various questions
George Matthew Regnery
A few questions:
1) Is it still considered proper to use an "umlaut" in English when there
are two vowels that follow, but do not make one sound. Examples are the
second e of "re-elect" or the second "o" of co-operate. I have seen both
the e and o with two dots above them, but I have not seen this in a long
time. Is this simply because of typesetting, or has using the two dots
become unacceptable?
2) For French words that have been adopted into the English language, some
have accents and some don't. What is the general rule regarding accents
over foreign words? Or should we never use accents?
3) Can "They", or "their" ever refer to the singular?
"Before someone can drive a car, they must get a driving license."
This doesn't sound right. However, there is now a serious drive
to de-sex the English language. Some people in authority (e.g. women
professors) demand you don't say:
Before someone can drive a car, he must get a driving
license."
Do you have to say he or she/him or her/his or hers every damn
time. Surely not. What do you do when someone demands desexification (or
whatever the word is, which brings up another question)?
4) Countries, etc. Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
This seems to be the only place where we have a singular country
with a definite country. Sure, there are the Netherlands, the United
States, the Solomon Islands. We also use the when speaking of a republic,
such as the German Democratic Republic, or the GDR. However, that is because
of republic. Why the Ukraine? Is that really incorrect, or is really
supposed to be that way.
Since the Netherlands are plural, should we say:
"The Netherlands are very productive." OR
"The Netherlands is very productive."
What about pronunciation? There is currently a drive to pronounce
some countries the way the locals do. Chee-lay for Chile is a good example.
But we don't pronounce France funny. What's the deal here? Someone wrote
a column in the Washington Post saying that the more oppresive the government,
the less anglicized the pronunciation should be...
--
George M. Regnery '92 WPI (Ich verstehe Deutsch)
Interests: investing, intl. econ., Conservatism, Electronic Music (Vangelis)
Cameron Smith
(George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>1) Is it still considered proper to use an "umlaut" in English when there
>are two vowels that follow, but do not make one sound. [e.g. co\"operate]
Well, an "umlaut" is incorrect, but a dieresis, which looks the same :-)
is fine. At least, *I* use it (but I'm reactionary).
The French call it a "tr\'ema", and use it for the same purpose in
such words as "na\"ive" and "ha\"ir", but the German "umlaut", although
it uses the same diacritical mark, serves a different function --
it doesn't divide syllables, it modifies the vowel sound.
That's why I made a point of the difference.
The plural of dieresis is diereses (not dieresises, nyah! nyah! :-) ).
The word comes from Greek roots meaning "to take apart".
If you're REALLY stodgy, and your word processor can do it,
you can use di{\ae}resis.
>2) For French words that have been adopted into the English language, some
>have accents and some don't. What is the general rule regarding accents
>over foreign words? Or should we never use accents?
Keep 'em. I wrote in my thesis that a variable played a certain "r\^ole",
and my advisor nearly had a fit. I kept it in, though.
>3) Can "They", or "their" ever refer to the singular?
"Can" they? Yes. "Ought" they? Well....
> "Before someone can drive a car, they must get a driving license."
>
> This doesn't sound right.
To me either.
> However, there is now a serious drive
>to de-sex the English language. Some people in authority (e.g. women
>professors) demand you don't say:
Excuse me, they don't "demand you don't say", they "demand you not say".
Subjunctive, don't you know. Otherwise you sound like something out
of Hitchhiker's Guide: "I demand that I am Vroomfondel!"
> Before someone can drive a car, he must get a driving
>license."
>
> Do you have to say he or she/him or her/his or hers every damn
>time. Surely not. What do you do when someone demands desexification (or
>whatever the word is, which brings up another question)?
Let me ask you one question: do you have a flame-proof asbestos suit?
How about "You must get a driving license before you may drive a car."
Or "One must get a driving license before one may ...".
How about just taking the bus?
>4) Countries, etc. Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
> This seems to be the only place where we have a singular country
>with a definite [article]. Sure, there are the Netherlands, the United
>States, the Solomon Islands. We also use the when speaking of a republic,
>such as the German Democratic Republic, or the GDR. However, that is because
>of republic. Why the Ukraine? Is that really incorrect, or is really
>supposed to be that way.
You've answered your own question. We use "the" when a generic noun
(e.g. "republic") takes one or more adjectives (e.g. "German Democratic")
to make it a specific name. Consider also "the Baltic", "the Mediterranean",
"the North Atlantic" (with "sea", "sea", and "ocean" implicit).
"Ukraine" is an adjective, and the noun is implicit, so it takes "the".
As to *what* noun is implicit after "the Ukraine", I'm open to
suggestions... but I do believe that's the grammatical principle
operating here. (Anyone know for sure?)
> Since the Netherlands are plural, should we say:
>
>"The Netherlands are very productive." OR
>"The Netherlands is very productive."
Say what the natives say.
> What about pronunciation? There is currently a drive to pronounce
>some countries the way the locals do. Chee-lay for Chile is a good example.
>But we don't pronounce France funny. What's the deal here?
This is just IMHO (as opposed to the above, which is Natural Law :-) ).
I think it's just politeness to pronounce names as the natives do,
just as it's polite to call someone who spells his name "B-e-r-n-a-r-d"
BER-nard rather than ber-NARD if that's how he pronounces it (I've known
both). So CHEE-lay and MOSK-va and K\"OLN. But sometimes the rules
of English phonology make it too difficult to drop a non-English
word into an English sentence, so "we don't prononunce France funny".
> Someone wrote
>a column in the Washington Post saying that the more oppresive the government,
>the less anglicized the pronunciation should be...
No comment.
--Cameron Smith (feeling feisty this morning)
cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
Charles Geyer
> Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
I heard on NPR the other day that "the Ukraine" implies that Ukraine
isn't really a country, just a farming region of the Russian Empire,
sort of like saying "the Corn Belt", so it is now not politically
correct (with Ukrainians) to say "the Ukraine", just "Ukraine" by
itself, like the name of any other country, will do. So that solves
that problem.
> What about pronunciation? There is currently a drive to pronounce
> some countries the way the locals do. Chee-lay for Chile is a good example.
> But we don't pronounce France funny. What's the deal here?
In article <1992Jan22.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Cameron Smith) replies:
> This is just IMHO.
> I think it's just politeness to pronounce names as the natives do,
> just as it's polite to call someone who spells his name "B-e-r-n-a-r-d"
> BER-nard rather than ber-NARD if that's how he pronounces it (I've known
> both). So CHEE-lay and MOSK-va and K\"OLN. But sometimes the rules
> of English phonology make it too difficult to drop a non-English
> word into an English sentence, so "we don't prononunce France funny".
