Pronoun help
AnandVishy
"While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
of Impressionist painter Monet."
My confusion about this sentence stems from a fact I learned at
school:
"While he..., his..." structure is acceptable while the
"While his..., he..." structure isn't.
But the test-prep book that contained the sentence condoned it.
Mark J. Reed
> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
I'm sure someone on a.u.e will be happy to help. Sci.lang is
for discussing linguistics, not the rules for "good" use
of any particular language.
Peter T. Daniels
This sounds like the exact opposite of the test question that caused the
problem this spring, no?
The "that" is highly questionable. And the absence of an article before
the "Monet" phrase is typical of what used to be called "Time"ese and is
less than elegant.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Greg Lee
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0700, AnandVishy wrote:
>> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
> I'm sure someone on a.u.e will be happy to help. Sci.lang is
> for discussing linguistics, not the rules for "good" use
> of any particular language.
The possibilities for pronominal coreference in English have
received a lot of attention from linguists.
>> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
>> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
>> of Impressionist painter Monet."
>>
>> My confusion about this sentence stems from a fact I learned at
>> school:
>>
>> "While he..., his..." structure is acceptable while the
>>
>> "While his..., he..." structure isn't.
...
There's no "his" in the example sentence, so how could the rule
apply?
Sometimes "his" can have a following antecedent, while "he"
cannot. Compare:
Only his mother admires John.
Only he admires John.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Ron Hardin
The antecedent of ``he'' isn't at the right level in the sentence
structure to receive a reference, is the thinking. It sounds fine,
however; that is a matter that the thinkers have yet to explain.
Indeed it frustrates them.
I'd go along with the guy doing the scoring.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Arnold Zwicky
anandvishy <chok...@hotmail.com> asks:
oh dear. i suppose that i am now one of the world's great experts
on the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (see the archives of the
American Dialect Society mailing list), so i should answer this.
you're not going to like the answer.
the fact is that there is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with
such examples, and they occur with some frequency in the careful
writing of distinguished professional writers, including most, if not
all, of the people who maintain the PAP. however, a fair number of
handbooks of grammar and usage condemn such examples categorically, as
do some exam prep books.
lord knows what a student is supposed to do in the face of these
facts. (fortunately, it seems to be the case that the PAP is very
rarely actually tested on.)
arnold
Tom Breton
> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>
> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
> of Impressionist painter Monet."
It's fine as far as "While his ..., he" is concerned. There could be
a few stylistic nitpicks, but I expect those are not the issue.
> My confusion about this sentence stems from a fact I learned at
> school:
>
> "While he..., his..." structure is acceptable while the
>
> "While his..., he..." structure isn't.
This rule is nonsense. Particularly since "he" and "his" are both
anaphors.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
Tom Breton
> In sci.lang Mark J. Reed <mark...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0700, AnandVishy wrote:
> >> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>
> > I'm sure someone on a.u.e will be happy to help. Sci.lang is
> > for discussing linguistics, not the rules for "good" use
> > of any particular language.
>
> The possibilities for pronominal coreference in English have
> received a lot of attention from linguists.
>
> >> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
> >> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
> >> of Impressionist painter Monet."
> >>
> >> My confusion about this sentence stems from a fact I learned at
> >> school:
> >>
> >> "While he..., his..." structure is acceptable while the
> >>
> >> "While his..., he..." structure isn't.
> ...
>
> There's no "his" in the example sentence, so how could the rule
> apply?
I expect he means the genitive "Boudin's".
> Sometimes "his" can have a following antecedent, while "he"
> cannot. Compare:
> Only his mother admires John.
> Only he admires John.
You probably already know this, but that's not a property of "his" vs
"he" or genitive vs nominative, it's a property of embedded
co-reference vs direct co-reference.
Compare with:
Only the people he_1 flatters admire John_1.
??While he_1 worked, John_1 whistled.
While his_1 mother worked, John_1 whistled.
While the men he_1 hired worked, John_1 whistled.
Simon R. Hughes
about?) to tell people when you piss around with the headers.]
Thus spake Mark J. Reed:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0700, AnandVishy wrote:
> > Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>
> I'm sure someone on a.u.e will be happy to help. Sci.lang is
> for discussing linguistics, not the rules for "good" use
> of any particular language.
This is true. Sci.lang-ers are not interested in actually helping
anyone, just in the warm fuzzy feeling they get when other linguists
laugh at one of their oh-so-funny linguist-jokes.
One day, all linguists will disappear up their own arses.
Someone in AUE has answered the question, helping the original
poster. Shame on sci.lang!
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- 67 deg. 17' N; 14 deg. 23' E -->
Peter T. Daniels
>
> [Recrossposted -- it's good manners (something else you know nothing
> about?) to tell people when you piss around with the headers.]
>
> Thus spake Mark J. Reed:
> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0700, AnandVishy wrote:
> > > Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
> >
> > I'm sure someone on a.u.e will be happy to help. Sci.lang is
> > for discussing linguistics, not the rules for "good" use
> > of any particular language.
>
> This is true. Sci.lang-ers are not interested in actually helping
> anyone, just in the warm fuzzy feeling they get when other linguists
> laugh at one of their oh-so-funny linguist-jokes.
>
> One day, all linguists will disappear up their own arses.
>
> Someone in AUE has answered the question, helping the original
> poster. Shame on sci.lang!
And this is why sci.lang wishes a.u.e. would stop cross-posting itself
into sci.lang.
If the a.u.e. answer was not the same as the half-dozen replies posted
to sci.lang, then it was not helpful to O.P.
Janet Lock
"AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
Sentences like this one are extremely common in educated writing, and to
that extent they are normal. But most careful writers of English would
object strongly to them, as do I. Since Boudin has not been explicitly
mentioned, there is nothing available to serve as an antecedent for the
pronoun 'he'.
