Einstein is a genius
Marius Hancu
Are both 1 and 2 OK these days?
1. Einstein is a genius.
2. Einstein was a genius.
BTW, I think that:
3. Einstein's work is the work of a genius.
4. Einstein's work was the work of a genius.
are both OK.
--
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
Pat Durkin
"Marius Hancu" <marius...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e71e110-2edd-498f...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
All are OK.
--
Pat Durkin
durkinpa at msn.com
Wisconsin
annily
> "Marius Hancu" <marius...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> Hello:
>>
>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days?
>>
>> 1. Einstein is a genius.
>> 2. Einstein was a genius.
>>
>> BTW, I think that:
>>
>> 3. Einstein's work is the work of a genius.
>> 4. Einstein's work was the work of a genius.
>>
>> are both OK.
>
> All are OK.
I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Arcadian Rises
> "Marius Hancu" <marius.ha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hello:
>
> > Are both 1 and 2 OK these days?
>
> > 1. Einstein is a genius.
> > 2. Einstein was a genius.
>
> > BTW, I think that:
>
> > 3. Einstein's work is the work of a genius.
> > 4. Einstein's work was the work of a genius.
>
> > are both OK.
>
> All are OK.
Oh, really?
Define "genius"!
Fred
"annily" <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote in message
news:00456e96$0$25201$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Pat Durkin wrote:
>> "Marius Hancu" <marius...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days?
>>>
>>> 1. Einstein is a genius.
>>> 2. Einstein was a genius.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think that:
>>>
>>> 3. Einstein's work is the work of a genius.
>>> 4. Einstein's work was the work of a genius.
>>>
>>> are both OK.
>>
>> All are OK.
>
> I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead.
Ditto.
Pat Durkin
"annily" <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote in message
news:00456e96$0$25201$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Marius Hancu" <marius...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days?
>>>
>>> 1. Einstein is a genius.
>>> 2. Einstein was a genius.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think that:
>>>
>>> 3. Einstein's work is the work of a genius.
>>> 4. Einstein's work was the work of a genius.
>>>
>>> are both OK.
>>
>> All are OK.
>
> I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead.
>
His body of work exists in time. It's all relative.
Pat Durkin
"Arcadian Rises" <Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fe7c0c8a-be11-4eb3...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I think Marcus could have written "Einstein's is/was a work of
genius".
While examples 3 and 4 are correct and used, I find the repetition of
"work" a bit ponderous.
Eric Walker
> Pat Durkin wrote:
>> "Marius Hancu" <marius...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3e71e110-2edd-498f-80ed-
fef792...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days?
>>>
>>> 1. Einstein is a genius.
>>> 2. Einstein was a genius.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think that:
>>>
>>> 3. Einstein's work is the work of a genius.
>>> 4. Einstein's work was the work of a genius.
>>>
>>> are both OK.
>>
>> All are OK.
>
> I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead.
That turns on whether or not the sentence can be held to be expressing a
general, universal, or timeless truth, as #3 does (as in "Columbus proved
that the world *is* round.") I am inclined to not think of #1 that way,
but that's the issue.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
James Hogg
"A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
--
James
R H Draney
Albert Einstein still lives, and he's still a genius...but he did change his
name for professional reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Brooks
....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
annily
"Columbus proved that the world is round" is a completely different
kettle of fish from "Einstein is a genius". The world still exists,
Einstein doesn't. Einstein was a person, and was quite distinct from
(the results of) his work, which still exist(s).
James Hogg
"Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other grounds.
--
James
Eric Walker
[...]
> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is a completely different
> kettle of fish from "Einstein is a genius". The world still exists,
> Einstein doesn't. Einstein was a person, and was quite distinct from
> (the results of) his work, which still exist(s).
I am inclined to agree, as I tried to make clear, but do recognize the
argument that the statement can be taken as a general truth. People,
even those who can read without moving their lips, do still say things
such as "Shakespeare is one of our greatest writers," or "Ghandi is the
very model of a secular saint." Propositions so put, as with the
Einstein one, are intended as statements of timeless verities.
James Hogg
Gandhi!
--
James
Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Marius Hancu
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:02:05 +1030, annily wrote:
> > Pat Durkin wrote:
> >>> Are both 1 and 2 OK these days?
>
> >>> 1. Einstein is a genius.
>
> >> All are OK.