Well IMHO this is nonsense. We are to stop saying "Germany" and "Norway"
and "China"? Why? Why this modern mania to change the whole language to
be completely incomprehensible to a person of fifty years ago? To me
"Deutschland" is the name of Germany *in the German language*. It is not
English. The French don't say "Deutschland" either. Neither the Germans
nor the French say "United States". Why us? What sort of inferiority
complex has gripped the country that makes us think that English is inferior
and that we should only use the foreign language names of places? As for
K\"oln for Cologne, you've got to be kidding.
When the Germans start saying "France" with a French accent instead of
"Frankreich", I'll give up.
There, I feel much better now.
--
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
cha...@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Ethan Bradford
A few questions:
2) For French words that have been adopted into the English language, some
have accents and some don't. What is the general rule regarding accents
over foreign words? Or should we never use accents?
It depends on how fully adopted they are. Contrary to the opinions of
another poster, I consider "role" to be completely adopted and it is
therefore a bad idea to spell it r\^ole. The criterion for right or
wrong here is what is least jarring for the reader, i.e. what is least
likely to distract him [note intentional archaic usage of masculine
for indefinite referent] from the message. What is likely to be least
jarring is what the reader is most used to.
3) Can "They", or "their" ever refer to the singular?
The same criterion applies here. Twenty years ago, using "they" to
refer to an indefinite singular would have been considered informal,
and would have grated in writing. Now you are more likely to stop the
reader by using "he". As I have shown, I still have trouble getting
myself to follow my own rule and come around to the new usage.
4) Countries, etc. Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
On NPR, they said that "The Ukraine" means the same thing as "The
March" in English or "Der Mark" in German, i.e. the border (the
border county or the border region).
I can think of two other countries with "the": The Vatican and The
Sudan. "The Sudan" refers to the region around the Sudd, which is a
big seasonal swamp in the middle of the country.
I don't know the why of "The Hague" or "The Bronx."
What about pronunciation? There is currently a drive to
pronounce some countries the way the locals do. Chee-lay for Chile is
a good example.
This goes back to my first rule of what people have become used to. A
foreign place name which has been refered to in English for a long
time has settled down to have a standard English pronunciation and you
will confuse the listener if you ignore it. In American usage, it is
common to make some attempt use the native pronunciation for more
recently encountered place names. This doesn't seem to be so for
British usage -- it always surprises me to hear BBC reporters refer to
Nicaragua as Nick-are-ag-you-ah (which I am more used to hearing as
Nick-are-ahg-wa).
--
-- Ethan (eth...@u.washington.edu)
Ross Casley
> This seems to be the only place where we have a singular country
>with a definite country.
No, there are others: the Lebanon and, in earlier times, the Sudan.
The usage seems to be dying out, though. Then there are places like
the Bronx, and The Entrance (north of Sydney).
Victor Eijkhout
|> In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU
|> (George Matthew Regnery) writes:
|>
|> >1) Is it still considered proper to use an "umlaut" in English when there
|> >are two vowels that follow, but do not make one sound. [e.g. co\"operate]
|>
|> Well, an "umlaut" is incorrect, but a dieresis, which looks the same :-)
|> is fine. At least, *I* use it (but I'm reactionary).
|>
|> The French call it a "tr\'ema", and use it for the same purpose in
|> such words as "na\"ive" and "ha\"ir", but the German "umlaut", although
|> If you're REALLY stodgy, and your word processor can do it,
|> you can use di{\ae}resis.
And while you're at it, try to get the hyphenation behaviour right:
<na"ive> should hyphenate as <na- ive>, that is, the dieresis should
disappear. This is no problem for TeX: na\discretionary{-}{i}{\"\i}ve.
Of course you hide this in a convenient macro, together with such
hyphenation abberations as (Dutch) 'autootje' -> 'auto-tje',
(German) 'Bettuch' -> 'Bett-Tuch', and (even English) 'eighteen' -> 'eight-teen'.
Do you think you can do that in Word Perfect? I know that in the Dutch
version of WorstPervert they put in the 'oo' phenomenon.
|> --Cameron Smith (feeling feisty this morning)
Victor.
Victor Eijkhout
|> >4) Countries, etc. Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
|> You've answered your own question. We use "the" when a generic noun
|> (e.g. "republic") takes one or more adjectives (e.g. "German Democratic")
|> to make it a specific name. Consider also "the Baltic", "the Mediterranean",
|> "the North Atlantic" (with "sea", "sea", and "ocean" implicit).
|> "Ukraine" is an adjective, and the noun is implicit, so it takes "the".
|>
|> As to *what* noun is implicit after "the Ukraine", I'm open to
|> suggestions... but I do believe that's the grammatical principle
|> operating here. (Anyone know for sure?)
|>
I doubt that a noun follows it. What noun follows 'the Netherlands'?
And that, by the way, is also the adjectival form:
The the Netherlands Institute for...
whereas presumably it would be
The Ukrainian Institute for ...
or maybe The Ukraine Institute for ...
|> --Cameron Smith (feeling feisty this morning)
Victor.
Daniel Rosenblum
cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Cameron Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU
>(George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>>3) Can "They", or "their" ever refer to the singular?
>"Can" they? Yes. "Ought" they? Well....
>> "Before someone can drive a car, they must get a driving license."
>> This doesn't sound right.
>To me either.
Nor to me. But I gather that this usage has been attested for
a long time (we measure long in centuries) as a way of getting
around the difficulty of having to specify sex or be awkward
otherwise. I've seen (sorry, can't remember where) references
to the age of this usage on several occasions. But there are
ways around it, as Mr. Smith points out:
>How about "You must get a driving license before you may drive a car."
>Or "One must get a driving license before one may ...".
It's just that these ways around it are fine in writing, where one
can edit, but not so fine in speaking, where one starts to use the
singular and then gets stuck needing to he-or-she or to switch to
the plural, thus facing a choice between the unesthetic and the
ungrammatical.
>>4) Countries, etc. Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
>> This seems to be the only place where we have a singular country
>>with a definite [article]. Sure, there are the Netherlands, the United
>>States, the Solomon Islands. We also use the when speaking of a republic,
>>such as the German Democratic Republic, or the GDR. However, that is because
>>of republic. Why the Ukraine? Is that really incorrect, or is really
>>supposed to be that way.
>You've answered your own question. We use "the" when a generic noun
>(e.g. "republic") takes one or more adjectives (e.g. "German Democratic")
>to make it a specific name. Consider also "the Baltic", "the Mediterranean",
>"the North Atlantic" (with "sea", "sea", and "ocean" implicit).
>"Ukraine" is an adjective, and the noun is implicit, so it takes "the".
>As to *what* noun is implicit after "the Ukraine", I'm open to
>suggestions... but I do believe that's the grammatical principle
>operating here. (Anyone know for sure?)