My advice is this: if you want to be regarded as a good stylist, avoid this
construction. But expect to see it everywhere. The great majority of
educated writers of English take very little care of what they are writing,
and in particular they use pronouns in a manner that is so sloppy as to
bring tears to the eyes of a fastidious old fart like me.
By the way, there are two other problems with the example sentence.
First, the wording "in that high regard" is *extremely* colloquial, and
completely out of place in anything that purports to be careful writing.
Write "in high regard".
Second, the wording "of Impressionist painter Monet" represents an
irritating journalistic style which has no place in careful writing --
though it is often found in writing which purports to be careful. The
article 'the' is absolutely required, and the sentence should read "of the
Impressionist painter Monet".
Larry Trask
R.L....@sussex.ac.uk
Arnold Zwicky
trask, writing from the account of janet lock
<janet...@ntlworld.com> defends the Possessive Antecedent
Proscription:
>"AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
>> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
>> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the
>> education of Impressionist painter Monet."
>Sentences like this one are extremely common in educated writing,
>and to that extent they are normal. But most careful writers of
>English would object strongly to them, as do I. Since Boudin has
>not been explicitly mentioned, there is nothing available to serve
>as an antecedent for the pronoun 'he'.
most careful writers of english do not object strongly to them, and
those who do object quite often use the construction in their own
writing. this is the hallmark of a "rule of grammar" that has been
enforced, insofar as it has been enforced, by explicit instruction
and is not natural for any native speaker of the language. (the
"rule" seems to be no more than a hundred years old, and appears only
in (a few) usage manuals, not in the scholarly grammars.) in fact, i
doubt that this is a *possible* rule of grammar; i know of no language
in which possessive NPs are not available as antecedents for pronouns.
explicitly denying that the usage of educated writers should be the
touchstone in positing rules of grammar, larry presents a
"theoretical" defense of the PAP. this is a dangerous tack to take;
it's the sort of reasoning that leads people to claim that standard
english doesn't have negative concord, and *couldn't* have it, because
two negatives make a positive, and to claim that split infinitives and
stranded prepositions are *necessarily* ungrammatical.
in the case of the PAP, dwight bolinger long ago (in Language--The
Loaded Weapon) countered this "theoretical" defense, as presented
in a manual by jacques barzun.
the claim is that possessive NPs aren't NPs, but AdjPs, or at least
adjectivals, so that "Boudin's paintings" doesn't contain an NP
"Boudin" for a pronoun to refer back to; the offense is then a kind of
anaphoric island variation, of the same sort as in
Boudinesque paintings don't appeal to me, because I prefer
paintings he did himself.
but this is silly. possessive NPs don't show any of the properties
of AdjPs or even of adjectivals; syntactically, they're simply
NPs serving in the determiner function. they're certainly NPs, and
they're referential, so of course they can serve as antecedents for
pronouns.
>My advice is this: if you want to be regarded as a good stylist,
>avoid this construction. But expect to see it everywhere. The
>great majority of educated writers of English take very little care
>of what they are writing, and in particular they use pronouns in a
>manner that is so sloppy as to bring tears to the eyes of a
>fastidious old fart like me.
lighten up, larry. i can't believe that you actually object to
sentences like
Mary's father admires her.
(or that you have a rewording that is more natural than this.)
i won't address any other parts of the boudin sentence.
arnold
Greg Lee
> "AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
>> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>>
>> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
>> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
>> of Impressionist painter Monet."
>>
>> My confusion about this sentence stems from a fact I learned at
>> school:
>>
>> "While he..., his..." structure is acceptable while the
>>
>> "While his..., he..." structure isn't.
>>
>> But the test-prep book that contained the sentence condoned it.
> Sentences like this one are extremely common in educated writing, and to
> that extent they are normal. But most careful writers of English would
> object strongly to them, as do I. Since Boudin has not been explicitly
> mentioned, there is nothing available to serve as an antecedent for the
> pronoun 'he'.
But Boudin is explicitly mentioned in the example. Trying to follow this
discussion, I've read over the example several times, looking for the "his",
which I never did find, but I do keep seeing the "Boudin".
...
> Larry Trask
> R.L....@sussex.ac.uk
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Ron Hardin
> lighten up, larry. i can't believe that you actually object to
> sentences like
> Mary's father admires her.
> (or that you have a rewording that is more natural than this.)
Mary has left the sentence by the time you get to the the object.
Only her father has his head above the fence line for a clear pronoun
shot.
Once you've got the right father positioned, Mary is no longer necessary.
He could be anybody's father, as all that's left to do is for him to
admire somebody. But who?
The objection is to specification hysteresis. Somehow Mary is adhering
to the father when she is no longer needed.
Ron Hardin
> "theoretical" defense of the PAP. this is a dangerous tack to take;
> it's the sort of reasoning that leads people to claim that standard
> english doesn't have negative concord, and *couldn't* have it, because
> two negatives make a positive,
Wittgenstein struggled arguing that; the thing to question is why
the struggle.
_Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics_ Appendix I (1933-1934)
``Might I not say that two words - let's write them ``non'' and ``ne'' -
had the same meaning, that they were both negation signs - but
non non p = p
and
ne ne p = ne p
(In spoken language a double negation very often means a negation.)
But then why do I call them both ``negations''? What have they
in common with one another? Well, it is clear that a great part of
their employment is common. But that does not solve our problem.
For we should after all like to say: ``It must also hold that for
both of them that the double negation is an affirmation, at least if
doubling is thought of appropriately.'' But _how?_ - Well, as for
example we expresseed it using brackets:
(ne ne)p = ne p, ne (ne p) = p
etc.'' page 102-107
Wittgenstein argues with two voices. What is the second one seeing?
Something inclines you to say ...
AnandVishy
> oh dear. i suppose that i am now one of the world's great experts
> on the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (see the archives of the
> American Dialect Society mailing list), so i should answer this.
> you're not going to like the answer.
