" and "try to." When one
> uses "try and" the implication is that whatever follows is so simple
> that the mere effort of trying guarantees success. "Try to" implies
> that you may or may not accomplish whatever follows.
I don't share your view of "try and." You can try and make me....
Wendy Mueller
mis...@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) wrote:
[snipped some stuff about Truly using the phrase "try and"]
> There was nothing wrong with Truly's use of "try and" -- the
>sentence was clearly informal/sarcastic. But I had rather that Miss
>Melton continue to teach, and that Random House fry the egg.
I see a subtle difference between "try and" and "try to." When one
uses "try and" the implication is that whatever follows is so simple
that the mere effort of trying guarantees success. "Try to" implies
that you may or may not accomplish whatever follows.
> Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
>style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
>*no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
>This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
--
Wendy Mueller
who is trying to stay out of prescriptivist/descriptivist war.
>--
>mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Simon R. Hughes
Anybody know why I can't veiw my own postings? (It isn't a need I have,
but sometimes I forget what I wrote.)
Simon
Bookrat
Mark Israel (mis...@scripps.edu) wrote:
> *I* see a subtle difference in some sentences (not in "I'll try
>and attend the party tonight", but, say, in "I'm sure it's around
>somewhere; do try and find it.") My hero H. W. Fowler saw subtle
>differences. But my friends in bit.listserv.words-l think we're
>fools.
From what I have seen of your friends in bit.listserv.words-l, I would say
that they are the sort of people who, if there were four of them in a
room, would have at least five different opinions on where to go for
dinner. The very thought that they could unanimously agree on any
particular point of usage is simply preposterous.
I happen to think you're dotty on this subject. "Try and" is an idiom,
and neither a particularly controversial one nor an infrequently
encountered one. I think you might make better use of your time by
finding some other windmills at which to tilt.
I do admit to being a bit puzzled at this passage from the entry on "try
and" in MEU2:
"It is an idiom that should not be discountenanced, but should be used
when it comes natural."
I am somewhat discomfitted by the use of an adjective where I am expecting
an adverb, but no doubt that is due only to my unfamiliarity with proper
usage.
Ken Miller
Custos Librorum
The John Lyly Asylum for the Hopelessly Biblioderanged
boo...@bookrat.com
SLHinton17
And there's the classic challenge: "Try and make me!"
Sam Hinton
La Jolla, CA
Bill Fisher
>
> [snipped some stuff about Truly using the phrase "try and"]
> > There was nothing wrong with Truly's use of "try and" -- the
> >sentence was clearly informal/sarcastic. But I had rather that Miss
> >Melton continue to teach, and that Random House fry the egg.
...
And I see a very unsubtle one:
Tomorrow John'll try to get some beer.
Tomorrow John'll try and get some beer.
John's trying to get some beer.
*John's trying and getting some beer.
*John's trying and get some beer.
John tried to get some beer.
*John tried and got some beer.
John used to try to get some beer.
John used to try and get some beer.
John tries to get some beer every Saturday.
*John tries and gets some beer every Saturday.
They try to get some beer every Saturday.
They try and get some beer every Saturday.
"Try and ..." seems to work only when "try" is uninflected
(at least with the same meaning/construction).
- billf
Raymot
In article <misraelE...@netcom.com>, mis...@scripps.edu says...
>
>In article <32A92D...@lunemere.com>, tr...@lunemere.com (Truly Donovan)
writes:
>
>> Well, try and imagine for an instant their *not* having a standard.
>
>In article <32AB0F...@internetmci.com>, j.sw...@internetmci.com (John
Swaney) writes:
>
>> Miss Melton, my high school English teacher in the late 50s, would have
>> marked me down for saying "try and imagine," rather than "try TO
>> imagine." Has this ruled changed or been relaxed in the intervening
>> decades?
>
> No, John, the rules has not changed or been relaxed, except insofar
>as educational standards as a whole have declined.
>
>In article <32AB43...@lunemere.com>, tr...@lunemere.com (Truly Donovan)
writes:
>
>> Miss Melton can go fry an egg. According to the RHUD2(1993), "try and"
>> has been standard since the 17th century.
