1
Time Out From English Grammar / Re: “Cyborg” writer predicts integration of humans, machines, and the Internet
« on: June 20, 2011, 01:30:20 PM »
Don't rush - I'm on my way to the Highlands!
News:
English Plain and Simple 3rd Updated Edition now available at National Book Store and Fully Booked in Metro Manila
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Essays by Joe Carillo / Re: Ineffectual phrases, repeater phrases, and other enemies of good writing
« on: June 19, 2011, 10:53:15 PM »
Will you share your opinion of the repeated use of "of course,"...?
3
Time Out From English Grammar / Re: “Cyborg” writer predicts integration of humans, machines, and the Internet
« on: June 19, 2011, 10:50:51 PM »
I will take your silence as an admission of error.
While you are in contemplative mood, you may wish to explain to your readers the following extract I discovered in "Readings" of July 2010:
"....hit the right idea with its plans to set up an Academy of English—one modeled after the Académie Française, which for nearly 400 years had rigorously policed which words are allowed into official French."
Are you telling them that the Academie no longer polices (rigorously or otherwise) the French language? Or that it no longer exists?
While you are in contemplative mood, you may wish to explain to your readers the following extract I discovered in "Readings" of July 2010:
"....hit the right idea with its plans to set up an Academy of English—one modeled after the Académie Française, which for nearly 400 years had rigorously policed which words are allowed into official French."
Are you telling them that the Academie no longer polices (rigorously or otherwise) the French language? Or that it no longer exists?
4
Time Out From English Grammar / Re: “Cyborg” writer predicts integration of humans, machines, and the Internet
« on: June 18, 2011, 02:50:55 PM »
Joe, I simply rely on the on-line Merriam-Webster (your adopted standard, I believe) which says of the past perfect:
Definition of PAST PERFECT
: of, relating to, or constituting a verb tense that is traditionally formed in English with had and denotes an action or state as completed at or before a past time spoken of.
I know of nobody else who would use your "had been" in place of the appropriate "was". All the people I showed your par to concluded that the tiny computer had likely been removed after doing its task. One of them questioned the clause, the experience of becoming part computer had actually made him more human, asking "What did he become after that?"
I must say that I object to your "agree with me or be dismissed" attitude to my contention in this matter. Perhaps, before you dismiss my grammar, you may wish to revisit your very own "can be taken to mean either as a verb...etc"....?
Definition of PAST PERFECT
: of, relating to, or constituting a verb tense that is traditionally formed in English with had and denotes an action or state as completed at or before a past time spoken of.
I know of nobody else who would use your "had been" in place of the appropriate "was". All the people I showed your par to concluded that the tiny computer had likely been removed after doing its task. One of them questioned the clause, the experience of becoming part computer had actually made him more human, asking "What did he become after that?"
I must say that I object to your "agree with me or be dismissed" attitude to my contention in this matter. Perhaps, before you dismiss my grammar, you may wish to revisit your very own "can be taken to mean either as a verb...etc"....?
5
Time Out From English Grammar / Re: “Cyborg” writer predicts integration of humans, machines, and the Internet
« on: June 18, 2011, 08:30:21 AM »
"A writer who is himself a cyborg of sorts—a tiny computer had been embedded in his skull to restore his hearing—"
"Had been", Joe? Is it not still there?
"Had been", Joe? Is it not still there?
6
Essays by Joe Carillo / Re: When words get boxed in for highly specialized usage
« on: June 16, 2011, 05:48:14 PM »
My opinion of the Merriam-Webster has plummeted even further!
7
Essays by Joe Carillo / Re: When words get boxed in for highly specialized usage
« on: June 16, 2011, 03:34:23 PM »
What gives, as you put it, Joe, can be summarised by your opening statement in this thread: Some English words get stigmatized through consensual misuse.
The question then is, why do lexicographers fail to knock such misuse on the head? English spelling is complex enough without permitting bastardised words to enter the language.
"Straightjacket" was probably invented by one or more people who, with breath-taking presumption and no knowlege of word roots, decided that "strait" was in error and needed correcting. We should be grateful that "gait" and "trait" etc didn't receive the same high-handed treatment. We should not be grateful for the habit of most lexicographers to grant legitimacy to offspring born out of grammatical wedlock.
Joe, I did a Carillo and exercised a Google count of "straitjacket" and "straightjacket". Am I in a tiny minority? A minority, yes; tiny, not at all!
I also looked up both words in the American Heritage Dictionary on line. Bless it - the AHD gives short shrift to "straightjacket", dismissing it as a variant of "straitjacket".
I also noticed that, in last week's cartoon, you state, "As a noun, 'taxi' means 'aircraft'." I hope that this definition doesn't make it into any dictionaries. See how you are...!