>
> the fact is that there is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with
> such examples, and they occur with some frequency in the careful
> writing of distinguished professional writers, including most, if not
> all, of the people who maintain the PAP. however, a fair number of
> handbooks of grammar and usage condemn such examples categorically, as
> do some exam prep books.
>
> lord knows what a student is supposed to do in the face of these
> facts. (fortunately, it seems to be the case that the PAP is very
> rarely actually tested on.)
>
> arnold
Thanks. So sentences such as "Joe's car is red and he rides it
everyday," where "he" refers to "Joe," is acceptable, correct?
Arnold Zwicky
>Thanks. So sentences such as "Joe's car is red and he rides it
>everyday," where "he" refers to "Joe," is acceptable, correct?
for some value of "correct", yes. if, on the other hand, correctness
is something that is determined by reasoning from first principles
and appeals to authorities, then maybe not. when you're taking
a writing test, you just don't know what you're up against; some
of the manuals mark all instances of stranded prepositions as
*absolutely* incorrect, for example.
arnold
Arnold Zwicky
>zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU (Arnold Zwicky) writes:
>> i won't address any other parts of the boudin sentence.
>i will. it's making me hungry. damn that calvin trillin.
for the record, i speak an r-ful dialect of english.
arnold
Brian M. Scott
<janet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
>> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
>> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
>> of Impressionist painter Monet."
[...]
>> But the test-prep book that contained the sentence condoned it.
>Sentences like this one are extremely common in educated writing, and to
>that extent they are normal. But most careful writers of English would
>object strongly to them, as do I.
I don't think that this is actually true, except perhaps by way
of a circular definition of 'careful'.
[...]
>By the way, there are two other problems with the example sentence.
>First, the wording "in that high regard" is *extremely* colloquial, and
>completely out of place in anything that purports to be careful writing.
In isolation this is true; if, however, the sentence was lifted
from a connected passage, 'that' may in fact be pointing to a
specific level of regard previously mentioned.
[...]
Brian
Simon R. Hughes
Yes, I am sure that the original poster understood the lingo-babble
that appeared in at least two of those "helpful" replies.
But thanks for reminding me about what I forgot in my last post;
linguists think they're the only people in the world who know
anything at all about language, and that their advice is the
standard by which everyone else's should be measured (which, if it
were true, would make their reluctance to help almost criminal).
This attitude is commonly known as arrogance.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> napisał w wiadomości
news:3f31720b....@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:12:28 +0100, "Janet Lock"
> <janet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> >> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>
> >> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
> >> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
> >> of Impressionist painter Monet."
>
> [...]
>
> >> But the test-prep book that contained the sentence condoned it.
>
> >Sentences like this one are extremely common in educated writing, and to
> >that extent they are normal. But most careful writers of English would
> >object strongly to them, as do I.
>
> I don't think that this is actually true, except perhaps by way
> of a circular definition of 'careful'.
>
> [...]
>
> >By the way, there are two other problems with the example sentence.
>
> >First, the wording "in that high regard" is *extremely* colloquial, and
> >completely out of place in anything that purports to be careful writing.
>
It's Geordie dialect. Remember Harry Enfield's character Buggerallmoney?
"Ah've got booger aal mooneh burrah'm THAT hard".
> In isolation this is true; if, however, the sentence was lifted
> from a connected passage, 'that' may in fact be pointing to a
> specific level of regard previously mentioned.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
I have to admit it makes my blood boil whenever I hear on a TV advert 'get
the money for that holiday, that three piece suite, etc'. I feel like
saying,'_what_ bloody three piece suite? Am I supposed to have wanted one?'
Best,
Uncle Davey
Tom Breton
> in article <CV8Ya.123$2O1.1...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>, larry
> trask, writing from the account of janet lock
> <janet...@ntlworld.com> defends the Possessive Antecedent
> Proscription:
>
> >"AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> >> Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
>
> >> "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
> >> regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the
> >> education of Impressionist painter Monet."
[...]
> in the case of the PAP, dwight bolinger long ago (in Language--The
> Loaded Weapon) countered this "theoretical" defense, as presented
> in a manual by jacques barzun.
>
> the claim is that possessive NPs aren't NPs, but AdjPs, or at least
> adjectivals, so that "Boudin's paintings" doesn't contain an NP
> "Boudin" for a pronoun to refer back to; the offense is then a kind of
> anaphoric island variation, of the same sort as in
> Boudinesque paintings don't appeal to me, because I prefer
> paintings he did himself.
> but this is silly. possessive NPs don't show any of the properties
> of AdjPs or even of adjectivals; syntactically, they're simply
> NPs serving in the determiner function. they're certainly NPs, and
> they're referential, so of course they can serve as antecedents for
> pronouns.
Agreed, but more tellingly, "the paintings of Boudin" shows the same
behavior.
Peter T. Daniels
And the converse is known as ignorance.
And this juxtaposition will cause sci.langers to smile knowingly.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
> >
> > "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
> > regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
> > of Impressionist painter Monet."
> By the way, there are two other problems with the example sentence.
>
> First, the wording "in that high regard" is *extremely* colloquial, and
> completely out of place in anything that purports to be careful writing.
> Write "in high regard".
>
> Second, the wording "of Impressionist painter Monet" represents an
> irritating journalistic style which has no place in careful writing --
> though it is often found in writing which purports to be careful. The
> article 'the' is absolutely required, and the sentence should read "of the
> Impressionist painter Monet".
>
> Larry Trask
> R.L....@sussex.ac.uk
Lookit that, Janet&Larry hit on exactly the same two complaints as I
did!
Mike Lyle
> Janet Lock wrote:
> >
> > "AnandVishy" <chok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8e03e77.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > > Could you confirm whether the following sentence is valid?
> > >
> > > "While Boudin's own paintings have never been held in that high
> > > regard, he is seen as having played a critical role in the education
> > > of Impressionist painter Monet."
>
> > By the way, there are two other problems with the example sentence.
