Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Marilyn said
106 views
Skip to first unread message
Tony Cooper
Oct 2, 2016, 4:42:33 PM10/2/16
to
In discussions about Marilyn vos Savant's _Parade_ column - "Ask
Marilyn" - she didn't get much respect here.
Today's column starts with the question:
"You once explained why so much class time is spent on identifying
parts of speech, such as whether a verb is reflexive, when no one uses
this knowledge in life. Could you expand on the subject for my
family?"
And Marilyn replied:
"I spent seemingly endless hours diagramming complex sentences in
grade school, and I’ll always be thankful for the experience. (Not
that I thought so at the time!) You need to learn every rule of
grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
communication. And I don’t mean pretentious speech. I mean the ability
to express yourself clearly and well. This is much harder than it
sounds.
Less-than-excellent grammar dooms one to a life of being
misunderstood. How many times have you said, “No, I meant…”? (And how
often have you listened to a person telling you about something for a
couple of minutes before you finally figured out what he or she was
talking about?) Misplacing even one pronoun can totally confuse a
listener. Worse, you usually don’t realize this is happening. Your
listeners just get it wrong."
How do you rate her answer?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Marilyn" - she didn't get much respect here.
Today's column starts with the question:
"You once explained why so much class time is spent on identifying
parts of speech, such as whether a verb is reflexive, when no one uses
this knowledge in life. Could you expand on the subject for my
family?"
And Marilyn replied:
"I spent seemingly endless hours diagramming complex sentences in
grade school, and I’ll always be thankful for the experience. (Not
that I thought so at the time!) You need to learn every rule of
grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
communication. And I don’t mean pretentious speech. I mean the ability
to express yourself clearly and well. This is much harder than it
sounds.
Less-than-excellent grammar dooms one to a life of being
misunderstood. How many times have you said, “No, I meant…”? (And how
often have you listened to a person telling you about something for a
couple of minutes before you finally figured out what he or she was
talking about?) Misplacing even one pronoun can totally confuse a
listener. Worse, you usually don’t realize this is happening. Your
listeners just get it wrong."
How do you rate her answer?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
David Kleinecke
Oct 2, 2016, 5:22:35 PM10/2/16
to
Hers is the standard answer one finds in all the books on
writing style and prescriptive grammar.
I believe it is a misleading answer. But what class time should
be spent on is controversial. I for one think school grammar is
a waste of valuable educational time and a disservice to the
students' well-being.
Tony Cooper
Oct 2, 2016, 5:23:57 PM10/2/16
to
On 2 Oct 2016 20:58:01 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> quotes:
> applies the rules of the language without necessarily being
> able to name the parts of speech.
>
> And it also ignores the fact that misunderstandings often
> have other reasons than a false grammar.
>
> For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
> as "699 dollars" instead of "6.99 dollars", learning
> grammar rules won't help much. The problem is arbitrarily
> seeing one possible interpretation and ignoring another
> - more plausible - interpretation and possibly a lack of
> factual knowledge about common prices.
>
> Furthermore, she just claims some relationship
> (the relationship between grammatical knowledge and
> misunderstandings) but does not give any proof for it.
> She could have entirely made up this connection for
> the sake of her argument.
You do understand that this is a weekly Sunday magazine column and not
a book?
>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> quotes:
>>that I thought so at the time!) You need to learn every rule of
>>grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
>
> This ignores the fact that a native speaker implicitly
>>grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
>
> applies the rules of the language without necessarily being
> able to name the parts of speech.
>
> And it also ignores the fact that misunderstandings often
> have other reasons than a false grammar.
>
> For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
> as "699 dollars" instead of "6.99 dollars", learning
> grammar rules won't help much. The problem is arbitrarily
> seeing one possible interpretation and ignoring another
> - more plausible - interpretation and possibly a lack of
> factual knowledge about common prices.
>
> Furthermore, she just claims some relationship
> (the relationship between grammatical knowledge and
> misunderstandings) but does not give any proof for it.
> She could have entirely made up this connection for
> the sake of her argument.
You do understand that this is a weekly Sunday magazine column and not
a book?
Don Phillipson
Oct 2, 2016, 6:12:09 PM10/2/16
to
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:42:33 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
> In discussions about Marilyn vos Savant's _Parade_ column - "Ask
> Marilyn" . . .
> In discussions about Marilyn vos Savant's _Parade_ column - "Ask
>
> "I spent seemingly endless hours diagramming complex sentences in
> grade school, and I'll always be thankful for the experience. (Not
> that I thought so at the time!) You need to learn every rule of
> grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
> communication. And I don't mean pretentious speech. I mean the ability
> to express yourself clearly and well. This is much harder than it
> sounds.
"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "I spent seemingly endless hours diagramming complex sentences in
> grade school, and I'll always be thankful for the experience. (Not
> that I thought so at the time!) You need to learn every rule of
> grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
> communication. And I don't mean pretentious speech. I mean the ability
> to express yourself clearly and well. This is much harder than it
> sounds.
news:4cdac62e-6792-4dca...@googlegroups.com...
> Apparently she knows nothing about linguistics.
> Hers is the standard answer one finds in all the books on
> writing style and prescriptive grammar.
teaching the mother tongue (since people started writing
grammars and dictionaries in the 18th century) and a
literary tradition reaching back to Greece and Rome, all
attested by results (Savant asserts she benefitted personally
from the classical grammar curriculum.)
> . . . what class time should be spent on is controversial.
> I for one think school grammar is a waste of valuable
> educational time and a disservice to the students' well-being.
The catch (for the modern teachers' college) is that no
> educational time and a disservice to the students' well-being.
"research" proves time not spent on grammar would be
better spent on something else, and no one claims knowing
grammar was ever a "disservice" to students.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Oct 2, 2016, 6:48:29 PM10/2/16
to
Weirdo Stefan Ram wrote:
>
> For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
> as "699 dollars" instead of "6.99 dollars",
>
Nein, nein! No (near-)native speaker of English quotes
>
a price of 699 as "six nine nine". It's "six ninety-nine".
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
"There are a lot of people here
who like and/or respect PTD...."
--Helen, 23 Sep 2016
Peter Moylan
Oct 2, 2016, 8:46:18 PM10/2/16
to
>> that I thought so at the time!) You need to learn every rule of
>> grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
>
>> grammar because this lays the foundation for high-quality adult
>
> This ignores the fact that a native speaker implicitly
> applies the rules of the language without necessarily being
> able to name the parts of speech.
Yes, because children learn from the people around them how to speak the
> applies the rules of the language without necessarily being
> able to name the parts of speech.
local language rather than Phrygian. School lessons only supplement what
they're already learning outside school.
If all they want to do is communicate with their peers, this would be
sufficient. But what about those who want to become writers, orators,
etc.? They need a fluent command of high-status language, and that's
what you get from school teaching. Learning grammatical rules helps us
to analyse our own utterances, and to use that introspection to make us
better communicators.
Of course, many school children don't want to be better communicators.
They don't want to learn arithmetic, either, or history, or a whole
range of subjects. But they should be taught at least this: the people
who stick to low-status language end up with the low-status jobs, or no
jobs at all, because others will judge them, rightly or wrongly, by the
way they speak.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
David Kleinecke
Oct 2, 2016, 9:10:25 PM10/2/16
to
people speak. Disagreement whether teaching school grammar improves
anybody's speech.
