A "be" in my bonnet

[maxsims]

Joe,

I just opened EP&S at random and lighted upon Ch 15 - English for Export.    On p. 436, there is the sentence: "If it is our national destiny to be a primary supplier of professionals, health workers, housemaids, and laborers - even English teachers - to the world market, then we better be the best there is."

Did you mean "we had better be..."

Also, you have separated 'health workers' and 'professionals'.     Do you not consider nurses to be professionals?

[Joe Carillo]

Joe,

I just opened EP&S at random and lighted upon Ch 15 - English for Export.    On p. 436, there is the sentence: "If it is our national destiny to be a primary supplier of professionals, health workers, housemaids, and laborers - even English teachers - to the world market, then we better be the best there is."

Did you mean "we had better be..."

Also, you have separated 'health workers' and 'professionals'.     Do you not consider nurses to be professionals?

I meant to say "we better be the best there is," although I know the existence of that other usage you are referring to, "we had better be the best there is." I think the former usage is more widely used at least in American English. As of tonight, in fact, Google lists 104,000 entries for "we better be" compared to 70,600 for "we had better be"--an almost 3:2 ratio in favor of the former.

Registered nurses are considered professionals most everywhere in the world, but there are various other health workers--paramedics, nursing aides, caregivers, masseurs and masseuses--who are generally not considered of professional status. The term "health workers" is used to classify them. This is in contrast with doctors and nurses who, having passed the required professional board examinations, are classified as "health professionals."   

[maxsims]

Joe,
Your use of Google hits as ammunition in support of your arguments seems to me to be irrelevant and therefore invalid.    What the heck has the number of hits to do with grammatical correctness?   (except for those who believe that majority use constitutes correct use.)   Do you not think that, because the greatest users of Google are U.S. of Americans, that the results may be a tad skewed?

For example, I see 25 million hits for preventive and but 8 million for preventative, and we all know how misused those words are.    Similarly, tyre gets 78 million as against 22 million for tire, and here we cannot be sure which tire we are talking about.    Alternative racks up 316 million while alternate manages a mere 108 million.    Again, misuse of these words is rife, but the numerical advantage of alternativecan in no way imbue it with "correctness".   Then we have the infamous aluminum.    78 million hits against 59 million for aluminium.   Is this to say that aluminum is therefore "correct"?    (Note that most U.S. of Americans say "a-loo-min-um" no matter how the word is spelt.)

If Google hits were based solely on word or phrase preferences, or on discussion of grammatical niceties, you would possibly have live ammunition.    But they are not.

[Joe Carillo]

In language as in war, Max, victory is often attained either through guile or superiority of numbers, or both. And, as might be expected, the winner writes the laws of the land or rewrites the rules of grammar and usage for the vanquished. I guess this is pretty well what's happening to American English in relation to British English. For so many decades now, for reasons that we all know, the offshoot has overshadowed the parent language in more ways that we can imagine. Google simply reflects this fact and I really think it would be foolhardy to ignore it.

[maxsims]

Gee, Joe,

I got 1.7 million hits for offshoot but 35.5 million for offspring....!    Whose side are you on?

[Joe Carillo]

Gee, Joe,

I got 1.7 million hits for offshoot but 35.5 million for offspring....!    Whose side are you on?

I chose “offshoot” but I would be as comfortable using “offspring” in perhaps a slightly different context.

My Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines “offshoot” as follows:

1 a : a collateral or derived branch, descendant, or member  : OUTGROWTH  b : a lateral branch (as of a mountain range)
2 : a branch of a main stem especially of a plant

And “offspring” as follows:

1 a : the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant  : YOUNG, PROGENY  b : CHILD
2 a : PRODUCT, RESULT  *scholarly manuscripts*the labored offsprings of PhDs — Donna Martin*  b : OFFSHOOT 1a

Now that I have actually looked up the meaning of both words, though, I have become even more comfortable with my choice of “offshoot.” I think the semantics of “offshoot” is right on target for that particular sentence, and that of “offspring” slightly off—Google’s scorecard notwithstanding. Don’t you agree, Max?

[maxsims]

Nope.    I think it would be foolhardy to ignore the weight of numbers...!   

[Joe Carillo]

Nope.    I think it would be foolhardy to ignore the weight of numbers...!   

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.