> > Second, the wording "of Impressionist painter Monet" represents an
> > irritating journalistic style which has no place in careful writing --
> > though it is often found in writing which purports to be careful. The
> > article 'the' is absolutely required, and the sentence should read "of the
> > Impressionist painter Monet".
Hear, oh hear, O hero! "Impressionist painter" is not a title or rank.
> > Larry Trask
> > R.L....@sussex.ac.uk
>
> Lookit that, Janet&Larry hit on exactly the same two complaints as I
> did!
Larry, have you got a no-archive thing switched on? I sometimes get
you (via AUE) indirectly when you're quoted by others.
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> > This attitude is commonly known as arrogance.
>
> And the converse is known as ignorance.
>
> And this juxtaposition will cause sci.langers to smile knowingly.
And the more relaxed in both groups to regret that so many in both
groups fail to grasp the difference between linguistics and
stylistics.
Mike.
Brian M. Scott
Lyle) wrote:
[...]
>Larry, have you got a no-archive thing switched on? [...]
Not according to his headers.
Brian
Simon R. Hughes
Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
And what happens when we get down to the nitty-gritty of good vs.
bad usage? Does, or should, linguistics clap its hands to its ears
and run away screaming?
It should be possible to study language prescriptions descriptively.
Torsten Poulin
> Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
> shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
>
> And what happens when we get down to the nitty-gritty of good
> vs. bad usage?
Can you come up with a way of quantifying the degree of goodness?
How should it be measured? What purpose would it serve?
> It should be possible to study language prescriptions
> descriptively.
Of course, but wouldn't such a study be more meaningful in some
other field?
--
Torsten
R F
Why isn't it a proper concern of sociolinguistics?
David Thomas
<a5799...@yahoo.no> writes:
>> And the more relaxed in both groups to regret that so many in both
>> groups fail to grasp the difference between linguistics and
>> stylistics.
>
>Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
>shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
Them's fightin words!
>And what happens when we get down to the nitty-gritty of good vs.
>bad usage? Does, or should, linguistics clap its hands to its ears
>and run away screaming?
Usually just whistling.
>It should be possible to study language prescriptions descriptively.
Blasphemy!
- Vae
Mike Lyle
> Thus spake Mike Lyle:
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F318B...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > > Simon R. Hughes wrote:
> [...]
> > > > This attitude is commonly known as arrogance.
> > >
> > > And the converse is known as ignorance.
> > >
> > > And this juxtaposition will cause sci.langers to smile knowingly.
> >
> > And the more relaxed in both groups to regret that so many in both
> > groups fail to grasp the difference between linguistics and
> > stylistics.
>
> Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
> shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
Jesus! Don't *encourage* them to get into style: not with their
mind-set! They already knock over enough furniture as they blunder
about.
(I hope you're not deprecating "uselessness", by the way: I don't see
anything wrong with that.)
> And what happens when we get down to the nitty-gritty of good vs.
> bad usage? Does, or should, linguistics clap its hands to its ears
> and run away screaming?
Yes, asap. That just isn't what it does well, or claims to do. The
subject isn't the problem.
> It should be possible to study language prescriptions descriptively.
As long as it's done quietly and without frightening the horses, why
not? It would be quite interesting, though I think it's probably too
elusive to be dealt with in a quasi-scientific way.
Mike.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Simon R. Hughes <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote in message news:<MPG.199ce90c7...@news.online.no>...
> > Thus spake Mike Lyle:
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F318B...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > > > Simon R. Hughes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > This attitude is commonly known as arrogance.
> > > >
> > > > And the converse is known as ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > And this juxtaposition will cause sci.langers to smile knowingly.
> > >
> > > And the more relaxed in both groups to regret that so many in both
> > > groups fail to grasp the difference between linguistics and
> > > stylistics.
> >
> > Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
> > shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
>
> Jesus! Don't *encourage* them to get into style: not with their
> mind-set! They already knock over enough furniture as they blunder
> about.
You are evidently unfamiliar with the utterly seminal conference
published as *Language and Style* in 1960, edited by the indefatigable
Thomas A. Sebeok.
> (I hope you're not deprecating "uselessness", by the way: I don't see
> anything wrong with that.)
>
> > And what happens when we get down to the nitty-gritty of good vs.
> > bad usage? Does, or should, linguistics clap its hands to its ears
> > and run away screaming?
>
> Yes, asap. That just isn't what it does well, or claims to do. The
> subject isn't the problem.
>
> > It should be possible to study language prescriptions descriptively.
>
> As long as it's done quietly and without frightening the horses, why
> not? It would be quite interesting, though I think it's probably too
> elusive to be dealt with in a quasi-scientific way.
Larry Trask
> lighten up, larry. i can't believe that you actually object to
> sentences like
> Mary's father admires her.
> (or that you have a rewording that is more natural than this.)
No doubt I need to lighten up. In fact, Arnold makes some excellent
linguistic points which I will not disagree with. Facts, as always in
linguistics, are indeed facts. It is true that such sentences are
commonplace, and it is true that simple examples like the one above
cause no problems.
But I wasn't talking about the facts. I was instead offering advice
about how to write successfully. And treating possessives as
antecedents is a very dangerous way to go.
Consider this example (the Guardian is a national British newspaper):
"The Guardian's science supplement began publication in March, and it
has announced plans for an IT supplement."
Now, what has announced plans: the newspaper or its science
supplement? The intention is in fact the newspaper, but the wording
suggests strongly that it is the science supplement.
People who do not take care with their pronouns write stuff like this
all the time, and they make life hard for their readers. So, I stick
to my advice: if you want to be a good writer, avoid pronouns
referring to possessives.
Larry Trask
R.L....@sussex.ac.uk
Ron Hardin
> But I wasn't talking about the facts. I was instead offering advice
> about how to write successfully. And treating possessives as
> antecedents is a very dangerous way to go.
>
> Consider this example (the Guardian is a national British newspaper):
>
> "The Guardian's science supplement began publication in March, and it
> has announced plans for an IT supplement."