>
>sentence was clearly informal/sarcastic. But I had rather that Miss
>Melton continue to teach, and that Random House fry the egg.
>
>style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
>*no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
>This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
>
>--
I always used to meticulously both write and say "try to".
But I think there's a subtle difference in the connotation
sometimes, and I'm beginning to use "try and" more often --
not, I might add, Mark, that I'm necessarily claiming to be
correct in doing so.
I now tend to use "try and" if I intuitively expect the action
to be carried out, ie. the trying leads almost automatically to
the doing; while "try to" implies that the trying may not
necessarily lead to the doing.
Therefore, Truly's "Try and imagine" is intuitively correct
to me because there is no implication that the addressee could
*not* imagine.
"I'll try and do that report by tomorrow" implies that I will
both try to do it and I will (and shall) do it ("God" willing).
In fact one could make the case that the sentence, "I'll try
and do that report" is an ellipsis for "I'll try to do that
report, and I *shall* do that report". Therefore the grammar is
correct.
"I'll try to behave" implies that although I may try, I can
give no guarantee that I will succeed.
However, I still believe that the grammar is wrong if one
says "I'll try and behave" if one knows that one has tried
before and one cannot to it, even though one does intending
trying one more time.
In any case, "I'll try to ... " is always grammatically
correct.
Hence:
Surgeon: There is a small risk involved in your eye operation,
Mr Jones:
I'll try to preserve your current level of vision" (safe,
reasonable offer)
I'll try and preserve your current level of vision" (not
an advisable undertaking to give).
Does this make any sense or seem valid to anyone else but me?
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Tom
Mark Israel (mis...@scripps.edu) wrote:
: Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
: style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
: *no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
: This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
Isn't "try and" for "try to" justifiable as hendiadys? I've always
considered this one of the rare instances of it in casual discourse.
Tom Parsons
--
--
t...@panix.com | A teacher affects eternity; he can
| never tell where his influence stops.
http://www.panix.com/~twp | --Henry Adams
Wendy Mueller
rmot...@powerup.com.au (Raymot) wrote:
>I always used to meticulously both write and say "try to".
>But I think there's a subtle difference in the connotation
>sometimes, and I'm beginning to use "try and" more often --
>not, I might add, Mark, that I'm necessarily claiming to be
>correct in doing so.
>I now tend to use "try and" if I intuitively expect the action
>to be carried out, ie. the trying leads almost automatically to
>the doing; while "try to" implies that the trying may not
>necessarily lead to the doing.
>Therefore, Truly's "Try and imagine" is intuitively correct
>to me because there is no implication that the addressee could
>*not* imagine.
>Does this make any sense or seem valid to anyone else but me?
>Raymot
It seems valid to me, and I, like you, find myself verbally using "try
and" much more frequently than "try to". But when writing, "try to"
seems to win out in my own personal frequency wars.
However,
mis...@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) wrote:
> So "I'll try and attend the party tonight" guarantees that you'll
>attend? I don't think so!
If I said it, then I would mean that I would definately be at the
party, even though I would have to find a baby sitter, bribe her with
food and money, convince my husband to dress up and find a new dress,
but I *would* be there!
> *I* see a subtle difference in some sentences (not in "I'll try
>and attend the party tonight", but, say, in "I'm sure it's around
>somewhere; do try and find it.")
OK. YMMV. But while you would *say* it, would you write it in a
formal situation?
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>I don't share your view of "try and." You can try and make me....
Now, see, that's a good example of what I have been trying to say!
The formality of the usage counts, and I certainly hope that Truly
wasn't issuing a formal challenge, so her statement is perfectly fine
usage.
--
Wendy Mueller
trying to waffle her way out of this one
Raymot
Mueller) writes:
>
>> I see a subtle difference between "try and" and "try to." When one
>> that the mere effort of trying guarantees success. "Try to" implies
>> that you may or may not accomplish whatever follows.
>
>attend? I don't think so!
>
>and attend the party tonight", but, say, in "I'm sure it's around
>differences. But my friends in bit.listserv.words-l think we're
>fools.
>
>mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Yes , this is a good point. The distinction is more marked when
used in the imperative (no pun intended).