>
> > I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead.
>
> That turns on whether or not the sentence can be held to be expressing a
> general, universal, or timeless truth, as #3 does (as in "Columbus proved
> that the world *is* round.") I am inclined to not think of #1 that way,
> but that's the issue.
My main interest is 1, thus I'd appreciate more feedback on it from
you and others. I think one may touch on religious and metaphysical
things here.
To me, "genius," when talking about the very person (as in 1) is
related to its living embodiment, thus it can be used only during his
life, except if you're very religious.
Thank you all.
Marius Hancu
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Part of whom is now in the sea off Durban, South Africa:
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/jan/310110-mahatma-gandhi-ashes-scattered.htm
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
This may not help - Einstein lives on in his work.
Pat Durkin
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
news:hk62id$cgu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Well, duh! I missed that. Forest and trees, so to speak. Skitt
lives!
Pat Durkin
I think the context should demonstrate whether the remark should be
taken as a historical present tense. If we are counting off points
in a logical argument, then I think "is" fits just fine.
a. Hitler wins the election
b. Einstein leaves Germany. (please don't insist on historical
accuracy!)
c. Einstein moves to the US
d. Einstein is a genius
e. The US develops the A-Bomb!
f. All faw down go boom!
Marius Hancu
The above are OK. However, let's say that we're _not_ using the
present narrative. How about it then?
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
Pat Durkin
You still have to use expressions in context. Mainly, however, unless
you are writing some formal essay, you might choose simple past, or
whatever the situation demands--is the guy alive or dead?
Jeremiah was a bullfrog. (song lyric). But he lives in a very lively
song!
Jesus lives! God is dead.
Donna Richoux
> Eric Walker wrote:
> > I am inclined to agree, as I tried to make clear, but do recognize the
> > argument that the statement can be taken as a general truth. People,
> > even those who can read without moving their lips, do still say things
> > such as "Shakespeare is one of our greatest writers," or "Ghandi is the
> > very model of a secular saint." Propositions so put, as with the
> > Einstein one, are intended as statements of timeless verities.
>
> Gandhi!
Say hi to Gandhi.
Other mnemonic creations furnished on request.
Isn't it nice that no one gives us grief about Shakespere, Shakespear,
Shakspeare, Shackspeare, Shakspere, Shackespeare, Shackspere,
Shackespere, Shaxspere, etc. Somehow we all go for the same one.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
James Hogg
> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric Walker wrote:
>
>>> I am inclined to agree, as I tried to make clear, but do
>>> recognize the argument that the statement can be taken as a
>>> general truth. People, even those who can read without moving
>>> their lips, do still say things such as "Shakespeare is one of
>>> our greatest writers," or "Ghandi is the very model of a secular
>>> saint." Propositions so put, as with the Einstein one, are
>>> intended as statements of timeless verities.
>> Gandhi!
>
> Say hi to Gandhi.
>
> Other mnemonic creations furnished on request.
I remember the spelling by observing Grassman's Law, which
states that if an aspirated consonant in Greek or Sanskrit is followed
by another aspirated consonant in the next syllable, the first one loses
the aspiration.
Which is why the Greek word "thrix" gives us "trichologist".
But "Say hi to Gandhi" is easier.
--
James
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
>
> Jesus lives! God is dead.
"God is dead."
-- Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead."
-- God
Jesus saves; Moses invests.
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
sjde...@yahoo.com
> Pat Durkin wrote:
>
> > Jesus lives! God is dead.
>
> "God is dead."
> -- Nietzsche
>
> "Nietzsche is dead."
> -- God
>
> Jesus saves; Moses invests.
Jesus saves sinners, and redeems them for valuable cash prizes.
Jeffrey Turner
Jesus saves, and Esposito scores on the rebound.
Jesus saves, and takes half damage.
Save the whales, collect the whole set.
--Jeff
--
Is man one of God's blunders or
is God one of man's?
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Mark Brader
>> People, even those who can read without moving their lips, do still
>> say things such as "Shakespeare is one of our greatest writers," or
James Hogg:
> Gandhi!
Well, of course that was the man's *actual name*, but Eric, ever
fastidious, was reporting what *people say*.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Just because it's correct doesn't
m...@vex.net make it right!" -- Jonas Schlein
Mark Brader
>>> 1. Einstein is a genius.
