divide between or among？

This isn't addressed directly to Merry tho' it is. It's addressed to all those who, [and I don't mean to be unkind], seem so willing to simply accept nonsensical ideas even with the facts staring them straight in the face.

How could you possibly agree with Roberta, Merry?

There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two.

Between has been used of more than two since Old English;

Do you have any idea how long ago the Old English period was?



Now how or why or who would have, could have invented a "rule" that would prohibit something that has been in the language since Old English?

Where is this rule that you agree with so much to be found? Who invented it? Why? I know I'm repeating myself but if people asked themselves some simple questions before they just blurted out a piece of nonsense, this nonsense wouldn't continue.

M-W lists four situations when 'between' is as natural as rain water. They give some examples, again that as natural as can be. You read these same type of examples daily and they faze you not one little bit. But when it's pointed out, out come the language experts, out come the rules they learned in grade school.

There is a central theme that runs thru prescriptivism. They see one situation where something doesn't sound natural and they extend it all situations as some poorly thought out rule.

They've done this with 'can' for permission, that/which, subjunctive use of 'was', the list goes on and on. How could anyone even consider putting their faith in such stunning incompetence?

Before there might have been some excuse, naivety, ignorance, ..., but now it's pretty clear that those who still hold to these pieces of absolute nonsense have some other motive. Maybe they're afraid to admit that they've spent a lifetime being duped and duping others.

If folks wanted to help the original poster, why wouldn't they provide them with info on how we all actually use the language. I asked Roger, no reply, so I'll leave it anyone who cares to respond;

How is it helpful to provide info that is false?

I know of no one who is interested in Old English. Generally, people post these questions because they are learning to use the language. You may discuss prescriptive usage till your heart is content. If you think you are being helpful, then feel good about yourself.

Roger, this isn't about Old English. This is about modern English. In modern English, the rule that Roberta stated is NOT a rule. That is what this is about.

Yes, generally people do post because they are learning about the language. So the question remains;

How is it helpful to describe to a new language learner, a rule that is false?

And JTT is right because he uses the word "prescriptive" alot.

We can't really determine that, Roger, until we address the questions.

How is it helpful to describe to a new language learner, a rule that is false?

[prescriptivists don't like 'alot' a lot, Roger, but it doesn't offend me.]



That's a prescription of course, just a bunch of twaddle. Of course 'alot' means something. You used it and everybody understood it perfectly. See what I mean about prescriptions being nothing more than twaddle.

Now if they had said that 'alot' isn't the standard form, that this form is used in more casual situations, that would have been an accurate description of language and they wouldn't be guilty of twaddling.

JTT can be a tiresome prat. I wonder sometimes if he or she is an Aspie? There was a famous one who plagued alt.english.usage a while back.

You tried that BS before, Contrex. But note, yet again, as is always the case, you bring nothing to the table. There sits a whole bunch of your favorite prescriptions and you can do nothing to defend them. Wonder why that is.

I cannot, nay, will not defend the mistaken insistence that "between" be used for two, and among for more than two entities. Although it is definitely true that "between" is the only choice when exactly two are specified, for more than two, or an unspecified number, the choice depends on the intended sense. I would prefer to use "between" when the entities are considered as distinct individuals; "among", when they are considered as a mass or collectivity. This is my own preference, not a "rule".

Good, Contrex. Now how does this prescription differ from any of the others? What causes you to use reason and good judgment in this case while you uncritically accept other prescriptions that also don't accurately describe language?

I trust that by now we have got jimmin1988 so thoroughly confused that he or she will never again venture to ask a grammar question on this forum. Nice work, JTT.

Possibly your influence? (winking emoticon surely not necessary)

I wonder if this preference for "rules" in the early stages of learning a language is related to the "pedagogical lie": for reasons to do with the logistics of teaching, we tell beginners pupils a version of the truth which is so over simplified that it may well verge on being false, in the knowledge that the advanced students will realize/find out the more complex truth later on.

Most, if not all of the questions posed on Able2know are from people who are decidedly beginners, so it may seem to many people a waste of time, as well as being unhelpfully confusing, to give them too many choices. Just a thought.