If one wants to speak like a college graduate one hangs around with
college graduates and learns to talk like they talk. If one is lucky
enough to have parents who talk in approved style then one needs no
training. If one's parents and childhood environment teach one a
disparaged way of talking one has to want to "better themself" (see
other thread) and make the effort. IMO what is taught in schools does
not facilitate language learning. Children, I believe, learn more
from listening to the teacher talk than from the teacher says.
pr
Eric Walker
Oct 2, 2016, 9:44:58 PM10/2/16
to
On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 16:42:29 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
[...]
> How do you rate her answer?
I think the crux lies here:
"Worse, you usually don't realize this is happening. Your listeners
just get it wrong."
It is my substantial experience that those whose command of sound English
is poor do not merely often fail to give or receive thoughts: they often
_appear_, to themselves and their conversational partners, to have
successfully communicated when in fact they have not. One party
understands something different from the other party, but they do not, at
first and, too often, ever realize that.
When there is an overt failure to communicate, that is an annoyance and a
waste of time. "Huh? What?" It is when there is a miscommunication
that is not realized by either party that comedy or tragedy looms.
[...]
> How do you rate her answer?
"Worse, you usually don't realize this is happening. Your listeners
just get it wrong."
is poor do not merely often fail to give or receive thoughts: they often
_appear_, to themselves and their conversational partners, to have
successfully communicated when in fact they have not. One party
understands something different from the other party, but they do not, at
first and, too often, ever realize that.
When there is an overt failure to communicate, that is an annoyance and a
waste of time. "Huh? What?" It is when there is a miscommunication
that is not realized by either party that comedy or tragedy looms.
John Varela
Oct 2, 2016, 9:51:04 PM10/2/16
to
On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 22:48:48 UTC, Reinhold {Rey} Aman
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Weirdo Stefan Ram wrote:
> >
> > For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > as "699 dollars" instead of "6.99 dollars",
> >
> Nein, nein! No (near-)native speaker of English quotes
> a price of 6.99 as "six nine nine". It's "six ninety-nine".
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Weirdo Stefan Ram wrote:
> >
> > For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > as "699 dollars" instead of "6.99 dollars",
> >
> Nein, nein! No (near-)native speaker of English quotes
Correct, but that too could be misunderstood as 699. It would,
however, be a rare thing when context didn't prevent an error of a
factor of 100 in a price. Unless, of course, talking about repairs
in an auto body shop.
--
John Varela
Eric Walker
Oct 2, 2016, 10:17:42 PM10/2/16
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 02:07:11 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
[...]
> We humans might effectively always misunderstand each other in some
> way or the other, but as long as both parties are happy afterwards and
> there are no dire consequences, it might be ok.
Misunderstood communications might possibly result in both parties being
happy afterwards, but that's not how the smart money bets.
[...]
> We humans might effectively always misunderstand each other in some
> way or the other, but as long as both parties are happy afterwards and
> there are no dire consequences, it might be ok.
Misunderstood communications might possibly result in both parties being
happy afterwards, but that's not how the smart money bets.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Oct 2, 2016, 10:27:34 PM10/2/16
to
John Varela wrote:
I don't know what happened, John, but I wrote:
"a price of 699", not "6.99" as quoted by you. You added the period?
^^^ ^^^^
My point was that "six nine nine" for a *price* is wrong.
("Six ninety-nine" can mean either $6.99 or $699.)
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> Weirdo Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>
>>> For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> as "699 dollars" instead of "6.99 dollars",
>>>
>> Nein, nein! No (near-)native speaker of English quotes a
>> price of 6.99 as "six nine nine". It's "six ninety-nine".
^^^^
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> Weirdo Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>
>>> For example, when someone interpretes "six nine nine"
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> as "699 dollars" instead of "6.99 dollars",
>>>
>> Nein, nein! No (near-)native speaker of English quotes a
>> price of 6.99 as "six nine nine". It's "six ninety-nine".
I don't know what happened, John, but I wrote:
"a price of 699", not "6.99" as quoted by you. You added the period?
^^^ ^^^^
My point was that "six nine nine" for a *price* is wrong.
("Six ninety-nine" can mean either $6.99 or $699.)
>
> Correct, but that too could be misunderstood as 699.
[...]
> Correct, but that too could be misunderstood as 699.
Mack A. Damia
Oct 2, 2016, 10:31:01 PM10/2/16
to
On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 16:42:29 -0400, Tony Cooper
truly listen. In some of my courses decades ago, I would have my
pupils practice "active listening" as well as speaking.
Variations of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. People think they can
communicate better than they can, and people also think that they can
listen better than they can.
RH Draney
Oct 2, 2016, 11:06:15 PM10/2/16
to
http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/cookie.asp
....r
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Oct 2, 2016, 11:09:21 PM10/2/16
to
Weirdo Stefan Ram wrote:
<Weirdo Stefan Ram>
*** WARNING *** Post contains some content related to
sexuality. However, one can stop reading /here/ to avoid
being exposed to such contents. *** END OF WARNING ***
</Weirdo Stefan Ram>
>
> I sometimes use this example with a dog: When a dog touches
> his standing mistress in a certain way "climbing" with his
> forepaws on her body, the behavioral biologists claim that
> this is a gesture by which the dog shows his dominance over
> the mistress, while the mistress believes the dog wants to
> show her how happy he is to see her.
>
Those behavioral biologists are full of shit like a Christmas turkey.
The dog is not "climbing" her but *humping* (fucking) her leg.
>
> Maybe one of the above parties has erred in its assessment
> of canine behavior, but if the above was true, than - although
> it might be a misunderstanding - both parties (the mistress
> /and/ the dog) are happy after that interaction!
>
Falsch!
The dog is of course happy that he had an orgasm and could cum (ejaculate).
His "mistress" is NOT happy, because of the dog's icky cum running down
her leg.
<Weirdo Stefan Ram>
*** WARNING *** Post contains some content related to
sexuality. However, one can stop reading /here/ to avoid
being exposed to such contents. *** END OF WARNING ***
</Weirdo Stefan Ram>
>
> I sometimes use this example with a dog: When a dog touches
> his standing mistress in a certain way "climbing" with his
> forepaws on her body, the behavioral biologists claim that
> this is a gesture by which the dog shows his dominance over
> the mistress, while the mistress believes the dog wants to
> show her how happy he is to see her.
>
Those behavioral biologists are full of shit like a Christmas turkey.
The dog is not "climbing" her but *humping* (fucking) her leg.
>
> Maybe one of the above parties has erred in its assessment
> of canine behavior, but if the above was true, than - although
> it might be a misunderstanding - both parties (the mistress
> /and/ the dog) are happy after that interaction!
>
Falsch!
The dog is of course happy that he had an orgasm and could cum (ejaculate).
His "mistress" is NOT happy, because of the dog's icky cum running down
her leg.
Mack A. Damia
Oct 2, 2016, 11:15:19 PM10/2/16
to
On 3 Oct 2016 03:00:47 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>It's a two edged sword - the ability to communicate and the ability to
>>truly listen.
>
> "truly listen"?
>
> "truly" for me always is a signal that some mystifying
> language is used - a language wherein words do not have
> their usual meanings, but what meanings do they have then?
>
> "listen" already means "listen" - without "truly".
