Jose Carillo's English Forum
General Category => Time Out From English Grammar => Topic started by: Joe Carillo on January 09, 2010, 12:16:01 AM
-
It has been a popular and long-held view that British writer Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories, although delightfully engaging as explanations of how things came to be, were nothing but utterly silly and empty fairy tales. But psychology professor David P. Barash and psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton, in an article written for the January 3, 2010 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, believes that Kipling’s stories—such as his account of how the rhinoceros got its skin and how the whale got its throat—are actually tentative, speculative answers that clarify thinking and serve to goad further thought.
The authors explain that such tales are a necessary preliminary to obtaining the kind of additional information that helps answer a question that in turn could lead to yet more queries. “When that happens—when the narrative is testable and generates fact-based research—then, in a sense, it is no longer a just-so story, but science, pure and … rarely simple,” they contend.
Barash and Lipton therefore make this suggestion to their scientific colleagues: “Let’s stop running from ‘just-so story’ as an epithet and start embracing its merits. To any nonscientist name-callers: Think again before you sign on to a supposed rebuke that isn’t.”
Read Barash and Lipton’s “How the Scientist Got His Ideas” now! (http://chronicle.com/article/How-the-Scientist-Got-His/63287/)
-
"...are actually tentative, speculative answers to a question that clarify thinking and serve to goad further thought..."
Hmmm...I think "to a question" is superfluous. Besides, it separates "answers" from its modifying clause, therefore causing a subject-verb agreement confusion.
And "goad"...?
-
"...are actually tentative, speculative answers to a question that clarify thinking and serve to goad further thought..."
Hmmm...I think "to a question" is superfluous. Besides, it separates "answers" from its modifying clause, therefore causing a subject-verb agreement confusion.
And "goad"...?
The statement is actually a close paraphrase of the authors' words. Here's the verbatim statement:
"We believe that a just-so story is simply a story, a tentative, speculative answer to a question, and, as such, a clarification of one's thinking, ideally a goad to further thought, and, not incidentally, a necessary preliminary to obtaining the kind of additional information that helps answer a question (which, in the best cases, leads to yet more queries). When that happens—when the narrative is testable and generates fact-based research—then, in a sense, it is no longer a just-so story, but science, pure and … rarely simple."
I didn't really think I should intrude too much into their thought process, choice of words, sentence construction, and rhetorical style.
-
"...I didn't really think I should intrude too much into their thought process, choice of words, sentence construction, and rhetorical style...".
I was commenting on yours! It may be a paraphrase, but it's your paraphrase.
-
Oh, my, since you're so keen about it, I'll knock off the phrase "to a question" just to keep the peace! As to the use of the word "goad," I'm sorry to say that it has to stand. Even so, I'll be glad to give you a hearing on why you are questioning that particular word choice.
-
In all my (too many) years, I have never seen or heard the word "goad" used other than to mean "stimulate into action by annoyance or irritation", much as I have goaded you into knocking off "to a question" in the offending sentence.
Inasmuch as the verb derives from "goad", a pointed stick used to get and keep domestic cattle on the move, its use as a synonym for "stimulate" or "encourage" is entirely at odds with the common and very conventional meaning of the word.
The fact that Merriam-Webster has dropped the "by irritation" from the definition is just another example of unjustifiable change.
(By the way, apropos to your piece on idioms, most Australians would not say "I'll knock off the phrase". Rather, they would say "I'll get rid of the phrase". We use "knock it off" as the US of Americans do, in lieu of "stop that", but the principal use of "knock off" is "steal"!
-
You must not have moved in management circles too much in all those too many years, maxsims, for in my many years in corporate life, "goad" had enjoyed respectable currency in the sense of "inciting or rousing to action"--with or without allusion to the imagery of "a pointed rod used to urge on an animal." You must have heard of the expressions "Give them a kick in the ass" and "No pain, no gain"; well, their sense is more or less the same as that intended for "goad" by the authors of the article about Kipling's so-so stories. Pain, as I'm sure you know, is one of the strongest and most abiding motivators for change or action, and I must acknowledge that you've put it to good use in goading me to drop the phrase "to a question" from my paraphrase. So, even if you say that the use of the verb "goad" as synonym of "stimulate" or "encourage" is "entirely at odds with the common and very conventional meaning of the word," you may need to moderate that view as applying largely to your own personal experience with "goad." The English-speaking world, as you know, is quite big and you really can never tell what mutating or evolutionary forces outside Australia have been acting on the denotations of the word "goad" over the years.
I would say that my observations above about the denotations of "goad" also roundly apply to my use of the expression "I'll knock off the phrase" instead of your preferred "I'll get rid of the phrase." So long as I don't fudge the well-established rules of English for grammar, syntax, semantics, and structure, I reserve the right to express myself in English the way I do and to the best of my lights.