That's not the principle. "The Ukraine" derives from the meaning
of the word "ukraine" in whichever language(s) it means something
(Russian, Ukrainian), namely "border" or "frontier" or something
like that. (Sorry, I don't speak these, and have only heard this
on a few occasions from reputable sources.) Ukrainians got fed up
with having the "the" in front, as if they were a mere region and
not a country with their own language, culture, etc., so they have
insisted on their country being referred to as "Ukraine", without
the "the". Note that this feeling is not felt by all natives of
areas so linguistically afflicted, as the example of The Gambia
indicates. Another is the Bronx, although how it got the "the"
is beyond me (it was named for one Bronck, if memory serves me
right, and the area was Bronck's). Yet another is the Sudan,
although I've always been unsure about that; I used to think that
"the Sudan" referred to a large region in north central Africa of
which the nation "Sudan" was the eastern part, and that "Sudan"
without the "the" referred to the nation, although lately I've
been hearing the nation referred to as "the Sudan". Also, a
number of Francophone countries in Africa have a "the" in front
of their names in French, although not in English, when they are
of the form "Republique du <name-of-a-river>"; I believe that
Niger, Congo, and (formerly) Upper Volta are examples.
--
Daniel M. Rosenblum, Assistant Professor, Quantitative Studies Area,
Graduate School of Management, Rutgers University (Newark Campus)
ROSE...@DRACO.RUTGERS.EDU ROSE...@ZODIAC.BITnet
d...@andromeda.rutgers.edu ...!rutgers!andromeda.rutgers.edu!dmr
Dhanesh K Samarasan
... only a sub-set of which I wish to address ...
>1) Is it still considered proper to use an "umlaut" in English when there
>are two vowels that follow, but do not make one sound. Examples are the
>second e of "re-elect" or the second "o" of co-operate. I have seen both
>the e and o with two dots above them, but I have not seen this in a long
>time. Is this simply because of typesetting, or has using the two dots
>become unacceptable?
The only U.S. publication that still consistently uses the umlaut (at least
as far as I can tell) is the _New_Yorker_. As to propriety, my opinion
matters not one jot.
>4) Countries, etc. Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
> This seems to be the only place where we have a singular country
>with a definite country.
If you mean "a definite article," there are (or used to be) also:
The Sudan,
The Congo,
The Gambia,
The Ivory Coast,
and ...
El Salvador.
I'll be good and spare you my hypotheses.
>... Someone wrote a column in the Washington Post saying that the
>more oppresive the government, the less anglicized the pronunciation should be
The column reminded me of an acquaintance who automatically refers to all
Third World governments as "regimes."
--
Dhanesh
Replies, if any, to <d...@mit.edu>, please.
--
Glynn Brooks
I heard this topic discussed on NPR several weeks ago. The commentators
concluded that using "the" usually connoted a geographic region or
location. Thus, "the Ukraine" referred to one specific area in the
USSR. Now that Ukraine wants to be thought of as a country/republic,
they would prefer that the "the" be dropped so that people will begin to
associate Ukraine with an independent country.
--
Glynn Brooks Internet: r...@mitek.com
OpenConnect Systems CompuServe: 76326,502
2033 Chennault Dr.
Carrollton, TX 75006
JOSEPH T CHEW
Well, the officials of Ukraine wish we'd omit the article. Perhaps they
want to underscore the point that it isn't a Sovie satellite anymore.
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Ron Newman
|> I don't know the why of "The Hague" or "The Bronx."
The Bronx refers to land formerly belonging to the Bronck family.
Somerwhere along the way,
the Broncks' became the Bronx
In <<Jan.22.15.36...@andromeda.rutgers.edu>,
d...@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Daniel Rosenblum) writes:
> Also, a number of Francophone countries in Africa have a "the" in front
> of their names in French, although not in English, when they are
> of the form "Republique du <name-of-a-river>"; I believe that
> Niger, Congo, and (formerly) Upper Volta are examples.
In French, ALL country names have a "the" in front of them:
La France, L'Amerique, L'Angleterre, L'Allemagne, etc.
(Presumably the Ukrainians don't object to "L'Ukraine"...)
--
Ron Newman rne...@bbn.com
David Mark
proper names.
It seems odd to me that the proper names of rivers and valleys are normally
preceded by the definite article, at least in North American English,
whereas the names for lakes, single mountains, bays, islands, and I think most
other geographical features are not.
I went fishing in the Niagara River yesterday.
My friend was born in the Delaware Valley.
There are lots of good restaurants in the Rio Grande Valley.
The Nile was important to agriculture in ancient Egypt.
Ithaca is on Lake Cayuga.
Yellowknife is on Great Slave Lake.
Polar Bears are common in winter on the ice of Hudson Bay.
My friends climbed Mount Ranier in 1986.
Lloyd was born on Long Island.
etc.
But not:
*I went fishing in Niagara River yesterday.
*My friend was born in Delaware Valley.
*There are lots of good restaurants in Rio Grande Valley.
*Nile was important to agriculture in ancient Egypt.
*Ithaca is on the Lake Cayuga.
*Yellowknife is on the Great Slave Lake.
*Polar Bears are common in winter on the ice of the Hudson Bay.
*My friends climbed the Mount Rainier in 1986.
*Lloyd was born on the Long Island.
etc.
Anyone know why? Also, I know of at least one geology professor who insisted
that his students not put the definite article in front of river or valley
names. If there is a 'rule' that says proper names should not be preceded by
the definite article, why are rivers and valleys exceptions, at least in every-
day, spoken, North American English?
David Mark
dm...@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
Bayla Singer
stretches of land there: "the Broncks's" developed in much the same way one
would say "I'm going to the Smiths's for dinner."
--bayla (who grew up on the east side of old Jonas' former holdings)
Ethan Bradford
>In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU (George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>>... Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
I heard this topic discussed on NPR several weeks ago. The commentators
concluded that using "the" usually connoted a geographic region or
location. Thus, "the Ukraine" referred to one specific area in the
USSR. Now that Ukraine wants to be thought of as a country/republic,
they would prefer that the "the" be dropped so that people will begin to
associate Ukraine with an independent country.
This is all very interesting. In Russian there are no articles,
definite or indefinite. Does anyone know if this is also true of
other Slavic languages, and in particular, Ukrainian?
--
-- Ethan (eth...@u.washington.edu)
Ron Newman
|> A change of subject here, put still definite articles and geographic
|> proper names.
|>
|> It seems odd to me that the proper names of rivers and valleys are normally
|> preceded by the definite article, at least in North American English,
|> whereas the names for lakes, single mountains, bays, islands, and I think most
|> other geographical features are not.
But in Utah, isn't it usually _The_ Great Salt Lake?