"Annily", among others, writes:
> I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead.
I also agree with this. The present tense is okay in something like
"Einstein, in his most famous paper, writes..."; but this anachronistic
usage does not extend to his personal characteristics. 1 is wrong.
--
Mark Brader | The way the Giants are playing this season, Newton
Toronto | would have been better off standing on the wings
m...@vex.net | of the Cardinals. --Richard Tanzer
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other
> grounds.
Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into
(islands off of) a previously unknown contient when past your point of
no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you thought
was a lot closer)?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth.
|Enormous effort and elaborate
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this
(650)857-7572 |much money
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
James Hogg
> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other
>> grounds.
>
> Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into
> (islands off of) a previously unknown contient when past your point of
> no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you thought
> was a lot closer)?
He was indeed what the Spaniards call "un bastardo confituroso".
--
James
Richard Chambers
>
>> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other
>> grounds.
>
> Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into
> (islands off of) a previously unknown contient when past your point of
> no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you thought
> was a lot closer)?
Depends on whether you are talking before or after the event. Bearing in
mind the extent of North and South America, he could hardly have failed to
find landfall somewhere, approximately 40% of the way to his destination.
His stroke of luck was to find winds that would take him back to Europe.
He used the Trade Winds (blowing from the north-east towards the south
west) to take him to America, and then had the insight to travel north to
pick up the North Atlantic westerlies to take him back home. As described
by Iain Stewart in a recent BBC programme.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
>>
>>> "Columbus proved that the world is round" is questionable on other
>>> grounds.
>>
>> Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into
>> (islands off of) a previously unknown contient when past your point
>> of no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you
>> thought was a lot closer)?
>
> Depends on whether you are talking before or after the
> event. Bearing in mind the extent of North and South America, he
> could hardly have failed to find landfall somewhere, approximately
> 40% of the way to his destination.
In hindsight, but running into something that would save you from
essentially certain death, when neither you nor anybody else had any
reason to believe that it existed, counts as "blind luck" in my book.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most
|punctilious compliance with the
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do
(650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking
|well.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger
Mark Brader
> Has there ever been a bigger stroke of blind luck than running into
> (islands off of) a previously unknown contient when past your point
> of no return, only 40% of the way to your destination (which you
> thought was a lot closer)?
Well, here's most of article <1994Sep29.1...@tron.bwi.wec.com>,
posted in 1994 to comp.lang.c by one j...@pcd.wec.com (reformatted):
| We had a program that worked 'flawlessly' until I found that a
| static array declared in a header was being multiply declared in
| about 10 different code modules, and only being used in one. So I
| moved it from the .h file to the .c file that used it. The program
| no longer worked. After much anguished tracing in the debugger,
| I found this:
|
| ...
| x = function_call(y,z,sizeof(some_big_struct));
| ...
|
| int function_call(q1,q2,q3);
| int *q1,*q2,*q3;
| ...
|
| Now, believe it or not, in the original version, the sizeof evaluated
| to a large number (about 500,000 or so) which *not only* happened
| to map to a legal address, but stored at that address was *the very
| constant* that sizeof() generated. When I moved the static, the
| address of the constant changed, and the program broke. Needless
| to say, I used that constant to play the lottery for *months*
| afterward. :-} Didn't win though.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "...This is due to the Coincidence effect,
m...@vex.net | more so than the Coriolis." -- Cindy Kandolf
Mike Barnes
That seems so lucky that I'd be wondering whether it really was luck, or
whether it was deliberate obfuscation, possibly with some humorous or
dark motive.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
Or, perhaps more likely, whether the code that made the first mistake
had also, somewhere, managed to commit another that resulted in
storing the value there, some sort of
s = sizeof(some_big_struct);
...
/* forget, as above, that s was the size rather than a pointer that
* was supposed to hold it
*/
*s = sizeof(some_big_struct);
So two similar errors that happened to cancel each other out.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Marius Hancu
> Marius Hancu asks about:
>
> >>> 1.Einstein is a genius.
> >>> 2.Einstein was a genius.
> "Annily", among others, writes:
> > I don't like the first one. After all, he is dead.
>
> I also agree with this. The present tense is okay in something like
> "Einstein, in his most famous paper, writes..."; but this anachronistic
> usage does not extend to his personal characteristics. 1 is wrong.
That's my point too.
Marius Hancu