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[
Simon Hosie
dag...@pipeline.com (Wendy Mueller) writes:
> I see a subtle difference between "try and" and "try to." When one
> uses "try and" the implication is that whatever follows is so simple
> that the mere effort of trying guarantees success. "Try to" implies
> that you may or may not accomplish whatever follows.
Mark Israel:
> So "I'll try and attend the party tonight" guarantees that you'll
> attend? I don't think so!
Would "I'll try, and attend the party tonight" guarantee that you'll
attend? Ignoring the real world, I'd say that "try and" doesn't even tell
you _what_ will be tried.
Truly Donovan
Wendy Mueller wrote:
>
>
> > So "I'll try and attend the party tonight" guarantees that you'll
> >attend? I don't think so!
> If I said it, then I would mean that I would definately be at the
> party, even though I would have to find a baby sitter, bribe her with
> food and money, convince my husband to dress up and find a new dress,
> but I *would* be there!
And won't your husband look adorable in that new dress. (Another blow
struck for the Harvard/Oxford comma!)
Wendy Mueller
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>Wendy Mueller wrote:
>>
>> > So "I'll try and attend the party tonight" guarantees that you'll
>> >attend? I don't think so!
>> If I said it, then I would mean that I would definately be at the
>> party, even though I would have to find a baby sitter, bribe her with
>> food and money, convince my husband to dress up and find a new dress,
>> but I *would* be there!
>And won't your husband look adorable in that new dress. (Another blow
>struck for the Harvard/Oxford comma!)
Dang! I've got to remember to edit more carefully...he prefers to
keep *that* side of his life more private.
--
Wendy Mueller
John M. Lawler
>: Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
>: style merely because they have seen it *used* there. They make
>: *no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
>: This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.
>Isn't "try and" for "try to" justifiable as hendiadys? I've always
>considered this one of the rare instances of it in casual discourse.
And one of the even rarer instances of an occasion to use the word
'hendiadys' in casual discourse. Of course, for this to work to best
effect, one should pronounce it in Greek.
The fact that there is a Greek name for it means it's official.
No doubt this is another contributing factor to the continuing
acceptance of 'try and'.
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
John M. Lawler
> And I see a very unsubtle one:
Nice data --
> John's trying to get some beer.
> *John's trying and getting some beer.
> *John's trying and get some beer.
Glossed version:
Present progressive form is out for 'try and',
whatever form one uses for the second verb.
> John tried to get some beer.
> *John tried and got some beer.
Past is out, ditto.
> John tries to get some beer every Saturday.
> *John tries and gets some beer every Saturday.
Third person singular present is also out, but note
I try to get some beer every Saturday.
You and we all try and get some beer every Saturday.
> They try to get some beer every Saturday.
> They try and get some beer every Saturday.
All other forms of the present tense work fine.
> John used to try to get some beer.
> John used to try and get some beer.
> Tomorrow John'll try to get some beer.
> Tomorrow John'll try and get some beer.
Infinitive 'try and' is OK also.
> "Try and ..." seems to work only when "try" is uninflected
>(at least with the same meaning/construction).
Is this evidence that the present tense is in fact uninflected?
Or that there is no infinitive inflection?
Or that the present tense is equivalent to the infinitive?
(Discuss amongst yourselves.)
Were you the one who wrote the paper on that in CLS, Bill?
Mark Israel
> Isn't "try and" for "try to" justifiable as hendiadys?
I do realise that there are many fatal conditions that can afflict
poultry. I understand the hendiadys; I understand the hendiadat; I no
understand the why-a-duck.
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Why do poultry use such long words? You know, hendecasyllables.
Chris G. Perrott
Mark Israel wrote:
>
> In article <58n1a9$8...@panix3.panix.com>, t...@panix.com (Tom Parsons) writes:
>
> > Isn't "try and" for "try to" justifiable as hendiadys?
>
> I do realise that there are many fatal conditions that can afflict
> poultry. I understand the hendiadys; I understand the hendiadat; I no
> understand the why-a-duck.
It supports a road going over a valley, gorge etc.