--
Ron Newman rne...@bbn.com
Graham Toal
:A few questions:
:
:1) Is it still considered proper to use an "umlaut" in English when there
:are two vowels that follow, but do not make one sound. Examples are the
:second e of "re-elect" or the second "o" of co-operate. I have seen both
:the e and o with two dots above them, but I have not seen this in a long
:time. Is this simply because of typesetting, or has using the two dots
:become unacceptable?
Yes and no. It is proper, but the symbol is a di{\ae}resis, not an umlaut.
Typesetting can handle it, but it hasn't been taught in schools for years; in
Britain it is more common in Scotland than England, and only then among people
'of a certain age'. In Scotland we need it doubly so for 'unco-operative'.
In the Netherlands it is standard for breaking syllables, and shouldn't
be confused with the German umlaut it resembles. I think the Dutch
name is 'trema'.
regards
Graham
Graham Toal
>Keep 'em. I wrote in my thesis that a variable played a certain "r\^ole",
>and my advisor nearly had a fit. I kept it in, though.
Good for you. I hope it wasn't in the English department - if an English
prof pulled a stunt like that here I'd either try to get him thrown out or
switch to another University :-) The spelling checker I'm writing will not
accept 'role', but I have the excuse of being 8-bit aware so I'm able to
insist on r\^ole.
G
Jim Scobbie
>'of a certain age'. In Scotland we need it doubly so for 'unco-operative'.
I take it this is an unco subtle point for our worldly audience!
--
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
sco...@csli.stanford.edu
Daniel Rosenblum
names get "the" and others don't several months ago? If there's
an archive of this somewhere, maybe someone could be directed to
it instead of us rehashing this discussion. Maybe we even need a
FAQ for this newsgroup (but no, I wouldn't dream of volunteering
to do it, and if others are like me, I can see why we don't have
one).
But just to add my own $.02: in New York City there are some roads
that have "the" and others that don't (yes, I know, this ties in
to another thread that's been running lately, mostly with a West
Coast focus). The morning traffic announcer on WNYC (the municipal
public radio station) has a habit of getting this wrong, putting in
"the"s where they don't belong. He definitely sounds like a native
English speaker, and I cannot detect a particular regional accent in
his speech, so I don't know why he does it. But to hear certain
streets in the borough of Queens that I know well referred to as "the
Springfield Boulevard" and "the Francis Lewis Boulevard" (he does it
with things other than boulevards, by the way) amuses me.
Sjoerd Mullender
>In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU
>(George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>> Since the Netherlands are plural, should we say:
>>
>>"The Netherlands are very productive." OR
>>"The Netherlands is very productive."
>Say what the natives say.
The natives say "Nederland", which is singular. We do not use a
definite article before the name, nor do we use a plural verb. The
official name of the country is "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" which means
"Kingdom of the Netherlands". This is also singluar, although
"Nederlanden" is plural. When we speak about "de Nederlanden", we
usually mean what in English is called "the Low Countries", i.e.
Belgium and the Netherlands together. In this case it is definitely
plural. More commonly, this area is referred to as "de lage landen".
So I think the advise given above is a bit hard to follow.
--
Sjoerd Mullender
CWI, dept. CST, Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, Netherlands
email: sjo...@cwi.nl fax: +31 20 592 4199
phone: +31 20 592 4132 telex: 12571 mactr nl
Sjoerd Mullender
>In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU (George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>I don't know the why of "The Hague" or "The Bronx."
"The Hague" is the anglified version of the Dutch "Den Haag". Den Haag
is the name commonly given to the city, but the "real" name is
"'s Gravenhage" (note the apostrophe). This can be parsed as "des Graven
Hage", which means "the Count's Hedge". There is one other city with
two such names. The names are "Den Bosch" and "'s Hertogenbosch" (the
Duke's Bush or Forest).
Tianshu Li
Chinese.
Is there any clear-cut rules that we could follow about the
usage of the articles?
Tina :)
Tianshu Li
them since there is no such trouble in a language as easy as Chinese!
Can anyone give a more complete list or more clear-cut list of article
usages? Or am I wasting my time to request for such a monster?
Thanks!
Tina :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$ $$$ Good breeding consists of con-
$$$ Name: Tina Li $$$ cealing how much we think of our-
$$$ Class: Angel $$$ selves and how little we think of
$$$ Home: Penthouse in Heaven $$$ the other person.
$$$ Office: Next Door to God $$$
$$$ Email: t...@athena.mit.edu $$$ --- Mark Twain
$$$ $$$ (1835-1910)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$ $$$ Good breeding consists of con-
$$$ Name: Tina Li $$$ cealing how much we think of our-
$$$ Class: Angel $$$ selves and how little we think of
Ivan A Derzhanski
>In article <rgb.696113228@pssparc2> r...@pssparc2.oc.com (Glynn Brooks) writes:
>
> location. Thus, "the Ukraine" referred to one specific area in the USSR.
In Russia, that is, - long before there was a Soviet Union.
> Now that Ukraine wants to be thought of as a country/republic,
> they would prefer that the "the" be dropped so that people will begin to
> associate Ukraine with an independent country.
Kind of strange. "The" is an English article. It may or may not be
part of the English name of a country. Whether it is or is not,
however, is no one's business but the English speakers'. Where does
Ukraine's preference come in?
>This is all very interesting. In Russian there are no articles,
>definite or indefinite. Does anyone know if this is also true of
>other Slavic languages, and in particular, Ukrainian?
It is true of all Slavic languages except Bulgarian.
The use of locative prepositions in Russian/Ukrainian, however, shows
that Ukraine is/has been thought of as a region rather than a country.
--
---- --- -- - Long Live the Rose and the Heather! - -- --- ----
Ivan A Derzhanski (i...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; i...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Ivan A Derzhanski
>(George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>
>>1) Is it still considered proper to use an "umlaut" in English when there
>>are two vowels that follow, but do not make one sound. [e.g. co\"operate]
>
>Well, an "umlaut" is incorrect, but a dieresis, which looks the same :-)
>is fine. At least, *I* use it (but I'm reactionary).
So am I. How do you do? :-)
>If you're REALLY stodgy, and your word processor can do it,
>you can use di{\ae}resis.
And if it can't, or you are stuck with this blooming thing that is
ASCII, you should maybe say "diaeresis".
>Keep 'em. I wrote in my thesis that a variable played a certain "r\^ole",
>and my advisor nearly had a fit.
My adviser has gone through the same kind of ordeal many times. :-)
The trouble is that I'm forced to omit these decorations on an ASCII
screen. Backquotes, carets, commas etc. don't look elegant enough.
>I kept it in, though.
Of course. Anyone would (if he has any dignity, that is).
>> "Before someone can drive a car, they must get a driving license."
>>
>> This doesn't sound right.
>
>To me either.
Glad to hear that, gentlemen. There is a flamewar about this on
sci.lang (Subject: neutral personal pronouns). Several PC netters are
trying hard to prove that the two of you (and the others who think the
same) don't exist. (Their idea is that _every_ English speaker uses
singular "they".)