>
> Now, what has announced plans: the newspaper or its science
> supplement? The intention is in fact the newspaper, but the wording
> suggests strongly that it is the science supplement.
>
> People who do not take care with their pronouns write stuff like this
> all the time, and they make life hard for their readers. So, I stick
> to my advice: if you want to be a good writer, avoid pronouns
> referring to possessives.
That's an error not coming from the style you deplore. The pronoun
refers to the highest level sentence constituent available and that's
supplement. If it had the wrong gender for instance, the pronoun would
then reach deeper and perhaps reach Guardian.
Arnold Zwicky
larry trask <R.L....@sussex.ac.uk> replies to me, on the Possessive
Antecedent Proscription:
>No doubt I need to lighten up. In fact, Arnold makes some excellent
>linguistic points which I will not disagree with. Facts, as always
>in linguistics, are indeed facts. It is true that such sentences
>are commonplace, and it is true that simple examples like the one
>above cause no problems.
>But I wasn't talking about the facts. I was instead offering advice
>about how to write successfully. And treating possessives as
>antecedents is a very dangerous way to go.
>Consider this example (the Guardian is a national British
>newspaper):
"The Guardian's science supplement began publication in March, and
it has announced plans for an IT supplement."
>Now, what has announced plans: the newspaper or its science
>supplement? The intention is in fact the newspaper, but the wording
>suggests strongly that it is the science supplement.
>People who do not take care with their pronouns write stuff like
>this all the time, and they make life hard for their readers. So,
>I stick to my advice: if you want to be a good writer, avoid
>pronouns referring to possessives.
i might be a linguist, but i am also a writing instructor, and a
careful (though not perfect) stylist. don't tell me how to suck eggs.
what you are doing here, larry, is producing an example of an
infelicity in writing and then telling writers-in-training to avoid
this infelicity by entirely avoiding the construction it exemplifies.
this is drastic overkill. *way* drastic.
it's like saying: here are some really lame examples of passive
clauses, so don't use passive clauses, ever. (knives are sharp
and can cut you, so don't ever use a knife.)
in fact, since your example involves (3rd person) personal pronouns,
why not just ban them all? why pick on possessives? the truth is
that almost all (3rd person) personal pronouns are potentially
ambiguous, out of context - i'm prepared to provide hundreds of
wonderful examples from really good writers here - so why not just
sweep them all away? what makes possessives special? down with
pronouns! evil beasts!
i'm perfectly aware of several classes of possessive antecedents that
are awkward, clunky, not immediately understandable. i even have an
account - by no means original with me - of why they are stylistically
imperfect (it has to do with foregrounding/topicality/salience, and
not with grammaticality). almost all these examples become entirely
acceptable when appropriate context (involving previous discourse or
real-world knowledge) is provided. this is exactly the sort of thing
that people who care about style, context, and effective writing
should concern themselves with. but it's nuanced ("antecedents of
pronouns have to be sufficiently foregrounded in the context"), not
rigid ("avoid pronouns referring to possessives").
arnold
Arnold Zwicky
<zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU> say:
>... but it's nuanced ("antecedents of pronouns have to be
>sufficiently foregrounded in the context")...
to be a bit more careful: have to be sufficiently (for your audience)
foregrounded...
arnold
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>
> > Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
> > shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
> >
> > And what happens when we get down to the nitty-gritty of good
> > vs. bad usage?
>
> Can you come up with a way of quantifying the degree of goodness?
> How should it be measured? What purpose would it serve?
Irrelevant; if you're studying such prescriptions descriptively, you
don't have to come up with prescriptions yourself, merely find
explanations for the myriads already Out There (and the linguistic
standard, "prescriptivists are all ignoramuses", has, by now, worn
thin).
> > It should be possible to study language prescriptions
> > descriptively.
>
> Of course, but wouldn't such a study be more meaningful in some
> other field?
Such as what? I think Robert's idea for sociolinguistics hits the
mark; language prescriptions certainly touch the sociological aspect
of language.
Tom Breton
> In article <MPG.199ce90c7...@news.online.no>, Simon R. Hughes
> <a5799...@yahoo.no> writes:
>
> >> And the more relaxed in both groups to regret that so many in both
> >> groups fail to grasp the difference between linguistics and
> >> stylistics.
> >
> >Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
We computational linguists at least would disagree.
To be fair, there's some linguistics that this applies to, like the
Chomsky-worshipping stuff that some of linguistics became.
> >shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
>
> >And what happens when we get down to the nitty-gritty of good vs.
> >bad usage? Does, or should, linguistics clap its hands to its ears
> >and run away screaming?
No, linguistics usually answers that people both produce and
understand the "bad" usage, so it's competent language use (or more
dryly, says that there are a significant number of attested uses of
it, or says there aren't, if that's the case).
>
> >It should be possible to study language prescriptions descriptively.
I agree, but probably in a very different direction than you
intended. As a spelling reformer, I'm very interested in making
language more hospitable, especially for young or foreign speakers.
Stylistic prescriptions, OTOH, seem to be more art than science.
Simon R. Hughes
> You are evidently unfamiliar with the utterly seminal conference
> published as *Language and Style* in 1960, edited by the indefatigable
> Thomas A. Sebeok.
I was. But I have kind of committed myself to reading it, now. I'll
put it on the list.
David Thomas
Zwicky) writes:
>i might be a linguist, but i am also a writing instructor, and a
>careful (though not perfect) stylist. don't tell me how to suck eggs.
So what's with the e e cummingsism?
>what you are doing here, larry, is producing an example of an
>infelicity in writing and then telling writers-in-training to avoid
>this infelicity by entirely avoiding the construction it exemplifies.
>this is drastic overkill. *way* drastic.
>
>it's like saying: here are some really lame examples of passive
>clauses, so don't use passive clauses, ever. (knives are sharp
>and can cut you, so don't ever use a knife.)