It is so true that Satan often does God's work for him, because if that happens, he or she may well start doing his or own homework...

I see Merry Andrew thinks along the same lines as I.

As has already been stated:
use between if it is being distributed to 2 recipients
and use among if it is being distributed amony 3 or more recipients.





David

The most important thing to remember
is to reject and Ignore everything that JTT says, as being mindless chaos.





`

It's Jinmin, Merry, not Jimmin.

There has got to be a medical word for this type of mental confusion. Any idea what it is, Merry?

If you would actually address the language issue and encourage others to do the same, [note the number of inane responses that litter this thread], perhaps there would be less confusion.

Roberta inserted a rule that had no bearing on the initial question because it isn't a rule that Jinmin should be concerned with let alone be exposed to.

You agreed with Roberta but left it at that, that you agreed with Roberta. How that is helpful in any kind of language sense is beyond me.

It seems that virtually every response has been merely to offer support for Roberta as if she's somehow incapable of defending her position on language. Those are indeed commendable notions but they are far off the issues raised by Jinmin.

No, most clearly are not beginners, Contrex.

[/quote]... for reasons to do with the logistics of teaching, we tell beginners pupils a version of the truth which is so over simplified that it may well verge on being false, in the knowledge that the advanced students will realize/find out the more complex truth later on.[/quote]

Prescriptions that relate to grammar and vocabulary are not overly simplified, they are the result of simplistic thought. They are simply false representations of how English works.

There were/are opinions of how some want the language to be. Bad place to start for any scientific endeavor, wouldn't you agree?

Tell me, JTT, do you deliberately go out of your way to make enemies and alienate other posters? I thought that your feud with Setanta was an amusing aberration. But then you started to get nasty with McTag and Francis and fresco and . . .The list goes on. Glitterbag has become the latest poster to get her hackles up at the sight of your insipid posts. Do you do this on purpose, JTT?

I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt, accepting some of your eccentricites as just that -- eccen tricities. But now you're finally getting my goat, too. And it takes a lot of effort to get me miffed, JTT, believe me. In case you're not aware of it -- although I can't see how that can possibly be true -- it's your tone. You are totally insufferable. And I choose not suffer you any more. Go play your silly games in somebody else's backyard.

I have no idea what your academic or professional background is, but I can tell you that Roberta has been a professional book editor for decades. For you to presume to tell her what is and what is not proper useage takes the kind of cojones that only a pathologically self-centered person could have.

Go and continue to memorize Pinker's book. That seems to be your chief amusement. Leave the use of the English language to the rest of us. Your condescension is insufferable!

Andrew - you were around when JTT was so thoroughly ridiculed for this manic persistence on wildly implausible "rules" known to him only >
http://able2know.org/topic/134913-5#post-3725420
> that I'm surprised to see you waste further time on his posts.

Of course "between" involves 2 sets, while "among" involves more than 2 - every last computer parsing English phrases knows this. JTT doesn't even know what AI is, however, never mind the innate rules of linguistics. In fact, he's so ignorant of Western linguistic structures, that at first I wondered if he could even pass Turing's test <G>

Now that's exactly what I've been looking for, Merry. Why couldn't you have, before this, addressed the actual language issues like you have just done, in such an eloquent and convincing manner, in this post?



It doesn't matter what Roberta has been nor does it matter for how long. For you to defend what was and is, clearly and unequivocably, an error on her part doesn't make me the bad guy in this.

If you possessed of a measure of honesty, you'd step up to the plate and discuss the actual issues, you'd address the fact that M-W, you've probably got your own copy, [did you notice Contrex and Roger too?] says both you and Roberta are mistaken.

You'd look to the facts to see that the rule that purports to describe this doesn't come anywhere close to describing what actually goes on in the language.

Instead you content yourself with dancing around the fringes raising one after another inane tangents. Instead you attempt to blame me for your ignorance and what's the worst thing of all, you attempt to defend those who are wrong with no concern for the "students" who want to understand to know what the truth is.

That's a teacher?