And in closing, maxsims, I must put on record that I object to your predilection for describing as "unjustifiable change" certain modifications of the meaning of words or of the form of idiomatic expressions. Who are we to judge which changes in meaning or usage are justifiable or unjustifiable? I think you and I have every right to expect good English grammar and usage from those who use the language, but it certainly is beyond our self-appointed task to also want to impose control over other people's thoughts. When it comes to self-expression in English of whatever language, let's live and let live.
-
Boy! I'm glad I didn't move in your management circles! In my management circles, "goad" had (and still has) an unpleasant connotation, rather akin to the persuasive value of "or else!"
Who said I wanted to control people's thoughts? By what strange leap of logic did you come to that conclusion? Is it not logical to expect that, when someone alters the meaning of a word, we should ask why? I don't know about you, but when I hear or see a word that is (at least to me) wrong, there are but two possibilities: the speaker/writer has simply got it wrong, or he or she is seeking to vary the meaning. I don't believe it is asking too much to ascertain which (and, in the case of the latter, the justification).
As you say, English is a global language with many forces acting upon it (and it is dangerous to assume that all those forces are for the better). With such a wide spread and with "ownership" in constant dispute, there will never be a single, standardising authority. More's the pity.
-
This just goes to show that English--like many other languages--is, umm, a many-splendored thing that shouldn't be placed in a straightjacket. ;D
-
Quite so, which is why I use "many-splendoured"! And "which"!
But, a question: When you irritate someone into action, what verb do you use to describe your own action?
-
"Badger," or, when I'm feeling more kindly, "prod." ::)
-
And is not a "prod" identical to a "goad"?
You see my point? Why alter the meaning of a word when another word will suffice?
-
You're right--why indeed should we alter the meaning of a word when another word will suffice? Unfortunately, maxsims, if that prescription is to be accepted, your objection to my use of "goad" instead of "prod" or "stimulate" would become unsustainable. This is because according to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, the word "goad" is more than three centuries older than "prod" and should by rights have precedence in usage. Look (color shading mine):
goad
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gode, from Old English gād spear, goad; akin to Langobardic gaida spear, and perhaps to Sanskrit hinoti he urges on
Date: before 12th century
1 a : something that pains as if by pricking : THORN b : something that urges or stimulates into action : SPUR
2 : a pointed rod used to urge on an animal
synonyms see MOTIVE
prod
Function: verb
Inflected Form: prodded ; prodding
Etymology: origin unknown
Date:1535
transitive verb
1 a : to thrust a pointed instrument into : PRICK b : to incite to action : STIR
2 : to poke or stir as if with a prod
intransitive verb : to urge someone on
–prodder noun
-
Comparing nouns with verbs proves your point?
Verily, thou art difficult to persuade, Joseph. Forsooth, 'twould avail us nought to regress to times of yore, an inclination not to my pleasing, and neither have I the motion made to cause such to come to pass. Full many a moon will be counted ere I will stand so convicted.
:)
-
Loverly, maxsims, your Elizabethan English is truly loverly!--to use Eliza Doolittle's Cockney adjective in the film adaptation of the Lerner and Loewe stage musical My Fair Lady. ::)
Unfortunately, my Elizabethan English isn't that good, so what you said sounds like doggerel to me. Could you please translate that into Modern English?
-
Doggerel? Nay!
This "doggerel" can be understood by most people of Anglo-Saxon background who have completed secondary school, but it takes a fair bit of translation.
It's me insisting that I do not advocate a return to original spellings, and that it will be a long, long time (if ever) before I do.
The uncontrolled evolution of English has already resulted in a plethora of Englishes (is that a neologism?), many of which are virtual foreign languages, especially when spoken.
To repeat, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Invent new words, sure; that is necessary. Get rid of silly words like "noisome", yes, but don't give additional meanings to words ("problematic" springs to mind) and don't follow blindly when some "expert" decides on a grammar change; I strongly suspect that the clown who first decided that English had too many commas is responsible for the current which/that confusion.
(Hmmm...I think we're in the wrong thread!)
-
I must admit that I put the adjective "problematic" into service quite often. I find it very useful and handy in describing troublesome grammar or usage in the sense that Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines the word:
problematic
Variant:also problematical
Function: adjective
Date: 1609
1 a : posing a problem : difficult to solve or decide b : not definite or settled : UNCERTAIN <their future remains problematic> c : open to question or debate : QUESTIONABLE
2 : expressing or supporting a possibility
synonyms see DOUBTFUL
–problematically adverb
I therefore wonder why "problematic" is one of your pet hates, maxsims. At any rate, if your reasons for considering "problematic" problematic are indeed reasonable, I'll join your bandwagon without blinking and ban the word from my own vocabulary. ;)
-
I first looked up "problematic" many a year ago in an Oxford. It then gave the meaning as "open to question of debate" - nothing to do with "problem" per se (which put it into the "silly" category along with "noisome", in my view).
However, I must concede that the word has been saddled with the extra meanings you just enumerated, so we are stuck with them.
When you use the word, I always take it to mean "questionable", rather than the entirely different "expressing or supporting a possibility".