>> However, there is now a serious drive to de-sex the English language.
Don't take it too seriously, that's all.
>> <...> What do you do when someone demands desexification <...>?
I suggest you just use "he" as you would normally, and when the
someone in question (whoever he may be) starts raising Cain, sit back
and have a good laugh.
>> What about pronunciation? There is currently a drive to pronounce
>>some countries the way the locals do. Chee-lay for Chile is a good example.
>>But we don't pronounce France funny. What's the deal here?
"Funny"? Funny by whose standards? :-)
>I think it's just politeness to pronounce names as the natives do,
>just as it's polite to call someone who spells his name "B-e-r-n-a-r-d"
>BER-nard rather than ber-NARD if that's how he pronounces it (I've known
>both).
Wrong analogy. Names of people are one thing, names of countries are
another. I don't think it is impolite to use names like Scotland,
Germany, India, Georgia, ... for what should perhaps be called Alba,
Deutschland, Bharat, Sakartvelo, ...
> So CHEE-lay and MOSK-va and K\"OLN.
I have a question. Why did you stress "Moskva" on the first syllable?
To show that in this particular case you didn't want to be polite, or
to illustrate what I was going to say, - that people will often make
wrong guesses when trying to get the native pronounciation?
Cameron Smith
>In article <1992Jan22.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Cameron Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU
>>(George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>>> What about pronunciation? There is currently a drive to pronounce
>>>some countries the way the locals do. Chee-lay for Chile is a good example.
>>>But we don't pronounce France funny. What's the deal here?
>
>"Funny"? Funny by whose standards? :-)
>
>>I think it's just politeness to pronounce names as the natives do,
>>just as it's polite to call someone who spells his name "B-e-r-n-a-r-d"
>>BER-nard rather than ber-NARD if that's how he pronounces it (I've known
>>both).
>
>Wrong analogy. Names of people are one thing, names of countries are
>another. I don't think it is impolite to use names like Scotland,
>Germany, India, Georgia, ... for what should perhaps be called Alba,
>Deutschland, Bharat, Sakartvelo, ...
Why? What makes it different? Just saying "this is one thing, that's
another" doesn't explain anything, you know, especially when you add
that the native language names "should perhaps" be what we're using
after all. At least I gave a reason (politeness) for preferring
local names.
Perhaps (as I did mention in the cited posting) the rules of English
phonology do make it inconvenient to give place names in their local
tongues. Perhaps this difficulty in "switching gears" in mid-sentence
justifies the use of Englished versions of non-English place names.
I still can't see any *other* reason than that for insisting
on assigning new names to places that already have names,
thank you very much.
One poster, I forget who (it wasn't Ivan), saw it as an expression
of insecurity or inferiority or lack of national pride to use
native-language names instead of English ones. This seems silly to me.
I don't think it's disloyal or fawning to call K\"oln K\"oln, as its
residents do (don't they?) rather than Cologne, or to pronounce
Chile "CHEE-lay".
It still seems to me to be a harmless and cost-free courtesy to use
the original, if you know it.
Although it's true that it's less courteous when you get it wrong...
>> So CHEE-lay and MOSK-va and K\"OLN.
>
>I have a question. Why did you stress "Moskva" on the first syllable?
>To show that in this particular case you didn't want to be polite, or
>to illustrate what I was going to say, - that people will often make
>wrong guesses when trying to get the native pronounciation?
The latter. Because I thought I remembered hearing it that way from
people I trusted to know (since I myself don't speak Russian).
Perhaps the risk of making mistakes and giving unintended offense
outweighs any debatably valuable politeness in attempting to use
the "right" names (though I'd like to think not -- I'd prefer to think
that credit is given for good intentions).
Perhaps next time I'll restrain myself from extending my guesses
too far into my areas of ignorance (and perhaps not, *sigh*).
--Cameron Smith
cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
Ethan Bradford
(Quoting Ivan A Derzhanski)
> >Wrong analogy. Names of people are one thing, names of countries are
> >another.
> Why? What makes it different? ...
> I still can't see any *other* reason than that for insisting
> on assigning new names to places that already have names,
> thank you very much.
The point is that the places already have English names, which
listeners and readers of English expect to hear or read. If you use
any other name, including the "more correct" native name, you will
confuse or at best distract your audience.
The only fundamental rule for deciding if one form is better than
another is whether it has the intended effect. If you expect a large
part of your audience to be natives of the place you are describing
and you wish to flatter them, by all means, attempt the native place
name. If you just intend to impress your audience with your excellent
knowlege of the world, use the native names. However, if you have a
message (unrelated to the proper place name) which you are trying to
get across to a general English-speaking audience, you will do that
most effectively by using the standard English names.
There are several differences between place names and personal names.
Place names do not belong to anybody in particular; what do you
suggest is the "correct" way to spell (and pronounce) Jerusalem or
Brussels? There are natives who have totally different words. How
about Mobile, Alabama? Do you try to affect a southern accent whenever
you say that? Place names are just words like any other; use the word
in the way which is most standard within your audience.
--
-- Ethan (eth...@u.washington.edu)
Dhanesh K Samarasan
>
>The point is that the places already have English names, which
>listeners and readers of English expect to hear or read. If you use
>any other name, including the "more correct" native name, you will
>confuse or at best distract your audience.
Zen Master say, "Blank page distract audience least of all."
Charles Geyer
(Dhanesh K Samarasan) writes:
> Zen Master say, "Blank page distract audience least of all."
THIS POSTING INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
--
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
cha...@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Bengt G{llmo
> In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU
> (George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>> Since the Netherlands are plural, should we say:
>>
>>"The Netherlands are very productive." OR
>>"The Netherlands is very productive."
>
> Say what the natives say.
Well, I have been told that those natives have changed the official name
of their country from "Nederlanden" to "Nederland", i.e. from plural to
singular. Can anyone from Netherland (:-) confirm?
Bengt
--
Bengt Gallmo e-mail: lme...@eds.ericsson.se
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson phone: +46 8 719 1940
S-126 25 STOCKHOLM fax: +46 8 719 3988
SWEDEN
The bad thing about good things is that they usually come to an end.
The good thing about bad things is that they, also, usually come to an end.
Sjoerd Mullender
>In article <1992Jan22.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Cameron Smith) writes:
>Well, I have been told that those natives have changed the official name
>of their country from "Nederlanden" to "Nederland", i.e. from plural to
>singular. Can anyone from Netherland (:-) confirm?
As far as I know, the official name is "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden".
This includes three parts: Nederland (the European part), de Nederlandse
Antillen (Curacao, Bonaire, Saba, Sint Maarten, Sint Eustacius), and Aruba.