The question then is, why do lexicographers fail to knock such misuse on the head? English spelling is complex enough without permitting bastardised words to enter the language.
"Straightjacket" was probably invented by one or more people who, with breath-taking presumption and no knowlege of word roots, decided that "strait" was in error and needed correcting. We should be grateful that "gait" and "trait" etc didn't receive the same high-handed treatment. We should not be grateful for the habit of most lexicographers to grant legitimacy to offspring born out of grammatical wedlock.
Joe, I did a Carillo and exercised a Google count of "straitjacket" and "straightjacket". Am I in a tiny minority? A minority, yes; tiny, not at all!
I also looked up both words in the American Heritage Dictionary on line. Bless it - the AHD gives short shrift to "straightjacket", dismissing it as a variant of "straitjacket".
I also noticed that, in last week's cartoon, you state, "As a noun, 'taxi' means 'aircraft'." I hope that this definition doesn't make it into any dictionaries. See how you are...!
8
Essays by Joe Carillo / Re: When words get boxed in for highly specialized usage
« on: June 15, 2011, 03:26:15 PM »
My supposed lack of knowledge of Noah Webster is another presumption, is it not?
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the irascible gentleman's dictionary would have still been the runaway bestseller that it was, regardless of the "reforms" it contained. It was first printed at a time of rampant nationalism, when "Americanism" was held (at least locally) as morally superior to European customs, and when imported dictionaries were prohibitively expensive. In short, Webster produced and marketed a much-needed product at the right time and at the right price.
Webster lived long enough to expand on his "reforms", but such expansion was minimal. Perhaps he (and others) realised that a complete reworking would result in a lexicon so bizarre that all the English that had gone before would become lost to us. Among many, Mark Twain was aware of the dangers of "reform" when he satirically wrote:
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
By the way, I discovered another strait, Tables Strait (off the east coast of Mindoro) which again shows that the early mapping folk knew something about word roots.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the irascible gentleman's dictionary would have still been the runaway bestseller that it was, regardless of the "reforms" it contained. It was first printed at a time of rampant nationalism, when "Americanism" was held (at least locally) as morally superior to European customs, and when imported dictionaries were prohibitively expensive. In short, Webster produced and marketed a much-needed product at the right time and at the right price.
Webster lived long enough to expand on his "reforms", but such expansion was minimal. Perhaps he (and others) realised that a complete reworking would result in a lexicon so bizarre that all the English that had gone before would become lost to us. Among many, Mark Twain was aware of the dangers of "reform" when he satirically wrote:
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
By the way, I discovered another strait, Tables Strait (off the east coast of Mindoro) which again shows that the early mapping folk knew something about word roots.
9
Essays by Joe Carillo / Re: When words get boxed in for highly specialized usage
« on: June 14, 2011, 02:41:19 PM »
Hey, Joe, why are you asking me to move on with the times? It was you who spelt "straitjacket" two different ways...!
But, seriously, it is a pity that so many lexicographers give way to spellings that are incorrect instead of defending the language.
I have no quarrel with logical developments in spelling, but when so-called "developments" alter the roots of words, meanings become blurred. Webster is often given credit for his streamlining of English spelling, but, in truth, he left the job half done. Why didn't he change -ous suffixes to -us? Why didn't he kill off the 'h' in words like 'character'? Indeed, why didn't he chop the ..gh.. from straight, weight, etc.?
You should have a word with your maritime/mapping authority. There is a stretch of water between two of your major islands; it is called the Mindoro STRAIT...!
Indeed, we live in straitened times.
But, seriously, it is a pity that so many lexicographers give way to spellings that are incorrect instead of defending the language.
I have no quarrel with logical developments in spelling, but when so-called "developments" alter the roots of words, meanings become blurred. Webster is often given credit for his streamlining of English spelling, but, in truth, he left the job half done. Why didn't he change -ous suffixes to -us? Why didn't he kill off the 'h' in words like 'character'? Indeed, why didn't he chop the ..gh.. from straight, weight, etc.?
You should have a word with your maritime/mapping authority. There is a stretch of water between two of your major islands; it is called the Mindoro STRAIT...!
Indeed, we live in straitened times.
10
My Media English Watch / Re: When footloose modifiers wreak havoc on news and feature stories
« on: June 14, 2011, 08:44:57 AM »
Three is the most number I can handle, Joe...!
11
Essays by Joe Carillo / Re: When words get boxed in for highly specialized usage
« on: June 13, 2011, 11:27:17 AM »
"No need to hold “celebrant” in a straightjacket"
"...need not hold the word “celebrant” in a straitjacket"
I prefer "straitjacket" myself. Despite the preponderance of Google hits for "straightjacket", "straitjacket" has purer origins. (Once again proving that Google hits cannot be used as justification for legitimacy!)