>
> (If "truly listen" does not mean "listen" why is it "truly
> listen" then?)
>
> A Zen saying says:
>
> "When I eat, I eat; when I sleep, I sleep".
>
> That is strong and clear language. It would only be weakened
> by an addition of "truly":
>
> *"When I eat, I truly eat; when I sleep, I truly sleep".
>
> This would not be Zen anymore, it would be pretentious drivel.
Why do you change the subject and attack the form rather than the
substance? Your comments add nothing to the discussion, and I have
seen you do this before with others.
Do you do this kind of thing when you don't have anything substantial
to say? I don't understand it except that maybe you think of yourself
as being in an eternal pissing contest.
>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>It's a two edged sword - the ability to communicate and the ability to
>>truly listen.
>
>
> "truly" for me always is a signal that some mystifying
> language is used - a language wherein words do not have
> their usual meanings, but what meanings do they have then?
>
> "listen" already means "listen" - without "truly".
>
> (If "truly listen" does not mean "listen" why is it "truly
> listen" then?)
>
> A Zen saying says:
>
> "When I eat, I eat; when I sleep, I sleep".
>
> That is strong and clear language. It would only be weakened
> by an addition of "truly":
>
> *"When I eat, I truly eat; when I sleep, I truly sleep".
>
> This would not be Zen anymore, it would be pretentious drivel.
Why do you change the subject and attack the form rather than the
substance? Your comments add nothing to the discussion, and I have
seen you do this before with others.
Do you do this kind of thing when you don't have anything substantial
to say? I don't understand it except that maybe you think of yourself
as being in an eternal pissing contest.
Rich Ulrich
Oct 3, 2016, 1:26:46 AM10/3/16
to
and conventional answer. I think I could point to additional
values, but they would be better contained in a chapter.
I don't know how a knowledge of linguists is supposed to
affect her answer.
>
>I believe it is a misleading answer. But what class time should
>be spent on is controversial. I for one think school grammar is
>a waste of valuable educational time and a disservice to the
>students' well-being.
that (therefore) she should have never embarked on the defense
of the practice of teaching grammar.
Additional values I see include practice of logic; self-consciousness;
consciousness; identifying "registers"; identifying one's solecisms in
a non-critical environment.
Now, if you grow up in a rich and well-spoken household, you might
never need any of that.
--
Rich Ulrich
Tony Cooper
Oct 3, 2016, 2:31:36 AM10/3/16
to
that include grammar and composition. They come over and use my
computer to complete on-line assignments in essay-like written form.
Both are in advanced classes that require these on-line assignments.
I see their writing style improve as they progress through the grades.
The on-line program they use does not check spelling or grammar (no
red squiggles for errors) but the assignments are graded for this. I
read their assignments, but after they have submitted them.
I see vocabulary and grammar usage in writing as two completely
separate learning processes. Both boys have an extended vocabulary
and understanding of word definitions, but that - in my opinion - is
not school-learned. It is a result of what you call their "household"
experience. Their writing skills are a result of their school
experience.
I am very glad Mr Kleinecke does not have any input into their
school's teaching program.
Eric Walker
Oct 3, 2016, 4:17:53 AM10/3/16
to
>>It's a two edged sword - the ability to communicate and the ability to
>>truly listen.
>
>>truly listen.
>
> "truly listen"?
>
> "truly" for me always is a signal that some mystifying language is
> used - a language wherein words do not have their usual meanings, but
> what meanings do they have then?
>
> "listen" already means "listen" - without "truly".
Pfui. The use of "truly" on a verb implies a form of whatever action the
>
> "truly" for me always is a signal that some mystifying language is
> used - a language wherein words do not have their usual meanings, but
> what meanings do they have then?
>
> "listen" already means "listen" - without "truly".
verb designates that is only apparent or superficial. "Jane appeared to
be listening, though anyone who knew her realized that her mind was on
the latest online gossip, while John was truly listening and absorbing
the important facts the speaker was presenting." Short form: Jane was
apparently listening, but John was truly listening.
Not rocket surgery.
Eric Walker
Oct 3, 2016, 4:20:10 AM10/3/16
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 02:31:36 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
[...]
[...]
> I am very glad Mr Kleinecke does not have any input into their school's
> teaching program.
Fixed: "I am very glad no linguist has any input into their school's
> teaching program.
teaching program."
CDB
Oct 3, 2016, 7:26:15 AM10/3/16
to
But there are other ways to skin that cat.
One thing about having a big dog rear up on you is that the two of you
will be looking each other in the eye. Recent studies in Japan indicate
that, when a dog and a human who are bonded look into each others' eyes,
both of them generate significant amounts of oxytocin. That makes them
both happy, even if one or both of them are females or castrated males.
Neither effusions nor misunderstandings are required.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/the-look-of-love-is-in-the-dogs-eyes/?_r=0
Tony Cooper
Oct 3, 2016, 10:56:07 AM10/3/16
to
pornographers, or drug dealers. Such exposure can only lead to a
wasted life of social ineptitude and personal misery.
Mack A. Damia
Oct 3, 2016, 11:35:46 AM10/3/16
to
On 3 Oct 2016 03:00:47 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>It's a two edged sword - the ability to communicate and the ability to
>>truly listen.
>
>>truly listen.
>
> "truly listen"?
>
> "truly" for me always is a signal that some mystifying
> language is used - a language wherein words do not have
> their usual meanings, but what meanings do they have then?
>
> "listen" already means "listen" - without "truly".
>
>
> "truly" for me always is a signal that some mystifying
> language is used - a language wherein words do not have
> their usual meanings, but what meanings do they have then?
>
> "listen" already means "listen" - without "truly".
>
> (If "truly listen" does not mean "listen" why is it "truly
> listen" then?)
>
> A Zen saying says:
>
> "When I eat, I eat; when I sleep, I sleep".
>
> That is strong and clear language. It would only be weakened
> by an addition of "truly":
>
> *"When I eat, I truly eat; when I sleep, I truly sleep".
>
> This would not be Zen anymore, it would be pretentious drivel.
Sorry, I was winding down for the day, and I thought this was an
> listen" then?)
>
> A Zen saying says:
>
> "When I eat, I eat; when I sleep, I sleep".
>
> That is strong and clear language. It would only be weakened
> by an addition of "truly":
>
> *"When I eat, I truly eat; when I sleep, I truly sleep".
>
> This would not be Zen anymore, it would be pretentious drivel.
interesting subject. I had just been reading that some psychologists
believe the fanatical love for Trump - or rather excusing his gross
mistakes - is an expression of the Dunning-Kruger Effect:
"Out of immense frustration, some of us may feel the urge to shake a
Trump supporter and say, “Hey! Don't you realize that he’s an idiot?!”
No. They don’t. That may be hard to fathom, but that’s the nature of
the Dunning-Kruger effect — one’s ignorance is completely invisible to
them."
http://www.mediaite.com/online/psychology-today-sassily-tries-to-explain-why-trumps-fans-love-him-so-much/
It also occurred to me that you might be a speaker of English as a
second language. I don't know if that is the case, but again, my
apologies; I should have been more patient.
You can listen or you can "actively listen". "Active listening" could
be considered more of a clinical term, and that's why I substituted
"truly". I know Eric explained this, too.
