to concern
Palia
publishing books, so for a start you can speak to those people who will be
out of jobs thanks to Google books."
I read this in a reader's letter to the Times today and wondered if such
employment of the verb "concern" was correct or commonplace. Although not a
native speaker, my first thought is that perhaps the phrase is missing a
preposition.
Thus, "thousands of staff (who are) concerned WITH/IN".
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6919335.ece
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>"Publishers employ thousands of staff *to concern* many different aspects of
>publishing books, so for a start you can speak to those people who will be
>out of jobs thanks to Google books."
>
>I read this in a reader's letter to the Times today and wondered if such
>employment of the verb "concern" was correct or commonplace.
>
>http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6919335.ece
>
The use of "to concern" is strange and almost meaningless. I'd say that
it is incorrect.
>Although not a
>native speaker, my first thought is that perhaps the phrase is missing a
>preposition.
>Thus, "thousands of staff (who are) concerned WITH/IN".
That is one way of rewording it.
Another is "thousands of staff to be concerned with".
It is possible that the writer typed "concern" but was thinking
"concentrate": "thousands of staff to concentrate on"
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
James Hogg
The most economical change would be to emend "concern" to "cover". Maybe
it was a handwritten letter?
--
James
mm
>"Publishers employ thousands of staff *to concern* many different aspects of
>publishing books, so for a start you can speak to those people who will be
>out of jobs thanks to Google books."
Well if all they do is concern things, they sound inessential to me,
to say the least. They can concern things at home.
>
>I read this in a reader's letter to the Times today and wondered if such
>employment of the verb "concern" was correct or commonplace. Although not a
There seeems to be a movement afoot to try to make a verb, yeah a
transitive verb, out of every noun in sight. Everyone against this
should sadlle up and meet me at the livery stable, and we'll catch
them varmints and stop them. Bring a pistol and a rifle.
>native speaker, my first thought is that perhaps the phrase is missing a
>preposition.
>Thus, "thousands of staff (who are) concerned WITH/IN".
>
>http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6919335.ece
>
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
mm
wrote:
Or another attack by an unmonitored spell=checker.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
It wasn't a traditional Letter to the Editor which would have been
checked for comprehensibilty by the Letters Editor. It was a reader's
comment typed into a web form at the foot of the article being commented
on. It would have been checked only for "unacceptable content".
Lars Eighner
talented Palia broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> "Publishers employ thousands of staff *to concern* many different aspects of
> publishing books, so for a start you can speak to those people who will be
> out of jobs thanks to Google books."
> I read this in a reader's letter to the Times today and wondered if such
> employment of the verb "concern" was correct or commonplace.
No. This is not consistent with the meaning of "concern" as a verb.
"Subject concerns Object" means Subject gives rise to worry, cautious
attention, or anxiety in Object or means Subject is associated with or
pertinent to Object.
Thus in the active voice this should be:
Aspects (of publishing books) concern (publisher's) staff,
or in the passive voice:
(publisher's) staff are concerned with/by aspects (of publishing book's).
Thus, a minimal correction to the original would be:
Publishers employ thousands of staff to be concerned with many ... etc.
This result is consistent with the meaning of "concern." Although sensible,
the correction may seem awkward to some writers who would be well advised to
seek a better verb and in particular a verb that can bear the meaning in the
active voice.
> Although not a
> native speaker, my first thought is that perhaps the phrase is missing a
> preposition.
> Thus, "thousands of staff (who are) concerned WITH/IN".
> <http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6919335.ece>
In the above "staff" means people. The people cannot be pertinent to the
aspects (second sense of "concern"). However, their positions (jobs) might
be. So it would be sensible (although perhaps not best) to write:
Publisher's have many positions that concern aspects ...
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5922, 1993
301 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Christian Weisgerber
> "Publishers employ thousands of staff *to concern* many different aspects of
> publishing books, so for a start you can speak to those people who will be
> out of jobs thanks to Google books."
"to discern"?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
mm
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:44:32 -0000, "Palia" <pa...@nulle.com> wrote:
>>"Publishers employ thousands of staff *to concern* many different aspects of
>>publishing books, so for a start you can speak to those people who will be
>>out of jobs thanks to Google books."
>There seeems to be a movement afoot to try to make a verb, yeah a
>transitive verb, out of every noun in sight.
BTW, they are also doing the opposite, making adjectives out of verbs
that shouldn't have them. "This is very concerning to me". Ugh, no
wonder those other people in the OP don't khow how to use "concern".
Peter Moylan
I think my web browser checks the spelling as I am typing into a web form.
The reason why I'm uncertain is that I usually refuse to do business
with anyone who uses web forms as a means of communication.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> It wasn't a traditional Letter to the Editor which would have been
>> checked for comprehensibilty by the Letters Editor. It was a reader's
>> comment typed into a web form at the foot of the article being
>> commented on. It would have been checked only for "unacceptable
>> content".
>
>I think my web browser checks the spelling as I am typing into a web form.
>
Mine (Firefox) does too.
>The reason why I'm uncertain is that I usually refuse to do business
>with anyone who uses web forms as a means of communication.
I can understand that. I also understand the motivation of the
organisations that use web forms to try to avoid being flooded with spam
of a commercial nature or messages intended to harass the organisation
or to overload its server(s). The use of a web form is sometimes
supplemented by the CAPTCHA system to reduce further the opportunities
for automated generation of messages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA
xerlome
> "Publishers employ thousands of staff *to concern* many different aspects of
> publishing books, so for a start you can speak to those people who will be
> out of jobs thanks to Google books."
My best guess is that the writer skipped some words.
"... thousands of staff to concern themselves with may different
aspects of publishing books, ..."
When i'm typing, i sometimes race past words i'm thinking. I discover
the omissions when i reread my text. Some people may not bother to
check (as i sometimes see here in these discussions).
ER Lyon
xerlome
...as i skipped the <n> in <many> ...