Just a few grammar bugs in major stories of mayhem and triumph

[maxsims]

They were more advanced at Cambridge - they put a bridge over the River Cam!

[Joe Carillo]

That's a nice and intriguing wordplay, maxsims, so I thought of checking if it has any historical or archeological basis. It turns out, though, that the Cam River wasn't called by that name before the bridge was built. Here's the pertinent excerpt from the history of Cambridge:

"...the town [used to be] known as Grentebrige or Cantebrigge. Eventually the name became Cambridge. However, the river was still called the Granta. Someone thought 'Cambridge must be the bridge over the Cam, so the river should be called the Cam instead of the Granta,' and so the river's name was changed! Upstream, where it flows through Grantchester, the River is still called the Granta. The Latin name for Cambridge is Cantabrigia, which is why degrees are called Cantab. However, this was not the Roman name for the town, which is unknown."

Fascinating!

   

[jonathanfvaldez]

Joe,

This is from a Philstar article: "That can only mean the capacity of the state to protect its citizens has lost much of its credence."  Any comments?

jfv

[Joe Carillo]

Regarding this statement:
"That can only mean the capacity of the state to protect its citizens has lost much of its credence."

I think the phrase "has lost much of its credence" is not semantically appropriate nor logically valid as a description of the state's capacity to protect its citizens. Capacity in this case is not measured in terms of "credence," which is a measure of credibility; instead, it is measured in terms of "power" or "capability." For clarity, I would therefore suggest restating that sentence as follows:

"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its capability to protect its citizens."
or:
"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its power to protect its citizens." 

If we want to focus instead on the credibility of the state as a protector of its citizens, then that sentence could perhaps be restated as follows:

"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its credibility as a protector of its citizens."
or:
"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its credence as a protector of its citizens."

   

[jonathanfvaldez]

Yes, I agree with your comments 100%.  I think your last version was what Mr. Alex Magno had in mind when he wrote the sentence in question.

[maxsims]

"...not semantically appropriate nor logically valid..."

Isn't this type of construction "neither-nor" and "not-neither-nor"?

[Joe Carillo]

It's commonly believed that "nor" can only be used in "neither...nor" constructions, but this isn't the case at least from the American English standpoint. The "not...nor" construction is also acceptable.

Here's how my Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary describes the usage:

nor
1 —  used as a function word to introduce the second or last member or the second and each following member of a series of items each of which is negated  <neither here nor there>  <not done by you nor me nor anyone>
2 —  used as a function word to introduce and negate a following clause or phrase
3 chiefly British   : NEITHER

[maxsims]

Just another example of the modernists making unwarranted changes to perfectly acceptable (and, as you say, widely understood) constructions. 

[Joe Carillo]

I would agree with you 100% if you agree to take out the "un-" from "unwarranted."

[maxsims]

If I did that, the sentence would make no sense whatever.