0
   

This notoriously long sentence gives me a great headache to understand

 
 
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 11:38 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

You continue to conflate noteworthy and notorious.

As Roberta has noted, "you are wrong".


Really? Reread my title: "This notoriously long sentence gives me a great headache to understand."

It is NOT " This notorious long sentence gives me a great headache to understand."

There is an immeasurable contrast between the two titles.

In the former, the word notoriously is the modifier for the word "long," and together the modifier and the modified give
us the impression of being "particularly long." In the latter, the word notorious and the word long both serve as modifiers for the "sentence."
Roberta
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 11:56 pm
@oristarA,
You are still wrong.

The sentence isn't notorious, and the length of the sentence isn't notorious.

YOU ARE WRONG.

oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 12:18 am
@Roberta,
Roberta wrote:

You are still wrong.

The sentence isn't notorious, and the length of the sentence isn't notorious.

YOU ARE WRONG.




     Saying my being wrong does not prove your being right. Very Happy  
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 03:03 am
You have gotten on my last nerve. If your English is so goddamned good that you can tell native speakers what words mean, in any given context, why the hell are you still coming here for advice? You're doing this professionally, you come here for advice, which you get for free while earning your living, and then you have the gall to argue with us about the language. Your skills have improved wonderfully over the years, but you're not that good.

I won't be responding to your threads any longer. Find other people to be your patsies and to help your career along free of charge.
oristarA
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 03:27 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You have gotten on my last nerve. If your English is so goddamned good that you can tell native speakers what words mean, in any given context, why the hell are you still coming here for advice? You're doing this professionally, you come here for advice, which you get for free while earning your living, and then you have the gall to argue with us about the language. Your skills have improved wonderfully over the years, but you're not that good.

I won't be responding to your threads any longer. Find other people to be your patsies and to help your career along free of charge.


What should be made clear is that I haven't earned a penny by coming here (all translations of mine are for non-profit on-line publication for the purpose of mutual knowlege improvement (in China). Able2Know surely helped me better understand English culture.




0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 04:12 am
@Setanta,
Has anyone here ever said WHY the usage was wrong?

None!

What's more, none would like to tell why.

Is this in accordance with the manner in which you native speakers here usually do? It is not consistent.

But the reason that you do so is quite clear to me:

The inaugural address has been sanctified, as the Bible has been hallowed by Christians.

Why not just tell me DIRECTLY that the address has been regarded as HOLY thus not suitable for liguistic discussion? And that the word "notoriously" can be an ugly word? (One of the definitions about the word notoriously M-W Dictionary gives is "as is very well known <notoriously, they never got along>. Such definition does not give English learners the impression that the native speakers would be upset by the usage. Only through the overreactions of you lot I come to know this fact. )

John Adams is a great HERO in my mind, because his ideas and actions helped lay the foundation of ALL American Dreams, and I will not conceal this from you.
oristarA
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 04:22 am
@oristarA,

The title of this thread has thus been edited as:

This particularly long sentence gives me a great headache to understand

Let it be known to all.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 04:56 am
Setanta has a hair trigger. He'll flame anyone without much provocation. If he looks in again, I'll get flamed for saying that, but it's true. But "notorious" is not an apt word here. It means something is widely-known, and widely thought ill of. John Adams' inaugural address is not widely known--I had to google it to find out what it was, for example, and probably, even among those who know of it, very few of them would likely have an opinion one way or the other about its grammar. It's simply not widely enough known or thought about to be notorious. I would suspect, of the several hundred people who heard him deliver it, a goodly number were scratching their heads in bewilderment by the time he reached his final clause, and asking themselves, "What was that all about?". It's certainly an example of rhetorical excess, from a time when that was in favor, but it's not notorious today. Keep in mind that dictionaries, simply by the short length of their entries, can give only a partial summary of how words are actually used and what they mean to speakers of the language and the connotations they have when used, which is why when you ask a native speaker you're quite likely to get something that doesn't square too well with what you think the dictionary is saying. And a native speaker would probably say something like, "Trying to understand this particularly long sentence gives me a big headache".