Pax!~
Tony Cooper
Oct 3, 2016, 12:20:31 PM10/3/16
to
linguistics. Else, they might grow up to be social misfits,
employable only as itinerant proof readers, and bitter kvetchers.
David Kleinecke
Oct 3, 2016, 12:58:32 PM10/3/16
to
nuclear weapons - obviously an anti-social occupation.
Robert Bannister
Oct 3, 2016, 7:57:34 PM10/3/16
to
school and managed to produce an entire generation of English teachers
who knew no grammar and a mass of people now in their forties who cannot
write English properly. I do agree that grammar, at least when I was a
pupil, was taught badly and that a lot of it served no purpose, but
scrapping it altogether was a disaster.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Peter Moylan
Oct 3, 2016, 9:08:32 PM10/3/16
to
there's no need to teach English in schools.
David Kleinecke
Oct 3, 2016, 9:32:39 PM10/3/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:08:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Oct-03 19:19, Eric Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 02:31:36 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> I am very glad Mr Kleinecke does not have any input into their school's
> >> teaching program.
> >
> > Fixed: "I am very glad no linguist has any input into their school's
> > teaching program."
>
> But imagine the savings! If everything a native speaker says is correct,
> there's no need to teach English in schools.
English is about more than formal grammar. One thing that is
> On 2016-Oct-03 19:19, Eric Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 02:31:36 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> I am very glad Mr Kleinecke does not have any input into their school's
> >> teaching program.
> >
> > Fixed: "I am very glad no linguist has any input into their school's
> > teaching program."
>
> But imagine the savings! If everything a native speaker says is correct,
> there's no need to teach English in schools.
close to grammar and needs attention is vocabulary. And I am
stiff-necked enough to believe children need some grounding in
English and international literature.I remember taking a train
ride carrying a copy of Dore's illustrations of Dante and trying
to explain to the sharp-seeming fifteen-year old nest to me who
Dante was and what the illustrations illustrated. I didnt get
very far. Suffering over who Dante was and why he matters is IMO
much more educational than being hectored about misusing
"literally". They need at least Shakespeare.
Tony Cooper
Oct 3, 2016, 11:04:05 PM10/3/16
to
but correcting a misuse of how to use a word in a sentence - like
"literally" - is hectoring.
What is the point of teaching vocabulary if it's not important to use
vocabulary correctly?
grabber
Oct 4, 2016, 1:53:04 AM10/4/16
to
usage that some people like to say is wrong.
The question of whether educators should teach the actual usage - rather
than what some people would like the usage to be - is not the same
question as whether usage should be taught.
<OED>
c. colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional)
metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest
admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly,
absolutely’.
Now one of the most common uses, although often considered irregular in
standard English since it reverses the original sense of literally (‘not
figuratively or metaphorically’).
1769 F. Brooke Hist. Emily Montague IV. ccxvii. 83 He is a fortunate
man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is
literally to feed among the lilies.
1801 Spirit of Farmers' Museum 262 He is, literally, made up of
marechal powder, cravat, and bootees.
1825 J. Denniston Legends Galloway 99 Lady Kirkclaugh, who,
literally worn to a shadow, died of a broken heart.
1863 F. A. Kemble Jrnl. Resid. Georgian Plantation 105 For the last
four years..I literally coined money.
1876 ‘M. Twain’ Adventures Tom Sawyer ii. 20 And when the middle of
the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the
morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.
1906 Westm. Gaz. 15 Nov. 2/1 Mr. Chamberlain literally bubbled over
with gratitude.
1975 Chem. Week (Nexis) 26 Mar. 10 ‘They're literally throwing money
at these programs,’ said a Ford Administration official.
2008 Herald-Times (Bloomington, Indiana) 22 Oct. a8/1 ‘OMG, I
literally died when I found out!’ No, you figuratively died. Otherwise,
you would not be around to relay your pointless anecdote.
</OED>
Lewis
Oct 4, 2016, 2:08:32 AM10/4/16
to
In message <1q66vbp20rpi9kb9k...@4ax.com>
Because it ignores that word meanings change. It's like correcting
someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
means "reduce by 1/10th".
--
Beautiful dawn / Lights up the shore for me / There is nothing else in the
world I'd rather see with you.
someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
means "reduce by 1/10th".
--
Beautiful dawn / Lights up the shore for me / There is nothing else in the
world I'd rather see with you.
Eric Walker
Oct 4, 2016, 3:03:21 AM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 06:08:17 +0000, Lewis wrote:
[...]
> Because it ignores that word meanings change. It's like correcting
> someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
> means "reduce by 1/10th".
No, it's not at all like that.
Certainly word meanings change. The criterion for judging an ongoing
change (on the assumption that the change can as well be slowed as
accelerated) is whether it augments or diminishes the powers of the
tongue.
If we conflate 'imply' and 'infer', the tongue is deprived of the ability
to simply and clearly distinguish two very different things. Likewise,
if we conflate 'figuratively' and 'literally', we lose a useful tool.
Those things are not at all the same as, for instance, expanding the
sense of 'dilapidated' from 'stripped of its stone outside' to merely
'run down'; in that, no discriminatory ability is lost.
Nor does it need to be conflating of two formerly distinct terms. Taking
'connive' to mean simply 'conspire' deprives us of a most useful word;
the sense of deliberately turning a blind eye to some activity, not
necessarily as a participant in some plot, is now nearly lost. (We can
tell by the switch in preposition, fro 'connive at' to 'connive with'.)
Words like 'decimate' that still preserve some air of their former sense
need to be handled with some care, meaning not used where the intended
meaning is flagrantly opposed to the old sense: "Their forces were
decimated, with losses estimated as high as 15%" is just a tin ear at
work.
[...]
> Because it ignores that word meanings change. It's like correcting
> someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
> means "reduce by 1/10th".
Certainly word meanings change. The criterion for judging an ongoing
change (on the assumption that the change can as well be slowed as
accelerated) is whether it augments or diminishes the powers of the
tongue.
If we conflate 'imply' and 'infer', the tongue is deprived of the ability
to simply and clearly distinguish two very different things. Likewise,
if we conflate 'figuratively' and 'literally', we lose a useful tool.
Those things are not at all the same as, for instance, expanding the
sense of 'dilapidated' from 'stripped of its stone outside' to merely
'run down'; in that, no discriminatory ability is lost.
Nor does it need to be conflating of two formerly distinct terms. Taking
'connive' to mean simply 'conspire' deprives us of a most useful word;
the sense of deliberately turning a blind eye to some activity, not
necessarily as a participant in some plot, is now nearly lost. (We can
tell by the switch in preposition, fro 'connive at' to 'connive with'.)
Words like 'decimate' that still preserve some air of their former sense
need to be handled with some care, meaning not used where the intended
meaning is flagrantly opposed to the old sense: "Their forces were
decimated, with losses estimated as high as 15%" is just a tin ear at
work.
Lewis
Oct 4, 2016, 4:38:45 AM10/4/16
to
In message <nsvk79$tm5$1...@dont-email.me>
> Certainly word meanings change. The criterion for judging an ongoing
> change (on the assumption that the change can as well be slowed as
> accelerated) is whether it augments or diminishes the powers of the
> tongue.
Correcting someone for using "literally" as an intensifier ignores
centuries of that usage.
> If we conflate 'imply' and 'infer', the tongue is deprived of the ability
> to simply and clearly distinguish two very different things. Likewise,
> if we conflate 'figuratively' and 'literally', we lose a useful tool.