>
>in fact, since your example involves (3rd person) personal pronouns,
>why not just ban them all? why pick on possessives? the truth is
>that almost all (3rd person) personal pronouns are potentially
>ambiguous, out of context - i'm prepared to provide hundreds of
>wonderful examples from really good writers here - so why not just
>sweep them all away? what makes possessives special? down with
>pronouns! evil beasts!
Or, by your rather shaky arguments, just get rid of language altogether...
yeah, that's what he's suggesting we do.
>i'm perfectly aware of several classes of possessive antecedents that
>are awkward, clunky, not immediately understandable. i even have an
>account - by no means original with me - of why they are stylistically
>imperfect (it has to do with foregrounding/topicality/salience, and
>not with grammaticality). almost all these examples become entirely
>acceptable when appropriate context (involving previous discourse or
>real-world knowledge) is provided. this is exactly the sort of thing
>that people who care about style, context, and effective writing
>should concern themselves with. but it's nuanced ("antecedents of
>pronouns have to be sufficiently foregrounded in the context"), not
>rigid ("avoid pronouns referring to possessives").
>
>arnold
I hate prescriptive grammar.
- Vae
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
> >
> > Simon R. Hughes <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote in message news:<MPG.199ce90c7...@news.online.no>...
> > > Apart from the fact that linguistics does nothing really useful,
> > > shouldn't it take stylistics as an object of study?
> >
> > Jesus! Don't *encourage* them to get into style: not with their
> > mind-set! They already knock over enough furniture as they blunder
> > about.
>
> You are evidently unfamiliar with the utterly seminal conference
It was that seminal, was it? Wow!
> published as *Language and Style* in 1960, edited by the indefatigable
> Thomas A. Sebeok.
[...]
Must have been a wonderful experience. I imagine all the experts were
there, T.S.Eliot, Evelyn Waugh, Updike, Wodehouse, William Golding,
C.V.Wedgwood, Hemingway...if they got everybody, the place must have
been packed. The proceedings will be worth close study.
Mike.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Thus spake Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > You are evidently unfamiliar with the utterly seminal conference
> > published as *Language and Style* in 1960, edited by the indefatigable
> > Thomas A. Sebeok.
>
> I was. But I have kind of committed myself to reading it, now. I'll
> put it on the list.
Jakobson's Summary Statement is one of the utmost classics of
linguistics.
Peter T. Daniels
We'll look forward to your review.
Larry Trask
> i might be a linguist, but i am also a writing instructor, and a
> careful (though not perfect) stylist. don't tell me how to suck eggs.
>
> what you are doing here, larry, is producing an example of an
> infelicity in writing and then telling writers-in-training to avoid
> this infelicity by entirely avoiding the construction it exemplifies.
> this is drastic overkill. *way* drastic.
>
> it's like saying: here are some really lame examples of passive
> clauses, so don't use passive clauses, ever. (knives are sharp
> and can cut you, so don't ever use a knife.)
>
> in fact, since your example involves (3rd person) personal pronouns,
> why not just ban them all? why pick on possessives? the truth is
> that almost all (3rd person) personal pronouns are potentially
> ambiguous, out of context - i'm prepared to provide hundreds of
> wonderful examples from really good writers here - so why not just
> sweep them all away? what makes possessives special? down with
> pronouns! evil beasts!
Arnold, are you acquainted with the word 'overreaction'? ;-)
I don't teach writing, but I read an awful lot of the stuff, and I am
painfully aware that most people who attempt to write don't do it very
well.
If you can write well, then splendid, and there's no reason for you to
listen to advice from me or from anybody -- though I must say that
your refusal to use capital letters doesn't make a particularly good
impression on me. But most writers, even those who can be called
professional writers, make a hash of their writing. And I'm
interested in doing what I can to reduce the burden inflicted on
hapless readers.
Yes; I *know* that pronouns are often ambiguous. Your response
appears to be "Well, that's a fact of life, and we're stuck with it."
My response is different: "When you're writing, try to do everything
in your power to eliminate ambiguity. Anything less shows contempt
for your reader."
Simple examples like your "Mary's father admires her" are common, and
they cause no trouble. But written examples of possessive antecedents
are very frequently a lot more intricate than this, and I think the
best advice I can give to uncertain writers is to avoid this
construction altogether, as far as they can.
The clumsy use of pronouns is one of the most frequent faults in shaky
writing, and even in tolerably good writing. Most writers seem to
find it next to impossible to spot ambiguities in their pronouns, and
so I prefer to resort to a few unreasonable injunctions. "Check your
pronouns for ambiguities" is excellent advice in principle, but few
people seem able to follow it.
I know that I can easily become a tedious old fart on matters of usage
and style, and I apologize for inflicting my cranky views on the
readers of sci.lang. But I've paid my dues here, and not just by
wading through 30 years of student approximations to English.
Larry Trask
R.L....@sussex.ac.uk
Ron Hardin
> Yes; I *know* that pronouns are often ambiguous. Your response
> appears to be "Well, that's a fact of life, and we're stuck with it."
> My response is different: "When you're writing, try to do everything
> in your power to eliminate ambiguity. Anything less shows contempt
> for your reader."
Anything less than << what >> ?
In fact that's an ambiguity you need, a general wave in the direction
of the preceding. It is, after all, a cliché pressed into service
for its rhetorical effect. It can hardly be specific.
Pronouns are rarely ambiguous, by the way. They do come out on the
wrong thing, unambiguously, from time to time.
The correct reason for disencouraging the possesive antecedent is that
it produces a strange result in internal parsing, something not quite
right that's recovered in a jump of some kind into what ought to be
an independent parse elsewhere. The feeling is that ``Mary'' is not
there when you get to ``her.'' Wait a minute, there's a female
somewhere in here in the pile of stuff, let me look, ah yes, Mary.
The prescriptive grammatical unease comes from a theory of how
it ought to work internally; but the theory is itself descriptive
at its bottom, ie. something about it is right. The unease is merited
through that connection.