--
Chris Perrott
Bill Fisher
In article <58pscs$i...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, jla...@seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) writes:
> Bill Fisher <bi...@jaguar.ncsl.nist.gov> writes:
> >> mis...@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) wrote:
>
> >> I see a subtle difference between "try and" and "try to."
>
> > And I see a very unsubtle one:
>
> > "Try and ..." seems to work only when "try" is uninflected
> >(at least with the same meaning/construction).
>
> Is this evidence that the present tense is in fact uninflected?
> Or that there is no infinitive inflection?
> Or that the present tense is equivalent to the infinitive?
> (Discuss amongst yourselves.)
I meant it to mean just literally unmarked.
>
> Were you the one who wrote the paper on that in CLS, Bill?
>
No, but I was impressed as Hell with that paper, and it always
stuck in my mind as a perfect illustration of rules that all
native speakers know (but don't realize they know) but were
never taught. It was on a very similar construction, "go get ...",
e.g. "John will go get beer every Friday", *"John goes get ...",
as I remember. I'll try to dig it out tonight & post a reference
in case any of y'all are interested.
- billf
bar...@bookpro.com
t...@panix.com (Tom) wrote:
>
>Isn't "try and" for "try to" justifiable as hendiadys? I've always
>considered this one of the rare instances of it in casual discourse.
Do you mean that hendiadys is rare in casual discourse? My dictionary
gives "nice and warm" as an example--hardly a rare sort of phrase.
When my nephew was three, he used this phrasing frequently--for
example, his bear was described as "nice and fuzzy." One night he
left the dinner table saying that dinner had been "nice and good,"
which amused us at first but then sparked a discussion of why that
phrase was amusing and what words seem appropriate with "nice and"
and which ones aren't.
BWillette
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
In article <32B12D...@pacific.net.sg>, "Chris G. Perrott" <cper...@pacific.net.sg> writes:
> Mark Israel wrote:
>>
>> In article <58n1a9$8...@panix3.panix.com>, t...@panix.com (Tom Parsons) writes:
>>
>>
>> poultry. I understand the hendiadys; I understand the hendiadat; I no
>> understand the why-a-duck.
>
> It supports a road going over a valley, gorge etc.
Please, let's no go down this road again!
--
Nyal Z. Williams
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
In article <58l9bh$i...@grissom.powerup.com.au>, rmot...@powerup.com.au
> I always used to meticulously both write and say "try to".
> But I think there's a subtle difference in the connotation
> sometimes, and I'm beginning to use "try and" more often --
> not, I might add, Mark, that I'm necessarily claiming to be
> correct in doing so.
>
> I now tend to use "try and" if I intuitively expect the action
> to be carried out, ie. the trying leads almost automatically to
> the doing; while "try to" implies that the trying may not
> necessarily lead to the doing.
> Therefore, Truly's "Try and imagine" is intuitively correct
> to me because there is no implication that the addressee could
> *not* imagine.
>
> both try to do it and I will (and shall) do it ("God" willing).
> In fact one could make the case that the sentence, "I'll try
> and do that report" is an ellipsis for "I'll try to do that
> report, and I *shall* do that report". Therefore the grammar is
> correct.
>
> "I'll try to behave" implies that although I may try, I can
> give no guarantee that I will succeed.
> However, I still believe that the grammar is wrong if one
> says "I'll try and behave" if one knows that one has tried
> before and one cannot to it, even though one does intending
> trying one more time.
>
> In any case, "I'll try to ... " is always grammatically
> correct.
>
> Hence:
> Surgeon: There is a small risk involved in your eye operation,
> Mr Jones:
> I'll try to preserve your current level of vision" (safe,
> reasonable offer)
> I'll try and preserve your current level of vision" (not
> an advisable undertaking to give).
>
Well, it does fill up time and space for those who are embarrassed by
silence or emptiness. If the efficacy is guaranteed, why bother with
trying? Just do it - or would you have preferred a bumper sticker
that said "Just Try And Do It?"
BTW, Who, besides a mortician, can give an undertaking?
Raymot
In article <1996Dec14...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu says... [...]