And yet, people ahve been happily using literally as an intensifier that
does not mean what you think literally means for at least 200 years.
> Those things are not at all the same as, for instance, expanding the
> sense of 'dilapidated' from 'stripped of its stone outside' to merely
> 'run down'; in that, no discriminatory ability is lost.
And who decides which establish usage is 'correct'? How many centuries
must a word be used to mean A in addition to B before A is 'acceptable'?
Is it OK to use cool and hot to mean the same thing? People do it
everyday. The word terrific lost all association with 'terrifying' a
long time ago, so much so that we now have resurrected horrific.
Pretending that the language is in anyway a fixed point is a mistake.
Language is and always has been fluid.
> Nor does it need to be conflating of two formerly distinct terms. Taking
> 'connive' to mean simply 'conspire' deprives us of a most useful word;
> the sense of deliberately turning a blind eye to some activity, not
> necessarily as a participant in some plot, is now nearly lost. (We can
> tell by the switch in preposition, fro 'connive at' to 'connive with'.)
Yes. Words change. It happens every day, and has done for as far back as
we can go.
> Words like 'decimate' that still preserve some air of their former sense
> need to be handled with some care, meaning not used where the intended
> meaning is flagrantly opposed to the old sense: "Their forces were
> decimated, with losses estimated as high as 15%" is just a tin ear at
> work.
No, you are entirely wrong there. The word decimate means "to exact
devastating damage" It hasn't meant "reduce by 1/10th" outside of an
ivory tower for a very long time.
If you say "The frost is going to decimate the orange crop this year"
That means the orange crop is going to be close to a total loss. Any
claim otherwise is flat-out wrong and anyone who intends that meaning
will be misunderstood, and therefore fail at the primary purpose of
language.
--
This above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as the
night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 06:08:17 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> [...]
>> Because it ignores that word meanings change. It's like correcting
>> someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
>> means "reduce by 1/10th".
> No, it's not at all like that.
Oh, but it is.
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 06:08:17 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> [...]
>> Because it ignores that word meanings change. It's like correcting
>> someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
>> means "reduce by 1/10th".
> No, it's not at all like that.
> Certainly word meanings change. The criterion for judging an ongoing
> change (on the assumption that the change can as well be slowed as
> accelerated) is whether it augments or diminishes the powers of the
> tongue.
centuries of that usage.
> If we conflate 'imply' and 'infer', the tongue is deprived of the ability
> to simply and clearly distinguish two very different things. Likewise,
> if we conflate 'figuratively' and 'literally', we lose a useful tool.
does not mean what you think literally means for at least 200 years.
> Those things are not at all the same as, for instance, expanding the
> sense of 'dilapidated' from 'stripped of its stone outside' to merely
> 'run down'; in that, no discriminatory ability is lost.
must a word be used to mean A in addition to B before A is 'acceptable'?
Is it OK to use cool and hot to mean the same thing? People do it
everyday. The word terrific lost all association with 'terrifying' a
long time ago, so much so that we now have resurrected horrific.
Pretending that the language is in anyway a fixed point is a mistake.
Language is and always has been fluid.
> Nor does it need to be conflating of two formerly distinct terms. Taking
> 'connive' to mean simply 'conspire' deprives us of a most useful word;
> the sense of deliberately turning a blind eye to some activity, not
> necessarily as a participant in some plot, is now nearly lost. (We can
> tell by the switch in preposition, fro 'connive at' to 'connive with'.)
we can go.
> Words like 'decimate' that still preserve some air of their former sense
> need to be handled with some care, meaning not used where the intended
> meaning is flagrantly opposed to the old sense: "Their forces were
> decimated, with losses estimated as high as 15%" is just a tin ear at
> work.
devastating damage" It hasn't meant "reduce by 1/10th" outside of an
ivory tower for a very long time.
If you say "The frost is going to decimate the orange crop this year"
That means the orange crop is going to be close to a total loss. Any
claim otherwise is flat-out wrong and anyone who intends that meaning
will be misunderstood, and therefore fail at the primary purpose of
language.
--
This above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as the
night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Eric Walker
Oct 4, 2016, 4:41:36 AM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
[a potpourri of nonsense]
I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
Good night and good luck.
[a potpourri of nonsense]
I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
Good night and good luck.
Arindam Banerjee
Oct 4, 2016, 5:15:32 AM10/4/16
to
at school would like to deny that education for future generations.
Grammar is about making sense.
The construction of complicated sentences, to communicate in an integrated
manner superior sense, is not possible without some formal understanding of
grammar.
Without such training, one reduces to the simplistic Readers' Digest style -
that is, good money-making as most readers are dimwits, but never great
literature. Keep it simple, keep it stupid: this formula creates profit but
over time it creates a generation of morons.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Lewis
Oct 4, 2016, 5:58:06 AM10/4/16
to
In message <nsvpvg$gi6$1...@dont-email.me>
good luck having anyone understand you're centuries out-of-date
incorrect usage of decimate.
--
All Hell hadn't been let loose. It was merely Detritus. But from a few
feet away you couldn't tell the difference.
Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> [a potpourri of nonsense]
> I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
> demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
Of course you aren't. Be happy in your warm fuzzy blanket of denial. And
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> [a potpourri of nonsense]
> I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
> demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
good luck having anyone understand you're centuries out-of-date
incorrect usage of decimate.
--
All Hell hadn't been let loose. It was merely Detritus. But from a few
feet away you couldn't tell the difference.
Peter Moylan
Oct 4, 2016, 7:57:55 AM10/4/16
to
On 2016-Oct-04 19:38, Lewis wrote:
> Is it OK to use cool and hot to mean the same thing? People do it
> everyday. The word terrific lost all association with 'terrifying' a
> long time ago, so much so that we now have resurrected horrific.
>
> Pretending that the language is in anyway a fixed point is a mistake.
> Language is and always has been fluid.
It's not yet fluid enough, at least in MeE, to permit the removal of
> Is it OK to use cool and hot to mean the same thing? People do it
> everyday. The word terrific lost all association with 'terrifying' a
> long time ago, so much so that we now have resurrected horrific.
>
> Pretending that the language is in anyway a fixed point is a mistake.
> Language is and always has been fluid.
spaces from "every day" and "in any way".
Peter Moylan
Oct 4, 2016, 8:00:35 AM10/4/16
to
On 2016-Oct-04 20:57, Lewis wrote:
> In message <nsvpvg$gi6$1...@dont-email.me>
> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>
>> [a potpourri of nonsense]
>
>> I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
>> demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
>
> Of course you aren't. Be happy in your warm fuzzy blanket of denial. And
> good luck having anyone understand you're centuries out-of-date
> incorrect usage of decimate.
I agree partly with you and partly with Eric; but your (!) really
> In message <nsvpvg$gi6$1...@dont-email.me>
> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>
>> [a potpourri of nonsense]
>
>> I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
>> demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
>
> Of course you aren't. Be happy in your warm fuzzy blanket of denial. And
> good luck having anyone understand you're centuries out-of-date
> incorrect usage of decimate.
damaging your case if you don't proof-read.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 4, 2016, 9:48:58 AM10/4/16
to
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:03:21 AM UTC-4, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 06:08:17 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> > Because it ignores that word meanings change. It's like correcting
> > someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
> > means "reduce by 1/10th".