"...need not hold the word “celebrant” in a straitjacket"
I prefer "straitjacket" myself. Despite the preponderance of Google hits for "straightjacket", "straitjacket" has purer origins. (Once again proving that Google hits cannot be used as justification for legitimacy!)
12
My Media English Watch / Re: When footloose modifiers wreak havoc on news and feature stories
« on: June 12, 2011, 04:39:09 PM »
Joe,
Our discussion about modifiers in another thread led me to footloose modifiers in this thread. I was taken by this sentence:
“NEW YORK – The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a possible candidate for president of France was arrested here yesterday in the violent sexual assault of a hotel maid after he was yanked from an airplane moments before it was to depart for Paris, police said.”
Three things jumped out at me:
1. "The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a possible candidate for president of France...." could well describe two people. It is not until we get to "was arrested" that we learn otherwise, and even then we can't be certain.
2. "arrested.....in the violent sexual assault..." makes no sense to me.
3. "yanked" seems a trifle unjournalistic!
4. The last half of the sentence tells me that the assault took place AFTER he was yanked from the
airplane...!
Our discussion about modifiers in another thread led me to footloose modifiers in this thread. I was taken by this sentence:
“NEW YORK – The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a possible candidate for president of France was arrested here yesterday in the violent sexual assault of a hotel maid after he was yanked from an airplane moments before it was to depart for Paris, police said.”
Three things jumped out at me:
1. "The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a possible candidate for president of France...." could well describe two people. It is not until we get to "was arrested" that we learn otherwise, and even then we can't be certain.
2. "arrested.....in the violent sexual assault..." makes no sense to me.
3. "yanked" seems a trifle unjournalistic!
4. The last half of the sentence tells me that the assault took place AFTER he was yanked from the
airplane...!
13
My Media English Watch / Re: Wrong verb tense usage is another major weakness of today’s journalists
« on: June 12, 2011, 04:18:08 PM »
The idiom is "IN your neck of the woods", and it has nothing to do with perspective.
14
Time Out From English Grammar / Re: Scientist says 150 is the most number of friends one can comfortably have
« on: June 12, 2011, 10:29:52 AM »
“GQ was nominated for eight awards, including two nominations for Reporting. Eight is the most nominations GQ has ever received in any single year” is even better.!
15
My Media English Watch / Re: Wrong verb tense usage is another major weakness of today’s journalists
« on: June 12, 2011, 08:45:05 AM »
My goodness, Joe! You go to remarkable lengths to defend yourself.
However, for all your "explanation" above, you have not stated that my contention that the "yets" in question are not intensifiers but simple adverbs is wrong. I will mark my contention as QED, and move on.
As for your statement, [i'You’d rather that “yet” immediately follow the verb “made” so it won’t be a dangler.'[/i], can you point out where I said that?
I do not hold to the belief that a modifier must necessarily be next door to the term being modified; only that it should be close enough to perform its function. From your three examples:
“For students who haven’t made a course choice yet for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t made yet a course choice for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t yet made a course choice for next year…”?
I far prefer the third. "Yet" sits very elegantly in that position, does NOT dangle, and cannot be mistaken for anything other than an adverb.
Original sentence: “The election won’t take place for three weeks yet.”
As you would have it: “The election won’t take place yet for three weeks.”
As for your other presumption:
Original sentence: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida for another six days yet.”
As you would have it: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida yet for another six days.”
Both sentences should have been drowned at birth! I would simply not use "yet" in either of them.
However, for all your "explanation" above, you have not stated that my contention that the "yets" in question are not intensifiers but simple adverbs is wrong. I will mark my contention as QED, and move on.
As for your statement, [i'You’d rather that “yet” immediately follow the verb “made” so it won’t be a dangler.'[/i], can you point out where I said that?
I do not hold to the belief that a modifier must necessarily be next door to the term being modified; only that it should be close enough to perform its function. From your three examples:
“For students who haven’t made a course choice yet for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t made yet a course choice for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t yet made a course choice for next year…”?
I far prefer the third. "Yet" sits very elegantly in that position, does NOT dangle, and cannot be mistaken for anything other than an adverb.
Original sentence: “The election won’t take place for three weeks yet.”
As you would have it: “The election won’t take place yet for three weeks.”
As for your other presumption:
Original sentence: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida for another six days yet.”
As you would have it: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida yet for another six days.”
Both sentences should have been drowned at birth! I would simply not use "yet" in either of them.
Pages: [1] 2