David Mark
"Re: various questions" please provide more informative subject headings
from now on? I am interested in following one or two of the threads
that arose from the original, and in 'kill'ing some others.
Thanks!
David Mark
dm...@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
Ivan A Derzhanski
>In article <81...@spark.ed.ac.uk> i...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan22.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
> cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Cameron Smith) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU
>>>(George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>>>> What about pronunciation? There is currently a drive to pronounce
>>>>some countries the way the locals do.
>>
>>>just as it's polite to call someone who spells his name "B-e-r-n-a-r-d"
>>>BER-nard rather than ber-NARD if that's how he pronounces it (I've known
>>>both).
>>
>>Wrong analogy. Names of people are one thing, names of countries are
>>another. I don't think it is impolite to use names like Scotland,
>>Germany, India, Georgia, ... for what should perhaps be called Alba,
>>Deutschland, Bharat, Sakartvelo, ...
>
>Why? What makes it different?
Why is the name of city/country C in language L a word in L, whereas
for the name of individual I it is not usually the case? Good
question. Observations: The number of C's is not as large as the
number of I's, and the name of each C in L is potentially used (1) by
all speakers of L (2) over an unlimited period of time. Finally, C is
likely not to have a unique original name. (No real answer, I'm afraid.)
>you add
>that the native language names "should perhaps" be what we're using
>after all. At least I gave a reason (politeness) for preferring
>local names.
"Should perhaps", that is, should if we decided that we should call
things as the natives call them.
>Perhaps (as I did mention in the cited posting) the rules of English
>phonology do make it inconvenient to give place names in their local
>tongues. <...>
This also applies to people's names, and to all other phonologies.
Modifying names to fit them into the phonology of the environment
language, while preserving the original sound as much as possible,
doesn't have to count.
>I still can't see any *other* reason than that for insisting
>on assigning new names to places that already have names,
>thank you very much.
Many places have already had English names for ages. No reason to
assign new names to them, even if the new names are closer to the
native-language ones, hence more "polite". You may end up confusing
your listener.
>One poster, I forget who (it wasn't Ivan), saw it as an expression
>of insecurity or inferiority or lack of national pride to use
>native-language names instead of English ones.
It wasn't I. I can't possibly write such a monstruous thing.
>It still seems to me to be a harmless and cost-free courtesy to use
>the original, if you know it.
I'm not so sure that it is harmless and/or cost-free. Your listener
may fail to understand you if you refer to something which has an
accepted English name with its native-language name (even if he knows it).
Because, you know, I have a flawless Russian, but when Reagan quoted
Russian proverbs in his speeches, I couldn't get a word, and had to
wait for the translation and then try to reconstruct the original.
>>> So CHEE-lay and MOSK-va and K\"OLN.
>>
>>I have a question. Why did you stress "Moskva" on the first syllable?
>>To show that in this particular case you didn't want to be polite,
Which of course I didn't believe to be the case. Several smileys were implied.
>>or to illustrate what I was going to say, - that people will often make
>>wrong guesses when trying to get the native pronounciation?
>
>The latter. Because I thought I remembered hearing it that way from
>people I trusted to know (since I myself don't speak Russian).
Well, it's _moskVA_, with the first _o_ pronounced pretty much as the
first vowel in _about_.
>Perhaps the risk of making mistakes and giving unintended offense <...>
No offence will be taken, but communication may suffer. Nothing will
be lost if you just say "Moscow".
On the other hand, if you pronounce a Chinese or Vietnamese name in
the wrong tone, it may turn into something really offensive.
>(<...> -- I'd prefer to think that credit is given for good intentions).
Well, yes, it is, but it won't be terribly much credit, so it may not
be worth it.
Ethan Bradford
Why is the name of city/country C in language L a word in L, whereas
for the name of individual I it is not usually the case? Good
question. Observations: The number of C's is not as large as the
number of I's, and the name of each C in L is potentially used (1) by
all speakers of L (2) over an unlimited period of time. Finally, C is
likely not to have a unique original name. (No real answer, I'm afraid.)
An exception which proves the rule is the naming of historical figures.
When I studied in Germany, I was confused by the mention of a famous
"Karl der Grosse" (Charles the Great) until I realized that they were
refering to Charlemagne (which then made me think that Charlemagne must
be from the French, Charle magne, which should mean Charles the Great,
though those that know modern French inform me that it doesn't).
--
-- Ethan (eth...@u.washington.edu)
Tony Kennedy
I doubt that a noun follows it. What noun follows 'the Netherlands'?
Could it have been "the nether lands" originally?
Bengt G{llmo
> listeners and readers of English expect to hear or read.
This reminds me of an anecdote. When Finland became independent,
after WW1, there was apparently a movement there to emphasize
everything that was Finnish. The capital of Finland has two names:
Helsinki (Finnish) and Helsingfors (Swedish). The British government
had been using the Swedish name, and continued to do so. The Finnish
government pointed out to them that the Finnish name of the capital
was Helsinki, only to receive the unperturbed reply: "Yes, but the
British name of the town is Helsingfors!"
I should add that Her Majesty's government nowadays uses the Finnish
name!
John Coughlin
>When I studied in Germany, I was confused by the mention of a famous
>"Karl der Grosse" (Charles the Great) until I realized that they were
>refering to Charlemagne (which then made me think that Charlemagne must
>be from the French, Charle magne, which should mean Charles the Great,
>though those that know modern French inform me that it doesn't).
Charlemagne comes from Carolus Magnus, which is Charles the Great in Latin.
John Coughlin
That's exactly right. It's also known as the Low Countries or Les Pays Bas
(same thing in French).
J Wexler
>Charlemagne comes from Carolus Magnus, which is Charles the Great in Latin.
French and English use the "Charles" form for the Carolus/Karl name.
French, but not English, has the word "magne" for "great" (it's archaic,
but it exists). The name "Charlemagne" is recognised in modern French
as referring only to the person we are talking about. Is there some
reason to doubt that English got the name "Charlemagne" from French?
And in response to another contributor, "nom de plume" is a recognised
French phrase. "Nom de guerre" also exists, but doesn't mean quite the
same thing.
But, in alt.english.usage, why should anybody care?
John Wexler
Advenient Whimwham
#(George Matthew Regnery) writes:
#
[deletions]
#
#
#>4) Countries, etc. Why do we say "The Ukraine"?
#> This seems to be the only place where we have a singular country
#>with a definite [article]. Sure, there are the Netherlands, the United
#>States, the Solomon Islands. We also use the when speaking of a republic,
#>such as the German Democratic Republic, or the GDR. However, that is because
#>of republic. Why the Ukraine? Is that really incorrect, or is really
#>supposed to be that way.