>
> No, it's not at all like that.
>
> Certainly word meanings change. The criterion for judging an ongoing
> change (on the assumption that the change can as well be slowed as
> accelerated)
Illegitimate assumption.
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 06:08:17 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> > Because it ignores that word meanings change. It's like correcting
> > someone for using 'terrific' to mean good or insisting that decimate
> > means "reduce by 1/10th".
>
> No, it's not at all like that.
>
> Certainly word meanings change. The criterion for judging an ongoing
> change (on the assumption that the change can as well be slowed as
> accelerated)
> is whether it augments or diminishes the powers of the
> tongue.
> If we conflate 'imply' and 'infer', the tongue is deprived of the ability
> to simply and clearly distinguish two very different things.
> Likewise,
> if we conflate 'figuratively' and 'literally', we lose a useful tool.
> Those things are not at all the same as, for instance, expanding the
> sense of 'dilapidated' from 'stripped of its stone outside' to merely
> 'run down'; in that, no discriminatory ability is lost.
You just don't live where stone buildings are as common as those
made from other materials and different craftsmen would be needed
for repairs.
> Nor does it need to be conflating of two formerly distinct terms. Taking
> 'connive' to mean simply 'conspire' deprives us of a most useful word;
> the sense of deliberately turning a blind eye to some activity, not
> necessarily as a participant in some plot, is now nearly lost. (We can
> tell by the switch in preposition, fro 'connive at' to 'connive with'.)
> Words like 'decimate' that still preserve some air of their former sense
> need to be handled with some care, meaning not used where the intended
> meaning is flagrantly opposed to the old sense: "Their forces were
> decimated, with losses estimated as high as 15%" is just a tin ear at
> work.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 4, 2016, 9:50:23 AM10/4/16
to
Osmium
Oct 4, 2016, 10:18:20 AM10/4/16
to
Loretta Lynch said “The citizens and residents of Ferguson deserve what
every American is guaranteed under the constitution—the right to be free
from excessive force … from unconstitutional arrests, and from a fine system
that was literally breaking their backs.”
Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of The United States.
Tony Cooper
Oct 4, 2016, 11:19:24 AM10/4/16
to
of words given to the student, and assigning them the task of defining
the word and using it in a sentence.
It is, perhaps, how Mr Kleinecke first learned how to use "hectoring"
in a sentence.
The assignment requires the student to look up the word, and the
current definition of the word is the definition the student finds.
"Decimate"'s current definition is 1) kill, destroy, or remove a large
percentage or part of, and 2) (historical) kill one every ten of.
No student would be hectored for using "decimate" to mean "kill a
large number of".
The current definition (M-W online) of "terrific" is "extremely good".
A teacher would not criticize a student for using "terrific" to mean
"good". Under "Full Definition" "terrific" is defined as a) very bad
and b) exciting or fit to excite fear or awe. This might prompt a
teacher to explain how a word can have two conflicting meanings. As
such, it's a valuable lesson for the student.
Vocabulary study does not ignore that word meanings change. Just the
opposite, in fact.
David Kleinecke
Oct 4, 2016, 12:03:03 PM10/4/16
to
EW is a curious person.
Note curious in the sense of odd not in the sense of wanting
to be exposed to new ideas.
David Kleinecke
Oct 4, 2016, 12:12:55 PM10/4/16
to
completely disappeared from my memory. I learned vocabulary
the hard way - by reading. But I think I encounter too many
people who have sparse vocabularies.
I used hectoring about "literally" as an example because that
was number 10 in the list of mistakes (in another thread). But
I fear I may have been the only one who read that far.
Charles Bishop
Oct 4, 2016, 12:19:45 PM10/4/16
to
In article <slrnnv6v9a....@snow.local>,
--
chareles, I understood, of course
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <nsvpvg$gi6$1...@dont-email.me>
> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>
> > [a potpourri of nonsense]
>
> > I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
> > demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
>
> Of course you aren't. Be happy in your warm fuzzy blanket of denial. And
> good luck having anyone understand you're centuries out-of-date
> incorrect usage of decimate.
(heh)
> In message <nsvpvg$gi6$1...@dont-email.me>
> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>
> > [a potpourri of nonsense]
>
> > I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
> > demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
>
> Of course you aren't. Be happy in your warm fuzzy blanket of denial. And
> good luck having anyone understand you're centuries out-of-date
> incorrect usage of decimate.
--
chareles, I understood, of course
Tony Cooper
Oct 4, 2016, 12:51:26 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:12:52 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
insistence of my mother. She treated the dictionary like a Southern
Baptist treats the Bible. She'd peek over my shoulder when I was
reading something and ask me to define a word in the text. If I
couldn't do it to her satisfaction, she'd plop the dictionary on my
lap and make me look up the word and use it in several sentences. A
dictionary was seldom out of arm's reach in our house.
But, the topic is vocabulary exposure in today's school environment.
The lists and the assignments have been the method in recent decades.
When my two children were in Catholic grade schools I drove them to
school in the morning. (No school bus routes for Catholic schools)
I'd listen to their preparation and expand their definitions and uses
of the words on their lists.
My two grandsons (who are in public schools) are required to follow
the same type of list assignments. I don't drive them to school, but
we do discuss words.
Just the other night, driving one grandson home from football
practice, the grandson asked what a "hospice" is. We turn at a corner
where there's a hospice, and he wanted to know if it was a type of
hospital.
We went into "hospice", and that led to an explanation of "terminal"
and that led to a discussion of "euphemism" and that led to discussion
about how the word "softening" can be used to avoid unpleasant words
like "dying".
David Kleinecke
Oct 4, 2016, 1:20:01 PM10/4/16
to
school when I needed to. My parents never intervened in my
schooling even though my mother did serve out the term of
one school board member who died (she was the only college
educated woman they could find).
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 4, 2016, 1:33:48 PM10/4/16
to
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 1:20:01 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> There wasnt a dictionary in our house. I used the one at
> school when I needed to. My parents never intervened in my
> schooling even though my mother did serve out the term of
> one school board member who died (she was the only college
> educated woman they could find).
It's nice that in those days an education was seen as a requisite for
> There wasnt a dictionary in our house. I used the one at
> school when I needed to. My parents never intervened in my
> schooling even though my mother did serve out the term of
> one school board member who died (she was the only college
> educated woman they could find).
service on a school board.
bill van
Oct 4, 2016, 2:33:39 PM10/4/16
to
In article <ddb4aa11-9700-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
I'm not qualified to take part in the main debate between Eric and the
majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here. His
prose is a pleasure to read. In a group that deals with English usage,
it should be worth something that he uses English very well.
--
bill
majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here. His
prose is a pleasure to read. In a group that deals with English usage,
it should be worth something that he uses English very well.
--
bill
David Kleinecke
Oct 4, 2016, 2:49:08 PM10/4/16
to
a stuffed shirt.
Tony Cooper
Oct 4, 2016, 2:53:30 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 10:19:57 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
My mother was quite the advocate for education. Her parents sent her
brother east to college but said there wasn't any reason for a woman
to attend college. She was very bitter about that.
We had several dictionaries and a set of encyclopedias in the house.
All older, and all purchased used at the Junior League thrift shop.