Parentehetically, Adams' address isn't sanctified or holy, even metaphorically. It's not widely known or thought of at all. Which is why it's not "notorious".
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 07:24 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Setanta has a hair trigger. He'll flame anyone without much provocation. If he looks in again, I'll get flamed for saying that, but it's true. But "notorious" is not an apt word here. It means something is widely-known, and widely thought ill of. John Adams' inaugural address is not widely known--I had to google it to find out what it was, for example, and probably, even among those who know of it, very few of them would likely have an opinion one way or the other about its grammar. It's simply not widely enough known or thought about to be notorious. I would suspect, of the several hundred people who heard him deliver it, a goodly number were scratching their heads in bewilderment by the time he reached his final clause, and asking themselves, "What was that all about?". It's certainly an example of rhetorical excess, from a time when that was in favor, but it's not notorious today. Keep in mind that dictionaries, simply by the short length of their entries, can give only a partial summary of how words are actually used and what they mean to speakers of the language and the connotations they have when used, which is why when you ask a native speaker you're quite likely to get something that doesn't square too well with what you think the dictionary is saying. And a native speaker would probably say something like, "Trying to understand this particularly long sentence gives me a big headache".

Parentehetically, Adams' address isn't sanctified or holy, even metaphorically. It's not widely known or thought of at all. Which is why it's not "notorious".


It's crystal clear and cool.

Thank you.

That old dog sometimes refused to budge, but all in all, he's a good guy. If he doesn't come back, sure I will miss him.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 07:30 am
@oristarA,
You are over your head here.

Your use of English is much improved but it is clearly not that good, as you haven't understood several people's attempts to explain to you why you are wrong in your understanding and use of notorious/ly.

You write that people didn't tell you why the usage was wrong. They did, but you didn't understand it - and continued to argue about it.

You may not be ready to do the level of translation you are attempting.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 07:33 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Setanta has a hair trigger.


I might sometimes agree, but not in this case. I actually think he's put up with an awful lot more of Oristar's attitude over the years than I ever could. Actually I know it's the case as I can only manage to respond to Oristar very occasionally as I get irritated much more easily than Set. I may not express it the same way Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2016 12:46 am
@MontereyJack,
I agree with MontereyJack. It's not widely known - except, maybe, by academics.
oristarA
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2016 01:12 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I agree with MontereyJack. It's not widely known - except, maybe, by academics.


Jack's opinion was modest. I agreed with him already.
My way of inquiring persistently shows my purpose: STUDY.
It also shows the hardship of learning a foreign language: literal analysis is limited in understanding. Native speakers know the exact meaning of a word, but to put it clearly and beautifully in linguistic expression is not an easy task. Now I checked out Oxford dictionary online and fully realized that the word notoriously was used improperly there:

Quote:
(Oxford) notoriously:
Used to emphasize that a quality or fact, typically a bad one, is well known:
the company is notoriously difficult to contact
a notoriously overcrowded prison


Yet members of A2K are not lexicographers with linguistic expertise. When dealing with an ugly word like notoriously, it is likely to evoke unpleasant memory of native speakers. That is the problem.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2016 01:19 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Yet members of A2K are not lexicographers with linguistic expertise.


I have worked as a lexicographer both as an amateur and as a professional. I published my first dictionaries for fun when I was a teenager and was paid to help with the lexicography of several others in my early career with linguistics (spanning lexicography, teaching the language and both live and written interpreting). I founded this precursor to this site explicitly to offer help with language online (though I have since moved on from language as both a hobby and a profession).

I stopped helping you because you argue with me when I try to help you and it's pointless. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you to accept my free help.

I've seen you argue with several other people who I know were experts in the English language (professionals, not just native speakers). You are arguing with people who have spent decades as professionals in ESL, interpreting, linguistics, and lexicography in addition to the garden variety native speaker (who is almost always right when you insist they aren't').

Quote:
When dealing with an ugly word like notoriously, it is likely to evoke unpleasant memory of native speakers. That is the problem.


No, the problem is that you stubbornly argue with people who are right, and they give up telling you the right answers due to your penchant for making giving you free help unenjoyable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 11:46:27