The alternative though may be worse than just saying it straight out
with the possessive antecedent.
Arnold Zwicky
larry trask <R.L....@sussex.ac.uk> defends the Possessive Antecedent
Proscription:
>I don't teach writing, but I read an awful lot of the stuff, and I
>am painfully aware that most people who attempt to write don't do it
>very well.
agreed.
>... most writers, even those who can be called
>professional writers, make a hash of their writing. And I'm
>interested in doing what I can to reduce the burden inflicted on
>hapless readers.
an admirable goal. the question is what methods to use in approaching
that goal. the people who first formulated the PAP almost surely had
their students' best interests at heart, but they fixed on the wrong
thing in framing their advice - they fixed on possessives, rather than
on foregrounding and discourse organization - so they ended up asking
the students to monitor their writing in an unnatural, intrinsically
difficult way. this isn't good teaching.
i've yet to find a writer who has fully internalized the PAP. i've
found a few who have learned to be anxious about using possessives, and
a few who learned the "rule" in order to pass multiple-choice tests,
but don't observe it in their actual writing. but, then, most
handbooks issue no warning about possessive antecedents for pronouns.
>Yes; I *know* that pronouns are often ambiguous. Your response
>appears to be "Well, that's a fact of life, and we're stuck with it."
>My response is different: "When you're writing, try to do everything
>in your power to eliminate ambiguity. Anything less shows contempt
>for your reader."
i didn't say that pronouns are often ambiguous. i said something
subtly, but very importantly, different from that:
>> ...the truth is
>> that almost all (3rd person) personal pronouns are potentially
>> ambiguous, out of context - i'm prepared to provide hundreds of
>> wonderful examples from really good writers here - so why not
>> just sweep them all away? what makes possessives special?
*potentially* ambiguous, *out of context*. in context (linguistic
and real-world), most of these potential ambiguities of reference
are never noticed. here's an example from calvin trillin, the very
beginning of a humorous essay in Too Soon to Tell (p. 87):
The other day I managed to get a glimpse of the future and the
past at the same time: I saw an item reporting that Barry Goldwater
had gone back to being publicly pro-choice and another item
reporting that the most recently transcribed tapes from Richard
Nixon's Oval Office reveal him once more as a vindictive,
unscrupulous paranoid.
the question is about the reference of "him". it's potentially
ambiguous. to see this, suppose that you knew nothing at all about
american political history; suppose that "Barry Goldwater" and
"Richard Nixon" were just names of unknown people, like "Joe Doaks"
and "John Doe". then "him" could refer to either one of them.
if you read the passage as being about this barry goldwater person,
whoever he is, then you'll take "him" to refer to this person. if
you read the passage as being about both this barry goldwater person
and this richard nixon person, in parallel, then you'll probably
take "him" to refer to this nixon guy.
the intended audience of trillin's book, however, know the history,
and never even entertain "Barry Goldwater" as the antecedent of "him".
and this happens despite the fact that the (correct, and closer)
antecedent "Richard Nixon" occurs in its possessive form and so ought
to be absolutely unavailable as the antecedent for "him", if you
believe in the PAP.
this isn't some isolated or esoteric example. virtually *every*
(third person) personal pronoun is potentially ambiguous in reference,
out of context. this is rarely a problem, in writing or in speech,
because the audience uses linguistic context and real-world knowledge
to pick the correct (intended) antecedent. in context, the pronouns
aren't *actually* ambiguous.
now, inexpert writers often screw things up, usually by failing to
take their audience into account; the inexpert writers know, after
all, what *they* mean. they need help in learning when what they
write might be *actually* ambiguous. telling them to avoid potential
ambiguity isn't helpful at all.
>Simple examples like your "Mary's father admires her" are common, and
>they cause no trouble. But written examples of possessive
>antecedents are very frequently a lot more intricate than this, and
>I think the best advice I can give to uncertain writers is to avoid
>this construction altogether, as far as they can.
i've become convinced that nobody can avoid the construction. as i
said, it occurs routinely in the writings of people who inveigh
against it, and nobody notices or cares.
i go on at such length because it seems to me that advice of the form
"avoid this construction altogether" is, in this case, really bad
advice - a deflection of the writer's attention away from important
rhetorical considerations and onto mechanical matters, and impossible
to follow anyway.
>The clumsy use of pronouns is one of the most frequent faults in
>shaky writing, and even in tolerably good writing. Most writers
>seem to find it next to impossible to spot ambiguities in their
>pronouns, and so I prefer to resort to a few unreasonable
>injunctions. "Check your pronouns for ambiguities" is excellent
>advice in principle, but few people seem able to follow it.
so why don't you tell them not to use pronouns at all? that would
certainly solve the problem. well, yes, that would be overkill;
pronouns are so damn *useful*. instead, you propose to tell them not
to use pronouns in one set of contexts (when they have possessive
antecedents), though most such examples are entirely unproblematic, as
unproblematic, in fact, as most other occurrences of pronouns;
pronouns with possessive antecedents are awfully useful, too, as can
be seen from a look at any issue of the New Yorker or the editorial
pages of the New York Times or...
the right way to go about this would be to pick out types of cases
where a potential ambiguity is likely to become actual. for the
PAP, the handbooks that espouse it do implicitly - alas, not
explicitly - enumerate such cases, of which the two most common
types are
possessive in modifier: In Mary's book, she describes a paradise.
[the potential ambiguity is between "she" with "Mary" as
antecedent and "she" referring to a woman other than mary]
possessive/head ambiguity: Mary's mother said that she was leaving.
[the potential ambiguity is between "Mary" and "Mary's mother"
as antecedents for "she"]
what's so infuriating about the handbooks is that they trot out
transparently invented examples, presented entirely without context
(and copied, with alterations in wording, from one handbook to
another). it's easy to supply context that makes such examples
utterly innocuous, not at all actually ambiguous. on the other hand,
both types can present real difficulties to the reader, depending on
the context. the task of the writing instructor should be to point
out where and how real difficulties of interpretation can arise.
an appeal to purely structural conditions just won't cut it.
this is the end of my postings on the PAP. i don't think i can
get much clearer than this.
arnold
Brian M. Scott
Trask) wrote:
>zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU (Arnold Zwicky) wrote in message news:<bh1297$35g$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>...