The encyclopedias were missing two volumes, but I forget which letters
they covered. I blame all gaps in my early education on what would
have been revealed in those two volumes.
brother east to college but said there wasn't any reason for a woman
to attend college. She was very bitter about that.
We had several dictionaries and a set of encyclopedias in the house.
All older, and all purchased used at the Junior League thrift shop.
The encyclopedias were missing two volumes, but I forget which letters
they covered. I blame all gaps in my early education on what would
have been revealed in those two volumes.
Tony Cooper
Oct 4, 2016, 3:08:02 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 11:49:04 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
and with sleeve garters in place to keep the ink from staining the
cuffs.
<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:33:39 AM UTC-7, bill van wrote:
>> In article <ddb4aa11-9700-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
>> David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 1:41:36 AM UTC-7, Eric Walker wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [a potpourri of nonsense]
>> > >
>> > > I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
>> > > demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
>> > >
>> > > Good night and good luck.
>> >
>> > Which usually means he just killfiled him.
>> >
>> > EW is a curious person.
>> >
>> > Note curious in the sense of odd not in the sense of wanting
>> > to be exposed to new ideas.
>>
>> I'm not qualified to take part in the main debate between Eric and the
>> majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
>> clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here. His
>> prose is a pleasure to read. In a group that deals with English usage,
>> it should be worth something that he uses English very well.
>
>There are tastes in styles of writing. To me he comes on like
>a stuffed shirt.
There are times that I picture you in a shirt with a detachable collar
>On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:33:39 AM UTC-7, bill van wrote:
>> In article <ddb4aa11-9700-4d20...@googlegroups.com>,
>> David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 1:41:36 AM UTC-7, Eric Walker wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 08:38:30 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [a potpourri of nonsense]
>> > >
>> > > I am not going to address your comments point by point because they all
>> > > demonstrate a combination of poor reading skills and bizarre attitudes.
>> > >
>> > > Good night and good luck.
>> >
>> > Which usually means he just killfiled him.
>> >
>> > EW is a curious person.
>> >
>> > Note curious in the sense of odd not in the sense of wanting
>> > to be exposed to new ideas.
>>
>> I'm not qualified to take part in the main debate between Eric and the
>> majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
>> clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here. His
>> prose is a pleasure to read. In a group that deals with English usage,
>> it should be worth something that he uses English very well.
>
>There are tastes in styles of writing. To me he comes on like
>a stuffed shirt.
and with sleeve garters in place to keep the ink from staining the
cuffs.
David Kleinecke
Oct 4, 2016, 3:10:46 PM10/4/16
to
graduate from college) in his family and as bank president (in a
small town) had some position. All three of his children went to
college. My mother was the first woman to graduate from the U of
Kansas School of Architecture. My father's family were not so
gung-ho for education but my aunt went to Berkely. My aunt died
young and we inherited her library - reading it was the real start
of my education.
* I am remotely descended from the Puritan poet Michel
Wigglesworth who graduated from Harvard in 1651. But that
was forgotten by my grandfather's day.
Arindam Banerjee
Oct 4, 2016, 7:25:36 PM10/4/16
to
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Lewis
Oct 4, 2016, 7:52:30 PM10/4/16
to
In message <nt05ki$n7o$2...@dont-email.me>
I can't proofread at 4am. It's an immutable law of nature.
--
“The female of all species are most dangerous when they appear to retreat.”
― Don Marquis
--
“The female of all species are most dangerous when they appear to retreat.”
― Don Marquis
Eric Walker
Oct 4, 2016, 8:02:00 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:18:15 -0500, Osmium wrote:
[...]
> From the news:
> Loretta Lynch said “The citizens and residents of Ferguson deserve what
> every American is guaranteed under the constitution—the right to be free
> from excessive force … from unconstitutional arrests, and from a fine
> system that was literally breaking their backs.”
>
> Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of The United States.
I am unclear what the issue is. If it is her use of the word "fine", be
aware that she is obviously using it as a noun: a system of fines (or
fining). It was not being used as an adjective meaning "good".
The incredible system of oppressive, loan-shark-like fining that some
small towns (and some not so small) use, chiefly against poorer folk of
color, is a bleeding sore on the face of the nation.
[...]
> From the news:
> Loretta Lynch said “The citizens and residents of Ferguson deserve what
> every American is guaranteed under the constitution—the right to be free
> from excessive force … from unconstitutional arrests, and from a fine
> system that was literally breaking their backs.”
>
> Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of The United States.
aware that she is obviously using it as a noun: a system of fines (or
fining). It was not being used as an adjective meaning "good".
The incredible system of oppressive, loan-shark-like fining that some
small towns (and some not so small) use, chiefly against poorer folk of
color, is a bleeding sore on the face of the nation.
Eric Walker
Oct 4, 2016, 8:03:44 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:33:35 -0700, bill van wrote:
[...]
> I'm not qualified to take part in the main debate between Eric and the
> majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
> clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here. His
> prose is a pleasure to read. In a group that deals with English usage,
> it should be worth something that he uses English very well.
My heartfelt thanks for the kind words.
[...]
> I'm not qualified to take part in the main debate between Eric and the
> majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
> clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here. His
> prose is a pleasure to read. In a group that deals with English usage,
> it should be worth something that he uses English very well.
Eric Walker
Oct 4, 2016, 8:07:33 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 02:15:29 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
[...]
> Keep it simple, keep it stupid: this formula creates profit
> but over time it creates a generation of morons.
Sorry, wrong tense there:
Keep it simple, keep it stupid: this formula has created profit
but over time it has created a generation of morons.
[...]
> Keep it simple, keep it stupid: this formula creates profit
> but over time it creates a generation of morons.
Keep it simple, keep it stupid: this formula has created profit
but over time it has created a generation of morons.
Peter Moylan
Oct 4, 2016, 9:03:39 PM10/4/16
to
On 2016-Oct-05 01:18, Osmium wrote:
>
> From the news:
> Loretta Lynch said “The citizens and residents of Ferguson deserve what
> every American is guaranteed under the constitution—the right to be free
> from excessive force … from unconstitutional arrests, and from a fine
> system that was literally breaking their backs.”
>
> Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of The United States.
Don't the police use guns in Ferguson?
>
> From the news:
> Loretta Lynch said “The citizens and residents of Ferguson deserve what
> every American is guaranteed under the constitution—the right to be free
> from excessive force … from unconstitutional arrests, and from a fine
> system that was literally breaking their backs.”
>
> Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of The United States.
Arindam Banerjee
Oct 4, 2016, 9:04:04 PM10/4/16
to
always valid in terms of results; and that is what I want to express.
At my school, (St. Xavier's School, Doranda, Ranchi, Bihar, India, 1963-72) I
learnt not just English grammar, but Hindi and Sanskrit grammar as well. All at
more or less the same time. We all hated grammar; but now I find that without
that subconscious appreciation or knowledge of grammar I could never express,
precisely, what I want to express, in a way that is satisfying, at least to
myself.
Hmm, Kalidas did fool one grammarian, and the above is some mending work.
Grammar not only provides sense; it imparts beauty to the spoken word. Without
grammar, humanity becomes increasingly like grunting swine.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Peter Moylan
Oct 4, 2016, 9:21:57 PM10/4/16
to
On 2016-Oct-05 05:53, Tony Cooper wrote:
> My mother was quite the advocate for education. Her parents sent her
> brother east to college but said there wasn't any reason for a woman
> to attend college. She was very bitter about that.