#
#You've answered your own question. We use "the" when a generic noun
#(e.g. "republic") takes one or more adjectives (e.g. "German Democratic")
#to make it a specific name. Consider also "the Baltic", "the Mediterranean",
#"the North Atlantic" (with "sea", "sea", and "ocean" implicit).
#"Ukraine" is an adjective, and the noun is implicit, so it takes "the".
#
#As to *what* noun is implicit after "the Ukraine", I'm open to
#suggestions... but I do believe that's the grammatical principle
#operating here. (Anyone know for sure?)
#
#
Are you making this up on the spot, or did someone tell you
this?
If Ukraine is an adjective, what's Ukrainian, chopped
liver?
Three points here:
My handy, dandy Webster's New World Dictionary of the
American Language lists Ukraine as a noun.
Ukrainians in and out of Ukraine lobbied for a long time to
change English-language usage by dropping the article in the
country's name. They say it's demeaning and denies the
nationhood of Ukraine. They tend to see "The Ukraine" as a
Russian plot to Russify Ukraine, an ongoing theme in
Ukrainian history. In English we do use the definite article
to denote the name of a region, for example, the Pampas, the
Outback, the Northwest, the Chaco, et cetera.
Since the emergence of an independent Ukraine, the AP news
service style sheet lists the name of the country as
Ukraine, not The Ukraine. The older usage is both obsolete
and insensitive to wishes the Ukrainians.
--
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Only the mediocre can always be at their best." -- Mencken
For an average time write uunet!microsoft!frankm
For an even more mediocre time try fra...@microsoft.com
Advenient Whimwham
>In article <1992Jan22....@wpi.WPI.EDU> reg...@wpi.WPI.EDU (George Matthew Regnery) writes:
>> This seems to be the only place where we have a singular country
>
>No, there are others: the Lebanon and, in earlier times, the Sudan.
>
I've never encountered the Lebanon, but I certainly have
seen the Levant, which is a regional name, like the Ukraine,
as distinct from a country name.
As for the Bronx and the Entrance, leave us not forget The
Dalles, Oregon.
Paul Garside
>I heard this topic discussed on NPR several weeks ago. The commentators
>concluded that using "the" usually connoted a geographic region or
>location. Thus, "the Ukraine" referred to one specific area in the
>USSR. Now that Ukraine wants to be thought of as a country/republic,
>they would prefer that the "the" be dropped so that people will begin to
>associate Ukraine with an independent country.
>--
>Glynn Brooks Internet: r...@mitek.com
>OpenConnect Systems CompuServe: 76326,502
>2033 Chennault Dr.
>Carrollton, TX 75006
Can we take it then that when Americans mention "the USA", that they want
still to be considered a region of the United Kingdom? :-)
Paul.
Mark Eckenwiler
>>professors) demand you don't say:
>
>Excuse me, they don't "demand you don't say", they "demand you not say".
>Subjunctive, don't you know. Otherwise you sound like something out
>of Hitchhiker's Guide: "I demand that I am Vroomfondel!"
I am never forget :-) the dog food commerical (Pedigree Chum, I'm sure
it was) I heard over and over in Ireland that included the following
gem:
I would not recommend anyone to feed their dog scraps.
--
They said you'd gone completely insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Ash Nallawalla
>>The latter. Because I thought I remembered hearing it that way from
>>people I trusted to know (since I myself don't speak Russian).
>Well, it's _moskVA_, with the first _o_ pronounced pretty much as the
>first vowel in _about_.
Well, the trend seems to be an attempt to sound authentic, at least on
our multicultural TV channel in Australia. Sometimes it is put on,
with amusing results: "Yahanger Kahn" (Jahangir Khan). This is taken
to be the "correct" pronunciation by sports commentators on other
TV and radio channels, and very soon it becomes the "accepted"
pronunciation.
--
=============================================================================
Ash Nallawalla Tel: +61 3 550-1638 BH; Fax +61 3 742-4566
ZL4LM/VK3CIT Postal: P.O. Box 539, Werribee VIC 3030, Australia
a...@mlacus.oz.au Contact me if you belong to a PC User Group!
Jim Scobbie
>I am never forget :-) the dog food commerical (Pedigree Chum, I'm sure
>it was) I heard over and over in Ireland that included the following
>gem:
> I would not recommend anyone to feed their dog scraps.
Must be my dialect too: I don't get the joke. Sounds fine to me.
I suppose the idea is that it would be better as
"I wouldn't recommend anyone feed their dogs scraps"? Let me see... ok
"I wouldn't recommend anyone fed their dogs scraps", no, don't like it.
"I wouldn't recommend anyone to do that", hmm fine. But so is
"I wouldn't recommend anyone did that", though it's a bit strange.
"I wouldn't recommend anyone do that", don't like it.
Help! This speaker can't cut it.
I'd recommend you to do that, (1)
I'd recommend you do that, (2)
I'd recommend you did that. (3)
All are pretty good for me, esp (1) and (3)
--
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
sco...@csli.stanford.edu
Tom Christiansen
:Help! This speaker can't cut it.
:
:I'd recommend you to do that, (1)
:I'd recommend you do that, (2)
:I'd recommend you did that. (3)
:
:All are pretty good for me, esp (1) and (3)
I'm not thrilled that with (1). I guess (3) follows the
normal sequence of tenses, but I like (2) better. Plus
I'd not omit the "that".
--tom
Cameron Smith
sco...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>
>I'd recommend you to do that, (1)
>I'd recommend you do that, (2)
>I'd recommend you did that. (3)
>
>All are pretty good for me, esp (1) and (3)
BZZZT! no, sorry, but thanks for playing...
(for a while now I've waited for an excuse to say that :-) )
According to my speech patterns,
(2) is correct, (1) isn't correct with "recommend", but would
be with "advise", and (3) doesn't *mean* anything, as far as I can tell.
(2) is correct because the object of "recommend" is supposed to
be a sentence, and the rules of English grammar say that a sentence
that is supposed to express wishes, hopes, desires, commands,
or other situations-that-might-be rather than situations-that-are
is supposed to be in the subjunctive mood. I probably would
put in a "that": "I'd recommend that you do that", but that's just
my style -- it's fine without it too.
(1) isn't correct because the object of "recommend" is supposed to
be a sentence (in my dialect, anyway), and "you to do that" isn't one.
But "advise" is different: its indirect object is the person being
advised ("you") and its direct object is the advice ("to do that").
So "I'd advise you to do that." works (for me).
(3) is confusing because it uses a past-tense construction as the
object of "recommend", but the meaning of "recommend" implies
future tense rather than past. What does it *mean* to offer
a recommendation -- a suggested choice or option -- about an event
that's already unchangeable history? It's like a joke: "How can
I get rich painlessly?" "Arrange to be born to wealthy parents."
The very thing that makes this a joke is what makes (3) confusing
(in my mode of speech, anyway).