>> i might be a linguist, but i am also a writing instructor, and a
>> careful (though not perfect) stylist. don't tell me how to suck eggs.
>> what you are doing here, larry, is producing an example of an
>> infelicity in writing and then telling writers-in-training to avoid
>> this infelicity by entirely avoiding the construction it exemplifies.
>> this is drastic overkill. *way* drastic.
>> it's like saying: here are some really lame examples of passive
>> clauses, so don't use passive clauses, ever. (knives are sharp
>> and can cut you, so don't ever use a knife.)
>> in fact, since your example involves (3rd person) personal pronouns,
>> why not just ban them all? why pick on possessives? the truth is
>> that almost all (3rd person) personal pronouns are potentially
>> ambiguous, out of context - i'm prepared to provide hundreds of
>> wonderful examples from really good writers here - so why not just
>> sweep them all away? what makes possessives special? down with
>> pronouns! evil beasts!
>Arnold, are you acquainted with the word 'overreaction'? ;-)
I don't think that it is one, but if it is, perhaps one
overreaction deserves another.
[...]
>Simple examples like your "Mary's father admires her" are common, and
>they cause no trouble. But written examples of possessive antecedents
>are very frequently a lot more intricate than this, and I think the
>best advice I can give to uncertain writers is to avoid this
>construction altogether, as far as they can.
That's advice of last resort only, and I'm not at all sure that
it's likely to prove much more effective than 'Check your
pronouns for ambiguities': I strongly suspect that most of the
writers who cannot seem to spot ambiguities will have more than a
bit of trouble recognizing the construction in the first place.
>The clumsy use of pronouns is one of the most frequent faults in shaky
>writing, and even in tolerably good writing. Most writers seem to
>find it next to impossible to spot ambiguities in their pronouns, and
>so I prefer to resort to a few unreasonable injunctions. "Check your
>pronouns for ambiguities" is excellent advice in principle, but few
>people seem able to follow it.
I think that you overestimate the frequency of genuine ambiguity.
>I know that I can easily become a tedious old fart on matters of usage
>and style, and I apologize for inflicting my cranky views on the
>readers of sci.lang. But I've paid my dues here, and not just by
>wading through 30 years of student approximations to English.
I have rather strong (and old-fashioned) opinions on the subject
myself, but since this construction triggers none of my arbitrary
aesthetic biases, I find it objectionable only when it's not
clear.
Brian
AnandVishy
> I'm sure someone on a.u.e will be happy to help. Sci.lang is
> for discussing linguistics, not the rules for "good" use
> of any particular language.
OK. What is a.u.e. and how do I access it?
Peter T. Daniels
You already have. Look at your header.
Mike Lyle
Would I were worthy!
Mike.
Larry Trask
[snip long passage]
> what's so infuriating about the handbooks is that they trot out
> transparently invented examples, presented entirely without context
> (and copied, with alterations in wording, from one handbook to
> another). it's easy to supply context that makes such examples
> utterly innocuous, not at all actually ambiguous. on the other hand,
> both types can present real difficulties to the reader, depending on
> the context. the task of the writing instructor should be to point
> out where and how real difficulties of interpretation can arise.
> an appeal to purely structural conditions just won't cut it.
I am happy to say that I can agree with almost every word of Arnold's
long posting, most of which I have snipped here, and that the
remaining spots of disagreement are too trivial to worry about.
Yes; I agree that the handbooks rely too often on invented examples.
As it happens, I've published a handbook of English usage (not yet
available in the USA, though it eventually will be). While I was
working on the book, I tried to be scrupulous about collecting genuine
examples from books and newspapers, and I tried to avoid inventing
phony examples.
After I finished the book, though, I gave up collecting examples.
Perhaps that means I am too lazy to do the work I ought to do in order
to prepare for exchanges like this one, but I prefer to believe that I
am simply not anal enough to persevere with the collection of
stinkers, and that I have better things to do with my life.
But it's true that I would be able to back up my doubtless mad claims
with long lists of real examples, if I only bothered to write down the
clunkers I come across every day.
> this is the end of my postings on the PAP. i don't think i can
> get much clearer than this.
And the end of mine.
By the way, and apropos of nothing -- has anybody else read Stephen
Jay Gould's book on baseball? Gould is one of the finest writers I
have ever encountered, and his writing normally achieves a standard I
can only dream about. But his baseball book, which I am only part-way
through, strikes me as irritatingly overwritten, and not at all up to
his usual standard. Any comments?
Larry Trask
R.L....@sussex.ac.uk
>
> arnold
Peter T. Daniels
> By the way, and apropos of nothing -- has anybody else read Stephen
> Jay Gould's book on baseball? Gould is one of the finest writers I
> have ever encountered, and his writing normally achieves a standard I
> can only dream about. But his baseball book, which I am only part-way
> through, strikes me as irritatingly overwritten, and not at all up to
> his usual standard. Any comments?
Maybe you haven't been following him the last few years. He should've
stopped the *Natural History* essays at 250, or even 200, rather than
300; the last two or three volumes really weren't up to the level of the
earlier ones.
The big book is terribly written, with entire paragraphs repeated
verbatim (I saved the review by Barash when someone poted its URL, but I
can't open Acrobat Reader and Netscape at the same time to get the
reference): apparently he grew increasingly testy and forbidding with
editors and didn't permit a word to be changed (this from folks at
*Natural History*, which will publish an article of mine any year now).
The two posthumous books (Hedghog and Fox, and the baseball book) are
unedited (even by him), incomplete drafts that were rushed into
production to capitalize on people like me who were desperate for more
SJG. Both are quite unreadable.