My mother missed out on a good education, but not through prejudice. Her
> My mother was quite the advocate for education. Her parents sent her
> brother east to college but said there wasn't any reason for a woman
> to attend college. She was very bitter about that.
father's job in the railways moved the family from town all the time, so
she never stayed at any school for any length of time. The war didn't
help much either. Years later, she took herself back to school and
finished high school. It must have been embarrassing to be a 50-year-old
in a classroom full of 16-year-olds, but she pushed herself anyway.
My father had a limited education for a different reason. The nearest
school only went as far as grade 8. Later, though, the Post Office gave
him good training as a telephone technician. (In those days, the Post
Office ran the telephone system.) What he missed in breadth he at least
gained in depth. In the long run he joined U3A, an educational
association for retired people.
Because of their own lack of education, my parents wanted their children
to do better, and pushed us into the best education we could manage. I
was the only one in the family to go to university, but my siblings did
finish high school.
> We had several dictionaries and a set of encyclopedias in the house.
> All older, and all purchased used at the Junior League thrift shop.
> The encyclopedias were missing two volumes, but I forget which letters
> they covered. I blame all gaps in my early education on what would
> have been revealed in those two volumes.
dictionary. Because of my voracious reading I didn't really need a
dictionary. I could ask about words I didn't know, or figure them out
from context. No doubt a dictionary might have taught me things like the
correct pronunciation of "misle", but that's a fairly minor detail.
Eric Walker
Oct 4, 2016, 11:26:29 PM10/4/16
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:04:01 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
[...]
[...]
> My line expresses what I find, for your interpretation gives the
> impression that this formula is no longer valid. The way I have put it,
> the formula is always valid in terms of results; and that is what I want
> to express.
Yes, you are quite correct. My remark was just a little sarcasm about
> impression that this formula is no longer valid. The way I have put it,
> the formula is always valid in terms of results; and that is what I want
> to express.
the present state of the American electorate.
Mark Brader
Oct 5, 2016, 1:24:39 AM10/5/16
to
"Bill":
(Sorry, but somebody had to say it!)
But yes, Eric does express himself clearly.
--
Mark Brader "A clarification is not to make oneself clear.
Toronto It is to PUT oneself IN the clear."
m...@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes, Prime Minister"
> I'm not qualified to take part in the main debate between Eric and the
> majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
> clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here.
> His prose is a pleasure to read.
Well, he'd *like* to comprehensively command our written English.
> majority here in aue. But I notice every time he posts that he has as
> clear and comprehensive a command of written English as anyone here.
> His prose is a pleasure to read.
(Sorry, but somebody had to say it!)
But yes, Eric does express himself clearly.
--
Mark Brader "A clarification is not to make oneself clear.
Toronto It is to PUT oneself IN the clear."
m...@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes, Prime Minister"
Robert Bannister
Oct 5, 2016, 3:22:29 AM10/5/16
to
> vocabulary correctly?
>
I presume the Shakespeare will quickly teach them that you can use words
rather as you like and even invent new ones.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
bill van
Oct 5, 2016, 4:17:15 AM10/5/16
to
Wayne Brown
Oct 5, 2016, 11:21:18 AM10/5/16
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 19:01:44 in article <nt1ft8$5pe$3...@dont-email.me> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:18:15 -0500, Osmium wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> From the news:
>> Loretta Lynch said “The citizens and residents of Ferguson deserve what
>> every American is guaranteed under the constitution—the right to be free
>> from excessive force … from unconstitutional arrests, and from a fine
>> system that was literally breaking their backs.”
>>
>> Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of The United States.
>
> I am unclear what the issue is. If it is her use of the word "fine", be
> aware that she is obviously using it as a noun: a system of fines (or
> fining). It was not being used as an adjective meaning "good".
I think the issue was her use of the word "literally." It seems
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:18:15 -0500, Osmium wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> From the news:
>> Loretta Lynch said “The citizens and residents of Ferguson deserve what
>> every American is guaranteed under the constitution—the right to be free
>> from excessive force … from unconstitutional arrests, and from a fine
>> system that was literally breaking their backs.”
>>
>> Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of The United States.
>
> I am unclear what the issue is. If it is her use of the word "fine", be
> aware that she is obviously using it as a noun: a system of fines (or
> fining). It was not being used as an adjective meaning "good".
unlikely that the system of fines was causing people's vertebrae
to fracture.
>
> The incredible system of oppressive, loan-shark-like fining that some
> small towns (and some not so small) use, chiefly against poorer folk of
> color, is a bleeding sore on the face of the nation.
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
Charles Bishop
Oct 5, 2016, 2:10:01 PM10/5/16
to
think. Though I'm not sure not continuing an argument/discussion is
evidence of that.
--
charles
Snidely
Oct 12, 2016, 5:01:55 AM10/12/16
to
Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :
> But, the topic is vocabulary exposure in today's school environment.
> The lists and the assignments have been the method in recent decades.
> When my two children were in Catholic grade schools I drove them to
> school in the morning. (No school bus routes for Catholic schools)
> I'd listen to their preparation and expand their definitions and uses
> of the words on their lists.
FWIW, you described exactly how my spelling lessons went, except that
in 5th grade (when a Democrat succeeded a Democrat in the White House),
the sentences were to form a brief story. One of my classmates
introduced us to "electric tennie runners" in one such story.
/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"
" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
> But, the topic is vocabulary exposure in today's school environment.
> The lists and the assignments have been the method in recent decades.
> When my two children were in Catholic grade schools I drove them to
> school in the morning. (No school bus routes for Catholic schools)
> I'd listen to their preparation and expand their definitions and uses
> of the words on their lists.
in 5th grade (when a Democrat succeeded a Democrat in the White House),
the sentences were to form a brief story. One of my classmates
introduced us to "electric tennie runners" in one such story.
/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"
" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 12, 2016, 8:59:03 AM10/12/16
to
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:01:55 AM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :
> > But, the topic is vocabulary exposure in today's school environment.
> > The lists and the assignments have been the method in recent decades.
> > When my two children were in Catholic grade schools I drove them to
> > school in the morning. (No school bus routes for Catholic schools)
> > I'd listen to their preparation and expand their definitions and uses
> > of the words on their lists.
>
> FWIW, you described exactly how my spelling lessons went, except that
> in 5th grade (when a Democrat succeeded a Democrat in the White House),
> the sentences were to form a brief story. One of my classmates
> introduced us to "electric tennie runners" in one such story.
Hmm. That was either 1945, 1963, or 2016.
> Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :
> > But, the topic is vocabulary exposure in today's school environment.
> > The lists and the assignments have been the method in recent decades.
> > When my two children were in Catholic grade schools I drove them to
> > school in the morning. (No school bus routes for Catholic schools)
> > I'd listen to their preparation and expand their definitions and uses
> > of the words on their lists.
>
> FWIW, you described exactly how my spelling lessons went, except that
> in 5th grade (when a Democrat succeeded a Democrat in the White House),
> the sentences were to form a brief story. One of my classmates
> introduced us to "electric tennie runners" in one such story.
Snidely
Oct 14, 2016, 4:04:54 AM10/14/16
to
Peter T. Daniels speculated:
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
0 new messages