Let me use something other than "recommend" to illustrate the
difference between the indicative and subjunctive. I used to
be a technical writer for a software company, and one of my
jobs was to fix up things that were written by programmers.
There were a lot of sentences like "It's important that the
user backs up his disks." I would always change them to
"it's important that the user back up his disks", because
(to me) the first version merely says "the fact that the user
backs up his disks is an important fact" (which doesn't make
much sense in a user manual), while the second says
"hey, you, back up your disks!" -- that is, it gives a command
or expresses a wish or (well, OK) a *recommendation* (there I said it).
That's what the subjunctive mood is for.
You could even say "It's important that the user backed
up his disks" -- past indicative -- meaning "the fact that he
did this is an important fact". For example, I can visualize
an insurance claims adjustor investigating a fire and then
going back to his office and telling his boss "it's important
that the user backed up his disks, because it means we don't
have to pay for his lost data, only the hardware itself."
But I can't see what it would mean to say "I recommend that
the user backed up his disks" -- it would be like saying
"I advise you to have backed up your disks". Good advice,
but too late now!
Just One Man's Opinion--
--Cameron Smith's, to be precise
cam...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
P.S. If it's any consolation, my "important that the user back up
his disks" would get randomly changed to "her disks" about 50%
of the time by my (female) editor, and then the company president
would review it and change "back up" back to "backs up" because
he felt that the subjunctive mood was "stuffy". Then it would
get totally re-written a week later when the programmer added
an automatic backup feature that made it unnecessary for anyone
to back up his/her/its disks at all. You just can't win. :-)
Dhanesh K Samarasan
>
>>I am never forget :-) the dog food commerical (Pedigree Chum, I'm sure
>>it was) I heard over and over in Ireland that included the following
>>gem:
>
>> I would not recommend anyone to feed their dog scraps.
>
>Must be my dialect too: I don't get the joke. Sounds fine to me.
To me, "I would not recommend X to Y" means that "I would never say to
Y that X is a Good Thing." Maybe it's just not that funny?
Timothy J. Rolfe
>In <1992Jan26.1...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>I am never forget :-) the dog food commerical (Pedigree Chum, I'm sure
>>it was) I heard over and over in Ireland that included the following
>>gem:
>> I would not recommend anyone to feed their dog scraps.
>Must be my dialect too: I don't get the joke. Sounds fine to me.
Actually the only thing that catches my eye is the disagreement in number
--- but then "they" is becoming the politically correct genderless third
person singular. (Or perhaps, since we're talking about spoken English
here, the image is that a dog named "Scraps" should never be fed.)
--
--- Tim Rolfe
ro...@dsuvax.dsu.edu
RO...@SDNET.BITNET
Jim Scobbie
Someone recommended that I used a 'that', and here I am to make them happy!
j
Graham Toal
>I'd recommend you to do that, (1)
>I'd recommend you do that, (2)
>I'd recommend you did that. (3)
I wondered what the problem was too. Then I thought that it
might be the ambiguity of 'recommend'.
I'd recommend *you* to do that. I.e. the emphasis is on the
chosing of the person, not the act that they are to do.
I'd commend you to think about this as a possible explanation :-)
G
David A. Johns
# I'd recommend you to do that, (1)
# I'd recommend you do that, (2)
# I'd recommend you did that. (3)
#
# All are pretty good for me, esp (1) and (3)
For me (1) is impossible, but I'm really interested in (2) and (3).
What I get in this range is
(4) I recommend that you do that.
(5) I'd recommend that you do that.
(6) I'd recommend that you did that.
where (6) feels like a case of some sort of tentativeness spreading
across the entire sentence.
My point is, though, that I can't get any of these without the
complementizer. I've noticed examples of these "subjunctive"
complements in the press without the "that", but I've always
assumed that it was a victim of an overzealous journalism student
or copy editor.
Is the complementizer really dropping out in these sentences?
David Johns
Alan P Barrett
sco...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
> I'd recommend you to do that, (1)
> I'd recommend you do that, (2)
> I'd recommend you did that. (3)
>
> All are pretty good for me, esp (1) and (3)
All the above sound very wrong to me, especially (1).
I'd recommend that you {do,did} that.
^^^^
--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: bar...@ee.und.ac.za Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
David A. Johns
# Someone recommended that I used a 'that', and here I am to make
# them happy! ^
|
| gak!
This seems totally different from "I'd recommend that you used ..."
to me. The one above is a true past, while this one is a
"wishy-washy polite" form.
David Johns
Tom Christiansen
"A recommended that B _ u_ s_ e_ d" seems wrong. I don't see how you
can get away with anything but "use".
--tom
Toby Koosman
writes...
>Kind of strange. "The" is an English article. It may or may not be
>part of the English name of a country. Whether it is or is not,
>however, is no one's business but the English speakers'. Where does
>Ukraine's preference come in?
Besides being your native language and mine, English is an important language
in international business and diplomacy, so the English form of a country's
name may well be of keen interest to a non-English speaking nation, since that
is how they will be designated in international transactions. Ukranians may
not be English speakers, but they are English users like everybody else
(except the French).
Toby Koosman
University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Internet: KOO...@UTKVX1.UTCC.UTK.EDU Bitnet: KOOSMAN@UTKVX
Bob Hammarberg
>>part of the English name of a country. Whether it is or is not,
>>however, is no one's business but the English speakers'. Where does
>>Ukraine's preference come in?
>Besides being your native language and mine, English is an important language
>in international business and diplomacy, so the English form of a country's
>name may well be of keen interest to a non-English speaking nation, since that
>is how they will be designated in international transactions. Ukranians may
>not be English speakers, but they are English users like everybody else
>(except the French).
Is this something that only applies to English (in virtue of its lingua
franca status)? What are other languages doing about, eg, Belarus (formerly
Byelorussia), which we referred to in (Swedish) school as Vitryssland, ie,
White Russia (the literal translation)?
Peter Moylan
(Bob Hammarberg) writes:
> franca status)? What are other languages doing about, eg, Belarus (formerly
> Byelorussia), which we referred to in (Swedish) school as Vitryssland, ie,
> White Russia (the literal translation)?
It could be worse. The name Belarus has not yet caught on in Australia,
and that would not be too bad except that a majority of TV newsreaders
pronounce Byelorussia as bile-o-russia. I doubt that that goes down
well with the Byelorussians (Belarians? What word should I use here?)
An analogy: the name New South Wales is so well established as a place
name that few people here give any conscious thought to the connection
with the name Wales. If the name were mispronounced (e.g. by giving
unusual stress to one of the three syllables), the relationship would
suddenly become jarringly obvious. If in addition we had some dispute
with the Welsh (we don't) the mispronunciation would be very
upsetting.
--
Peter Moylan ee...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au