>> Hence:
>> Surgeon: There is a small risk involved in your eye operation,
>> Mr Jones:
>> I'll try to preserve your current level of vision" (safe,
>> reasonable offer)
>> I'll try and preserve your current level of vision" (not
>> an advisable undertaking to give).
> [ ... ]
>BTW, Who, besides a mortician, can give an undertaking?
>--
>Nyal Z. Williams
Anyone who can give a pledge, promise, or guarantee can give
an undertaking.
A mortician attends an undertaking that he has not yet given,
while the rest of us attend *to* an undertaking only after we
have given it.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Bobby D. Bryant
In article <585552$7...@cliff.island.net>, r...@mail.duncan.island.net (Robert M. Wilson) says:
>
>
>>Matti J Tappinen <mtap...@cc.Helsinki.FI> writes:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Widdershins = anticlockwise, I believe, but what is the word's
>>> etymology? And is there a matching word for clockwise?
>
>
>"widdershins" also "withershins" comes from Middle German
>meaning "opposed direction".
More precisely, it means "anti-sunwise", i.e. in the direction opposite
to the apparent direction of motion of the sun. (Whether that means
"anticlockwise" depends on which hemisphere you live in and which
direction your clocks turn.) I believe the "-shins" is etymologically
related to the word "sun".
I first met this fine word in one of Fritz Lieber's (sp?) old books about
Fafhard and the Mouser: two groups of Vikings were circling the pole in
opposite directions, and he refered to them as the "widdershins Vikings"
and the "sunwise Vikings". (A dictionary confirms his implicit
definition).
---
Bobby D. Bryant
Ph.D. Student
Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
In article <593bch$g...@grissom.powerup.com.au>, rmot...@powerup.com.au (Raymot) writes:
> In article <1996Dec14...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
> 00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu says...
>>
>>In article <58l9bh$i...@grissom.powerup.com.au>, rmot...@powerup.com.au
>>(Raymot) writes:>
> [...]
>>> Hence:
>>> Surgeon: There is a small risk involved in your eye operation,
>>> Mr Jones:
>>> I'll try to preserve your current level of vision" (safe,
>>> reasonable offer)
>>> I'll try and preserve your current level of vision" (not
>>> an advisable undertaking to give).
>
>> [ ... ]
>>BTW, Who, besides a mortician, can give an undertaking?>
> an undertaking.
> A mortician attends an undertaking that he has not yet given,
> while the rest of us attend *to* an undertaking only after we
> have given it.
I believe one must undertake an undertaking.
Raymot
In article <1996Dec19...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
>
>In article <593bch$g...@grissom.powerup.com.au>, rmot...@powerup.com.au
(Raymot) writes:
>> In article <1996Dec14...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
>> 00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu says...
>>>BTW, Who, besides a mortician, can give an undertaking?>
>> Anyone who can give a pledge, promise, or guarantee can give
>> an undertaking.
>> A mortician attends an undertaking that he has not yet given,
>> while the rest of us attend *to* an undertaking only after we
>> have given it.
>
>
>I believe one must undertake an undertaking.
>--
>
>
>
>Nyal Z. Williams
>00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
No more than one has to promise a promise, pledge a pledge
or guarantee a guarantee.
I believe that one can "give" any of these.
An "undertaking" is a "promise, pledge or guarantee", according
to entry 3 of 4 in my Macquarie Dictionary (*the* Aussie
Dictionary -- and a damn fine one in my experience so far).
I think you're imposing too strict a limitation on usage of the
term.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Geoff Butler
In article <59b19d$d...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> writes
>
>More precisely, it means "anti-sunwise", i.e. in the direction opposite
>to the apparent direction of motion of the sun. (Whether that means
>"anticlockwise" depends on which hemisphere you live in and which
>direction your clocks turn.) I believe the "-shins" is etymologically
>related to the word "sun".
More likely it's related to "sense", according to The Dictionary.
>I first met this fine word in one of Fritz Lieber's (sp?) old books about
>Fafhard and the Mouser: two groups of Vikings were circling the pole in
>opposite directions, and he refered to them as the "widdershins Vikings"
>and the "sunwise Vikings". (A dictionary confirms his implicit
>definition).
Credibility enhancement requires "deasil Vikings".
-ler